Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-12-15M TOWN OF Date TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 15, 1992 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 15,. 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson? :Carolyn Grigorov, James Baker, Candace Cornell, Virginia Langhans, William Lesser, Stephen Smith, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), John Czamanske (Planner I), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT, Karl Niklas, Catherine Valentino, Pete Scala. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:45 p.m. 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. • AGENDA ITEM. DISCUSSION OF 7TH DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) LEGISLATION AS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE'CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Discussion of the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:46 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as posted and as noted above. Karl Niklas, Chairperson for the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC), addressed the Board stating that for the last two years the COC devoted most of its energy to dealing with a charge that they got from the Town Board which was to investigate in response to the Six Mile Creek Report, the desirability of using EPOD's to deal with a variety of the Town's problems. The COC was told by a variety of people, both on the Town Planning Board and the Town Board, that one of the critical issues was soil erosion and water runoff, so the COC focused principally on that. The COC views the draft EPOD as a tool to be used by the Planning Board, therefore, the COC needs the advice of the Planning Board as to whether or not this draft meets the Board's needs. The COC would like to get recommendations for how to modify the draft EPOD legislation changes so that the COC can move on, because they have been asked by a variety of people if there is really a pressing need to have some kind of legislation in place that gives authorizaiton to do certain • things with regard to''soil erosion and water runoff. Planning Board -2- December 15, 1992 • Planning Board Member William Lesser asked Mr. Niklas if he could say a little bit more about the basic justification, particularly soil erosion. Mr. Lesser stated that as long as he has been a member of the Planning Board, he did not realize soil erosion was one of the major problems and wondered if this was a substantial problem here.` Mr. Niklas answered Mr. Lesser by stating that the history goes back to the mid -601s and stated that he actually has copies of letters that one Town Supervisor wrote dating back to 1981 saying that there are serious problems with the Town Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Niklas also stated that he had also been informed by Town Supervisor Shirley" Raffensperger and also former members of the Town Board, that the Town actually has had to use funds to buy easements and to correct problems of flooding created by uphill development. Mr. Niklas stated that a number of situations that have come before the Town Board have been dealtwith litigation and insurance. Mr. Lesser asked Mr. Niklas if there is legislation now which says that the runoff should not be increased from the development. Mr. Niklas answered that there are a number of instances to the Zoning Ordinance which Mr. Niklas was sure Town Planner Floyd Forman and Town Attorney John Barney could be more specific. Mr. Niklas further stated that it is in particular instances, certain threshold levels that allow the Planning Board to deal with those particular problems, and here we are sort of dealing with a proposed piece of legislation that beyond few exceptions, we can expand at the advice of the Planning Board: The Planning Board will review all activities. • Mr. Lesser asked Mr. Niklas what portion of the developable land will remain developable land in the Town? Mr. Niklas answered that they actually had staff do some measurements and the EPOD boundaries contain approximately 14% of the total land acreage of the Town of Ithaca, excluding State Parks, Cayuga Heights Village, and Cayuga Lake, which is part of the Town, and which is non developable land.' Mr. Niklas stated that the 14% amounted to 2,463 acres. If you include State Parks, which are actually in the EPOD, it is 3,150; 14% still developable within permissible limits of the existing Zoning Ordinance. The question is the issue that the EPOD provides you with added regulatory overview powers of activity. Planning Board Member Virginia Langhans asked Mr. Niklas about his basement flooding. Ms. Langhans asked what caused the flooding. Mr. Niklas answered that it was due to College Circle and massive rain. Ms. Langhans asked what the distance was from the development to Mr. Niklas' house. Mr. Niklas answered that he quessed the distance to be 300 to 400 feet upslope. Mr. Niklas further stated the whole development was engineered to deal with the runoff. Ms. Langhans then asked Mr. Niklas how would anyone know if any problems exist before development starts. Mr. Niklas answered that the 15% slope trigger highlights that this area in general is prone to problems. Historically, that is where all the Town's problems have been, on 15% slopes or greater. Someone with the engineering aspect of topography can give a sense of probability if there is going to be . a problem and the point is, that the boundaries of the EPOD certainly. • • • Planning Board -3- December 15, 1992 highlight this particular development or this particular activity should be given special scrutiny. and Mr. Lesser asked Mr. Niklas if College Circle was at 15% slope.) Mr. Niklas answered that parts of it are. Mr. Lesser then asked Mr. Niklas his definition if any portion of the site was greater than 15 or is it all of it. Mr. Niklas answered that under any circumstance as long as the EPOD's are mapped, at least there is a proposed map which is available. Mr. Lesser also asked Mr. Niklas what kind of zone might be drawn around College Circle as he was just trying to understand a little bit better what might be involved or what he might be called upon to do. Mr`. Niklas then stated that not everything should be focused on College Circle because there are better, examples, like Eastern Heights and Sunnyview; these are flooding more than one basement. Ms. Langhans asked Mr. Niklas if the EPOD follows just where the steep slopes are or do they follow the whole line of the property.` Mr. Niklas answered that EPOD boundaries are 15% for the SEQR' inventory slope map of the Town with two acres or less in areas removed, this goes by topography. revision or through various° Chairperson Grigorov asked Mr. Niklas, that suppose somebody owned a big farm with some steep slopes in some pastures right next to it, does the EPOD end where the slopes end. Mr. Niklas answered that if it is mapped on the map that is where it ends. Chairperson Grigorov then stated to Mr. Niklas that anyone who has steep slopes can still use the rest of their property without having to go through any special means. Mr. Niklas replied that any currently permitted land use is still permitted by the Zoning Board Ordinance, however, there still is an additional level of review before that activity proceeds and requires a special permit. The 15% slope is measured over a linear distance of 100 feet, but there. is a 50 foot buffer. The logic of the buffer is that there is no crisp line between where the two locations are'with the boundary of the 15% slope and that there is some concern as to the influence of an activity that is right next to the boundary. Mr. Niklas further stated that this proposal should be thought of in terms of the good neighbor contract, that you can do anything on your property provided you behave like a good neighbor and 'do not damage either your property or the properties of individuals that are down slope. Mr. Lesser asked Mr. Niklas if this proposal fits in with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Niklas answered that the consulting firm of Stuart Brown Associates recommended that the Town explore an EPOD approach and the justification of that was the EPOD would respect underlying zoning districts even if the zoning districts should change, as a consequence of extensive revision or through various° suggestions of the Comprehensive Planning document, that the EPOD regulations could still be enforced. The Comprehensive Planning Committee endorsed the C.O.C. pursuing an EPOD approach. The problems or the issues that the EPOD is trying to address are still going to be there regardless of how the Town is zoned. You can 0 • Planning Board -4- December 15, 1992 change an R -30 to an R -15, but that is not going to change the probability of the likelihood of rapid soil erosion. Chairperson Grigorov stated to Mr. Niklas that it would be interesting to have in the record what changes took place and what the result of the public meeting were; it would be nice to know if it makes a difference. Mr. Niklas answered that he started out by responding An private, the public information meeting was an interesting meeting but, in all honesty, it was an extremely useful meeting to Mr. Niklas and the other members of the COC. There were very legitimate criticisms raised at that meeting and Mr. Niklas stated that he would focus on Jerry Weisburd and Ed Hallberg, who as developers, could see things as originally proposed. Mr. Niklas pointed out one of Mr. Weisburd's comments in an earlier draft. Mr. Niklas quessed it was Draft 5, that the logic of the EPOD defeated, itself. In other words, the logic of the EPOD was, if you could show that what you are planning on doing is not going to create excessive soil erosion or rapid runoff, go ahead and do it. Mr. Weisburd actually pointed out that there was part of the EPOD that said that even if you did that, you cannot develop and that has been removed ? from the subsequent draft. Mr. Hallberg pointed out that, basically, anything you do on the ground, in terms of development, has the potential to change the volume or rate of runoff and that was a very legitimate observation. Not all of the comments were as constructive or as focused as these and, the COC has tried to address all of the subjects that the COC identified and, there is a transcript with revisions from the public information meeting so that the Planning Board can satisfy themselves that many changes have occurred. The COC also responded to a letter from Mr. Lewis Roscoe, representing Cornell's concerns and, many of his comments actually reflected the comments made by Mr.''Weisburd and Mr. Hallberg. Attorney Barney also went through Stuart Brown Associates letter which had a number of recommendations and every one of those recommendations was discussed by the COC and the appropriate responses are in this draft. The COC also reviewed the letter from Noel Desch, Mr. Niklas also stated that he had a number of comments from the Town Board but, one thing to bear in mind is that whatever draft the COC is talking about, the 7th or the most recent which should be the 8th, compromise is the key word here. There are very, very different opinions as to how restrictive or lax any kind of EPOD regulation should be and Mr. Niklas thought that the COC had really tried to balance a number of things to do and that is why it took two years and perhaps after tonight, there will be a 9th draft and possibly after your public information meeting there will be a 10th draft. Mr. Niklas stated that the COC needs the Planning Board's input because the Planning Board is the municipal body that will deal with this legislation and this draft is crafted as a tool for the Planning Board, and if this is not the tool the Planning Board wants, then the COC should know about it. Planning Board Member Langhans stated to if were a lot of comments from individuals about architects, etc. and being very expensive, still in the 7th Draft. Mr. Niklas answered by Mr. Niklas that there using engineers and and this statement is stating that there is Planning Board -5- December 15, 1992 a very important change on Page 2. Ms. Langhans stated that this is putting the emphasis on the Building Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Board to decide and, the Planning Board really does not have the expertise to decide something like that. Mr. Niklas answered by' stating that the Planning Board has the Town Engineer and also each; member comes with a historical perspective of the Town, where problems have been land where they have not; this is not to say that every part of the EPOD up there is problematic. Ms. Langhans stated the Planning Board had the Town Engineer, Dan Walker, when they did College Circle. Attorney Barney stated at this time that it is necessary to look at this from two perspectives. One is, for example, subdivision regulations. The Planning Board, more often than not, waives multiples of those requirements for subdivisions. Mr. Niklas stated at this time that the COC discussed this proposed legislation in recognition of the. Planning Board's judgement. The Planning Board does ultimately make the decisions every time the committee meets, maybe not in terms of the EPOD, but whether the Board grants site plan approval or subdivision approval, etc. These are always judgements the Planning Board has to make. This gives the Planning Board added clout in terms of what the Board can request from an applicant and what is required of an applicant in terms of development or land use activity in these areas. The whole Zoning Ordinance relies on the judgement of the Planning Board. • Attorney Barney at this time gave an example: "if he owned property and a steep slope was shown, and wanted to build a single- family house of any size, he stated he could do this without any review at all other than the normal building code review that would occur when he took his plans to Andy Frost, the Building Inspector /Zoning Enforcement Officer. There is no SEQR, there is no checking what the drainage plans would be to speak of, there is no checking of what the dislocation of soil might do to some people down - slope. Another thing Andy Frost looks at is if the building is going to fall over and since the building is not going to fall over, Mr. Barney is entitled to his building permit ". This 7th draft says you cannot do that anymore. It states that you have to come to the Planning Board. The reason this is specified is because we want to trigger the SEQR type of review and this could not be done through the building code process, it has to be done through a discretionary action by a Planning Board, a ZBA or a.Town Board. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated there are certain things in a building code alonf with a dollar amount, that there has to be a registered Architect /Engineer seal on the building plans, which deal primarily with the structural aspects. Mr. Walker further stated that from an engineer's perspective, he does not think that with a report this sensitive, you probably cannot get an Engineering Report or basic evaluation done for less than $1,000.00 and a full -blown • study would probably be in the $2,500.00 to $5,000.00 range. Planning Board -6- December 15, 1992 • Planning Board Member Lesser asked Mr., Walker about the .certification of a 25 year runoff and if it was very expensive? Mr. Walker responded by stating that depending on the drainage area and, if the house is at the top of a hill and there is no drainage area around it. When a drainage analysis like that is done, you have to look at the entire watershed and what the potential might be. With a very simple situation,: you might get 10 hours into it and then you are looking at $500.00. On a full drainage study, generally, unless there is a lot of information already available, you are going to be between 20 and 40 hours, so, there is another $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 there. Mr. Niklas addressed the Board using College Circle as an example to ask Mr. Walker certain aspects about this development. Mr. Niklas asked Mr. Walker how he thought if this draft had been in place prior to construction, how did he think the developers might have proceeded differently. Mr. Walker responded that he had not gone through all the records on College Circle extensively, but he had been out there during some rain storms; there is a number of aspects of College Circle that are also impacted by what Ithaca College did because there is some combined effort. College Circle was built and Ithaca College made some major changes to their athletic fields at the same time, including some significant subsurface drainage which drained into some of the same drainageways. Mr. Niklas stated to Mr. Walker that these 24 acres of woodland were completely eliminated in a period of about two 'weeks, plus College Circle in collusion, created • a dramatic change in the surface runoff. Mr. Niklas pointed out that Mr. Walker basically has no control, at least now, with somebody clearing 24 acres. However, if there was acreage in the EPOD it would require a special permit. Mr. Walker responded by stating that there is a little control now, because, prior to the EPOD legislation, Ithaca College was able to move a significant amount of earth without any permits when they ,built the field. There are a number of factors that all happened at the same time that can cause problems. Mr. Forman stated to Mr. Niklas that there will be another opportunity to see it again, because College Circle is not done. There is still potentially another 80 units to build on that project. They are in no hurry, it is not going to come back in the near future, but it will be back and the opportunity will be there for Mr. Walker to review. Mr. Walker commented on the Ithaca College renovation, road project, and their drainage. A significant part of the College Circle project was that they brought most of their drainage to one drainageway, which was protected from erosion after they went through a couple of seasons. Unfortunately, their retention pond was not in the drainage area where the flooding problems were caused. Mr. Niklas stated that all existing non - commercial building will be effected by the EPOD. Planning Board Member James Baker stated that this cannot place burdens on the agricultural practices within that district, this would not have any affect if you carry out practices in the 9th district. Attorney Barney stated they did not specifically exempt agricultural districts per say. Attorney Barney stated he was not sure if they are exempt from zoning. The whole ` thing is governed by non - conforming use divisions elsewhere in the Planning Board -7- December 15, 1992 • ordinance so that anything that is being presently done would continue in a non - conforming use, but, if, for example, somebody wanted to build a silo on a steep slope, that would probably require a permit, unless there is an agricultural zoning, of which he does not know of. Mr. Baker stated that personally, he felt agricultural land should be exempt from the whole draft, because agriculture is regulated by everything else already, as long as it is being farmed as a farm and noti the use changed. Pesticides and herbicides management is regulated by the D.E.C. Planning Board Member Langhans stated that if someone wanted to cut down trees to get a better view of the lake or something, they, would have to go through the D.E.C. Mr. Niklas answered that on Page 5, there is Land Use Standards under Clearing, under 7,a, minimal clearing of trees or conversion to other vegetation is permitted for approved construction and landscaping. Mr. Niklas stated he takes this statement as meaning that if you wanted to cut down a few trees to keep your view of the lake, this would not require a special' permit. Attorney Barney stated that clearing here actually pertains to construction of homes. You get a permit to build a home through the process, then you can clear as necessary to do the building. Mr. Niklas mentioned non - commercial gardening or other' non - commerical horticultural activities. Mr. Niklas said that, • frankly if you cut down a few trees to' improve your view, you could just as easily say that the activity was increasing the growth of the remaining trees. As long as it does not create a noticeable disturbance and, something that would be issuing a complaint from the neighbors, Mr. Niklas did not see why there would be a need to come before the COC to clear away some trees. Board Member Lesser stated that non - commercial is questionable because, for example, he hires a logman to clear the trees for him. Mr. Niklas replied to Mr. Lesser that he would not be selling the wood. Mr. Lesser than asked Mr. Niklas what he would do with the wood. Mr. Niklas answered, burn it. Attorney Barney stated that if you had a 30 acre parcel of land on a steep slope and'you hired a logger to come in, again, as drafted under 5, d., that would trigger concern. Mr. Niklas then asked if the Planning Board would have control over an activity like Ithaca College clearing 24 acres. Board Member Lesser stated that he was trying to distinguish between clear cut of a substantial area, and somebody managing land that would generate a little bit of cash flow. Mr. Lesser stated he did not want to be put in a position where the Board takes away people's incentive to maintain land in a relatively unused fashion by making it so expensive and cumbersome to them to do that. Mr. Niklas replied that his interpretation of 5, d., non - commercial horticultural activities would be 1) those activities that would not bring profit to the land owner and 2) to keep, for example, an area of'forest that would keep an area of clearing, that is, horticultural activities that is non - commercial. Board Member Lesser asked if the committee would agree to ask Attorney Barney to look into a different terminology here to a broader group of people to exclude certain management activities. Planning Board -8- December 15, 1992 Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that in this day of imported bugs and diseases there are some real hazards out there on steep slopes, especially if you have established houses and some large trees, they are weakened by disease and we get a real heavy wet condition, you can have some very hazardous conditions. Mr. Walker further stated that what he is hearing now is that if someone had three large trees overhanging their house, and they were weakened and 80% dead, would they have to come before the COC to get permission to cut down these trees? Mr. Niklas answered no to Mr. Walker's question. Mr. Niklas stated that in normal pruning of trees one would not have to have a permit to prune, or even a healthy tree that becomes diseased would not require a permit to cut down. The subject of erosion was brought up by Mr. Lesser. Mr. Lesser asked Attorney Barney if the Planning Board would have the right to say that if there is going to be any amount of soil erosion, the Planning Board can say that this is not a practical amount and hence the Board can say will not occur? Does this put the Planning Board in an uncertain position or if it states none, the Board would have to make sure there would be absolutely no erosion or that it will not exist? Attorney Barney stated that it is hard to be specific as to what is considered significant soil erosion. What is significant in one piece of land on ;one place may be totally insignifcant on others, and when the COC thought about this, it seemed better to go with absolute long increase erosion. The whole design of this was to say that you could build, you could do anything you want to under the 45 Zoning Ordinance as long as whatever you do does not have an impact on somebody else. That is an absolute impact, because what is significant to you in terms of increased erosion, or maybe you could put it another way, what is insignificant to you who is doing the building in terms of increased erosion, may be very significant to somebody else's eyes downslope. It puts the Planning Board in kind of an imposition of always having to determine relatively what is significant and what is not. Mr. Niklas stated to the Board that the key word .here is that the Planning Board is going to have decisive judgement in how the Board articulates that judgement but, the manner in which the Board' reaches that judgement would depend on the circumstances before them. Mr. Niklas also stated that the Board has technical support staff, plus guidance from engineers, landscape architects, etc. Planning Board Member Langhans stated that she agreed with Pete Scala on Section 51 -B under Purpose, as to why we need all of this extra because if we do not have this it could lead to a diminution of property values. Mr. Niklas replied that he thought it was useful under any proposed legislation to indicate what the purpose of that law is. Mr. Niklas also stated that he thought the purpose was to prevent excessive erosion and the effects of rapid water runoff that can create property damage and erode the natural environment -- that is the purpose. If this legislation does not meet this purpose, then it is not good legislation, that is what it is crafted to do. Board Member Langhans stated to Mr. Niklas that the draft under Purpose goes on to say that in addition, it should be recognized that it is not to restrict general was that part of the charge too? Mr. Planning Board -9- December 15, 1992 • Niklas replied that his interpretation and Cathy Valentino's both, being on the Town Board, that in crafting this legislation that there was no hidden agenda to limit development. Planning Board Member Lesser stated that on Page 9,b sentence before last full sentence states, "... purposes of calculating the permissible developable land under the provisions set forth above limiting development on steep slopes", Mr. Lesser stated he did not know if limiting in that sense means restricting the amount that is allowed or limiting in a sense of controlling or regulating. This last sentence should come out. Planning Board Member Smith stated he had a question on Page 4,c and Page 5, b and c concerning construction of accessory structures does not encompass 'more than 100 square feet and then a cubic foot size of 800, but in c, it is mentioned as a 500 square feet footprint but, gives no volume and yet there is the possibility it could be quite less. Mr. Niklas replied that these numbers were used for examples. These numbers can be made larger. Mr. Niklas stated that he would like to see the Planning Board recommend numbers to the Town Board who will have to vote aye or nay. The numbers in the draft were comprised by Harrison Rue. With reference to detached garages, this is an accessory structure, therefore, it should not encompass more than 150 square feet on the ground. Planning Board Member Lesser stated that he is concerned with . road construction on Pages 5, and 7,c. Mr. Niklas stated that with the regulations as stated this does give the Planning Board that additional regulatory power. Town. Engineer Dan Walker stated that the other problem too is drainage and runoff characteristics. Steep slopes are not going to generate most of the runoff problems because with a 15% slope the water is going to be running off pretty fast anyway. It is that 50 to 100 acre flat area above it that creates the problem. Planning Board Member Langhans stated she would like to know why Pete Scala thinks endangered slope is better than steep slope. Mr. Scala answered, as soon as you say steep slope, you think you have to come up with a number in order to trigger the meaning of steep slope. The purpose of this draft is that you are concerned about damages due to erosion, not that steep rock is not a problem. Mr. Scala stated that he indicated in the 7th Draft, page 7, item (v ), a change to read, "Endangered Slope, a tract of land that has evidence of soil erosion and /or subject to future erosion damage as a result of development or construction changes, irrespective of slope angle or acreage ". The term steep slope has become a key word as a title, but as far as the law is concerned, Mr. Scala thinks that this is what is being protected. Mr. Scala also stated that to delineate all soil types, you define the combination of the nature of the soil together with the degree of slope and the threat of erosion or you go the other way, which has been done on page 6, g, Down -Slope Protection. There is no quarantee even when you look at the design, you have a study by qualified engineers but you still have damage. Mr. Niklas replied that if you do not delineate the area that these Planning Board -10- December 15, 1992 • regulations apply, then the question'is, do you want these kinds of regulations that are currently being proposed to apply to all areas. Mr. Niklas stated he had provided five reasons as to why the 15% was settled on for slopes., Item 2 could be worked on more. [Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2]. There will be a 9th Draft. There will also at some time be a Public Hearing by the C.O.C. (EPOD's for Steep Slopes). Attorney Barney stated he should have the changes made and a 9th Draft ready for the C.,O.C. committee the first week of February. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the discussion of the 7th draft of the Proposed Environmental Protection Overlay District (EPOD) legislation as'presented to the'Planning Board by the Codes and ordinances Committee duly adjourned at 9:54 p.m. At this time, Planning Board Member Candace Cornell absented from the meeting at 9:40 p.m., therefore, she did not vote on the following resolutions. AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMANSHIP FOR THE YEAR 1993. MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by William Lesser. • RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the re- appointment of Carolyn Grigorov as Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 1993. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Smith, Baker, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared THE ELECTION OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN the matter of Planning Board Chairmanship for the year 1993 duly closed at 9:56 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF THE ELECTION OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE YEAR 1993. MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Stephen Smith. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board elect and hereby does elect Robert L. Kenerson as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 1993. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Lesser. Nay - None. • • Planning Board -11- December 15, 1992 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Planning Board Vice Chairman for the year.1993 duly closed at 9 :58 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF 1993 PLANNING BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE. MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by James Baker: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its Schedule of Regular Meetings for the year 1993. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be on Tuesday, commencing at 7:30 p.m. First Meeting of the Month January 5, 1993 February 2, 1993 March 2, 1993 April 6, 1993 May 4, 1993 June 1, 1993 July 6, 1993 August 31 1993 September 7, 1993 October 5, 1993 November 2, 1993 December 7, 1993 Second Meeting of the Month January 19, 1993 February 16, 1993 March 16, 1993 April 20, 1993 May 18, 1993 June 15, 1993 July 20, 1993 August 17, 1993 September 21, 1993 October 19, 1993 November 16, 1993 December 21, 1993 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Smith, Baker, Lesser. Nay None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter Board Meeting Schedule duly closed at 10:00 p.m. • AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER of the 1993 Planning Planning Board -12- December 15, 1992 • Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed the Planning Board stating that the GEIS is not ready and does not know when it will be coming, but sounds like it will be some time further into January. For the next meeting, the only thing on the agenda at the present time is the Subdivision of Jones Farm. Jones Farm is off Troy Road and abutts the Danby Town Line;. Although it is 67 acres, the whole parcel is not being subdivided. The Citizens Savings Bank is selling off the house with 17 acres,, and a 3 acre parcel. Citizens understands that there is a 10o park and open space dedication and they are working with the Planning Department on a later subdivision for the whole area. It is likely that there are going to be large lots throughout the area. It is R -30 zoned because of pressure problems and other things in the area, it is likely Citizens will be selling off large lots, maybe 10 tracts,on the whole 60 acres. The final item is that Richard (Chad) Eiken, is no longer with the Planning Department. Chad has a job in Vancouver, Washington. George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner will be doing most of the subdivision review, as he has done in the past. John Czamanske, Planner I, will be spending some time with us when we do our work on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Czamanske has been spending a lot of time on the Comprehensive Plan. Our expectation of when we will be receiving the Comprehensive Plan will be some time in January or early February. Planning Board Member Lesser asked Mr. Forman about the G.E.I.S. statement. Mr. Lesser wanted to know if this reflects a reduction in urgency as far as Cornell is concerned or is it due to complexity of the whole process. Mr. Forman answered that Cornell wants to make a number of small changes, grammar changes, etc. There is not any less urgency on Cornell's part; they still want to get the GEIS. done and Mr. Forman does not think Cornell is "making substantive changes from what Stu Messinger of the L.A. Group has given them. No one has seen the document outside of Cornell. Mr. Forman closed his report at 10:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Planning Board Member Langhans asked Town Engineer Dan Walker when a traffic light will go up at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Mitchell Street. Mr. Walker stated that the foundations for the poles are in place. Mr. Walker also stated that the Town Supervisor, Shirley Raffensperger, had asked Mr. Walker to see if the County could make some kind of statement in the newspaper about the schedule. Mr. Walker stated that once the lights go in, there will be directional signs on the lights identifying that there is a left turn only lane, and there will be a delayed signal. ADJOURNMENT Upon meeting p.m. Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the December 15, 1992 of the Town'of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:10 Planning Board • • -13- Respectfully submitted, December 15, 1992 Wilma J. Hornback, Recording Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board • • Five Reasons for Selecting 15% Slope: (1) History: Town's previous problems largely confined to areas that have 15% or greater slopes (e. g., Eastern Heights). (2) Buildings: depth of basements (cellars) of standard -size houses. See attached sheet. (3) Land Area: EPOD boundaries contain approximately pp Y 14% of the total land acreage of the Town of Ithaca excluding State Parks, Cayuga Heights Village, and Lake Cayuga (i. e., 2,463 acres; 3,150 if State Parks are included). (4) Soils: These proposed boundaries contain approximately 80% of all the exposed areas of highly erodible soils. (5) Precedence: Used as a "trigger" in ordinances of other municipalities. Also as a "trigger" in DEC manuals. EXHIBIT 1 � n • • Five Reasons for Selecting 15% Slope: (1) History: Town's previous problems largely confined to areas that have 15% or greater slopes (e. g., Eastern Heights). (2) Buildings: depth of basements (cellars) of standard -size houses. See attached sheet. (3) Land Area: EPOD boundaries contain approximately pp Y 14% of the total land acreage of the Town of Ithaca excluding State Parks, Cayuga Heights Village, and Lake Cayuga (i. e., 2,463 acres; 3,150 if State Parks are included). (4) Soils: These proposed boundaries contain approximately 80% of all the exposed areas of highly erodible soils. (5) Precedence: Used as a "trigger" in ordinances of other municipalities. Also as a "trigger" in DEC manuals. EXHIBIT 1 0 • is Side of Basement 3' , 5 8' 5' 3' Length of Basement 2' ,:'il 20' 40' EXHIBIT # 2 5' 8' 2' .. : r 0 • is Side of Basement 3' , 5 8' 5' 3' Length of Basement 2' ,:'il 20' 40' EXHIBIT # 2 5' 8' 2' .. : The Ithaca Journal Thursday, November 26, 1992- $* f %s L TOWN OF ITHACA xThe Ithaca Journal Thursday, PLANNING BOARu w fi NCiTIGE" OF`PUBLI w" HVARIN�S y ', TUMAY, DES. 1 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA' 'By directian.9f the Chairman PLANNING BOARD x bt the Planning Board, NO­ NOTICE OF >,V 6L1� TICE IS HEREBY, GIVEN that HEARINGS ;..:..`5 Public Hearings'will be held TUESDAY, DEC. 1 1992 by the Planning Board of the 8y direction of the Crhairmai Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, of the Planningg-Board, NO December I' 1992 in Town TICE IS HERE ( GIVEN tha Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Public,Hearings will be.helc Ithaca, NY at the following by the Planning Board of thi times and on-1he following Town of Ithaca on Tuesday', matters: December 1,. 1992 in Towr 7:40 P.M:. Lonsideraticn of Hall, 126 East Seneca Street Final Site Plan "Approval for Ithaca, NY at the followiMG the t'o sed'constrvction of times and on the. followinE P. p°.. r matters: w a six•bed; . 5,500- square ... foot hospicafacititjwithaare 7:40 P.M. Consideration .of ciated office space; off street Final Site Plan Approval foi 9 parkin $ and "landscapingg on the Proposed consttruction`ol a portion of Iowa* 7itfiaca a six -bed, S,SOOt square Tax Parcel No. 44.1.1.1, foot hospice facility with assn Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcels ciated office space, off street No. 44.1.1 -2- through parking and landscaping on 44.1.1.6 portions of Town of a portion of Town of Ithaca Ithaco"tax•-P&cels No. Tax Parcel No. 44.f•1 -1, 44.1,•1,7. througgh 44.1 -1.151 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels and Town::bf;.9co Tax Par- No: 44.1.1 -2 through cels '.Na: 0. -11:A6 through 44.1.1-6 portions of Town of 44.1 1= 24F�iT tt:scrs total Ithaca �ax Parcels No bea _ rp half of 44.1.1.7 throwgh 44.1.1.15, ~.. 3fT<onFEpst and Town of Ithaca Tax Par - Kin ifiio}acr Chase cels No. 44.1 -1 -16 through Farm:tane; Residence District 44.1 -1.20, 11.8± acres total R- 30.:Prolect received Prelimi- located on the western half of nary Site.Pian'Approval with the Chose Pond site on East conditions on; pctober 17, King Road across from Chase 1992 , Citizens Savings Farm Lane, Residence District Bank;.Owner; %.Hosoicare of R -30. Project received Prelimi; Tompkins Couaty, Applicant; nary Site Plan Approval with Peter ::Newell, Architect, conditions on October 17,' Aggent::... °" - 1992. Citizens Savings B:OO,P.hA.. Consideration of a Bank, Owner, Hospicare of Reconinebti todwTown :Tompkins County, Applicant;; Boe?aiwith Pater Newell, Architect, re to cy Local Aggent. • 8:00•P.M. Consideration of a Law 14ntentNM M A Zoning Recomrnendotion-to-the Town. Ordinance regarding Plan- of Ithaca Town Board wi0 9 respect to a Proposed' Local: ning Procedures and Findings ;Law : Amending the Zoning Related to Special Aporovais. ; Said Planning Bcard will at Ordinance regarding Plan said times and said place ning Procedures and Findingg hear all persons in support of Related to Special Approvals such matters or objections Said Planning Board will a thereto. Persons may appear said times and said placr by agent or in person. hear all persons in support o Joan L. Hamilton such matters or objection; Town Clerk thereto. Persons may appe91 273.1721 by agent or in person. - --� November 26, 1992 Joan L. Hamilton Town Clerl 273 -1,721 . November 26, 1992 ' • '19