HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-08-06Y
t FILED
TOWN Of 1THACA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
• August 6, 1991 Clef
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, August 6, 1991, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia
Langhans, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Judith Aronson,
William Lesser, Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz
(Assistant Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John
Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Kim Jacobs, David Herrick, Greg Williams (WHCU), George
Gesslein, R. James Miller, Esq., Jean Sanders, Richard
Sweet, Chuck Johns, Dave Neish, Edward Mazza, Esq.,
George Sheldrake, Glenn Snyder, Pat Driscoll.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :00
p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on July 30, 1991, and August 1, 1991, respectively,
together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca, upon the Clerk's of
the Towns of Enfield and Dryden, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, upon the NYS DOT Resident Engineer, and
upon the applicants and /or agents, on August 1, 19910
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov
closed this portion of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF DRAFT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
It was the consensus of the Board that the document reads better
and the format is better. [Document under discussion attached hereto
as Exhibit No. 1.]
Eva Hoffmann - Stated that maybe it was because she was not used to
seeing this kind of font and found it a little bit difficult to read,
compared to what she is used to. Ms. Hoffmann stated it was the kind
of font in the whole document, but it could be it was printed on a
dot - matrix that makes it less clear. Ms. Hoffmann especially noted
the "Notes" Section on Page 1 was hard to read.
. • ,
t
A PLANNING BOARD (2) August 6, 1991
Judith Aronson - Ms. Aronson referred to Page 4, Housing (cont'd),
No. 5, "Provision for customary and reasonable home occupations while
guarding against the creation of nuisances." Ms. Aronson said she
was curious as to what No. 5 means. Town Planner Floyd Forman
responded that that was in the Zoning right now. Mr. Forman stated
that there was nothing different; home occupations. as a profession.
Ms. Aronson referred to No. 4, INSTITUTIONS and Land Use, under
objectives, No. 3, "Long -range institutional development plans
integrated with other plans for development in the Town." Ms.
Aronson wondered if it would be correct, at this point, to be rather
specific about which plan is particularly the Comprehensive Plan
itself. Mr. Forman replied that the two being referred to are the
Cornell G /EIS, and Ithaca College is in the process of doing a Master
Plan, and these will be integrated in the Comprehensive Plan so they
are not going in direction one and the Town going in direction two;
hopefully, we will all go in the same direction. Ms. Aronson
wondered if the other plans were integrated with the Comprehensive
Plan or the Comprehensive Plan integrated with their plans. Mr.
Forman responded that one hopes they are integrated with the Town
Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Grigorov wondered whether it should
say integrated with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Aronson agreed with
Chairperson Grigorov. Eva Hoffmann said that the Comprehensive Plan
is a document that changes all the time.
Robert Kenerson
- Mr.
Kenerson
stated
that
he assumed
there
would
be
an extensive definitions
list as
to what
is
meant by
terms
as
it
• relates to the document, e.g., what is the definition of environment.
Mr. Forman stated that he was not looking at "environment" simply as
the trees, birds, etc., the built in environment is dealt with as
well. Mr. Kenerson mentioned a glossary of terms just as is done
with the Codes and Ordinances. Mr. Forman responded that it can be
made a part of the document, but he would hope that everyone would
come to a consensus on what the words mean, otherwise, literally,
there is not a word in the document besides and, of, and but, that
probably would not have to be defined. Mr. Kenerson said the
definitions can be defined so that it is clear; it is just not for
the Board members and staff, but it is for the future generation.
Mr. Kenerson said we are talking about the normal interpretations.
Mr. Kenerson said that there are an awful lot of words and it could
be simplified by definition. Virginia Langhans said she thought to
try and simplify it would be twice as long as what there is now. Mr.
Kenerson responded, not necessarily, it depends upon how it is done.
Mr. Forman offered that he has tried to eliminate a lot of the
adjectives. Mr. Kenerson mentioned the words, high - quality,
affordable, and attractive. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she
could not think of another word besides attractive, such as
attractive developments. Mr. Forman commented that if anyone can
think of any more adjectives to get rid of he would like to hear
them. Stephen Smith stated that he thought it would take so long to
put something together to avoid that, that it would be better to just
hit it on the one word or two words it happens on. Eva Hoffmann
• noted that when one talks about the normal definition of the normal
interpretation that would be what a normal dictionary would do. Mr.
Kenerson said that in a couple of places they have tried to define
Z
A PLANNING BOARD (3) August 61 1991
that, e.g., the ICMA - definition of. Mr. Forman stated that he did
not know that one really needs to go into that, and, frankly, that
could be more of a problem because, literally, when one is defining
goal, objective, and then "action or plan policy" or whatever flows
from it, one gets hung up in semantics, if one just opens up to the
first number one and says we can start defining conservation, then
open space can be defined, then environmental protection can be
defined. Mr. Forman noted that he has gone through just three terms
and every one had to be defined. Judith Aronson stated that she
thought it was useful to have the definition, and it is useful to her
to have the clarification of objectives and goals. Mr. Forman stated
that he thought what is trying to be said is to set up a three -tier
system where the word "goal" means the broadest of all things;
something that everyone loves. Mr. Forman said that "objective" is
more specific, then there is a policy on action plans that flows from
that, and that tells one what it is that one actually wants to
accomplish. Ms. Aronson said that she had seen plans that had not
spelled this out and this is really a great improvement.
Chairperson Grigorov again stated that the Board thought the
document read better this time, and the organization was clearer.
Town Planner Floyd Forman offered that John Czamanske and he worked
on it; that he gave John Czamanske direction; John Czamanske worked
on it, then he and John Czamanske went over it which happened on more
than one occasion. Mr. Forman stated that John Czamanske actually
did it, but he gave him direction.
• At this time, Chairperson Grigorov noted that there had been some
discussion of No. 18, on Page 3, "The City of Ithaca remain a strong
core for the community." Chairperson. Grigorov said that -some people
wanted to put some of the other commercial centers in. Ms. Langhans
thought that that was,left over from the original. Mr. Forman said
that there are a lot of things left over; what they tried to do was
rework them and make some sense out of them; tried to give them
focus, and tried to :get rid of, as best he could, some adjectives --
there were so many things that were safe, convenient, effective,
socially responsible, and environmentally responsible, that one got
lost in it. Chairperson Grigorov commented, yes, it was kind of
meaningless, with Mr. Forman agreeing.
Ms. Aronson referred to Page No. 9, "HUMAN SERVICES ", No. 5,
"High- quality and affordable health care services and facilities."
Ms. Aronson wondered how the Township has any impact on the cost of
health care services. Mr. Forman answered, there probably isn't;
frankly, it is a "buzz word ", and it would not bother him if it were
taken out; it is just like, e.g., when they were looking at police --
someone wanted high quality police and other public services, adding
that he said, shouldn't they be affordable as well. Mr. Forman said
that everyone wants health care to be affordable; it is, frankly,
just a "buzz word ". Mr. Forman stated that how we get to affordable
health care in the Town of Ithaca is beyond the Town. Ms. Aronson
. stated that that is right. Stephen Smith stated that it is not
beyond the Town; the Town could do it if it really wanted to. Mr.
Forman said, yes, it could subsidize health care. Mr. Smith wondered
PLANNING BOARD (4) August 61 1991
• if that is what is being noted. Eva Hoffmann said that perhaps what
is being said is that it should be accessible to everbody; it
shouldn't be just high quality, i.e., some people can use it and some
people cannot. Mr. Forman stated that it is very difficult for a
Town, beyond its own employees, to give us health care, which they
do, but beyond that it is very difficult for a Town, sort of on its
own, to set up policies for affordable health care. Mr. Forman said
that for a community this size it is just something that is very,
very difficult to do. Mr. Kenerson mentioned employment.
Mr. Forman stated that everyone's comments regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives will be reviewed with the
CPC. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she wants the Planning Board's
comments to be all in one group.
Mr. Forman stated that he does not disagree with anyone; it is
wonderful to have affordable health care, but how does the Town, on
its own, accomplish it. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if it should
be dropped; it would be alright with her. Mr. Smith responded, if
that is going to be dropped, how about high quality and affordable
day care? Mr. Kenerson commented that we do not want to rewrite
this. Mr. Smith wondered how that was different. Chairperson
Grigorov replied, because it is not always zoned for a day care
center, e.g., on Honness Lane. Ms. Langhans stated, who says it is
affordable; they might charge a lot of money. Assistant Town Planner
George.Frantz stated that one of the problems with day care is, of
• course, accessibility. Mr. Smith said that was mentioned on the
health care. Mr. Frantz said that affordable day care is a problem
and is something that the Town can address through zoning and land
use policies. Mr. smith asked, couldn't health care also be
addressed? Mr. Frantz said that day care is also something that --
should the Town decide" it is necessary -- the Town of Ithaca could
contribute to affordability, perhaps by opening some sort of day care
facility in an existing Town facility at reduced rates; that is
something that is within the financial capability of the Town of
Ithaca to do. Mr. Forman said that it is easier to deal with this in
terms of affordability than it is with health care. Mr. Forman said
that it is not easy, necessarily, but there are things that the Town
can do that relate to day care that it really could not do with
health care. Mr. Frantz said that there is already an example with
the Coddington Road Community Center, there are a number of things
that the Town of Ithaca does; they are small things, but they are
things that contribute to the continued existence of the day care
center. Ms. Langhans wondered what impact that would have. Mr.
Frantz stated that he thought it does help with the price; most day
care providers realize it is not a profit- making business, regardless
of whether or not one is in there for the money, or it is not a
Profit- making organization. Ms. Aronson asked, aren't we really
talking about encouraging these facilities, rather than the
affordability of it? Ms. Aronson stated that it seems to her that is
a much more realistic goal or objective -- to encourge -- by land use
• policy to encourage. Mr. Forman responded that there can be an
assist in some ways in making them affordable in the same way that
can be done with housing, e.g., if someone wants to come in with a
PLANNING BOARD (5) August 61 1991
day care facility the Town can try and work with them and assist them
with the zoning by -laws, for example, something can be set up similar
as would be for housing affordability; that is something where some
headway can be made, not a lot, but the main thing is making day care
accessible in the community as opposed to afforable, adding, we can
to some degree, impact affordability. Ms. Aronson commented that
maybe when we get to the strategy section that could be made clear,
and people can understand the various techniques and procedures. Mr.
Forman agreed; one thing that he did not think would happen is to
offer, for example, subsidies to day care.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the idea was, in general, that
day care would be left in and the health care taken out. Mr. Forman
responded that affordability is being talked about being taken out.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if health care was being taken out
entirely, with Mr. Forman replying, no. Ms. Hoffmann commented that
it seems to her that health care services can be looked at
differently and have health care facilities, because when it comes to
facilities, again, one can do things that would make it easier for
them. Mr.. Smith mentioned convenient care in Lansing, NY. Ms.
Hoffmann said that maybe the health care services the Town cannot do
effectively. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it seemed to her there is a
difference between health care services and health care facilities
and the way the Town can ..influence their af.fordabilty; the
facilities, perhaps, the Town could contribute toward them being more
.affordable. Mr. Frantz, directing his comment to Ms. Hoffmann,
stated- that one possibility, as far as making available high quality
health care services is in the East Hill Plaza area; that is an
.excellent ,location -for some sort of professional building type
development, but given the fact the land is zoned Business "C",
economically, precludes that type of development of the land. Mr.
Frantz stated that one possibility is to look at rezoning portions of
that area, perhaps to "A" or "B ", to provide sites for that type of
services. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it is also a good location for
day care services. Ms. Aronson noted -- the objectives are to have,
and instead of using have, say to encourage. Mr. Smith responded,
no, because that does not fit on some of the other ones; we are going
to have things, but not necessarily to encourage them. Chairperson
Grigorov commented that to encourage is a little bit of an open term,
there are some things that we can't really bring about, but could
encourage. Mr. Forman stated that one of the things being done now
is to try and set up policies from this and seeing which of the
things are extraneous; and which are effective.
Ms. Aronson
previous document
substance, that
ideas that are to
that is not in
that anybody does
land use master
wondered how much this document differs from the
Mr. Forman responded that he did not think, in
it differs all that much; they have not tried to take
tally foreign, but one area in the previous document
here sort of related to "good government "; it is not
not believe in "good government ", but this is a
plan kind of thing and it really does not deal with
issues
of
government,
other
than
accessibility
-- is the public
' accessible
to public
meetings,
public
notices,
etc.?
PLANNING BOARD
(6)
August 6, 1991
• Ms. Langhans stated that she thought the document reads much
better; it is spelled out A,B,C,D,E,F,G; the other had big paragraphs
that one had to wade through.
There being no other comments from the Board, Chairperson
Grigorov closed the discussion of draft Goals and Objectives for the
Comprehensive Plan at 7:33 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL No. 6- 33- 3 -2.2,
85.52 +/- ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO FIVE PARCELS 3.1 + / -, 3958 + / -,
2.0 +/- 176.72 + / -, AND 0.12 + /- ACRES IN SIZE, WITH THE 0.12 + /- ACRE
PARCEL PROPOSED TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
6- 33 -3 -4, LOCATED BACKLOT OF ELMIRA ROAD (NYS RTE. 13) AND FIVE MILE
DRIVE (NYS RTE. 13A), LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. EARLAND MANCINI,
D /B /A MANCINI REALTY, ;',OWNER; T.G. MILLER, P.C., AGENT,
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:34 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
David Herrick, of T.G. Miller, P.C., approached the Board and
stated that he was Agent for Mr. Mancini. Mr. Herrick introduced Kim
Jacobs, Engineer at T.G. Miller. Mr. Herrick said that Ms. Jacobs
has been involved with the preparation of the preliminary plat and
all supporting material, adding that he would be calling on her to
• lead in most of the discussion.
At
'this
point,
Mr. Herrick stated
that what
he
would like.to
do
first
would
be to take
the .Board back to
August 1,
1.989,
adding
that
that was the last time
he was before the
Board in support of Mr.
Mancini.
Mr. Herrick said
that was the time
the
Bell property was
being considered,
which
is now where the warehouse
is located. Mr.
Herrick
said that, at that
time, as part of
the
Bell subdivision
approval,
there were six
or seven conditions
that
were imposed on the
Mancini
property that will
be addressed tonight.
Mr. Herrick said
that he
would be going back
and checking off
those
conditions that he
feels have
been either responded
to or because
of
changes that were
made.
At this point, Mr. Herrick appended several diagrams on the
bulletin board.
Chairperson Grigorov announced, for the record, that Robert
Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Judith Aronson, Stephen Smith, and
herself, viewed the site in question.
Mr. Herrick noted the following conditions:
a. Final approval of a subdivision plan for the entire Light
Industrial District.
• Mr. Herrick stated that the above is what is being presented this
evening. Mr. Herrick, pointing to the map, stated that "this" is
PLANNING BOARD
(7)
• Rte. 13; the Light Industrial District
along an existing driveway in back of the
businesses and extends over to the end o
Mr. Herrick indicated on the map the limit of
Rte. 13.
August 6, 1991
comes off Five Mile Drive
Mancini and Iacovelli
f Mr. Mancini's property.
the LI property along
b. An agreement by the developer to set aside a 10% open space for
public recreational purposes, or an equivalent, suitable to the
Planning Board.
Mr. Herrick said that he would get back to the above after going
through the rest of the conditions.
C. Consideration of rezoning to modify certain yard requirements,
such as minimum 150 -foot front yard setback required in Light
Industrial Districts.
Mr. Herrick stated that, originally, there was a general
subdivision plan that was prepared for Mr. Mancini which had what is
shown as Lot No. 1 much closer to Rte. 13. Mr. Herrick said that the
rear dimension was a lot smaller, but they have been able to modify
the lot lines, and utilize part of the clearing limit that NYSEG has
for the utility lines that are in through the property. Mr. Herrick
added that a building space has been developed that meets the
150 -foot front yard setback requirement for a L.I. business. Mr.
Herrick offered that most of the businesses in there are commercial
oriented, but to come into compliance with that condition, they did
go back and consider moving the lot lines, so presently they have a
conforming lot in terms of front yard setback. Town Planner Floyd
Forman asked Mr.-Herrick if he was comfortable 'with the 150 =foot
setback with the building where it is, and wondered if Mr. Mancini
was comfortable as well. Kim Jacobs responded that, basically, it
does minimize the buildable space on that lot, but Mr. Mancini feels
that it is acceptable to him, and would be for someone who is
interested in building in that area, it is certainly not as large as
Lot No. 2, but to satisy the requirement of 150 feet it does need to
go back that far. Mr. Forman, directing his comment to Ms. Jacobs,
wondered about the little piece in the south corner; it is shown as
part of the subdivision, but it is not shown as a part of Lot No. 2.
Mr. Herrick responded that it happens to fall within the L.I.
District, and the piece is contiguous with the rest of the Mancini
property to the west. Mr. Herrick said that there are some boundary
limitations and physical features that he feels limit the lot to
being part of something greater in the back, if something greater
ever takes place. Mr. Herrick said that, in essence, it is not part
of the subdivision. Mr. Forman wondered if, in the future, Mr.
Mancini decides to do something with the residential, would it be
attached to the Light Industrial, or would Mr. Mancini work with the
Town to make it suitable to attach, from a zoning standpoint, to the
residential portion. Mr. Herrick answered, right, if one would try
to meet the side yard and front yard setbacks there would be
• absolutely no building space, adding, the physical boundary between
that parcel and what is being shown as Lot No. 2 is an existing
stream corridor.
e
PLANNING BOARD
(8)
August 6, 1991
d. Development of a suitable road or driveway within the "Proposed
• 30' wide permanent easement for!lrear access" prior to any final
site plan approval for developmention the "Parcel to be conveyed
by Mancini to Hannan ", and the "Proposed Parcel to be conveyed"
in the southwest corner of the District fronting on Elmira Road.
Mr. Herrick stated that there was a concern at the time he was
before the Board with the Bell subdivision that some form of access
ought to be provided to the back side of what is now the Cannon Pools
lot, in what would be Lot No. 11I for access by delivery trucks,
freight trucks, whatever, so that their movement would be back in
"here ", and avoiding having to make exits out of ' .'this" area, off
the currently private drive. Mr. Herrick said that their movements
could be in "here" in the back, and deliveries made to the rear of
these properties, adding that they still provided the 30 -foot wide
easement. Mr. Herrick said that they envision Lot No. 1 as being
required to make any access improvements along that right -of -way at
the time that they come in for their site plan review.
e. Consideration of revision of the proposed rear property line of
the latter "Proposed Parcel to be conveyed" fronting on Elmira
Road td increase possible setbacks,on that parcel.
Mr. Herrick stated that the above pertains to Lot No. 1, which
has :already been discussed; the rear lot line has been adjusted so
that the 1501.front yard..setback can be maintained.
• f. Consideration of, a phased plan for road :improvements within the
District, including.the cons.iderati.on of discontinuation of the
existing private drive access from Elmira Road, the development
of a new outlet to Seven Mile Drive, and acceptable arrangements
with respect to road design, ownership, and maintenance.
Kim Jacobs, of T.G. Miller, P'C., stated that Phase 1 is
basically the deeding over of the existing 500 -foot road right "here"
with a "T ". Ms. Jacobs said that they have talked extensively with
the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department, and Empire Soils has gone
out and done test borings in these areas to see what the road profile
is, and if it is acceptable to Town specifications. Ms. Jacobs said
that it is her understanding that it�is acceptable, adding that when
the sewer and water go in, with the Inlet Valley Project, the areas
under the shoulder of the road will be upgraded to Town
specifications, and the entire road will be resurfaced. Mr. Mancini
will be responsible for resurfacing the road.
Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that in looking at the
construction details it is a good solid road as far as being
acceptablel, from a structural standpoint, adding, there needs to be
upgrading of the shoulders and the required repaving done. Mr.
Walker stated that there is a good solid base.
• Ms. Jacobs said that Phase 2 is, basically, just the provision of
the 60 -foot wide reservation for possible future road. Ms. Jacobs
said that in the past, the Town Planning staff recommendation, as one
PLANNING BOARD (9) August 61 1991
of their recommendations, was that Mr. !Mancini provide a reservation
"here" for a road, which could then extend into the rear land when
and if it is developed, adding that that reservation has been
provided. Continuing, Ms. Jacobs stated that when it is developed
there would be a condition that the road going into it would be to
Town specifications and then deeded over to the Town. Ms. Jacobs
said that Phase 3 would be the same thing; it would be conditioned to
development of the rear land, that when the land is developed, "this"
area as well would be upgraded to Town specifications and deeded over
to the Town. Attorney Barney, referring to Phase 3, stated that it
looks like there is a little strip of land along the northwest side
of it. Ms. Jacobs responded that, basically, the Stevenson lot, as
well as "this" triangular lot, is owned by Stevenson. Ms. Jacobs
stated that it has been discussed with Mr. Mancini and Mr. Stevenson
about considering swapping "this" and bringing "this" straight over
"here, giving Mr. Stevenson that portion of land, and "this" would
become the right -of -way for the road. 'Attorney Barney noted that the
Planning Board saw the proposal forlthat property and was not sure,
in effect, there was going to be a subdivision by running a road
through there. Attorney Barney wondered who owned the road right
now, with Mr. Herrick answering, Mr. Mancini. Attorney Barney asked
how it came about that the road was constructed in that fashion. Mr.
Herrick said that, again, that is another private drive that Mr.
Mancini had constructed with his own materials and forces; it is very
similar to the road that is off Elmira Road, Attorney Barney
commented that, effectively, a subdivision has been created there
• with a lot that would never meet any standards in the Town. Mr.
Herrick stated that he did not know if the formation of the road came
before or after Mr. Mancini owned the property, but he would guess
that that piece has always been in that configuration. Attorney
Barney responded that he did not think ''so, if Mr. Mancini came in
here, and then, in fact, that Stevenson piece was subdivided out of
other property held by Mr. Mancini. Ms. Jacobs stated that it was
her understanding of the history that the road was in this
configuration; Mr. Stevenson had purchased "this" plot of land and he
wanted additional land for storage„ or parking, commenting, "this"
land was available so he purchased that as well. Attorney Barney
commented -- available and subject to subdivision. Attorney Barney
said that he did not think it was 'ever formally subdivided, and
should not be talked about waiting for Phase 3; it should be taken
care of fairly soon. Mr. Herrick asked, in terms of dedication?
Attorney Barney said not only in terms of dedication, but right now
there is an illegal subdivision there; it has never been approved as
far as he knew. Mr. Herrick wondered who implemented the
subdivision. Attorney Barney responded, whoever sold that little
strip of land to Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Herrick said that it would
certainly make a lot of sense just to clean it up by swapping parcels
and creating the L.I. District as the right -of -way and having the
road within that; it is possible to ,do that. Virginia Langhans
wondered who owned the property above the little strip that Stevenson
owns. Ms. Jacobs replied that it is outside the L.I. District and
• she did not know. Ms. Langhans wondered about the amount of land.
Ms. Jacobs said she did not know but could look it up; she has the
Tax Parcel No. Ms. Langhans said that it looks as though it does not
PLANNING BOARD (10) August 61 1991
• have any frontage on Five Mile Drive. Ms. Jacobs stated that she
honestly did not know if it was appr "oved or not, but she would look
into it, but the deeding over was prior,,to her getting involved in
the subdivision, which has been atil least two years. Ms. Jacobs
stated that the history of the area spans about 25 years. Ms. Jacobs
stated that when the L.I. Distrist was originally formed there was
the desire for the Iacovellis and thej,Mancinis to acquire "these"
buildings back "here" for the purpose of contracting out of them;
then 20 years ago another lot was developed; 15 years ago another lot
was developed. Ms. Jacobs said that she understands the concern over
the progress of the area, and how they currently end up with a
section like "this ", rather than having looked at it all at once.
Ms. Jacobs said that it does have a long history and all she can say
is that the past is the past, and foriwhatever reason at the time the
Boards approved these individual lots. Ms. Jacobs stated that what
they are trying to do now is determine the best way to deal with the
remaining lands, and how that can be done satisfying the conditions
set forth in 1989. Ms. Jacobs offered that she has felt many times
if it were one piece of land she would subdivide it in a way she is
comfortable with, rather than to have to work with the constraints
put on it over the last 20 -25 years.
Mr. Lesser, referring to the phased road construction proposal,
wondered about the status of the back ,,access to the proposed lots; to
what extent would that be affected by the phases, and what about the
geographical difficulties? Mr. Herrick said that the - geographical
• difficulties are more of a constraint in terms of the property
lines. Ms. Jacobs stated that Mr. Lesser's first comment is an
important one that needs to be discussed. Ms. Jacobs said that,
basically, at this point, it is being considered to deed over "this"
section of the road to the Town, and until there is development up
"here" "this" area would remain as reservation, however, the owner of
"this" parcel would be guaranteed the (right -of -way for ingress and
egress, until such time as it is deeded over as a Town road, adding,
by that, there would be a private drive into this parcel and the
private drive would also provide the right -of -way for Lot No. 1, as
well as the lot to have rear access. 'Chairperson Grigorov wondered
if this meant there would not have to be access on Elmira Road from
ir
Lot No. 1. Mr. Herrick responded that he thought that would come
through with a site plan review in terms of what the access
restrictions were going to be. Mr. Herrick said that the intent of
the rear access was for delivery vehicles either in or out, through
the back, so that they can ultimately use this route up to Five Mile
Drive and come out at what, hopefully, will be some kind of a signal
light "here" in the future, as opposed to trying to make turning
movements onto Rte. 13 from the existing private drive. Eva Hoffmann
wondered what would happen to the Phase 1 road at that point when
Phase 3 would be open for vehicles to use. Ms. Jacobs said that the
whole thing would then become a Town road; when that would occur
would be when development in the lands begins, which would put the
demand on these roads. Mr. Lesser, referring to construction,
• wondered if it-would be economically';feasible to build a rear access
to Lot No. 1. Mr. Herrick mentioned the wetland issue which has been
discussed, but it has already been considered that the portion of
PLANNING BOARD (11) August 61 1991
• wetland over the 30 -foot wide strip can be part of the fill permit
that is issued nationwide by the Army Corps, that portion of the
right -of -way as well as some of "this" rshaded area on Lot No. 2 will
all be filled jointly. Mr. Herrick said that he did not think it
would be tremendously expensive.
g. Agreement by the owner to grant easements for the proposed water
and sewer improvements in a location acceptable to the Town
Engineer.
Mr. Herrick commented that if they' „'have done anything right it is
the above. Mr. Herrick stated that they have cooperatively worked
with the Town Engineer and their staff to develop, what they consider
a system of routes, which will be beneficial to the Town water and
sewer extensions that will be constructed. Mr. Herrick stated that,
without request for any monetary consideration, what one sees in
"green” and "orange" Mr. Mancini has agreed to for sewer and
watermain routes. Attorney Barney wondered if he agreed to deed over
his easements or to put the pipes in 11them as well. Ms. Jacobs,
referring to the easements, said that, originally, there was a force
main coming up through "here" for the sewer, and the way it ran, a
very extensive as well as expensive excavation needed to be done.
Ms. Jacobs said that by running the sewer "this" way it benefits Mr.
Mancini, but it also was much less expensive for the Town, and it
also alleviated a large portion of force main.
• Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that this is part of the Inlet
Valley Project that is presently under contract, and the proposed
routing is beneficial to the Town because it does reduce the amount
of force main, it does reduce the amount of gravity sewer and the
depths of cut of gravity sewer that the Town is putting in, so it is
very much of an advantage to the Town to do it this way. Mr. Herrick
said that another thing they did was to coordinate a location of the
mains with what would ultimately be the right -of -way so that once the
roads are constructed, and dedicated, the watermains and sewermains
will fall into Town rights -of -way.
Stephen
Smith wondered
if
there
was a reason for
the
sewer
running behind
Lot No. 1, as
opposed to just
coming on up
Rte.
13
then going
straight down.
Mr.
Walker
responded that, yes,
the
hill
goes up and
sewage likes to
flow
downhill.
Ms. Jacobs said
that
the
power line
right -of -way sets
the
property
line.
At this point, Mr. Herrick referred to staff recommendations to
the Planning Board. [Proposed subdivision of Mancini Property,
Elmira Road, Memo to Planning Board members, dated July 31, 1991,
from Assistant Town Planner George Frantz, attached hereto as Exhibit
#2.]
Ms. Jacobs referred to Item No. 2!in the memo. Ms. Jacobs stated
that they were going to discuss that item when the wetland issue is
• discussed.
PLANNING BOARD (12) August 6,-1991
Ms. Jacobs referred to Item No. U3 in the memo. Ms. Jacobs said
•
that in Phase I the "T" would be deeded over, and there was a
discussion with the Town Engineering office that, structurally, the
road is in good condition. Ms. JacobsPsaid that the concern is that
it does not comply with Section 23,1lParagraph 7, of the Subdivision
Regulations',, which requires a minimum of 600 feet between
intersections on primary thoroughfares. Ms. Jacobs, pointing to the
map, said that, basically, from "here"�to "here" is what is being
discussed. Ms. Jacobs stated that the D.O.T. has proposed some
reconstruction, and she believes that it would take place between
1992 and 1995. Ms. Jacobs said that the D.O.T. has support in
increasing Rte. 13 to 'four lanes, and changing "this" intersection,
and having a signal light, adding, depending on what the D.O.T. does
the 600 feet may be complied with. Mr. Frantz wondered if Mr.
Mancini was offering to pay for the signal light and the
improvement's. Ms. Jacobs answered,j no, those were suggestions,
commenting that a letter was written to the D.O.T. supporting four
lanes and a signal light. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the whole
subdivisions plan would depend on what the State may or may not do.
ir
Ms. Jacobs said that they were just pointing out that that may be
revised anyway, and, basically, from their perspective, the 500 feet
as opposed to 600 feet they do not see as a problem. Chairperson
Grigorov asked about the sight distance. Mr. Walker said that that
intersection has been identified as a problem; the D.O.T. understands
that, and during the- extensive public hearings that went on last year
there were ^several orientations of theiRoute 13A intersection. Mr.
• Walker stated that it is expected to see a "final" design for that
roadway in,November of 1991. Mr. SmitYi wondered if any of the plans
reach all '',the way down to Lot No. 1. Mr.. Walker said that the taper
would end just beyond the driveway, so sight distance on Lot No. 1
•would not change at all.
Mr. Kenerson said that there had been some concern before that
part of the grade on the private access road was not adequate to
provide for it being a Town road, because the top cannot be leveled
off enough to have a safe exit onto Route 13. Mr. Kenerson asked
about a parallel road to Route 13 so there would not be a lot of
access on Route 13, it would go through and on out to Seven Mile
Drive. Mr. Frantz said that that road proposal was premised on some
fairly significant future commercial development in the area. Mr.
Frantz noted that the Comprehensive Plan is leaning away from any
further commercial development in Inlet Valley. Ms. Jacobs mentioned
that the ,D.O.T. has authority regarding a curb cut onto a State
highway.
At this time, Mr. Frantz stated that he was not comfortable
recommending to the Planning Board that a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance be made for,ithis project simply because of
the amount of filling of wetlands, including in that 30 -foot
right -of -way.
• Ms. Jacobs stated that the Army
permit which allows one acre of
contiguous property, adding that
Corps of Engineers has a
wetland per property
that means that Mr.
national
owner on
Mancini
PLANNING BOARD (13) August 6, 1991
currently has contiguous property. Ms. Jacobs said that the wetland
• was delineated by environmental specialists and it was determined
that it was 2.13 acres. Ms. Jacobs said that it is proposed that Lot
No. 2 be potentially filled, and a reservation be made; whoever
purchases that lot, they have thel',right to fill .48 acres of that
land. Ms. Jacobs said that Lot No. 3 has .08 acres under the
proposed rear access that would need to be filled, and, on Lot No. 3,
prior to the delineation of the wetland by an adjoining property
owner, there was fill that encroached on the wetland of .15 acre.
Ms. Jacobs stated that they are suggesting, under the one -acre
permit, that Mr. Mancini or futurelproperty owners, fill .71 acres
within the Light Industrial area. Ms.1Jacobs noted that that leaves
about 1.4 acres of wetland that is maintained as wetland. Ms. Jacobs
said that the one acre is a right; if the Army Corps gives
authorization to fill one acre of wetland on the Mancini parcel, then
he does have that right to do that. Ms. Jacobs said that they are
encouraging: the fill in this fashion, leaving approximately .29 acres
of wetland, which, in the future, if roads need to be constructed to
go over a wetland, then there will be a little bit to do that. Mr.
Forman staged that he had called the Army Corps in Buffalo, NY, a few
days ago about something else, and the one -acre permit by right is
not the impression he got; he was assured that there was nothing "by
right "; that they reviewed everything that came before them and made
a determination of significance, then they either gave the permit or
did not. gave the permit. Ms. Jacobs stated that she meant if the
person gets„ the permit, which most people do, then he has the right.
Ms. Jacobs.said that the entire.reportican be provided to the Board.
•
Mr. Forman noted that some..things he.sees as a problem with the
.proposal are the road,system.and the issue of wetlands. Mr. Forman
said that, the one thing that was answered for him tonight was the
corner parcel and what was going on with it. Mr. Forman said that he
ir
is still not sure what is going on with the "open space ". Mr. Forman
said that he saw a lot, at least it was blocked off as a lot, a
wetland area that was not named as�a lot, and was not exactly sure
from the plan that was received what the plans were for Mr. Mancini.
Mr. Forman stated that, hopefully, at this point, the Board would not
ask for an Environmental Determination; but give the applicant the
opportunity to go back and rework'lsome of the things. Mr. Forman
mentioned moving the roadway farther southeast a bit and away from
the wetland. Mr. Forman noted that another possibility with the
private road is to make that one -way in when the other road that is
extending 'to the southwest comes in. Eva Hoffmann stated that Mr.
Forman's comments are also what the Environmental Review Committee
felt would be a good step to take. Ms. Hoffmann stated.that the map
viewed by the Committee had some information that seems to be quite
recent, like the wetland delineation is larger than was previously
believed by quite a bit. Ms. Hoffmannlstated that, first of all, the
ERC feels' that the Town needs to get more information about various
things; it is important to find out how sensitive the wetland is
Ms. Hoffmann referred to the Environmental Assessment Form, Part
I, No. 9, "Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source
aquifer ?" -Ms. Hoffmann noted that it is indicated there is an
C
•
•
PLANNING BOARD
(14)
August 6, 1991
aquifer there. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the principal aquifer is
quite important; it is not just the two streams in that area that
feed the wetland, but perhaps an underground spring. Mr. Frantz said
that that principal aquifer covers much of the Valley, including
underneath the City of Ithaca, it,, extends, essentially, from the
Lake. Ms. Hoffmann responded, even so' the ERC felt that it was
important to get more information* 'also the ERC felt that the Town
needs to reconsider, now that the wetland is, in fact, larger than
previously "thought. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she remembers, when she
occupied a "seat on the Zoning Board of Appeals, that they talked
about the `Cannon Pool property, and the access road in the back, to
have service traffic coming that way so that one could avoid some of
the traffic going in and out directly onto Route 13. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that she does not remember the Board talking about the
wetland, because they did not know how large it was at that time.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that maybe everyone should consider, perhaps,
re- routing both that road and the water and sewer, based on the new
information. Ms. Hoffmann stated that'the ERC wondered whether the
Town generally wants to accept, own, and maintain, wetlands, or
whether the`Town would like to have the developer own and maintain
them. Ms,. Hoffmann stated that the ERC felt it was inappropriate at
this time, before all this extra information is known, to even ask
for an EIS; more information has to be� provided first.
.Ms. Jacobs stated that the project has been in the works for two
years, and they have worked with the Engineering and Planning
Departments to get the proposal to where it is now. Mr. Herrick said
that the high power over-head line has created a lot of problems for
the proposal, i.e., in terms of what land can be used and where
..buildings and roads can be located, JlMr. Herrick said that given
"this" distance "here" and location of the powerline, and all the
other parce,`ls that have been developed'iiover the last 25 years, it, in
some ways, locks up what can be done in terms of road layout. Mr.
Herrick felt that it is going to be pretty much the present corridor
for future road extensions. Chairperson Grigorov asked if one could
drive along the road now, with Mr. Forman saying that one can drive
along a portion of it, then there is a point where there are tar
hills.
Mr. Frantz, referring to the site ,constraints that Mr. Herrick
had raised, said that he felt many of the constraints that are being
faced today are the direct result of the decisions of the Mancinis,
as far as their decision about how they were going to subdivide off
those individual parcels and sell them'; adding, they should work with
what they have essentially created'!. Ms. Jacobs responded that she
has a hard time suggesting that; either the Boards were irresponsible
at that time approving the lots, o'r Mr. Mancini was irresponsible.
Mr. Frantz noted that, up to two years,,ago, prior to the subdivision
of the Axenfeld parcel, and the parcel to Mr. Bell for the warehouse,
there was an opportunity for the Mancinis to provide access to the
rear of the property in a location that was much, much, better and in
conformance with the required 600 feet1between intersections of the
Subdivision Regulations, Mr. Frantz stated that a better location
would have been along the south side of the Bells' Convenience
If
•
•
•
PLANNING BOARD
Store. Ms. Jacobs said
the boundary lines exist
that the
and they
(15)
past is the past;
are trying to work
chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the
Board for discussion.
August 6, 1991
the limitations of
within that.
Public
spoke.
matter
Hearing and
Chairperson
back to the
Stephen Smith stated that he has a problem with the phasing of
the road because, when the Board was looking at the warehouse
structure, they did not envision that road becoming the primary
access and dedicated to the Town. Mr. Smith stated that he
envisioned that road being a temporary access until the back access
road was built, adding that as far as phasing goes that should be the
first phases the one that connects onto Five Mile Drive.
Ms. Hoffmann wondered if that 'IT" section, Phase I, is the one
that becomes a public road, and the parcel with the larger part of
the wetland becomes an open space for {ithe Town. Ms. Hoffman wondered
how the public has access to the open space; there is no public road
leading all the way to it. Ms. Hoffmann said that it was discussed
earlier at the ERC meeting.. Mr. Herrick noted that there is a piece
of delineated wetland that, basically, Mr. Mancini has no intentions
of doing anything with, and legally he cannot at this point; he has
delineated property that he can no longer develop. Mr. Herrick said
that if it 'is an area that has any benefit to any of the Town
residents in terms of its. uniqueness or natural habitat, there is
an opportunity to leave it as such forever. Chairperson Grigorov
again mentioned that,if it is unbuildable land, it is not part of the
10 %. Mr.. Frantz stated it was for !p.ublic park and recreational
purposes. Mr. Frantz stated that the area was looked at as being
part of the 10% park and open space] dedication, adding that the
recommendation is, essentially, that it not be accepted as that
dedication ,because it is not really usable by the public for park and
open space' purposes. Mr. Frantz noted that there is no real access 11
to it; it is right along a public road and portions of it are
actually within the road right -of -way; there is no place for the
public to even pull off to enjoy the area, but a few people could
drive by it and look at a wetland. Mr. Frantz, referring to
educational uses, noted that Larch Meadows is across the road which
already has a developed trail developed by the State Park, Mr.
Frantz said that the Mancini land is another postage stamp piece, of
park and "open space that both the Planning Board and Town Board have
been expressing concern about the continued acquisition of these very
small pieces of land of limited "use to the Town. Mr. Herrick
wondered if park and open space was really a concern at all with
Light Industrial. Mr. Frantz answered, yes, from a long -term
planning standpoint the Mancini parceli�is 85.5 acres of land, and
there is a potential of roughly M to 100 residential houses being
built on the parcel at some point in the future. Mr. Frantz noted'
that as the Town grows, parks will become increasingly important to
the residents of the Town. Mr. Frantz said that one idea discussed
by staff was to simply consolidate it with Lot No. 2.
PLANNING BOARD
(16) August 6, 1991
• Mr. Forman suggested that a restrictive covenant be put on the
wetland that simply says it will not "be built on. Mr. Herrick
responded that that can be considered. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she
would like to make sure, on Lot No. 2, the area where the stream
runs, it is very important that the part in and near the stream not
be filled. Ms. Jacobs agreed with Ms., I
s.` Hoffmann. Ms. Jacobs said
that there are conditions when the'permit is granted, one of them
being that one cannot hinder the flow into the wetland area.
Ms. Hoffmann, directing her question to Town Engineer Dan Walker,
wondered if the proposed water and sewer lines have been let to bid,
or is it possible there could be some changes? Mr. Walker responded
that the Contract has been awarded as of August 1, 1991, and this is
a change in the construction contract.i, Mr. Walker offered that the
Town has all the easements necessary. Ms. Hoffmann wondered about
the part that runs across the wetland, whether that could be
changed. Mr. Walker replied, effectively, no; no fill would be
placed above the ground line; the amount of fill taken out would be
replaced over the pipes. Ms. Hoffmann stated that right now, it
being dry, is not a good time to judge it, and some experts have
delineated the wetland to be included in that area where those water
and sewer lines cross. Mr. Walker said that there would not be a
long -term disturbance of the surface, there are no manholes in the
wetland and the water and sewer lines are both about five feet below
the surface. Ms. Hoffmann felt that that option should be left open
until it is determined how important the wetland is; that is not
• known yet. Mr. Frantz stated that is;the reason why he recommended a
Positive Determination of Environmental Significance and that an
Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.
Mr. Kenerson stated that the Board should have some assurance
that there is something being done about the exchange of property
with Mr. Stevenson. Attorney Barney noted that, under the terms of
the Subdivision Regulations, the area is not in compliance with the
prior subdivision.
Eva Hoffmann referred to Part I, Page 2, of the Environemental
Assessment Form. Ms. Hoffmann noted that the description of action
refers to Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -2.2 which is the whole big parcel,
including the land in the back, Lot No 1 and Lot. No. 2, adding that
it then talks about Parcel No. 31, 3 -4. Ms. Jacobs clarified that
that was a boundary lot change, adding; "this" lot right "here" is an
existing lot, and currently there is a road going in there; he has
been given permission by Mr. Mancini for ingress and egress onto
"this" existing road "here ". Ms., Jacobs said that to simplify
matters Mr. Mancini is willing to sell Mr. Stevenson the piece of
land and change the boundary line to include that .12 acres of land.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
• MOTION by Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Stephen Smith.
PLANNING BOARD (17) August 6, 1991
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca P1
is Hearing in the matter of the Manci
Change be and hereby is adjourned sine
developer /applicant to present some ad
At this time, Attorney Barney a
on behalf of Mr. Mancini, for thei
matter. Mr. Herrick responded that
Board feels is necessary to make an in
then Mr. Herrick felt there is no
Barney responded that there is an opti
consent, in which event the Board
determination concerning the environm
Frantz has made, adding that th
Declaration,is an Environmental Impact
that the only benefit the EIS might h
a scoping session all the issues are b
expense involved in getting the re
said that the EIS would deal with this
it may be mitigated during the cou
Mr. Herrick, said that he cannot make a
EIS without Mr. Mancini's approval.
willing, at this point, to concede to
further additional information is pr
like to come back before the Board as
nning Board, that the Public
i Subdivision and Boundary Line
die, to allow time for* the
itional information.
ked Mr. Herrick and Ms. Jacobs,
consent in adjourning this
f there is information that the
ormed decision on the matter,
ption but to consent. Attorney
n, you can say no, I don't
can then proceed to make a
ntal recommendation that Mr.
next step from a Positive
Statement. Mr. Herrick said
ve is that when it gets down to
ought out, but there is an
orts together. Attorney Barney
particular proposal, except as
se of the environmental review.
decision that it go into an
Mr. Herrick stated that he was
djourning this proposal until
vided, commenting that he would
oon as possible.
• Attorney Barney stated, for the record, that the adjournment is
with the consent of the applicant. Mr. Herrick and Ms. Jacobs agreed
to the adjournment.
There being no further discussion,lthe Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson, Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Mancini
subdivision and boundary line change duly adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ;SUBDIVISION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL 1.9 + /=- ACRES
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 56- 4 -1.2, 21.1 +/-
AT 120 BURNS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT 'R -15.
11 RICHARD E. SWEET JR., OWNERS /APPLICANTS.
APPROVAL FOR THE
IN SIZE FROM TOWN OF
ACRES TOTAL AREA, LOCATED
JEAN M. SANDERS AND
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 9:21 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Sweet addressed the Board and stated that
40 a piece of property that the Town had subdivided
property by the new Burns Road, which created a
Sweet stated that he proposes to construct a single
I�
they had purchased
from the other
subdivision. Mr.
family dwelling.
PLANNING BOARD
(18)
August 6, 1991
• Chairperson Grigorov asked about thje access. Mr. Sweet responded
that the access would come off the old 'Burns Road.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing andljbrought the matter back to the
Board for discussion.
Robert Kenerson asked about the total acreage. Mr. Sweet
indicated on the map the 1.9 acres, and the new Burns Road. Mr.
Sweet said that across the road is the other 20 acres that used to be
part of the property until the Town put in the new Burns Road.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the Environmental Review
Committee had any comments concerning the proposal. Eva Hoffmann
responded, no, they did not have time to discuss the issue.
Mr. Kenerson asked about the impact on the rest of the area. Mr.
Sweet said that the other property, on the other side of the new
Burns Road, is owned by Nut Tree Associates. Mr. Sweet, pointing to
the appended map, said that "this" is the new Burns Road, "this" is
the old Burns Road, the pump station is right "here ", the driveway
would come in "this" way for approximately 100 feet, and the house
would be located in "this" area right "here ". Ms. Hoffmann wondered
where the wetland .area is located. Mr. Sweet said that there is a
stream that runs down through "here" and comes "this" ways it is a
• large gully. Mr. Sweet offered that,- although they bought the 1.9
acres there is over one acre that can never be used for anything.
Mr. Sweet indicated on the map where the water and sewer already
exists.
There--appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer "a motion.
MOTION by William Lesser, secondedpby Judith Aronson:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration „of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a parcel 1.9 +/- acres in size from Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 56- 4 -1.2, 21.1 + /- acres total area,
located at 120 Burns Road, Residence District R -15,
29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public
reviewed the Short Environm
applicants, an environmental
prepared by Planning staff
• Lands of Sidney R., Martin G.
Burns Road - Town of Ithaca
Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
ental�Assessment Form prepared by the
assessment of the proposed action
a survey map entitled "Portion of
Kenneth E., and Eric F. Nusbaum -
Tompkins County New York ", prepared
•
•
'PLANNING BOARD (19) August 6, 1991
by Kenneth A. Baker, L.S., dated
application materials.
4. Planning staff has recommended a
environmental significance.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
May 31,
negative
1991, and other
determination of
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make
determination of environmental significance for this
proposed.
a negative
action as
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 Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of
proposed subdivision of a parcel
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 56- 4 -1.2,
located at 120 Burns Road, R15.
Subdivision Approval for the
1.9 +/- acres in size from Town
21.1 + /- acres total area,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board,,-acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
August 6, 1991, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the
applicants, an environmental assessment of the proposed action
prepared by Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Portion of
Lands of Sidney R., Martin G., Kenneth E., and Eric F. Nusbaum -
Burns Road - Town of Ithaca - Tompkins County New York ", prepared
by Kenneth A. Baker, L.S., dated May 31, 1991, and other
application materials. '
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board.
• 2. That the Planning Board grant ;and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision as shown on the
plat entitled "Portion of Lands ofd Sidney R., Martin G., Kenneth
PLANNING BOARD (20) August 6, 1991
E., and Eric F. Nusbaum - Burns Road - Town of Ithaca war Tompkins
County New York ", prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, L.S., dated May
31, 1991, subject to the following''conditions•
a. That the subdivision plat be revised to show the actual
utility rights of way and other easements which exist on the
property before signature of the plat by the Chair of the
Planning Board and filing with the County Clerk.
b. That the area of this subdivided lot be included in the
calculation of park and open space dedication for any
further subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 6- 56- 4 -1.2.
There being no further discussion,iithe Chair called for a vote.
Aye- Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay- None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision by Jean M. Sanders
and Richard E. Sweet Jr. duly closed at 9:28 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 33- 3 -1.21
5.68 + /- ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO THREE PARCELS, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF SEVEN MILE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET SOUTH OF ITS
INTERSECTION WITH BOSTWICK ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. FINGER
LAKES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, OWNER; Rr JAMES MILLER, ESQ., AGENT.
'Chairperson - Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 9:29 „p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Attorney James Miller, of True,gWalsh and Miller, addressed the
Board and stated that they are representing Finger Lakes Management
Corp. which is a real estate holding company of Citizens Savings
Bank. Attorney Miller said that the survey map before the Board
shows two parcels that were owned by Millard Brink and surveyed on
August 26, 1986, along with approximately 80 acres on the other side
of the road. Attorney Miller said that when the survey was prepared
in 1986 Mr. Brink offered all three parcels to various neighbors,
adding that only one parcel, Parcel 1, was sold to the Ridalls in
1986. Attorney Miller noted that that was done without any
subdivision approval. Attorney Miller noted that they were asked to
prove ownership of Parcel No. 1, and that it be considered for
subdivision approval. [Letter of proof of ownership attached hereto
as Exhibit No. 3.]
Attorney Miller offered that in 1987 Citizens Savings Bank
• purchased the 80 acres on the other side of the road, plus the two
acres of Parcel 1, noting that Parcel 2, and Parcel 3 are part of the
total acreage.
PLANNING BOARD (21) August 6, 1991
• At this point, Attorney Miller introduced George Gesslein, of the
Citizens Savings Bank.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion.
Eva Hoffmann stated that the Environmental Review Committee had
reviewed the proposal. Ms. Hoffmann said that the committee did not
know that Lot No. 1 was already ,sold and it was a different
situation. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she understood now why it is
noted on the application that 2 building lots would be subdivided.
Attorney Miller offered that Citizens Savings Bank only owns Parcel 2
and Parcel 3, and they were asked by Assistant Town Planner George
Frantz to secure a letter from the Ridalls with respect to Parcel No.
19 Ms. Hoffmann stated that one of the comments from the ERC was
that it would be nice to cut down on the number of driveways from the
parcels, because Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 would have to have very long
driveways, Parcel 1 has its own driveway. Ms. Hoffmann thought it
would be nice to consolidate driveways, if there were a driveway
coming in on the 60 -foot strip between 'Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, which
would be shared, rather than having curb cuts and a lot of
driveways. Ms. Hoffmann noted that the other comment was that it
seems as if most of the land is wooded, and the ERC would like to
propose that the Planning Board ask to;have as many trees as possible
• remain.
Attorney Miller agreed with Ms,lHoffmann in that it is a wooded
area, and, obviously, it would be for residential purposes, adding
that if anyone wanted to build up there and would be interested in
IL
keeping the wooded nature it would only add to the attractiveness of
any houses put up there. Attorneyi!Miller said that they certainly
could suggest to a buyer that they keep the wooded nature. Ms.
Hoffmann commented that it is the idea that trees are very useful and
critical to the environment in general: Mr. Kenerson wondered about
the slope. Mr. Gesslein responded that there is a flat spot on top,
and most of the trees are secondary growth, there are very few large
trees. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she was concerned about the
panhandle and not just casually waiving the frontage requirements,
panhandle developments is kind of a precedent. Mr. Frantz stated
that it is'R -30 so the frontage requirement is 1501. Attorney Miller
stated that he understood there is a variance that is being applied
for. Mr. Gesslein stated that he thought these are nicely laid out
flag lots; it is a way to accomplish the job in a deep area, and have
a minimum of road frontage which cuts down on the amount of water and
sewer hookup. Mr. Gesslein said that the plans were drawn before the
bank bought the property. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not
understand how the lots could cut down on water and sewer hookup.
Mr. Gesslein responded that in designing a development one uses this
sort of lot configuration so there can be more houses in a narrow
• area. Mr. Gesslein stated that flag lots are used, typically, in
higher density areas. Mr. Frantz said that flag lots are actually
used in some areas to preserve agricultural land, because the good
PLANNING BOARD (22) August 6, 1991
• land tends to be close to the road, and there is a narrow wide strip
of land to the hill behind. Mr. Frantz noted that in this case it is
a way of efficiently placing two houses on the land without requiring
additional road frontage, and, of course, water and sewer lines.
Chairperson Grigorov said that it was an alternative to making a Town
road. Mr. Frantz said that this type of development also limits the
number of houses to be built on the parcel.
Ms.
Hoffmann
stated that another
question brought
up at the ERC
meeting
was -- What is the reason
for having
the frontage
requirement?
Mr.
Frantz responded
that this month's
Planning
Magazine
discusses
that, but it does not
give the reason.
Mr. Frantz
offered
that the
whole concept of 150'
wide lots, 200'
wide lots,
100' wide
lots in
zoning regulations
throughout the
country are,
essentially,
based
on a vision of the
early twentieth
century on how
a city /town should develop.
William Lesser stated that when he considers recommending some
sort of variance he likes to see an exchange -- some benefit to the
Town. Mr. Lesser noted that it appears the lots proposed are quite
large lots, and the alternative which he would assume the applicants
would have the right to do would be to construct a road for any more
dwellings on the parcel, adding that he cannot see there would be any
great benefit.
Judith Aronson wondered if there were any advantage to sharing
• the first driveway between Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No. 2, so that
there would not be three cuts along the road. Mr. Gesslein responded
that he did not see how that could be done because they do not own
Parcel No. 1. Mr..Frantz said that the proposal is for three new
driveway cuts on Seven.Mile Drive, adding that at this point in time
Seven Mile'Drive is a lightly used road.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she understood that there may be some
negatives from a certain point of view, but she thought that one also
has to look at the positive effects on traffic in certain locations,
and, on the environment, because fewer trees have to be cut down, and
less area paved, adding that one has to weigh those things.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by William Lesser:
WHEREAS:
19 This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of three parcels from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6- 33- 3 -1.2, 5.68 + /- acres total area, located 'on the
west side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 660 feet south of its
intersection with Bostwick Road, Residence District R -30.
PLANNING BOARD
(23)
August 6, 1991
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
U Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the
applicant, an environmental assessment of the proposed action
prepared by Planning staff, comments by the Environmental Review
Committee of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, a
survey map entitled "Survey for Millard A. and Lucille Brink,
Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York ", prepared
by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., dated August 26, 1986, and
other application materials.
4. Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
(• Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Robert Kenerson.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of three parcels from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6- 33- 3 -1.2, 5.68 + /- acres total area, located on the
west side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 660 feet south of its
intersection with Bostwick Road, Residence District R -30,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
August 6, 1991, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the
applicant, an environmental assessment of the proposed action
prepared by Planning staff, comments by the Environmental Review
Committee of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, a
survey map entitled "Survey for Millard A. and Lucille Brink,
Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York ", prepared
U by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., dated August 26, 1986, and
other application materials.
PLANNING BOARD (24) August 6, 1991
OTHEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board.
2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision as shown on the
plat entitled "Survey for Millard A. and Lucille Brink, Town of
Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York", prepared by
George C. Schlecht, P.E . , L. S. , dated August 26, 1986, subject to
the following conditions.
a. Approval of any required variances by the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals .
b. That there be minimal disturbance of the two small
watercourses located on these parcels and that seasonal
water flows not be diverted.
C. That the area of the three lots hereby approved, 5 . 68+/-
acres, be included in the calculation of park and open space
dedication for any further subdivision of Tax Parcel No.
6-33-3-1 . 2.
Eva Hoffmann stated that she would like to know where the two
small watercourses are located. Mr. Frantz, pointing to map, stated
that one runs along "this" property line, and one crosses the road
"here" and actually cuts across in "this" direction, adding, it is
anticipated that a culvert would have to be installed for driveway
access to "this" property.
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.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Consideration of the Finger
Lakes Management Corporation subdivision duly closed at 9 : 59 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-60-1-17 ,
1 .3+/- ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO TWO LOTS, .74+/- AND . 56+/- ACRES IN
SIZE, LOCATED AT 138 HONNESS LANE, RSIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 . HUNNA
JOHNS, OWNER; CHARLES JOHNS, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above-noted matter duly opened at 10:00 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
PLANNING BOARD (25) August 6, 1991
Attorney Edward ,Mazza addressed the Board and stated that. he was
representing both Hunna and Charles Johns.
Attorney Mazza stated that Hunna Johns owns both lots in
question, currently one lot, adding that there is a structure located
on the front part of the lot. Attorney Mazza offered that Charles
Johns is working with his father, Hunna, in that they would like to
build a single family home on the rear part of the lot. Attorney
Mazza noted that Charles Johns currently manages the five -unit
dwelling for his father, Hunna, which is located on the front part of
the lot. Attorney Mazza said that Charles Johns wants to reside in
the proposed single family home so that he would be closer to the
five -unit dwelling that he manages.
Attorney
Mazza noted that the lot
is
surrounded on
the
west
and
the north by
lands of Cornell, which
is
undeveloped,
adding
that
John
Perialas owns
land to the east. Attorney
Mazza said that
the
lot
is
in an R -15
District and the rear
lot
would be 32,382
sq.
ft.,
and
would have a
20 -foot strip coming off
Honness
Lane for
access.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion.
Judith Aronson wondered if the parking in the front lot would be
• used by the back lot. Attorney Mazza replied, wherever the house is
built there would be a driveway. Ms. Aronson wondered if this would
mean expansion of the current parking area. Attorney Mazza said that
a shared driveway would be used part way, then the driveway would
continue bank to the single family home.
William Lesser wondered if the multiple residence structure was
grandfathered. Attorney Mazza answered, yes.
Chairperson Grigorov noted for the record that everyone on the
Board had viewed the site.
Virginia Langhans wondered where the trail was located in
relation to the proposal. Attorney Mazza responded that it is just
on the other side of the drive. Chairperson Grigorov wondered what
is between the trail and the driveway, and how much space. Mr. Johns
replied that there is approximately 20' of space, with bushes about
10' -15' high. Mr. Johns stated that the trail cannot be seen from
the apartment house. Mr. Johns also noted that no one would be able
to see the proposed house; Cornell is behind it; it cannot be seen
from the trail; Perialas will probably get a glimpse of it, and the
neighbor directly across the street will not be able to see it. Mr.
Johns stated that after he planted some trees between the two lots he
did not think anyone would be able to see it.
• Mr. Lesser, directing his comment to Mr. Frantz, wondered if
there were any way in which density on such grandfathered lots can be
evaluated. Mr. Frantz responded that he had suggested to Mr. Johns
•PLANNING BOARD
(26)
August 6, 1991
to come before the Planning Board. Mr. Frantz said that, originally,
•
it was before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a variance to
allow the construction of a single family home on the lot, adding
that he had prepared an environmental assessment on that request, and
in that assessment he had expressed his concern that that may not be
a very good precedent for the Town to set. Mr. Frantz noted that a
more appropriate mechanism would be the proposed type of
subdivision. Attorney Mazza stated that the proposal was before the
Zoning Board of Appeals on March 27, 19910
At this point, Eva Hoffmann stated that if one considers all the
lots east of the Johns property up to Pine Tree Road, she would guess
they are all the same size, or close to it. Mr. Johns responded that
he did not think it was fair to guess. Town Engineer Dan Walker,
referring to the map before the Board, noted that the lot
immediateley east of the Johns' property is 1.5 acres and 200' in
depth, the next lot is the same depth and approximately 100' in
width, the adjacent lot is one acre and 330' in depth and about 150'
wide; the next lots up are all approximately 100' wide and about 200'
in depth. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she wanted to make the point that
the density on the lot just east is much greater than on the other
lots along that road to the east, and she would think probably across
the road from it.
Stephen Smith stated that he had a little problem with the long
panhandle. Attorney Mazza stated that he thought it is not that out
is of character with the density that was originally planned by the
Zoning Ordinance, it is just coming about in a different manner. Eva
Hoffmann stated that she would prefer to see more dense development
planned in a different way than this, she would not like to see
density happen this way. Ms. Langhans-stated that if this proposal
were a one -shot deal it would not be bad, but she thought it would
open up a kettle of fish and others would take the same initiative
and open up the back, and maybe they would not want to put a single
family; maybe they would want to put a two - family. Chairperson
Gri•gorov offered that it would set a precedent. Ms. Langhans noted
that it only has the 20' driveway.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by William Lesser:
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the
proposed subdivision
1.3 +/- acres total
in size, located at
Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 60 -1 -17,
area, into two lots, .74 +/- and .56 +/- acres
138 Honness Lane, Residence District R -15,
2. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
• reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an
environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the
Assistant Town Planner, a proposed plat entitled "Preliminary Map
PLANNING BOARD (27) August 6, 1991
• to Show Proposed Division of the Hunna Johns Property, 138
Honness Lane ", prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E., L.S., dated
June 4, 1991, and other application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the Planning Board hereby denies preliminary approval to the
proposed plat entitled "Preliminary Map to Show Proposed Division of
the Hunna Johns Property, 138 Honness Lane ", prepared by Howard R.
Schlieder, P.E., L.S., dated June 4, 1991, and in connection
therewith makes the following findings:
1. The proposed subdivision would create a lot with only 20 feet of
frontage on Honness which is well below the minimum frontage of
100 feet normally required in the R -15 zone.
29 There is already existing on the lot (before subdivision) a
five -unit apartment house which is three units more than
permitted per lot in the R -15 zone. The granting of subdivision
approval would have the effect of allowing a five -unit house on a
lot of approximately 24,000 square feet, or a density of more
than nine units an acre in an area where no more than 4.4 units
per acre is generally allowed.
3. Reduction of the lot area on which the five -unit house is located
would be equivalent to enlarging (by increasing the per acre
• density) an already substantial non - conforming use.
4. If the subdivision were to be permitted, an-additional two units
might be constructed creating seven units or, if deed
restrictions were imposed limiting the additional lot to only one
unit, six units, thereby resulting in 5.2 units per acre, still
in excess of the normal 4.4 units per acre.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Aronson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
At this time, Charles Johns approached the Board and commented
that he thought it was a little bit ridiculous to have to wait five
months, one hour and fifteen minutes, to get a simple answer like he
got; the process is very slow. Mr. Frantz responded that the SEQR
application is dated July 8, 1991. Chairperson Grigorov pointed out
that Mr. Johns was including the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Frantz
stated that if he does not have the application he cannot consider
it.
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the Consideration of Subdivision
Approval for the Hunna Johns two -lot subdivision duly closed at 10:25
p.m.
•PLANNING BOARD
(28)
August 6, 1991
• PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION OF THE LOT LINES
OF TOWN OF IT CA TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -27 -1 -27.3, 59 +/- ACRES TOTAL AREA,
TO INCREASE THE REAR YARD DEPTH OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOT A 451
SHEFFIELD ROAD, AGRICULTURAL ZONE. JAN H. AND SUSAN J. SUWINSKI,
OWNERS /APPLICANTS.
•
is
Chairperson Grigorov declared
the
Public
Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 10:26
p.m.
and read
aloud from the
Notice
of Public
Hearings
as posted
and
ago that
published
present at
and
as noted above.
There
being no one
present to
speak to the above -noted Public
Hearing, Assistant
Town Planner
George
Frantz addressed
the Board.
Mr. Frantz stated that
Mr. Suwinski
had informed him
a long time
ago that
he would not be
present at
tonight's meeting,
however, Mr.
Frantz felt
that it was a
simple enough
matter that
it was not
necessary to hold off until September 1991.
Mr. Frantz said that he has spoken to Mr. Suwinski several times
about the matter, and that he has been out to his home, adding that
he thought if there were any questions he could answer them.
Mr.
Lesser
wondered
if he understood -it correctly, in
that there
is a lot
of
land, but the
house is on a separate parcel,
and Mr.
Suwinski
wants
to expand
the house size because there was
an addition
to the house,
and the house
is conforming to all the requirements;
it
is just
an
exchange of land
from one holding to another.
Mr. Frantz
responded, right.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion.
Mr. Frantz stated that Mr. Suwinski's attempts to secure a
building permit have been complicated by the fact that, although he
and his wife legally subdivided off the lot back in the 701s, and
legally filed it with the County Clerk's office something happened
and the Assessment Department has never shown it on their tax maps.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Judith Aronson.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of a Modification of the Lot
Lines of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -27.3, 59 +/- acres
total area, to increase the rear yard depth of the existing
residential lot at 451 Sheffield Road, Agricultural Zone.
PLANNING BOARD
(29)
August 6, 1991
• 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an
environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the
Assistant Town Planner, a survey entitled "Survey For Jan H. and
Susan J. Suwinski", prepared by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S.,
dated June 27, 1991, and other application materials.
4. The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
• MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Judith Aronson:
WHEREAS.
19 This action is the Consideration of a Modification of thelLot
Lines of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -27.3, 59 +/- acres
total area, to increase the rear yard depth of the existing
residential lot at 451 Sheffield Road, Agricultural Zone.
29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
August 6, 1991, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
39 The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 6, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an
environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the
Assistant Town Planner, a survey entitled "Survey For Jan H. and
Susan J. Suwinski ", prepared by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S.,
dated June 27, 1991, and other application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
• Approval to the proposed Modification of the Lot Lines of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -27.3 to increase the rear yard depth of
the existing residential lot at 451 Sheffield Road, as shown on the
'PLANNING BOARD (30) August 6, 1991
• survey entitled "Survey For Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski", prepared
by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., dated June 27, 19910
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.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of a
Modification of the Lot Lines re Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski duly
closed.
APPROVAL OF EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1991.
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that the Excerpt from Minutes of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board Meeting of March 5, 1991, be and hereby are approved
as distributed.
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - .DECEMBER-4, 1990
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Stephen Smith.
RESOLVED, that
the
Minutes of
the Town
of Ithaca
Planning Board
Meeting of December
4, 1990,
be and
hereby are
approved
as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Langhans, Aronson,
OTHER BUSINESS.
It was the consensus of
Board Meeting on August
planning process and various
no public hearings schedu
scheduled for 7:30 p.m. at
Mecklenburg Road.
• ADJOURNMENT
the Board to have an informal Planning
27, 19919 The Board will discuss the
other topics at the meeting. There are
led for the meeting. The meeting is
the home of Robert Kenerson - 1465
=2Rwl►Ikip WON :%3df:iyJ
(31)
August 6, 1991
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the August 6, 1991,
•
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:00
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
•
•
.7
n
u
,t
A
!7
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035
Memorandum
ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747
To: Members, Town of Ithaca Boards and Committees
From: Floyd Forman, Town Planner *� t
Subj: Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives
July 25,1991
ZONING 273 -1747
Attached is a revised draft of the goals and objectives chapter for the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Planning Committee (CPC) and
staff have considered the comments made on the first draft and worked to
incorporate them. At it's meeting last night the CPC approved this draft for
circulation and comment by members of the various Town boards and
committees. We also welcome the thoughts and ideas of other Town officials
who are receiving the draft.
Please submit any comments which you may have in writing. to the Planning
Department no later than Friday, August 9, 1991. If you have any questions,
Please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you.
Atch.
Copy: Planning Staff
Ron Brand, Planning Consultant
Susan Beepers, Graphics Designer
Dan Walker, Town Engineer
Andy Frost, Building and Zoning Officer
John C. Barney, Esq., Town Attorney
Scott McConnell, Town Highway Superintendent
Rich Schoch, Town Parks Manager
Mary Call, Tompkins County Board of Representatives
Beverly Livesay, Tompkins County Board of Representatives
Deborah Dietrich, Tompkins County Board of Representatives
File (7/23/91 CPC)
JC :7/24
4 e! FX W
.f:
C
•
5
1 f 4. Ot i
DRAFT
Chaptfr III
The formulation of clear, concise, and well - considered goals and objectives is an im ortant
part of the comprehensive planning process, -as is the development of proposed strategies
and actions far accomplishing thein. Taken together, these statements constitute the heart
of the Co prehensi
rr ve Plan.
"Goa.ls and objectives represent the plan's statement of community desires. Goals and
objectives give direction to the pla.rr. They represent the community's aspirations and
outline the ends that should be reached if the plan's proposals are properly
implemented:" { The Practice of Local Government Plannin Intl City l+ g mt.'Assoc.
(IC MA), Chicago, 1988)
What are gLials and objectives? The ICI A defines goals as "value -based statements that
are not necessarily measurable" and objectives as more specific, measurable statements of
desired ends";
Broad goal(s) for each category are set out in itafws and are followed, immediately 17 '0 the
vanous;objectivest to be Bret on the way toward achieving the stated goals The ;objectives
are phrased to take a farm which completes the sentence:: "The objectives are to have... ":
Fuiftther, each objective is followed by a list of recommendations (strategies,,.actions,:
policies, projects, programs, etc.) for its accomplishment.
This section has been organized into seven broad functional categories; Conservation,
Growth Ivlaina.gement, Housing, Institutiont, the Economy, Transportation, -and Public
Utilities and Services.
[Notes: (1) The objectives now more closely follow the IMI definitions. The active
phrasing used in earlier drafts has been changed, resulting in objectives that are actually
"desired ends" However, they are still not very. measurable. Maybe the latter problem can
be dealt with after the plan takes shape, during the adoption process, or even later in the
process of its regular review and readoption. W. This draft focuses only on the recasting
and reorganization of the previous draft goals and objectives statements. As yet they are .
wt.followed by lists of strategies, actions, policies, etc.... Gil Comments on the first draft
regarding the "philosophy "behind the goals and objectives were well received by the
Comprehensive Planning Committee TM. Nis the intent to put such a narrative on
overall or guiding philosophy at the very beginning of the .plan document. The
introductory chapter, which has been drafted and approved preliminarily by the CPC, will
be revised somewhat in order to accomplish this.)
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91 Page 1
ZF&, - /
•
e
Be
Goals �o 4;mprove the conduwn of the eavironmment and to preserve andprotect at from
c{e�rac{czt��n.
The objectives are to have... _
1) Protection for natural resources, open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and
unique natural areas.
z) En- -ironmental impact as Line -of the primary factors in the system of land use
classification and re alation.
3) Future development channeled toward areas that are least likely to be harmed,
4) Minimal impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and drainage problems,
5,• Identification and rerriediation of hazardous waste sites.
6) Protection and improvement of water and air Tiality..,.
r) Intermunicipal cooperation for the protection of-shared-natural resounes.
8) Fair distribution of the costs of providing open space.
9,) Increased conservation of water and enei y. ,
t L. GROWTH i71L]NAGEWEEN j a o
' A
Coral:
To shc�pe and ixyrove the qua& y o f the & envtrontneht by rrzana yu?g growth so as to
provide forthe neec&of Vownspeopfe and mcuritainthe character4of the Vown.
r �•
rM
1) Land use, development, and environmental regulations which are in accordance.
with the plan.
idelines for the various land use decisions made by Town boards.
2) Criteria and/or gu
(ie. specific criteria for site plan review and subdivision review and broad guidelines
for variances and rezonings.)
3) Performance standards for new development.
•
Coals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7 /24/091 page 2
��/'/ 41 V4t/
•'
Growth Management (Cont'd)
4) Limitations on unnecessary and inefficient dispersion of people and development .
• (sprawl)
5) tk development pattern with densities that justify conveniently located shops and -
- areas of employment and/or that facilitates ready access io existing shops and
employment,
6) Limited mixed use development in certain areas.
7) Land use decision making processes that take into consideration the unique
characteristics of different geographic areas,
Retention of beneficial open space.
9) Minimization of adverse environmental impacts,
10) Efficient use of.infrastructure and comrriunityfa.cilities,
11) Creative, efficient, and attractive plans and,designs for all development, which are
also compatible with or enhance their surroundings.
12) Well- C.esigned_physical and visual transitions between different land uses to
Minimize land use conflicts.
13) An increased comnierciaba.nd industrial property tax base without creating a. burden_
on public services, infrastructure, or the environment:
14)- Mcantenance and improvement of the built environment, including protection of
historic structures and sites. Adaptive reuse of structures where appropriate,
15) Fair distribution of development costs.
16) Signs which are attractive, informative, and not visually hazardous,
1 7) Lighting which is safe, energy efficient, attractive, and not visually annoying.
18) The City of Ithaca remain ;& strong core for the community,
3. HOUS G and RESMDENTIAL LAND USE.
GmIs. T'opromote to ctva fabdt&!�a of diverse, * i q *, affordabCe, and attractive places for.
people to wve.
The Omecfives ate to have...
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91 Page 3
4es7l'h' . /
•
Housing (cont'd)
1� A variety of housing styles and patterns of development to meet the diverse needs of -"
the community, -
2) Residential areas that have desirable attributes (eg. quiet, clean, low traffic, low
vehicle speeds, safe, abundant vegetation, etc,),
3 j Preservation and enhancement of the character of established neighborhoods,
4) Creation of opportunities for affordable housing,
5) Provision for customary and reasonable home occupations while guarding against
the creation: of nuisances,
1 • r I ; r
Goal: To er,,eo rafje � coritYn: c vita Y of wca�ir ,.ititiorz wf work�p4e cooperative' to
earitrof the atru1wtt, 65eatun, gate, density, sca e, safe aru attracti erz ss of institutionai
a a r • a ; OF
1) . Provisions in Town land use and development regulations specifically for
• institutional uses and activities:
-- - 2) = Communication and cooperation between the Town and;thervarious local
institutions,
3; Long-range institutional development plans integrated with other,plans for
development in the Town,
4), Educational institutions provide residential areas to support the needs "of students,
faculty, and staff as part of their long -range planning,
5) Enhanced public access to institutional resources.
�M• 1 41TI)OOID011
Goal: To pror ote a. stable arui dtverse beaf ecorz my.
The objectives are to have...
11 A wide variety of employment opportunities for residents,
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91 Page 4
�X1.4t /
•
•
0
Economic Development (Cont'd)
2) The encouragement of local (ownership and management of business.
(b) LDRflvffRa
Goal: To provider a t rr,�ded n :.�r ber of srr of sca& ne ghborhooc_� oriereed commerciat areas -
'� ht1 ch acre safe and attractive.
1 Sinall -scale commercial areas that are set back from public highways, have good
circulation, are well-landscaped (to provide buffering, shade, and character)., and of
an architecture vrhich enhances the character of the Town.
(Note for the information of people revievaring this draft: See, enemIllyT, Dealing
With Chan.$,, . in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Consenrat'
ion
and Develo- omeat. Specifically,, consider the ideas and graphics presented in Section
Two of the manual regarding "creative development" of specific sites. A case dealing
with commerria.l development appears on pp. 60 -69. Another commercial site
example is discussed on rap 92 =1031. See also the section beginning on page 173
entitled ''Managing Commercial GrroWth�Along Roadways
".J
2) General redesign approaches for existing commercial areas which work to achieve
s ,the.:same ends as outlined above for new development,
-3) Commercial areas located so as not, to: adversely impact surrounding residential
neighborhoods..
4).. Commercial areas located so as to.meet present. neighborhood needs and those
anticipated in the future.
(c) AGRURTM
t' al: To enhance agricuLlouraf v:abi u a £preserve agrrcuLwraf &znd resources.
♦ r �+ ;
1� Land use and development regulations.which address the special needs of farmers,
including provisions which stipulate that farming activities take precedence over
other uses in areas designated for agriculture.
2) A reduction in the potential for major development in areas designated for
agricultural uses.
3) The discouragement of the conversion of productive agricultural land to other uses.
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT .7/24/91 Page 5
F)I
•
C
•
Agriculture ' ( or i t' d)
4 Agricultural practices which minimize contamination of the environment, soil
erosion, and surface water runoff,
5) A renewed and diversified agricultural sector.
Goal: u irm rer a n areas or- w z -i trusive fit inda t.t c tzdlig - o f e oar � e e ? „ r :�z
carckr to provide ci s;arie o f eqt mint op- pottar ad increase the tma base.
1 Small =scale industrial and/or office park development that is set back from public
highways, s, has good- circulation, is well- landscaped (to provide buffering, shade, and
character,, and of an architecture which enhances the character of the Town.
2) General redesi g i approaches for existing industrial and /or office development which
work to achieve the same ends as outlined above for new development..
Industrial and /or office park development located so as not to adversely impact
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Goal: o ro rcr�• artation system t rs safe, of f -tent, conver:ient, are£env ronmerul
resvons7b&.
r_�-r� •_�.� - ttrr•-
1 } - A reduced need far cars in the greater Ithaca area through development of a
diversified transportation system which emphasizes more fuel- efficient forms of
transportation, such as public transit, bicycling, and walking.
2) Improvement of the transportation netrrrork.
3) Appropriate accident prevention 'strategies.
4) Minimal negative impacts on people and the environment from traffic, road
maintenance and construction, noise, exhaust, etc.
5 . Future development designed so as to minimize adverse impacts on roadway
efficiency and safety.
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91 Page 6
,E _1h /w A/
• Goal: Tdo pro^;tde pubic az.Li Les and serve ces that effkient4l meet prese � .+zee&andad cipate
6x z;: ar a +ze. eds of resz&e s.
1) A s'rrstem to assess, prioritize, and finance public works and ser., ices.
2) Adequate, appropriately located, and well- maintained Town facilities.
3) Proper maintenance of all publicly owned facilities and equipment.
4) Joint development of utilities, facilities, and services with other municipalities
and /or - institutions. wherever mutually beneficial and practical.
F) n active program to seek State, Federal, and other outside funds to help pay for
public works and services,
Goal: to provide high -q aktz{p b6c ut6 es at reasorabCe cost.
• The objectives are to have...
} 1) Public utilities located in accordance with the various tgoals and objectives of this
plan,
2) A strong commitment to examining the possible. impacts on.existing development
and the potential for future. development'when considering the construction of new
or expanded public utilities.
3) A Townwide stormwater management! pm am,.
4) Drinking water provision and waste water treatment which are of high quality, high
efficiency, and reasonable cost, I .
r�
u
5) Streetlights included as part of the infrastructure normally constructed by developers
where the scale and density of projects dictate,
(b) PUBLIC SAFM
Goal: 7Fx protection o f peop& and their property.
The objectives are to have...
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91 Page 7
Public Safety (Gont'd)
is 1) High- TIality fire.$ police, and other public safety services and facilities.
2) Communication between public safety providers and the community; including
development of public safety education programs,
3) Prevention measures that minimize the need for such emergency services.
Goal: Zfj �7t'{)4'ttE aCt'- eSSdb�B ►A;:f�• L�:t'Ctt:vt$'G' t�G�t" i�12i� i�t4lerSt? t "ecreczt.�ittct� C7+�7CitttS.
1 1
The objectives aie'to have...
1) An integrated system of parks throughout tree Town, including undeveloped open
space as one component, with linkages as feasible between various parts of the
system (eg• pathways, stream corridors, trails, utility} rights -of -way, etc.).
2 i requisition and development of suitable park lands and recreational facilities.
(d) MUCATION
.Goal:
The oh'edives am to have...
1) Lands reser r.Ted for public school expansion in planning future development.
2) Communication and cooperation with education providers.
3) Neighborhood schools that can double as community centers,
(e) SCUD WA M MANAGEMENT
Goal: To erg -ure e ide -2t and responsibCz managenwnt of so&d waste
1) Reduced generation of solid waste.
2) Increased reuse and recycling.
3) Improved and expanded municipal composting.
•
Goals -and bj ectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91
Page 8
do
l
Public Safety (Gont'd)
is 1) High- TIality fire.$ police, and other public safety services and facilities.
2) Communication between public safety providers and the community; including
development of public safety education programs,
3) Prevention measures that minimize the need for such emergency services.
Goal: Zfj �7t'{)4'ttE aCt'- eSSdb�B ►A;:f�• L�:t'Ctt:vt$'G' t�G�t" i�12i� i�t4lerSt? t "ecreczt.�ittct� C7+�7CitttS.
1 1
The objectives aie'to have...
1) An integrated system of parks throughout tree Town, including undeveloped open
space as one component, with linkages as feasible between various parts of the
system (eg• pathways, stream corridors, trails, utility} rights -of -way, etc.).
2 i requisition and development of suitable park lands and recreational facilities.
(d) MUCATION
.Goal:
The oh'edives am to have...
1) Lands reser r.Ted for public school expansion in planning future development.
2) Communication and cooperation with education providers.
3) Neighborhood schools that can double as community centers,
(e) SCUD WA M MANAGEMENT
Goal: To erg -ure e ide -2t and responsibCz managenwnt of so&d waste
1) Reduced generation of solid waste.
2) Increased reuse and recycling.
3) Improved and expanded municipal composting.
•
Goals -and bj ectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91
Page 8
r,
n
U
•
Solid Was Management (Gont'd)
4) Decreased littering and illegal dumping,
(f) HUMAN SMVK M
Goal:. To foster and .zprove the avatfabdity of hm maan Ser^4l es-
1 The provision of human ser ices to those with speci
*r al needs,
2) Improved handicapped accessibility to all non- residential facili #ies in the ToV,Trt,
3) Hi h- quality and affordable day care services and facilities for children and the
elderIV,
45 Cor2 munitj centers for neighborhood use developed cooperatively betTe%Teen
residents and the Town,
5) High- quality and affordable healthcare services and facilities.
Goals and Objectives -- DRAFT 7/24/91 Page 9
7
ft
• Y
I
t
v
•
•
0)
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1747
TO: Planning Board members
FROM: George R. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner
DATE: July 31, 1991
RE: Proposed subdivision of 1°lancini property, Elmira Road.
The staff recommehdatic
proposal by Mancini Real
No. 6- 33- 3 -2.2, into
subdivision approval for
the proposed subdivision
has concluded that the p
including:
n to the Pi
ty to subdivi
five parcels
the project .a
plat as submi
roposal is de
anning Board regarding the
de Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
is that the Board deny
s proposed. After reviewing
tted by the applicant, staff
ficient in a number of ways,
1. The proposed plat creates a parcel between the proposed "60
ft. Wide Reservation for Possible Future Town Road " and Tax
rarr_ei No. 33 -3 -2.7 (Axenfeld, R.O.) which would be
developable only by filling in the wetland which covers much
of the parcel. Staff recommends that the applicants be
required to submit a plat which incorporates the wetland area
into a parcel which is large enough and confi -guyed in a manner
that would allow it to be developed in a manner which would
ensure the viability of the wetland.
2. The applicant has not complied with the conditions set forth
in the resolution approving the subdivision which created Tax
Parcel No. 6- 33 -3 -2.7 (Axenfeld, R.O.) dated March 7, 1989,
and the resolution approving the subdivision which created Tax
Parcel No. 6- 33 -3 -2.8 (Bell warehouse) dated August 1, 1989, _
both of which require that the developer address the issue of
public park and open space dedication as required under Sect.2
of'the Subdivision Regulations,
3. The location of the "Proposed 50 ft. Right of Way 'T' to be
Deeded to Town" does not comply with Sect.23, Para.7 of the
Subdivision Regulations, which require a minimum of 600 feet
between intersections on primary thoroughfares such as Elmira
Road. As proposed on the plat there is only approximately 435
feet between the intersection of this proposed Town road and
the intersection of Elmira Road and Five -Mile Drive (NYS Rte.
13A) . Site distance looking south along Elmira Road from this
intersection also appears to be inadequate.
4. Site distance
inadequate.
looking north from proposed lot 1 appears to be
1 V
V ,
In
anticipation
of
the possibility that
the Planning Board
would
decide
that the plat
as submitted does merit
consideration,
staff
has
prepared
an environmental
assessment
for the proposed
action.
Given
potentially large impacts to the
wetland area
and
local
traffic
patterns,
our recommendation to the Planning Board is
that
a positive
determination of significance
be made for the
proposal,
and
that
an environmental
impact statement
be prepared
to address
the
issues
raised
in the environmental assessment
prior
to further
consideration
of
the project.
Draft resolutions for this proposal were not completed in time for
this mailing. They will be available at the meeting Tuesday
evening. - - --
is
•
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
I
am the
owner of
Parcel I shown on a survey map dated
August 26,
1986
by George
Schlecht.
I consent that Parcel I be considered for subdivision
approval.
Date: August 6. 1991
CAROL RIDALL
z5X, &/,/, ;e,0. 3