HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-01-15r.
�T
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Date /
Cler
JANUARY 15, 1991
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 15, 1991, . in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov,!'Villiam Lesser, Eva Hoffmann,
Stephen Smith, Virginia Langhans, Judith Aronson, Robert
Kenerson, George R. Frantz8 (Acting Town Planner), John C.
Barney (Town Attorney), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer).
ALSO PRESENT: Albert L. Wright, Donald MacPherson, Scott Winkelman,
Jerry Weisburd, Ralph Varn, Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson,
Paul Sanford, Bill, Hilker, Jr., Bill Farrell, Warren
Teeter, Willis Hilker, John C. Gutenberger, D. Kiefer,
Michael. Carr, Lou Carr, Ellen Harrison, Roger
Battistella, Alfred Eddy, Robert Sweet, David Somen, B.
Pakkala, Lily Pakkala,i°, Gene Slater, T.J. Fowler, Jim
Hovanec, K. & Susan Marash, Jim Hilker, Douglas
Brittain, Bruce Brittain, Jim & Carol Ridall, Holly
Ridall, Nancy Wilson, 'Dave Auble, Rosalind Grippi,
Orlando Iacovelli, Ralph Iacovelli, Edward E. Hart,
Molly Adams, Jeff Caster, Mary ?, Bernie ?, Jon
Lucente, Rocco P. Lucente, Gordon VanNederynen, Laura
Marks, Carl Lane, Jeff Schmit, Greg Williams, R. Cotts,
David Sleeper, Jane P'! Sleeper, Kinga M. Gergely,
Walter J. Wiggins, Esq. Joyce Finch, Pam Williams,
Greg Wooster, Nancy Gabriel, Betsy Darlington, Dan
Hoffman, Tamma Steehhuis, David R. Rubin, Joel Gagnon,
Kathy Teeter, Myrtle J. Whitcomb, Faank Christopher).
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :36
p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 8, 1991,
and January 10, 1991, respectively.
Chairperson
Grigorov
read
the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as
required
by
the Newu'York State.Department of State,
office of Fire
Prevention
and
Control.;
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
There were no persons to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed
this segment of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 10, 1990
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Stephen Smith:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
• Meeting of January 15, 1991, be and hereby are approved as presented.
•
•
•
Planning Board
-2-
There being no further discussion,
January 15, 1991
the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
Abstain: Aronson, Langhans.
'
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL UNITS AT
HASBROUCK APARTMENTS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, LOCATED OFF PLEASANT GROVE
ROAD AT JESSUP ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAXPARCEL NO. 6- 67- 1 -2.1.
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted
matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above.
Mr. Albert Wright, Architect and Project Manager, addressed the
Board and stated that Cornell is proposing a project to make
modifications, renovations, and add ('additional living units for
student families at Hasbrouck Apartments. Mr. Wright referred to his
letter to Carolyn Grigorov, Chair, ;Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
dated January 8, 1991. (Letter and attachment attached hereto as
Exhibit 1).
At this point, Mr. Wright introduced Architect Donald MacPherson
of The LA Group, who is working with Einhorn, Yaffee, and Prescott,
Architects.
Mr. Wright explained that the peak of the roof would be about 37
feet and that they would probably need'l� a height variance. Board
Member Eva Hoffmann asked if there would be undergraduate students
living in the units as family groups. Mr. Wright responded that,
primarily, there would be graduate 'students living as families.
Board Member Lesser asked how many bedrooms were in each unit. Mr.
Wright replied that most of them are�one- bedroom, adding that a few
of the units have a small study that could be used as a bedroom for
an infant. Mr. Wright said that he does not know what the square
footage is at this time, but the layout;lis basically the same as the
existing units. Board Member Virginia Langhans asked if the new
units would go on top of the townhousesp,or just the ones that are now
flat. Mr. Wright responded that the new units may go on top of both,
Cornell is still studying the matter. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the
parking would be available to other people who do not live in
Hasbrouck Apartments. Mr. Wright responded, no, Cornell is complying
with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Hoffmann was concerned with the
parking lot because all the traffic would have to go through the
residential areas to park in the back, commenting that there are
small children in the area. Mr. Wright'j, responded that the play areas
are on the sides, but Cornell does share Ms. Hoffmann's concern.
Attorney Barney asked if the space between the buildings was in
compliance with zoning, and if the percentage of ground cover was in
conformance. Mr. Wright responded that4it may be a variance item,
Cornell is not sure yet because they''are not sure how many or where
the third floors will be. Mr. Wright said that the site would be
increased for the parking area, which will bring it to just over 20
Planning Board
-3- January 15, 1991
• acres. Mr. MacPherson said the buildings cover about 15% of the land
so Cornell is well under the 30% requirement. Ms. Hoffmann wondered
about the buildings that are not going to have an additional story on
them. Mr. Wright responded that pr'�esently it is planned that they
will have a gabled roof to unify the entire complex. Mr. MacPherson
stated that Cornell expects to phase the construction so they do not
have to displace everyone all at once. 'Mr. Wright offered that the
laundry facilities are adequate, and a' facility to house six to eight
computers has been requested, along with study space. Board Member
Lesser asked if the landscaping on'the sketch plan reflects final
design. Mr. Wright replied, no, that i "s not final, although Cornell
will try to retain all mature vegetation. Board Member Robert
Kenerson asked Mr. Wright if the water sprinkler system had been
looked at yet and would there be ;sufficient pressure for the
additional story. Mr. Wright responded', yes. Mr. MacPherson stated
that residential units all have independent mechanical systems with
mechanical rooms on each floor.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any further questions or
comments from the Board. There being none, Chairperson Grigorov
declared the matter of the Sketch !!Plan Review for Hasbrouck
Apartments duly closed at 8:05 p.m.
•
I I
At this point, Chairperson Grigoroy brought
item to the floor for discussion since !'it was 25
Public Hearing scheduled for 8.30 p.m.
the Sign Review Board
minutes before the
SIGN REVIEW BOARD: (PLANNING BOARD). CONSIDERATION OF A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE A REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE OF SECTION 5.03 -1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW TO PERMIT
AN INCREASE IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSEDI'SIGN PANEL FROM THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED 50 SQUARE FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 80 SQUARE FEET AT JUDD FALLS
PLAZA, 12 JUDD FALLS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO., 6- 62- 1 -3.2.
SCOTT AND SUE HAMILTON, OWNERS; GENE SLATER, CAYUGA SIGNS, INC.,
AGENT,
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted
matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above.
Mr. Gene Slater, and Mr. Frank Christopher, from Cayuga Signs,
Inc., addressed the Board and reviewed the sign request. Mr. Slater
noted that the addition of the roof, which is considered part of the
sign makes the sign larger than what is allowed in the Town, and
Cayuga Signs felt it was important to include the roof in the sign
itself. Mr. Slater said that, first, it provides protection to the
outdoor sign allowing the sign to hhold up to the elements, and
secondly, it makes the overall sign more aesthetically pleasing.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any questions or
comments from the Board.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered about the maximum height of the
sign from the ground to the top. Mr. Slater replied that it would
Planning Board -4- January 15, 1991
• be approximately 20 feet. Acting Town Planner George Frantz said
that he measured the sign and thought it was more like 16 feet.
Virginia Langhans wondered about the roof overhang. Mr. Slater
replied that there is an overhang of 2, feet, that there would be
flood lights up in the roof to light the sign, however, the lights
would not be visible. Ms. Hoffmann was very unclear as to the
measurements of the sign and asked Mr. Slater to clarify those
measurements. Mr. Slater said that "this" top part is 4 feet high
and 8 feet long; the sections with the tenants' names are nine inches
high by eight feet long; the total structure is approximately 16
feet high from the ground to "here";' the width of the planter is 12
feet and the depth is about two feet. Mr. Slater stated that the
planter has nothing to do with Cayuga Signs; it was just a suggestion
of a structure to go with the sign. Attorney Barney wondered if the
maximum number of signs that would be there at any time, including
when Mr. Hamilton has the additional sign, is shown on the drawing.
Mr. Slater answered, yes. Mr. Lesser wondered how the area of the
sign was measured. Attorney Barney, referring to the Town of Ithaca
Sign Law, cited a freestanding sign area. "The area of the smallest
rectangle circumscribing one face of the sign panel or sign symbol or
of grouped panels or symbols, inclusive of decorative appendages but
exclusive of supports ". Mr. Slater stated that the freestanding sign
would be two - sided. Ms. Hoffmann wondered about the status of the
awning that was approved. Chairperson Grigorov replied that that has
been completely changed because they have changed their plans. Ms.
• Hoffmann stated that when she looks at the layout of where the sign
will be placed, she is a little bit uncertain whether it is the right
distance, as required, from the sidewalk line and the pavement. Mr.
Slater responded that he would be checking with Assistant Zoning
officer Paul Hansen. Attorney Barney stated that it is allowed to
have one freestanding sign not exceeding four square feet in area per
business enterprise, or it can be a wall sign. Mr. Kenerson offered
that the sign would be 16 feet off the ground, but the signage itself
is 12 feet high.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Robert Kenerson.
WHEREAS.
1. This
Zoning
5.03 -1
action
is
the
consideration of a
recommendation to the
Board
of
Appears
in re a request for
variance of Section
of
the
Town
of Ithaca Sign Law to
permit an increase in
the area
square
12 Judd
Business
of the proposed sign panel from the maximum allowed 50
feet to approximately 97 square feet at Judd Falls Plaza,
Falls Foad, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 62- 1 -3.2,
District "C ".
2. The Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
• Board, has, on January 15, 19911 reviewed application
submissions, including a Short Environmental Assessment Form and
Review, an application for appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
•
•
•
Planning Board
-5-
January 15, 1991
an elevation of the proposed sign, a location map, and other
submission materials.
3. The proposed sign, as
shown on
the elevation
drawing submitted by
Cayuga Signs, Inc.,
consists
of sign panels
with an overall area
of 72 +/- sq. ft. and
a shingled
canopy with
an overall area of
25 +/- sq. ft., for a
total sign
panel area of
97 +/- sq. ft.
4. The Sign
Review Board, under Section 9.03 -2 of
the
Town of Ithaca
Sign Law,
has the discretionary power to
vary
any maximum
numerical
limitation in said Law by 25 per
cent,
provided such
variation
does not detract from the purposes of
said
Law.
5. The Acting Town Planner has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
proposed action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board, acting as "the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of
Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance
be made for this action.
There being no further discussion, !'the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by William Lesser, secondediby Stephen Smith.
WHEREAS.
19 This action is the consideration of
Zoning Board of Appeals in re a request
a
for
recommendation to the
variance of Section
5.03 -1
the area
of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law
of the proposed sign panel from
to
the
permit an
maximum
increase in
allowed 50
square
12 Judd
Business
feet to approximately 97 square
Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
District "C".
feet at Judd
Parcel No.
Falls Plaza,
6- 62- 1 -3.2,
2. The Planning
Board,
acting as
the
Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board,
has, on January
15,
1991,
reviewed application
submissions,
including
a Short
Environmental
Assessment Form and
Review,
an application
for appeal
to the
Zoning Board of Appeals,
an elevation
of the
proposed
sign,
a location map, and other
submission
materials.
3. The proposed
sign, as
shown on
the elevation
drawing submitted by
Cayuga Signs
Inc.,
consists
of sign panels
with an overall area
of 72 +/- sq.
ft, and
a shingled
canopy with
an overall area of
25 +/- sq. ft.,
for a
total sign
panel area of
97 +/- sq. ft.
Planning Board -6- January 15, 1991
49 The sign Review Board, under Section 9.03 -2 of the Town of Ithaca
• Sign Law, has the discretionary'' power to vary any maximum
numerical limitation in said Law by 25 per cent, provided such
variation does not detract from the purposes of said Law.
5. The Acting Town Planner has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
proposed action.
6. The Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board, has, on January 15, 1991, recommended to the Zoning Board
of Aopeals that a negative determination of environmental
significance be made for this action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board, acting as' the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of
Appeals that the request for variance of Section 5.03 -1 of the Town
of Ithaca Sign Law to permit an increase in the area of the proposed
sign: panel from the maximum allowed $0 square feet to approximately
97 square feet at Judd Falls Plaza, 112 Judd Falls Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 62- 1 -3.2, Business District "C ", as shown on
the drawings submitted to the Planning Board by Cayuga Signs, Inc.
and reviewed by said Board on January 1 115, 1991, be denied.
• There being no further discussion,'Illthe Chair called for a vote.
Aye Grigorov, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay Kenerson,
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments.
There being none, Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board o£ Appeals in re proposed sign --
Judd Falls Plaza -- duly closed at 8 :40, p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: ON THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT
"SIX -MILE CREEK: A HERITAGE TO PRESERVE ", PREPARED BY THE
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA.
The Minutes of the above -noted Public Hearing follow on next page.
•
1
• PUBLIC HEARING° On the findings and recommendations of the report
"Six -Mile Creek: A Heritage To Preserve ", prepared by the
Conservation Advisory Council of the Town of Ithaca
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45'p.m.
The following persons spoke:
h
Mr. Robert Sweet, 1401 1/2 Sla
lle
Ithaca, N.Y. - Opposed
1401 1/2 Slaterville Road is just about opposite the intersection
of Honness Lane. For about 40 years my wife and I have owned 20
acres of land there which shows on the tax map as three parcels, of
course we consider it as all one. About 2 1/2 acres is one parcel
that fronts on the highway. It holds our residence and a rental
unit. Behind that are two back parcels totalling between 17 and 18
acres and they extend east and west beyond the 2 1/2 acre parcel.
They adjoin Winners Circle towards the gorge on the side towards
Ithaca, The City line is to the south of those two parcels. My
purpose tonight is to make two requests. First is to remove those
two parcels from the Conservation District, the buffer zone and
their critical environmental area and the severe restriction they
impose. A principal reason but not the only one is that the report
grossly misclassifies that soil. Map #5 shows that nearly all the
• land is either impervious or has severe slopes. That is not so.
While I'm talking, I'd like to give the Planning Board a copy of
the soil map. The report states that they have used a 1961 soils
map as their source for basic information. This is a copy of that
map. They have also stated that all soils in the Six Mile Creek
area have been categorized into four designations, A through D. A
having practically no restrictions and D having no recommended
development and of course B and C in between. The factors which
they use were soil permeability, tendency to erode, depth to water
table and steepness or slope. They state as I mentioned earlier
that the 1961 Soil Survey is their basis for their classifications.
I'm glad they used that. I like it so well I have a copy of it at
home and I have one at my university office. Back in the 30's and
40's, when we were looking for land we used the predecessor to that
report when we selected those sites and we selected them because
they were sandy and much of it was level. It's quite a shock to
look at map #5. Now all soil surveys are in two parts. You have
the part that shows in some detail the designations of the soil
types and the other part is the narrative. If you look closely,
You will see that most all of our back land is classed H -D which
stands for the Howard series. I'd like to just read a couple
excerpts from that report. I think you can see I use it
occasionally. Now the Howard Series consists of deep, well drained,
medium texture soil with deposits of gravel and sand. This soil is
well suited to crops, many fruits and vegetables and it is one of
the best soils in the county for nIon agricultural uses. It
• provides suitable q4qi;*.R. for housing and it is a source for gravel.
Side s
2
• Now there are several different subscripts regarding Howard. That
was the more level one. Now let's take the one with 15% slopes.
This is an excellent soilsl;21 many non agricultural purposes. It
is suitable for building sus and is ,a source of gravel. I won't
bore you anymore but I think you get the idea. The report states
also that there isn't any such soil near the Six Mile Creek Valley.
Look on page fourteen. I think clearly that plan should be classed
as A.
Now my second request. I believe that this report, in it's
preysent form, has three monumental flaws and should not be adopted
in itvs present form. It is rife with errors. I gave you one and
I'm talking errors of fact, not opinion. You know our soil was
misclassified. We're not the only "ones. Our neighbors were
misclassified also. The vineyard soil also is well drained. That
certainly qualifies as being soil that is permeable, relatively
level and so on. It says there isn't any such thing. Now map #3.
This may seem picayune but we're talking important stuff here and
if you get some errors in the original maps the first thing you
know people begin to believe it and is taken as law, if it's
adopted. About a half an acre of our lawn is not listed as
residential, according to that map. Well maybe it isn't but we mow
it and we consider it a part of our lawn. Map #5 shows much of our
back lawn as slopes 25 to 340. Ladies and gentlemen, that's 500
steeper than Buffalo Street. All I do is ask you to drive in and
look. The slope on our back lawn is approximately the same as
• Honness Lane. Map #7 fails to show two blocks of pines that were
reforested in the early 19500s. Just drive along the 1400 block and
look down to the right. What dominates your view? Reforested
pines. The map says these are shrub'and brush even though there
are two trees. So. much for errors on the north side. I imagine
the report wasn't partial and there are just as many on the south
side. Now the second serious flaw concerns the wording of the
objectives. There are four major objectives the way I read .them.
One of them is distinctly misleading, one is unclear and one is
absolutely contradictory. First to the misleading one. That is
three out of four. Over and over again it says they are protecting
the water supply for the municipalities and yet 600 of the land
area being regulated doesn't drain in to the reservoir. This isn't
even mentioned either orally or in the report. I say that is
misleading. The second is unclear. It says that a Conservation
District is necessary to protect the rural character of the valley.
Only the writers can clarify that one. However the north side of
the valley for approximately 30 years and longer than that we've
had paved highways, electric, telephone, natural gas, water and
sewer. Any definition I've ever heard of puts those amenities in
the suburban category, not rural. Does this mean that any areas
that don't have those amenities should be protected and therefore
deny those amenities? I don't know. Ask the writers. The third
objective is contradictory. It states that continued access for
low impact recreational activities must be guaranteed. It sounds
good. But does this mean that presently private owners or maybe
• sometime in the future may be limiting the access to the valley
,
3
• area which on page 20 is likened to New York City's Central Park
and London's Kew Gardens. If that is so, doesthis mean then that
if you're in the Conservation District that the private owner will
no longer be able to control access to his property. I don't know
what this means. In spite of the rhetoric, I find some very
worrisome statem� is about access. Page #9 and I quote "The valley
as is an ideal I for research ". Page #10, and I quote One of
the problems with nearby residences is that more people would use
the valley and this increased use would result in wear and tear."
From page #11, "One of the very real problems with residential
development is that garden plants would migrate into the gorge and
spoil it for research and recreation." Page #24, "Trespassing
could adversely impact the valley ". In other words, if you walk in
to the -Kew Gardens of the Town of Ithaca, you are trespassing.
That is my interpretation. From page #24, "Reduce the creation of
small paths." How can one enjoy the many beauties of the Six Mile
Creek Valley if he is restricted to a few main paths or if you want
some solitude. Does it mean you can only go on the main path? All
I know is what I read in the report. So much for guaranteeing
public access. I say the rhetoric and narrative doesn't match
the statement in the objective. A third serious flaw is
it'`s intent to form a Conservation District, a buffer zone, and a
criticallorp environmental area. This recommendation is highly
disruptive to the community and deprives landowners of substantial
property rights without guaranteeing them fair compensation and
• thus their only alternative is to go to court. In my opinion, this
document should be rejected. I believe the Town Planning Board
should direct the study based on conservation, NOT preservation.
Conservation would give responsible, careful use, of a good asset.
Thanks for listening folks."
Willis
Hilker,
Secretary
/Treasurer
of the Town of Ithaca Taxpayers
Association,
Ithaca,
N.Y.-
Opposed
Mr. Hilker would like to read a position paper. This is the
opinion of about two hundred people.
" This paper,prepared by the Town of Ithaca Taxpayers Association,
is in response to the findingsand recommendations of the report
"Six Mile Creek Valley, A Heritage To Preserve ", prepared by the
Conservation Advisory Council {o of the Town of Ithaca.,,4,'Ae The
presentation of this paper is a+ the Town Planning Board4Public
Hearing held January 15th at 8:30 p.m. The Town of Ithaca
Taxpayers A �Sociation� hereinafter referred toAThe Association.,is in
agreement the sensitive areas of the Town a4i4 should be
protected. The conflicts are: What areas are,in fact unique; The
lack of evidence to support allegations in the report Creating
additional levels of control when adequate laws are present to
preserve unique areas The report does not address the actual
polluters of the valley. The report addresses lot size as a mans
• of''controlling pollution rather than stopping the actual pollutes.
4
• All of the Six Mile Creek Gorge area in the Town of Ithaca is
presently owned by the City of Ithaca ') t "herefore) any unique plant or
animal life that may be present in the 'gorge is presently under the
supposed protection of the City of Ithaca. The private property
within the proposed Conservation Zoneil and Buffer Zone was farmed
for either crops or pasture within the fast 50 years. Vegetation
which currently existson the private lands is of recent origin and>
therefore cannot be determined unique. There has been no evidence
presented in the report of any unique plant or animal life on any
of the privately held J ands other than the questionable allegations
of one person. This person's investigation of the area and
credentials to do the same are seriously questioned by this
association. No evidence has been produced L -15 or R -30 density
has endangered any of the gorge or any of the sensitive areas of
Six, Mile Creek, The Northview Road and Juniper Drive Subdivisions
have been in existence for about 20 years and there has been no
evidence produced which illustrates that this R -15 concentration
has in any way injured the gorge even''though it is directly above
the major gorge area. The concentration of R -9 Zoning is best
illustrated by the Pennsylvania and Kendall Aven4aw areas. This
area and the related areaA within the' City of Ithaca has been in
existence for 90 years and no evidence of pollution or damage to
the,, gorge or any environmentally sensitive areas due to R -9 Zoning,
has;, been produced. The actual cause of pollution and danger to the
sensitive areas of the Six Mile Creek Valley are caused by the City
. of Ithaca, as addressed later in this report and in the addendum
letter. Where is the evidence that seven acres is necessary to
erlsurer,E"O"Eve `or the preservation of sensitive or unique areas? Why
notlfive acres or R -9 Zoning? Nothing has been given to us. No
11 evidence has been given to justify a change in lot size and we feel
that the present zoning is more than�a�l�xuate. Water purity in the
Six? Mile Creek Valley has been c&a. as a major need for
conservation zoning. Virtually all of the water in Six Mile Creek
has; its origin outside of the Town of Ithaca. There are very few
feeder streams to Six Mile Creek within the Town of Ithaca,
producing a minute amount of water to Six Mile Creek and virtually
all'', of this water comes from outside the proposed Conservation
Zon';e. Water in Six Mile Creek is of the highest purity and quality
in New York State. This sites the City of Ithaca Water Department.
Any:,, pollution i� the creek now in effect is by the City of Ithaca.
It'fIs activities of mining the creek bottom above the silt p4a for
gravel which is used by itxs Department of Public Works is a gross
misuse of the stream, causing additional erosion upstream and
silting of the water. This pollutionis evident emeft by even the
mosi „t casual observer.' Why has the Town of Ithaca allowed this to
continue? Why has this report not addressed pollution of the Six
Mile Creek by the City of Ithaca? Something this obvious should
not!,' have been missedo in addition to silting the stream., it is
probable that the City of Ithaca does';,not even own the area where
they are mining. The mining operationl',has caused the creek bank to
become a large mud slide where this^ activity is taking place
•Aga in, increasing the siltation of the creek. There has been no
�F
i�
�J
r
•
1h
5
W��1N
evidence that the water from the feeder streams k-R the Town of
Ithaca,either within or outside the proposed Conservation Zone have,
any pollution of any nature. No septi ",c systems have been shown to
have bee" failed or in any way discharging waste to Six Mile Creek.
The.,; Tompkins County Health Department requires all systems which }�ej
have l�eR deemed to have failed to be replaced. If there is a
concern by the officials of the Town of Ithaca that septic systems
are, failing, why have sewer lines not been constructed to the
sur,1rounding areas felt to be environmentally sensitive? The
residents of the Six Mile Creek area have requested these lines to
be extended for years,but requests have fallen on deaf ears. What
is 'the delay on extensions? Costsare, borne only by the residents
which have benefitted by those extensions. In addition to the
mining, the City of Ithaca has a pol %ce pistol range next to the
bank of the creek. Lead and copper have been propelled into the
ground for many years. Law enforcement officials from as far away
as 'Syracuse use this range throughout the year. Why is this
allowed? Why has this not been addressed by the Six Mile Creek
Report? Why has this not been identified as a hazardous waste
si4a �? Even a cursory study of the creek areaA 4rt should have
identified these conditions as the pollution sources of the creek.
It�seems the study is not addressing the real need and that is to
protect the area from the people who pollute not to create a new
zoning district to limit growth at a cost of the private land
owners. A letter to the City of Ithaca from Bets %y Darlington,
regarding the pollution of Six Mile Creek by the City of Ithaca is
attached. Traffic control has been promoted as another reason to
restrict building in °the Six Mile Creek area. The existing long
range road plan has been ,to improve''' Burns Road as part of the
traffic circle around the City of Ithaca. In the last three years,
Burns Road has been changed from a small country road to a major
artery for traffic to reach South Hill from State Highway 79. If
the, intent of the proposed conservation zone is to reduce traffic
in this area, why is the 'Town objective still to use Coddington and
Burns Roadsas part of the circular road system? Why hale more funds
been d* voted for the Recreation Way which hL not=
wanted by the vast, majority of the area residents than are
necessary to correct the life threatening intersection of Burns
Road and Coddington Road? In addition, large amounts of Town of
Ithaca funds are presently being spent to construct a road from
Snyder Hill Road to Route 79 near the Burns Road intersection.
This is designed to direct even more' +traffic to an area which is
addressed by the Six Mile Creek report as needing less traffic.
Where is the logic in this? In addition, the Town of Ithaca has
not improved the intersection of Burns Road and Coddington Road.
This intersection is extremely dangerous and in time will produce
an 'accident resulting in death. Changing this intersection to a
less dangerous location has been planned for over 20 years. Even
with the increase in traffic, which the Town of Ithaca has
encouraged and the voiced concerns of area residents, nothing has
been done to make this intersection 'safe. For what is the area 46 he
protected? The City of Ithaca prohibits the use of most of the
it
6
gorge area now, Only in recent years has a short nature trail been
allowed,with no right to leave it for the enjoyment of the area.
The, South Hill Recreation Trail doasnotw allow the residents to
enj',oy the area surrounding it. In the summer of 1990, a teenage
son. of one of the area residents, who se land is in the proposed
conservation zone,was arrested for fishing in Six Mile Creek.f ;lfhe
residents of the Town of Ithaca cannot use the area and no
pollution from Town of Ithaca residences hate been found, LuWhat is
the purpose of the proposed Conservation Zone? Approximately 500
of !',the taxable value of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca
is currently exempt from taxation. Why should more of the taxable
value of the Town of Ithaca be removed from the tax base either by
acquisition or diminishing private) property values by overly
restrictive zoning and regulation? The Town of Ithaca already has
one of the most restrictive zoning ordinances in New York State.
Why, are more restrictions necessary? Is the only reason to create
Conservation Districts to restrict building at the sole expense of
the private landowner? Two thousand ninety acres of the Town of
Ithaca are now in parks and open space "owned by the Town of Ithaca,
City of Ithaca, Ithaca College, New York State and existing
conservatories. This represents 20 %i','of the total Town of Ithaca
land area. What criteria is used to indicate that more open space
is':necessary? In addition, 21% of all the land in the Town of
Ithaca south of Cayuga Lake is in park and open spaces. The
southeast quarter of the Town of Ithaca which includes the Six Mile
Creek Valley already contains 1,455 acres of open space owned by
the Town of Ithaca, - City of Ithaca,j Cornell University, Ithaca
College and the Eldridge Conservatory.: This represents a full 250
of "the land area. How can the authors',of the Six Mile Creek Report
justify more land be dedicated to open space? The open land
referred to in this paragraph is all exempt from taxation and does
not include the private open land holdings. There are many unique
areas in the Town of Ithaca. Virtually all are now owned by the
State of New York, the City of Ithaca': and the Town of Ithaca. Why
is it necessary to designate common fields and woods with no unique
features as open space? There is noievlce ce that this proposed
zoning is necessary because of water I water
GPI
I There is no evidence
that this proposed zoning is necessary because of traffic
congestion as this runs counter to thelpolicy the Town is currently
following. There is no evidence that this proposed zoning is
necessary because of environmentally sensitive areas as they are
now under municipal control. There is no evidence that,�K'i'gh
density)( eve R -9 Zoning has caused pollution or deterioration of
the sensitive areas, Why is this proposed zoning necessary? The
Town of Ithaca Taxpayers Association hereby requests a list of the
septic systems which are claimed to have failed so they can be
inspected and tested for failure. Th'le Town of Ithaca Taxpayer's
Association hereby requests a set of the criteria used to determine
if an area is to be rezoned as a conservation district. Also a set
of,, the criteria which determine where a buffer zone is to be
established and what criteria is usedlto determine the size of the
conservation district and buffer zone. Present zoning is capable
iFA
B
of', addressing any problems which lihave been raised by the
Con'servation Committee. Why is this', proposed zoning necessary?
The Town of Ithaca has not addressed the
;the City of Ithaca. Why a e the innocent residents of the Town
of Ithaca being penalized €Wr he prospect of decreased land values,
when the City of Ithaca is the major source of pollution? Why.are
the residents of the Town of Ithaca constantly being required to
defend their rights against special interest legislation proposals
such as this? Why are the resources;of the Town being spent on
this type of proposal when infrastructure such as road maintenance
and repair are so badly needed; when there is such a need for water
and sewer extensions, when there is such a need to maintain the
present drainage systems of the Town of Ithaca? Why are taxes
rai "sed over 20o,in a period of hard times and recessionary trends
to "pay for X proposals such as this 'proposed taking of property
rights of owners without compensation? There are currently
voluntary conservation options open to landowners which accomplish
the open space objectives. The Association endorses this means of
preserving lands of all types. The I Town of Ithaca Taxpayer's
Association strongly objects to the proposed Conservation District
and buffer zoning. Further we object ';to the f?arkXs,Open Space and
Stream Corridors Committee being designated as a liaison with any
municipality due to the lack of any evidence that problems exist in
the' stream corridors. Further we object to the implementation of
any of the recommendations proposed in!' the report, Six Mile Creek,
A Heritage To Preserve, until evidence that the creek corridor is
endangered has been produced as requested. Respectfully submitted,
William Farrell, President."
Ellen Harrison, 115 E. Upland Road, Ithaca, NY - In Favor.
6
"I ',would like to speak highly in favor of the concepts put forward
in':this proposal. I'm sitting on Othe Comprehensive Planning
Committee for the Town of Ithaca and', as you know we conducted a
survey of all the residents within the ',!,Town of Ithaca and what came
across loud and clear was the desire on the part of the residents
of ''the Town to preserve the open space and the rural character of
the Town and we have been wrestling with how to try and put that in
to the Town plan. I was therefore ;,,very delighted to see this
proposal come forward out of the Conservation Advisory Council
because clearly the creeks and gorges :that we are extraordinarily
fortunate to possesg are uniquely valuable, are something that
define the character of our area and are something that the
residents value extremely highly. I, was also very impressed by
what I thought was a creative approach! to try and prevent outright
taking of land. I recognize that the ','zoning will, if the proposal
is!ladopted, will! change and will dramatically decrease the number
of 'units that people can put on the .11r,property but I frankly think
that is appropriate in light of the unique character of the lands.
There may be specific areas, such as the ones the first speaker was
•talking about that need to be looked at. This was done by
• f
-
ii
basically volunteers who gave their time to
• to' identify the areas that belonged in this
PS,
try and
do
their
best
I would like
district
and
I
have
no
doubt that
there may be a need to
look at some
in 'general
I would like
to say
that I think
extremely creative
way
to approach
what I think
residents of
the Town.
Thank you."
the
specific
areas
but
that
this
is
an
is the
will
of
the
Jerry Weisburd, 167 Calkins Road, Ithaca, NY - Opposed
"I :,am an architect and developer and am also a member of the
Comprehensive Planning Committee although just recently and IMnot
real familiar with it yet. However, as I understand it, one of
the ideas of the Comprehensive Plan is to address the issues that
are in front of us this evening and I'm not quite sure I understand
the timing of coming in with a plan for open space before the
Comprehensive Plan is complete. As I understand it, the
Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be addressing these issues yet we
have something which for example, Mr Hilker mentioned; what is the
criteria for establishing open space? What is the criteria we are
using for which space is a buffer zone? Well)I would certainly
hope the Comprehensive Plan establishes that criteria and then we
have that as a guideline to see which areas we should be setting
aside. I think it's very easy for someone that doesn't live in the
area to say,well,this is an important area and needs protection.
I think everybody has to realize that you Ireasking these particular
• homeowners or landowners to pay an enormous price. I mean we're
talking about forty five -acre lotsthat' would now support if someone
brought in water and sewer which is what most developers would do,
maybe 140 - 130 units. That same area with clustering but after
the rezoning would support maybe 9. We are talking about a piece
of ''parcel that would be worth perhaps $400,000 being worth maybe
$45,000. This plan is asking a specific segment of the population
to support something which is for the benefit of the whole Town.
I think it's very easy for the people who don't live in the area to
say yes, let's do that�but I think there are equitable solutions?
and I think the equitable solutionX is what the Comprehensive
Planning Committee needs to find because without that I think
you're going to have at the very leastila certain amount of lawsuits
and you certainly have a situation which is not equitable. Other
items that are mentioned that came out of the surveys as far as I
could see is the need for affordable 'housing, a need for certain
kind of economic growth, and a need for a strong tax base. Well,
if
you take )(sizable portions of land and really empty them of all
housing potential, you're really working against that. Now I don't
think that open space is a bad idea but I think it needs to be done
in :,concert with other goals so that you're not aiding one goal here
and hurting other goals on the other hand. I think the
Comprehensive Plan is what should be used to address both of those
things at the same time. I think to!take an action like this in
front of the Comprehensive Plan is just crazy. I think the
Comprehensive Plan has to come first; it has to be adopted by the
it
----- - - - - --
9
Town and then those fin
• h dings need to be implemented in to open plan
proposals like we have in front of us': Not the other way around.
Thank you,
Edward Hart Updike Road Ithaca NY - In Favor
IF
" My comments are in favor of the district and I think that one of
the major problems is that maybe we have two groups here; the
people who really enjoy the land, who walk through it, who hike on
it 'land so forth,and the people who are thinking about it primarily
for commercial interests.' The only unique comment that I can point
out is that all across the country, well,right here in Ithaca, you
have Treman Part and Stewart Park and large areas that we just take
for granted being very enjoyable recreational areas and they're
being protected and what ever exist in them is because of
protection and you can't build houses and you can't encroach upon
them and so they're enjoyable,and had they not occurred-many many
years ago they just wouldn't be available today. Throughout the
country, if you go south, I do a lot of hiking, I'm on the trail
on both sides of the Six Mile Gorge, every week or so,I do see
evidence of erosion and problems and mud and new dug roads down in
the Giles Road end but if you go away from Ithaca we have the
Ad rondacks, we have the Smokies,we have National Parks.Outside of
these areas we're just simply destroying our country. I think that
wethink for the moment that the possibility of developing land is
very important for the individual owner but if these areas aren't
created then they just won't be and before you know it it's gone,
it's shrunk and so forth. If you go south, for example along the
Blue Ridge Parkway and down in North Caroline and Tennessee and so
forth, you have 500 miles of Parkway all protected. If you leave
that and go over to the West and to the East, you have so much
commercial development and there are very few areas in the South
for example that aren't polluted by roads and commercial
developments and signs and so on and :'so forth so if you want the
privacy and the ability to move within the out of doorsaand it does
take a lot of space because th se ar a are dependent upon one III
another, the animals 'are, the tOY °�"� °`anJ so forth. I'm not a
biologist, I'm simply a person who enjoys the land and I hope that
you'll create a district so that all of us can."
r,
Joyce Finch, 904 Coddington Road Ithaca NY - Opposed
"I''m disturbed about the plan as it currently exists. I guess I
would like you to know that we have four acres and we do not plan
to` develop it. What we have done inilthe past twenty years is to
put a pond on it, put flower beds in the back yard and it is there
for our neighbors and ourselves to enjoy. That's the way we would
like to keep it. The housing development with the town houses on
Troy Road, which is so concentrated, the houses are beautiful but
I would rather there were not so many houses there. At the same
1'.
10
I
timlle, I think to go from the kind of density that we have to a
•
seven acre is too much. I also think that you are asking, I think
it i,s very easy for those of you who do not live out there and will
not: any of the burden of this,to 'say yes that's what we want,
When we filled out the questionnaire about what we would like in
planning I expect that a lot of it came back that we do not want a
whole lot of change in our lovely community, We don't want high
density and I think if we just work ;together we can develop the
kind of community we do want. I appreciate very much what Mr.
Wei,Psburd said and I think he sounds sensible and if we work
together we can do it but I have three '.,acres of land which has just
been recently assessed at much higher rates. Obviously assessed
because if anyone wanted to they could put a building lot there.
If you make these changes as they are,uyou're effectively asking me
to pay high taxes on a small piece of property and you are telling
me what I cannot do with it. I don't ';think that is fair, I would
like for us to look for a more equitable solution. I did want to
say,Ed,that I too have been a member of the South Hill Improvement
Association for the last 20 years,so we do like our community the
way it is, so let's not make just one group of people bear the
burden; it is not fair.'
1
Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road, Ithaca, NY - Opposed
11 1
"I have some concerns with the plan !l as well. I guess that my
• concern is that it does not go far ''enough. As r was looking
through trying to count the number of °houses that are presently in
the Six Mile Creek Valley, the number that would be allowed with
this revised zoning, there would be 3 to 6 times as many houses
allowed as are currently there. To me'�that just doesn't sound like
a conservation measure. That's substantially more houses than are
presently there, I see that as a concern. I'm also concerned that
the boundaries for the conservation district are drawn a little too
close to the stream. I would prefer to see them drawn further out.
I know there are existing uses in there that could be grandfathered
in.,! would think that would be a much stronger way of doing it
rather than drawing the boundaries in as close as they are. So my
concern is that it just doesn't go far enough. Thank you."
Nancy Gabriel, 1571 Slaterville Road, "Ithaca NY - In Favor
"151,71 Slaterville Road is a 16 acre parcel which goes down to the
creek. I think the person who came closest to speaking my mind was
Ed Hart. I am a property owner involved in this decision and my
deepest concern is for the land as it was given to me in
steward ship, not by property laws,but by its very existence of many
species of animals and plants who wander back and forth among my
and, my neighbor's land. I am a single parent, I have this place to
give my children. I am concerned because my parents helped me buy
• it, that I give my children something'
,iof comparable value to what
11
• was given to me. It wasn't given outright but they helped me and
I want to help my children. So I spoke to them about this and I
said I am considering putting my land in the Fingerlakes Land
Trust. This means,children,that you will not be able to subdivide
its you will not be able to build on it, dig holes on it of certain
kinds, spread poisons on it,and those who buy it after you will not
be '!able to do any of those things either. That's going to make it
worth less. My daughter's response was" Mom, I am so relieved that
that exists ". When we moved there we were among farms. We are now
just right after the vineyard, the last out post before pressing,
pressing development between us and „the City. What's between us
and the City is built up terribly and tae, that is to say)my children
and I want it to stop at that rate. I °was desperate and in fact if
Mrs. Raffensperger goes through her files she will find letters
from me years ago. When are we going to have some kind of priority
given to conservation and planning and not just anybody who wants
to buy or sell land and buy it and sell it and build anything they
want on it. I am strongly supporting this proposal as a strong
statement for conservation. My children and I feel that the value
in�the land is not in the dollars we can get so that someone else
can build too many houses on it) but: in the land as an enduring
treasure for all residents, plants and animals."
Ken Marash, Harford Mills, N.Y. - In 1 Favor
• My wife and I still own 58 acres in the Town of Dryden which
borders along Six Mile Creek, We support the Town of Ithaca's
initiative to protect the Six Mile Creek Valley through the
establishment of the proposed conservation district. As the owners
of °58 acres bordering Six Mile Creek in the Town of Dryden, we hope
that the Town of Ithaca's initiative will become a model of
conservation stewardship for other governmental entities in
Tompkins County. We believe that the reasons for establishing the
conservation district are sound and necessary. The Six Mile Creek
Valley is unique and fragile not because of any one plant or any
one geological formation but because of the combination of plants,
animals,geological formation,and the location of the valley. That
is'd:what makes it unique. It is essential to protect it before it
is ruined. Once it is ruined, you can never reclaim it.
Throughout the last decade, there has'Ibeen tremendous development
pressure in and around this fragile! ecosystem. While the
current economic recession has eased this pressure, certainly good
times will return and development pressure will once again come to
bear. It is entirely appropriate for the Town of Ithaca to set
these conservation guidelines. Many people complain, calling this
anJintrusion of governmental authority over their personal lives.
However, Zoning ordinances and building codes have restricted
personal choice for generations. The purpose of zones and codes is
to' establish limits over land use in 'an effort to provide for the
public good. Unrestrained development jeopardizes the quality of
• life for everyone. We need our natural heritage protected.
•
•
I
Establishing a conservation district will not necessarily lower the
value of the land but it will certainly change it from a
development value to a conservation value. Development values
benefit very few people whereas conservation values benefit the
entire town and beyond. I encourage 11
ou very strongly to try and
work out some of the minute problems with the proposal as it is
presented to you but in itXs heart it';is the right thing to do and
I really hope that you pass it. Thank you."
Walter Wiaains. 961 Tauahannock Blvd.. Ithaca. NY -
"I am speaking on behalf of the Association that Mr. Hilker
described to you. I am assuming that this,as a public hearing,is
designed to listen to all sides of the issue and indeed to examine
those issues critically. Obviously there are differences of
opinion which have been expressed. I have one single concern on
behalf of the group and that is the rights of the property owners
and the constitutional aspects of what you propose to do. I think
it was well described by one of the previous speakers that we would
all like to have someone else's land taken as long as we don't have
to pay for it. That is the real issue that I see here. Does the
Town have the right to take the property from these property owners
without,in effect,due process of law compensating them in some
fair manner for the diminution am °value which this law would
obviously demand. Someone suggested that the place the last resort,
oficourse)is a court after this law has been enacted to determine
whether it can be sustained as being within the parameters of the
constitution. My hope is that you ladies and gentlemen on this
planning commission will listen to the concerns of the owners and
obviously the concerns of the town in general and try to address
those issues in fsfair and equitable manner. I suggest that it is
unfair to ask these small group of owners to provide the Town- with
a further park whereas in the past every park land that has been
created in the Town and in the County and in the State has been
paid for. If you choose to make it a park then I think the
citizenXS of the Town have an obligation �tiao, for it. I think
you can't come through the back door'' tl4a Ayou have no right to do
coming through the front door. So I hope that you listen to what
everyone has to say and that you will' address the concerns of the
owners. This Town has been zoned for an extensive period of time.
Zoning is not a new concept but taking land without compensation is
a new concept and I think that all ofjithe people that I represent
would vigorously oppose it to the fullest extent of the law. Thank
you."
Ch Favor
rit
"There seems
evening that
• then you have
Itha
to be an opinion on some "people's part
if you owned land and say you bought
a constitutional right to turn around
2
expressed this
it for $45,000
and sell it for
13
• $400,000. NowJ'm not sure where that idea came from. I believe
you have *constitutional right to buy land and to sell it and you
have a right to peaceably enjoy it,but I don't believe you have a
right to go in and do anything you want to it in spite of what the
neighbors might think or divide it all up in little pieces and sell
it and make some money. So although a developer or homeowner may
say I was hoping I would have $400,000 worth of property and it's
only $45,000. I don't think that is theft. Land speculation is a
form of gambling. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If a
developer buys land, pays $45,000 for it, and sells it for $400,000
after putting in roads and sewer and whatever, ok, he made some
money. If he buys the land for $45,000 and they changed it, he
can't develop it and he can sell it for $45,000,.there is no loss.
If he can sell it for $30,000, ok so he loses a little. That's
part of the game 'cause sometimes he makes money. If fact the whole
reason developers make money is because they take that risk. If
there were no risk in developing land or in land speculation then
everybody could do it and there would be no profit. So the reason
there is profit, the reason developers make more money than just
like a secretary would, calling in the sub - contractor and then
dividing it up and selling it, the reason that some of them make,I
guess you might say a healthy salary,is because sometimes they lose
money instead. They are taking a risk; it is a form of gambling;
sometimes they win and sometimes they lose and the fact that they
lose sometimes does not mean that they were ripped off. It means
• that they were playing the game and that's the way it is, and if
they don't like the game then maybe,they should get out. So I
don't think that instituting this conservation district is theft of
any kind. Thank you."
Alfred Eddy, 544 Bostwick Road, Ithaca, NY - Opposed
"I'would just like to know if he has bought or sold any land ?"
Jerry Weisburd - Comment
"I ` just wanted to go on record that "as a developer I take great
offense to that. I do not have any land in this area but I think
the basis on which we develop land, and I am a member of the
Homebuilders Association,and to some extent I am representing them
tonight. We base it on the principle that if everybody in the Town
owns an acre) and has a house on their acre, and there is an empty
piece of land that they have been paying taxes on all along and
then I come along and say that I am going to build a house and sell
it that that is a constitutional right. That person and this Town
ands nobody can take that right away because it is the same right
that same person who is living in their house on their one acre
• enjoys. They pay their taxes; they have a house and they live
14
there. If I have an acre and I want to build a house and I want to
live there or if I want to sell it for someone else to live there,
it is exactly the same right that the other person has to living in
their house. I think that the idea that somehow land is something
which if it is undeveloped simply is in the public domain, but if
you live there it is yours and nobody can touch it,is wrong. And
until the tax laws are changed and until we become a much more
socialist country and maybe we will some day,that simply isn't true
and the constitution does protect that. Thank you."
Roger Battistella, 1551 Slaterville Road, Ithaca, NY - Opposed
"My family and I operate the Six Mile Creek Vineyard. I am heap
tonight to speak against this proposal. In doing so my remarks
should not be misunderstood as being opposed to responsible land
management. If actions speak louder than words, then anybody who
is familiar with what we have done tQ improve the quality of our
environment under our direct controlKA "dye believe in and practice
principles of sound land stewardship. Now there are two reasons
why I am troubled with this report. First a general set of
reasons. The report is deficient in a number of significant ways.
And secondly of course, my family and I feel that this will impact
us e,R in a negative way. First my general comments. Some of them
have been made already so I won't elaborate on them except to
• mention them briefly in the interest of time and I will leave a
copy of my written comments for the record. First, 4report as
pointed out is terribly inconsistent and contradictory in a number
of ways. Second, the report is arbitrary and non - objective in as
much as it contains unsubstantiated assertions and bases
recommendations on appeals to emotions rather than facts.
Specifically, the CAC presents noX hard data on the status of water
quality and safety and whether existing permissible uses in a
proposed conservation district actually threaten the water supply.
Notwithstanding, I should point out, the ready availability of this
information from the City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant managers,
who presumably manage the quality of the water and test it
periodically. Now, the comment about the City of Ithaca being the
principle cause of the problem has already been said. I don't
think there is any evidence to indicate that you have a problem of
phosphates or micro - organisms in the form of parasites, viruses and
bacteria entering the water shed within the proposed conservation
district. The problem is silt and sedimentation. And as pointed
out, the City of Ithaca is the major contributor. The second major
contributor of course is run off from highways and roads. Now the
corrective and protective measures being advocated by the CAC are
grossly disproportionate to the problem. Only a minute fraction of
the water flowing in to the water shed comes from the district that
is under consideration, 5 to 7% is the estimate)(. In any event it
is' minuscule. The water in this area has never been in better
shapey,aSA,s a resultXAfthe development of public services to the
• houses. ai;kel So,t�t it is the siltation of the reservoir that is the
15
problem. In any event, the effective control of the water quality
is beyond the capability of the proposed conservation district
since the primary sources are situated outside this 64444e -s 60dys
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the CAC seeks to radically curtail
property rights using water quality and safety as a cheap
justification. Third major deficiency, in my opinion, is that the
CAC is anti - agricultural. I say this for the following reasons.
All, have to do is look at the written language of the report,
oAs, evidenced in the attitudes expressed in writing. Existing
agricultural activities are characterized as "threatening and
insensitive" on page threes and dangers are stressed without
mention of the actual risk obfasb refit trade -offs on page
ten.This one-sided portrayal)FLLr negative stereotypesand fear,
vXatherb than assisting and supporting agriculture in the Town of
Ithaca,4the CAC will hasten its decline. Fourth, this report shows
a strong social bias. In an area of life that is terribly
important to people of all backgrounds and income;- housing.
Nothing in this report will prevent very wealthy people from
building. Unclustered housing. Middle income and lower income
people will have to go in to clustered housing. This raises a lot
of troubling concerns. I think it is a very decisive aspect of
this report. Fourth, a point that others have made. The proposals
are punitive, Notwithstanding frequent mention of a policy of
voluntary cooperation, implementation of the recommendations is
based on elements of coercion and compulsion inherent in zoning.
• Failure to include just compensation for the restriction and
reduction of property rights will only inflict conflict and costly
litigation. What are our specific objections? We have four in
number. The agricultural restriction. The buffer zone. The
reduction of housing density and finally the lack of compensation.
Let me speak to each of those, if I may: First, restricting the use
of agricultural chemicals within 200 feet of streams will devastate
our vineyards,for 1/2 to 2/3 of planting will be affected if this
recommendation is rigidly enforced. The costs of replanting in
permitted areas are prohibitive. In addition to capital outlays, it
takes five to six years for a vineyard to become fully productive
in our growing zone. This restriction is capricious in as much as
it does not differentiate between safe and unsafe levels of
application as determined by higher regulatory authority.
Therefore, my family and I question the Town's right to supersede
regulations governing the use of agricultural chemicals mandated twe ,6y
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. We
further question why the CAC included this recommendation it) itxs
report. Practically speaking, Six Mile Creek Vineyard is the only
long -term farming commitment in the proposed conservation district
and it is a small and non - threatening operation. Ironically,
elimination of the vineyard will lower the quality of life for many
people and visitors alike for it gives much enjoyment and pleasure.
Whatever the season, spring, summer, winter or fall, few things are
more pleasant to the senses that the sight of a vineyard. The
roadside view of vineyards and barns symbolizes the Town's
• agricultural heritage and the rural towns that make)( this place
i
such a special place to live and a special place to visit. My
second objection. As stated in the report's text)the buffer zone
location is too close to the road in our area to allow us to do
anything. It comes within 150 or 100 feet of the back of the
house. It precludes us from adding any new structures both at our
place of residence and at the winery. To allow reasonable
flexibility, the boundary should be relocated further south. A
comment made earlier this evening by the gentleman who first spoke
about the soils composition: cone of our vineyards is located in a
very sandy area, wVell drained area, very flat. The proposed
buffer zone is right up against the house practically speaking.
Now, this is unduly restrict �� My third objection. The limitation
on residential density on the Slaterville Road side of the
conservation district is unwarranted. The CAC has not shown that
existing R -30 Zoning, public health and environmental codes
inadequately protect the water supply, in gorge ecology. Second,
there is no rural character or open space remaining along side
Route 79, Beginning with the Burns Road,the view into the City is
dominated by strict development an housing projects. For
motorists and pedestrians, the dominate vista is across the valley
on the upper and lower side of Coddington Road over 500 acres of
which are City water shed lands. Third, open areas lying between
the back lot of residences and the gorge will remain closed to the
public. The implication is somehow this area will become open to
hikers or what have you. The reason it will remain closed is
because of homeowner preferences for privacy, legal liability for
• personal injury on private property, and the lack of solid
incentives for the granting of conservation easements. I think a
lot of people interested in going the conservation easement route
will be disappointed that there will be no tax relief to go along
with it and they will still be assessed as though that property is
appropriate for development. My last objection and that centers on
the proposed restr ction of property rights. What is being
proposed here is comRiscatory, since provisions have not been made
for just compensation and the adjustment of county taxes. As 3
said before, we believe in and practice good land stewardship,
nevertheless, we cannot support the goals of the CAC. We just
cannot agree with the means they have set out to attain their
objectives. The report is deficient in many ways. It, is
misleading and I dare say in some respects one could conclude that
it is down right manipulative in their choice of language; in the
lack of evidence it presents,and the way it played to emotion and
fear. For these reasons and the reasons I have cited and the
reasons that other people have cited this eveningJ hope that this
Board will not approve this Committee'5report as it stands, but
rather recommend that it go back and review and revise itxs
findings and recommendations in light of what has transpired here
this evening. Thank you.
Robert Cotts, 115 Northview Road Ithaca, NY - In Favor
•
•
•
•
im
"I think it is clear why this area has been singled out. First of
all I would like to say that I support the concepts of this
proposal. I think it is very important and I think it deserves
very serious consideration by the Planning Board and by the Town
government. I think it is clear why this area has been singled out
and that is by the march of development. If you look at East Hill,,
it has been written in the Ithaca Journal and it seem5pretty clear
by looking at the map that the East Hill is nearly fully developed.
If you look at South Hill you see what hm s9 a %ned on Deer Run.
The motivation for this proposal is that of development.
If we were to allow this valley to be developed to the fullest
extent possible, there would be no turning back. I hope you
listened to what Dr. Hart said about our inheritance like Treman
Park, Buttermilk Falls, Stewart Park that our fore fathers set
aside and other town and state governments set aside for our
pleasurable use today. We have to be setting something aside for
the generations to come I will not review my view of the Valley.
I agree very much with what has been written in the report in terms
of the description and I think it is well expressed. I think one
thing I would add to Ed's descriptions is that this is a special
kind of gorge and there is room around the outside of the gorge
itself to walk and enjoy the area. If you go to Treman, the Treman
- Buttermilk Gorges are very narrow. Other gorges in the area are
very restrictive. If you get outside the gorge, you are always
near a private property line that restricts your motion. This is
very accessible to people in this area. It is near the population
center and it is a beautiful wild area. It really is indeed a
naturally special place. If you look at other natural resources
they are not nearly as accessible. One of the natural resources in
this area is Cayuga Lake. Cayuga Lake has roughly 100 miles of
shore line and has three State Parks on it and Stewart Park, a
little more public area,but primarily less than 100 of the shore
line of Cayuga Lake is accessible to the public. Why? Because
there was no Planning Board around to control development. If you
want to go to Cayuga Lake you have very limited access to it or if
you are on the lake you are very limited where you can go ashore.
Looking ahead to the future generations is up to you people on this
Board to make sure there is accessibility to natural areas in the
Town of Ithaca. If you look at the Town map and look at what is
left of open land,I don't think there is any chunk of open land
that compares to the Six Mile Creek in natural beauty and size.
Because of the City ownership, the Town has leverage here. For
every acre you put in a buffer zone as planned roughly two acres
will be gained for a natural preserved are. If you look at the
buffer zone, it is about half City land so the Town is only dealing
with about half of the area and by passing along half the area you
end up controlling about twice the land in that area in to a
natural preserve. It is essentially a joint Town /City enterprise.
So I think the buffer zone is an excellent idea and I hope that you
will hold on to this concept. This is not a no development
proposal it is a low development proposal and the rapid pace of
development has been the concern of people in this Town as
iva
• evidenced by the recent poll and it is very clear that the
sentiment is towards control of development. We don't have much
time. We have got to find a way to protect this area. I would say
that we also, I live in the Valley, I ho%e"i 1 acre of land and I'm
not in the development business. I've lived in the Valley for
thirty years and I know it well. The question is will land values
drop or will they go up? They may go up but that hasn't been
mentioned tonight. This will make the area more attractive and the
landowners may find their property rising in value. Secondly,
those of us who are not in the position of owning land and those of
us who are not directly feeling threatened by this,we have to be
willing to pitch in and I think we have to be willing to pay our
fair share and I think it is important that the Town Government
find an equitable way of doing this. We are not the federal
deposit insurance corporation. We cannot guarantee somebody a big
fat profit on buying land and at the same time we should not be
unfair.'
Ta.Y„c
=mama=s Steenhuis, 266 Pennsylvania Ave Ithaca NY - In Favor
"I listened to the arguments of the Taxpayer's Association of the
Town of Ithaca and there were a lot of arguments made and a lot of
things said. One of the things said was that the report was not
accurate. The other thing they said was there was no evidence
there was pollution. I would like to know where they get their
statement from that there is no evidence that there is no
pollution. It happens that I have only been here ten years and it
happens that in those ten years I have been coming to the reservoir
every year with a class. I have been there and have seen clearly
the degradation of the water quality, and we have also done a
modeling study and it was clearly related to the development in
Brooktondale and building houses. Those houses are on sandy soil
and they have a septic tank. Their septic tank is not leaking at
all;it is doing its thing but it is putting the phosphorus of the
septic tank in the reservoir. It goes in the creek and then to the
reservoir and the result is a big algae boom in the reservoir. I'm
not so sure that there is no evidence that there is no pollution.
The other thing -is,if there is evidence,if you see evidence)it is
too late. We can see that there are problems with fully developed
water sheds. The only thing I want to say is that I don't agree
that there is no evidence there is no pollution,and the other thing
is if there is evidence, it is too late. I agree with the speaker
that who owns the vineyard. Thank you."
Jim Hovanec_, 108 Olde Towne Road Ithaca, NY - Opposed
"I am a builder and developer and own 2000 feet of land on
Buttermilk Creek and I see this proposal as I am next on the list.
I have taken 40 acres next to my development and I have put it in
• to a Forever Wild category. That was my choice. The people who
• spoke here tonight in favor of putting their land and keeping it
forever wild, that is their choice. I am pleased it has made my
lot bordering on that area,but what I would like to address is that
the fact that there are other lots available to include part
ownership of that Forever Wild area. I can't give those lots away;
people can't afford them. I see a similar thing developing here
that if you take the people with back lands and you force them in
to a forever wild category if you will, the people on the front
area,the people bordering the roads,they will sell their lands
great. It is nice to have a park in your backyard but whose
expense are you doing it at I think this proposal you have to
look at real hard. You have heard all good reasons here tonight
and I am totally against that kind of legislation. If you're going
to have a conservation district, have it through volunteerism. I
support the Fingerlakes Land Trust and at some point I will
probably put my land in to that category. At this point I feel I'm
a better steward for the land than any one else. I can see what is
going on every day and I don't have someone 50 miles away telling
me what to do with the land that I love and lived on. I am a
developer and I feel that I am a responsible developer and I think
a lot of people in this room are responsible developers and we are
not making $400,000 on a $45,000 investment. It is a tough job and
it is only tougher the more subdivision laws you have and the more
properties increase. It hurts housing,and it is not where are our
kids going to live, it is where are weg4 going to live. We have
• priced ourselves out of the Town of Ithaca and people are pushing
further and further out and I think that we have sewers available
there and I support getting sewers out then we would not have to
worry about septic systems,rjo I can talk about 50 other things,but
you have heard them all and I totally support putting this
conservation district on the side,and,think about what it is going
to do to the community and the tax base.
Dave Rubin, 955 Coddington Road Ithaca NY - In Favor
"I live on a piece of property which is within the boundaries of
the proposed district and I would like to speak in favor of the
proposed district even though I recognize the very real possibility
that the value of my land will be compromised if it is designated
forever wild or in some other way preserved. I think that it is a
beautiful place to live and the Six Mile Creek Valley is a very
beautiful part of Tompkins County,and I would like to imagine that
20 years from now I will still be living there and that I will
still enjoy it as much as I do right now. I know that unless,
within the next few years, government action is taken to
protect this land,t4et 20 yearsAwe will look back on and it will
not be there; it will be like East Hill or it will be like Cayuga
Lake, and there is no question about it that conservation and
preserving these beautiful places is not free and costs us a lot of
money. If costs the people that live there a lot of money and it
• is an investment that is very important to make because if we don't
• do it tomorrow, it will be gone. We will just have further
diminished the beauty of the environment that we live in and I
think that would be a real shame. The cost that we are talking
about,although everybody measures it in terms of the dollars in the
value of their property,or of how much they are going to resell it
for, or the number of houses they can build,I think that really
pales,rinsignificance in that some day we can come and we can stand
on Coddington Road and look at the view across Six Mile Creek,and
if that was all filled with houses it would not be such a beautiful
of
view and I would not like to see that happen. Thank You,
Dan Hoffman, 607 N. Tioga St., Ithaca, Nv - In Favor
"I am a member of the City of Ithaca's Common Council, Chairman of
the Planning and Development Committee, The City has a great stake
and an interest in the decisions that you are about to make about
the Six Mile Creek Valley. The City of Ithaca owns over 50ON acres
in that area. We have made a major investment over the last 90
years in having that area provide water for City of Ithaca
residents. It happens to provide water for many Town Of Ithaca
residents as well. More recently,the City has begun to appreciate
the value of that area as a unique natural spot that can be enjoyed
by City residents and Town residents and others. The City has
spent over $100,000 recently to buy land in that area to add to the
• buffer of the water shed area and to,protect that area. We have
other money set aside for other purchases if possible or necessary.
We don't expect to get that for nothing. We understand that
citizensxs have to pay for that protection. The City has been
working with the Town for a number of 'years on addressing concerns
in this area. The City did not take part in the production of this
report but we have been invited to comment. In fact the City
Council passed a resolution unanimously on January 2nd of this year
and I would like to read that.
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council
has published a plan entitled Six Mile Creek - A Heritage to
Preserve which begins the process for protection and conservation
of,this area, and
Whereas, such conservation would be in the best interests of
the citizens of the City of Ithaca as well as the Town of Ithaca,
and
"Whereas,
the Six Mile
Creek Valley is
an area of
extraordinary
beauty and important natural resources,
including the
City's
water
supply, and
Whereas,
the City of Ithaca
and the Town of Ithaca
have worked
cooperatively
to develop a plan
for the preservation
of this area,
and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council
has published a plan entitled Six Mile Creek - A Heritage to
Preserve which begins the process for protection and conservation
of,this area, and
Whereas, such conservation would be in the best interests of
the citizens of the City of Ithaca as well as the Town of Ithaca,
and
21
• Whereas,
jurisdictions
the
on this
continued
problem
joint efforts of
can serve as a model
these two
for solving
other issues
which
have impacts
on several jurisdictions,
now,
therefore, be
it
of these recommendations
and
Resolved, that the City of Ithaca does congratulate the Town
of Ithaca on the publication of the document for this natural
resourceX, and,be it further
Resolved, that the City of Ithaca concurs with and supports
the' basic findings and recommendations of the Town of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council as set forth in the aforementioned
document, and, be it further
Resolved, that the City does encourage the Town to take the
necessary steps to implement the recommendations of the report,
and, be it further
We are serious about our offer to cooperate. I understand that the
• City is not the perfect model as a land owner and I appreciate the
concerns that have been made tonight about conduct of the City in
this area and I would offer to personally accept your help in
trying to correct measures that some of us have been concerned
about for years. I would point out that right now the City is the
largest land owner in this area and provides a certain amount of
stability and protection in this area. There is no guarantee that
future city governments will share the present concerns and no
guarantee that this area would be a source of water for the City
of Ithaca,and I think the Town action will help guarantee that
protection is in place no matter who owns the property. As it has
been pointed out,simply because it is under City of Ithaca
ownership does not guarantee that your concerns will be addressed.
I think that a comprehensive plan with very specific guidelines
will give you that assurance. I don't think that there is an
indefinite amount of time in this area before it is changed
irrevocably,but there is an opportunity for both municipalities to
work together. There is an opportunity to be foresighted and save
an area that will not be able to be replicated if it is changed in
a significant way. Thank you."
Brandon Puhalka, New Hampshire -
"I have been a property owner in the Six Mile Creek area for
approximately 20 years that we have owned) and when the new
• assessments came out we figured that it was time to sell the
Resolved,
that the City
stands ready
to cooperate
with
the
Town
in the
implementation
of these recommendations
and
in
particular
the
preparation
of
a Design and
Maintenance manual
that
will
guide human use and
activity
within
the proposed
Critical
Environmental
Area."
We are serious about our offer to cooperate. I understand that the
• City is not the perfect model as a land owner and I appreciate the
concerns that have been made tonight about conduct of the City in
this area and I would offer to personally accept your help in
trying to correct measures that some of us have been concerned
about for years. I would point out that right now the City is the
largest land owner in this area and provides a certain amount of
stability and protection in this area. There is no guarantee that
future city governments will share the present concerns and no
guarantee that this area would be a source of water for the City
of Ithaca,and I think the Town action will help guarantee that
protection is in place no matter who owns the property. As it has
been pointed out,simply because it is under City of Ithaca
ownership does not guarantee that your concerns will be addressed.
I think that a comprehensive plan with very specific guidelines
will give you that assurance. I don't think that there is an
indefinite amount of time in this area before it is changed
irrevocably,but there is an opportunity for both municipalities to
work together. There is an opportunity to be foresighted and save
an area that will not be able to be replicated if it is changed in
a significant way. Thank you."
Brandon Puhalka, New Hampshire -
"I have been a property owner in the Six Mile Creek area for
approximately 20 years that we have owned) and when the new
• assessments came out we figured that it was time to sell the
22
• property seeing as how the taxes went up so drastically on it.
First of all we were going to put it on the market with a Real
Estate; %nod then we heard there was maybe interest by the City to
purchase the land whereas it is part of the gorge. I approached
the City on the purchase of it and what we went by was the first
assessment, the price of the property we received,and the reply I
got was that the City was not paying that type of money for
property. Ithad me confused that I was assessed for that amount
but it wasn't worth that amount. I didn't know if I would get a
fair and equal payment on the property. What are we going to go by
for acreage. That was my concern. What is it worth? I'm being
taxed for one amount and the City is offering to pay another amount
although I haven't got a final offer on it. As far as, I was born
and raised in the area and on recent walks down there, there is a
lot' more growth and vegetation and what not than there ever has
been down there that I can remember. There are less paths, less
use of the property,so it doesn't appear to me that it is being
over used or there is any problem with it. That was my main
concern. What do people consider a fair and reasonable price for
their property. if
Dooley Kiefer, 629 Highland Road, Ithaca, NY -
"I am on the Conservation Advisory Council and that is what is
• prompting me to speak tonight.I was not on the committee who worked
hardest on this but we all supported the report that came out. I
think we all would have been very happy if we had had people like
Professor Sweet or the owner of the vineyard come and talk to us
directly but our meetings don't attract the kind of attention that
Planning Board hearings do. The only way to get our} ideas out for
public discussion was to pass this report on for you,,told a hearing
on. I don't think any of us would have any trouble working with
you to make adjustments to the proposals although I don't think I
have heard anything personally tonight that would make me want to
change any of them drastically. I don't want people to go home
from this meeting tonight having heard that the CAC is anti -
agriculture. That struck me as such an ironic statement because
there is probably not another town agency that supports keeping
agriculture active in the Town so much as the CAC does. That will
become clearer as our portion of the Comprehensive Plan moves to
public hearing also. With respect to'what Mr. Weisburd said about
why did this come out now before the Comprehensive Plans 614ad the
Town decided to impose a moratorium on development during the time
the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, I don't think this
would have been brought out for public review so quickly. Since
there is nothing that says that development has to wait for the
Comprehensive Plan, it seemed only prudent for us to submit our
various reports during the Comprehensive Planning process. If Mr.
Weisburd wanted to move for a moratorium in the Town I think that
we would be happy to wait until the Comprehensive Plan were
• completed to have all of the pieces put into place, Thanks.'
23
Jerry Weisburd stated that he did not wish to move for a moratorium,
however, there are many communities that have faced this problemx*4:
setting aside land as open space, setting aside and making up a
criteria for it,and most importantly finding an equitable way of
handling the issue. I think some of them are worth studying and I
would hope very much that they would be studied as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and could be incorporated into a proposal like
this. I think coming forth with a proposal like this without those
ingredients weakens the yroposal,and I think it will only serve the
proposal much better ifAencompasses those broader issues and those
really big questions.
Rosalind Grippi, 423 E. Seneca St., Ithaca, NY - In Favor
tv I would like to make a few comments on behalf of the Alternative
Neighborhood Association of West Hill. The Alternative
Neighborhood Association of West Hill applauds this step towards
the designation and protection of sensitive ecological areas in the
Town of Ithaca and certainly Six Mile Creek Valley must be
preserved for its natural beauty, for its animal and plant life it
harbors and also for the protection of the public water system and
while ANA has not had the opportunity to study and consider the
• report in all of itxs detail, we thank the CAC for its work for
having laid out the issues and proposals coherently in the document
and in a clear format. We also commend the Town for making the
report accessible to the public, and we also comment, a* for a
reasonable price which includes all of the maps. This is positive
action in keeping citizens alert and informed. Thank you."
BetsOy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Ave., Ithaca, NY - In Favor
of I, was asked by the Town's CAC to tell you a little bit about what
the Fingerlakes Land Trust has been doing in the Six Mile Creek
Valley so you would know what is going on and since several people
have mentioned the Fingerlakes Land Trust I wanted to fill you in.
We basically have contacted land owners particularly of larger
parcels especially between the railroad bed on the Coddington Road
side and going over to the Slaterville Road side. Parcels between
Coddington Road and the railroad bed we have not contacted. We
have contacted landowners all of the way out as far as the
Headwaters in Hammond Hill. What we are doing is asking if there
are landowners who are interested in protecting their properties)if
they would be interested in joining with us in either giving us
Conservation easements on their property which would restrict the
amount of development that could take place. The exact
arrangements in easements vary from landowner to landowner because
it's negotiated on a case by case basis. The other program is
• something called the Land Stewardship Registry which is simply a
24
• handshake agreement whereby the landowners agree that they will
take good care of their property and if they decide to change the
use of it or to sell it they will let us know. It is not a binding
thing at all like a conservation easement. So far two landowners
have given conservation easements and I know of four more who are
planning to do so and there may be others. There 0$a quite a number
who have joined the Land Stewardship Registry. They are located all
over. Thank you."
Joel Gagnon, 2353 Spencer Road, Danby, NY - In Favor
I come to you tonight to bring to your attention the work that is
going on in the Town of Danby which has some relevance to your
efforts. The Town is currently in the process of redeveloping i0s
zoning ordinance and consistent with itxs Comprehensive Plan we did
a survey also, much poorer response than what you got with your
survey but much with the same concerns made from those people who
did respond. A great deal of support for maintaining a rural
character of the Town and limiting development to the center
portion. Accordingly, in our proposed zoning, the area along
Coddington Road will probably be zoned for 4 acre density if not 5.
This density is fairly compatible with the kind of density that you
are talking about just below us along the creek valley. One of the
things that we are proposinglincluding the area north and east of
Coddington Road in an agricultural district, fis was pointed out
• earlier this evening that land in the flat part of the valley is
fairly well drained and is some of the best agricultural land in
the county)in fact, Howard and Hudson soils which are very well
drained and suited for agriculture,awrd I would certainly support
any alterations which you would need to make to the plan which
would more strongly support the continuance of agriculture. If
you are going to restrict the use of the land for housing you are
left with a couple alternatives for itxs use which is,"w`e've
realized. If you are not going to cover it with houses then you
are left with either recreational value or it'es agricultural value.
I think both things are important and worth preserving in terms of
the character of the Town which is of concern to the citizens, tiVot
just the gorge but the peripheral uses on the flat which have an
impact too not only visually but aestheticallyas well. This should
be taken in to consideration, V6, One thing which I would like to
address is the equity issue,,eeps coming up. Most everything I
have read indicates that there is a legal right practically to take
property. Along as there is a reasonable remainder that can be
extracted from the rights the landowner has,you can remove a great
deal of development rights from a property without having a legal
taking. There is a suburb of Chicago where the Town has zoned most
of their land CLs 160 acre density and the balance of it in a 1 acre
density. What they are saying is that we either want to keep the
farms or we want to develop it. If we do develop it, we want to
develop it very densely. It makes sense and because it makes sense
• it has withstood legal challenge. So 7 acres sounds like a low
25
• density and is relative to the area, The real issue is not,and the
one that I think should be focused on is not) is it legal? It
probably is legal. You could probably zone it 10 acres or twenty
acres. It would probably stand up iw court but is it fair? The
fairness issue has to be addressed in the larger context which is
why I think Jerry Weisburd's point was well taken. You have to
look at the overall question of where are you going to put the
houses in the Town of Ithaca and what areas deserve to be
protected. Granted this is taken somewhat out of context because
we have a proposal that is coming forth saying this area should be
protected. I think when the Comprehensive Plan is done that indeed
the Town will probably conclude that this is one of the prime areas
that deserves protection. You do have to look at the overall
picture and certainly looking at it objectively would not have
chosen to run water and sewer in to an area that you are not going
to develop. The Town will be paying for not developing this area
having committed itself back a ways to put in infrastructure to
develop it. It may well be worthwhile to do that however in light
of the consequences in terms of what little remains in the Town of
Ithaca that is truly special. These are things that need to be
talked about. Thank you."
Bill Hilker, - Opposed
"My land wh4 k is approximately 32 acres. The proposal on the
surface of it looks like you could make a few lots on it and sell
them and even break even but coupled with the restrictions that the
Town has on developing and what you have to do to subdivide it
totally makes it out of the question. For instance, if running in
800 feet of road with a McAdam surface for seven lots, it just does
not make sense economically. There is no way in the world anybody
would pay for that kind of expense €Qx a . for seven acres and
the cost of a road coming in unless they were a very high income
and how many people are there to absorb that many acres that have
that high of income in the Town of Ithaca. There are a few up at
Leather's, they had twenty some lots and they sold them for $180,
000 to $120,000 a piece. That is chicken feed to what it would
cost to develop 7 acres on my land. So it is not necessarily that
you are looking at the density in this report, it is the other
expenses that are inherent in the subdivision regulations of the
Town of Ithaca that make it out of the question that really strip
the value from the land. It is not 'just one issue. It is this
coupled with the other issues. The second thing I would like to
say is that even though in the report I have cast some disparagy on
the City of Ithaca over their stewardship which they need to
straighten up, at least they are approaching it in the right way.
When they want land, they pay for it;they don't take it. I can
appreciate that. I can live with that. I have a hard time with
the stripping of the rights of our land without compensation.
Thanks."
U
Y
26
Bill Farrell, 581 E. Miller Road, Ithaca, NY - Opposed
ti I live in Danby but I have about 30 acres which I bought 30 years
ago because I was building houses at that time. So I have had the
idea that some day,I would like to develop it. I don't mind the
Six Mile Creek and preserving the land there and I'm glad the City
owns 500 acres out there but they don't pay taxes on it.It's free.
I've been paying taxes on this here for 30 years. They are taking
part of that land as a buffer zone and I don't think that it is
necessary for that land that isAXlong ways away from Six Mile Creek
to be used as a buffer zone and I think that it could be closer to
the creek. It doesn't have to be from one road to the other. It
is land below the road that is very developable and could be
developed and you cannot drive people out of town just to save some
land along a road that is already existing and very easily
developed by short roads and you could have your cluster housing
but you would still get a revenue off of it. You would still have
plenty of back wide open spaces down by the reservoir. It is in
the boundaries and the buffer zone. Seven acres is not feasible.
You can't put roads in and everything else on seven acres. You
can't make any money on it. They should do something more feasible
where people would not mind letting part of their land go. I have
4 acres below the railroad tracks and that could be gone as far as
I am concerned but I am not going to give it to you. It is not as
developable as the land above the tracks and that is all I have to
say. You have to do something. It is like the City; they wouldn't
• pay him what it was assessed for so they are not paying a fair
value. Thank you."
Dave Auble - Opposed
"I don't live in this particular district and I support the
Fingerlakes Land Trust and I think that the Conservation District
should be put together on a voluntary basis and the resourcesAothe
Town should be more oriented i-&A °the education of the landowners
along sensitive areas, 'There should be''whatever assistance that can
be provided and I know we have a lot of good public resources here
and well knowledgeable people that can assist the landowners in
managing their properties along these areas. I've spent a lot of
time in walking through the area in question and I agree with some
of the people that say there is more under brush and growth than
there has been in many years. It really has become 0 more of a
wilderness than less of one. I think that if there is a situation
where a person has some development intentions then the Town should
go to them and work with them individually rather than putting a
plan of this type on the table that was conceived by a small group
of people. I think they have taken this survey that was done in
the Town, and a lot of holes in the survey, and the way it was
interpreted and so on,could easily be questioned by someone in the
field of statistics and surveys. I feel that the more voluntary
• approach would be appropriate. Thank) you.
27
• Ron Simpson, 112 Pineview Terrace, Ithaca, NY - In Favor
"I would like to go on record in supporting the general concepts of
the report and I don't really want to address the economic issues,
although I know they are a primary concern but I am a user of the
area and I do live in the Conservation District, and I think
everyone here wants to preserve the character of that area)and it
is in many ways a unique resource,8ut I would really like to center
my comments on: I think the important thing is that we don't allow
that resource to deteriorate and the question is that there have
been comments here relative to show me the evidence there is
deterioration and other people have said there is evidence and I'm
not an expert in thes=e area so I don't. know. I think in regard to
a resource like this�as well as other resources in the Town there
needs to be a caring capacity. I think the comments here relative
to we need some more criteria,I think are very good comments. I
think the criteria need to be clearly developed in terms of
establishing a caring capacity because for every resource that will
be the bottom line. Butlof the caring capacity is exceeded then
there will be deterioration. If that can be shown then perhaps we
are on the brink of deterioration right now,and if,in fact,we are
on the brink then maybe we need to even further restrict land but
maybe it should only be one unit per 10 acres. Relative to the
caring capacity,if it is not threatened and more development could
• be done,then maybe it should be reduced; maybe there should be a
little more density. I think it needs to be established on a
little more scientific basis with criteria and I think we all want
to protect the area and that is in everyone's interest, the general
public as well as the people who own land there. Those are
basically the comments I wanted to make.
Ken Marash, Harford Mills, NY - Further Comment
"Thanks for letting me speak again. I spoke earlier. I just
wanted to comment on the talk of the costs to the current
landowners if this proposal was adopted. I think it is very
critical to think about what we are saying. It is not so much a
cost to them; it's not going to cost them anything to pay or to
have this proposal adopted. What it will do is limit perhaps some
future earnings if they wanted to sell their land. It is not going
to cost them anything. They have also been very strong in saying
there should be a voluntary approach, that any individual landowner
can participate and protect their land either through the
Fingerlakes Land Trust,or not,as they see fit. The way the laws
are currently structured today, if a person does that they do have
a cost because they still pay full taxes; they are not given any
benefit, any reduction in their assessment because of the donation
of' their land to the land trust or because of their voluntary
giving or keeping the land in a natural state. To the people who
• give their land there is a dollar cost because of the taxes that
s
W
• are not reduced whereas the people that currently own land all that
they are asked to give up is the possibility of a future gain.
Also the voluntary approach is a piece meal approach. Where one
parcel
adjacent
piecemeal
of land can be included
part of the land is not.
approach is not an effective
in a stewardship program,
Another one next to that is.
way to protect a body
the
A
of
land.
such
The only way to do that is through a comprehensive program
as that that has been proposed. 'Thank you."
Dave Auble - Further Comment
"Just to comment on Ken Marash's statement about the taxation of
these properties. I would think that the Town would go to the
County and try to obtain adjustments for landowners that do have
this kind of imposition on their land rights. Also,tha perhaps
this would be a good time to go.in to an austerity program for.the
Town and cut the budget and reduce the taxes if that is the case.
It would reduce everybody's taxes and there would be an equal
participation in this situation rather than imposing it on just a
few' landowners that in some cases have purchased this property many
years ago and had it as a retirement nest egg. I know precisely of
one individual that is here tonight that hasn't spoken yet. I
think that is definitelywa "taking" situation. I think if you or
anyone sitting here wQ�� in that ;same position, had made an
investment of any type, and then when you are ready to have that
investment be your nest egg,and have that value reduced,that would
definitely be considered a taking and an unfair taking on the part
of the municipal► }. "
Joyce Finch - Further Comment
"I would also like to agree with that and I would like to disagree
with what Mr. Marash said in terms of cost. You may not have to
;;put out a dollar now because this is being implemented but Hof
somebody like Bill Farrell has owned property for 30 years and has
been paying taxes on it and he is not going to develop that himself,
he can't sell it to anybody who is going to develop it. That might
be Bill's retirement money. That is a real cost. I don't really
want to get in to arguments with people about this but I could not
let something like that be said and not try to refute it."
Joel Gagnon - Further Comment
"I couldn't let it pass because it has been mentioned several times
although is not entirely relevant. I am also on the board of the
Fingerlakes Land Trust. In discussions with the assessment
department they have made it clear to me that anyone who donates a
conservation easement, the impact of that will be taken in to
account on the assessed value when it has been demonstrated to have
40 had an impact. They are taking a go -slow attitude because it is
29
• not "clear that conservation easements 'will necessarily reduce the
value of the property. The operating premise of the assessment
department is that the assessment should reflect the true market
value of the property to some base year. It happens to be 1989 at
the moment because that is when the market peaked. Theoretically
we were assessed at the value of what it was in 1989. Once we have
a number of properties with easements on them and once they start
trading, their market value will have been determined by the market
and that should and will be reflected in the assessed value. It is
not the case nor the impact of the easements, it will be taken into
consideration, and it is just a matter of time,and that is an issue
with the assessment department. Thank you."
Jim Hilker, 255 Burns Road, Ithaca, NY - Opposed
"I
just wanted
to go on
record
that I am
not in favor of
this
proposal.
I do
agree with
a lot of
people here
who are in favor
of
it
and who are
against it
but the
repercussions that it will
have
on
I
myself and other landowners, I
am not in favor of it. Thank you."
just want it
to go on record
that
TavA,m0
*h4za"& Steenhuis, Further Comment
"I think there are two issues, financial and environmental. I
think the people who own land should be compensated for their use,
buta'is not a reason to be against the plan essentially. If you are
compensated, they are two completely different things. I think the
committee should go back and reason that the people are not
compensated doesn't mean they are against the plan completely. If
they are compensated they might be for the plan. I think we should
have a compromise essentially between those two goals."
Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 10:50 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE:
•
Minutes continued on following Page No. 7.
Planning Board
• OTHER BUSINESS.
-7-
January 15, 1991
Chairperson Grigorov asked if the Nominating Committee
up with candidates for the Planning Board Vice Chairman.
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
114"M 401
RESOLVED, that the Town
of Ithaca
Planning
Board elect
and
hereby
does elect
without
Robert
Kenerson as
its Vice
Chairman
for the
year
1991.
Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Kenerson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
At this point, Chairperson Grigorov stated that a representative
is needed on the Tompkins County Planning Board.
Chairperson
Grigorov appointed Virginia
Langhans
to continue her
service on the
Tompkins County Planning Board,
without
dissent.
AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE
TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.)
• William Lesser stated that the Town Board has acted on some of
the resolutions, and wondered if there was any need for the Planning
Board to act at this time. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she
would like to endorse the ones the Planning Board agrees with, such
as the notification concerning developments. Chairperson Grigorov
noted that the Planning Board, at the December 18, 1990 meeting, had
referred the Town Policy in re Sunset Period for Permits, etc. to
the Codes and ordinances Committee. Attorney Barney offered that he
thought it might be helpful to the Codes and Ordinances Committee to
indicate to them those that the Planning Board concurs with and those
that the Planning Board disagrees with. It was the consensus of the
Planning Board that they endorse the Town Board's Resolution. (Town
Board Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit No. 2).
OTHER BUSINESS
At this point, the Board discussed, at length, the proposed local
law amending the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Procedures for Site
Plans.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Stephen Smith.
• RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed
Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to
Planning Board
-8-
January 15, 1991
• Procedures for Site Plans, as the same is attached hereto as Exhibit
No. 3.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
•
•
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
At this time, Attorney Barney said that the second proposed Local
Law the Board has before them represents a change to the Zoning
Ordinance, and it is a fairly significant change. Attorney Barney
said that right now final special approval authority resides with the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if
motion.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans,
anyone were prepared to make
seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
P
RESOLVED, that the
hereby does recommend to
Town of Ithaca Planning
the Town Board the
Board
adoption of
recommend and
the proposed
Local Law Ameding the
Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance
Providing that
the Board.of Zoning Appeals
may not Act
in Certain
Circumstances
without an Affirmative
same is attached hereto
Recommendation of
as Exhibit No. 4.
the Planning
Board, as the
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the January 15, 1991,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:40
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
•
•
Cornell University
Architectural Services 607.255.7105
126 Humphreys Service Building • Ithaca, New York 14853.3501
HASBROUCK APARTMENTS RENOVATIONS
Carolyn Grigorov, Chair
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Town Hall
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Ms. Grigorov:
Telex WU16713054
Telefax 607.254.4567
8 January 1991
l.lb
I am writing at the suggestion of Acting Town Planner George Frantz to provide you and the other
Planning Board members with a description of the concept for our proposed project of renovations at
the existing Hasbrouck Apartments family housing community. We will be appearing before your
Board on Tuesday, 15 January for a Sketch Plan Review to begin the Town of Ithaca Site Plan Review
process. I hope this brief description will be helpful in preparing for the review meeting.
The Hasbrouck Apartments community contains 246 one and two bedroom apartments in 28
apartment buildings, parking for 293 cars and 3 additional buildings containing community, office,
maintenance, and service functions on about 19 acres of land. This renovation project comprises two
major parts; first, a comprehensive renovation of the existing facilities and second, the addition of
some 90 additional units as a third floor to about 14 of the existing buildings. Renovations include
roof and window replacement, insulation of exterior walls, upgrading the heating systems, revision
of electric service, addition of about 150 parking spaces, and generally improved landscaping to
enhance the community. Construction will be done in two phases so that the entire community will
not have to be vacated at one time.
The site is wholly within the Town of Ithaca, zoned MR - Multiple Residence allowing dormitory
construction. Also attached is a copy of a University map to help locate the site.
Sincerely yours,
�
•�•�- v
ert L. W 'ght, AIA
hitect /Pr ect Manager
xc: Paul Griffen
Chuck Jankey
Tim Martin
Harry MacPherson
Geoff Hamburg - EYP
Fxye /
George Frantz - Town of Ithaca
- v
® g°�f
0 0
a
i � mS{
u HiP 2
m m 2
—J- I.Oltfr;EAVENN L�=
�LINGEN AVENUE
>y�
—bFtAWArIf� +VENUE O
t �
0
O a Q>
a
�j
UL1M ell
�/
NO
�O
,OnNEII .lalL\
e
c2o
$Rn
xxg
nDa
Soo
o�S
(Jg.r
P CCC
2
I rlI (.n.. - -- q :,,, A W
Ivr
11 ll 3 b
l $ R D d
in or( - 3 n2
A 14 /A,
R V+ 3 a O ) c J 3 All
n O N D _
3 > o` �— Z
w a: 3 ° yD SRw.Pr'�
ll \\ V
x 8 `- J'
SIT wANI Avtwul —b ` 3a °en S
St y� y
AVllltl => 0
ITT
om>
i c YVDd 4� °� $�3 0 YS
All g a a g 3, s r 1�2 en Cf� m m q /^
MIA
�� � 3
I
> N WISI AVE LAI > Y
m ?g > r0 WEST AVENUE o > mv,&W ` n
�9p3 nQi
d ; _
Al R00000m no, rM1.lS� zmomii
§_r. t P gz- , �Uryr
Z¢4 mm m
r I"� N
_uo r
x Y°
z x_ ry ur mR t"
,Z>.
Q `q_iL;, R—
ec
Zn
v v0 v� z 3 5 Z^ D
x�3m R, R ��F ore
Y _ Z
c ]r'
ZD °] F O
oe
i AST AVENUE
re ��px
I V
= n Y
nn :to+ 3 „n0
„Y cC3 - u
eC1 °
02 a g
c Y
_D JO Zm Q x ni4
G
po� AaInN Avt uul a q� -
__..._. °c a
SrNOrluopl I, eW -° ro ,. n33�„{ i �'
[he CreScenl �+ o nc u Y =-
3 n mn a'' _R� ''
I.- �
0
IS x
n := Y Q
_ a 3
0m
cfi A. o°i
0
xLn 7x I i8 ? �?3
>
sr w„ Q ,
m
All
ACT
I M C0= L D>
y0 L ? L 1 ��� ��� �\�r
n'
=2
N
1=
s_
Y a I$
m ; ^a
STEWART A` ,\7�
oe
` ` I �'• IIOf.HI] Plot
00, I m
>
Nay o .
Y (7)
BARIM Pt ACES °> O
LP_IT) q a
c
To I A3
M \ a
�
hell, ` / 0
n _ ht cLE''.V tic
o° c'h0'YF 3.0
IJ O I
> h(. D>
nnm R�a �e A
'4 D ! ♦ 3 >liJ
^ f
<rd,
n�C��oN Dn
p 1 ° NI
O i
wrLAOLf AvENU( -
i 0ss `S O �eq
D .. nY$
N � n
IO> m o
0 4 m
c � 0 3 S > C
Or
J. _ Quo n 3 Q °
D
o
r�r a
.°.w i - °yE YLP P°W.
INIYMAM
+c L1
n
m F i3 T
0 - v
> re -p _
$w
5
n
rn
m
� s
rn
7
T N Opp ITFtkc�
Coo
R F E% —' O 4 o a
sg —_ ='p
mw 9
n y
J 8 yzs o ±« snv { Gang
�� --
n b� ovoB
V
s
c'
aq
ES
�03
Zm
O
f�
m
s.,.,
R
&n
a6
4
°
h'P k"toa e S> p
C A o
i F 3g
3 �R
jal I , E�DY °^
nPfua (' "..
s.
`. ; r..
\V \'' od
Q
1�
pnl� f..
cmV 3/ S
�a \ D
m
9 ; \n
CIA
ZS
q3 & or JU
i F
s �s
a o VSA • O
y
1—
> d' S So g�R
n
is
> m=
Z TIT OtON N3BBIM Alto 00
s 4.0
n 0 gwQ q'R
C
N m
Z n
v �S D.dn -1 D
m'r v O 0 2 > n
O Q Z 3
c
(n A
W
I
IV
s:
{+e+
g
J
Solomon
IC0,00
C)
V'
m
may/
IV
s:
{+e+
g
•
•
RESOLUTION:
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Town Board that the matter of a
Town policy with respect to a sunset period for certain permits and
approvals, as proposed by the Conservation Advisory Council, is
hereby referred to the Codes and Ordinances Committee. The Town
Board notes that Local Law 15, 1988 provides for automatic
termination of variances and special approvals if not used, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Conservation Advisory Council is
requested to develop a list of persons with appropriate expertise
in flora, fauna and geology so that the Planning Board, when they
deem it appropriate, may require an applicant to retain such
services as part of the environmental review for a project. The
CAC is urged to complete an inventory of natural resources and an
index of open spaces, including habitat delineations, to serve as
an additional resource to Town boards in environmental reviews, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, 'that the Town Board refers to the Codes and
Ordinances Committee the matter of posting of sign notices for
certain projects or actions, with the expectation that the
applicant would be responsible for such posting; further that the
Codes and Ordinances Committee shall evaluate the present system of
notification for projects and actions and make a recommendation as
to the appropriateness of a requirement that the applicant be
responsible for all written notices, other than those. which Town
Law requires the Town to serve, and
FURIUM RESOLVED, that the recommendations of the Conservation
Advisory Council on general procedures will be considered in the
context of the overall improvement effort for development reviews.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA
1, Jean H. Swartwood, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted by the INNELo_
of said Town of Ithaca at a meeting held on the 7 Yee day of
199/ , and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such
resolution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have h7lo set my hand and the Corporate seal of the Town of Ithaca, New
York this day of t 19 4%/
(. \ JlE^.fL ez d
WILLIAMSON LAW BOON CO.. ROCHESTER, NY 14609 ✓ 'Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca
4 y
' + 4 :'!t
/ .
If
r m"Y�C" J 1 - - P v
'v 1i_ c a
IV
fL
+f'^s i IN a a
A.
_'. ;
IN
i
M G•i
x -•
`;''
:f
fPS', t
f '•:I:~.
t -
;;
IN f
IN
If. T,
t
r --0 it
jf. <
IN
E�.
I-
IN •'
4P
F, «, H.
C T �y"If Off
, }^, pr,�
-;,.-
• �, <
« N. a
-�'
Vf
If
off
a
r� x eft
Y • f'4 �
{ Its
t ,
�ii.��G /P n #rxCY.x fI d � � v
1f} Cj t yra vi': ..
Off 'N' t ad < ...
W.
iJ
P
f R
t
' s
ff
aL
» J
,.
r7 I
C l is z 1. t;
r-
Vt
:rl,
-- •�,v^ -�
,
A.
_'. ;
IN
i
M G•i
x -•
`;''
:f
fPS', t
f '•:I:~.
t -
;;
IN f
IN
If. T,
t
r --0 it
jf. <
IN
E�.
I-
IN •'
4P
F, «, H.
C T �y"If Off
, }^, pr,�
-;,.-
• �, <
« N. a
-�'
Vf
If
off
a
r� x eft
Y • f'4 �
{ Its
t ,
�ii.��G /P n #rxCY.x fI d � � v
1f} Cj t yra vi': ..
Off 'N' t ad < ...
W.
iJ
P
f R
t
' s
ff
aL
» J
,.
r7 I
C l is z 1. t;
r-
•
C
n
U
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 19
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING
TO PROCEDURES FOR SITE PLANS..
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as
follows:
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted,
amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently
amended, be further amended as follows:
1. Article IX, Section 46 -a, subdivision 1, is amended by
changing the first sentence to read as follows:
"1. After a Residence District R5, Multiple Residence,
Business, Light Industrial or, Industrial District, or any
other Special Land Use District, has been established by the
Town Board and whenever a specified development or changes
in the general plan are proposed, or whenever a site plan is
required by any other provision of this ordinance, a site
plan for the proposed use must be submitted and approved by
the Planning Board before a building permit may be
issued..."
2. Article IX, Section 46 -a, subdivision 2, is amended by
deleting the second sentence thereof.
3. Article IX, Section 46 -a, subdivision 3, is amended to
read-as follows:
"3. Upon submission of a final
Board shall approve or disapprove
owner shall be bound by the final
the Planning Board."
site plan, the Planning
the final site plan. The
site plan as approved by
49 Article IX, Section 46 -a is further amended by adding a
new subdivision 4 reading as follows:
"4. If at any time subsequent to the approval of.the final
site plan,. the owner shall wish to change the site plan as
approved, an application.with the revised site plan prepared
in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance shall
be submitted to the Planning Board for the Planning Board's
approval. In reviewing such application for a modified site
plan the Planning Board shall have all.of the powers it has
with respect to reviewing an :original application for site
plan approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the
modification involves
(a) construction or alteration of less than 1,000
FxN. 3
•
•
square feet of enclosed space whether on one or more
stories; and
(b) construction or relocation of less than 3 parking
spaces; and
(c) construction, repairs, alterations, or renovations
affecting the exterior of a building or the site,
(exterior work is anticipated to cost less than
$10,000.00), and
(d) enlargement of an existing building that involves
an increase of square footage of less than 10% of the
existing square footage of the existing building, and
(e) does not alter proposed traffic flows and access,
and
(f) does not directly violate any express conditions
imposed by the Planning Board in granting prior site
plan approval,
or if the modification involves
(a) a movement or shift of a location of one or more
buildings not more than two feet in any direction from
the location shown on the final site plan, and
(b) such shift does not alter proposed traffic flows
or access; and
(c) such shift does not directly violate any express
conditions (including, without limitation, buffer
zones, setbacks, etc.) imposed by the Planning Board in
granting prior site plan approval,
then such modification may be made without requiring
approval of the modified site plan by the Planning Board.
This waiver of the requirement of Planning Board approval is.
not intended to permit construction in violation of any
other provision of the Zoning Ordinance including setback,
side yard, and similar regulations, or the requirement to
obtain a building _permit in those circumstances when
otherwise required by the terms of this ordinance.
2.9 This law shall
required by law,
take effect upon
• 2
its publication as
•
affirm.11, Ith. 12/21/90, 9:22 a.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 19
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE
PROVIDING THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY NOT ACT IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT AN AFFIRMATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as
follows:
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted,
amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently
amended, be further amended as follows:
1. Article XIV, Section 77, is amended by renumbering
subparagraph 9 to be subparagraph 10 and inserting a new
subparagraph 9 reading as follows:
"Where the terms of this Ordinance require a matter to be
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation before
action is taken by the Board of Appeals, the Board of
Appeals shall not hear the matter unless and until the
Planning Board has reviewed the matter and recommended the
action affirmatively. The Planning Board shall act within
60 days of receipt of the application. Failure to act
within such time period shall be deemed an affirmative
recommendation unless the time to act is extended with the
applicant's consent. In the event the Planning Board
recommends affirmatively, but with conditions, the approval
of the Board of Appeals shall include the Planning Board's
conditions, plus any additional conditions the Board of
Appeals deems necessary."
2. This local law shall take effect upon its publication as
required by law.
EXN y
� AFFIDAVIT OFPUBLIC'ATION
State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.:
Gail Sullins beincy duly sworn, deposes and
says, that she /he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid aid 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
0
-Ond that the,first publication of said notice was on the
day of
,e)�c r�� 0. NC 19
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this l l day
of 19
Notary Public.
JEAN FORD
Notary Public St._te cf New YorF
N!o. 455410
Qualified in -JcMnl6ns County
�QR1USSion expires May 3(6 .1
,.
(�4C
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD ?'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING,'-
TUESDAY, JAN. 15, 1991 ,,`
B direction of the Chairman;
of the Planning Board, NOTICE'
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public'
Hearing on the findings andl
recommendations of the re-
port "Six -Mile Creek: A Heri -I
tage To Preserve prepared
by the Conservation Advisory
Council of the Town of Ithaca,
will be held by the Planning.
Board of the Town of Ithaca on
Tuesday, January 15, 1991, in
l
Town Hall, 126 East Seneca
Street, Ithaca, NY, a18-30 0p. m.
Said Planning Board will at!
said time and said place hear
oil persons in support of said
findings an
or objections thereto.
Persons may appear by agent
or in person.
Jean H. Swartwood
Town Clerk
January 10, 1991 273 -1721