HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-07-05The
Tuesday,
Ithaca,
Town of
July 5,
New York
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JULY 51 1994
Ithaca
1994,
at 7:30
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date a
Cler -
Planning Board met in regular session on
in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Eva Hoffmann,
James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Stephen
Smith, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), George Frantz
(Assistant Town Planner), Louise Raimondo (Planner I),
Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town
Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Winsome Worthen, Virginia Bryant, Margo Yntema,
John Yntema, Becky Bilderback, Molly Lucas, Doug
Firth, Elena Salerno Flash, Kevin Harlin, Carl
Sgrecci, Jay Mattison, Dirk Galbraith, Julie
Fisher, Fred Noetscher, Carl Guy, Mark Macera,
Chuck Brodhead, Noel Desch, Luciano L. Lama, Pat
Ferrara, Supervisor John Whitcomb, Marnie Johnson,
Christopher Smith, Victor Lazar.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30
p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 27, 1994 and June 30, 1994,
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 Ulysses, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Assessment
Department, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate
on June 29, 19940
Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit Regulations to
assembled, as required by New York State Department of
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
those
State,
Chairperson Kenerson asked if anyone from the public wished to
speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Kenerson closed this portion of
the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM:
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES - JUNE
21, 1994.
MOTION by
James Ainslie,
seconded by
Herbert Finch.
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of
Board Meeting of June 21, 1994, be and hereby
written.
Ithaca Planning
are approved as
S
Planning Board 2 July 5, 1994
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Smith, Cornell.
Nay - None.
Abstain.- Hoffmann,
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 5, 19939
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Candace Cornell:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of October 5, 1993, be and hereby are approved as
written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Finch, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Bell, Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993.
MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Herbert Finch:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of November 2, 1993, be and hereby are approved as
written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Bell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7 1993
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of December 7, 1993, be and hereby are approved with
the following correction:
Planning Board
On Page 8, Paragraph
Ithacare center would not
North or Route 96B.11"
Ithacare center would not
North on Route 968111"
vote.
3
July 5, 1994
1, Last
Sentence,
"Mr. Macera
stated
the
be visible
is
someone were
travelling
Should
read,
"Mr. Macera
stated
the
be visible
if
someone were
travelling
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
Aye - Kenerson, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Bell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 28, 19930
MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Stephen Smith:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of December 28, 1993, be and hereby are approved as
written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Smith, Cornell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Bell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY,
PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A +/- 115,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT
CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING
UNITS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000
FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, ON THAT 28 +/- ACRE
PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 39 -1 -1.3 FOR WHICH THE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD GRANTED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ON MARCH 1, 1994, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT
NO. 7, ITHACARE, INC, APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly
opened at 7 :37 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda
as noted above.
Chairperson Kenerson addressed the public and gave a brief
summary of the process Ithacare has been through. Chairperson
Kenerson stated that the Public Hearing was closed at the June 21,
1994 Planning Board meeting, and this meeting will consist of Board
discussion only.
U
W
Planning Board 4 July 5, 1994
Board Member Stephen Smith addressed the Board and summarized
a discussion that took place on June 27, 1994, between Ithacare
representatives, Planning Board Members Candace Cornell and
himself, and members of Town staff. Mr. Smith stated that Ithacare
had showed several different scenarios with the building moved and
it was decided that the proposed location was indeed the best place
for the location of the building on that site. Mr. Smith stated
that the decision was to recommend the extension of the overlook
140 feet or more to the north. Mr. Smith stated that the only
other request of Ithacare was that the overlook extension be shown
on maps for the Planning Board Members and Town staff to review.
(Map showing the extension of the overlook is attached hereto as
Exhibit #1)
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that since the impact to
the scenic view can not be avoided the best solution would be to
mitigate it. Ms. Cornell stated that since the project is a
benefit to the community then the Board could work out a
mitigation, if the project was not a benefit to the community, then
she would not be in favor of the project. Ms. Cornell stated that
since this project would be a great benefit to the community the
Board and Ithacare needed to reach a compromise, and moving the
overlook is the most economical compromise available. Ms. Cornell
stated that as part of this project she would like to see public
access to the planned trail system.
Chairperson Kenerson asked who would maintain the overlook.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Ithaca College had an
agreement with New York State Department of Transportation for
Ithaca College to maintain the current overlook.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that by her voting in
favor of this project, it does not mean that she is ignoring the
concerns of the community about the view and the potential for
other environmental impacts. Ms. Cornell stated that the Planning
Board
needed to
weigh impacts
with the
necessities of the
community,
which
has been considered by the
Planning Board. Ms.
Cornell
stated that extending the
overlook will
give the community
access
to a view,
not the same view
because
it will be blocked to
some extent, but
it will open up
the view more than if the Board
was not
using mitigation
measures.
Board
Member
Candace
Cornell asked Board Member Gregory Bell
how he felt
about
the
project.
that he
Board Member Gregory Bell responded that he thought
that
the
entire process had gone too quickly. SEQR
requires a significant
analysis of all alternatives, and Mr. Bell stated
that he
felt
that
those alternatives were not looked at. Mr.
Bell stated
that
the
other sites were summarily dismissed and
that he felt
that
the
Planning Board should be looking at a range
of variables on
impacts
y
Planning Board 5 July 5, 1994
from all of those sites and benefits from all of those sites. Mr.
Bell stated that he was not convinced that this would be the best
site. Mr. Bell further stated that he felt that the mitigation
measure was not worth the cost that is being asked of the community
because the views define this region to a large extent. Mr. Bell
stated that the view being discussed is probably the best view in
the entire County. Mr. Bell stated that he felt that there are
many other alternatives available. Mr. Bell stated that the proper
process was not followed.
Board Member
Candace
Cornell
asked if
the Board
could ask
about the other sites
and find
out
what kind
of analysis
was done.
Board Member Herbert Finch responded that he did not think
that represents the Planning Board's responsibility.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that Article 617 states that
it is the responsibility of the Planning Board,
Mr.
responsibility
Board's
Finch stated that it is not the
to evaluate the other sites, it
responsibility to evaluate the proposal
Planning
is the
that is
Board's
Planning
brought
before
the
Board.
Statement. Mr. Frantz stated that
the
Mr. Bell responded that it was the responsibility of the
Planning Board and that according to Article 617, the SEQR process
demands that the Lead Agency evaluate alternative sites.
Mr. Bell stated that he was commenting on the sequence of
events that got the Planning Board to the stage they are at now
with this project.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she was disappointed
when she read the Minutes from the June 21, 1994 Planning Board
meeting. Ms. Hoffmann stated that Ithacare had made statements
about the visibility of the Ithacare building, and she read from
the Planning Board Minutes of November 2, 1993 and December 7,
1993. (Excerpts of the minutes Ms. Hoffmann read are hereto
attached as Exhibit #2) Ms. Hoffmann then read the following from
Appendix #4 of the Environmental Assessment Form: "The proposed
project will have minimal impact on the vista from the South Hill
overlook and Route 96B (Danby Road). The top of the building will
be below the elevation of the NYS Department of Transportation
overlook adjacent to the site. The proposed project will allow for
an unobstructed panoramic view of Connecticut Hill, West Hill, the
Assistant
Town Planner
George Frantz stated, only in the
case
of an
Environmental Impact
Statement. Mr. Frantz stated that
the
Town
Board in
January 1994,
as Lead
Agency for the
rezoning,
made
the determination
that the building
in this general
site would not
have
a significant adverse
impact,
and adopted a
Local Law
that
enacted
zoning
that allows
Ithacare
to build on the
proposed site.
Mr. Bell stated that he was commenting on the sequence of
events that got the Planning Board to the stage they are at now
with this project.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she was disappointed
when she read the Minutes from the June 21, 1994 Planning Board
meeting. Ms. Hoffmann stated that Ithacare had made statements
about the visibility of the Ithacare building, and she read from
the Planning Board Minutes of November 2, 1993 and December 7,
1993. (Excerpts of the minutes Ms. Hoffmann read are hereto
attached as Exhibit #2) Ms. Hoffmann then read the following from
Appendix #4 of the Environmental Assessment Form: "The proposed
project will have minimal impact on the vista from the South Hill
overlook and Route 96B (Danby Road). The top of the building will
be below the elevation of the NYS Department of Transportation
overlook adjacent to the site. The proposed project will allow for
an unobstructed panoramic view of Connecticut Hill, West Hill, the
5
Planning Board 6 July 5, 1994
valley, city, and lake. It will have no impact on the view of
Cornell and East Hill," Ms. Hoffmann stated that based on those
statements the Planning Board passed on the recommendation to the
Town Board to create the SLUD. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she felt
now that the Planning Board has seen the building plans sited the
way they are, and the balloons that were flown, what the Board sees
does not live up to what was expected. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
the Planning Board, during discussions regarding whether or not to
allow the division of the land according to the drawings brought to
the Board, had been told that Ithacare would still have flexibility
to move the building if it turned out that the view was blocked.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she was very disappointed because she
believed that this is a good project, and a good site, but that she
could not with good conscience vote for this site plan.
Chairperson Kenerson asked Board Member Eva Hoffmann if she
had realized that. the building had already been moved since the
proposal was brought to the Planning Board
Ms. Hoffmann responded that she was aware that the building
had already been moved, but not enough.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that Mr. Bell and Ms.
Hoffmann' s points were valid, and that perhaps the process was done
incorrectly and that she felt that the process was flawed. Ms.
Cornell stated that the Planning Board should look closer into SEQR
and their options.
Chairperson Kenerson asked Attorney Barney if the process was
flawed.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Planning Board made
a decision based on the information that was available to them at
that time, and made a recommendation to the Town Board based on
that information.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that the Town Board assumed,
in granting the SLUD, that the view problems would be worked out in
the review process.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Town Board had the
elevations in front of them and incorporated them into the SLUD
which was created with regulations to control height, not to exceed
a certain number of feet above the city.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that, as the staff
has been doing the review all along on this project, he had stated
to the Town Board in January and Planning Board in December, that
the building would block the view from approximately half way
between the hospital and the lake over to the vicinity of Bostwick
Road on the West Haven Road end, which is exactly what the drawings
showed and what the balloons showed.
Planning Board 7 July 5, 1994
Board Member- Eva Hoffmann stated that based on that the
Planning Board was trying to ask Ithacare to alter the location of
the building in such a way so that the view obstruction would not
happen.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that there were alterations
made to the location and shape of the building. Mr. Finch stated
that he was concerned with the statement that was made that the
process was flawed. Mr. Finch stated that the Board followed
specifically the regulations that were laid out to be followed.
Mr. Finch stated that the process was not flawed. Mr. Finch stated
that the Planning Board did exactly what the law required them to
do.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she did not think the
process was flawed but in the future the Planning Board Members
would need to take a more proactive planning stance. Ms. Cornell
stated that she thought that the project is very valuable to the
community and that the mitigation measure is sufficient to
compensate for the loss of view.
Chairperson
Member
Kenerson asked Mr.
Macera to describe what the
impact of
moving
the
overlook would
be.
Mark
Board and
available
the descr
Noetscher.
Macera,
stated
to Town
iption
Executive Director for Ithacare, addressed the
that the overlook is available and always was
residents. Mr. Macera stated that he would defer
of the changes to Ithacare's architect, Fred
Fred Noetscher addressed the Board and stated (Referring to
Exhibit #1) that the overlook was extended 145 feet to the north.
After the extension, there was approximately 30 feet which brought
the overlook out to a pie shaped end. Mr. Noetscher stated that by
moving the building there would be approximately 3 degrees of view
gained. By extending the overlook, over 30 degrees of view would
be gained. Mr. Noetscher stated that the overlook would be at an
elevation of 594 feet which is the same as the low point of the
existing overlook.
Board
Member
Eva
Hoffmann
little it would interfere
she would like to see some
if
the
retaining
wall would
interfere with
the
views
of
people
driving
on Route 96B,
Mr. Noetscher stated that with the extension, a retaining wall
would not be needed.
Ms.
marking
Hoffmann stated
in place so that
that she would like
she could drive by
to see some sort of
and see exactly how
little it would interfere
she would like to see some
with the view. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
proposals for alternative configurations
or sightings
of
the
building.
l
Planning Board 8 July 5, 1994
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that there would be a
revision to the section drawings that was presented in the
Environmental Assessment Form which showed the elevations of the
roof of the building and the site of the building with lines that
shows what view is cut off. Mr. Bell stated that he would like to
see the same site plan map with the cross section view with the
building pushed to the back of the site.
Board Member James Ainslie responded that there are wetlands,
streams, and steep slopes in the back of the lot.
Mark Macera stat
site the building bac
reasons described by
The changes from the
footprint represents
ed to Mr. Bell that Ithacare had proposed to
'k further on the lot, but for environmental
Mr. Ainslie, that was deemed unacceptable.
original footprint, the movement from that
compromise on the part of Ithacare.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson
Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she wanted to make
sure that there would be ample parking available for public access
to the trails.
Town Attorney
John
Barney stated that the most logical
owners
of the overlook
is
New
York State Department of Transportation.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that having the overlook
owned and maintained by one entity is preferable, and that the
Planning Board could ask the Town Board to take it over.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Stephen Smith:
WHEREAS:
10 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living
Community, proposed to consist of a +/- 115,000 sq. ft.
building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units,
and 80 independent living units, located on the west side of
Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to
Ithaca College, on that 28 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.3 for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on
March 1, 1994, Special Land Use District No. 7., Ithacare,
Inc, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
June 21, 1994, made a negative determination of significance,
and
hL
Planning Board
9
July 5, 1994
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on June 21, 1994, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate a submission that includes
a Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the
applicant, a site plan entitled "Preliminary Site Plan,
Ithacare Center, Ithaca, New York, Senior Living Community,"
prepared by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, and dated May 17,
1994, and additional application materials.
4. The Planning Board, at its regular meeting on July 5, 1994,
continued its discussion of the proposed site plan entitled
"Preliminary Site Plan, Ithacare Center, Ithaca, New York,
Senior Living Community," prepared by L. Robert Kimball &
Associates, dated May 17, 1994, and revised June 28, 1994, and
other additional information relevant to the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED0
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the
proposed reduction in the number of parking spaces from the
required minimum of 107 to 86 spaces will not adversely affect
the traffic circulation on the project site, will result in an
adequate amount of parking for all the reasonably anticipated
uses or occupancies in the project, and at this time will not
adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and
accordingly, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 38
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby permits a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 107 to
86 spaces.
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants
Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the proposed Ithacare Center
Senior Living Community, as shown on the site plan entitled
"Preliminary Site Plan, Ithacare Center, Ithaca, New York,
Senior Living Community," prepared by L. Robert Kimball &
Associates, dated May 17, 1994, and revised June 28, 1994, and
further described in additional application materials, subject
to the following conditions:
an submission to the Planning Board of a completed
landscaping plan and planting schedule for consideration
as part of Final Site Plan Approval;
bo submission to the Planning Board of the size, location,
design, and construction materials of all proposed signs
and lighting fixtures for consideration as part of Final
Site Plan Approval;
ce the applicant make arrangements satisfactory to the Town
Planner, Town Engineer, and Attorney for the Town, that
the enlarged overlook be made available for public use,
and that the overlook be adequately maintained. Such
arrangements be made in the form of:
i
Planning Board 10
(i) an easement or
so that the
maintained by
auspices of the
or
July 5, 1994
deed of same to New York State
overlook will be owned and
New York State under the
Department of Transportation;
an easement or deed
so that the overlook
under the auspices
Transportation and
College
per
the
the
two
parties
of same to New York State
will be owned by New York
of the Department of
maintained by Ithaca
existing arrangement between
or a similar one thereof; or
a declaration in form acceptable for recording
in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office,
irrevocable except upon conveyance to the
State as above, or receipt of consent to
revoke from the Town Board, dedicating the
overlook to the use of the public; or
(iv) any other arrangement acceptable to the Town
Planning Board that would adequately
effectuate the intent of the foregoing three
options. Either the deed to the State or the
agreement from the applicant shall be prepared
and approved prior to final site plan
approval,
do the final site plan, prior to approval, shall show
internal pathways, walkways, rest areas, and other
facilities that shall be available for public use,
together with appropriate parking connected to same, and
there shall be submitted as part of final site plan
approval a declaration committing the use of such
facilities to the public use, reserving to the applicant
the privilege (as part of any future modification of the
site plan) of relocating all or a portion of such
facilities to other locations providing essentially the
same recreational benefits as may be approved by the
Planning Board. The declaration shall be in a form
approved by the Town Planner, Town Engineer, and Attorney
for the Town.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - Bell, Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
l
Planning Board
Chairperson Kenerson
Site Plan Approval for
Community duly closed at
11
July 5, 1994
declared the matter of the Preliminary
the proposed Ithacare Senior Living
8:38 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN
BOARD WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT ERECTION OF ELDER COTTAGES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 8:39 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted
above.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated
that the Codes and Ordinances Committee developed a proposal to
allow the erection of elder cottages in residential districts and
asked that the Planning Board recommend adoption of the proposal as
a Local Law for the Town of Ithaca. (Proposed Local Law attached
hereto as Exhibit #3) Mr. Kanter stated that the cottages were
small, separate units to be associated with the principal dwelling
residence, which enable relatives to live with the family on the
same property, but in separate accommodations. The cottages are
seen only as temporary structures. The cottages would be allowed
in the R -9, R -15, R -30, and agricultural districts of the Town of
Ithaca.' Mr. Kanter continued by stating that the intent of the law
would be that no more than two people could occupy a cottage, the
residents would have to be 55 years of age or older, and one of the
persons would have to be a parent or grandparent of the principal
dwelling owner. For further control, the occupant would be listed
on the application form, with permits being renewable yearly, with
termination within 120 days of the death of the residents of the
cottage, or continuous absence of 180 days. The approval process
requires that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval
for placement of the cottages. Mr. Kanter stated that the removal
of the cottages would require that the site be restored to its
original condition. No permanent fencing or walls for the cottages
would be allowed.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked if there was a duplex as the
main dwelling, would there be two elder cottages allowed on that
property. Mr. Smith also asked if variances would be granted for
side yards and setbacks for the cottages.
Town Attorney John Barney responded
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
that with regard to two cottages on one
one cottage as accessory to a one or two
that variances would be
Attorney Barney stated
property, there would be
family dwelling.
Chairperson
Kenerson
noted
that this
was a Public Hearing and
asked if
anyone
from the
public
wished to
speak.
I
t
Planning Board 12 July 5, 1994
Becky Bilderback of Slaterville Road, addressed the Board and
stated that she was the director for Better Housing for Tompkins
County, and that there have been 14 applications for elder cottages
in Tompkins County, and 3 of those applications are from the Town
of Ithaca. Ms. Bilderback passed brochures around to the Planning
Board to give an idea of what the units would look like. (Brochure
is attached hereto as Exhibit #4) Ms. Bilderback stated that
Better Housing for Tompkins County application to the State for
funding for six units for Tompkins County. The units would be
rented back from Better Housing for Tompkins County.
Board Member James Ainslie asked how the units would be moved.
Ms. Bilderback replied that they were loaded onto flat bed
trucks to be moved. Ms. Bilderback stated that cost was based on
three tiers of income. The law does not prohibit private ownership.
Ms. Bilderback stated that the County Health Department was working
with them, and stated that if the septic system for the primary
house is designed to handle the additional need would be
acceptable. Ms. Bilderback stated that the foundations under the
cottages would be pressure treated piers, and that one of the two
doors would be required to be equipped with a ramp.
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone else present wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought the
matter back to the Board for discussion.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that reversal of ownership,
child living in the main dwelling owned by parent, and the parent
living in the cottage, was not discussed at the Codes and
Ordinances Committee Meeting.
Town
Attorney John Barney stated that the legislation could be
amended if
and when it needed to
be amended. Attorney Barney
stated that
there would be a change
in the recommendation from to
"To Permit
the Erection of Elder
Cottages" to "To Permit the
Placement
of
Elder Cottages" prior
to going to the Town Board for
approval on July 11, 19940
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson
Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
RESOLVED, that the Ply
recommend to the Town Board
Amending the Town of Ithaca
Elder Cottages in Resident
same is attached hereto.
.nning Board recommends and hereby does
the adoption of the proposed Local Law
Zoning Ordinance to Permit Placement of
ial Districts, as proposed and as the
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
I
Planning Board
vote.
IN
July 5, 1994
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Cornell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the proposed Local
Law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow the
Placement of Elder Cottages in Residential Districts duly closed.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 39 -1 -15, 1.15 + /- ACRES IN SIZE, INTO 2 PARCELS,
00467 AND 0.683, LOCATED AT 1060 DANBY ROAD /118 KING ROAD WEST,
DISTRICT R -9 AND BUSINESS DISTRICT "C". EVAN N. MONKEMEYER,
OWNER /APPLICANT.
Chairperson Kenerson 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.
Luciano Lama, representative for Evan Monkemeyer, addressed
the Board and stated that Mr. Monkemeyer was requesting the
subdivision of an existing parcel into two parcels.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that Mr.
Monkemeyer received approval in 1979, but neglected to file the
subdivision plat at the County Clerk's Office. The Planning Board
needs to approve this subdivision to satisfy mortgagee requirement
to refinance the property.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson
Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS:
10 This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -15, 1.15 +/- acres in size, into 2
parcels, 0.467 and 0.683, in size respectively, located at
1060 Danby Road /118 King Road West, District R -9 and Business
District'C'. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
. t
Planning Board
RE
July 5, 1994
39 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 5, 1994,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat
entitled "Survey Map, Premises of Evan N. Monkemeyer Located
at 118 King Road West, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors,
dated October 17, 1980 and amended August 23, 1993, and other
application materials, and
4. The
Town
planning
staff has recommended a negative
determination
environmental significance in accordance
of environmental significance with respect to
the
proposed
action,
as proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a
negative
determination
of
environmental significance in accordance
with the
New York
State
Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
reference
action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Long
Environmental
Assessment Form, nor an Environmental
Impact
Statement
will
be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
MOTION by Herbert Finch,
WHEREAS:
seconded by James Ainslie:
16 This action is Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the proposed
Preliminary
subdivision
and Final
of Town of
Ithaca Tax
parcels, 0.467
1060 Danby
District'C'.
Parcel No. 39 -1 -15, 1.15
and 0.683, in size
Road /118 King Road West,
Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner
+/- acres in size,
respectively,
District R -9 and
/Applicant,
into 2
located at
Business
and
20 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 5, 1994,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat
entitled "Survey Map, Premises of Evan N. Monkemeyer Located
at 118 King Road West, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors,
dated October 17, 1980 and amended August 23, 1993, and other
application materials, and
S
Planning Board
15
July 5, 1994
3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review
with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on July 5, 1994,
made a negative determination of environmental significance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town
of
Ithaca Planning Board
hereby waives certain
requirements for
prints.
Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the
Final Subdivision
There being
Checklist, 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 hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -15, 1.15 +/- acres in size and
located at 1060 Danby Road /118 King Road West, into 2 parcels,
0.467 and 0.683 in size respectively, as shown on a
subdivision plat entitled "Survey Map, Premises of Evan N.
Monkemeyer Located at 118 King Road West, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.
Engineers and Surveyors, dated October 17, 1980 and amended
August 23, 1993, subject to the following conditions:
a. revision of the subdivision plat to show the +/ -1.15 acre
parcel to be subdivided in its entirety, and to include
the 20 ft. R.o.W centered on the existing Town of Ithaca
sewer line and existing drainage easement to New York
State as shown on the map entitled "Survey Map - No. 1060
Danby Road Showing New Lot Fronting on King Road West,
Military Lot 85, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York" by Clarence W. Brashear, Jr., L.S. and dated
January 22, 1979;
b.. submission
Board of
for signing by the Chairman of
an original or mylar copy of the
the
plat
Planning
and four
dark -line
prints.
There being
no further discussion, the Chair
called
for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the Monkemeyer
Subdivision duly closed.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA
Planning Board 16 July 5, 1994
TAX PARCEL N0,
23 -1-
11.112, 11.765
+ /-
ACRES, INTO 4 PARCELS,
0.067 + /- ACRES
FOR THE
PURPOSE OF
CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO
23 -1- 11.127
(RESIDENTIAL
LOT OWNED BY STEVEN AND
REGINA COREY),
2.97 + /-
ACRES, 0.29
+ /- ACRES
TO BE DEDICATED TO THE
TOWN OF ITHACA
All A PARK
AND RECREATION
DEDICATION, AND 8.52+/ -
ACRES (PARCEL
NORTH
OF WOOLF
LANE),
LOCATED ON WOOLF LANE,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15;
TIMOTHY
CIASCHI,
OWNER /APPLICANT.
Chairperson Kenerson 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.
Planner I Louise Raimondo addressed the Board and stated that
the park and open space dedication allows the completion of the
Woolf Trail shown at the southern portion of the subdivision map.
(Subdivision Map referred to above is hereto attached as Exhibit
#5) Ms. Raimondo stated that the southern portion of the property
would be the first parcel, the northern portion would be the
second, the parkland dedication would be the third, and the fourth
would be the consolidation of the 16 foot portion with the Corey
lot.
Chairperson
Kenerson
stated
that this
was a Public
Hearing and
asked if
anyone
from the
public
wished to
speak.
Victor Lazar of 108 Woolf Lane, addressed the Board and stated
that the power company had hired Aspen tree service to go through
that area with a brush hog which left a lot of trash and hugh
stumps along the power line which the Board is talking about having
as a trail. If the Planning Board opens that to the public, there
will be people being hurt, in that state it is currently in there
is a large liability for the Town due to the poor job of clearing
the line for a trail.
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. No one
spoke. Chairperson Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought
the matter back to the Board for discussion.
Mr. Lazar addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Kanter had
assured him that the only action that was to be taken tonight on
this property was that 16 feet of land would be added to the Corey
Lot. Mr. Lazar asked that the Board postpone action on the other
parts of the proposal because there were only two neighbors
notified of this meeting, and he felt that more would have come to
the meeting had they been notified.
Town Planner Jonathan
Lazar was told of the four
Mr. Lazar that the 16 foot
change to the property at
addition, that he had p:
Kanter stated, for the record, that Mr,
lot subdivision and that he did not tell
lot line modification would be the only
this meeting. Mr. Kanter indicated, in
=ided Mr. Lazar with copies of the
Planning Board
17
July 5, 1994
proposed subdivision maps earlier that day prior to the Planning
Board meeting.
Board Member
Candace
Cornell asked
the Recording
Secretary if
she had sufficiently
notified
everyone
in the area of
the
meeting.
Starr Hays, Recording Secretary
for the Planning Board, stated
that it was not correct that
only two
of the neighbors had been
notified of the meeting. Ms.
Hays
showed a
map of the parcel,
which was outlined in purple,
with all
parcel
notified highlighted
with pink. Ms. Hays also read
a list
of those
people on Woolf Lane
that were notified of the meeting.
(Affidavit
of Service by Mail
is attached hereto as Exhibit
#6 and
the Map
referred to above is
attached hereto as Exhibit #7.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that everyone adjacent to the
property being subdivided had been given notice. The entire
neighborhood was not given the notice because it is not necessary
to do, however, Starr has the map marked colorfully to show who was
sent the notice which includes everyone adjacent to this property.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated
that this subdivision is creating two building lots. Neither of
those building lots has legal frontage without having Zoning Board
of Appeals variance to build the houses on those lots. Mr. Walker
stated that the Board would be allowing two houses to be built.
There appearing
to
be
no further
discussion,
Chairperson
Kenerson asked if
anyone
were
prepared to
offer
a motion.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch:
WHEREAS:
10 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
23 -1- 11.112, 11.765 +/- acres, into 4 parcels, 0.067 + /- acres
for the purpose of consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.127 (residential lot owned by Steven and
Regina Corey), 2.97 + \- acres, 0.29 +\ -acres to be dedicated
to the Town of Ithaca as a park and recreation dedication, and
8.52 + \- acres (parcel north of Woolf Lane), located on Woolf
Lane, Residence District R -15; Timothy Ciaschi,
Owner /Applicant,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 5, 1994,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
f
Planning Board
Assessment Form
prepared by the
Hue
July 5, 1994
Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II
Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat
entitled "Map of a Portion of Lands of Timothy Ciaschi Showing
0.067 +/- and 3.25 +/- Acre Parcels to be Conveyed, Woolf
Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," Sheet 2,
dated April 11, 1994, amended May 23, 1994 and June 27, 1994,
and "Map of Lands Timothy Ciaschi, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, Sheet 1," dated May 23, 1994,
amended June 27, 1994, both prepared by Clarence W. Brashear,
Licensed Land Surveyor, and other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed action, as proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
reference action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Long
Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact
Statement will be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch:
WHEREAS:
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No,
23 -1- 11.112, 11.765 +/- acres, into 4 parcels, 0.067 + /- acres
for the purpose of consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.127 (residential lot owned by Steven and
Regina Corey), 2.97 + \- acres, 0.29 +\ -acres to be dedicated
to the Town of Ithaca as a park and recreation dedication, and
8.52 + \- acres (parcel north of Woolf Lane) , located on Woolf
Lane, Residence District R -15; Timothy Ciaschi,
Owner /Applicant.
2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 5, 1994,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat
entitled "Map of a Portion of Lands of Timothy Ciaschi Showing
Planning Board
19
July 5, 1994
0.067 +/- and 3.25 +/- Acre Parcels to be Conveyed, Woolf
Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," Sheet 2,
dated April 11, 1994, amended May 23, 1994 and June 27, 1994,
and "Map of Lands Timothy Ciaschi, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, Sheet 1," dated May 23, 1994,
amended June 27, 1994, both prepared by Clarence W. Brashear,
Licensed Land Surveyor, and other application materials, and
3. This is an
Planning Boa
with respect
made a negat
Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
rd, acting as lead agency in environmental review
to Subdivision Approval, has, on July 5, 1994,
ive determination of environmental significance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in
neither a sicrnificant alteration of the purpose of subdivision
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town
Board.
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.112, 11.765 +/- acres, into 4
parcels, 0.067 + /- acres for the purpose of consolidation with
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.127 (residential lot
owned by Steven and Regina Corey), 2.97 + \- acres, 0.29 + \-
acres to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca as a park and
recreation dedication, and 8.52 + \- acres (parcel north of
Woolf Lane), subject to the following conditions:
a. The final plat shall show all lot lines and acreage of
existing and proposed lots in and adjacent to the
proposed subdivision, with a metes and bounds description
of each, subject to the approval of the Town Planner and
Town Engineer,
b. Each of the proposed lots shall be shown as separate,
numbered parcels on the final plat, subject to the
approval of the Town Planner and Town Engineer,
c. Any further subdivision of the 8.52 +/- acre parcel
located north of Woolf Lane shall be subject to the 10
percent park and recreation dedication as deemed
appropriate by the Planning Board,
d. That the owner /applicant provide the Town Planner with a
tax and assessment certificate signed by the county
treasurer and other officials as may be appropriate, to
the effect that there are no unpaid taxes due on the land
Planning Board
20
July 5, 1994
being subdivided and payable at the time of plat
approval, and no unpaid special assessments, and that all
outstanding taxes and special assessments have been paid
on all property dedicated to public use,
e. An original or mylar copy of the plat to be recorded and
four dark -line prints shall be subject to the approval of
the Town Planner, Town Engineer, and Chair of the
Planning Board and shall subsequently be filed with the
Tompkins County Clerk, and proof thereof shall be
submitted to the Town Planner prior to any further
building permits being issued on Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.127,
f. The Town Board accept the location of the proposed
recreation way over the .292 + /- acre parcel as shown on
the above- referenced maps prior to the Chairperson
signing the final plat,
g. Conveyance of the recreation way, if approved by the Town
Board, be completed with marketable title satisfactory to
the Attorney for the Town before any further subdivision
of any of the lots created by this subdivision is
considered,
h. The .067 + /- acre parcel shall be conveyed to Steven and
Regina Corey and consolidated with their existing lot.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Hoffmann, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the Westwood Hills
Corey Lot line modification and 4 -lot subdivision to be duly
closed.
AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION ON SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL
MECHANISMS.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly
opened.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated
that the Planning Board had received a handout entitled, "Erosion
and Sediment Hazards Associated with Urban Developments ", and asked
that they follow along with him as he reviews the contents of this
handout. (Handout referred to above is attached hereto as Exhibit
#8)
Planning Board
21
July 5, 1994
The Planning Board Members reviewed said handout and had a
general discussion of it contents as it could apply to them or any
future developments that could come before them.
There being no further discussion regarding the matter of
erosion and sedimentation control, Chairperson Kenerson closed this
segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that this would be Planner I
Louise Raimondo's last meeting. Chairperson Kenerson wished her
well and stated that the Planning Board would miss her and her wit,
Board Member Candace Cornell thanked Ms. Raimondo for helping
the Planning Board get through the Cornell University Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement process.
Ms. Raimondo responded that she had enjoyed working with the
Board members over the past year and that she was going to spend
some time with her children.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that there would be interviews for
the vacant position on the Planning Board in the near future, in
hopes of having someone to fill the vacancy by the Planning Boards
first meeting in .August.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the July 5, 1994
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
10:38 p.m.
7/8/94.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
0 l.
e
Excerpt from November 2, 1993 Planning Board Minutes.
Mr. Macera stated that if you were traveling North on 96B,
depending on the location, you would not even be able to see the
facility.
Excerpt from December 7, 1993 Planning Board Minutes.
Mr. Macera stated the Ithacare center would not be visible if
someone were travelling North on Route 96B without looking back
over their left shoulder.
Exhibit #2
July 5, 1994 Minutes
r
,
LOCAL LAW NO, FOR THE YEAR 1994
LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
P
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows.
Section 1. Findings. The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca finds:
1. There is a need for construction of detached, small, single family dwellings
in conjunction with existing dwellings in residential districts to enable elderly relatives
to live with their families but in a separate accommodation; and
2. Allowing construction of such small removable homes for use by the elderly
will provide housing for elderly at costs that are more within the ability of many elderly
persons to meet; and
3. Permitting such housing is
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Ithaca.
in furtherance of the recently adopted
Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this local law to allow, by special
approval, the installation of small, removable homes, on the same lots with one or two family
dwellings, in Residence Districts R9, R15, and R30, and Agricultural Districts. Specifically,
this local law is intended to.
1. Foster and support extended families.
2. Permit adult children to provide small, temporary homes for their aging
parents or grandparents who are in need of support, while maintaining as much of the
independence of the different generations as possible;
3. Reduce the degree to which elderly homeowners have to choose between
increasing isolation in their homes and institutionalization in nursing homes;
4. Encourage the continued development and use of small homes specifically
designed and built for elderly people;
. 5. Permit housing in a manner that protects the property values and character of
neighborhoods by ensuring that the homes for the elderly are compatible with the
neighborhood and are easily removable;
6. Enable the elderly living in homes too large for their needs to move to more
appropriate housing and thereby make larger homes available to house larger families.
Section 3. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town
i
dder -U. wp51 hAOC2&w, June 9, 1994 9:12un
of Ithaca, as readopted, amended, and revised effective February 26, 1968, and thereafter further
amended, be further amended as follows.
1. Article I, Section 1, is amended by adding the following subparagraph to be
subparagraph Mma reading as follows:
" 10-a. An 'elder cottage' is a separate, detached, temporary one4amily dwelling,
accessory to a one or two family dwelling on a lot erected and occupied in
accordance with the provisions of Section 59B of this Ordinance."
2. Article III, Section 5, is amended by adding a new subparagraph 8 reading as follows:
"8. Elder cottages upon receipt of special approval and approval of the site plan for
same pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of Section 59B of this
Ordinance."
3. Article IV, Section 12, is amended by adding a new subparagraph 9 reading as
follows:
79. Elder cottages upon receipt of special approval and approval of the site plan for
same pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of Section 59B of this
Ordinance."
4. Article V, Section 19, is amended by adding a new subparagraph 8 reading as
follows:
"8. Elder cottages upon receipt of special approval and approval of the site plan for
same pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of Section 59B of this
Ordinance." -
5. Article XI, Section 51, first sentence, is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 51. Use Regulations. In Agricultural Districts buildings and land may be
used only for any lawful farm purpose, for a riding. academy or for any use, principal
,._.or accessory, permitted in a Residence District R30...."
3. Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a new section 59B
entitled "Elder Cottages" reading as follows:
"SECTION 59B. Elder Cottages. Elder cottages shall be permitted as accessory uses,
ddeall, wpSIiWomLw, June 9. 1994 9:12=
upon obtaining special approval from the Board of Appeals, and subject to the following
provisions and conditions:
10 Use Limitations: An eider cottage shall not be occupied by more than two
persons
(a) who shall be the same persons enumerated on the application for the elder
cottage,
(b) who shall be persons 55 years of age or older, and
(c) at least one of such persons shall be a parent or grandparent of one of the
owners and occupants of the principal dwelling on the lot where the elder cottage
is located.
2. Dimensional Limitations.
(a) The elder cottage shall not exceed 750 square feet in total floor area.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance, the minimum size
of the elder cottage may be reduced to no less than 250 square feet of enclosed
floor area.
(c) The elder cottage shall not exceed one story in height and under no
circumstances shall the total height exceed 20 feet.
3. Location Requirements:
(a) An elder cottage shall, subject to the further limitations of this Section
59B, be located only on a lot where there already exists a one4amily or two.
family dwelling.
(b) No elder cottage shall be located within the front yard of any lot.
(c) No elder cottage shall be permitted on a non - conforming building lot.
(d) The erection of the elder cottage shall be otherwise in conformity with all
other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including lot coverage and side and rear
yard setbacks.
3
ciderll, wp5Iith/lo=Lw, juoc 9, 1994 9:1Zam
. .. 4. Building Requirements:
(a) An elder cottage shall be clearly subordinate to the principal building on
the lot and its exterior appearance and character shall be in harmony with the
existing principal building,
(b) An elder cottage shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable
laws, regulations, codes and ordinances, including the New York State Uniform
Fire Prevention and Building Code. If an elder cottage: is a factory manufactured
home or component, in addition to complying with any other law, it shall bear
an Insignia of Approval or other equivalent, legally recognized indicia of
compliance with applicable laws, issued by the N.Y. State Fire Prevention and
Building Code Council or the N.Y. State Division of Housing and Community
Renewal,
(c) An elder cottage shall be constructed so as to be easily removable. The
cottage's foundation shall be of easily removable materials so that the lot may be
- - restored to its original use and appearance after removal with as little expense as
possible. No permanent fencing, walls, or other structures shall be installed or
modified that will hinder removal of the cottage from the lot.
(d) Adequate water supply and sewage disposal arrangements shall be
provided, which may include connections to such facilities of the principal
4 building. If a cottage is located in an area where electrical, cable, and/or
telephone utilities are underground, such utilities serving the elder cottage shall
also be underground,
(e) It shall be disclosed at the time of application whether the proposed
inhabitants of an elder cottage will have a car. If so, an adequate area for
parldng shall be required for the expected number of cars.
5. Special Approval:
(a) The erection of an elder cottage shall not occur until special approval for
same is granted by the Board of Appeals.
..� . (b) The special approval shall be for a period of one year (unless earlier
terminated as hereinafter set forth) and thereafter may be renewed annually by the
Building and Zoning Enforcement Officer upon receipt of an application for same
provided that the circumstances obtaining at the time of the original application
0
S
cider-11. wp5Ikh/locOaw, June 9. 1994 9:1:am
have not changed.
(c) The special approval shall terminate 120 days after
(i) the death or permanent change of residence of the original
occupant or occupants of the elder cottage, or
(ii) any of the occupancy requirements set forth in this Section are no
longer met.
Without limiting other indicia of a permanent change of residence, continuous
absence from the elder cottage of a person for a period of 180 consecutive days
shall be considered to be a permanent change of residence. During the 120 day
period following any of the events set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above,
the unit shall be removed and the site restored so that no visible evidence of the
elder cottage and its accessory elements remains. If the elder cottage has not
been removed by the end of the 120 day period, in addition to the existing
sanctions in the Zoning Ordinance, actions to insure removal may be taken,
including removal and salvage by the Town with a lien imposed to defray any
costs incurred. Such lien may be added to the real estate taxes applicable to the
lot on which the elder cottage is located and collected in the same way as any
other tax payable to the Town.
& Procedure For Obtaining A Special Approval.
(a) The application for original issuance of a special approval and renewal
shall contain such information as the Board of Appeals or Building and Zoning
Enforcement Officer may require to adequately review the qualification for
granting the approval, but, for an original application shall contain at a minimum:
(i) Name of owner of the lot.
Name of occupants of principal building.
(iii) Name of proposed occupants of the elder cottage.
{� (iv) Age of proposed occupants of the elder cottage.
(v) Relationship of elder cottage occupants to owners and occupants
of the principal building.
5
elderll, wp5lith OC&w. June 9. 1994 9:12am
(vi) Sketch plan or survey, which shall be drawn to scale, showing
(A) location of all existing buildings, structures, drives,
walkways and the layout of utility services,
(B) proposed location and size of the elder cottage,
(C) proposed water, septic, and other utility connections,
(D) proposed landscaping and screening if any is contemplated.
(vii) Sketches, drawings, pictures or other materials which adequately
describe the layout and appearance of the proposed elder cottage.
(viii) Agreement to remove the elder cottage when it no longer qualifies
as such.
J
(ix) Consent for the Town to enter on the property and to remove the
- _ elder cottage if the owner fails to timely remove it, as set forth below.
(b) By applying for a special approval for the erection of an elder cottage, the
owner of the lot on which the elder cottage is to be located, for himself or
herself, his or her heirs, successors and assigns, irrevocably consents to the entry
of the Town and its authorized officials and agents upon the property, after notice
and an opportunity to be heard before the Board of Appeals, for the purpose of
removing the elder cottage in the event the requirements for maintenance of same
are no longer met, and further agrees that any costs incurred by the Town ' n so
removing the cottage shall become a lien upon the property on which the cottage
- was located subject to collection in the manner set forth above.
(c) The granting of a special approval shall be governed, in addition to the
provisions set forth in this Section, to the general provisions relating to granting
of special approvals and approval of site plans. The Beard of Appeals shall have
the authority, in determining whether to grant the special approval, to review the
site plan and apply the criteria relating to site plan approvals that the Planning
Board uses in granting site plan approvals pursuant to Sections 46 et. seq. The
Board of Appeals shall have the further authority when granting special approval,
to impose such reasonable conditions as the Board may deem necessary to
minimize the impact of the addition of an elder cottage: upon the lot on which it
is being located as well as the neighborhood in which it is being located.
P
r
eiderll, wp5IiWodlaw, June 9, 1994 9:12un
70 Limitation on Variances: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance
there shall be no variances granted for extension of time for removal of an elder
cottage except that the Board of Appeals may, upon making the same findings
that would normally be required for the granting of a use variance, extend the
time for removal of the elder cottage for one additional six month period.
8. Definition of Owner: For the purposes of this Section, the term "owner" as
applied to ownership of a principal building shall mean a natural person
(a) Who owns at least a 50 percent interest in the real. property and related
buildings, whether individually or as a tenant in common; or
(b) Who owns the real property and related buildings with no more than one
other individual or entity as co joint tenants or tenants by the entirety, in either
event each of the co-joint tenants or tenants by the entirety having identical
interests."
Section 4. Invalidity. 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 5. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect 10 days after publication as
require by law.
7
K
111
1 . JORDAN (_
Jill STURGE ON MO.)
!in . �
at AL aaaaam
HESLOP (R.O.) a.2t
(). 05 NN !a """aaJ
2z
298.6
S12002
OI s
/ 50�
O 01
a
r �
w ado 1
� U,
'
M° G4va� a' ' aaaw
°p 2 °0 N_0 ° °_9-
0
J
�9 O16 ,g 2 R lR •O 1 va'a \000 (
to LO
2� D
d �
vO
Owoo d'
Jul Z
0
��
\o 2
v2 /
� O
v-
"1
� 0* O � O
O�
22. at
69 O'
wOPOaae
.�
cL • a ap
° L ad o U
W
�
avv0000aaa
A
cr
Q
n.
0
w
_ <
� d
Q N
_ N
U �
�- O
2O
W
A
y ,d 0
v! 0 t. 1 41
O co
U tJl O,1 •
\ \L \6 . aoroa
\� ° p,0
o1
//eoN
N
M
N
0
z
J
W
u
cr
Q
0.
a
x
H
Q
rn�
L�
w�
NI
0
CO
U)
N
W
w
z
0
Ix
O
}
O..'.;
O
OOTIM
(cam
0
Iaa
X I
u w I
Q cc
-F1 U
co
+I
N N
�1
to
I
rb�0
C
5
Oman
w
a
r
cli
0
OD
z -� %
O L
'' �
ay�too42
d
froofta
co
Q]
z
ui
I
a.
7m
IT
0)
rn
M
N
w
W
Q
e
Lai
oc
is z
ail . z
s 3i N
. h�
w
•lac' : o
0-
0
z
dit T'
w �
ue
O
o O�
�rn
o to y. ; _rn
W. 'w
Q = M z -
'� U co 0 U � M.:
N +1 u W'Q1'..;
_Q t, w z
O U O m Q V O Y
1-a* O J 6t V) W Fa—
a0 Zw.JZ x * z
3 U Q
LL Q= Q 0 0 O v.
0 6- (n a. 3simer (A O
OF
ILs
6 •e
M
dp
X11.4 u.a
ILL
I
9
r 22�
r y�
/ al
•
; -N
li
�1C
•` • 1f
1.94 iC
tt�24
\ 1 f! K C
� No
20.1 �AW
to 22 d.
1 02 I CAL
11.1¢
12.92 C CAL,
.W VIM
N
UA
•4� 2e
`\ 10 ! AC CAL
41.10 41.2
` ��` 292 � • ' ~~
K.
36 AC' 41.9
-\ `\ A, a
4L3
7&c. CAL AAT, 23
** c.l. L ti r
14,1 - 5 � •
11 14.2 1: 2D
1.2t K t
16.2 L" K CAL ; S ai •C
2.si
16.1 [r. �•�
L'11 AC +
t {
17 1
2.6 .0 CAL ` �• " k
a AC CAL
.t,
w
lots _
W
1 o. .c 424 I.23 1.21 ' M 2.3
AS v �� N 1
3,w 7
2a
�•Z'T 121 x•29 1.0 ` S a 44C CAW,
t
7%2
4l3 4 t :` — — _ : 2,613
41,4
\\ 4LT `
41.3 ('� 1. 2t1
331 93 2 41.6 , 1.11 .0 • sy !.1 i
mo
�� sT de
2.7 AC e.
1 4 3a - noT LK
• •
he
he he 0
Erosion and Sediment Hazards
Associated with Urban Deveiopme�
Im the hurbarizing process, many people may be adversely
go
nc=• • • erosion and sc===r from. • ... may
cans canse considerable eco• • .• damage t• kufrviduals • •
society in general... St== pollucion and daznages to pubfic
&►C • 1 • .s . • priveate homes •. •
Ffazards associaced wick urban developments- nc;udm
L a large increase of soil exposed to erosion from wind
and wale. ;
Z increased water runoff, soil movement, sediment ac-
cumulation and peak flows caused by:
A. removal of plan[ cover,
B. a decrease in the area of soil which can absorb
water because of construction of streets, build.
ings, sidewalks and parking lots;
C. changes in drainage areas caused by grading
operations, diversions and streets;
D. changes in volume and duration of water con:w* he
centrations caused by altering stecpncss, dis-
tancc and surface roughness;
E. soil compaction by heavy equipment which can
reduce the water intake of soils as much as 90
per=nt of the original rate,
F. prolonged exposure of unprotected sites and
service areas to poor weather conditions.
3. altering the groundwater regime that may adversai
affect drainage systems, slope stability, survival of
existing vegetation and establishment of new plants;
4, exposing subsurface materials that are too rocky, too
acid, or otherwise unfavorable for establishien
S. obstructing streamflow with new buildings, dikes and
i landfills.
6. improper timing and sequence of construction and
development activities;
7. abandonment of sites before completion of constrac-
tion.
-
he
fj
i
i
i
i
i _
he
he
he hhe
he
he
he.
he
6. improper timing and sequence of construction and
development activities;
7. abandonment of sites before completion of constrac-
tion.
-
he
fj
i
i
i
i
i _
he
he
he hhe
r a
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
The Erosion and Sedimentation
Processes
Prhe standards, specifications and planning guidelines
presented in this document are intended to be utilized
when development activities change the natural topog
raphy and vegetative cover of an area. It is necessary to
formulate and implement erosion and sediment control
plans with urban land development because such develop=
ment can increase erosion and sediment problems. To
understand how erosion and sediment rates are increased
requires an understanding of the processes themselves.
Soil erosion is the removal of soil by water, wind, ice, or
gravity. This document deals primarilywith the types of soil
erosion caused by rainfall and surface runoff. Raindrops
strike the soil surface at a velocity of approximately Z5-30
feet per second and can cause splash erosion. Raindrop
erosion causes particles of soil to be detached from the soil
mass and splash into the air. After the soil particles are
dislodged, they can be transported by surface runoff, which
results when the soil becomes too saturated to absorb
falling rain orwhen the rain falls at an intensity greater than
the rate at which the water can enter the soil. Scouring of
the exposed soil surface by runoff can cause further
erosion. Runoff can become concentrated into rivulets or
well defined channels up to several inches deep. This
dunned stage is called rill erosion. If rills and grooves
in unrepaired, they may develop into gullies when
more concentrated runoff flows downslope.
Sediment deposition occurs when the rate of surface flow
is insufficient for the transport of soil particles. The
heavier particles, such as sand and gravel, transport less
readily than the lighter silt and clay particles. Previously
deposited sediment may be suspended by runoff from
another storm and transported farther downslope. In this
way, sediment is carried intermittently downstream from
its upland point of origin.
Factors That Influence Erosion
The erosion potential of a site is determined by five factors;
soil crodibility, vegetative cover, topography, climate and
season. Although the factors are interrelated as deter-
minants of erosion potential, they are discussed separately
for easy understanding.
1. Soil Erodibility - The vulnerability of a soil to erosion is
known as erodibility. The soil structure, texrure, and per-
centage of organic matter influence its erodibility. The
most erodible sails generally contain high proportions of
silt and very fine sand. The presence of clay or organic
matter tends to decrease soil erodibility. Clays are sticky
and tend to bind soil particles together. Organic matter
helps to maintain stable soil structure (aggregates).
Vegetative Cover - Vegetation protects soil from the
erosive forces of raindrop impact and runoff scour is
several ways. Vegetation (top growth) shields the soil sur-
face from raindrop impact while the root mass holds soil
Particles in place. Grass buffer strips can be used to filter
sediment from the surface runof. Grasses also slow the
velocity of runoff, and help maintain the infiltration
capacity of a soil. The establishment and maintenance of
vegetation are the most important factors in minimi�ng
erosion during development_
3. Topography - Slope length and steepness greatly in-
fluence both the volume and velocity of surface runoff.
Long slopes deliver more runoff to the base of slopes and
steep slopes increase runoff velocity. Both conditions en-
hance the potential for erosion to occtr.
4. Climate - Climate also affects erosion potential in an
area. Rainfall characteristics such as frequency, intensity,
and duration directly influence the amount of runoff that
is generated. As the frequency of rainfall increases, water
has less chance to drain through the soil between storms
The soil will remain saturated for longer periods of time
and stormwater runoff volume may be potentially greater.
Therefore, erosion risks are high where rainfall is frequent,
intense, or lengthy.
5. Season - Seasonal variation in temperature and rainfall
defines periods of high erosion potential during the year.
A high erosion potential may -exist in the spring when the
surface soil first thaws and the ground underneath remains
frozen. A low intensity rainfall may cause substantial
erosion because the frozen subsoil prevents water infiltra-
tion. In addition the erosion potential increases during the
summer months due to more frequent, high intensity rain-
fall.
New York Guidelines for Urban Page 1.2 October 1991- Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
ki
Figure Z1
Planning Flow Chart ® Runoff Control
r -
U
W
Q
W
W
Z
o--e
�
Q
W
Q
Q
Cr.
�Mmm
O
C3
a
�
U
U
W
W
U
W
W
O
C=
Q
in
a
N
W
U
u]
(n
2
W
�
Cm
m
�
3
Q
in
Q
�
W
W
�+
Y
CL
1—
to
Z
O
ryi
�Yi
Cn
W
(�
F-
in
W
a
c
W
Q
�
a
Y
W
�
U
U
r
m
CA
�
_
�
Q
W
cma
rZ,.
W
CC
W
:�Ib
CC
Q
W
LLJ
dot
Q
Z
L
3
CL
H
O
4
Pam
W
r -
U
Q
W
W
Z
o--e
�
Q
�
Q
Q
Cr.
�Mmm
Q
C3
a
�
U
U
W
W
U
W
O
C=
Q
a
<
a
�
U
u]
(n
W
cn
�
Cm
m
�
Mm
Q
in
Q
�
.=a
W
CL
1—
W
O
t�1
J
W
F-
in
W
C!
W
Q
�
Y
W
�
U
U
Z
�
�
Q
cma
Z
Q
o--e
Q
Q
Cr.
�Mmm
C3
a
CL
Q
W
10—
U
W
O
C=
W
U
u]
(n
W
F-�
Cm
m
Mm
W
in
�
.=a
in
C
CL
Z
Q
o--e
U
�
LLJ
Q
C
10—
W
=
C=
W
U
Um
F-�
ca
W
C
.=a
J
W
1—
W
O
W
d.
W
Y
an
la1
F--&
Cn
4d
F--
cc
Y.
0.
LJ1
Cn
L'
CL
LL(
�Mmmw
en
LLI
Fes'
Cif
October 1991 - Third Printing Page 2.5 New York Guide roes for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
1
Figure 2.2
Planning Flow Chart - Soil Stabilization
O a® O® Gal
Qo � �
�CM
H
_
O
G
�
C
UJZZ
C
M�
INNEW
W
CM
N
W
~
W
9
�
�
J
LU
C
_
t7
O
J
=
J
O
CL
Z
=
Act
3
�
a
7
W
p„
W
t
Down
O.
U
oz
_
O
0
W
C
�
M�
INNEW
t9
U
W
2
~
W
p
to
H
N
LU
C
t7
�Zr
J
=
J
W
Z
Act
3
L
a
7
sZr
W
t
Down
U
U
O
a
�
W
W
2
O
U
Q
tu
W
a.
2
rJ
or
W
F-
GA
Z-�
Ltd
on
)
/
1CL
`W
,r^
VI
Z,
CL
W
1--
U3
Ltd
W
New York Guidefim for Urban Page 26 October 1991- Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
J
_
O
0
Dwo
M�
INNEW
t9
U
W
2
~
Co
YH
Z
H
Z
C
t7
�Zr
J
<
t7
W
Z
Act
3
CL
a
m
loom
O
Z
U
U
O
m
�
W
t
C13
W
4
J
W
O-+
Q
Z
W
�
2
�
f!7
n
L 7
a
_
U3
am
am
H
2
rJ
or
W
F-
GA
Z-�
Ltd
on
)
/
1CL
`W
,r^
VI
Z,
CL
W
1--
U3
Ltd
W
New York Guidefim for Urban Page 26 October 1991- Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
J
_
O
Dwo
M�
INNEW
t9
U
W
2
~
Co
YH
Z
H
Z
C
�Zr
J
<
t7
Z
Act
3
CL
a
m
�
O
Z
U
Z
m
�
W
t
C13
W
4
J
W
Q
�
2
f!7
L 7
rJ
or
W
F-
GA
Z-�
Ltd
on
)
/
1CL
`W
,r^
VI
Z,
CL
W
1--
U3
Ltd
W
New York Guidefim for Urban Page 26 October 1991- Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
J
O
Dwo
INNEW
t9
U
W
2
~
Co
YH
H
�
J
<
3
m
m
�
W
C13
rJ
or
W
F-
GA
Z-�
Ltd
on
)
/
1CL
`W
,r^
VI
Z,
CL
W
1--
U3
Ltd
W
New York Guidefim for Urban Page 26 October 1991- Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
J
rl
Figure Z3
Planning Flow Chart - Sediment Control
JJJ
M
f!7
CL
�
Q
Z
cc
LLJ
Z
C
J
Cn
r1
Q
2
lid
j--4
C17
C13
H
Q
�
m
s
~
F-
m
W
f
N
S
1�1
Z
Z
�..
OEM
Q
=
Lit
y
Z
W
=
Q
W
O
CC
�
Lt"
J
Cn 2
m
O
W
N
<
W
y
W
Q
2
N
U
O
V
m
�
DID
tV
O
Cn
LJ
o
�
(n
x
�
W
CL
W
Q
W
tal
H
W
J
Q
y
Qi
JJJ
M
f!7
CL
�
Q
Z
cc
LLJ
Z
C
J
Cn
r1
Q
2
lid
j--4
C17
C13
H
Q
�
m
JJJ
W
Y
Q
W
1
<
m
<
S
U2
S
W
J
li..
W
Z
t
CC
n
!A
J
f!7
cn
Lid
Q
CLW
H
Z
C
J
Cn
r1
a
n=i
lyd
Ltd
<
H
�
�
G
s
~
F-
m
W
f
N
S
1�1
Z
1�-1
�..
OEM
Q
W
Lit
Q
Z
Q
=
„y
W
W
CC
�
Lt"
J
Cn 2
Cfl
W
N
<
y
W
Q
2
N
U
O
Z
s
J
DID
tV
O
Cn
LJ
�
(n
x
�
W
CL
W
Q
W
tal
H
W
J
Q
y
Qi
UA
1N
Uj
Cn
W
W
Y
Q
W
1
<
m
<
S
U2
S
W
J
li..
W
Z
t
CC
n
!A
W
U
S
W
W
OEM
J_
t0
U
J
Z
cn
Lid
Q
W
H
Z
C
J
Cn
r1
C 17
U.
W
U
S
W
W
OEM
J_
t0
U
J
Q
F-
Q
Z
}.
Z
Q
Q
n,�
Cz
lyd
Ltd
rm=4
Ltd
�
G
s
~
W
N
S
1�1
�
1�-1
F-
C3
Q
W
Lit
Q
H
Q
Gn
„y
CC
�
Lt"
J
Cn 2
Cfl
J
y
<
2
N
U
O
tV
Cn
_1
(n
�
CL
W
Q
W
tal
H
Q
Q
Q
Qi
UA
1N
Uj
Cn
OWN
N
w
1�
<
2
T]
41
f�
ui
►r
lil
to
J
Q
F-
Q
}.
Z
Q
Q
U
Cz
lyd
Ltd
rm=4
Ltd
G
T]
41
f�
ui
►r
lil
to
SC38V 31IS -Jd0 10310Hd
l0b1NO3 1N3WI03S
o-
W
Cn
October 1991- Third Printing Page 2.7 New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
F-- Z
F-
F-
}.
Z
W
lyd
Ltd
rm=4
Ltd
W
Mme-
1�1
�
1�-1
F-
C3
Q
Lit
Q
H
Q
Gn
U
CC
�
Lt"
Cn 2
Cfl
tV
Cn
_1
(n
�
CL
W
Q
W
tal
H
Q
Q
C13
J
_
Cn
SC38V 31IS -Jd0 10310Hd
l0b1NO3 1N3WI03S
o-
W
Cn
October 1991- Third Printing Page 2.7 New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
RESOURCE PLANNING IN URBAN AREAS
Resource
Effective solutions to urban erosion and sediment
problems begin with planning. Resource plans can guide
and control urban growth preventing wasteful and hap-
hazard developments.
Districts and the SCS have technical resource data and
information that can serve as a basis for decision making
by local authorities to fulfill the objectives established by
plans. These objectives may include reserving best agricul-
tural areas for cropland; maintaining an economic agricul-
tural use; protecting historical, scenic and natural beauty
areas; providing for open spaces and parks; developing
attractive residential, institutional and industrial areas; and
using tloodplains and other problem areas for recreation
buffer zones and conservation education uses.
Land Development Plans
As more specific plans, such as plans for subdivisions, are
developed for smaller areas, SCS can furnish more detailed
information and interpretations. This information will help
determine the suitability of the site for the kind of develop-
ment to be made. It will also help in planning and treating
these Iands to greatly reduce erosion and sediment
problems during construction.
Certain basic data need to be assembled before adequate
technical information and interpretations can be provided
for a subdivision or other type of specific plan. These data
consist primarily of:
•u.•I • l- • • •• •
Conditions of proposed areas to be developed need
to be examined early in the planning stages. These
conditions include location, accessibility, present
land use, size of proposed tract, topography, drainage
pattern, geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation and
climate. Such information is obtained from on -site
examinations and existing technical reports, maps,
records and other documented material usually avail-
able from local sources.
Soils information, interpretations and data are basic
to urban land uses. These studies provide an under-
standing of the capabilities and general limitations of
the site. They point out the feasibility of planned land
uses, economic considerations and conservation re-
quirements of the site.
Soils information such as detailed soil maps and in-
terpretation sheets may be available in local SCS and
Soil and Water Conservation District offices and will
specifically provide the following soils information.
A. descriptions, erodibility, Iimitations and
capabilities;
B. engineering properties of soils;
C. suitability of the soil as a resource material for
topsoil, gravel, sand highways, dams and levees;
D. site suitability for buildings, roads, winter grading
foundations, septic tank disposal fields, sanitary
land fills, vegetation, reservoirs, dams, artificial
drainage, recreational areas and wildlife develop-
ment. Generalized soils information, also useful
for some purposes, is usually available in SCS
offices.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
An erosion and sediment control plan should be prepared
for all land development and construction activities when
it is determined that soil erosion and sedimentation, if not
controlled, may have a significant affect on the environ-
ment. Appendix A, New York State Department of En
vironmental Conservation TOGS 5.1.10 provides guidance
for initiating erosion and sediment control plans.
A great deal of information must be assimilated to develop
an efficient plan to minus nize erosion and control sedimen-
tation at a construction site. An erosion and sediment
control plan shows the site's existing topography, and how
and when it will be altered. It also shows the erosion and
sediment control measures that will be used to minimize
the risk of sediment pollution, and how and when they will
be implemented and maintained. The coordination of
erosion and sediment control practices with construction
activities is explained on the plan by a phasing schedule.
The Planning Process
The following procedure is recommended to develop a
plan that will efficiently control erosion and sedimentation
throughout the site development process.
Assess the physical characteristics of the site to deter-
mine how it can be developed with the smallest risk
of environmental damage. MinIm17P grading byutiliz
ing the existing topography wherever possible. Avoid
disturbing wetlands or other environmentally seas'
tive areas. Minimize offsite impacts by maintaining
vegetative buffer strips between disturbed and a&
jacent areas.
October 1991 - Third Printing Page 2.1 New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
Decide exactly which areas must be disturbed in
order to accommodate the proposed construction.
Pay special attention to critical areas (e.g, steep
slopes., highly erodible soils, surface water borders)
which :must be disturbed. Staged clearing and grading
should be considered as an alternative to massive
clearing and grading.
. . . r
Determine how runoff will drain from the site. Con-
sider how erosion and sedimentation can be contr&
led in each small drainage area before looking at the
entire site. Remember, it is more advantageous to
control erosion at the source and prevent any
problems than to design perimeter controls to trap
sediment.
Erosion and sediment control practices can be
divided into vegetative and structural controls. This
handbook should be used for the selection and design
of vegetative and structural practices. Vegetative and
structural controls are outlined below.
A. Vegetative rontrolc - The best way to protect the
soil surface and limit erosion is to preserve the
existing vegetative gxoundcover. Where land dis-
turbance is necessary, temporary seeding or mul-
ching should be used on areas which will be
exposed for long periods of time prior to constrnc-
tion. Permanent stabilization should be per-
formed as soon as possible after completion of
grading. Erosion and sediment control plans must
contain provisions for permanent stabilization of
disturbed areas. Seed type, soil amendments,
seedbed preparation, and mulching should be
described on the plans. Selection of permanent
vegetation should include the following con-
siderations for each plant species:
1) establishment requirements;
2) adaptability to site conditions;
3) aesthetic and natural resource values;
4) maintenance requirements.
B. S=lctural C'natr0 s - Structural sediment control
practices may be necessary when disturbed areas
cannot be promptly stabilized with vegetation.
Structural practices shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with these guideline
standards and specifications.
An acceptable erosion and sediment control plan
includes:
1) a map of the existing topography and proposed
grading;
2) provisions for erosion and sediment control;
3) a time schedule of proposed construction ac-
tivity and erosion and sediment control im-
plementation; and
4) maintenance phasing
Standard symbols are used to facilitate the understanding
and review of plans. The symbols, Figure 4.1 on page 43,
are designed to be easy to apply to plans by drafting or by
using stick on materials. They should be bold and easily
discernible on the plans. The following scales are recom-
mended for use on erosion. and sediment control plans
because they facilitate the plan review process: I in. M
ft.,1 in. = 30 ft., I in. = 40 l2, or 1 in. = 50 ft.
The contour interval for these plans shall be two feet or
less. Other scales or contour intervals may be favored for
special types of land disturbance projects. For example,
strip mine plans are often drawn to scales of 1 in. = 200 ft
or 1 in. = 500 ft. with contour intervals of 5 to 20 feet.
Consult the appropriate plan. review agency prior to finaliz-
ing the selection of plan scale. A sample checklist is con-
tained in the appendix.
Implementation of Erosion and Sedar><nnent
Controls
Effective implementation of erosion and sediment controls
requires good construction management. Proper manage-
ment can reduce the need for maintenance of structural
controls, regrading of severely eroded areas, and
reconstruction of controls that were improperly imple-
mented. Good site management results in efficient use of
manpower and financial savings.
Site management for effective implementation of erosion
and sediment controls involves the following:
1. Clear only what is required for immediate construc.
tion activity. Large projects should be cleared and
graded as construction progresses. Mass clearing
and grading of the entire site should be avoided.
Restabilize disturbed areas as soon as possible after
construction is completed. Certain sections of large .
construction projects may be completed before
others and be ready for stabilization before the total
project is completed. `JVaiting until the end of the
project to commence all site stabilization may leave
areas exposed for an unnecessarily long duration.
2. Divert offsite runoff from highly erodible soils and
steep slopes and convey to stable areas.
3. Physically mark off limits of land disturbance on the
site with tape, signs, or other methods, so the workers
can see areas to be protected.
4. Make sure that all workers understand the major
provisions of the erosion and sediment control plan.
New York Guidelines for Urban Page 22 October 1991 - Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
1
• e ,
0��l
5. Designate responsibility for implementing the erosion
and sediment control plan to one individual.
6. Implement a daily inspection program to determine
when erosion and sediment control measures need
maintenance or repair. Pay particular attention to the
inspection following rainfall events.
Predicting Soil Losses
Estimates of soil losses can be made for construction sites
by using the Universal Soil Loss Equation. This equation
uses rainfall intensity or erosion index, soil erodibility, and
slope factors in calculating the estimated soil loss The
equation is used to determine sheet and rill erosion Iosses
on the sate.
Predictions of soil losses in areas to be developed is directly
related to resource planning. The predictions will influence
the degree of planning and treatment required for proper
control of erosion and sediment. Predicted soil losses may
also create an awareness among developers, local govemn
ment agencies and others of the urgent need to install
conservation measures before or concurrent with con-
struction.
Soil losses on a construction site may be predicted for a
whole year, a part of a year or on the basis of "probability"
storms and magnitudes of single storms. (Refer to Appen-
dix B for instructions and examples on how the Universal
Soil Loss Equation is used for this purpose.)
Sediment Yield
Sediment yield involves both soil erosion on the site and
the transport mechanism acting to carry the eroded
material off the site.
Where sediment yields from a developing area are needed
for calculation of sediment basin design, etc., the methods
in Section 8 can be used for determining the amount of the
eroded material that will leave the site as sediment.
Planning Assistance
Planning assistance may be available from the county Soil
and Water Conservation District.
Based upon data and information described above, plan-
ning assistance during the development of a plan may
include the following considerations:
1. Planning of streets and lots
should relate
to
site con-
ditions. Streets laid out at
right angles
to
contours
often have excessive grades that increase erosion
hazards and sedimentation.
2 Construction plans for public utilities should include
steps needed to reduce sediment producing hazards
when pipelines, electric transmission and telephone
lines are installed.
3. Environmental quality is enhanced when open spaces,
parks, recreational areas, ponds, wildlife habitat and
other areas of public use become integral parts of the
plan. These areas should be well delineated and
protected from damages that may occur from nearby
construction. Selections of such areas should be
based upon soils, vegetation, water, topography, ac-
cessibility, wildlife, and aesthetic values.
4. Integrated surface and storm drainage systems are
essential parts of any planned development_ The plan
should clearly specify: location and capacities of
diversions and debris basins; paved or other types of
lined chutes, outlets and waterways; drop inlets; open
or closed drains; stream channel protection and bank
erosion structures.
5. Stabilizing land with plant materials or mulches should
be part of a planned development. Retention of exist-
ing natural vegetation in strategic areas is beneficial
and desirable.
6. Installation of the control measures before or as soon
as possible during construction will greatly reduce
erosion and sediment damages.
7. Temporary and /or permanent erosion control
measures may be needed. They should also be in
stalled as soon as possible. Provisions for main
tenance of these measures should be part of the plan
and enforced.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations
Local ordinances or regulations dealing with erosion and
sediment controls enhance and implement resource plan-
ning and development in areas that are to be urbanized.
The SCS does not, in any way, participate in the enactment
or enforcement of ordinances. This is strictly the respon-
sibility of authorized government agencies and officials. At
the request of local Districts, the SCS can furnish any
available technical information or data that may be useful
to authorized local government agencies when preparing
to formulate ordinances or regulations.
October 1991 - Third Printing Page 23 New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control.
STEPS IN THE SELECTION OF CONTROL MEASURES
.S�gr l; I - IclennIfY {'onrrol Method - On any construction site
the objective in erosion and sediment control is to prevent
off -site sedimentation damage. Three basic methods are
used to control erosion on construction sites: runoff con-
trol, soil stabilization, and sediment control. Controlling
erosion should be the first line of defense. Where soil
properties and topography of the site make the design of
sediment trapping facilities impractical, runoff control and
soil stabiliization should be used. Controlling erosion is very
effective for small disturbed area such as single lots or
small areas of a development that do not drain to a sc&
ment trapping facility.
Sediment trapping facilities should be used on large
developments where mass grading is planned, where it is
impossible or impractical to control erosion, and where
sediment particles are relatively large.. minimum of cost
for erosion and sediment control is usually accomplished
by using a combination of vegetative and structural erosion
control and sedimentation control measures.
Step 2,:Idcbj3fif�! Problem Arras - Once a method of control
is selecteel, potential erosion and sediment control prob-
lem areas are identified. Areas where erosion is to be
controlled. will usually fall into categories of slopes, graded
areas or drainage ways. Slopes include graded rights-of-
way, stockpile areas, and all cut or fill slopes. Graded areas
include alll stripped areas other than slopes. Drainage
ways are areas where concentrations of water flow natural-
ly or artificially, and the potential for gully erosion is high..
Problem areas where sediment is to be controlled fall into
categories of large or small drainage areas. Small areas are
usually 1 acre or less while large areas are larger than 1
acre.
Step Is rI Required Stratca . 11e third
step
erosion . • sediment control p l ann in to f o ll o w . .
can be taken to solve the problem. Strategies can be used
individually or in combination. For example, if there is a
cut slope to be protected from erosion, the strategies may
be to protect the ground surface, divert water from the
slope or shorten it. Any combination of the above can be
used. If no rainfall except that which falls on the slope has
the potential to cause erosion and if the slope is relatively
short, protecting the soil surface is often all that is required
to solve the problem.
Step 4' ldendfy CQnMal M' .as it . Group - Once required
strategies are identified, the planning matrix leads to the
group or groups of controll measures that will accomplish
one strategy. Control measures within each group have
similar purpose, scope, application, design, criteria, stand-
and plans, and construction specifications. Therefore, any
measure within a group will solve the problem in question,
Step S' Select Specific ontroI-M as tr .. The final Step in
erosion and sediment control planning can be ac-
complished by completing final design. This involves adap-
tation of any control measure within a group to solve the
specific erosion and sediment control problem. From
descriptions given to the right of each control measure, the
one measure which is most economical, practical, efficient;
and adaptable to the site can be chosen.
Once the specific control measure has been selected, the.
plan key symbol given in the matrix can be placed on the
erosion and sediment control site plan to show where
control measures will be used. Standardized design, plan,
and construction specification sheets can then be com-
pleted for each control measure. This completes the plan-
ning for sedimentation control and soil erosion as part of
the total natural resource plan.
New York Guidelines for Urban Page 2.4 October 1991 - Third Printing
Erosion and Sediment Control
4 1
i]
i %
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FINAL 126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York
Tuesday, July 5, 1994 COPY
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard.
7:35 P.M. Continue consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Ithacare Senior Living Community, proposed to consist of a
+/- 115,000 sq. ft. building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted
living units, and 80 independent living units, located on the west
side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to
Ithaca College, on that 28 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.3 for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on March 1, 1994,
Special Land Use District No. 7. , Ithacare, Inc, Applicant; Mark
Macera, Agent,
8:05 P.M.
8:15 P.M.
8:30 P.M.
5.
6.
7.
1:11
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town
Board with regard to the proposed Local Law Amending the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Permit Erection of Elder Cottages in
Residential Districts .
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -15, 1.15 +/- acres in size, into 2 parcels, 0.467
and 0.683, located at 1060 Danby Road /118 King Road West, District
R -9 and Business District "C ". Evan N. Monkemeyer,
Owner /Applicant,
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.112, 11.765 +/- acres, into 4 parcels,
0.067 + /- acres for the purpose of consolidation with Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.127 (residential lot owned by Steven and
Regina Corey), 2.97 + \- acres, 0.29 +\ -acres to be dedicated to the
Town of Ithaca as a park and recreation dedication, and 8.52 + \-
acres (parcel north of Woolf Lane), located on Woolf Lane, Residence
District R -15; Timothy Ciaschi, Owner /Applicant.
Presentation on sedimentation and erosion control mechanisms.
Approval of minutes: June 21,
October 5
November
December
December
Other Business.
Adjournment.
1994
1993
2, 1993
7, 1993
28, 1993
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Town Planner
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS VNABLE TO ATTEND,
PLEASE NOTIFY THE PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY, STARR HAYS,
IMMEDIATELY AT 273 -1747.
A
cjuorum oS rive b�
membar� is riecessary to
conduct Plaririirmg Board
busiaass _ �
CFilename: 7 -5 -94. AGD
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, July 5, 1994
By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, July 5,
1994, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
8:05 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board with regard to the proposed
Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Permit Erection of
Elder Cottages in Residential Districts.
8:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -15, 1.15 +/- acres in size, into 2
parcels, 0.467 and 0.683 acre in size respectively, located at 1060 Danby Road/118
King Road West, District R -9 and Business District`C'. Evan N. Monkemeyer,
Owner /Applicant.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.112, 11.765 +/- acres, into
4 parcels, 0.067 + /- acres for the purpose of consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.127 (residential lot owned by Steven and Regina Corey), 2.97
+\ acres, 0.29 +\ -acres to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca as a park and
recreation dedication, and 8.52 +\ acres (parcel north of Woolf Lane), located on
Woolf Lane, Residence District R -15; Timothy Ciaschi, Owner /Applicant,
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or
objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Dated:
Publish
(Filename: 7- 5- 94.PH)
Monday, June 27, 1994
Thursday, June 30, 1994
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Town Planner
273 -1747
A�1 `
1 1
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
?1 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, July 5, 1994
Dear Resident:
PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1747
Please note that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of
the Town of Ithaca at 8 :15 P.M. on Tuesday, July 5, 1994, at 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., on the following matter:
Proposed Monkemeyer Subdivision
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -15, 1015
+/- acres in size, into 2 parcels, 0.467 and 0.683, located at 1060
Danby Road /118 King Road West, District R -9 and Business District'C'.
Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner/ Applicant.
The Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in
support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent
or in person.
The entrance to the Public Hearing is located off the Citizens Savings Bank
parking lot on the west side of Town Hall.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Town Planner
273 -1747
Dated: Wednesday, June 29, 1994
<Filenama: \ Starr \Davrays \Notices \RBanotce. Ff3>
it .y ` %
CLERK 273 -1721
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, July 5, 1994
Dear Resident:
PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1747
Please note that
a
Public Hearing will be
held by the Planning Board of
the Town of Ithaca at
8:30
P.M. on Tuesday,
July 5, 1994, at 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca,
N.Y.,
on the following
matter.
Westwood Hills Subdivision
^- - -- T
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.112,
11.765 +/- acres, into 4 parcels, 0.067 + /- acres for the purpose of
consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.127
(residential lot owned by Steven and Regina Corey), 2.97 + \- acres,
0.29 +\ -acres to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca as a park and
recreation dedication, and 8.52 + \- acres (parcel north of Woolf Lane),
located on Woolf Lane, Residence District R -15; Timothy Ciaschi,
Owner /Applicant.
The Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in
support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent
or in person.
The entrance to the Public Hearing is located off the Citizens Savings Bank
parking lot on the west side of Town Hall.
Dated: Wednesday, June 29, 1994
Filename : \Starr \Devrev a \Notices \Resnotce . PH
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Town Planner
273 -1747