HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-01-07.,, FILED
l TOWN Of ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Date JV 2
Clerk
JANUARY 7, 1992
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 7, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker,
Stephen Smith, Judith Aronson, Dan Walker (Town Engineer),
Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town
Planner), John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Gertrude Emerson, Muriel Bonnett, Florence VanNortwick,
V. Cropf, Vera L. Cropf, Alicia Lewkowicz, Noel Desch,
John Desch, Cynthia Bouldin, Jerry Weisburd, Lee
Schafrik, Tony Ciccone.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30
P.M. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on December 30, 1991, and January 2, 1992,
respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the
properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the
City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County
• Commissioner of Planning, upon the Manager of the Finger Lakes Region
of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation,
upon the Resident Engineer of the NYS Department of Transporation,
and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on December
31, 1991.
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 segment of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 3.0 +/- ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 6- 29 -7 -11, 9.8 +/- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED.ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF ELM STREET EXTENSION, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. SANDRA L. HERNDON
AND DOUGLAS TREADO, OWNERS /APPLICANTS.
Assistant
pointed out the
stated that the
a separate lot;
Street. Mr.
Town Planner George
proposed subdivision
applicant proposes
Frantz approached the Board and
on the appended map.
to subdivide the 3.0 +/-
the lot
will
have
89.8
feet
of
frontage
Frantz
said
that
the
applicant
plans
single - family home.
Mr. Frantz
acres into
along Elm
to build a
Planning Board
-2-
January 7, 1992
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to comment.
Mrs. VanNortwick of 513 Elm St. spoke from the floor and wondered
how many houses there would be and where they would be situated on
the lot. Chairperson Grigorov answered that there would be one house
on one lot.
Gertrude Emerson of 505 Elm Street asked about public utilities
to the lot. Town Engineer Dan Walker responded that both water and
sewer are in place, and it is the responsibility of the owner to hook
up to his house.
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
Stephen Smith inquired about placing a restriction on the Deed
for only one house on the lot, and if that was really necessary. Mr.
Forman said that Mr. Treado may sometime in the future want to
subdivide and sell the property as more than one parcel.
Mr. Frantz said that under the new guidelines the CAC
Environmental Review Committee did not review the project; it is not
a Type I action and it is not contiguous with the critical
environmental area or natural area. Mr. Smith wondered what happens
• with the remaining lot. Mr. Frantz responded that there is a house
on the lot.
There appearing to be no further discu -ssion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a
motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 3.0 +/- acre parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6- 29 -7 -11, 9.8 +/- acres total, located at 501 Elm
Street Extension, Residence District R -15,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on January 7, 1992, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the
applicant and an environmental assessment of the proposed action
prepared by the Assistant Town Planner, a proposed plat entitled
"Map Showing a Portion of Lands of Douglas S. Treado and Sandra
L. Herndon ", dated November 6, 1991, prepared by Milton A.
Greene, L.S:, and other application materials.
Planning Board -3- January 7, 1992
4. The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
• determination of environmental significance for this action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
•
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION By Stephen Smith, seconded by Judith�Aronson.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 3.0 +/- acre parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6- 29 -7 -11, 9.8 +/- acres total, located at 501 Elm
Street Extension, Residence District R -15.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
January 7, 1992, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on January 7, 1992, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the
applicant and an environmental assessment of the proposed action
prepared by,the Assistant Town Planner, a proposed plat entitled
"Map Showing a Portion of Lands of Douglas S. Treado and Sandra
L. Herndon ", dated November 6, 1991, prepared by Milton A.
Greene, L.S., and other application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
19 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 for the proposed subdivision
acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 29
acres total, located at 501 Elm Street Extension,
plat entitled "Map Showing a Portion of Lands
Treado and Sandra L. Herndon ", dated November 6,
by Milton A. Greene, L.S., subject to the following
of a 3.0 +/-
-7 -11, 9.8 +/-
as shown on the
of Douglas S.
1991, prepared
conditions.
Planning Board
-4-
January 7, 1992
• a. Approval of any required variances by the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals.
b. There shall not be any further subdivision of the subject
three -acre parcel.
c. Before any building permit is granted on either parcel, the
Town Engineer shall approve the location of any structure
and plans for drainage to assure that there will be no
adverse impacts on the adjoining parcels.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Final Subdivision
Approval for the Sandra L. Herndon /Douglas S. Treado Two -Lot
Subdivision duly closed.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 3.0 +/- ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL N09 6 -46 -1 -15.2, 71.55 + /- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST SIDE OF CODDINGTON ROAD, SOUTHEASTERLY OF ITS INTERSECTION
• WITH BURNS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. NOEL AND JANET DESCH AND
MONTGOMERY AND ELEANOR MAY, OWNERS; NOEL DESCH, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Desch addressed the Board and appended maps to the bulletin
board.
Mr. Desch stated that his son wants to build a house on the lot
that he is requesting subdivision approval for. Mr. Desch said that
roughly a three acre parcel is being subdivided from a very large
parcel. Mr. Desch commented that he did not know exactly where the
house will be sited on the lot, but the unit will have frontage on an
existing public road, and the house will be placed in the area of an
existing open field which has not been farmed for over 20 years.
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.
Attorney Barney stated that in looking at the tax maps there are
two chunks of frontage, one being 60 feet on Coddington Road and one
• 50 feet on Updike Road. Attorney Barney mentioned the creation of an
illegal lot, because the big lot has inadequate frontage at this
juncture; it is an R -30 zone and theoretically it is supposed to have
x
Planning Board -5- January 7, 1992
• 150' of frontage. Mr. Desch commented that the only way to get
around that would be to do a further subdivision on some part of a
public road, which he obviously wants to avoid doing. Attorney
Barney inquired about moving the southeasterly boundary line back a
little bit to the northwest, and, instead of making a three -acre
parcel make it to reserve at least the minimum frontage there. Mr.
Desch responded that in terms of using the particular parcel in the
best quality way would be to lay it out as it is presented, and have
the house "here" with the driveway out to Coddington Road.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz commented that the applicant
is setting up two possible scenarios in that, (1) the applicant wants
to build one house on the large parcel of land; they would have to
secure a variance to build one house on the large parcel of land
because there is not the minimum required road frontage. Mr. Frantz
said that the second possibility would be to go in at some future
date and lay out a road along the 60' strip of land to make it a
public road. Attorney Barney commented that it is illegal for the
Board to grant a subdivision that does not have adequate frontage in
the absence of a variance. Mr. Desch said that in reality a house
could not be built right "here" without any subdivision approval,
adding, his feeling is that they have not changed anything by
subdividing "this" lot off; they are recognizing simply that a
subdivision will be required to be filed and approved prior to any
additional subdivision.
• Chairperson Grigorov noted, for the record, that-she walked the
site today.
At this point, Ms. Lewkowicz of 702 Coddington Road spoke from
the back of the room and stated that she has a concern about a
drainage ditch. Mr. Desch responded that the sole purpose of the
ditch is to keep the water table low.
There appearing
to be no
further
discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were
prepared
to offer
a motion.
MOTION by Judith
Aronson,
seconded
by James Baker.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 3.06 + /- acre parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6 -46 -1 °15.2, 71.55 + /- acres total, located on the
southwest side of Coddington Road, southeasterly of its
intersection with Burns Road, Residence District R -30,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on
January 7, 1992,
has
• reviewed the Short Environmental
Assessment Form
and
an
environmental assessment of the proposed
action prepared
by
the
.1
Planning Board -6- January 7, 1992
• Assistant Town Planner, a plat entitled "Map of Survey. Parcel
of Land to be Conveyed by Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. &
Montgomery May ", dated October 31, 1991, prepared by Robert E.
Russler Jr., L.S., and other application materials.
4. The Assistant
Town Planner
has recommended
a negative
determination of
environmental
significance for this
action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is
the
Consideration
of
Subdivision Approval for the
• proposed subdivision
an
of a 3.06 + /-
acre
parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.
6 -46
-1 -15.2, 71.55
+ /-
acres total, located on the
southwest side
of
Coddington
Road,
southeasterly of its
intersection with Burns 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
January 7, 1992, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on
January 7, 1992,
has
reviewed
the Short Environmental
Assessment Form and
an
environmental assessment of the proposed
action prepared by
the
Assistant
Town Planner, a plat entitled
"Map of Survey. Parcel
of Land to
be Conveyed by Noel & Janet G.
Desch and Eleanor P.
&
Montgomery
May ", dated October 31, 1991,
prepared by Robert
E.
Russler Jr.,
L.S., 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.
0
Planning Board -7- January 7, 1992
2. That the
Planning Board
grant
and hereby does
grant
Final
Subdivision
Approval to the
subdivision
as
shown
on the
plat
entitled
"Map of Survey:
Parcel
of Land to
be Conveyed
by
Noel &
Janet G.
Desch and Eleanor
P. &
Montgomery
May ",
dated October
31, 1991,
prepared by Robert
E.
Russler Jr.,
L.S.,
subject
to the
following
conditions.
a. Approval of on -lot water and sewer facilities by the
Tompkins County Department of Health, prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
b. The granting of any required variances by the Zoning Board
of Appeals, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the Noel and Janet Desch and Montgomery and
Eleanor May subdivision duly closed.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION OF THE LOT LINES OF
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 25 -2 -18, -19, AND -20, 0.15 + / -,
0.26 + / -1 AND 0.47 + /- ACRES IN SIZE, RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 881 -883
TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD (NYS RTE. 89), RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. JEROLD
WEISBURD AND SIU -LING CHALOEMTIARANA, OWNERS; JEROLD WEISBURD,
AGENT.
Mr. Weisburd addressed the Board and stated that his request was
for a new submission and has no bearing on what was before the Board
in July. [July 2, 1991s]
Mr. Weisburd said that the reason he has abandoned the former
submission was because of the response of the Town; the Environmental
Review Committee of the Conservation Advisory Council voted against
the project because it created additional non - conforming lots. Mr.
Weisburd noted that the Planning Board, although it gave approval,
obviously had some members that did not approve it, and put
restrictions on the non - conforming lot. Mr. Weisburd said that he
also appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals in August and they
placed further restrictions on the action, but the motion technically
failed because only three members were present. Mr. Weisburd stated
that he, along with the Chaloemtiaranas, and another party, have a
desire to have fully conforming lots without restrictions, adding,
for that reason they have come back with a proposal that creates two
fully conforming lots where there is now one non - conforming lot and
one conforming lot. Mr. Weisburd stated that, essentially, they are
• asking that the Town review the issue as two separate actions; one
action is simply concerning the original Site #2 and Site #3.
Pointing to the map, Mr. Weisburd said that they want "this" line
Planning Board -8- January 7, 1992
'9
between Site #2 and Site #3 adjusted to "here ", so that both Site #2
• and Site #3 are 100% conforming. Mr. Weisburd said that, in fact,
there will be some land that could be considered extra, or leftover
land. Mr. Weisburd said that they are asking in the first action
that they secure approval for the adjustment of "this" line to create
two fully conforming lots, adding that, obviously, that action does
not require subsequent action by the ZBA, so any action the Planning
Board and the ZBA might take on Site #1 in a negative way will not
affect the two sites and the people lined up for houses on those
sites.
Mr. Weisburd, referring to Site #1, said that, essentially, in
the second request they are asking for one of two things -- either a
variance on Site #1 as it exists now to allow them to have less than
15 -foot side yards, or, allow them to add some land which Site #2 has
in abundance, to Site #1 which would leave Site #2 still fully
conforming, but it would allow Site #1 to have a house on it in such
a manner that' would not require side yard variances. Mr. Weisburd
said that in regard to the question on Site #1,'he believes there are
two ways to look at it -- one is the common sense planning way. does
it fit with the °neighborhood; what sense does it make to have the lot
in that location, and, secondly, the technical question -- does there
exist a right on Site #1 as it presently stands.
Mr. Weisburd said
that,
first,
the question as
to
how
it fits.
Town Planner Floyd
Forman
asked
Mr. Weisburd
if he
was
asking the
• Planning Board to give him a two -lot subdivision (Site #2 and Site
#3) and leave'; Site #1 alone, or is the Planning Board being asked to
give approval on a new three -lot subdivision -- a new Site #3, a new
Site #2, and a new Site #1? Mr. Weisburd responded that he chooses
none of the above; he is asking for an adjustment of "this" lot
line. Mr. Weisburd noted that that is a subdivision. Mr. Weisburd
stated that, one, he is asking the Planning Board to allow him to
move "this" line to create two new lots, and, two, to allow Site #1
to be built upon, either through a variance of side yards, or by
allowing the fine to be adjusted. Mr. Forman stated that the
Planning Board cannot grant that variance; they have to make one
determination or another. Mr. Forman wondered if Mr. Weisburd were
asking the Planning Board to say to the ZBA -- give him approval to
do either /or on Site #1. Mr. Weisburd stated that he is trying to
avoid having the Planning Board give him approval for one and the ZBA
give him approval for the other. Mr. Weisburd said that he would
prefer, from the; Planning Board, if he had his fantasy, to give
approval for all of them, and then the ZBA would decide.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there was a problem voting on two
different things. Attorney Barney answered that he does not have any
difficulty with the proposition of dealing with "the first two lots as
a separate subdivision, but he does have a little bit of a problem
dealing with the third lot in the alternative -- it is either one way
or the other. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the Board could vote
first on changing the lot line and then make a separate vote for the
other. Attorney Barney, directing his question to Mr. Weisburd,
asked Mr. Weisburd if he would refresh his memory about the existing
Planning Board
-9-
January 7, 1992
lines in that, which two came together and which one came
separately. Mr. Weisburd, indicating on the map, stated that "this"
came separately and "these" two came together. Attorney Barney noted
that as it stands today, the lower lot is owned by one person, and
the northerly two lots are owned by a different person. Mr. Weisburd
agreed with Attorney Barney. Mr. Weisburd stated that there is a
partnership that exists between both parties. Attorney Barney noted
that, in effect, it is really the southerly parcel asking for
subdivision to allow a piece to be added to the northerly parcel.
Attorney Barney offered that the Board could probably go ahead and
vote on the two different issues in that fashion if they wanted to.
Chairperson Grigorov commented that the Board could vote on the first
question and then have another vote on the second. Mr. Forman stated
that it obviously makes some sense on "that" line between Site #2 and
Site #3 to have ,a vote this evening, but wondered if it made more
sense to go to "the ZBA, ask them what they want, and come back to the
Planning Board for subdivision approval, because whatever decision is
made here may; be the wrong one in terms of the ZBA. Mr. Forman,
directing his comments to Attorney Barney, wondered if Mr. Weisburd
would lose any rights if the Planning Board re- subdivides that and
goes to the further southerly lot line between Site #1 and Site #2.
Mr. Weisburd asked if he needed a recommendation from the Planning
Board in order to go to the ZBA. Mr. Forman said that his concern
was, if the Planning Board says that it would make more sense to do
something like "this ", then "this" would be Site #1 in the end. Mr.
Forman wondered, in a case as mentioned above, would Mr. Weisburd
lose any kind of rights from a pre- existing non - conforming lot going
to the ZBA with that new configuration. Attorney Barney replied, no,
because the granting of that configuration itself has to be
conditional on ZBA approval because a variance has to be filed on
that third lot.: Mr. Weisburd wondered if a plan has to be filed
before it becomes effective. Attorney Barney responded, yes, but in
terms of the procedure it is not valid because the third lot is not a
conforming lot, and there has to be ZBA approval of the
non - conforming., Mr. Forman wondered if he was right in that Mr.
Weisburd does not lose anything by asking for the larger lot for Lot
#1, then going to the ZBA for a variance.
Mr. Weisburd asked Chairperson Grigorov if the Board would go
ahead and take care of the two. Attorney Barney stated that the
Board is not obliged to do that; the Board may do that if they so
choosek, adding' that the application relates to all three lots.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz noted that he had recommended to
the Board that they approve the modifications to all three lots
tonight and grant preliminary subdivision approval. Mr. Frantz said
that it would be contingent upon ZBA approval of any required
variances. Chairperson Grigorov said that Mr. Weisburd wants to be
assured of two lots. Mr. Frantz stated that regardless of how the
Board does it Mr. Weisburd has to appear twice before the Planning
Board, Chairperson Grigorov wondered why. Mr. Frantz said that Mr.
Weisburd is asking for approval tonight for Lots #2 and #3, then if
• he gets the ZBA variance or at least the go -ahead to modify Lot #1,
he would still have to come back to the Planning Board, Chairperson
Grigorov commented, not if it is approved contingent on the ZBA
Planning Board -10- January 7, 1992
approval. Mr. Frantz stated that he is proposing to grant
preliminary approval to the modifications to all three lots
contingent upon'ZBA approval. Attorney Barney noted that it makes
more sense because a whole package is being looked at, and if
approval is granted for the two southerly lots,.it is being done kind
of in the abstract, not knowing what is going to happen with respect
to the third lot and it may or may not impact on what the Board feels
the second should look like. Mr. Weisburd said that, obviously, if
he gets approval for all three lots it is a moot point, but if it
does not carry can he then say -- how about these two? Attorney
Barney responded, yes. Mr. Weisburd stated that he loses nothing by
doing it that way. Mr. Frantz agreed with Attorney Barney and Mr.
Weisburd, adding, if the ZBA says no, then Mr.1 Weisburd returns to
the Planning Board to get approval for the two lots.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions.
Lee Schafrik, of 1491 Trumansburg Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that he is an officer in the West Hill Neighborhood
Association. Mr. Schafrik stated that he would read aloud two
letters from people who could not attend tonight's meeting. One
letter was from Mrs. Schafrik -- Mr. Schafrik.stated that he would
provide a copy of the letter, for the record, on January 8, 19929 At
this time, Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed some of the issues
that were contained in the letter. Mr. Forman, addressing the Board
process, stated that proposed resolutions are written out for the
Planning Board so that they can look at it over the weekend; the
Board packet was mailed on Friday, January 2, 1992. Mr. Forman
stated that he had informed Mrs. Gilbert once the packet was 'received
by the Board she was welcome to have the material, adding that he
gave Mrs. Gilbert the requested material on Monday, January 6, 1992.
The second letter read aloud by Mr. Schafrik was from Kyrs Cail,
President of the West Hill Neighborhood Association -- Mr. Schafrik
stated that he would provide a copy of the letter, for the record, on
January 8, 19920
[The two referenced letters are attached hereto as Exhibits A and
B.]
At this time, Mr. Schafrik added that it appears to him that it
is not who you are, but what you are in the community, and he thinks
it is time that everybody gets a fair shake. Mr. Schafrik stated
that there are three or four people to comment on this issue, but
they are out lof Town, and may have no indication of what is going
on. Chairperson Grigorov stated that some of the neighbors attended
prior meetings and were pretty well acquainted with the matter.
Tony Ciccone, of 885 Taughannock Blvd., spoke from the floor and
stated that he is directly affected by Site #1. Mr. Ciccone stated
• that he thinks the proposal is lousy; the area is very congested now
and most of the lots are undersized. Mr. Ciccone felt that with the
requested extra lot it is adding to the situation. Mr. Ciccone
Planning Board -11- January 7, 1992
stated that he, ',personally, cannot see any reason for doing that
other than if someone is trying to make some more money by building a
third lot to sell for themselves. Mr. Ciccone, referring to the
quality of life in that area, stated that he did not think the extra
lot adds anything to it. Mr. Ciccone said that he did not have a
problem at all with the two lots and the two buildings. Mr. Ciccone
stated that his problem is with the third non - conforming lot.
Chairperson Grigorov interjected that it is a legal lot. Mr. Frantz
said that there are already three lots, they are not creating any
more lots. Mr. Forman said that there are three non - conforming
lots. Mr. Ciccone apologized for using the wrong words. Chairperson
Grigorov stated that non - conforming does not mean that it is
illegal.
Mr. Weisburd said that he has tax bills for the lot in question,
and every year it has been assessed for full water and sewer, and,
obviously, it has been thought of as a building lot. Mr. Weisburd
showed photographs of adjacent lots. Board Member Aronson asked Mr.
Ciccone what hardship he would see if Lot #1 were to be built upon.
Mr. Ciccone answered, it would add to the congestion, number of
people, and traffic in the area.
Mr. Schafrik again addressed the Board, and stated that zoning
laws were set up for a reason, but thought that this is a chance to
make two perfectly legal conforming lots.
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this „matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
Attorney Barney stated that the Town Zoning Ordinance says that a
non- conforming lot at the time of enactment of the Ordinance may be
built upon. Stephen Smith asked if it was likely that the owner of
the non - conforming lot could claim hardship. Attorney Barney
responded that,'if someone comes in with this particular lot and
takes it to the ZBA, and can demonstrate with the existing side yard
requirements that one can't construct any kind of a meaningful
structure on it, and that lot was of record at'the time the Ordinance
was in effect, he (Attorney Barney) would be hard pressed to sustain
a denial of some sort of variance in court, if the ZBA took that
route. Attorney Barney stated that, what the variance might be,
commenting that there obviously is room for discussion there, is it
could be a reduction in side yard requirements to make it feasible on
an existing lot to build something, or it may be, depending on what
Mr. Weisburd wants to do with this, a variance to alter the lot
line.
Mr. Weisburd addressed the issues of fire and side yards. Mr.
Weisburd said that Mr. Ciccone just built a deck on his house which
extends very close to his (Mr. Weisburd's) property line. Mr.
Weisburd stated that he did not know why that was permitted, but it
seems to him that if one is coming before the Board and is saying he
wants to respect the 15 -foot side yard, then allow one to do that.
Mr. Weisburd stated that he was trying very much to work within the
Planning Board -12- 1 January 7, 1992
current code and the current zoning. Chairperson Grigorov asked
• about curb cuts. Mr. Weisburd responded that there is a curb cut
"here ", but there is no real curb there; there is an existing
entrance "here" and they want to make one much more gradual drive to
serve all threellots, there is an existing steep drive "here" which
they feel in all likelihood will not be used very much but it is good
to maintain simply as a secondary way of egress. Mr. Weisburd said
that because there is so much width he thought they could get a much
better access to a parking area than currently exists along
Taughannock Blvd. Mr. Weisburd noted that an easement would be
written up and that could be part of the final submission that is
presented. Chairperson Grigorov asked what the northerly lot is
assessed for. Mr. Weisburd replied, $33,000.00.
Mr. Frantz said that right now Lot #1 is forty feet wide, and it
would be good to add as much land to Lot #1, and make it as wide as
possible through this action in order to give the ZBA more leeway in
making a determination as to what is appropriate on the lot in terms
of reducing setbacks. Robert Kenerson, referring to the existing
cottage on the lot, noted that it will be torn down eventually.
Stephen Smith stated that the last time the issue was before the
Board there was "talk about accessory apartments:
Again, Mr. Frantz stated that if the Planning Board approves the
package of modification of Lots 2 and 3, and the modification of the
• line between Lots 1 and 2 -- preliminary approval tonight, then to
the ZBA, two things could happen; one, they could concur with the
Planning Board and grant the required variances, then back to the
Planning Board' with the final survey to secure final subdivision
approval. If the ZBA were to deny it then back;to the Planning Board
and seek the approval on Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Frantz stated that either
way, there are two Planning Board public hearings. Mr. Weisburd said
that he is aware of that. Mr. Frantz felt that this is the most
efficient way to go.
•
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer
any motions.
Attorney Barney
reading this when
Attorney Barney'said
site plan adding
resolution ought to
MOTION by Mr.
WHEREAS,
stated that he was having a little difficulty
the Board talks about the action as proposed.
that the action as proposed is this proposed
extra land as denominated to Site #1, and the SEQR
spell that out.
James Baker, seconded by Mrs. .Judith Aronson,
1. This action';is the Consideration of Modification of
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 25 -2 -18,
0.15 + / -, 0.26 + / -, and 0.47 + /- acres in size,
located at 881 -883 Taughannock Boulevard (NYS Rte,
the lot lines
-19, and -20,
respectively,
89), Residence
Planning Board -13- January 7, 1992
• District R -15, such proposed modification to result in three
parcels each 0.30 + /- acres in size.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on January 7, 1992, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an
environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the
Assistant Town Planner, a proposed plan entitled "Laketop Revised
Proposed Site Plan ", dated October 9, 1991, prepared by Jerold
Weisburd, Architect, and other application materials.
4. The Assistant
Town Planner
has recommended
a negative
determination of
environmental significance
for this
action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed (such proposal to include the addition to Site 1 from Site 2
of the area on the site plan denominated "Extra Land" (5,000+/ -
square feet).
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
• Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Aronson, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson.
WHEREAS:
1. This ac
of Town
0.15+/ -
located
District
parcels
tion
of
0
at 8
R-
each
is the Consideration of Modifica
Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6 -25 -2
.26 + / -, and 0.47 + /- acres in
81 -883 Taughannock Boulevard (NYS
15, such proposed modification
0.30 + /- acres in size.
tion of the lot lines
-181 -19, and -20,
size, respectively,
Rte. 89), Residence
to result in three
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
January 7, 1992, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning
reviewed the
environmental
• Assistant Town
Proposed Site
Weisburd, Arch
Board, at Public Hearing on January 7, 1992, has
Short Environmental Assessment Form and an
assessment of the proposed action prepared by the
Planner, a proposed plan entitled "Laketop Revised
Plan ", dated October 9, 1991, prepared by Jerold
itect, and other application materials.
Planning Board -14- January 7, 1992
THEREFORE, IT IS, RESOLVED.
• That the Planning Board grant and hereby does
grant Preliminary
Approval to the proposed lot line modifications as shown on a
proposed plan entitled "Laketop Revised Proposed Site Plan ", dated
October 91 11991, prepared by Jerold Weisburd, Architect, and
described in other application materials, subje,;ct to the following
conditions.
1. Approval of any required variances by the; Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals.
2. Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan for each lot, prior to the issuance of
any building permit for each lot.
3. That the area marked "Extra Land" (5,000 +/- square feet) be
added to Site 1 from Site 2.
4. That the lot shown as Site 1 be limited so that any construction
on that lot be limited to a single - family dwelling without any
accessory apartments.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Aronson, Smith.
. Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the consideration of
preliminary approval for the modification of the lot lines with
respect to the Jerold Weisburd and Siu -Ling Chaloemtiarana
subdivision duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER.
Town Planner Floyd Forman noted that the 1991 Planning Department
Annual Report was in the members packets and has been submitted to
the Town Board for its January 13, 1992 meeting.°
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that there are three proposed
local laws to be reviewed prior to going to the Town Board for
adoption.
Attorney Barney reported on a proposed Local Law Amending the
Zoning Ordinance Prohibiting Certain Uses in;Business Zones without
Special Approval.
Attorney Barney said that, at present, if one looks at the Zoning
Ordinance under Article VII, permitted uses are spelled out in each
of the zones A,B,C,D,E, and it has been proposed that some uses be
Planning Board
-15-
January 7, 1992
moved from being permitted as a matter of right to being permitted
• only as a result of a Special Approval by the Planning Board.
Attorney Barney said that one principal concern was the McDonald's
proposal on East Hill, and the other concern was the proposal for
Minnie's BQ on Elmira Road; the thought being that with these types
of activities there should be a more intense review, and also a
greater right to refuse than there is with just plain site plan
review whereby obviously one is limited and legally there is a little
bit of slippery ground if it is turned down` simply on a site plan
basis.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Stephen Smith seconded by Judith Aronson:
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law
Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Prohibiting Certain Uses
in Business Zones without Special Approval, as proposed. [Proposed
Local Law attached hereto as Exhibit #1].
There being!'no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov,''Kenerson, Smith, Aronson.
Nay - Baker.
• The MOTION was declared to be carried.
The next item for discussion was a proposed Local Law Amending
the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Requiring Plantings as Part of the
Site Plans for Business, Light Industrial and Industrial Uses.
Attorney Barney ,;stated that he felt the proposed Local Law is a
little too specific in terms of what government should really be
doing in terms of looking at site plans; right now the Board can
impose conditions which may be very specific or which may be very
general.
Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that he is trying to set some
requirements for landscaping; to put in trees and shrubs -- to put
them in both as `'buffering and to put them in parking lot areas. Mr.
Forman said that the proposed law would give guidance to the Board
and would give guidance to the applicant. Assistant Town Planner
George Frantz 'said that the proposed law would give the staff power
in making sure that the applicant produces the planting plan ahead of
time. Attorney Barney noted that guidelines are fine, and asked, but
why a law? Town Engineer Dan Walker commented that he felt it is not
the lack of regulation that is the problem; the approval process is
there for a development to be in compliance with it and the
enforcement of1 really looking at the plan and making sure that it is
a plan that is proper, and asking for more specifics before the final
approval is given, and making sure that that specific planting
schedule is provided before the building permit is issued. Ms.
Aronson stated` that she felt what it seems to be coming down to is
Planning Board -16- January 7, 1992
• the lack, currently, of a set of criteria that would make it clear to
prospective developers the various aspects of the areas which they
are developing that need to be addressed, as opposed to this very
precise proposed law. Ms. Aronson stated that she felt the proposed
law is too precise.
At this time', with respect to the matter- of the proposed Local
Law Amending 'the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to
Requiring Plantings as Part of the Site Plans for Business, Light
Industrial and Industrial Uses, the Planning Board this date, January
71 1992, decided that it would take no action with regard to a
recommendation to the Town,Board on said proposed local law, choosing
to defer such action to a later date, preferably its next meeting,
January 21, 1992. [Proposed Local Law attached hereto as Exhibit #2.]
With respect to the next item for discussion, Attorney Barney,
referred to the proposed Local Law pertaining to Agricultural
Districts and stated that presently in the Zoning ordinance the law
states that an Agricultural Zone is governed basically by the R -30
requirements, except it is not made clear that one of the R -30
requirements is that one cannot have more than one principal building
on a lot. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if cluster would still be an
option. Attorney Barney replied, yes, cluster is always an option.
Because Mrs., Aronson had left the meeting, a CONSENSUS was
requested by the Chair in the form of a STRAW VOTE.
' • RESOLVED, that it is the consensus of the Planning Board members
present this date, January 7, 1992, that the Town Board adopt the
proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to
Regulate the Number of Principal Buildings on Non - Agricultural Lots
in an Agricultural District, as proposed. [Proposed Local Law
attached hereto'as Exhibit #31.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a straw
vote.
•
Aye - Grigorov,IKenerson, Smith, Baker.
Nay - None.
The Consensus of those present was declared to have been achieved.
AGENDA ITEM: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE,
Town Planner Floyd Forman reported that implementation measures
are being dealt',, with, and the Committee is continuing with the
policies to implement the goals and objectives. Mr. Forman said that
growth management is being finished and housing and institutional
land use.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 21, 1991.
Chairperson,; Grigorov stated
taken care of at the next Planning
that the approval of minutes will be
Board meeting.
•
l •
•
Planning Board -17-
ADJOURNMENT
January 7, 1992
Upon
Motion,
Chairperson Grigorov
declared the
January 7, 1992,
Meeting
of the
Town of Ithaca Planning
Board duly
adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Of I t h a I a P 1-3 tl I^ i n r1 S Ivl E Y rs
l a
Aced c
04Z
U
T C 4J rl
p 0wR
SAN 1 419x2
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING ZONING ENGINEERING
As re's:L d =!'l't -I'i t'}:::& t i IIvJf''. -if
I ; I'l is =; . ',J'c i'1• =ff.`s = D rit+' r 1 7t_!° :_ 1 I'lI' u" Y' tl a
ab�1,_tt thle �l�il =.; ;,Urr0Utldirlg tl "t lrlll7 += P }dlr }q ctPPr 0W RI of ttl_
Pt
Wi esburd Lctk:- _tiz,p tLtbdi %V- ii s5i; on U
E:efl ire addre slrl the r1:11 -e s we• woLtId I i k :v t t :ss at s
P y =,rte � th;_. it i --
r1ur t_!1'ld: rSt atldi 1'1g 'F'hlat rl i'th't r" ;%}?? iritrit^ d1.. =!! w rlCighlb� Y .M �:! t%l +=
gen <_ra Y +_•side•nI:y X11• WY=st H111 wl]L, 1 d i:b•i^tlt •Fi: h }:a \lirlq ti4Ji: li:F
de`✓ s I I.-)ped a'- - _`rI_11ng .t;,, R1,5 rirgt -tl at i :: -Jns. o W '_• .:3Y -48� riot
Ili 1nllernrAd about the dwel l ings b :jai ng anything but
archlitect:uraliy ['?Iera�irlgo
Feg :a.rding th= Prllill +_�.s: Jart <_= r' Ilei.`,. d ;t. t11 fYo rit F' 'G +�ilbert
last Frid.--ty, 'which did riot get returned until Saturday" Pat had
rece6i\!+r•d her notice of the prl.-jp ,sed subdivis.i1_Irl anti h =.= trine cin
Thur• day t 1:=• _ f T- y .. It had b d b _ the
h _rld %JeRtlU i `' ,q:� +_ =n riia 1:_= +-.•fl7r -
holidays Ivut did not re•aCh hler until f`:: r t <:= Mew +.Y, Thl`;_L
T_ .�rl _ f f i- w _1u I d rl l ; r_✓ i d I - , a i t r y i f t l F'
Iit i _e i. t' iI`• r i i :iP I} h+=
ttnti1 i,ondav i= ift_r'i1 ot-i s .Left- t� th• :.I 4 - t' -
TF i hlvY hi t lly . 1 Fly ;,.r-s
vepar:= fitr tIII 1S rlleetinge Wh --n '_h} ?_ L) ".J =htc
•h t :.� :._ .t _ - - - 't- ��: ii .::.: .. r : t ' : i t" i : ;_: ` _ :.5 a , ..• r• : i , . F
i d..::__ _ . =r.::d thn� Y<::'s 44.t _r; ;al:,Pr _ Li a.. �Jy �''rl
drawn WHY HOLD A PUBLI1' ?:�'
I - iFAR,Ihl' Th is 1LAbdivis_ill,n into
1.7 'r: t 1+ I i:I i s w i t h n e 4' Il u t :a 1 r1 t Ill FT' I-I l_l t ' 1 is 11.. a. a 7. tl S t
the ro.L.sid IRA nt =_ f tht; Tr Iwn e Pry ='s d t s;_ n - the
in hleir re_r,, r_ =�, i- =�
Re— idetltls St r\!r.y and the toward a hInr,preilensive ''iarin
The I'.At'.* a re1cori'I!•it +_nded cinly tw 1 11_Its-. ;_�1th ILtgh ri,atl`f nY 1gh1b1iY'
hiaV tl ill tl —C 11 r! _Ir rift 1.1g I0tS '.Jh :L llh ri,USt StcRy • ►:, hv.t W, i.t di 1+ :•�v tli It
rr,ean that non—con fl_1'r-rrtirig 11!t•- Sh11_1L11d Il IntiI :IUe to be a }� 1r!i\ ed.
These neighlbors understand the restrictions 1 }f such ssrr,all lnt�:
and their irr,pact on the neighlbry — hood and e=nviranraent better than
arlyi1ne else ccluld,.
W a' a S I <: t I'l a t Ll b e= f ca i Y �? tl G'I �; 1 i : t Y r._� ..: ._ _ t_ I, , -
11 .'' '- -i.__i tl ,rl :iz F� yllirt4.:.
who w i sh t 't I. u a Plan .�., I a :_. . _ ., ._. - ._ . .1, � _ _ _
t hl e a I i 1.' ; a . I r t 1- = _ a T11-1:21% _i'w- rl r z
I:.rlt_t d 1'tillt Si- r? bUiiditlq_ Ur•t'�:i1 1i:1t:' Y' inth'i :J�lYlrlg I't '4J: ^.1 %y 5111 SLtIIhI
a delay wIl'.u1d n C,1`1 titUtEr r.:'.!'lp` hap- rd'_ihiipu
TI'l rr}1: y_I,-t 10 i yClUr CDrlsideieation..
Jane & LeE� SI-haf�'riik.,
EXH/IT -= Document purported to have been read from at the
January 7, 1992 Planning Board meeting.
T w-I
Hal l
S'erlµll_.
•`:_;t
y
•f .t.. t.. ......
11V
14
PS r -.'.
L'r�ar
h'leritber
�:�
l a
Aced c
04Z
U
T C 4J rl
p 0wR
SAN 1 419x2
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING ZONING ENGINEERING
As re's:L d =!'l't -I'i t'}:::& t i IIvJf''. -if
I ; I'l is =; . ',J'c i'1• =ff.`s = D rit+' r 1 7t_!° :_ 1 I'lI' u" Y' tl a
ab�1,_tt thle �l�il =.; ;,Urr0Utldirlg tl "t lrlll7 += P }dlr }q ctPPr 0W RI of ttl_
Pt
Wi esburd Lctk:- _tiz,p tLtbdi %V- ii s5i; on U
E:efl ire addre slrl the r1:11 -e s we• woLtId I i k :v t t :ss at s
P y =,rte � th;_. it i --
r1ur t_!1'ld: rSt atldi 1'1g 'F'hlat rl i'th't r" ;%}?? iritrit^ d1.. =!! w rlCighlb� Y .M �:! t%l +=
gen <_ra Y +_•side•nI:y X11• WY=st H111 wl]L, 1 d i:b•i^tlt •Fi: h }:a \lirlq ti4Ji: li:F
de`✓ s I I.-)ped a'- - _`rI_11ng .t;,, R1,5 rirgt -tl at i :: -Jns. o W '_• .:3Y -48� riot
Ili 1nllernrAd about the dwel l ings b :jai ng anything but
archlitect:uraliy ['?Iera�irlgo
Feg :a.rding th= Prllill +_�.s: Jart <_= r' Ilei.`,. d ;t. t11 fYo rit F' 'G +�ilbert
last Frid.--ty, 'which did riot get returned until Saturday" Pat had
rece6i\!+r•d her notice of the prl.-jp ,sed subdivis.i1_Irl anti h =.= trine cin
Thur• day t 1:=• _ f T- y .. It had b d b _ the
h _rld %JeRtlU i `' ,q:� +_ =n riia 1:_= +-.•fl7r -
holidays Ivut did not re•aCh hler until f`:: r t <:= Mew +.Y, Thl`;_L
T_ .�rl _ f f i- w _1u I d rl l ; r_✓ i d I - , a i t r y i f t l F'
Iit i _e i. t' iI`• r i i :iP I} h+=
ttnti1 i,ondav i= ift_r'i1 ot-i s .Left- t� th• :.I 4 - t' -
TF i hlvY hi t lly . 1 Fly ;,.r-s
vepar:= fitr tIII 1S rlleetinge Wh --n '_h} ?_ L) ".J =htc
•h t :.� :._ .t _ - - - 't- ��: ii .::.: .. r : t ' : i t" i : ;_: ` _ :.5 a , ..• r• : i , . F
i d..::__ _ . =r.::d thn� Y<::'s 44.t _r; ;al:,Pr _ Li a.. �Jy �''rl
drawn WHY HOLD A PUBLI1' ?:�'
I - iFAR,Ihl' Th is 1LAbdivis_ill,n into
1.7 'r: t 1+ I i:I i s w i t h n e 4' Il u t :a 1 r1 t Ill FT' I-I l_l t ' 1 is 11.. a. a 7. tl S t
the ro.L.sid IRA nt =_ f tht; Tr Iwn e Pry ='s d t s;_ n - the
in hleir re_r,, r_ =�, i- =�
Re— idetltls St r\!r.y and the toward a hInr,preilensive ''iarin
The I'.At'.* a re1cori'I!•it +_nded cinly tw 1 11_Its-. ;_�1th ILtgh ri,atl`f nY 1gh1b1iY'
hiaV tl ill tl —C 11 r! _Ir rift 1.1g I0tS '.Jh :L llh ri,USt StcRy • ►:, hv.t W, i.t di 1+ :•�v tli It
rr,ean that non—con fl_1'r-rrtirig 11!t•- Sh11_1L11d Il IntiI :IUe to be a }� 1r!i\ ed.
These neighlbors understand the restrictions 1 }f such ssrr,all lnt�:
and their irr,pact on the neighlbry — hood and e=nviranraent better than
arlyi1ne else ccluld,.
W a' a S I <: t I'l a t Ll b e= f ca i Y �? tl G'I �; 1 i : t Y r._� ..: ._ _ t_ I, , -
11 .'' '- -i.__i tl ,rl :iz F� yllirt4.:.
who w i sh t 't I. u a Plan .�., I a :_. . _ ., ._. - ._ . .1, � _ _ _
t hl e a I i 1.' ; a . I r t 1- = _ a T11-1:21% _i'w- rl r z
I:.rlt_t d 1'tillt Si- r? bUiiditlq_ Ur•t'�:i1 1i:1t:' Y' inth'i :J�lYlrlg I't '4J: ^.1 %y 5111 SLtIIhI
a delay wIl'.u1d n C,1`1 titUtEr r.:'.!'lp` hap- rd'_ihiipu
TI'l rr}1: y_I,-t 10 i yClUr CDrlsideieation..
Jane & LeE� SI-haf�'riik.,
EXH/IT -= Document purported to have been read from at the
January 7, 1992 Planning Board meeting.
•
lie
•
7JAN11992
no AL1.111 ^ 7F^ OF ITH --- --
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
1261 East Seneca St.
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Planning Board:
January 7, 1992
I was informed just today of.a proposal you
will be considering this evening to convert two
existing building lots and one lot ob less than
bui!l1dable dimension to three buildable lots. I am,
atithis time in no position to comment on the pro-
posded change of lot lines. However, I would like to
mention that this is the kind of proposal that has
generated great interest among neighbors and West Hill
Neighborhood Association members. One member contacted
me,; and indicated that the actual proposal was not
ava''•ilable to neighboring property owners until yesterday.
Obviously, neighbothood civic groups can not
convene without a reasonable notice that potentially
controversial proposals are to be considered. Should
youll decide to defer action on this proposal until your
nex,lt meeting, I will convene the Executive Committee of
W.H' +,.N.A., and bring a recommendation to you at that
meeting. Should you approve the proposal this evening,
it must be with the understanding that neighbors were
not,! provided the week or so we need to read details,
consider dispassionately, and provide you with the
local, West -Hill- specific viewpoint that is not currently
available from within your committee.
Sincerely,
Krys'Cail
President,
West Hill Neighborhood
Association
EXHIBIT B -- Document purported to have been read from
at the January 7, 1992 Planning Board meeting.
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW NO, OF THE YEAR 1992
A LOCAL LAW'', AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING, CERTAIN USES IN BUSINESS ZONES WITHOUT SPECIAL
APPROVAL
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as re- adopted, amended, and
revised, effective February ary 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows:
L Article VII; Section 32 is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 32. Business Districts `A'.
1. -Uses permitted in a Business District `A' shall be the following$
A. The following uses provided that the interior floor area is 10,000 square
feet or less:
• (i) Business or professional offices
(ii) Bank or other financial institution
(iii) Bookstore
(iv) Drug store
(v) Hardware store
(vi) Smoke Shop
I'.
Be The following uses provided that the area on which construction occurs on
the land is 10,000 square feet or less, (excluding underground utilities)
(i) Utilities
20 The following uses are permitted in a Business District `A' upon receipt of a
special „ approval from the Board of Appeals following a favorable
recommendation for same from the Planning Board in accordance with the
procedures set forth below:
A. Any of the uses set forth in paragraph lA above where the interior floor
area for such use exceeds 10,000 square feet.
Be The following ses where the construction traction on the lot exceeds 10,000
square feet of land area (excluding underground utilities):
EXHIBIT #1
�I
I
'4•
buszone.11 • w P 51 ith 12123191 4:24 P m
•
,(i) Utilities
•
C. :Bank drive- through.
D. (Package liquor store.
E. ;Retail food store."
He Article VII, Section 33 is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 33. Business Districts `B'.
1 • Uses permitted in a Business District `B' shall be the following:
2.
A. Any of the uses permitted in Business District `A' that do not require a
;special approval.
Be Any of the following uses provided that the interior floor`area is 10,000
square feet or less:
,(i) Barber
(ii) Dry cleaning pick -up station
(iii) Florist
(iv) Beauty Parlor
(v) Hand or coin operated la_ undry
(vi) Nursery
(vii) Milliner
(viii) Greenhouse
(ix) Any other retail stores, except automobile sales agencies
(x) Shoe shiner, shoemaker and repairer
(xi) Tailor
(xii) Telegraph and telephone office
The following uses are permitted in a Business District `B' upon receipt of a
special approval from the Board of Appeals following a favorable
recommendation for same from the Planning Board:
A. Any of the uses permitted in Business District `A' upon receipt of a
special approval.
2
EXHIBIT #1
buszone.11, wpSlirh, 12 23191 4:24pm
Be Any of the uses set forth in paragraph 1B above where the interior floor
area for such use exceeds 10,000 square feet.
Co Public library.
D. Any municipal or public utility purpose necessary to the maintenance of
" utility services involving construction on more than .10,000 square feet of
land.
E. Fire station or other public building necessary to the protection of or
ii
servicing of a neighborhood."
III. Article VII, Section 34 is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 34' Business Districts `C'.
1. Uses permitted in a Business District `C' shall be the following:
• A. Any of the uses permitted in Business District `A' or `B' that do not
require a special approval.
Be Any of the following uses provided that the interior floor area is 10,000
square feet or less:
(i) Building supply
(ii) Dry cleaner
Dyer
(iv) Electrical shop
(v) Glass shop
(wi) Heating shop
(vii) Monument works
(viii) Plumbing shop
(ix) Printer
(x) Appliance sales and service
(xi) Arts and crafts studio
(xii) Bicycle sale and repair
(xiii) Caterer
(xiv) Confectioner
(x v) Decorator
(xvi) Dressmaker
3
EXHIBIT #1
i Ili
r
buszone.11, wp51 ith, 12123191 4:24pm
xvii Furrier
I
(xviii) Optician
(xix) Photographer
(xx) Refrigeration sale and repair
(xxi) Upholsterer
C. Hotel or motel of 30 sleeping rooms or less.
D. Boat harbor and marina
{I
E. Ambulance service
2. Th e following uses are permitted in a Business District C u pon receipt o f
a
::.special approval from the Board of Appeals following a favorable
recommendation for same from the Planning Board:
A. An of the uses permitted Any pe tted m Business Distracts A or B upon receipt of
a special approval.
•Be Any of the uses set forth in paragraph 1B above where the interior floor
area for such use exceeds 10,000 square feet.
C. Automobile sales agency, provided that the display of automobiles and
accessories is conducted entirely within a building..
I
D. Theater, skating rink , bowling alley, dance hall where the activity
involved is conducted exclusively inside a building provided that such
place of business shall be located at least 200 feet from any residence
district.
E. Restaurant or other place for the serving of food. If alcoholic beverages
are served, the place of business shall be located at least 500 feet from an
adjacent school or church or 150 feet from any residence district.
F. Club house or lodge, provided that no building so used shall be within 100
feet of any street or within 150 feet of the lot line of an adjoining owner.
G. Undertaker,
H. Hotel or motel with more than 30 sleeping rooms.
4
EXHIBIT #1
•
I
buszone.11, wp511th, 12123191 4:24pm
IV, Article l VII, Section 38, is amended by adding a new subparagraph 9 and
subparagraph 10 reading as follows:
"9. Application for Special Approval: Where a use is permitted in this Article in a
Business Distict A B C D or E u po n the ob
11
tainin
of a special
approval, the application for such approval for the requested use shall be referred
to the Planning Board and no final action by the Board of Appeals shall be taken
until the Planning Board has reviewed at least a preliminary site plan and has
approved same. If the Board of Appeals grants the special approval, and if only
a preliminary te plan was approved b the Planning Board
�3' P the matter shall be
PP Y g ,
returned to the Planning Board for final site plan approval as set forth below,
Section 2. If, any provision of this law is found invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. This local law shall take effect immediately.
4 :
5
EXHIBIT #1
TOWN OF ITHACA
• LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 1991
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATING TO REQUIRING PLANTINGS AS PART OF THE SITE PLANS FOR
BUSINESS, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES
Be it enacted b y the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. The „, Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as re- adopted, amended, and
revised, effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows:
1. Article VII , lby adding a new section numbered Section 39A reading as follows:
"SECTION 39A. Required Plantings. In addition to the plantings required elsewhere
in this Article and in this Ordinance, lot plantings shall be required for any new building,
addition, or change of use of any buildings in a Business zone except for single family
and two family (!,residential lots. No building permit shall be granted and no site plan
shall be approved until a planting plan is submitted to and approved by the Planning
Board. The r uirements related to such plantings are as follows:
� P g
1. Plantings: Required plantings shall include trees, shrubs, grasses, and
vegetative ground cover of species common to the Ithaca area. Plantings may at
the discretion of the Planning Board include plants existing on the site. Trees
shall beat least three inches (3”) in diameter at breast height and shall reach an
ultimate height of not less than thirty feet (30'). Tree spacing shall be such that
tree drop lines approximately meet at maturity. Soil plots for trees are to have
a radii of not less than 7.5 feet of permeable surface area per tree. Shrubs shall
be at least two feet (2') in height at the time of occupancy, reaching an ultimate
height of at least three feet (3'). The remainder of the required planting areas
shall be seeded to grass or other ground cover. The Planning Board shall
approve all planting plans, including variety of plantings.
2. Street and Lot Buffer Plantings: Plantings are required in a twenty foot (20')
wide buffer along all lot boundaries fronting on a street or road. Plantings are
also required in ten foot (10') wide buffers along all other lot boundaries. Buffer
plantings'shall contain at least one (1) tree and five (5) shrubs for every thirty feet
(30') of linear buffer length and shall contain no paving except that approved by
the Planning Board,
3. Parking Lot Plantings: In parking lots with a total of four or more spaces
there shall be at least one (1) tree for every four parking spaces and one (1) shrub
for every) parking space. These plantings shall be exclusive of any other required
plantings.'
EXHIBIT #2
s "
j�
PLANTINGS.u. wp5=lith, 11/01191 3 :551)m
4. Deviation from Planting Requirements: The applicant may request a waiver
or deviation from the foregoing planting requirements in the following
circumstances:
(a) The site involves space limitations or unusually shaped parcels, or
(b) Topography, soil, vegetation or other site conditions are such that full
compliance is impossible or impractical, or
(c) Safety would be impaired, or
(d) Other circumstances such that the Planning Board finds a need to
deviate from the planting requirements set forth above provided that such
deviation complies with the intent of this section.
If the Planning Board determines that any of the foregoing circumstances pertain,
and if "the Planning Board grants a deviation or waiver from the requirements, it
shall require the applicant to submit an alternative planting plan that meets the
intent of this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
5.. Existing Trees: Within 20 feet (20') from the edge of any street or road, no
tree with a diameter of five inches (5 ") or greater at breast height shall be
removed unless dictated by deteriorated plant health or safety, except as required
by they Planning Board, Town Planner or Parks Manager.
6. Maintenance: All plant materials required by this section. shall be maintained
in a healthy condition. Dead limbs shall be removed promptly. Dead trees and
shrubs, shall be replaced with the same or similar plantings at the earliest
appropriate season."
2. Article V'!III, Section 45, is amended by adding a new subdivision 7 reading as
follows:
7. In addition to the landscaping and other requirements set forth above, the lot
plantings shall be required for any new building, addition, or change of use within the
light industrial zone. The requirements pertaining to said plantings shall be the same as
set forth in Section 39A. No site plan approval shall be granted nor shall any building
permit be issued until the planting plan is presented to and approved by the Planning
Board. Non - conforming residential lots in a light - industrial zone are excepted from these
requirements."
2
EXHIBIT #2
PLANTINGS .11, wp51 ith, 11 /01 /91 3:55pm
3. Article X, Section 50, is amended by adding a new subparagraph to be subparagraph
8 reading as follows:
8. Required Plantings: In addition to the landscaping requirements set forth above, lot
plantings shall be required for any new building, addition, or change of use of a business
in an industrial zone. No site plan shall be approved and no building permit shall be
issued until a planting plan is approved by the Planning Board. The requirements related
to said plantings shall be the same as set forth in Section 39A pertaining to business
zones. Non - conforming residential lots in an industrial zone are excepted from these
requirements.
i
Section 2. If Any provision of this law is found invalid b an court of competent
Y Y P
jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which shall
remain in_ full force and effect.
Section 3. This law shall take effect immediately.
J
EXHIBIT # 2
0
r
.0
agri2bld.11, Ith. 8/7/91,1 5:22 p.m.
i
TOWN OF ITHACA
�ILOCAL LAW N0. OF THE YEAR 19
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO
REGULATE THE II'NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON NON - AGRICULTURAL
LOTS IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as
follows:
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted,
amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently
amended, be further amended as follows.
1i. Article XIII, Section 68, is amended by adding two new
sentences at the end thereof reading as follows:
"In an agricultural district, where a lot is used or
occupied j primarily for non - agricultural purposes, there
shall not be more than one principal building on such lot.
In an agricultural. district where a lot is used primarily
for agricultural purposes, there shall be no more than one
principal;, building for each 30,000 square feet of lot area
and no more than one non - agricultural principal building
(e.g. a ;residence as opposed to a barn) on each 30,000
square feet of lot area."
2. This local law shall take effect upon'its publication as
required by law.
0
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA TION
State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.:
Gail Sullins being duly sworn, deposes and
says, that she /he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid and that
she /he is Clerk
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in
Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true
copy, was published in said paper
and that the first publication of said notice was on the Z
day of ��� a v 19�
(00 �k
Subscr d and sworn to before Ine, this day
of 19
JEAN FOLD Notary Public.
pub'iC, _.� cf New Yer'
1 io. 3 4 1: 0
iT ed in Tc ,:lz!::ns CcunlyI
.ommission expires May, 31 .19.,..
1r
u
q0�_
ri N'L
TOWN OF ITHACA PLAN
NING BOARD
NOTICE OF :PUBLIC
HEARINGS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 7;
1992
Sr direction of the, Chairman
of the Planning Board, NO-
TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held
by the Planning Board of the;
Town of Ithaca on Tuesdoyy
January 7, 1992, in Town;
Hall, 126 East Seneca Street ,';
Ithaca, NY, at the following
times and on the following
matters: t.t;:
7:35 P.M. Consideration "of;
Subdivision Aooroval for ihe'
groposed subdivision of :ii'
.0= acre parcel from Town'
of Ithaca Tax Parcel' No:;
6.29.7.11, 9 -8± acres total'
located on the south side of
Elm Street Extension,' Resi -,'
dente District R -15. Sandrd l '
Herndon and Douglas]
Treado, Owners /Applicants.1,
7:45 P.M. ,Consideration of.
Subdivision Approval for the.
pproposed subdivision of -o'
3.0± parcel from Town :of.
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'
6- 46.1.15.2, 71.55± acres'
total, located on,. the`
southwest side of Coddington"
Road, southeasterly of its in-
tersection with Burns Road,. ,
Residence District R -30. Noel
and Janet Desch and Mont -
gomery and Eleanor May;
Owners; Noel Desch; Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of
Modification of the lot lines
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels
No. 6 -25 -2.18, -19, and .20,
0.15 =, 0.26_, and 0.471
acres in size. respectively, lo-:
cared at 881 -883 Toughon•"
nock Boulevard (NYS' Rte.
89), Residence District R -15.
Jerold Weisburd and Siu ling'
Chaoloemtiorana, Owners;
Jerold Weisbur Agent.
Said Planning Board will ai
said times and said place
hear all persons in support of,
such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may' appear
by agent or in person.
Nancy M. Fuller
Deputy Town Clerk
273.1747'
January 2, 1992 1