HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-01-03TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1995
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Dare
Clerk 4�
The
Town of
Ithaca
Planning Board met in regular session on
FINAL
V.
3, 1995,
in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca,
New York
at 7:30
p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1995
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Dare
Clerk 4�
The
Town of
Ithaca
Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday,
January
3, 1995,
in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca,
New York
at 7:30
p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, James Ainslie,
Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Stephen Smith, Fred
Wilcox, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner) , George Frantz
(Assistant Town Planner) , JoAnn Cornish -Epps (Planner
II) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town
Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: John Yntema, Bridget Lowell, Peter Voorhees,
Douglas Firth, Noel Desch, Mark Macera, Tom
Niederkorn, Claudia & Jerold Weisburd, Joan Bokaer,
Karen Knudson, Pamela Carson.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION FOR CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD,
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board needed to
appoint a Chair either for the meeting or a Chair permanently until
the Town Board acts.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the Board needed to
elect a pro -tem chairman for tonight's meeting.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board's options are 1.) to
elect a pro -tem chairman, or, 2.) to elect a chairman permanently,
except that the permanent chairman is subject to appointment by the
Town Board, in which event the Town Board may if they chose appoint
someone other than who the Planning Board elects. Attorney Barney
stated that the Board needed to do one or the other so that the
Board may conduct the meeting tonight.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the votes could be done
with paper ballets.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that the Board should elect
a pro -tem chairman and get on with the business on the agenda.
Ms. Cornell stated that after the Board elects a pro -tem
C
hair, then the Board has to elect a Chairmanperson.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board does not have to elect
a chairmanperson, the Town Board is awaiting a nomination and if
they don't get one, they will probably appoint a Chair on their
own.
I It
Planning Board Minutes 2 January 3, 1995
Ms. Cornell made a motion to nominate Board Member Stephen
Smith as pro -tem Chair and the Chairmanship position for 1995.
Board Member Gregory Bell seconded Ms. Cornell's motion.
Board Member Herbert Finch made a motion to nominate Board
Member Robert Kenerson as pro -tem Chair and the Chairmanship for
1995. Board Member James Ainslie seconded Mr. Finch's motion.
t
Ms. Cornell asked if the Board could vote on paper.
Attorney Barney stated that this was a public meeting and that
he thought that the Board had to vote openly.
Ms. Cornell stated that she asked a couple of Town Board
members and they said that there was no reason why it could not be
done on paper.
Board Member James Ainslie made a motion that Board Member
Robert Kenerson be pro -tem chairman until the end of the meeting
and that the Board discuss the Chairmanship for 1995 in Executive
Session because the Board is getting off schedule.
Attorney
Barney
asked if
Ms. Cornell
wished
to withdraw her
motion while
he looks
up the
procedure in
the law
books.
Board Member Candace Cornell withdrew her motion provided that
the issue be addressed at the end of the meeting tonight. Ms.
Cornell then moved to elect Board Member Robert Kenerson as pro -tem
chair for this meeting. Board Member James Ainslie seconded Ms.
Cornell's motion. Board Member Gregory Bell concurred with the
withdrawal of the motion.
There being no further discussion, Attorney Barney called for
a vote.
Aye - Cornell, Bell, Finch, Ainslie, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Kenerson, Wilcox.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened and
accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on December 23, 1994 and December 28, 1994,
respectively, upon the various neighbors of the .properties under
discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the applicants
and /or agents, as appropriate, on December 29, 19946
I
Planning Board Minutes
3
January 3, 1995
Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson
Kenerson closed this segment of the meeting.
PUBLIC HE CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NOS. 33 -2 -5.1 AND 33- 2 -5.2, 2.03 + /- ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO
TWO LOTS, 0.66 + /- ACRES AND 1.37 + /- ACRES IN SIZE RESPECTIVELY,
LOCATED AT 110 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. THE TWO
LOTS WERE PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED, BUT TAX MAP RECORDS INDICATE THAT
THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE LOT FOR TAX PURPOSES,
CHARLES F. WELCH, PAUL W. AND SYLVIA GATCH, OWNERS; TOWN OF ITHACA,
APPLICANT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the ab-ove -
noted matter duly opened at 7:36 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted
above.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated
that on the survey map, there are two parcels of land that show as
two separate parcels. Mr. Walker stated that one parcel was 1.37
acres and one parcel was .66 acres. Mr. Walker stated that the
Town entered into a purchase arrangement, purchase contract for
parcel number 2 as shown on the survey map given to each Board
Member. (Survey Map for the Gatch 2 -lot subdivision is attached
hereto as Exhibit #1)
Mr. Walker continued by stating that by all information the
Town had at the time, parcel number 2 was tax parcel number 33 -2-
5.2. Mr. Walker stated that the Town has a pending purchase offer
on this parcel., which is adjacent to the Town Highway facility.
Mr. Walker stated that the intention was to purchase the land with
the barn on it, which would serve to house the Parks Department
equipment and a small shop that the Parks Department has. Mr.
Walker further stated that in the process of reviewing title and
abstract it was found that at some point in the 1980's, the two
parcels were consolidated. In 1987 the two parcels were sold or
given to different members of the family as two separate parcels,
and have appeared as separate parcels since 1988. Mr. Walker
stated that there were two separate owners. Mr. Walker stated that
the Town has been requiring consolidated parcels to be re-
subdivided.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the lots were
consolidated only for tax purposes, and that in the last 40 years
they were not conveyed except as parcel 1 and parcel 2 in the deed.
Planning Board Minutes 4 January 3, 1995
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if this was a bookkeeping
procedure.
Attorney Barney stated that the Town has taken the position
that once someone has affirmatively abandoned a subdivision by
seeking to have parcels consolidated for tax purposes, before the
parcels can be sold as separate parcels in the future, they have to
come before the Planning Board for subdivision approval.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson asked
if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch,
WHEREAS:
seconded by James Ainslie:
1.
This is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed resubdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel Nos. 33 -2 -5.1 and 33- 2 -5.2, 2.03 + /- acres total area,
into two lots, 0.66 + /- acres and 1.37 + /- acres in size
respectively, located at 110 Seven Mile Drive, Residence
District R -30. The two lots were previously subdivided, but
tax map records indicate that they may have been consolidated
into one lot for tax purposes. Charles F. Welch, Paul W. and
Sylvia Gatch, Owners; Town of Ithaca, 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
3.
The Planning Board at a Public Hearing held on January 3,
1995, 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, No. 110 Seven Mile
Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by
T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors and dated January
21, 1987, 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 -
referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full
Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact
Statement will be required.
I
IN
Planning Board Minutes
6 �O
January 3, 1995
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith, Wilcox.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Herbert Finch,
WHEREAS.
seconded by Gregory Bell.
1. This is the Consideration
Approval for the proposed
Parcel Nos. 33 -2 -5.1 and
into two lots, 0.66+/ -
respectively, located at
District R -30. The two 1
tax map records indicate
of. Preliminary and Final Subdivision
resubdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
33- 2 -5.2, 2.03 + /- acres total area,
acres and 1.37 + /- acres in size
110 Seven Mile Drive, Residence
ots were previously subdivided, but
:hat they may have been consolidated
into one lot for tax purposes. Charles F. Welch, Paul W. and
Sylvia Gatch, Owners; Town of Ithaca, Applicant, and
29 The Planning Board at a Public Hearing held on January 3,
1995, 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, No. 110 Seven Mile
Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by
T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors and dated January
21, 1987, and other application materials, and
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 January 3, 1995,
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 Preliminary and 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 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 resubdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 33 -2 -5.1 and 33- 2 -5.2, approximately
2.03 + /- acres total area, into two lots 0.66 + /- acres and
1.37 + /- acres in size respectively, located at -110 Seven Mile
Drive, as shown on a survey entitled "Survey Map, No. 110
Planning Board Minutes
r,
January 3, 1995
Seven Mile Drive,
Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins
County, New York,"
prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C.,
Engineers
and Surveyors and
dated January 21,
1987, subject
to the following
conditions.
a. Any necessary variances for lot /setback non - conformities
shall be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior
to signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning
Board Chair.
b. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the survey to
be recorded and four copies for signature by the Chairman
of the Planning Board prior to recording in the Office of
the County Clerk. Said original and copies to have the
Surveyor's Certificate as required by the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations.
Town
Planner Jonathan
Kanter addressed the Board and stated
that Condition A indicates
that if any
necessary variances are
required
that they be obtained before
the Planning Board Chair
signs the
final plat. Mr.
Kanter stated
that the reason for that
condition
is that, although
the lots were
previously subdivided, as
a new subdivision there are
a number of non
- conformities primarily
in Parcel
No. 10
Board Member Gregory Bell asked if the condition covered those
variances.
Mr. Kanter
responded that
he put
that condition in the
resolution as a
protective measure for the
Planning Board so that
the Board would
not be approving
a faulty
subdivision.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker recommended that the condition be
left out of the resolution because prior to the consolidation,
Parcel No. 1 was a legally non - conforming lot because it pre -dated
the subdivision regulations and the zoning regulations.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that once the lots were
consolidated it lost some of the non - conformity and now re-
subdividing creates an inadequate side yard among other things,
which is taken care of with a variance.
Mr. Kanter stated that one of the non - conformities was that
Parcel No. 1 does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for
the R -30 District.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked why the lot line could not be
moved to make the lot more conforming.
Attorney Barney responded that the Town does not want to buy
less than we are already contracted to buy.
Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Walker stated that
there are two owners that
exist for the last 8 to 10
7 January 3, 1995
this was complicated by the fact that
have enjoyed the two parcels as they
years.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith, Wilcox.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval for the Gatch property duly closed at
7:49 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SCOPING OUTLINE TO
DETERMINE THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITY, TO CONSIST OF A 115,000 + /- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60
ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT
LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD (RT. 96B)
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, DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 7. ITHACARE
CENTER, APPLICANT; MARK MACERA. AGENT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly
opened at 7:51 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda.
Chairperson
Kenerson
stated that a
resolution for approval of
the Scoping Outline was not prepared,
so the Board would make a
motion to approve
Draft 4.0
of the Scoping Outline as presented or
as changed by the
Board at
this meeting.
(Draft 4.0 of the Scoping
Outline for the
proposed
Ithacare project
is hereto attached as
Exhibit #2
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she would like to see
comments she had submitted added to the Scoping Document, Draft
4.0. Ms. Cornell referred to Section XI. Appendices, Letters A
through H. Ms. Cornell stated that it currently reads that the
applicant may include the following items in the document, and that
she felt that it was important that they are required. Ms. Cornell
stated that Item E could be edited because there is so much
correspondence and some of it would be repetitious.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that Section XI says that any
of the appendix items A through H may be required if Ithacare feels
like it. Mr. Bell stated that Ms. Cornell was recommending that
they shall be required which would apply to appendix items A
through D, and F through H. and that E is not a requirement.
I
Planning Board Minutes
January 3, 1995
Ms. Cornell stated for clarification, that the Board should
require the information in Appendices A, B, C, D, F, G, and H, and
that Appendix E could be done in a manner that filtered out the
correspondence that is redundant. Ms. Cornell stated that
according to the SEQR regulations the Board may require an item,
but that the spirit of SEQR is that you should, in Scoping, have
all of the information that is needed to make a good decision. Ms.
Cornell stated that, in this case, she felt that the Board needed
to have all of the information to make a good decision. Ms.
Cornell also stated that it was at the discretion of the Planning
Board to determine what they want to require in scoping, and that
she thought that it was important to have the information.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he thought that it
should be changed from "may" to "should ".
Chairperson Kenerson stated that if the Board was going to
take the option away from Ithacare to determine what is necessary
to include, then the Board needs to be very specific as to exactly
what is to be put in the document.
Ms. Cornell and Mr. Smith responded that the list of appendix
items is specific.
Ms. Cornell stated that in SEQR 617.14.f.51 it goes through
what should be in the scoping outline and it says that if there are
long, technical reports that they could be referenced in the EIS.
Ms. Cornell stated that she did not think that any of the technical
reports were that long and that they should be included in full in
the document.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that there was a second
reason why the Appendix items should be required and that was
because leaving them out could open the Town and /or Planning Board
to another law suit. Mr. Bell stated that the reason would be the
issue of completeness. Mr. Bell stated that the SEQR process is
full of stages, almost all of which could be the basis for a law
suit, and if the Board does not have the studies and photos, and
other items requested, then the Board does not know what the visual
impact is and would therefore be making a judgement without seeing
the impact. If a judgement is made without seeing the impact in a
graphic presentation form that everyone can understand, then any
opponents that want to, can certainly sue the Town and they would
probably win. Mr. Bell added that he was familiar with cases of
lawsuits against Planning Boards on the issue of completeness that
have won.
Ms. Cornell stated that she thought that the Board was being
very clear on what they want.
I
Planning Board Minutes
January 3, 1995
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the SEQR regulations
state that these are things that are "typically used in support of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)", the time to make the
determination is when you determine whether the document is
complete or not. Attorney Barney stated that when the Board
actually sees what is provided is the time to determine
completeness. Attorney Barney stated that when Ithacare comes in
the door and the Board makes a determination as to whether the
document is complete or not, the Board wants to feel, at that
point, that they have adequate information on which an informed
judgement can be made as to whether the view is or is not
significantly impacted. Attorney Barney stated that it seemed to
him that it was up to Ithacare to provide sufficient information
for the Board to make the judgement, and if the Board does not
think that the document provided is complete, then send them back
and produce more information.
Ms. Cornell stated that the view was not the only potential
impact.
Attorney Barney stated that the view was the impact that was
litigated. Attorney Barney stated that other impacts can not be
ignored and the interplay between the view and the other impacts
need to be analyzed, but the choice is whether or not to leave it
up to the applicants what to include and then the Planning Board
can tell them, at that point, that more information is needed:
Chairperson Kenerson stated that if the Board is not satisfied
with the information provided, there is the option of sending it
back until the Board is satisfied that it is complete.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board determines
whether or not it is complete after which it is adopted as the
Planning Board's Environmental Impact Statement. Attorney Barney
stated that the draft is provided by the applicant but the group
that signs off on it is the Planning Board. Attorney Barney stated
that the Planning Board needs to focus on the document when it
comes before them and determine then if it is a complete document.
Attorney Barney stated that the document could be written in a way
that they outline the important reports that they have relied on,
and that way it could be part of the body of the document.
Attorney Barney stated that when the Board says "must" it means
that it has got to be done this way and only this way, which ties
the hands of the applicant.
Ms.
Cornell stated
that she would
like the information
requested
in Appendix A to
be included in
the EIS.
Board Member Herbert
Finch asked what
was wrong with waiting
until the
document comes
to the Board and
if it is not adequate,
then
tell
them
it is not
adequate.
Planning Board Minutes 10 January 3, 1995
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that it delays the process.
Noel Desch, Ithacare Board President, stated that it did not
delay the process.
Mr. Finch stated that he did not think it would delay the
process.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that Ithacare did not want to
go on forever, and that it was in Ithacare's interest to speed up
the process.
Ms. Cornell
stated
that giving
them clear directions of what
was wanted would
ensure
a complete
document.
can be checked, which is
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board has given
Ithacare an idea of what was wanted with the list of Appendices,
and that the applicant was not going to ignore the list. Attorney
Barney stated that the question was whether the Board was mandating
that the document must have these items or is the Board making
Ithacare aware of these items because they are enough of a concern
that the Board has decided to put them in the scoping outline.
Ms. Cornell stated
that
when she is
preparing any kind of
document she always lists
her
references,
so that the information
can be checked, which is
what
Appendices A
and B are.
Attorney Barney stated that they were not asking Ithacare to
do a dissertation, Ithacare is doing a document that is supposed to
disclose information from which an informed judgement can be made
as to whether there is an impact on certain environmental features.
Ms. Cornell stated that she never makes an
on anything unless she knows the source of the
Cornell stated that the Board could let Ithacare
when they come back in, if it is not satisfact
have to go back again, or the Board could
directions now and maybe avoid the second step.
informed judgement
information. Ms.
take Draft 4.0 and
ory then they will
give them clearer
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that if the Board does not
agree on what they want to see at this stage, he thought it would
be much more difficult to agree later once they give the Board
information. Mr. Bell stated that the Board needed to give
Ithacare a clear message or they will come back to the Board with
an unclear answer.
Noel Desch stated that Scoping Outline 4.0 gives Ithacare
clear guidance on what the Board needs in order for it to make an
informed decision about the impact of Ithacare's project. Mr.
Desch stated that the outline also gives Ithacare some discretion
to provide relevant information without loading up the EIS with
unnecessary material. If the Board were to mandate the inclusion
Planning Board Minutes
is]
January 3, 1995
of the specific material in Appendix Items F and G, Ithacare would
not have the opportunity to exercise its judgement to prepare the
most appropriate information on the project for the Board's
consideration. Mr. Desch went on to add that the minutes of the
Planning Board Meeting from December 20, 1994, adds the words
"economically feasible" to Appendix Item G, and that change did not
appear in Draft 4.0 of the Scoping Outline.
Ms. Cornell stated that she still felt very strongly about
requiring the appendices. Ms. Cornell stated that she felt that
the only thing it would lead to is a complete document. Ms.
Cornell stated that it was still on Ithacare's shoulders to
determine what is relevant, while still saying that the Board wants
the information to be provided. Ms. Cornell stated that she was
going to tell the applicant that she wants that information later
on if it is not provided, so why not tell the applicants now what
is wanted.
Mr. Desch stated that Ithacare would provide the information,
but would provide parts of that information that, in Ithacare's
judgement, is relevant to the decision that the Board needs to
make. Mr. Desch stated that Appendices A through E were alright
with Ithacare, Appendix G is alright if "economically feasible" is
added, and that Appendix H is alright with Ithacare. Mr. Desch
stated that Ithacare takes issue with Appendix F, because if the
Board is going to mandate Appendix F, in the form listed in Draft
4.01 it ends up being too costly, and it may not provide relevant
information. Once Ithacare looks at the alternatives that were
discussed earlier on in the Scope, the Board may not have the
information that they could otherwise get from Ithacare having some
discretion to provide what is most relevant to the Board's
concerns.
Ms. Cornell asked for confirmation that Ithacare did not have
any problems with Appendices A through E if the Board required
them.
Mr. Desch responded that Ithacare would prefer that the Board
did not require them because then the Board would have to state
what specific technical exhibits were wanted in the scoping
document.
Mr. Bell stated that Appendix C says, "if any ".
Attorney Barney stated that it was written in the context that
this was a list of things to be considered and included if it were
necessary.
Ms. Cornell asked who wrote Appendix C.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter responded that it was taken
directly from the SEQR model outline.
Planning Board Minutes
12
January 3, 1995
Ms. Cornell stated that if Ithacare doesn't have any problems
with Appendices A, B, D, and E, then she thought that the Board
should require them.
Mr. Desch responded that Ithacare does not have a problem with
them being listed as appendices as long as they were optional
things that if Ithacare thought were relevant then they would be
used.
Ms. Cornell stated that the whole premise of this is that if
the Board requires Ithacare to do it then it is upon Ithacare's
shoulders to determine what is relevant.
Mr. Desch stated that they had already been through a three -
hour scoping hearing discussion that resulted in Draft 4.0.
Ms. Cornell stated that she felt very strongly that the Board
should require this information and that it is simply saying that
the Board wants the references of the information that Ithacare
used to compile the report. Ms. Cornell stated that it was still
up to Ithacare to chose the information to be included.
Mr. Desch stated that
from
Ithacare's
view,
the
Board would
get a much
better document
if it
is left
as
"may"
not
"must".
Mr. Bell asked if Mr. Desch was referring to Appendix C or the
whole thing.
Mr. Desch responded, the whole thing, because then Ithacare
can integrate the whole thing together and keep it relevant,
without the distraction of technical reports that have no
relationship with the particular alternatives that Ithacare is
proposing.
Ms. Cornell stated that the Appendix was only asking for
relevant ones or simply listing sources.
Mr. Desch stated that as soon as the Board makes it "must"
then the Board is implying that there are aspects to that
particular item that must be included in the EIS.
Tom Niederkorn, who is working with Ithacare on the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement, addressed the
Board and asked if changing the descriptive statement below Section
XI Appendices, to read, "The following are materials that shall be
added by the applicant in support of the DEIS "'if relevant' ".
Mr. Bell stated that making the change as Mr. Niederkorn
suggested does not change things that much. Mr. Bell stated that
he did not think Appendices A, B, C, and D are a big deal. Mr.
Bell stated that he thinks the real issues are Appendices F, and G,
which are the things that are going to let the Board and the public
Planning Board Minutes
13
January 3, 1995
know what the building is going to look like. Mr. Bell stated that
a year ago the Town Board was given a written description that
described what view would be blocked. Mr. Bell stated that was not
a visual presentation, it was written. Mr. Bell further stated
that unless the Board has an actual picture that shows the view
obstruction, the Board will not know. And if the Board does not
know then this is not complete, and it is not a hard look, and
therefore it does not meet the requirements of SEQR.
Mr. Bell stated that at the last meeting Mr. Desch mentioned
that they had consulted someone regarding photo overlays, and had
received a quotation of $13,000. Mr. Bell stated that he had
reviewed the Wal -Mart DEIS and that there was a series of at least
20 different photo overlays of the building from many different
locations with a variety of detail, and that the photos really did
convey the result of putting the building in the proposed location.
Mr. Bell stated that they did not look like $13,000 worth of photos
to him. Mr. Bell stated that he wanted to know what the view would
be like from many locations around the proposed Ithacare location.
Ms. Cornell suggested adding the word "relevant" to each
Appendices A through D which makes it clear that Ithacare has the
discretion of what is relevant. Ms. Cornell suggested leaving F,
G, and H, as presented in Draft 4.0 and Ithacare can provide the
Planning Board with what they think is adequate and what they feel
they can afford.
Mr. Desch asked if he understood Ms. Cornell correctly in that
the Board would be adding the words "economically feasible" in
front of the words "photographic or computer generated ".
Ms. Cornell responded, yes. Ms. Cornell stated that if it
doesn't suit what the Board needs, then the Board will give the
document back to Ithacare.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that the Board had the right
to ask for more.
Attorney
Barney
stated
that the idea of a scoping instrument
is to give the
applicant
an
idea of what the Board wants to have,
but not to refine
it
to the
utmost because the Board wants to see
the document
itself
and how it is presented and then make a
determination
determination of
of
is
it or is
it not complete.
Ms. Cornell stated that the Board was trying to clarify the
outline.
Board Member Candace
Cornell made a motion
to require that in
Draft 4.0 of the
Scoping Outline for the Ithacare project, Section
XI.Appendices A,
By C, D,
and E, be required of
the applicant and
that the word "relevant"
be inserted at the
beginning of each
appendix item,
so that
Ithacare makes the
determination of
Planning Board Minutes
14
January 3, 1995
relevancy.
That in Appendices F, G,
and H, Ithacare can give the
Board what
they
feel is adequate
and in the event that the
information
given
is not satisfactory,
then the Board will return
the Environmental
Impact Statement
to Ithacare for additional
information.
Ms. Cornell's motion failed for a lack of a second to the
motion.
Board Member Gregory
Bell made a
motion
to add the word
"shall" be added to Item
XI Appendices
and the
word "relevant"
added to Appendices A, B,
C, and D, and
leave it
at that.
Mark Macera, Ithacare eIs Executive Director, asked the Board if
it was requiring Ithacare to prepare the four views identified in
Appendix Item F for the proposed building configuration as well as
all of the alternate building configurations and locations. Mr.
Macera reminded the Board that one set of views for each building
location could cost Ithacare approximately $13,000. Mr. Macera
went on to add that Mr. Bell had stated at the December 20, 1994
Planning Board meeting that this was not expected of Ithacare.
Mr. Bell stated that he said at
the
last
meeting that he was
not expecting Hollywood of Ithacare.
Mr.
Bell
also stated that the
Wal -Mart photos were not that slick
but
were
adequate.
Mr. Desch stated that Ithacare is not Wal -Mart, and that
Ithacare can not compete with Wal -Mart.
Mr. Bell responded that he did not know what the cost of the
Wal -Mart photos was.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Bell if he was willing to impose
upon Ithacare to produce similar photos as Wal -Mart without knowing
the cost. Attorney Barney stated that he was concerned about
lawsuits on both sides. The Board was given a very good document
after a great deal of discussion and a lot of input at the last
meeting, and now the Board could be creating a situation which
could be a problem for the Town the other way. Attorney Barney
stated that he did not feel comfortable with the Board mandating a
very, very costly process.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he wanted to see if
the Board would be more specific regarding alternate building
locations on the site that could be included in the studies. Mr.
Kanter stated that the Board discussed shifting the existing
building footprint southward closer to the wetlands and shifting
the existing building footprint westward down the hill as alternate
locations to determine impact on views versus other impacts. Mr.
Kanter stated that he felt that it would be valuable to include
wording in Appendices F and G that would give the applicant a
little more direction.
Planning Board Minutes
15
January 3, 1995
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the Board could agree on
parts of the appendices or if the Board chose to go on to other
topics.
Board Member
Stephen Smith asked
Mr. Kanter if
he was
suggesting that the
Board be more specific
in identifying
different
locations
in regard
to the perspectives and
cross - section
drawings.
Mr. Kanter responded that the reason he was addressing it in
regard to the perspectives and cross - section drawings and photos
was because if the Board is going to "require" studies to be done
then the Board must be very specific about what it is going to
require. Mr. Kanter stated that if it is going to be "may" then
the Board wants to be as complete in the examples given to the
applicant, which still leaves it open in terms of judgement of the
applicant. Mr. Kanter stated that the reason he mentioned the two
specific locations was because it seemed that they would have the
best chance of changing the view impact of a workable building on
that particular site, and what that would change in terms of other
impacts would have to be looked at in the Environmental Impact
Statement. Mr. Kanter stated that there may be other building
configurations, but if they are not going to work from a practical
and realistic standpoint why go into detail of looking at the
visual studies. But, Mr. Kanter added, if the building could be
shifted slightly and get some real benefit from it, visually, then
look at those locations.
Board Member James Ainslie asked if the Board could give a
specific distance from what the footprint is now to what you think
it could be.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Board could suggest a distance,
such as 100 feet, and let Ithacare make the determination of
whether or not it is an appropriate distance.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that Ithacare wants to
complete the project and complete the EIS and that they would put
as much information in front of the Planning Board to convince the
members of what they intend to do, if at the time they bring the
EIS in and determine it not to be adequate, then the Board can just
tell them that. Mr. Finch stated that it did not seem to him that
the Board is advancing their cause or the Board's by being more
specific at this point.
Board Member Herbert Finch made a motion to approve Draft 4.0
of the proposed Ithacare project Scoping Outline as it stands.
Board Member James Ainslie seconded Mr. Finch's motion.
C A
Planning Board Minutes
16
January 3, 1995
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that the Board had not
discussed alternative sites at this meeting very much. Mr. Bell
read a portion of Section 617.14. f. 5 of the SEQR Regulations to
the Board as follows.
"For private applicants, any alternative for which no
discretionary approvals are needed may be described.
Site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by or
under option to a private applicant."
Mr. Bell stated that the way he remembered hearing Mr. Kanter at
the December 20, 1994 Planning Board meeting was that the Board did
not have to include any alternate site off the proposed site
because they are private applicants. Mr. Bell indicated that the
reading of the SEQR Regulation itself as opposed to the SEAR
Handbook clearly does not state that, it states that it may be
limited, but it does not state that it has to be limited. Mr. Bell
stated that he did not think that it should be limited, and unless
the Board looks at other sites that it is not a hard look and does
not meet the requirements of SEQR. Mr. Bell stated that he had
consulted with an environmental lawyer and asked him if the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board had the right to ask for analysis of any
other sites other than the proposed site, and the lawyer responded
that the Board did have the right. Mr. Bell stated that he thought
that the impression that the Board was left with at the last
meeting was incorrect, and that if the Board limits the EIS just to
this site the Board is not meeting the requirements of SEQR, and,
Mr. Bell continued, he thought that it was "just bad planning ".
Mr. Bell stated that he thought that there were a number of things
about this site that were not particularly good. "The fact that
we're struggling between the steep slope, a wetland, and the view,
means that there are some environmental constraints that may not
lead this to being such a great site." Mr. Bell stated that he
thought it was very clear that the Planning Board would not be
wrestling with this to the degree that we are if this were a good
site environmentally. Mr. Bell further stated, "so unless we [the
Board] require that other off -site sites be at least discussed,
then I don't think it's going to meet the hard look test and I
think it opens us up to another lawsuit."
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated for the record, that it
was primarily Attorney John Barney that had read from the SEQR
Handbook at the December 20, 1994 Planning Board meeting. Mr.
Kanter stated that he believed that Mr. Bell, at the last meeting,
was trying to argue that alternative sites must be looked at. Mr.
Kanter further stated that the point he and Attorney Barney were
trying to get across was that SEQR does not require the Board to
have the applicant do that unless the sites are under his control
or under option. Mr. Kanter stated that it was never said that the
Board can not ask for that information, but it was stated that it
could not be required unless it is a reasonable alternative to
investigate.
. .
Planning Board Minutes
17
January 3, 1995
Board Member James Ainslie asked with the hills and valleys
around Ithacare, how are you going to position this building in any
other location that you do not have the same problems there are
with this location, except they would not have Ithaca College or
the whole package deal that started this whole thing.
Mr.
but there
Bell stated that the
are a lot of others.
package was only one
Mr. Bell stated that
consideration,
there are lots
of sites
around Ithaca that do
not have
the impact
this
does.
Mr. Ainslie stated that Mr. Bell had made a bald statement.
Mr. Bell responded that he agreed that it was a bald
statement.
Town Attorney John Barney stated
what alternate site Mr. Bell would
Attorney Barney asked if the applicant
say that there is a piece of land that
this, it may not be for sale, we don'
can't get it but yes, it may be a bet -
Barney asked what site Mr. Bell wanted
putting together views and all of the
to analyze a different site.
that he would like to know
like Ithacare to analyze.
was supposed to ad -hoc and
would be better suited for
t have an option on it, we
ter place for it. Attorney
Ithacare to spend the money
other information necessary
Mr.
Ainslie
stated that the YMCA was up in
Lansing
because the
City of
Ithaca
could not find any spot to have
it down
town.
Mr.
Bell
responded that
maybe
Lansing is the
right
spot for
Ithacare,
and
that he did not
know
where the right
spot
was.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked Mark Macera if other sites
were looked at, other than the proposed site, prior to starting the
process.
Mr. Macera responded, yes.
Ms. Cornell stated that Ithacare could use the other sites for
the discussions of alternative sites.
Mr. Macera stated that the issue was discussed at the last
Planning Board meeting and is reflected in the minutes of December
20, 1994. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare has conducted a review
of several sites, and that many criteria were used to evaluate the
sites before Ithacare reached a decision to select the South Hill
site as the most appropriate one. Mr. Macera added that the study
would be included in the DEIS. Mr. Macera stated that he felt that
Mr. Bell's interpretation of SEQR was out of context and that as a
means of mitigation, the Board may require Ithacare to examine
alternative sites it owns or has under its control. Mr. Macera
stated that Ithacare does not own or control any other sites and
that this fact has been made clear previously. Mr. Macera asked
.
Planning Board Minutes 18 January 3, 1995
that Mr. Bell to answer Attorney Barney's question of which sites
warranted analysis.
Ms. Cornell stated if the Board asked Ithacare for off -site
alternatives, there is documentation available.
Mr. Desch stated that it would be included in Item B of the
Appendices.
Mr. Macera stated that the Board will reach the conclusion
that led Ithacare to the site proposed today.
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked Mr. Macera if most of the
information was provided at the June or July meeting.
Mr. Macera responded, yes.
Mr. Kanter asked Mr. Bell to clarify why he raised the issue
of alternative sites because it is in the Scoping Outline (4.0).
The level of detail of alternative sites to be looked at was about
20 minutes worth of discussion at the December 20, 1994 meeting.
Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare considered the alternative
sites to the extent that Ithacare could use them in meeting its
program requirements. Mr. Macera added that he was still curious
to hear what sites Mr. Bell has determined appropriate for Ithacare
to consider.
Mr. Bell stated that it is never up to the Planning Board to
scope out a place for some developer to locate, it is up to the
applicant to do that. Mr. Bell stated that the Board is supposed
to have Ithacare look at ways to minimize the impact on the
environment, and looking at alternate sites is one of the ways that
can be done, as is clearly stated in Section 617 that this is one
of the ways. Mr. Bell stated that there are several ways; such as
size, configuration, different sites, different technologies, and
a whole list of different ways to minimize the impact on the
environment. In this case, Mr. Bell added, it is one of the
primary ways. Mr. Bell stated that he is hearing that there is no
openness to look into that.
Mr. Desch stated that was not true.
Ms.
Cornell
stated
that
Ithacare has already done it, and that
it would
be included
in
the
EIS.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked for clarification of
whether or not the words "economically feasible" were to be added
to Appendices F and G.
Mr. Finch responded that the motion was to accept Draft 4.0 as
presented to the Board.
L
Planning Board Minutes 19 January 3, 1995
Board Member James Ainslie stated that there was a motion on
the floor.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Smith, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson.
Nay - Cornell, Bell.
Abstain - Wilcox.
The motion was not approved because a positive vote requires
at least five affirmative votes.
Board
Member
Stephen Smith then made a motion to approve Draft
4.0 of the
Scoping
Outline for the proposed Ithacare project,
with
Appendices
A, B, D,
and E as required information, adding the
word
"relevant"
to each.
Appendices C, F, G, and H are information
that
may be submitted
at the discretion of the applicant. The
word
"all" in Appendix B is to be deleted. The Appendices are to be
separated out with two descriptive sentences which would stated
that the information "shall" be added for Appendices A, B, D, and
E, and "may" be added for Appendices C, F, G. and H.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Cornell, Kenerson, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - Bell.
Abstain - Wilcox.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Draft 4.0 of the
Scoping Outline for the proposed Ithacare project to be duly
closed.
AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF A 30 +/- ACRE PORTION OF
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 28-1-26.2, THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
AREA BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,150 FEET SOUTH OF MECKLENBURG
ROAD (NYS ROUTE 79), THE EAST LINE BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
1,500 FEET WEST OF WEST HAVEN ROAD, AND THE SOUTH LINE BEING
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH OF ELM STREET EXTENSION. SAID
PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30 TO
SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD) . ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA, INC.,
OWNER; FIRST RESIDENTS' GROUP, APPLICANT; HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS,
AGENT.
Chairperson
Kenerson
declared
the
above -noted matter duly
opened
and read
aloud from
the
Planning
Board agenda.
Planning Board Minutes
20
January 3, 1995
Chairperson Kenerson addressed the Board and stated that the
Board has a suggested resolution, as well as a copy of the Local
Law that would create the Special Land Use District (SLUD) , and
that the project has been discussed at length by the Planning
Board.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked when it was determined that
no more than 8 offices or work spaces would be allowed in the
common house as shown in the SLUD. (The Draft SLUD, dated
12/28/94, for the proposed EcoVillage project is attached hereto as
Exhibit #3)
Town Attorney John Barney responded, that it was determined
during a discussion with staff and House Craft Builders after the
November 15, 1994 Planning Board meeting.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that EcoVillage wanted a
larger number of offices to be allowed, and the Board did not want
that number, so there was a compromise and it was decided 8 was
agreeable to both sides.
Ms.
Cornell stated
that
under Occupations in the SLUD it
appeared
As long as it was
that if the group wanted to have guests, they would not be allowed.
that
guests are allowed.
there
could
be a
medical
clinic.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that there could be a medical
clinic there under the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals and
after site plan approval of this Board.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that the SLUD stated that
there could be no more than one additional non - resident person
employed by any one professional or quasi - professional and no more
than 4 additional non - resident persons may be employed in the
aggregate by all of the professionals or quasi - professionals
occupying work space in the common house. Mr. Bell stated that as
he thought that there would be a potential problem if the co -op
itself hires people, would those people be included in the 4
additional non - residents.
Town Attorney John Barney responded that the co -op would be
outside of the paragraph Mr. Bell had just read.
Mr. Bell stated that on Page 3, Paragraph 3, where
discusses the community center, known as the common house,
stated that the community center is to be used exclusively
it
it
by
residents of the dwellings
stated that the word "exclusively"
located within the SLUD.
was too rigid because
Mr. Bell
it implied
As long as it was
that if the group wanted to have guests, they would not be allowed.
the residents,
Chairperson
Kenerson
stated
that it
was the residents home.
As long as it was
used by
the residents,
guests are allowed.
Planning Board Minutes
21
January 3, 1995
Ms. Cornell stated that the Tompkins County Planning
Department had made a comment that they were concerned with the
possible trip generation of a development this size. (Letter from
the Tompkins County Planning Department, dated December 2, 1994, is
hereto attached as Exhibit #4)
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that according to
the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the staff analysis
indicated that traffic would not be a problem.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the New York State
Department of Transportation had submitted a letter regarding this
project as well. (Comments received from the New York State
Department of Transportation, dated November 29, 1994 is attached
hereto as Exhibit #5) Mr. Kanter read a portion of the letter as
follows: "Based on the information provided, it appears that the
traffic generation from the development would not be significant
enough to require highway mitigation, even the projects full build,,,
out potential."
The Planning Board discussed the comments submitted by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The Planning Board
determined that several of the comments made would need to be
addressed at the Site Plan stage of the development and were not
relevant to the preparation of the SLUD. (Comments received from
the ERC are attached hereto as Exhibit #6)
There appearing to
be
no further
discussion
Chairperson
Kenerson asked if anyone
were
prepared to
offer a
motion.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Herbert Finch.
WHEREAS.
1. The Town Board has received an application to rezone a 30 +/-
acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1 -26.2, the
north line of said area being located approximately 2,150 ft,
south of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte. 79), the east line being
located approximately 1,500 feet west of West Haven Road, and
the south line being located approximately 800 ft. north of
Elm St. Extension. Said proposal would change the zoning from
Residence District R -30 to Special Land Use District (SLUD).
Eco Village at Ithaca, Inc., Owners First Residents' Group,
Applicant; House Craft Builders, Agents; and
2. The Town Board on September 12, 1994 referred said application
to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation
pursuant to Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Article IX,
Section 46, no. 1; and
Planning Board Minutes
22
January 3, 1995
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on November 1, 1994,
and at a subsequent meeting on November 15, 1994, has reviewed
the draft Special Land Use District legislation proposed for
the site and the attached Schedule A description of the land
to be rezoned, a Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I
prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town
planning staff, a submission entitled "Eco Village Cohousing
Cooperative, Preliminary Designs" and including drawings
entitled "Project Site Plan" (PB -2) and dated September 6,
1994; "Neighborhood Site Plan Version R -2" (PB -3) dated
September 1, 1994; "Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan"
(PB -23) dated September 6, 1994; and drawings illustrating
the proposed design and character of the proposed residences
and common house, prepared by House Craft Builders, Ithaca,
New York, and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
10 That the Town
XIV, Section
that.
a. There is
draft Spi
the site
of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article
78 of the Town Zoning ordinance, hereby finds
a need for the proposed uses allowed under the
�cial Land Use District legislation proposed for
in the proposed location,
b. The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood in which the uses allowed under the Special
Land Use District legislation proposed for the site will
not be adversely affected;
c. The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town.
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article
IX, Section 46, No.2 of the Town Zoning ordinance, hereby
recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board approve the
proposed rezoning of the portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 28 -1 -26.2 described in Schedule A attached to the draft
Special Land Use District legislation proposed for the site,
from Residence R -30 District to Special Land Use District.
39 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is concerned with the
overall planning implications for the area surrounding the
proposed Special Land Use District, and hereby recommends that
the Town Board, through its Planning Committee, study future
zoning options for the surrounding West Hill area.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz addressed the Board and
asked, referring to Page 11, Section L, Item 1, whether the Board
would rather have Item number 1, which deals with access to West
Haven Road be a condition that would need to be met prior to the
Planning Board Minutes
23
January 3, 1995
SLUD regulations taking effect as a law. Mr. Frantz stated that he
asks the question because the issue of secondary ingress and egress
was a major issue for the entire project. Mr. Frantz stated that
he was not sure that the Town of Ithaca wants to go ahead and
rezone this land to a Special Land Use District without first
having the easement for secondary access in hand, and thus having
the guarantee that the access will be possible to build that
access.
Town
Planner
easement
Jonathan
Kanter
asked Claudia Weisburd if the
easement
has
been
obtained
and
/or
finalized.
Ms. Weisburd responded that the easement has been agreed to
but not finalized yet. Ms. Weisburd stated that she assumed that
the easement would be a condition of final site plan approval.
Mr. Kanter stated that it would be desirable to have that in
place before the SLUD zoning is affected to guarantee the future
access route.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the concern he has is
that the easement, or secondary access, should be in place prior to
any building permits rather than prior to any certificates of
occupancy.
Mr. Frantz
stated that the
easement
should
be in hand and
filed before the
SLUD legislation
actually
takes
effect.
Ms. Cornell asked Ms. Weisburd if there was a reason why that
could not be done.
Ms. Weisburd asked when the SLUD would take effect.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Town Board had set the public
hearing for January 9, 1995 meeting in anticipation that this Board
would act.
Ms. Weisburd stated that they would not be able to get the
easement in hand prior to the Town Board meeting on January 9,
1995.
Jerold Weisburd stated that part of the problem is that the
First Residents' Group has a very expensive surveying job that
needs to be done and no one is quite sure what to survey. Mr.
Weisburd stated that they have not received an approval to base the
survey on. Mr. Weisburd stated that the survey is the basis of the
easement as well.
Ms. Weisburd stated that
that says that if the work has
year according to the approved
goes away at a certain point.
since there is a reversion clause
not materially commenced within a
site plan then the SLUD effectively
Ms. Weisburd stated that it seemed
Planning Board Minutes 24 January 3, 1995
as though the Town has so many levels of protection that' the
chances of anything happening on that land without access is pretty
remote.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he thought it was better
to have the easement prior to construction.
Ms.
Weisburd
asked
why the access easement could not be part
+
1
Planning Board Minutes 24 January 3, 1995
as though the Town has so many levels of protection that' the
chances of anything happening on that land without access is pretty
remote.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he thought it was better
to have the easement prior to construction.
Ms.
Weisburd
asked
why the access easement could not be part
of the
Herbert
final
site
plan
approval.
Attorney Barney stated that he did not want the Planning Board
to be in a position where they are putting in a restriction that is
greater in a particular area than the Town Board would have put in
by the adoption. Attorney Barney asked if there would be a problem
with stating that there would be no building permits issued until
the First Residents' Group at least has title to the road.
Ms. Weisburd stated that there was no problem with saying no
building permits for Page 11, Section L, Item 1, however the
remaining items in that section would be limited by no certificates
of occupancy.
Mr. Walker stated that once there is an easement, then there
is the right to build there, but if there is no easement then there
i.s no right to build there.
It was agreed that the above change would be made to the
December 28, 1994 Draft of the Special Land Use District for the
proposed Eco Village Co- Housing Community project as shown on
Exhibit V. (Exhibit #7 is hereto attached)
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith, Wilcox.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the Draft Special
Land Use District for the proposed Eco Village Co- Housing Community
to be duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM:
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES - December 20,
1994.
MOTION by
Herbert
Finch, seconded by Gregory
Bell.
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of December 20, 1994, be and hereby are approved with
the following corrections:
. 1
Planning Board Minutes
25
January 3, 1995
On Page 3, Paragraph 7, Sentence 2, which read: "Mr. Bell
stated that he and his wife were actively trying to sell the
property as a commercial building due to hardship, they wanted to
rent it temporarily until a time of sale."
This was changed to read: "Mr. Bell stated that he and his
wife were actively trying to sell the property as a commercial
building. Due to hardship, they wanted to rent it temporarily
until a time of sale."
On Page 4, Paragraph 7, Sentence 2, which read: "Mr. Walker
stated that Route 13 would be better and Mancini Road."
This was changed to read: "Mr. Walker stated that access on
Route 13 would be better than Mancini Road."
On Page 9, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2, which read: "Mr. Twomey
stated that he felt that the view from the Route 96B overlook was
one of the greatest views he has seen in the Ithacare area."
This was changed to read: "Mr. Twomey stated that he felt the
view from the Route 96B overlook was one of the greatest views he
has seen in the Ithaca area."
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Finch, Ainslie, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Cornell, Wilcox.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he wanted to commend
the Recording Secretary for getting through the tapes.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the tapes
were very spotty in quality and that he had listened to some of
them and they sound fine for a couple of minutes then the volume
drops dramatically. Mr. Frantz stated that Ms. Hays has done a
very good job with the minutes.
AGENDA ITEM. OTHER BUSINESS.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he wanted the Board to
extend their appreciation to the Recording Secretary, Starr Hays,
for the hard work she has done on the minutes. The Board concurred
with Mr. Finch's statement.
Ms. Hays thanked the Board for the compliments.
.
Planning Board Minutes
26
January 3, 1995
Board
Member
Candace
Cornell asked
Attorney Barney
what he had
determined
Attorney
about
of the Town
Law states
taking
a
vote
for the
of Ayes and
Chairmanship
and the
on
paper.
Attorney Barney stated
that he thought that a
vote on the
matter of the nomination of a
Chairman is
a public vote.
the Planning
Attorney
Barney stated that Section 63
of the Town
Law states
that
the vote
upon every question be taken
by a count
of Ayes and
Nays
and the
names of the members present
and their votes
shall be entered
in
the minutes. Attorney Barney
stated that
he thought
that
the same
rules would apply to the Planning
Board.
There
was further
discussion
regarding the procedures for
nominating
a Chair for
the Planning
Board.
Board Member Candace Cornell made a motion to nominate Board
Member Stephen Smith for the Chairmanship for 1995. The motion was
seconded by Board Member Gregory Bell
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Gregory Bell:
To
nominate
Board
Member
Stephen
Smith as
the
Chair for the
Town of
Ithaca
Planning
Board
for the
remainder
of
1995.
MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Herbert Finch:
To
nominate Board Member
Robert Kenerson as
the
Chair for the
Town of
Ithaca Planning Board
for the remainder
of 1995.
There b ing no other nominations, Town Attorney John Barney
called for a vote with the following results.
Ayes for Ste hen Smith - Cornell, Bell, Smith.
Ayes for Rob rt Kenerson - Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson.
Board Member Fred Wilcox abstained from the vote.
Neither Motion passed due to a lack of the majority vote.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter will present the Town Board with
the results of the Planning Board's nominations and let the Town
Board make the determination of who is to be Chair for the Planning
Board for 1995.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson
declared the matter of nomination of a Planning Board Chair for
1995 duly closed.
Board Member James Ainslie made a motion to elect Board Member
Candace Cornell as the Vice -Chair for the Planning Board for 1995.
The Motion was not voted upon due to the lack of a second to
the motion.
Planning Board Minutes 27 January 3, 1995
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
To table the election of a Vice -Chair until after the Town
Board has made the appointment for the Chairmanship of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board for 1995.
vote.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox.
Nay - Cornell, Smith,
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Kenerson declared the January 3, 1995
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
10:21 p.m.
1/6/95.
Respectfully submitted,
��k q)djf
StarrRae Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
rnat It was prepared In accoroai uc no vl. �I•c •.... �...
.practice for land title surveys adopted by the New York State
Association of Professional land Surveyors; and that 1 found no %D -n
:} visible encroachments either way across property lines except
as shown hereon.
SIGHED DA ED: — _ rX
r
MYAS. K'7 = 35 E- !rs2.i
!i__ •_ -F. i I ;
0 ry
Y
W 0
r
w
t.,
CO o
➢ v U w V1 1Q
_
��_ — • a
Lcrz�►nc.A5•$7- 35w -)25.v r *I
Lr Z L
.•� � 4•-' rn t �' 0
rn
&- - v �? F% V, 0
qk
= y N v\ ,o
r
n 'N `r 4"n �
T' Fr
II"m 14 p t o L
�n = 0�
• t 0
-� [— 0 �) �
z • �'
-{ m . Crt
i on rc L4 V r'
tA
0 vi 0 Dd 0
Zvi �r'• 0 0 , • c d ,4% rn z r.
r �+0 1
i -•C t t m -
m000
• Y+ DC ED To ILCaaD, `tG[PI 4C
fA 1 F•r�� i1 D r.ZL9&vs ia� trIsTt6+4, :JQu9c. ..
•• 7;nt 110 -(e f„ vTt%.1Zi W%4uvvjeb ;.LTSoFw� r•v 1
-—+ I
mo
MIS Kno 13 4,4c..t % ; � WAS N z° 356 -►aTo � `s r' M�s.9 7 =3sv. • lszo'r "
v Y DGI� SANS JqT o' c>:t:a sA�cs S -
PYL:[►tT cL YaQO
' • �J I �PcoY. CAST � MGraS. fyN4.o' reo�.� o�.D ti� c tiEDSEa.w
'
&u;
7''" .."., ,1 - r CCrU1CDI� - TM_L _ _11UM LE • 11 vr E !t • tos.N . \ Lt
/ , , S Y %.
` r I'• i • u t•3 ' t
• . t
°
'•� _�-- �: ° S►EV Eli M I Z., TMO
Exhibit #1
}(;
1
Planning Boat Minutes 1/3/95 �'�" 1
t
•
SCOPING OUTLINE
FOR DRAFT ENVIRONI&=AL IMPACT STATEMENT
ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING CONEVIUNITY
(Draft 4.0)
• December 21, 1994
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Lead Agency = ::
-
FileName cMdevrevAitharare \scope4-0.mem
E1]}�lt #2. :<<
1/3/95 Planning Board Minutes
I
6WN CLERK 273 -1721
•
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747
FAX (607) 273 -1704
TO: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Ithacare Center
FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner
RE: Ithacare Draft Scoping Outline (4.0 - Revised 12/21/94)
DATE: December 22, 1994
PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783
As a result of the Public Scoping Hearing and ensuing Planning Board discussion on
the Ithacare Senior Living Community held on December 20, 1994, the Scoping
Outline (Draft 3.0) has been revised (now Draft 4.0, December 21, 1994) for your final
review and approval. For purposes of comparison, deletions are shown in brackets
[ . 1; additions are underlined and in boldface.
Consideration of approval of the Scoping Outline will be on the January 3, 1995
Planning Board agenda. Hopefully, the Planning Board will be able to approve the
outline January 3rd, so that it can be finalized and distributed to the applicant,
involved and interested agencies and other individuals by January 5, 19950
Please let me know if you have any questions.
cc: Involved and Interested Agencies and Other Individuals
•
11
II.
L 40101W
Scopine Outline for Ithacare Environmental Impact Statement
Cover Sheet
Document should begin with a cover sheet that indicates:
A. Whether it is a draft or final impact statement
Be Name or other descriptive title of the project
C. Location (county and town) of the project
D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the
statement (Town of Ithaca Planning Board) and the name and telephone
number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further
information Qonathan Kanter, Town Planner; Phone: (607) 273 -1747)
E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and
a contact name and telephone number
F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS (to be filled in when accepted)
G. Deadline date by which comments are due (to be filled in when
accepted)
Table of Contents and Summary
assesses
An Executive Summary should follow the Table of Contents. The Summary
should include:
A. Brief description of the action
Be Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts (issues of controversy - e.g.,
visual impact - must be specified)
Co Mitigation measures proposed
D. Alternatives considered
E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding)
Description of the Proposed Action
A. Project Purpose and Need
III.
L 40101W
Scopine Outline for Ithacare Environmental Impact Statement
Cover Sheet
Document should begin with a cover sheet that indicates:
A. Whether it is a draft or final impact statement
Be Name or other descriptive title of the project
C. Location (county and town) of the project
D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the
statement (Town of Ithaca Planning Board) and the name and telephone
number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further
information Qonathan Kanter, Town Planner; Phone: (607) 273 -1747)
E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and
a contact name and telephone number
F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS (to be filled in when accepted)
G. Deadline date by which comments are due (to be filled in when
accepted)
Table of Contents and Summary
assesses
An Executive Summary should follow the Table of Contents. The Summary
should include:
A. Brief description of the action
Be Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts (issues of controversy - e.g.,
visual impact - must be specified)
Co Mitigation measures proposed
D. Alternatives considered
E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding)
Description of the Proposed Action
A. Project Purpose and Need
1. Background and history
2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on
adopted community development plans
3. Objectives of the project sponsor
Be Location
1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use regional and
local location maps to illustrate)
2. Description of access to the [site] 28 + \- acre parcel
3. Description of existing zoning of the [site] .28 + \- acre parcel
C. Design and Layout
1. Total [site] parcel area (28 + \- acres)
a. proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots,
roads)
be amount of land to be cleared including buildings,
parking, trails, walkways, driveways)
ce open space
2. Structures
a. gross floor area (GFA) of buildings, structures
be layout of buildings
Co site plans and profile views
3. Parking
a. pavement area
° be number of spaces and layout
.' I. :
_.. -
;- ° =Y 4 Sewage/Wastewater - Describe existing
g sewer loses and
• Jyu •a i.Yt Mosses, —
potential hook -ups r_
.
W. '�WWWV. .2',
WI
Is
Page 2
•
•
•
is
50 Proposed stormwater facilities and anticipated use of fertilizers,
MMMM, pesticides, herbicides
D. Construction and Operation
10 Construction
a. total construction period anticipated
be schedule of construction
ca future potential development, on site or on adjoining
properties
2. Operation
a. type of operation, activities that will occur at facility
be schedule of operation and activities
E. Approvals
16 Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations, if any
2. Other permit approval or funding requirements
IV. Environmental Setting
NATURAL RESOURCES
A.
Geology
16 Subsurface
a. composition and thickness of subsurface material
examples: depth to, and nature of, bedrock formations
and impermeable layers
occurrence of an extractive mineral resource
usefulness as a construction material
Surface
a. list of soil types .
1.
Page 3
b. discussion of soil characteristics
examples: physical properties (indication of soils
hydrological /infiltration capabilities)
engineering properties (soil bearing capacity)
c distribution of soil types at project site
do suitability for use
examples: agriculture, recreation, construction, mining
I Topography
a. description and maps) of topography at project site
examples: slopes, prominent or unique features
be description and map(s) of topography, of surrounding area
Be Water Resources
16 Surface water
a. location and description of surface waters located on
project site or those that may be influenced by the project
examples: seasonal variation, quantity, quality,
classification according to NYS Dept. of
Health or DEC
be identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters
TM��t
it O Y1'''.k'�s�•::r
_'•
examples:
public /private water supply
industrial uses
agricultural uses
recreation . -
. -;
description of existing drainage areas, patterns and -.F, �µ w
channels
Page 4
r1
U
is
•
G
M •
�[ J1
examples:
public /private water supply
industrial uses
agricultural uses
recreation . -
. -;
description of existing drainage areas, patterns and -.F, �µ w
channels
Page 4
r1
U
is
•
•
•
d. discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and
eutrophication of water sources
examples: include description of area in City of Ithaca
that receives drainage from site that is prone
to flooding ( Cayuga Street /Six Mile
Creek area) and relation of drainage from this
site to the affected area of the City
Co Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1.
2.
Vegetation
a. list vegetation types on the project site and within the
surrounding area
be discussion of site vegetation characteristics
examples: species present and abundance
age, size, distribution
dominance
plant community types
unique, rare and endangered species
value as habitat for wildlife
productivity
Fish and Wildlife
a. list of fish and wildlife species on the project site and
within surrounding area, including migratory and resident
species
be discussion of fish and wildlife population characteristics
examples: species present and abundance
distribution, dominance
unique, rare and endangered species
productivity
3, Wetlands
a. list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site
be discuss wetland characteristics
examples: acreage
pncrp 5
0
vegetative cover
classification
benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion
control, recreation
HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Transportation
1. Transportation services
a. description of the size, capacity and. condition of services
examples: roads, bridges, parking; facilities, traffic
control
be description of current level of use of services
examples: a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow
vehicle mix
sources of existing traffic volume
2. Public transportation and pedestrian environment
a. description of the current availability of service
be description of present level of use
co description of facilities to serve pedestrians and patterns of
pedestrian traffic
Be Land Use and Zoning
� � S C �• 1 �yJ .I1
I�{cY�arb� -iY�
Jt' _
1. Existing land use and zoning
a. description of the existing land use of the project site and
the surrounding area
examples: commercial, residential (including single -
family houses in immediate vicinity),
agricultural, business; retail, industrial, .
institutional, vacant, state park, scenic
overlook
description of the existing zoning of site and surrounding
area
tiJr 1�
}
_IV
Page 6
•
E,
C 4
b.
y ♦ i� y
I _
.• S
examples: commercial, residential (including single -
family houses in immediate vicinity),
agricultural, business; retail, industrial, .
institutional, vacant, state park, scenic
overlook
description of the existing zoning of site and surrounding
area
tiJr 1�
}
_IV
Page 6
•
E,
•
•
29 Land use plans
a. description of Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
regarding project site and surrounding area
be discussion of future development trends or pressures in
the area
C. Community Services
10 Include a list of existing facilities and services and a discussion of
existing levels of usage and projected future needs for the
following:
a. police protection
be fire protection
ce health care facilities
do social services
e. recreational facilities
f. utilities
& educational facilities
D. - Demography
1. Population characteristics
a. focus on the characteristics and trends of the aging
population and their needs
E. Cultural Resources
Visual resources
a. description of the physical character of the community
example: urban vs. -rural
be description of natural areas of sigivficant scenic_value,
including the overlook, on Pan-by-.Ro'ad' Include exLsting
data or survey information, if any, "on use of overlook
page .7
c. identification of structures of significant architectural
design
do description of visual relationship between existing
residences in immediate_vicmity and vronosed nn,:,
• e. description of visual relationship /view of prof
West Hill (e.g., from Bostwick Road)
V. Significant Environmental Impacts
N.,� .
A. Aesthetic Resources, Wetlands and Steep Slopes
Discuss the following aspects of the environmental setting from Section
IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action.
The only "potential large impact" identified in the, Full Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF), Part II (6/21/94), was in. the category of
"aesthetic resources," which included ... "blocking portions of the view
from the existing Danby Road /Rte. 96B overlook." In order to
adequately assess that impact, potential impacts on other site features,
including wetlands and steep slopes (15 percent or greater), should be
considered, since those constraints have influenced the proposed
location, configuration and design of the Ithacare facility.
Be Stormwater Runoff /Downstream Flooding and Sewer Overflows in City
of Ithaca
In addition, the following potential impacts should be addressed that
have been raised by the Tompkins County Department of Health (DOH)
in conjunction with several other projects in this area of South Hill,
which could apply to the Ithacare project:
10 Stormwater Runoff/ Downstream Flooding
DOH has indicated that there could be potential impacts from the
increase in run -off from projects in this area of South Hill which
may significantly increase problems in the City of Ithaca where
drainage channels are very flat. Run -off from the Ithacare site
would drain down toward the Meadow Street area in the City
where flooding problems have occurred. This potential impact
should be addressed in the DEIS.
2. Sewer Overflows
DOH has also indicated that overflowing sewers on Cayuga
Street in the City of Ithaca affect the neighboring residences and
•
•
•
VI.
businesses and degrade Six Mile Creek, and has stated in regard
to several other projects in the South Hill area that increased
sanitary wastes generated by new projects will add significantly
to the overflow problem. This potential impact as it relates to the
Ithacare project should be addressed in the DEIS.
Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Imyact
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in
Section V above; including the following:
NATURAL RESOURCES
A.
Co
�I
- M •
10 Topography
a, avoid construction on areas of steep slope (15 percent or
greater)
be design adequate soil erosion protection devices to
minimize impact on areas of steep slope
Water Resources
10 Surface Water
a. design adequate stormwater control system
be ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during
construction and operation to avoid siltation
examples: hay bales
temporary restoration of vegetation to
disturbed areas
landscaping
Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1. Wetlands
a. avoid construction in or near wetlands
a HUMAN RESOURCES
' ° r
°Land Use and Zoning
..
Z11
businesses and degrade Six Mile Creek, and has stated in regard
to several other projects in the South Hill area that increased
sanitary wastes generated by new projects will add significantly
to the overflow problem. This potential impact as it relates to the
Ithacare project should be addressed in the DEIS.
Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Imyact
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in
Section V above; including the following:
NATURAL RESOURCES
A.
Co
�I
- M •
10 Topography
a, avoid construction on areas of steep slope (15 percent or
greater)
be design adequate soil erosion protection devices to
minimize impact on areas of steep slope
Water Resources
10 Surface Water
a. design adequate stormwater control system
be ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during
construction and operation to avoid siltation
examples: hay bales
temporary restoration of vegetation to
disturbed areas
landscaping
Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1. Wetlands
a. avoid construction in or near wetlands
a HUMAN RESOURCES
' ° r
°Land Use and Zoning
..
z�
'
VII.
10 Existing land use and zoning
a. design project to comply with existing land use plans, [to
meet requirements and standards established in] consistent
with the oolicies evidenced by Special Land Use District
No. 7 and in a functional and visually appealing way to set
standard and precedent for future surrounding land use
[B• Cultural Resources]
[l.] B. Visual resources
[a.] 1. redesign the existing overlook to extend the! public viewing area
[b.) 2 design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing
surroundings
[c.] 30 minimize visual impact through thoughful
of lighting and signs (consider height, size,
hours of lighting operation)
[d.] 40 design landscaping to be visually pleasing
buffer between the surrounding land uses,
operational equipment and facilities
PITS
Implemented
L
and innovative design
intensity, glare, and
and to serve as a
parking areas
if
i
Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V above that can be
expected to occur regardless of mitigation measures considered in Section VI.
VIII.. Alternatives
Discuss the following alternatives at a level sufficient to permit a comparative
assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is
not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is
not feasible.
A. Alternative Design and Technologies
1. Site layout
a. density and location of structures on the site (other
locations on the site where buildings might be situated)
s�
'y b. location of access PgAvo-
ss routes, parking and. utility routes :��� �- �4
Page 10
•
•
• e
•
•
2. Orientation of buildings /facilities
a. compatibility with slope and drainage patterns
be site size and setback requirements
3. Alternative configuration of building(s)
examples: stepping building down slope
tower rather than spread out footprint
rotate building 180 degrees (reverse existing
footprint)
Be Alternative Sites
C.
D.
E.
This evaluation should be approached on a general level, not a site
specific evaluation of other sites.
1. Advantages and disadvantages of alternative sites
examples: availability of land
suitability of alternate site(s) to accommodate
design /program requirements
suitable market area
compatibility with regional objectives
accessibility to transportation routes and the service
population
Alternative Size
1. Decrease project size to minimize possible impacts
Alternative Land Use
1. Suitability of site for other uses (such as commercial, industrial,
other type of housing)
No Action
1. Impacts of no action
a. effect on public need =
be effect on applicant's need
C" beneficial or adverse environmental impacts
Page 11
DC. Irreversible and
Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be
consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use.. Indicate in
particular how resources associated with the portion of the site to be
constructed will be affected.
X. Growth Inducing Aspects
Describe the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have,
including the following:
A. Future Development Plans Ithacare Has for This [Site] Parcel
10 Describe the future potential development on this [site] Rarcel
a. What are Ithacare's future plans for additional
development on this [site] parcel (this should include text
description - maps are not necess F)
[b. What additional development could theoretically occur on
this site under the current Special Land Use District No. 7]
Be Surrounding Development Potential
10 Describe the potential for additional development in the
surrounding area, including Ithaca College's plans for future
development on its land holdings in the immediate vicinity of the
project site. (If no information on this is available from Ithaca
College, then provide a generic analysis of 'what could potentially
be built on their land under existing zoning. Include a statement
of any plans Ithacare may have for acquisition or development of
additional Ithaca College land in this area.)
XL . Appendices
The following are materials that may be added by the applicant in support of
• the DEIS:
A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and
relied on in preparing statement
- - - Be List of all federal, state, regional or local agencies, organizations, -
- = consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement =:T
C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale
Page 12
•
c:
D. Technical studies, reports or other materials prepared by the applicant
in support of the statement that are too lengthy to include in the body
• of the statement
E. Relevant correspondence regarding the project
F. Photographic or computer generated overlays demonstrating the effects
of the proposed and alternative configurations of the building(s) on the
view from several different locations and perspectives, including at least
the following:
1. North end of existing scenic overlook
2. South end of existing scenic overlook
3. Approximate [N]north end of proposed scenic overlook extension
4. Northbound driving lane on Route 96B (exact location to be
determined)
[5. West Hill (exact location to be determined)]
G. Cross - section drawings demonstrating the effect of the proposed and
alternative configurations of the building(s) on the view from the same
locations identified in XI(F) above.
H. Longitudinal cross- section of the design of the proposed overlook
extension, parallel to Danbv Road, showing the topographic
relationship of the extension to Danby Road
Page 13
•
• D L5 l'n � iJ �� c � �, .
DEC 2 81994 ;
Draft 12/28/94 i
i
LOCAL LAW NO. FOR THE YEAR 1994
_ LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (LIMITED MIX USE) FOR THE
ECOVILLAGE CO- HOUSLNG COOPERATIVE
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of
environmentally sound housing communities; and
Be A group, now known as First Residents Group, is in the process of forming a
Cooperative Housing Corporation under the laws of the State of New York to be
named EcoVillage Co- Housing Cooperative for the purpose of developing and
owning such housing; and
C. EcoVillage at Ithaca, another entity, has agreed to sell approximately 33 acres to
the First Residents Group or its successor cooperative, contingent upon the
rezoning provided for by this local law and receipt of all other requisite approvals
by the Town of Ithaca and Tompldns County; and
D. The proposed project will:
(a) contribute to the variety of housing styles and patterns of development
available in the Town;
(b) develop and model a neighborhood design for pedestrians, with minimal
traffic, attractive landscaping, and safe play area for children;
(c) utilize clustering to create an aesthetic, quiet and safe neighborhood space to
help foster a sense of community,
(d) utilize interior acreage for housing, which will allow preservation of better
agricultural soils, avoid strip -type residential development along roadways, create
a safer environment, preserve existing rural character and existing views along
roadways;
(e) demonstrate the manner in which housing may be developed to conserve
energy and water, by utilizing passive solar designs, super-insulation, careful
landscaping for wind protection and low -flow water devices;
Exhibit #3
1/3/95 Planning Board Minutes
T
son711, wp51uhA0MLw, December 28, M4 1218pm
(f) demonstrate how housing may be developed which conserves energy by
building smaller individual dwellings and concentrating otherwise - duplicated,
energy - consuming spaces into a community center or 'common house%
(g) demonstrate how meaningful open space may he preserved in conjunction
with construction of new housing at ordinarily - permitted densities.
Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this local law to allow, by creation
of .a Special Land Use District, an opportunity for the implementation of the foregoing goals and
objectives in an environmentally and ecologically sound manner.
Section 3. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town
of ]Ithaca, as readopted, amended and revised, effective February 26, 1968, and thereafter further
amended, be further amended as follows:
A. Addition of S ial Land Use District No. 8. Article II, Section 2 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding to the permissible districts itemized in said
section a district designated as "Special Land Use District No. 8".
B. Principal Use Regulations. In Special Land Use District No. 8, no building shall be
erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of
the following purposes:
1. A one4amily dwelling. A one4amily dwelling may be occupied by not more
= than
(a) one family, or
(b) one family plus no . more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, or other
occupant.
2. A two - family dwelling. A two - family dwelling may be occupied by not more
than two families and each dwelling unit in a two - family dwelling may be
-=- occupied by no more than
�,J (a) one family, or
(b) one family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, or other
occupant. _.
2
v
�
I
(f) demonstrate how housing may be developed which conserves energy by
building smaller individual dwellings and concentrating otherwise - duplicated,
energy - consuming spaces into a community center or 'common house%
(g) demonstrate how meaningful open space may he preserved in conjunction
with construction of new housing at ordinarily - permitted densities.
Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this local law to allow, by creation
of .a Special Land Use District, an opportunity for the implementation of the foregoing goals and
objectives in an environmentally and ecologically sound manner.
Section 3. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town
of ]Ithaca, as readopted, amended and revised, effective February 26, 1968, and thereafter further
amended, be further amended as follows:
A. Addition of S ial Land Use District No. 8. Article II, Section 2 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding to the permissible districts itemized in said
section a district designated as "Special Land Use District No. 8".
B. Principal Use Regulations. In Special Land Use District No. 8, no building shall be
erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of
the following purposes:
1. A one4amily dwelling. A one4amily dwelling may be occupied by not more
= than
(a) one family, or
(b) one family plus no . more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, or other
occupant.
2. A two - family dwelling. A two - family dwelling may be occupied by not more
than two families and each dwelling unit in a two - family dwelling may be
-=- occupied by no more than
�,J (a) one family, or
(b) one family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, or other
occupant. _.
2
v
cwv7ll, wP5IkhAo=Lw, Dcccmbcr 28, 19% 12:28pm
is
3. A community center, also known as a 'common house" which may house
recreation, meeting, and dining space, children's playrooms, kitchen facilities,
common laundry facilities, and other accessory uses permitted in this Special
Land Use District and/or other community space, provided, however, that the
community center is to be used exclusively by the residents of the dwellings
located within this Special Land Use District.
4. The following uses but only upon receipt of a special approval for same by the
Board of Appeals in accordance with the procedures described below:
(a) church or other places of worship, convent and parish house.
(b) public library, public museum, public, parochial and private schools, daycare
center, and nursery school.
(c) publicly owned park or playground including accessory buildings and
improvements.
• (d) Nursing or convalescent home, or medical clinics.
5.
91.
The application for approval of any of the foregoing uses shall be referred to the
Planning Board and no final action by the Board of Appeals shall be taken until
the Planning Board has reviewed at least a preliminary site plan and approved
same. If the Zoning Board of Appeals approves same, and if only a preliminary
site plan was approved by the Planning Board, the matter shall be returned to the
Planning Board for final site plan approval. The site plan approval process shall
be as set forth in Article IX of the Zoning Ordinance supplemented by the
provisions of this local law. No building permit shall be issued unless the
proposed structure is in accordance with the final site plan approved by the
Planning Board.
Garden, nursery, or farm, except a hog farm where the principal food is garbage.
Sale of farm and nursery products shall be subject to the provisions of Section 18,
Subdivision 7 of the Ordinance. Usual farm buildings are permitted, provided
that:
(a) Any building in which farm animals are kept shall be at least 100 feet from
any dwelling or community center and any street right of way, and if subdivision
approval is obtained, at least 100 feet from any lot line.
P
eeov7.11. WP5I Wd6mllaw, D=rnbcr23, 19% 1228pm ,,_;^^ ti:�. : �•.._
(b) No manure shall be stored within 100 feet of any dwelling or community
center or street right of way, and if subdivision approval is obtained, within 100
feet of any lot line.
6. Any municipal, public or private utility purpose necessary to the maintenance of
utility services.
7. Cemetery and the buildings and structures incident thereto, but only upon special
approval of the Board of Appeals.
80 A roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery
products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or
owners of the land. Any such stand shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from
the street line, in such a manner as to permit safe access and egress for
automobiles, and parlang off the highway right of way and shall not be operated
more than eight months out of any one year.
90 Signs, as regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law.
10. Day care homes and group day care facilities.
lI. Group family day care homes upon special approval by the Board of Zoning
Appeals pursuant to Section 77, Subdivision 7.
C. Accessory Uses. Permitted accessory uses in Special Land Use District No. 8 shall
be limited to the following:
�.1. Office of a resident doctor, dentist, musician, engineer, teacher, lawyer, artist,
architect, computer consultant, software consultant, or member of other
R..._
recognized profession and quasi - profession where such office is a part of the
residence building provided that not more than 3 additional persons not residing
on the premises may be employed. _.
A customary home occupation (such as dressmaking, \hair dressing, laundering,
home cooling, carpentry, electrical, and plumbing work or similar manual or
mechanical trade) operated solely by a resident of the . dwelling provided that
(a) No additional person not residing on the premises may be employed therein;
and L� :;.; ., t�•' =; ,]i - _
0
L J
LJ
•
wAmUt. wpSlWom&w. Dcccmbcr 28. 1994 121. 8pm
(b) No goods or products are publicly displayed or advertised for sale; and
(c) There is no outside storage; and
(d) No noise, dust, disorder, or objectionable odor is experienced beyond the
dwelling where such use is conducted.
Any of the above mechanical trades that are conducted in the home shall be
conducted within the confines of the dwelling or the basement of the dwelling or
in a garage area not to exceed 200 square feet.
3. Offices or occupations as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above may be conducted
in the common house provided
(a) The person or persons conducting such profession or home occupation is a
or are permanent residents of the Special Land Use District except, as to
professions enumerated in paragraph 1 above, no more than one additional non-
resident person may be employed by any one professional or quasi - professional,
and no more than four additional non - resident persons may be employed in the
aggregate by all of the professionals and quasi - professionals occupying work
space in the common house; and
(b) No more than eight separate offices or work spaces are so occupied in the
common house; and
(c) The aggregate space of all the offices and occupation spaces combined does
not exceed 20% of the total gross floor area of the common house; and
(d) No goods or products are publicly displayed or advertised for sale; and
(e) There is no outside storage; and
(f) No noise, dust, disorder, or objectionable odor is experienced beyond the
space where such occupation or use is conducted; and
(g) No one office or trade authorized above shall be conducted in any space in
excess of 200 square feet; and
(h) The total number of offices or occupations set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
located anywhere in this Special Land Use District, whether in the common house
5
ecovall. wpSlitMcm aw, December 28, 1994 1228pm
or in a residence, shall not in the aggregate exceed 30. (i.e., there shall be no
more home occupations or professional offices authorized within the Special Land
Use District than if the property were in a residence district R30).
4. Off- street garage or parking space for the occupants, users and employees in
connection with uses specified above, but subject to provisions of Section 45 and
Section 69 of the Ordinance, and subject to the other provisions of this local law.
50 A temporary building for commerce or industry, where such building is necessary
or incidental to the development of the residential area.. Such buildings may not
be continued for more than one year except upon special approval of the Board
of Appeals.
6. Accessory buildings such as dog houses, storage sheds, carports, gazebos, or
other small structures clearly ancillary and related to dwelling uses in the Special
Land Use District and subject to all other provisions of this local Iaw.
7. The keeping of domestic animals or fowl in accessory buildings, provided that no
such building shall be nearer than 50 feet to any other dwelling and shall be
located on land owned or leased by the person occupying the principal dwelling
to which such building is accessory, and further provided that there shall be no
raising of fur - bearing animals, keeping of horses for hire, or kennels for more
than 3 dogs over 6 months old.
80 Signs, as regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law.
D. Manner of Land Ownership. The property in this Special :Land Use District may be
owned in the following manners.
1. Each dwelling unit may be owned individually by more than one person or entity
(with or without a homeowners' association or similar body) provided that there
is compliance with the subdivision regulations of the Town of Ithaca (including
the cluster subdivision regulations); or
As a cooperative (where there is one entity that owns the land and which leases
land to individuals who then erect dwelling units on the leased land or where one
entity owns the land and all buildings and leases specific dwelling units and
associated accessory buildings to individuals or familie:;)� or
M
1I ''
u
L
,®
•
•
•
awvIll. wp5IkhAomlaw, Dcccmbcr 28. 1994 1228pm
3. As a condominium.
Regardless of the manner of ownership, before construction of any improvements anywhere in
the Special Land Use District is commenced, except as otherwise specifically provided by this
local law, a site plan for such construction shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Board.
In the event land is to be owned by a cooperative, a final site plan, providing such detail as is
normally required for a subdivision and showing the dimensions and location, in such detail as
the Planning Board may require, of the proposed leased areas, shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Planning Board before any building permits are issued. The criteria for
approval of such site plan shall be the same criteria used by the Planning Board in approving
site plans and subdivisions set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance and in the Planning Board's
Subdivision Regulations.
E. Density Limitations. There shall be no more than 30 dwelling units constructed
within this Special Land Use District. Except as authorized below, no structure shall house
more than two dwelling units.
Upon receipt of a special approval for same from the Planning Board, dwellings may be
constructed as part of a single building up to a maximum of 2 dwellings per building, provided
that such construction is consistent with the purposes for which this Special Land Use District
is being created and is otherwise in accordance with the criteria governing special approvals set
forth elsewhere in this Ordinance.
F. Yard Regulations. The minimum distance between buildings shall be in compliance
with the New York State Building Code.
G. Height Regulations. In this Special Land Use District no building shall be erected,
altered, or extended to exceed 40 feet in height from the lowest interior grade or 40 feet in
height from the lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower. No structure other than a building
shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Planning Board may grant special approval for construction of accessory towers
in excess of 40 feet but in no event shall any structure exceed 60 feet in height.
H. Lot Covera e. No structure or structures, including accessory buildings or structures
and including parking area and other paved areas, shall be erected, constructed, altered or _
extended to cover, in the aggregate, more than 10% of the land area within the Special Land Use
District. =
•
b
•
•
•
awvIll. wp5IkhAomlaw, Dcccmbcr 28. 1994 1228pm
3. As a condominium.
Regardless of the manner of ownership, before construction of any improvements anywhere in
the Special Land Use District is commenced, except as otherwise specifically provided by this
local law, a site plan for such construction shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Board.
In the event land is to be owned by a cooperative, a final site plan, providing such detail as is
normally required for a subdivision and showing the dimensions and location, in such detail as
the Planning Board may require, of the proposed leased areas, shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Planning Board before any building permits are issued. The criteria for
approval of such site plan shall be the same criteria used by the Planning Board in approving
site plans and subdivisions set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance and in the Planning Board's
Subdivision Regulations.
E. Density Limitations. There shall be no more than 30 dwelling units constructed
within this Special Land Use District. Except as authorized below, no structure shall house
more than two dwelling units.
Upon receipt of a special approval for same from the Planning Board, dwellings may be
constructed as part of a single building up to a maximum of 2 dwellings per building, provided
that such construction is consistent with the purposes for which this Special Land Use District
is being created and is otherwise in accordance with the criteria governing special approvals set
forth elsewhere in this Ordinance.
F. Yard Regulations. The minimum distance between buildings shall be in compliance
with the New York State Building Code.
G. Height Regulations. In this Special Land Use District no building shall be erected,
altered, or extended to exceed 40 feet in height from the lowest interior grade or 40 feet in
height from the lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower. No structure other than a building
shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Planning Board may grant special approval for construction of accessory towers
in excess of 40 feet but in no event shall any structure exceed 60 feet in height.
H. Lot Covera e. No structure or structures, including accessory buildings or structures
and including parking area and other paved areas, shall be erected, constructed, altered or _
extended to cover, in the aggregate, more than 10% of the land area within the Special Land Use
District. =
wm l L wp51khAociLw, Dccember 28, 1994 12,28pm
I. arldng. There shall be provided paved parldng, or parldng spaces surfaced in such
other manner as may be approved by the Town Planning Board and the Town Engineer, at the
rate of at least two parldng spaces for each dwelling unit plus one parking space for each 400
square feet of enclosed building space in any community center.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Planning Board determines that a reduction in the
required number of parldng spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the proposed site,
will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies on the site,
and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, such Board may
authorize the minimum number of parking spaces to be reduced by no more than 25%. If the
Planning Board permits such a reduction, it may impose such reasonable conditions, including
the conditions set forth with respect to reductions of parldng spaces in business districts, as may,
in the judgment of the Planning Board, be necessary to assure that such reduction will not cause
congestion, create undesirable traffic flows or hazards, or otherwise be adverse to the general
welfare of the community. In any event, unless expressly waived by the Planning Board, such
reduction shall be subject to the same mandatory conditions as are: set forth with respect to
business district parking area reductions.
J. Building Permits and Site Plan Approval.
1.
In accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance a final site plan shall
be submitted to and approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board before
issuance of any building permits. Any significant revisions to the Preliminary
Site PIan ([Insert title of preliminary site plan] made by
_ dated copy of which is on File at the Town of Ithaca
Planning Department), submitted to the Town Board shall be submitted to and be
approved by the Town Board before issuance of any building permits.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Board is authorized to permit
modifications of the Preliminary Site Plan in granting final site plan approval
provided that
(a) as modified such site plan is in general conformity with the purposes and
objectives of the local law creating this Special Land Use District; and
(b) the modifications are m accordance with the provisions of this local law and
other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance unless a variance for a deviation has
been obtained from the Board of Appeals; and
(c) the modifications do not significantly reduce the open space provided for on..
the Preliminary Site Plan.
lei
U
•
.
V
In accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance a final site plan shall
be submitted to and approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board before
issuance of any building permits. Any significant revisions to the Preliminary
Site PIan ([Insert title of preliminary site plan] made by
_ dated copy of which is on File at the Town of Ithaca
Planning Department), submitted to the Town Board shall be submitted to and be
approved by the Town Board before issuance of any building permits.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Board is authorized to permit
modifications of the Preliminary Site Plan in granting final site plan approval
provided that
(a) as modified such site plan is in general conformity with the purposes and
objectives of the local law creating this Special Land Use District; and
(b) the modifications are m accordance with the provisions of this local law and
other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance unless a variance for a deviation has
been obtained from the Board of Appeals; and
(c) the modifications do not significantly reduce the open space provided for on..
the Preliminary Site Plan.
lei
U
•
•
U
ecom711. wpSlkhAoallaw. December 28. 1994 12.2Spm
2. Building permits shall be required for any construction. Such permits shall not
be issued unless and until the exterior design, specifications, and plans for the
buildings and all other improvements to be constructed in the Special Land Use
District and construction of all outside facilities including lighting and signs shall
have been shown on the final site plan approved by the Planning Board, and any
construction thereafter shall be in accordance with said site plan as finally
approved. In determining whether to approve the site plan, the Planning Board
shall employ the same considerations it would employ in approving a site plan
pursuant to Sections 46 and 78 of this Ordinance.
K. Primary Ingress and Egress to the Special Land Use District.
16 No building permits shall be issued for construction of any structures within the
Special Land Use District until the following actions have occurred to assure
adequate ingress and egress to the property:
(a) Good and marketable fee title is obtained to a strip of land at least 60 feet in
width, adequate in the opinion of the Town Engineer and the Town Highway
Superintendent for the construction of a road from Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road)
to a point at least as far south as the north line of the Special Land Use District,
together with such additional easements or title as are needed for access to the
dwellings and common house in the Special Land Use District as shown on the
final site plan. Such title shall be obtained by the developer or other owner or
owners of the Special Land Use District, and shall be satisfactory to the Attorney
for the Town to assure availability of vehicular and emergency vehicle access to
the proposed dwellings and common house.
(b) Construction of a road is completed to the extent of providing, in the opinion
of both the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, a useable,
serviceable base for ingress and egress of emergency and service vehicles.
(c) There is submitted to the Town Planning Board and approved by the Planning
Board, upon the advice of the Attorney for the Town, copies of any cooperative
proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners association documents, or other
agreements among owners containing suitable provisions to assure maintenance
of the road to a standard which will allow unimpeded passage of emergency
vehicles at all times and all seasons.
(d) The road length is determined by the Town Engineer to not exceed 3,000
•�,;, feet.
9
c
=*vO U. wP51khAOC2 nw, December 28. 1994 12:28pm
(e) A -sign is posted at the intersection of the private road and Route 79
indicating that the road is not a Town road.
2. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued, and no permits for construction of
more than ten dwelling units within the Special Land Use District shall be issued,
unless and until
(a) The road referred to above has been completed in accordance with the
applicable Town of Ithaca highway specifications in effect at the time immediately
prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any such structure, except
that if the Town of Ithaca highway specifications require paving of the road,
paving may be omitted, and
(b) Adequate access, in the opinion of the Town Engineer and Town Highway
Superintendent, has been constructed and completed for fire and other emergency
vehicles from the terminus of the road as so constructed to the dwelling or other
structure for which a certificate of occupancy is requested.
The developer may request a waiver from the requirement of this paragraph 2 to
the extent of obtaining additional building permits earlier than would otherwise
be authorized by this paragraph by applying for such a waiver to the Planning
Board. The Planning Board may, but is not required to, authorize the issuance
of building permits if the Planning Board finds,
7 "-
t,.-.�:•�..
•:
(i) The plans for the road and related access have been approved by all
applicable agencies including the Town Engineer . and Town Highway
Superintendent;
Work has been commenced on the construction of the road and access
and is progressing with sufficient rapidity that it is reasonable to expect
that it will be completed before any certificates of occupancy for any
dwelling units are issued;
It would be a substantial hardship to one,or more individuals to delay
construction of more than 10 of dwelling units; and
rv) There is proof provided to the Town Engineer and Planning Board
that there is adequate financial support available to the developer to
complete the road, such proof being in the form of a dedicated escrow
account, performance bond, letter of credit, or other proof satisfactory and
10
•
•
•
7
(i) The plans for the road and related access have been approved by all
applicable agencies including the Town Engineer . and Town Highway
Superintendent;
Work has been commenced on the construction of the road and access
and is progressing with sufficient rapidity that it is reasonable to expect
that it will be completed before any certificates of occupancy for any
dwelling units are issued;
It would be a substantial hardship to one,or more individuals to delay
construction of more than 10 of dwelling units; and
rv) There is proof provided to the Town Engineer and Planning Board
that there is adequate financial support available to the developer to
complete the road, such proof being in the form of a dedicated escrow
account, performance bond, letter of credit, or other proof satisfactory and
10
•
•
•
Et
ewv111. wp51ishAo=Lw, Dc=mber 28, 1994 12.28pm
acceptable to the Town Engineer, Attorney for the Town and the Planning
Board; and
(v) The Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent recommend
granting the waiver.
If such a waiver is granted, the Planning Board may impose such reasonable
conditions upon the grant as it may deem appropriate to assure completion of the
road in a timely and workmanlike manner.
L. Secondary Ingress and Egress to the Special Land Use District. No certificates of
occupancy shall be issued for any buildings constructed in the Special Land Use District until
the following actions have occurred to assure adequate secondary access for emergency vehicles
to any such buildings:
1. Good and marketable title to a easement over a strip of land, at least 30 feet in
width, adequate in the opinion of the Town Engineer for the construction of an
emergency access road from West Haven Road to a point where it joins the
® primary access road at a point no further than 1200 feet from any dwelling unit
and community center proposed to be constructed as shown on the final site plan,
is obtained by the developer or other owner or owners of the Special Land Use
District, such title and ownership to be satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town
to assure availability of emergency vehicle access to the proposed dwellings and
other structures.
I Construction of a road with a surface at least ten feet wide over the easement
strip is completed in a manner as to provide an adequate road, as determined by
the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, for emergency vehicle
access including fire truck and emergency medical vehicles. The surface need not
be asphalt provided that the surface constructed is, in the opinion of the Town
Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent sufficient to provide year round
access for emergency vehicles.
3. There is- submitted to the Town Planning Board and approved by the Planning
" . Board, upon the advice of the Attorney for the Town, copies of any cooperative
proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners association documents, or other
agreements among owners containing suitable provisions to assure maintenance
of the emergency road to a standard which will allow unimpeded passage of
'�_' emergency vehicles at all times and all seasons.
1
Et
ewv111. wp51ishAo=Lw, Dc=mber 28, 1994 12.28pm
acceptable to the Town Engineer, Attorney for the Town and the Planning
Board; and
(v) The Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent recommend
granting the waiver.
If such a waiver is granted, the Planning Board may impose such reasonable
conditions upon the grant as it may deem appropriate to assure completion of the
road in a timely and workmanlike manner.
L. Secondary Ingress and Egress to the Special Land Use District. No certificates of
occupancy shall be issued for any buildings constructed in the Special Land Use District until
the following actions have occurred to assure adequate secondary access for emergency vehicles
to any such buildings:
1. Good and marketable title to a easement over a strip of land, at least 30 feet in
width, adequate in the opinion of the Town Engineer for the construction of an
emergency access road from West Haven Road to a point where it joins the
® primary access road at a point no further than 1200 feet from any dwelling unit
and community center proposed to be constructed as shown on the final site plan,
is obtained by the developer or other owner or owners of the Special Land Use
District, such title and ownership to be satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town
to assure availability of emergency vehicle access to the proposed dwellings and
other structures.
I Construction of a road with a surface at least ten feet wide over the easement
strip is completed in a manner as to provide an adequate road, as determined by
the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, for emergency vehicle
access including fire truck and emergency medical vehicles. The surface need not
be asphalt provided that the surface constructed is, in the opinion of the Town
Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent sufficient to provide year round
access for emergency vehicles.
3. There is- submitted to the Town Planning Board and approved by the Planning
" . Board, upon the advice of the Attorney for the Town, copies of any cooperative
proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners association documents, or other
agreements among owners containing suitable provisions to assure maintenance
of the emergency road to a standard which will allow unimpeded passage of
'�_' emergency vehicles at all times and all seasons.
aum7.11, wp51kM0=Lw, Dowm1w 28, 1994 12.28pm
M. Elimination of Cul-de -Sac. No later than six years from the date of the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy with respect to any building constructed in the Special Land
Use District, the owner or owners of the Special Land Use District shall, at their cost and
expense, eliminate any cul-de -sac of greater than 1200 feet by any of the following means:
10 Construct an internal loop road;
20 Construct a divided road consisting of the original primary road plus a parallel
secondary road, built so that no dwelling is more than 1200 feet from a point
providing two means of access to and from public roads (e.g. Mecklenburg Road
and West Haven Road) existing at the effective date of this local law; or
3. Construct a secondary access road to a point that assures no dwelling is more than
1200 feet from a point providing two means of access to and from public roads
existing at the effective date of this local Iaw.
Such roads shall be constructed to Town Highway specifications (except the Planning
Board may waive the requirement of paving if satisfied, upon recommendation of the
Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent that the road will nevertheless
provide adequate emergency vehicle access) and maintained to permit access by
emergency vehicles at all times and all seasons.
Any of such proposed actions shall be subject to the approval by the Planning Board and
shall not be constructed until such time as a modified site plan, showing said loop road
or alternative means of access, has been presented to and approved by the Planning
Board.
No building permits shall be issued for more than 30 dwelling units, one community
center, and permitted accessory structures in the Special Land Use District, until one of
conditions 1., 2., or 3. above has been met, or has been waived by the Town of Ithaca Town
Board,
N. Dedication of Road to the Town of Ithaca. The road or roads may be offered for
dedication to the Town provided that the road is constructed or reconstructed to Town
specifications as in effect at the time of said proposed dedication except that, at the option of the
Toi vn', the Town may waive the requirement for paving provided that arrangements satisfactory
to the Town, either by assessment, agreement, or otherwise, are provided such that if the Town
paves the road, the cost of such paving shall be recouped within, a :reasonable period of time,
satisfactory to the Town, from the owners or lessees of land in the Special Land Use District
and any other users of the land. Said arrangements may, at the option of the Town, include
12
0
r
.
M. Elimination of Cul-de -Sac. No later than six years from the date of the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy with respect to any building constructed in the Special Land
Use District, the owner or owners of the Special Land Use District shall, at their cost and
expense, eliminate any cul-de -sac of greater than 1200 feet by any of the following means:
10 Construct an internal loop road;
20 Construct a divided road consisting of the original primary road plus a parallel
secondary road, built so that no dwelling is more than 1200 feet from a point
providing two means of access to and from public roads (e.g. Mecklenburg Road
and West Haven Road) existing at the effective date of this local law; or
3. Construct a secondary access road to a point that assures no dwelling is more than
1200 feet from a point providing two means of access to and from public roads
existing at the effective date of this local Iaw.
Such roads shall be constructed to Town Highway specifications (except the Planning
Board may waive the requirement of paving if satisfied, upon recommendation of the
Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent that the road will nevertheless
provide adequate emergency vehicle access) and maintained to permit access by
emergency vehicles at all times and all seasons.
Any of such proposed actions shall be subject to the approval by the Planning Board and
shall not be constructed until such time as a modified site plan, showing said loop road
or alternative means of access, has been presented to and approved by the Planning
Board.
No building permits shall be issued for more than 30 dwelling units, one community
center, and permitted accessory structures in the Special Land Use District, until one of
conditions 1., 2., or 3. above has been met, or has been waived by the Town of Ithaca Town
Board,
N. Dedication of Road to the Town of Ithaca. The road or roads may be offered for
dedication to the Town provided that the road is constructed or reconstructed to Town
specifications as in effect at the time of said proposed dedication except that, at the option of the
Toi vn', the Town may waive the requirement for paving provided that arrangements satisfactory
to the Town, either by assessment, agreement, or otherwise, are provided such that if the Town
paves the road, the cost of such paving shall be recouped within, a :reasonable period of time,
satisfactory to the Town, from the owners or lessees of land in the Special Land Use District
and any other users of the land. Said arrangements may, at the option of the Town, include
12
0
u
ecoval. wp5lieh/1ocOaw, December 28. 1994 1' 'Spm
letters of credit, bonds, deposits of funds, and/or personal guarantees of the owner and/or
residents of the Special Land Use District. Nothing in this provision is in to compel the
Town to accept such dedication.
O. Maintenance of Oxen Space. All the open space shown on the site plan will be
owned, maintained, and the use thereof controlled by a residents association or duly formed
cooperative housing corporation, primarily for the enjoyment, passive and active recreation, and
agricultural purposes of the residents of the Special Land Use District provided, however, that
if any land is dedicated to the Town as part of any required park or open space recreation
dedication, those areas owned by the Town will be owned, maintained, and the use thereof
controlled by the Town.
P. Construction Requirements. All construction for which a permit is required or
granted shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations.
Q. Ownership of Ingress and Egress Roads. The primary road providing access to the
property running from Mecklenburg Road to the area within the Special Land Use District shall
®be owned in fee title by the cooperative, homeowners association, condominium association, or
all of the owners of any individual lots contained within the Special Land Use District, as
approved by the Planning Board upon the advice of the Attorney for the Town to assure
continued access to and from public roads for the property in the Special Land Use District.
This provision shall terminate at such time, if ever, as the road is conveyed to the Town or other
public road access approved by the Planning Board is provided to the property within the
District.
R. Provision of Sewer Facilities: No certificates of occupancy will be issued, and no
permits for construction of more than ten dwelling units within the Special Land Use District
shall be issued, unless and until the following shall have occurred:
1. Sewer easements for the benefit of the Town for a public sewer line running from
a presently existing public sewer to the location of the proposed dwelling units
and community center as shown on the finally approved site plan are obtained in
the form normally required by the Town of Ithaca from all landowners over
which said sewer line must run and the same recorded in the Tompkins County
Clerk's Office; and
29 A sewer line is constructed by the developer or other owner of land in the Special
Land Use District, at such party's expense, in accordance with all applicable
specifications and requirements (including the Town of Ithaca and Tompldns
13
COMM wP51W /bcllaw. December 28. 19 12:28pm
County specifications) to the satisfaction of the Tompkins County Health
Department and the Town of Ithaca Town Engineer and the line is transferred and
dedicated to the Town of Ithaca.
The developer may request a waiver from the requirement of this paragraph 2 to
the extent of obtaining additional building permits earlier than would otherwise
be authorized by applying for such a waiver to the Planning Board. The Planning
Board may, but is not required to, authorize the issuance of more than ten
building permits if the Planning Board finds:
(a) The plans for the sewer line have been approved by all applicable agencies;
(b) Work has been commenced on the construction of the line and is progressing
with sufficient rapidity that it is reasonable to expect that it will be completed
before any certificates of occupancy for any dwelling units are issued;
(c) It would be a substantial hardship to one or more individuals to delay
construction of more than 10 of dwelling units; and
(d) There is proof provided to the Town Engineer and Planning Board that there
is adequate financial support available to the developer to complete the line, such
proof being in the form of a dedicated escrow account, performance bond, letter
of credit, or other proof satisfactory and acceptable: to the Town Engineer,
.; Attorney for the Town and the Planning Board; and
(e) The Town Engineer recommends granting the waiver.
If such a waiver is granted, the Planning Board may impose such reasonable
conditions upon the grant as it may deem appropriate U) assure completion of the
sewer line in a timely and workmanlike manner.
S.. Provision of Adequate Water Facilities. No certificates.of occupancy will be issued,
acid no permits for construction of more than ten dwelling units within the Special Land Use
...
District shall be issued, unless and until the following actions are taken to assure a water supply
for "the proposed development:
1.
Easements for a water line, to be privately owned and maintained by the owner(s)
or residents of the Special Land Use District, running fiom West Haven Road to
the vicinity within such District where the proposed dwelling units and
community center are to be located (all as shown on the Final Site Plan), which
14
El
ecovWL wp51ichAo=Lw. Deccmber 28. 1994 12:28pm
easements are for the benefit of the developer, its successors and assigns and for
the residents of such District, are obtained in a form satisfactory to the Attorney
for the Town from all landowners over which said water line must run and the
same recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office; and
2. Such water line is built by the developer at the developer's expense in accordance
with the requirements of all applicable governing authorities and Iaws including
the requirements of the Tompkins County Health Department, and applicable
plumbing and building codes, as the same pertain to a private water system; and
3. A pump station to be owned and maintained by the owner(s) or residents of the
Special Land Use District has been constructed by the developer at the
developer's expense to provide pumping capacity adequate, in the reasonable
judgment of the Town Engineer, the Town Planning Board, and the Tompkins
County Health Department, to provide sufficient flows of water at the dwelling
sites for domestic household use and at the common house for lavatory, kitchen,
fire protection, and any other proposed use requiring water, said pump station to
be owned and maintained by the owner(s) or residents of the Special Land Use
District; and
4. A meter is installed by the developer at the developer's expense at the point on
West Haven Road where said private line intersects the public main for purposes
of metering consumption within the Special Land Use District in accordance with
the Town of Ithaca, Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission,
and other municipal agency's requirements for water supply purposes.
The developer may request a waiver from the requirements of one or more of
paragraphs 2, 3, or 4 above to the extent of obtaining additional building permits
earlier than would otherwise be permitted by applying for such a waiver to the
Planning Board. The Planning Board may, but is not required to, authorize the
issuance of more than ten building permits if the Planning Board finds:
(a) The plans for the water line have been approved by all applicable agencies;
(b) Work has been commenced and on the construction of the line and station
and is progressing with sufficient rapidity that it is reasonable to expect that it
will be completed before any certificates of occupancy for any dwelling units are
issued;
(c) It would be a substantial hardship to one or more individuals to delay ,
15
ooavilJL wP51it OcLLw. December 28. 1994 1=8pm
construction of more than 10 of dwelling units; and
(d) There is proof provided to the Town Engineer and Planning Board that there
is adequate financial support available to the developer to complete the line and
associated facilities, such proof being in the form of a dedicated escrow account,
performance bond, letter of credit, or other proof satisfactory and acceptable to
the Town Engineer, Attorney for the Town and the Planning Board; and
(e) The Town Engineer recommends granting the waiver.
If such a waiver is granted, the Planning Board may impose such reasonable
conditions upon the grant as it may deem appropriate to assure completion of the
water line and associated facilities in a timely and workmanlike manner.
T. Modification of Site Plan. Any change in the site plan as finally approved by the
Town Planning Board shall not be made until an application for a :modification of site plan is
provided to and approved by the Town Planning Board,
U. Area Rezoned. The area encompassed and rezoned in accordance with this local law
to be Special Land Use District No. S is described on Schedule A to this local law. The official
zoning map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding such district at the location
described.
Section 4. Reversion. Unless work has materially commenced in accordance with a
final site plan within one year from the issuance of the building permit authorizing such work,
or within thirty -six months of the date the Planning Board gave final site plan approval, or
within four years of the effective date of this local law, whichever is earlier, any building permit
shall lapse, the site plan approval (both final and preliminary, if any) shall expire, and the
zoning change effected by this local law shall terminate and the zoning shall revert to that in
effect prior to the adoption of this local law, unless in the interim there has been a general
rezoning of the area surrounding the area being rezoned by this local law, in which event the
zoning shall revert to the same zoning as then in effect along a majority of the perimeter of the
land being rezoned as a Special Land Use District by this local law. The Planning Board, upon
request of the applicant, after a public hearing, and upon a finding that the imposition of the
time limits set forth above would create an undue hardship on the applicant, may extend the time
limits for such additional periods as the Planning Board may reasonably determine. An
application for such extension may be made at the time of filing of the original application for
. yi. .
site plan approval or at any time thereafter up to, but no later than, six months after the
expiration of the time limits set forth above.
16
u
E,
C
For the purposes of this section, work will not have 'materially commenced* unless, at a
minimum, (i) a building permit, if required, has been obtained; (ii) construction equipment and
tools consistent with the size of the proposed work have been brought to and been used on the
site; and ('iii) substantial excavation (where excavation is required) or significant framing,
erection, or construction (where excavation is not required) has been started and is being
diligently pursued.
Section 5. 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 6. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect 10 days after publication as
required by law or upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York, whichever
is later.
- . LPN ,.
I In •� T : �� _ : i • �..�. •..y . ' • �... ',� R. l X Y t J� •tea n .
t4 46
r'J � .'f :.slt. ;:t :;••" t! - . \' �_!_ - " •• j}1. 32.2rrt^ _:e/.r:.t C• �S �,��-�ti�- 1„, ?�; %!: -- �i
C< _ - - '[. • ��_-.:: - .�+�`, l :ter. ,T'�� 'vwT •" --
Ll.... •i (� \, �y i �•/ J�.-i, n•�'���i::./v(q.�•Y( �_f:(' t�, ♦�.y�•t� ��'.1 N .L. 1:.
\: - :"it�f U -'�' "_'' �'il'':4 ry•• -� .fit 1v {/ G..t_.. J'•j• }17 �T - y.Mv.
-
': 17 r ._
.1, _ Ate/; {�• � _ - _ ... _ _ _ ..
1
a:
IL
- . LPN ,.
I In •� T : �� _ : i • �..�. •..y . ' • �... ',� R. l X Y t J� •tea n .
t4 46
r'J � .'f :.slt. ;:t :;••" t! - . \' �_!_ - " •• j}1. 32.2rrt^ _:e/.r:.t C• �S �,��-�ti�- 1„, ?�; %!: -- �i
C< _ - - '[. • ��_-.:: - .�+�`, l :ter. ,T'�� 'vwT •" --
Ll.... •i (� \, �y i �•/ J�.-i, n•�'���i::./v(q.�•Y( �_f:(' t�, ♦�.y�•t� ��'.1 N .L. 1:.
\: - :"it�f U -'�' "_'' �'il'':4 ry•• -� .fit 1v {/ G..t_.. J'•j• }17 �T - y.Mv.
-
': 17 r ._
.1, _ Ate/; {�• � _ - _ ... _ _ _ ..
1
a:
- . LPN ,.
I In •� T : �� _ : i • �..�. •..y . ' • �... ',� R. l X Y t J� •tea n .
t4 46
r'J � .'f :.slt. ;:t :;••" t! - . \' �_!_ - " •• j}1. 32.2rrt^ _:e/.r:.t C• �S �,��-�ti�- 1„, ?�; %!: -- �i
C< _ - - '[. • ��_-.:: - .�+�`, l :ter. ,T'�� 'vwT •" --
Ll.... •i (� \, �y i �•/ J�.-i, n•�'���i::./v(q.�•Y( �_f:(' t�, ♦�.y�•t� ��'.1 N .L. 1:.
\: - :"it�f U -'�' "_'' �'il'':4 ry•• -� .fit 1v {/ G..t_.. J'•j• }17 �T - y.Mv.
-
': 17 r ._
.1, _ Ate/; {�• � _ - _ ... _ _ _ ..
1
etarUle wp5IithAom&w, Dezember 28, 19% 12:28pm
SCHEDULE A
Description of Area to be Rezoned Special Land Use District No. 8. -
ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situated in the Town of
Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, more particularly bounded and described
as follows.
BEGINNI'i IG at a point marked by a found iron pin, which point is located the
following courses and distances from the intersection of the centerline of West Haven Road
with the centerline of Mecklenburg Road (N.Y.S. Route 79):
1. S 2 degrees 12' 3T W a distance of 864.48 feet to a point marked by an iron pin;
2. S 2 degrees 12' 35V a distance of 418.82 feet to a point;;
3. N 87 degrees 47' 25 "W along the northerly line of lands now or formerly of
"Robert A. & Elizabeth Hesson" (L. 603, P.564) a distance of 225.00 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said lands of "Henson ";
4. S 2 degrees 12' 35 "W along the westerly line of said lands of "Hesson ", a
distance of 150.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said lands of "Hesson ";
5. S 87 degrees 47' 25 "E, along the southerly line of said lands of "Henson ", a
distance of 225.00 feet to a point in the said centerline of West Haven Road;
6. S 2 degrees 12' 35 1W along the said centerline of West Haven Road a distance of
210.90 feet to a point;
7. N 87 degrees 47' 25 "W along the northerly line of lands now or formerly of
"Oscar F. & Elizabeth J. Westfall" (L. 448, P.1025), passing through an iron pin at a distance
of 29.84 feet, and continuing a distance of 120.18 feet, being a total distance of 150.00 feet to
an iron pin located at the northwesterly corner of said lands of "Westfall";
8. S 2 degrees 12' 35V, along the westerly line of said lands of "Westfair passing
through an iron pipe at a distance of 110.00 feet, and continuing a distance of 32.27 feet,
being a total distance of 142.27 feet to a point located in the centerline of a creek;
9. along the centerline of said creek, being also the northerly line of lands now or
formerly of "Frank & Rose V. Flacco (L. 548, P.9), the following six (6) courses and
disumces,
(1) N 72 degrees 24' 10 "W, a distance of 154.44 feet to a point;
(2) S 87 degrees 52' 13 "W a distance of 185.05 feet to a point;
(3) N 88 degrees 01' 32 "W a distance of 106.21 feet to a point;
(4) N 36 degrees 29' 53 "W a distance of 117.33 feet to a point;
(5) N 4 degrees 35" 48'"W a distance of 47.43 feet to a point;
(6) N 48 degrees 58' "W a distance of 119.59 feet to a point; =: n
v
♦
p
SCHEDULE A
Description of Area to be Rezoned Special Land Use District No. 8. -
ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situated in the Town of
Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, more particularly bounded and described
as follows.
BEGINNI'i IG at a point marked by a found iron pin, which point is located the
following courses and distances from the intersection of the centerline of West Haven Road
with the centerline of Mecklenburg Road (N.Y.S. Route 79):
1. S 2 degrees 12' 3T W a distance of 864.48 feet to a point marked by an iron pin;
2. S 2 degrees 12' 35V a distance of 418.82 feet to a point;;
3. N 87 degrees 47' 25 "W along the northerly line of lands now or formerly of
"Robert A. & Elizabeth Hesson" (L. 603, P.564) a distance of 225.00 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said lands of "Henson ";
4. S 2 degrees 12' 35 "W along the westerly line of said lands of "Hesson ", a
distance of 150.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said lands of "Hesson ";
5. S 87 degrees 47' 25 "E, along the southerly line of said lands of "Henson ", a
distance of 225.00 feet to a point in the said centerline of West Haven Road;
6. S 2 degrees 12' 35 1W along the said centerline of West Haven Road a distance of
210.90 feet to a point;
7. N 87 degrees 47' 25 "W along the northerly line of lands now or formerly of
"Oscar F. & Elizabeth J. Westfall" (L. 448, P.1025), passing through an iron pin at a distance
of 29.84 feet, and continuing a distance of 120.18 feet, being a total distance of 150.00 feet to
an iron pin located at the northwesterly corner of said lands of "Westfall";
8. S 2 degrees 12' 35V, along the westerly line of said lands of "Westfair passing
through an iron pipe at a distance of 110.00 feet, and continuing a distance of 32.27 feet,
being a total distance of 142.27 feet to a point located in the centerline of a creek;
9. along the centerline of said creek, being also the northerly line of lands now or
formerly of "Frank & Rose V. Flacco (L. 548, P.9), the following six (6) courses and
disumces,
(1) N 72 degrees 24' 10 "W, a distance of 154.44 feet to a point;
(2) S 87 degrees 52' 13 "W a distance of 185.05 feet to a point;
(3) N 88 degrees 01' 32 "W a distance of 106.21 feet to a point;
(4) N 36 degrees 29' 53 "W a distance of 117.33 feet to a point;
(5) N 4 degrees 35" 48'"W a distance of 47.43 feet to a point;
(6) N 48 degrees 58' "W a distance of 119.59 feet to a point; =: n
•
ecmUL wp5Ikh/6cLUaw, December 28. 1994 12:28pm
100 S 00 12' 00 7W along the westerly line of said lands of "Flacco ", passing through
an iron pin at a distance of 8.00 feet, and continuing a distance of 708.89 feet, being a total
distance of 716.89 feet to an iron pin located at the southwesterly corner of said lands of
"Flacco ";
110 N 89 degrees 01' 33 9W along a northerly line of lands now or formerly of
"Helen M. DeGraff" (L.. 310, P.15), a distance of 84.76 feet to an iron pin located at a
northwesterly corner of said lands of "DeGraff';
12. S 2 degrees 48' 00 "E, along a westerly line of said Iands of "DeGraff:, a distance
of 1066.73 feet to an iron pin;
13. N 88 degrees 21' 45 'W, along a northerly line of said lands of "DeGraff', and
continuing along the northerly line of lands now or formerly of "Longhouse Cooperative,
Inc." (L.546, P.742), a total distance of 2072.73 feet;
THENCE, N 00 degrees 46' 54 "E, passing through a found iron pin at a distance of
400.29, and continuing 844.71 feet, being a total distance of 1245 feet to a point; thence S
88 degrees 21' 45 "E a distance of 1050 feet to a point; thence S 0 degrees 46' 54 "W a
distance of 1245 feet to a point; thence N 88 degrees 21' 45 "W along the northerly line of
said lands of "DeGraff' and "Longhouse Cooperative. Inc" a distance of 1050 feet, to the
point of beginning, being 30.007 acres more or less.
19
to
PENAL
1 ,
Tompkins Co
- DEPARTMENT.OF PLANNING
• ,
121 Eest.court Stmt
Ithaca; New York*14850 -
James W. Hanson. Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
December 2, 1994
Mr. George Frantz
Town of Ithaca
126 E. Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
{ DEC
1r i,; \.•.'J. /. .!fin:
Teleptwoe (6an 2745560
FAX (607) 274558
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 4 and -m of the New York State General
Municipal Law
Action: Site Plan Review, Subdivision, SLUD: EcoVillaae
• Dear Mr. Frantz:
This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by
the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 4 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
County, or State interests; however, the Planning Department does have several comments that the
Town should consider in its review of the EcoVillage project:
1. c-iculture -'Me site is currently being put to agricultural use by EcoVillage. Since the site
is also located in an agricultural district, an agricultural data statement is required.
2. Vehicle Trips, o, The estimates that are provided for vehicle trips are low. The maximum
vehicle trips per hour should be thirty (one for each dwelling unit), and the standard for the
number of trips per unit per day is ten.
30 SLUD - The Special Land Use District and the EcoVillage site plan are not in agreement in
several areas. The parking requirement and the permitted road length in the SLUD should
agree with the proposed development. Also, the pedestrian- friendly design mentioned by ,
the findings of the local law is not apparent on the EcoVillage site plan.
4. Environmentally Sound Housing - The EcoVillage project does not appear to be anymore ?t:;..
environmentally sound than an apartment complex with a common building. Although the `'
intention of EcoVillage is to demonstrate how environmentally sound housing may be =
developed, no requirement for environmentally sound housing is included in the Special
Z
Recycled paper
Ribit #4
1/3/95 Planning
t
INSIPID
.'.
iIr - .. _ i 1 •4 ^. IJ.. .may, J .... -
.' ' Y• Land Use 'ct re oorr}}ss.,Pu a EcoVl7Iaga project is not ibuilt, the SLUD would allow
wide variety of proects�fiai d n ot necessarily be environmentally sound or energy
r t Ta_
Into recommendation is indicated by the Tomplans County Planning Department, and you are free
to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the
record..
Sincerely,
• James Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
At
�.. .JS: _ %!!" _ is f.l •- '"_:i .:�t .: y.. L .1i3'�a•.it^..2 •V:1-: ••r..w �.f.�;.•.y,•,'
_ >. - •.tom / -+. • � or l7 1 _
J _ _.a� •'.•1�f. _.� .. .,,_rJt _�.) .:. >r Yi- . -tS >S l -A K tl <'. .S•: •d'pS1 /'r'la•>C. iIJ[,1 .�� -�.. ..
IM
` TyIs•�! a • : i >;.- \.Ji .^ f-Yi -'r' r .�+ > �r•,. ^;., r ♦n.. -r .y. ti:.�'r[i: -.... �.
r_ .♦ - L•:lt�r v11 f•Ji:! 01,0 r'••.1,j� - �
( s -
•`t:J V ♦ \:.., }-�•� •mow > i:. A. - &+.♦ `! trt1 'w If /: ��( Y Yt••3• • ! 4•(•-
...... �.•r 4,;a N •,.. 4. wrIya�. r/x '�t..�).it
a .dJ.T.l�riLt �~if -. 3•:i {„
Ib
ti.*::Ufrt�i:i",.�ir, .�—•-: 7r' L: }:_. •i}1 ii,: -4i� v.L! ..: i+l soo's
.ri,wa '2�LG 1v l' y' ••�.. ° ..� ~ •ri . t •.f !•J•••`i. >. TT y.T. -� •�•'%a'�, �`'���'.f• ��Z'•:r �r .
rryy • - f •. r t •t ..rt .. _ T ! v y L _ t LSti _ twlt.ns, •, _
.. w:., y i•V!. i •`L• •r i l . ai.-. —J A •'�' ,rt it t S v ti •�` a /v. •". -r _:` •• S. ' •. .
r t ^f . e �T G. L3.. t .mot ri �� s r-+ .^e�• t4e y2 ; .irtE%wr ...' �'; :- ►' L °F.
i1 ° - - ' V i f ri„ ti jyt,. K '. a(/i j �� �} �_ _ •� L'Y�
~ � ^ .. a -� a, tL 'b`x.t 'T .r �R Too
_ -y. :•.. �• 6 :".' —sue. -
Wit' -'•1. �er-13 :. �;. t •"4 ^. ' /�.. ,_: C. Jt tr.'a�t,•: A .>.. ]N f�ira i� `f ^'4.a C,tt�; (�\.>y�..ti.�,• owl
to
Ooll hr, +_'d .;. ♦ 'L� _ �. :'•'y- t:. .[`�" . 2 �•t }i.1Eia.l..ril�'�.•t�,,^"ti `— TG�'.'L�w�.
t•�L(f r- C... \• t y.. L f s ^t♦ V? f Ca�!
r'r7 �MfI :yam M.LL`. rat !•' S.. , y! i .I w i +i t.. '•iY -. +•i WI
• w!YyY t�r �� r > ,.i !r r 'r , S r t?r!« f/•�..a >
a.♦ - n. a s Y J. y,i•
I
lo 1 11
[.. ..j Q`^ w1f -r' ,ra ^=�•:- _- �1•i .. AN t� F at forma 4� c�3Sla -[Z �r�.a �ti 11 �'T••1fl _•L';. "`3 �� �\w iLT�f.C1 �'�J • . -F.. .
i1 r .r j' 1:'.s ,. 1 r "i .ry '" . M• i•si 'f!'lt t.> .fit �r .
It
3' .. —
• r'
n
•
CHARLES E. MOYNIHAN, P.E.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
November 29, 1994
Mr. George R Frantz
Planning Department
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Frantz:
FIN
(D
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET
SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202
H 7 t
DO
tt `I
i V
104fir; CF ITHAM
NI'dG. ZONING, ENGINM, IPIG
.JCHN C. EGAN
COMMISSIONER
RE: SEQR - LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION PROPOSED
ECOVILLAGE COHOUSIiG COOPER -kTIVE
TOWN OF ITHACA, TOiNIPK NS COUNTY
FILE: 36-94 -5
We have received the material on the above referenced proposal. The Department has no
• reservations with the Town of Ithaca Town Board assuming lead agency responsibility for
SEQR purposes.
Based on the information provided, it appears that the traffic generation from the
development would not be significant enough to require highway mitigation, even the
project's full build -out potential. Access to N.Y.S. Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) would
likely be approved, however a more detailed site plan is required showing neighboring
driveways and roads, along with the available sight distances, before the exact location of
the access could be determined. This could alter the existing plan as the present road
location attempts to avoid any adverse impacts to nearby wetlands and productive
agricultural soils.
If you have any questions, please contact W. Egloff, of my staff, at (315) 42844090
Very truly yours,
CHARLES E. MOYNIIIAN, P.E.
Regional Director of Transportation
's M. Gross
• ssociate Transportation Analyst
cc: J. Church, TE &S Group, Region 3
Exhibit #5
1/3/95 Planning Board Minutes
MEMORANDUM
co Py
TO: Robert Renerson and Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members
FROM: Mary Russell,
Chair
and
Members
of the
Environmental
Review
Committee (ERC)
of
the
Town of
Ithaca
Conservation
Board
RE: Ecovilla ge Cohousing Cooperative, Project No. 947138
DATE: December 27, 1994
The ERC appreciates the opportunity to review this application.
As a result of our site visit and our review of the applicant's EAF,
we have
several
questions
and concerns.
1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the New York State Dept, of Environmental
Conservation and other state and federal agencies recommend
preserving a 100 foot undisturbed buffer area around wetlands,
ponds, streams and other watercourses. The delineated "'wetlands'
limits" on the revised road map dated October 25, 1994 parallel
a segment of the revised road closer than 100 feet. The ERC
recommends that the road be further moved to preserve a 100 foot
buffer to protect the viability and drainage functions of the
wetland.
2. The ERC recommends that the applicant be required to produce
a specific plan for the road crossing of the wetlands area,
both during and after construction. This plan should include
a picture and description of the crossing specifying the type
of structure. type of culvert and road elevation.
3. The ERC recommends that the applicant be required to furnish
more specific information on the "chambered marsh system"
( #16 of EAF Attachment) they intend to develop in the wetlands
area. It is not clear exactly what this means nor whether
such development is permissible under existing state and
federal regulations.
® 4. The ERC is also interested in reviewing a Stormwater Management
Plan and recommends that the applicant be required to use "best
management practices" to handle stormwater runoff and sedimen-
tation both during and after construction. Coy Glen, a
Exhibit #6
1/3/95 Planning Board Minutes
(q
. (Vepd rt on Ecovillage dated 12- 27 -94) a20 toy
designated Critical Environmental Area, i:s downslope and is
"very sensitive to degradation from road runoff (salt_` -f '.._�
and motor oil) and agricultural runoff from livestock, fer-
tilizer and pesticide usage. 'For these r6asons the off -site
uses of the entire Ecovillage property need to be taken into
account when assessing a drainage plan. The ERC recommends
that any drainage from the site which may contain road runoff
or agricultural runoff be diverted away from Coy Glen.
S. The ERC further recommends that the applicant be directed to
use shielded down - lighting on the site to prevent "light
Pollution" of the viewshed.
6. The ERC also recommends that the applicant be required to
furnish more information on traffic generation especially
regarding roads not mentioned in the application such as
West Haven /Coy Glen Road and Hector Street.
The members of the ERC thank the Planning Board for the
=opportunity to review this application and look forward to
;working with the Planning Board on this project as more information
. - -• becomes available.
cc:: JoAnn Cornish -Epps, Jon Kanter, Dan Walker, John Whitcomb
and ERC members. - -
IV f
Li ✓�+
. t•. -_vt :cam- _._ -. ..i �. .. .. '
A u �
Ece Vilplage Co- Housing Community
Proposed Special Land Use District
Changes made to Page 11, Section L.
Secondary Ingress and Egress to the
anning Board Meeting January 3, 1
Hereby revised as follows.
Special Land Use District.
L. Secondary Ingress and Egress to the Special Land Use District. No
building permits shall be issued for any buildings in the Special Land Use
District until good and marketable title to an easement over a strip of land,
at least 30 feet in width, adequate in the opinion of the Town Engineer for
the construction of an emergency access road from West Haven Road to a point
where it joins the primary access road a point no further than 1200 feet from
any dwelling unit and community center proposed to be constructed as shown on
the final site plan, is obtained by the developer or other owner or owners of
the Special Land Use District, such title and ownership to be satisfactory to
the Attorney for the Town to assure availability of emergency vehicle access
to the proposed dwellings and other structures.
No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for any buildings
constructed in the Special Land Use District until the following actions have
occurred to assure adequate secondary access for emergency vehicles to any
such buildings:
1. Construction of a road with a surface at least ten feet wide over
the easement strip is completed in a manner as to provide an
adequate road, as determined by the Town Engineer and Town Highway
Superintendent, for emergency vehicle access including fire truck
and emergency medical vehicles. The surface need not be asphalt
provided that the surface constructed is, in the opinion of the
Town Engineer and Town Highway- Superintendent sufficient to provide
year round access for emergency vehicles.
2. There is submitted to the Town Planning Board and approved by the
Planning Board, upon advice of the Attorney for the Town, copies of
any cooperative proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners
association documents, or other agreements among owners containing
suitable provisions to assure maintenance of the emergency road to
a standard which will allow unimpeded passage of emergency vehicles
at all time and all seasons.
Exhibit ##7
Planning Board Minutes 1/3/95
•