No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-02-28TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 28, 1995 FILED 370w,N OF ITH The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, Ithaca, February New York, 28, 1995, at 7:30 in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, p.m. PRESENT. Chairperson Stephen Smith, Robert Kenerson, Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner) , JoAnn Cornish -Epps (Planner II) , John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Bill Hilker, Steve Lucente, Ed Hallberg, Jerry & Claudia Weisburd, Kermit Cutter, Joe Quigley. Chairperson Smith declared the meting duly opened at 7 :34 p.m. and 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 to be heard. Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS OF ABANDONED SUBDIVISIONS BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE VII. SECTION 39. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda. Town Attorney John Barney addressed the Board and members of the public and stated that the amendment basically sets up a time that if a subdivision is not worked on after it is granted, it reverts to its prior condition. There are several subdivisions in the Town of Ithaca that date back, one is from the 1890s and the other is in the Coy Glen area which has effectively been an approved subdivision for 30 or 40 years. The object of this proposal is to allow those subdivisions not to continue to have an approval if nothing is happening on them after a period of time has passed. Attorney Barney stated that the present draft suggests a subdivision be terminated at the end of three years, and that there was some discussion as to whether or not three years was the appropriate number at the last meeting. (Draft of Resolution Amending the Subdivision Regulations to Provide for Extinguishment of Subdivision Approval of Abandoned Subdivisions, dated November 41 1994, is attached as Exhibit #1) Planning Board Minutes Chairperson Smith asked present who wished to speak. N February 28, 1995 if there was anyone from the public Ed Hallberg addressed the Board and asked what the problem was with the two subdivisions that Attorney Barney referred to. Attorney Barney responded that a subdivision should be approved roughly at a time when consistent with the technology and information and ability to govern them, but once granted should not get a life of their own that goes on forever regardless of what advances in terms of environmental concerns or other concerns that a municipality may have. Subdivisions were approved when wetlands were not as important an issue as they are now, and those subdivisions once approved continue on. Now the Town has more information about the importance of wetlands and handles subdivision approval differently. The fact that something was approved 10 or more years ago should not give it a better position than something being proposed at the current time. Mr. subdivision Hallberg stated from the late that 1800s his has understanding was that 10 or 15 foot wide lots the and that no one could get a Building Permit for those lots due to the updates subdivision in the fire approval, codes, they so even could not if someone had received meet the 30 -foot setbacks. the Attorney Barney stated that there have been houses built up there with the 50 -foot lots. Mr. Hallberg stated, on a philosophical basis, there were a lot of questions at the last meeting about how the amendment affected the economic value of a piece of land. The window of opportunity in terms of long range planning for developers becomes much more uncertain, due to changes in interest rates and the market. The necessity to sit the fence has become much more prevalent then it was 20 years ago. A three year window is not a window that any of us can control. Once a subdivision map is filed the taxes triple or more on that piece of land. The economic value has increased by subdividing the land. Mr. Hallberg continued and stated that with this law in place with a three year opportunity to sell, every day that goes by is a decline in the value of that piece of property because of the time limit to get it completed. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Hallberg if he was opposed to the concept of the amendment or if he was opposed to the three year time frame. Mr. Hallberg responded, "I am absolutely against the concept, and altering or offering an alteration of the time frame would only be embracing the concept." Mr. Hallberg stated that the amendment says to the people that we (the Town) do not want any more growth, so we are declaring a moratorium and nobody can build anything any more. Mr. Hallberg stated that over the last couple of years he Planning Board Minutes 3 February 28, 1995 has seen EPODs, scenic views, erosion control, and changes in Zoning, all that is happening is the building of more and more steps and more and more pit falls along the way, and if it is done at the right speed you have accomplished the lack of ability with the lack of desire to develop in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Hallberg stated that if he were looking for a piece of land and knew that this amendment was on the books in the Town of Ithaca, it would effect the viability and the desirability of that piece of land in the Town of Ithaca versus a piece of land in the Town of Lansing without this regulation. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that this type of legislation is something that many municipalities something must be done. are looking at. Mr. Hallberg stated that on a housekeeping basis to handle a 100 year old subdivision, something must be done. Chairperson Smith stated that it was not just a housekeeping method. Chairperson Smith stated that the Planning Board is supposed to accurately review the possible impact of a new subdivision based on the surrounding area and the proposed subdivision. How was the Board supposed to do that with the impacts of a 20 year old subdivision with a density that would not be considered today, is sitting next to the proposed subdivision. The new subdivision may not receive approval because of the possible impact of the old subdivision that may never happen even though it has received approval. Mr. Hallberg stated that his fears would be to have his subdivision pulled from him because of the three year .limitation. Mr. Hallberg asked if the Town had the right to rescind the increase in economic value of the land from the person that had received the subdivision approval. Attorney Barney stated that New York State Law allows that to happen now, but the Town of Ithaca is more concerned with the environmental and other concerns that were not known about when the subdivisions were approved in the past. Ms. Cornell stated that the developer or subdivider need only show an intent to complete the subdivision within the time frame dictated by this amendment. Ms. Cornell stated that she understood the developers' point of view, but that she believed that the Town of Ithaca needed this amendment. Ms. Cornell stated that she was looking for a compromise in the period of time that would not effect the developers' business. Ms. Cornell asked what the longest time frame was that would work for the developers business and also allow the Board to keep up with advances in technology and wisdom. Mr. Hallberg stated that the problem with that question was that he is opposed to the concept. Mr. Hallberg stated that he Planning Board Minutes 4 February 28, 1995 felt that 50 years was a reasonable amount of time. Attorney Barney stated that the Health Department limits subdivision approval to 10 years in those areas where an on -site septic system was needed. Mr. Hallberg stated that if you would need to go back to the Health Department in 10 years anyway, then make it 20 years. Jerry Weisburd addressed the Board and stated that he was affected by the amendment, indirectly by two subdivisions that he was involved with. Mr. Weisburd stated that one is a 3 -lot subdivision in Inlet Valley and another one is a 3 -lot subdivision on the lake. Both would be effected. At Inlet Valley the residents did the subdivision and they do not wish to sell the lots at this point, so that would revert. On the lake, one of the lots was built upon by one of the associates that did the subdivision, but since it was not sold, it would also be effected by this amendment, and the land and the house would revert back. Mr. Weisburd stated that the amendment read that you would have to sell to a third party. Mr. Weisburd stated that he did not think that the problem was now a question of how much time, he felt that the problem was using the wrong standard. Mr. Weisburd stated that the Town has a situation where there are some regulations that were in effect 10 years ago and are now outdated, maybe they present an environmental, health or safety problem; then address those problems directly instead of a time frame. Mr. Weisburd stated that the amendment was not in fit within the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan but it goes against it. Mr. Weisburd stated that the amendment encourages subdividers and developers not to consider clustered housing and that affordable housing would be at risk as well because the time limit would drive up the cost. Attorney Barney stated that the issues could not be addressed once the subdivision was approved without coming back to the Board for further review. Attorney Barney stated that he did not feel that Mr. Weisburd would have a problem with either of the subdivisions he referred to earlier because in the subdivision on the lake, there is a structure on the property, which means the developer has materially commenced, so it would not be effected by the amendment. On the Inlet Valley subdivision, there are structures built, so it would not be effected either. Ms. Cornell asked Mr. Weisburd what he thought would be the appropriate threshold. Attorney Barney stated that a subdivision, with no time limit for the Town to go back in as if there was no building done on on the approval, there is no way a Town and say that we are now Planning Board Minutes GV February 28, 1995 concerned with wetlands over two acres or drainage issues or whatever the concern may be. Mr. Weisburd stated that what he would do as the developer would be to go out and as quickly as possible sell one lot and then the Town would have no recourse at all. Mr. Weisburd stated that the control feature should be tied into the problem and /or the permitting process. Attorney Barney asked if Mr. Weisburd was suggesting a full scale environmental review every time someone comes in for a building permit. Mr. Weisburd responded that he was not suggesting a full scale review, just look at the issues that are present. Claudia Weisburd addressed the Board and stated that there may be some combination of time and the permitting process. Ms. Weisburd suggested that there be some kind of checklist which would specifically target items that would be of concern. At the point that the developer or subdivider goes for a Building Permit, the checklist could be reviewed prior to issuance of any permits. Ms. Weisburd stated that based on a time frame, such as 10 years, and if after that amount of time a person comes in for a Building Permit, Town staff can review the checklist with that person to see if the subdivision is still valid under the current system, then issue a Building Permit, or, do not issue a Building Permit and tell that person which issues must be addressed before obtaining a Building Permit. Ms. Weisburd stated that she felt that rather than have every subdivision revert automatically after a specific amount of time, make an issue out of the subdivisions where there are identified problems. Ms. Weisburd stated that the amendment states that every subdivision must be reviewed regardless if there have been any problems identified or not. Ms. Weisburd stated that her suggestion was an attempt to narrow down the number of subdivisions that would revert. Board Member Candace Cornell asked Ms. Weisburd if she was asking for a 10 year time limit and for the Town to develop a checklist, which would have engineering and environmental standards, etc, and then if no development has gone on it in 10 years and the developer then comes in and wants a permit, the Town staff goes through the checklist with that person to determine if there are any problems, then come to the Board for new subdivision review. Attorney Barney stated that the Town is only interested in pursuing subdivisions that have not been actively developed, and that the number of subdivisions that would be effected by this Planning Board Minutes 6 February 28, 1995 amendment would be approximately 1 out of 20. Chairperson Smith asked how the Board was supposed to judge the impact of a non - active old subdivision where a developer could at any time start the subdivision and could in turn inundate the Town with massive amounts of new development in one area. The area may not be able to handle all of the impacts of many subdivisions. A new subdivision may not get approval because the Board would have to consider the possibility of impacts from an old subdivision that has been dormant since approval 15 years ago. Ms. Weisburd stated that the system proposed tonight is that the subdivider just sells a lot and then they can sit there for the next 50 years and there is nothing that the Town can do. The problem is not solved. Attorney Barney stated that most of the circumstances are situations where the subdivision approval is received and for one reason or another they forget about it, those are the subdivisions the Town wants to terminate. Ms. Weisburd read Section 2(b) which states, "...the subdivision approval (both final and preliminary) shall expire and the permissible uses and construction on the property shall revert to those in effect prior to the granting of any subdivision approval. ", and asked if that meant that the 1800 subdivision is going to revert to the old subdivision regulations. Ms. Weisburd stated that the language was confusing. Attorney Barney stated that it makes sense in the context of a three year period, and that it should be changed if using a term of more than 3 years, because it really should revert to whatever regulations that are applicable at that time. Board Member James Ainslie asked if it were logical for a developer to hold onto a subdivision for 10 years, it seemed to him that dollars and cents would force them to move. Joe Quigley of Southwoods Associates, which is a 50 acre piece of property on East King Road, which used to be the old Desch /May property, that he started developing there in 1988, bought the land for $140,000.00 and put an additional $77,000.00 into getting through the approval process with the Town of Ithaca, which took 1 -1/2 years to do. Mr. Quigley stated that he has been paying the taxes on the individual lots since he received approval 8 years ago, but there are no buyers for the lots out there. Mr. Quigley stated that he would love to start development on the lots he received subdivision approval for, but it is not economically feasible in the Town of Ithaca with the inventory that is on the market now. No amount of pressure from the Planning Board is going to move the process along, it is going to depend on the economy. Mr. Quigley stated that the flow of economy happens approximately Planning Board Minutes 7 February 28, 1995 every 7 years around Ithaca. Mr. Quigley stated that he did not see the need for this amendment. Mr. Quigley stated that if his subdivision plan was causing a problem, address the problem at that time. Mr. Quigley stated, "We're these decisions. his We play by the difficult as for us than it is." the people. We're impacted by rules. Don't make life any more Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that in a case like Mr. Quigley's, he could come to the Planning Board for an extension based on an economic hardship. Mr. Quigley stated that he should not have to come back to the Planning Board because he had already followed the rules and paid the cost of receiving the subdivision approval and his taxes as necessary. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Quigley how long he should be allowed to have his subdivision and not comply with the Town's increasingly demanding standards in terms of subdivisions. Mr. Quigley responded that he should be allowed to have his subdivision or to come before the as long as he is not creating a public nuisance by its Attorney Barney stated that the amendment is asking for the developer to either develop or to come before the Planning Board and explain why you are not developing and ask for an extension. Board Member Candace Cornell asked how hard a process it was to get the subdivision extended. Attorney Barney responded, one appearance before the Planning Board. Ms. Weisburd asked what if the environment was very hostile to development and the whole Planning Board is sitting there saying let's not extend it, you haven't convinced us that there is a hardship. Ms. Cornell stated that the Planning Board has to follow the rules, not political whims. Ms. Weisburd asked where are the rules for the terms of what an extension would be granted on, other than "undue hardship ". Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that the Planning Board would need to make written findings and if a court decides that it was not justified then our findings would be over ruled. Mr. Quigley stated that what the Planning Board cannot do is Planning Board Minutes February 28, 1995 take his subdivision away from him after he had paid his fees for the subdivision, paid his higher taxes for 8 years because that is a taking. Mr. Quigley stated that is taking his hard earned economic value, when you take his subdivision approval away. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Quigley's subdivision is exactly the type of subdivision the Town is trying to get at with this amendment. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter suggested that the Board could add wording which would state that the applicant could either prove a hardship or demonstrate that the subdivision still meets with the Town of Ithaca current standards for environmental review, safety, etc. Mr. Kanter stated this would make it the applicants' burden to either prove hardship or prove that the subdivision approved in the past still meets Town standards. Ms. Cornell stated that she felt that there needed to be some standard to judge this decision on and it should be getting at the problem. Ms. Cornell stated that Mr. Kanter's statement is appropriate. Ms. Cornell stated that the subdivider would not have to go through the entire process again, just request the extension and give the reason it is needed. Ms. Cornell stated that if a project is not violating any rules, the Planning Board has no choice but to approve it, even if personally the project is not liked. Stephen Lucente addressed the Board and stated that the Briarwood Subdivision was not only controversial because of the wetlands, the Lucente's were co- plaintiffs with the Town of Ithaca, in a case that was resolved nearly two years ago on the sewer moratorium. Mr. Lucente stated that they received approval in 1987 and before they could get development started, the moratorium brought the project to a stand still. Mr. Lucente then asked what the guarantee would be that the Board would not require more of the developer due to the delays which are not his own fault. Attorney Barney responded that there was no guarantee, but the Briarwood subdivision would be a very clear hardship for the extension. Mr. Lucente stated, to give a brief history of the Briarwood Subdivision, that they were stopped by the sewer moratorium and the wetland issue ran concurrently with the moratorium, after that there was death in the family which really shook things up. Mr. Lucente stated that they were 8 years into the subdivision now and are just putting the first house on. Mr. Lucente stated that they Planning Board Minutes 9 February 28, 1995 built two houses on the subdivision before the sewer moratorium went into effect. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the road was substantially built as well, because the sub -base was there and the drainage was constructed. Mr. Walker stated that the Briarwood subdivision would not be effected by the proposal because the intent is there. Mr. Lucente stated that he felt that the subdivisions should be considered on an individual basis instead of using the shotgun approach on every subdivision. Mr. Lucente stated that he felt that the approach should be changed to a less confrontational approach. Mr. Lucente stated that the amendment seems to be divisive and that he did not see a need for it. Mr. Lucente stated that he felt that 10 years would make it less divisive but he feels that this type of approach should be changed. Attorney Barney stated that the Town has to have a standard in order to treat everyone equally and fairly. Bill Hilker addressed the Board and stated that any lot that is pre- existing has to meet current building permit regulations, so the lots on the Klondike Subdivision, which is the 1890 subdivision, can be built on as long as they meet the current zoning regulations. Mr. Hilker stated that the changes should be put in the Zoning Ordinance and from that point on the existing lots have to meet those zoning requirements. Mr. Hilker asked why address the entire subdivision when you are already addressing each individual lot as a separate entity, whether it is developed or on paper. Mr. Hilker stated that the proposed is a law for which there is already something in place to handle it, and all it would accomplish would be to place additional burden on the developers which places the same burden, indirectly, back on to the residents of the Town who are the buyers as additional cost. Mr. Hilker stated that the Seneca Army Depot is in the process of closing and everyone expected a terrible depression in market value, but they have increased. Mr. Hilker stated that the reason for the increase is because Tompkins County residents are moving to Seneca County. Mr. Hilker stated that when a piece of property is subdivided, the taxes go up and it is assessed at full market value. Mr. Hilker stated that there are fewer and fewer developers willing to build in the Town of Ithaca. There was some discussion regarding the time frame for approval process for a subdivision that comes before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, start to finish. Kermit Cutter addressed the Board and stated that three years does not seem like a long enough period of time. Mr. Cutter asked how often the Town changed the regulations for the subdivisions. Planning Board Minutes 10 February 28, 1995 Attorney Barney stated that it has probably been 1968 since there were any significant changes to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cutter stated that after 10 or 15 in and say that they were unable to subdivision and ask for an extension, is look at the changes since the Board subdivision. years someone could come do anything with the there any reason not to gave this person the Mr. Weisburd stated that there were mechanisms in place in the form of the Zoning Ordinance, the permitting procedure, and the Subdivision Regulations that protect the Town, so why would this amendment be needed. What does the amendment accomplish, that is not accomplished now specifically. Attorney Barney stated that at the time a number of the older subdivisions were approved in the Town did not even consider yet individually. wetlands under 12.4 acres. Now the Town is concerned about them, is it fair that an old subdivision go on without consideration of the wetland, whereby a new subdivision would have to possibly redesign the subdivision around the wetland to protect it. Ms. Cornell stated that the Town needs the context to treat everyone the same, yet individually. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Section 560 of the Real Property Tax Law allows the owner of a subdivision to abandon the subdivision after 5 years. Sometimes people do reconsolidate for tax purposes. And the only requirement is to file a written notice with the County Clerk's office and the Town Clerk. Town Attorney John Barney asked the Board to give him some direction with regard to changing the amendment. Attorney Barney asked if the Board wanted to continue with the concept of the amendment, change the time frame, or add an explanation of what "undue hardship" would mean. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone on the Board was opposed to the concept of the amendment. No one on the Board was opposed to the concept of the amendment. Ms. Cornell stated that the Board would be interested in receiving concrete suggestions in the form of written comments from the public prior to the next meeting, and stated that the amendment would need to work for everyone. The Board Members discussed the different time frames to consider which would be best for the proposed amendment, as well as the proposal itself. After some discussion the Chair called for a straw vote on the length of time, with the following results. Planning Board Minutes Those in favor of 3 years Those in favor of 5 years Those in favor of 10 years 11 February 28, 1995 NONE. Cornell, Hoffmann, Wilcox. Smith, Kenerson, Ainslie, Finch, Bell. Town Attorney John Barney stated that he would make the necessary changes and provide the Board with a revised draft of the amendment with a 10 year limitation period, where specific criteria to determine hardship, and provision for the applicant to demonstrate that the subdivision is consistent with current Town standards regarding safety, environment, etc. There being no further discussion, the Chair declared the matter duly closed at 9:41 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS TO BE SENT TO THE CITY OF ITHACA ON THE WAL -MART DEPARTMENT STORE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS - RESUBMITTED NOVEMBER 22, 1994). COMMENTS ON THE DEIS ARE DUE BACK TO THE CITY BY MARCH 10, 1995. THE PROPOSED WAL- MART DEPARTMENT STORE WOULD BE LOCATED AT 398 - 400 ELMIRA ROAD IN THE CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that staff had prepared a revised draft of the letter for the Board to review and consider for submittal to the City of Ithaca regarding the Wal -Mart Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The revised letter better addressed the parking issues that were of particular concern to the Town of Ithaca. (Copy of the Proposed letter to Mr. David Kay of the Planning and Development Board of the City of Ithaca, dated February 28, 1995, is attached hereto as Exhibit #2) Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the park and ride spaces delineated on the site will not help the traffic concerns in the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Candace Cornell addressed the Board and stated that she felt that the DEIS was very poorly done and that there were several issues which were not addressed as they should have been. Ms. Cornell stated the hard look was not taken and that the impact on Negundo Woods was not addressed at all. on Page 65 of the DEIS it states that 14.5 acres of wildlife would be taken away by the development of the Wal -Mart Store, then several sentences later it states that there will be no impacts. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that urban runoff pollutants were not addressed in the DEIS. Mr. Frantz then asked if the Board felt that it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to insert an additional paragraph to the letter commenting Planning Board - Minutes 12 February 28, 1995 that it is the opinion of the Board that the DEIS does not adequately address potential problems with urban runoff pollutants. The Board concurred with Mr. Frantz's statement. Ms. Cornell stated that flooding was a problem as well. Ms. Cornell stated that she would like to have a general statement about the environment and the wildlife, including plants and animals, added to the letter. Chairperson Smith stated that there will be impact on the aquatic and terrestrial ecology. Ms. Cornell stated that Appendix F describes numerous traffic improvements described and recommended by Wal -Mart, but it makes no mention of who will make those traffic improvements referenced in the DEIS. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the bulk of the improvements are currently scheduled to be completed in the near future. Mr. Frantz stated that the Town of Ithaca hopes that the City of Ithaca will identify the potential impacts within the Town of Ithaca in the Statement of Findings for this project. Mr. Frantz suggested adding the following statement, or something similar, to the letter. "The Planning Board notes that Wal -Mart is suggesting a number of improvements to the road network within the City and the Town of Ithaca hopes that the City of Ithaca would require these improvements to the streets as mitigation measures." Planner II JoAnn Cornish addressed the Visual Impacts were addressed only view and that the entire DEIS review sto Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated Planning Board to have a voice in the building itself. the Board and stated that from the City's point of )pped at the City line. that she would like the color and design of the The Board continued discussion of the Wal -Mart Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Town of Ithaca's desire to review the project at the Site Plan stage as well. The Board discussed the intermunicipal cooperation that should exist between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca when working on projects within 500 feet of the City /Town Line, The Board concurred to have the following issues identified in the letter to the City of Ithaca regarding the Wal -Mart Department Store Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Urban Runoff Pollutants from the parking lot, Impact on the Aquatic & Terrestrial Environment behind the proposed store and in a regional context, Visual Impacts, Looking at Town of Ithaca Land Uses, and Traffic Impacts and recommended improvements be included and required as mitigating measures. Planning Board Minutes 13 February 28, 1995 There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion regarding the letter to the City of Ithaca. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Candace Cornell. The Planning Board hereby authorized the Chairperson Stephen Smith to sign the letter on behalf of the Planning Board provided that the changes discussed have been added to the letter to the City of Ithaca regarding the Wal -Mart Department Store Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Kenerson, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Hoffmann, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously., Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the discussion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Wal -Mart Department Store within the City of Ithaca to be duly closed at 10 :30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 7, 1995. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 7, 1995, be and hereby are approved with the following correction: That on Page 10, Paragraph 6, which read: "That the approval recommended by this resolution supersedes the prior approval of the installation of a fuel dispensing system and related canopy pursuant to a site plan entitled M & SO Motor Fuel Facility approved by Philip L. Cox,...." This has been changed to read: "That the approval recommended by this resolution supersedes the prior approval of the installation of a fuel dispensing system and related canopy pursuant to a site plan entitled "M & SO Motor Fuel Facility" approved by Philip L. Cox,...." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Kenerson, Ainslie, Finch, Hoffmann, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. Abstain - Cornell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Planning Board Minutes 14 February 28, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. 1. Planning Board Packets - The Packets for the Planning Board meeting which will be held on March 7, 1995 were distributed to each Board Member at this meeting. 2. Eco Village - Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Eco Village project would be appearing at the March 7, 1995 Planning Board meeting to discuss Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval. 3. Town Laws Pertaining to revocation of Approvals - Town Planner Jonathan Kanter distributed copies of various sections of Town Law that pertain to the revocation of approval of previously granted subdivisions. (The following are attached hereto as Exhibits. Town Law Section 276(5)(h) as Exhibit #3, Section 276(7)(c) as Exhibit #4, and, Section 265 -a as Exhibit #5; as distributed by Mr. Kanter.) The Board discussed the Laws received by Mr. Kanter and how they would apply to specific subdivisions within the Town of Ithaca. 4. Association of Towns Meeting - The Board discussed a Memorandum which summarized interesting points that were picked up by Board Member Fred Wilcox as he attended the Association of Towns Meeting. (Copy of Mr. Wilcox's Memorandum, dated, February 27, 1995, is attached hereto as Exhibit #6) There being no further business for the Board to discuss at this meeting the Chair closed this segment of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the February 28, 1995 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:46 p.m. 3/2/95. Respectfully submitted, StarrRae Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • • r� U TOWN OF ITHACA RESOLUTION .- MENDING TFIE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR EXTINGUISF '.MENI' OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS OF ABANMONED SUBDIVISIONS BE IT RESOLVED that the Subdivision Regulations for the Town or Ithaca as adopted by the Town Planning Board on :March 24, 19.6 and approved by the Town Board on March 21 1956, as amended by the Planning Board on several subsecuent occasions, the most recent being _ 1993, as approved by the Town Board on 1993, he lltrher amended by adding a new A Jcle VII, Section 39, reading as follows: ".A RTTCLE VTT EXPTRATTON OF SUBDIVTSTON APPROVAL Section 39. Expiration of Subdivision Approval. 1. In addition to any other provisions of law governing expiration or subdivision approvals, including those provisions which provide the subdivision approval expires if the approved subdivision map is not tiled with the Tompkins County Clerk within a specified time of approval, a subdivision approval will also terminate under the circumstances set forth below. 2. If the proposed subdivision requires construction of any facilities such as roads, drainage courses, water or sewer lines, or other similar facilities, unless within thirty -six months of the date the Plannin; Board gave Final subdivision approval (a) work has materially commenced on such facilities in accordance with the Finally approved subdivision plat, or (b) one or more lots have been transferred from the developer and the deeds for same duly recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, the subdivision approval (both construction on the property sh approval. Notwithstanding the 19, 1994? the time for work to 19, 1997, final and F all revert to fore(Toing, materially 3. For the purposes of this Section 39 reliminary) shall expire and those in effect prior to the if final subdivision approval commence or lots to be sold the permissible uses and -anting of any subdivision was ;ranted prior to July shall be extended to July (a) work will not have "materially commenced" unless, at a minimum, 0) a building permit, if required, has been obtained for at least one structure in the subdivision; and (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) significant construction of roads or utilities, or significant framing, erection, or construction of a material structure, has been Exhibit #1 2./28/95 9 Board Minutes is subreg. amd, wp. 11rh /locallaw. '1,'04194 4: 0',nm stared and is being diligently pursued: and (b) a lot will not have been "transferred" unless convened by a deed. July execu ted and recorded in :he Tompkins County Clerk's Office, to (1) a person unrelated to the subdivider in a bona tide transaction "or value, or (ii) a person related to the subdivider or for less than reasonahly value in accordance �.vith circumstances related to he P!arning Board as par, of the subdivision .: nppoval (e.g. a subdivision where the intention is to convey a lot :o a relative or to convey a let to an adjacent landowrer ror less . an full value). 4. If the proposed subdivision approval (both final and prel consequences set tor? abov unless at least one lot of the does not require the construction of any tacd ;cits, the subdivision iminarv) shall expire within the time limits set tcrh above with the and subje t to the ability to obtain extensions as set for.vi below, subdivision has been transferred. 5. In addition to the r�,oina. a subdivision approval for a subdivision re fo quiring constrc :ion of facilities shall likewise terminate as to any untransferred lots in the event that the facilities are not substantially completed within Live vears of the date of final subdivision approval. 6. The Planning Board, upon request of the subdivider, after a public hearing, and upon a �tnding that the imposition of the time limits set forth above in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 would create an undue hardship on the subdivider, 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 or at any time thereafter up to, but no later than, six months after the expiration of the time limits set forth above. 7. In the event of any termination of subdivision approval pursuant to these provisions, the Planning Board or Town Planner shall cause a notice of such termination to be delivered personally to the subdivider, or forwarded by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the subdivider at the last address for the subdivider on file at the Town of Ithaca Planning Department and shall cause a copy of such notice, together with an affidavit of service (personally or by mail) to be recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in Miscellaneous Records or other appropriate location. 8. Any subdivider who believes the termination of approval pursuant to this section is not warranted may file an application for a hearing before the Planning Board. Such application shall be filed within 30 days of the delivery of the notice referred to above (for this purpose "delivery" shall be deemed to occur on the date the notice is personally delivered or the day it is delivered to the postal service for mailing). The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing on such application on at least five days prior notice given in the same manner as required for public hearings on subdivision approvals. within 60 days of receipt such application. The burden of establishing that the approval should not be terminated shall rest upon the applicant. If the Planning Board determines that the approval was improperly terminated, it shall render a decision so stating and shall cause a notice to that effect to be forwarded to the Tompkins County Clerk's Office for 2 • s subreg. atnd, wpSl ithllocallaw, 11104194 ,t: 07pm recording in the same location determination of the Planning Boa brought pursuant to Article 78 of commenced no lacer than :0 days Board with the appropriate Town as the notice previously effecting such termination. Anv rd regarding such te.^nination may be reviewed by a proceeding the Civil Procedure Law and Rules. Such proceeding shall be after the decision bring reviewed has been filed by the Planning Clerk. 9. Nochin; in this se.: ;on 39 is intended to alter the effe %:t of Town Law Se::tion 265-a on lots in a subdivision when zoning is changed to inc: easy lot sizes or other re Iuiremeacs cherebv rendering an existing subdivision's lots non- conforming . ANT BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this amendment to the Subdivision Regulations take effect upon approval of same by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. 3 *CWN CLERK 273 -1; 2t TOWN OF ITHACA 125 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273-3035 ENGINEERING 273 -7717 PLANNING 273 -1717 ZCNING 273 -7783 FAX ;607) 273 -7701 Mr. David Kav Planning and Development Board City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 148.450 February 28. 1.995 RE: Wal -Mart Draft Environmental Impact Statement - REVISED DRAFT (Note: Revisions are in Bold) Dear Mr. Kay: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a meeting on February 28, 1995. heard a staff report, which was done in conjunction with members of the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement currently under review by the Planning and Development Board. Comments on the DEIS are limited to those issues which. Oin the Planning Board's opinion, will have an impact on the Town of Ithaca. Consideration of the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan was not addressed in the DEIS. The Town would like to see this included in Section 1.2, Location and Character of Project Area. This issue is of concern since the Project Limit Line is very near the Town Line on three sides and will be visible from Town land on the surrounding hills. The project site is also located at a primary entrance of the Town and thus should give some consideration to this function. An increase in the planting area along Elmira Road would help to mitigate the feeling of commercialism as vehicles enter /exit the Town/City at this point. In the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan, the lands surrounding the project site are designated conservation/open space, recreational land and land zoned Resident District R -30. Additionally, in the Town of Ithaca's 1984 Update of their Comprehensive Parks and Open Space Plan, a 20 +/- acre park is proposed for the land north of the project site on the west bank of the Inlet. Views of the project site from the surrounding Town lands were assessed. Given the magnitude of this project, this view assessment, in conjunction with Figure 15 of the DEIS labeled Landscaping and Lighting Plan, raised concerns about the minimal amount of landscaping that is proposed throughout the project site. From the Landscaping Plan it appears that 25 Thuga Occidentalis (American Arborvitae) and 11 Populus Alba (White Poplar) are proposed to form a buffer between the project area and the proposed park lands to the north. Virtually no planting is proposed on the western edge 0 because the paving extends to the required setback line. There is existing vegetation which Exhibit #2 2/28/95 :.•.. • u -• - 0 Mr. David Kay Re: Wal -Mart DEIS • Pa °e 2 will aid in the creation of a buffer but. in the Town's opinion, additional plantings using species indigenous to this area, (as indicated in the DEIS) possibly in combination with berms or other landscape elements, should be considered to the north and west so that effective visual buffers will be created. This may also help to mitigate noise from the proposed project to surrounding areas. Regarding the issue of parking, it is the Town Planning Board's opinion that an excessive amount of parking and resulting paved area is being proposed by Wal -Mart. In accordance with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code 30.37, No. 4, Parking Space Requirements for a Retail Store, Neighborhood Commercial Facility, 1 parking space is required for 500 gross square feet of floor area. According to the DEIS, the proposed building, including the expansion, totals 155,966 square feet. Given the City requirements, a minimum of 312 parking spaces is required as opposed to the 890 spaces proposed. This is a difference of -37,830 +/- sq. ft. of asphalt or 1.1 acres, not including the subsequent reduction in maneuvering space and interior roadway. Using a more conservative standard, such as 4 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross useable area, (or 1 parking space per 250 sq. ft. GLA), which is recommended by the Urban Land Institute for Neighborhood or Community Shopping Centers, would result in a significantly lower number of parking spaces. In the case of WaWtvlart, such a standard would result in approximately 624 parking spaces. Reduction in the amount of pavement will, among other things, reduce costs, lessen the number of lighting fixtures needed, reduce the visual impact, allow more area for buffering and reduce the amount of storm water runoff. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board would like to suggest that the initial number of parking spaces be more in keeping with local and suggested standards to meet the market demand for parking but not pave excessive areas if the demand does not exist. To this end, the adequacy of the parking could be monitored, and if additional parking is required, it could be added at a future time. (Areas for future parking should be shown on the Site Plan should this approach be taken by the City.) Additionally, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board would like to see a greater density of interior plantings throughout the parking lot. From Figure 15, Landscaping and Lighting Plan, it appears that for a parking lot that is able to park 831 cars, with associated paved roads and maneuvering space, (approximately 11 acres of pavement) 13 trees are proposed for the interior of the lot. The view of this large expanse of asphalt can be greatly improved with the addition of plant materials. Thirteen trees, having a crown coverage at maturity of approximately 50 square feet each, will not, in the Town's opinion, have a sufficient effect on softening the view of this lot from the surrounding hillsides. r-I U Mr. David Kav Re: Wal -dart DEIS • Page 3 The Town appreciates the consideration given to the lighting fixtures. Cutoff fixtures, as proposed, are preferred for controlling light trespass onto adjacent properties and for viewing from surrounding fixture . lands. Nonetheless. the "standard fix mountin height of 42 ft." as proposed in .appendix I of the DEIS, seems excessive and out of character with other light mounting heights in this area. The Planning Board is aware of the cost savings to the developer by having high mounted lights so that fewer lights are needed. However, lowering the height of the fixtures is recommended to bring the parking lot down to a more human scale and to lessen the impact of the lights on the surrounding areas. In reviewing. traffic information submitted in the DEIS, we note that there is no mention of the effects of the proposed project at the intersections of Seven l�iile Drive and Elmira Road, and Sandbank Road and Elmira Road. Drivers attempting left turns onto Elmira Road from either of these two roads consistently experience unsatisfactory delays. A traffic study conducted in 1991 determined that the service level for traffic exiting Seven Vlile Drive was at an unsatisfactory level of service. This intersection currently serves the Town of Ithaca Highway Department headquarters. While normally a low- volume road, Sandbank Road is the access for the playing field at Buttermilk Falls State Park. Traffic generated by these playing fields during the summer • already experiences unsatisfactory delays in existing onto Elmira Road, and can be expected to see further delays as a result of the proposed store. The Town would like to see this issue, and the potential impact of the project on the Seven Mile Drive intersection addressed. According to information from the New York State Department of Transportation, the intersection of Five Mile Drive and Elmira Road will be signalized as part of the Alt. 1 -A Rte. 13 Bridge Replacement Project. The proposed project, as stated in the DEIS, is located in a floodplain that crosses the City/Town line. There is concern by the Town that filling in the floodplain as proposed (60,000 Cubic Yards of Fill will be imported for the building pad) will cause some flooding to occur upstream in the Town. The Town is aware that this issue has been addressed in the DEIS and that the design is in accordance with FEMA guidelines and would like to be notified if this information is changed in any way. Finally, in the Stage 1 Cultural Resource Survey Report (Appendix G) the Wal -Mart site is described as being located in the Town of Ithaca, "... just south of the City of Ithaca limits." This minor typographical error should be corrected. On behalf of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for the Wal -Mart Department Store. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the • Wal -Mart site design as the Site Plan Review process progresses. Mr. David Kay Re: Wal -Mart DEIS is Page 4 Very truly yours, Stephen D. Smith, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board • •o M E M cc Pao so Eo SO CC oo mF° tr S� CD 0 °mc" =ti ' ? C O O =n � O �"O c C2 G O �! O� 7 b g cm a 0000, boo 000. O. O O e+ C Oq tqql aq =1 000 S O O m n G `� C O<'7 ° _ O n .y (D C n C p m (D (R CD D O .7 G �' P _ A '. Sm "'G7 �� m m O S � 7 n y o0 Co90 Oq m G ca pppp OCq ti m < S � p ��•* A Q �O pnp (D CD 3 � 'O GOV o. boo. '000, Pot o, c_ =ors 'Z• R ro rn•. S O eomo m r+ O m Rw n R O. n 'j C: y O w c R o (D W e < � C G (D (c nD O m O O " CIO � No" zv CD oo, r. O � n _ .0 . .. CD i� O p �s m p O s-m 3 Pof 10 . poz O O � R r� O ' n ° ; " CD r� O ❑ (� .� e+ (D 5 ('o a C. �' ........ O ,+ CD ro b m (D 07 C 7 C O m R< on ,00m c c .. m - o' c3D Q 00000 o o m o m° m R c S < m o ° m mr•� 0 w llq e000 CD S. C.. Cool- oLO cc Oq t-d n � o-o oof . ©� tD � . c�mm 00000 so m 0 n � Li c m boa c °i �O w C: o m_ Coo, O G (D a n 00000 (D S tD ' N o n Oq O s m m N =s O C n. r•. OC) cc a Ln Vat CD bM4 to O A S_ � O Ov C G � � `co�mo`�� 8 tom ~ m m G °O^. (D 000 [ G O p `�"LI 7 0° O m G G O � R C R O 1 .r O tD 0 C G p n_ al mom �3� o ��° S ^.t S. 'II fD G a � e•► ..q � O .q - 7 ° C C n '� r- .G Ate° ^•� mm �O o<^•e+ C 7 O S m = 9 CC m 0 r* ml ?� m �.�• ^' C T rt r•. lD m Oq- R O O C "J r. p w -- m R�.. (D oo, m r�3 �� c cn OD 23 ca w? R.`.11� m G ct w , m n `� PI m 3 p n w m C tool '^t O G O Coto Q c w S n F a •-• c¢D! Poo omo�o al c c x �0p �C o n 3 rr r-fi Gov o �o n. S O O P ommo, .(oG R m° "'.Q. 7 _moo C n Como n T. oog Moo. �n O O m� O y y. GCD ,O,t '( <(^mD m = =7 8 01 :Oft 7 R _ r� O w G m C• n 'V1 ° n (D O tD m ,.� `-'. ^n O .. m OO A D'oRP Poo R CC oo. �• C ?' O. C_. p9) f� O ;L m f7 O O wome CD Ppoo on (D ID p m oo,o rm•. _ S9 O S � G = �m 0 CD - as U wo = - So '<< a • = m0 ... em, (D =Oxu '� ° m 0 o my T m x m Z O O- R ^J r. O_ O O 7 v°4cD� mmR °?o 20�?CD��n�q°q =� -" c o 0o C a 03 0 R (D < m _ r: 7 3 m O y pop ,ED 0000' CD on of (D O W O O O, " O ..O O Oq r•' O (D .S.,O 0<t< m Tm �t<y a oR���.r B So Ei So So" fD O 7 S � O• (D Oq (D m .°j /D C,`" •°j (D ry too N Oka c-� y Ci Z G R ^+l .- S C n w w O y r- ... v. d 7 m S R m .0 S m 0 .•1 V n ^! O O (D O O G G S is __ n O D O_ S^ 9 G (D S 51 Ol m 7 m ° .Wi 7 7 m (<D A '1' 'a' (D O �. = n (D C' C'' 't m r'—. m ^m `. m .:.. `. (D o "7 (D G r� O O !7 O (D .T.. G row- A v � �. � .. =� R m �c ?? o g 0 F.? _, —'b �ac =o n 3 n woo. �lQp s... �? 2 O m d 7 O ..t m e+ < m G •�' ` O (D G ..� rte. n —� Ri .°.� 0 O �+ (D CD = y (D S O (D n o n yr; •-. O O - O (D m dal w m 3 R .yw.. o A� O O r�! G CJ G C O O .n.( S f! �'-. m CO R R R� �7 C r r•. a c ^ � r•: eO•' F moo. 0 ° 73T 0. °��e pSas m < W O R O - - S� G O= m O 7 m 't rO•. 'J .° R r' O G n c '`I CC^'C m ,om Co C - w (D (D r. m .D (Oj S'� Fa lSD `^ O. .= (D O ° O w C wi (nD ^ Yp C• A' O• R.O 0000 ^ CD S 7 r.. p C m '_'. =• n• soon D' S G 'J .-.� O m fRD n O p p O' ,°� fD o (6 r J O C D O .� emqw moo '^-" n CD O y� O y= _' O O ? r. m G Oq O R O C E R te n+ ® O � G O 7. CD '-n � 7 � O Oq m r� m� � �.. O (D "q -.... (D ¢ SJ iC _�i .0 oo. 'G rC.. R n 7 - R C C '� m lD n (D ^.f n °' .�. n O S (D of m Oq 7• SO rr 7 0 .�. G- eomw c ... (<D ((D D• .C•' m r' p mt R `- (D O co 'l (D .D%< O O m ° C _ R O - n' N• ` en—. m - m° - c. ° n a O tm+ Co �(o r- - '- .D (` `! c �= Z s m S (D '- -. "t - -3 � ^t �.� (•?� (� m .�O•'• S D (J cD - _ T n f> >'.L -+ r- `° - c^'rJ. _'rnS- m � Dt3.W C w ? _ 4,< (S 7 S— R .. �' C S0 _fD S•� -`• Om `: tom CD m „°_ �^ S _ O' =w ..t V] �. C < C _ m y _ - �'1 7w{ T _ C w (D C = co Oq (D O �. m O O .y (D :. P lD `°s '' T : •7 - .3 D w <_ o ° Oq = (D 7 .e ? O o eD O C . (D . n' G (G oo, rC, OL• ^ - ° m �.� — O n x t`. M iO•^ — <• o ml -- r' m. 0000 CD C° _ O - lD (D - r" •-, n O w= 7 c! cc R 3 O _ C O m O C- O° . n G .�»� �^( .f�. O Op ^r• 0 - O FW m n :� O- C C A O s C "- Soo C m .. = O R n n n r'7 E fd O O - r•' (D 7 <' oo m '6 (D O m C r G r•.• G" n n so O T — 000 R {s!! y `J ti- .`.J fD r 3. m n (D �! m e+, _ .. (! 000, D 9 O ^°^r O n S � < S oo. Poo. pi foQo ° O•p 7 -.'•C (RD r" r. on m - —m G� r G.rn►m WO GC'O �: cGm C ='rte D= ° 3 0° -°ft = 0 �m'° G Can IM m� mac• � �� m o r' r ° � (n T(� ;m m o _Cog Sol covm owl �p� Rn�co'oO °m _ no 3((D n��77 3r�D7 (m�m� co• O �D iD - �' p C 7 (D rG O O (D fD S p - n �•t -O•m Co � r� ^•C �. O n r'" - O• r• R C C n .. G.X.. h7 Cp C _ w O m C, p O o - .t n R '•G �• — ,�. m G n` R '< r- cr -••� (� O tD c. ui w _ Oq O O moo G 7 G 7 Q7 1 << w m�,m%: ,� o �� �� m- �� sm F m `+ o� -'►rJ- pp �... t9 r> sfD S<° =�•m c� m_�sw ° m CRS N " =°�� = gel ��,m MOO ov�era m�C °3o �`°m�e? m�mnmv `- Gp-- v So p'- 9 - O "' � -c c� p g' tD �j o p y �O < m 7 O m 3'<_� Ob �° o m -. c .n _< m m ra m o X m CJ O '•e O O O O ^t 0 0 T O 4 G ' G :, S- k O c G, S m S •pt + m< m m n c m° w< o °_° m° < m SD, MO a 3 CD me meCD0 os' f-c.�m °oo �7 °m��mmn oo`� R•m 'S7 S S 7 O O O O m _ ^� C O '-r[ R T m —• .. Z O n m `D m ° - ° m =Gm T°.� c� �? o� -' oo Gm fDo me gen. 9= no mmm, 3m�w __��_� w R `J.'J @• e. G '_3•.+mj G. �, m G y O 9 m m n ^t O' a• m n =. O R O' :.7 7 O �` ?• `°f Fe m m C = ° � z 0 �' m .^. S.�p m o T. � w S ,�_.� - -�' _,- o `� O ^+ c —p 0 3 as m^ < ,2� <_ n? m o o a m "b n• m �- _ m < m p Cm.I c n w� _= m e7•- m 000, n m m m O P=i m O < n T °3 •� S�-. Q ID "° '1 ..� G D m G m °3 7 O �R O G = �j -i • mfiw `g < n G O n _� O a _S y 00 yyG ,j C� rJ ,_, mm S O R CO •{-7 — O r C m m m O ^1 O m' —� co .J O C, O- O m g `i R O _• �. m n' R a me< c)c im 3.c --m m m gym_ m m e m< 3 .n o COO ° o n` m m•7 m G m c O -r M n 00 LT' ;y G y C S �, O m m m m y = mm =� n m m '- r S =1 m 00 k '7 'T `'� `s 00 O N m m =< > r• " '< o w O .T C W .7 m C O e. O 4 m S m T p 1 .... O y ,-..t G £ S m n� �. 000, m pmt. 00, ��► "! p• ,0,� c R T " m m ^i G m. ry n G ^ �' c e+ < _ -- �' G S" S 00 070 m ^! 04 m0mp mov m.� � ° o o p'm 3 w e� n m � fcD _ °O "r''p c ° �-fD �_ iD � � o m f3 R~ So w, <� tOa N � - < , = c 7q m m = S� m � m ^ `` C ° m• C `y n =. y m G �c oocCDm aov -�cm —� �-+ ppc� c�_� c� _T _ �+ m op me "' "+ .J m S -• „ O — m o ^� 00 m 7 G 00 s n S .... - c m •7 t+ r O n m m m o0 m 0 O •'1 S << '1 e9"ry G m R m 7' m "+ m_ w O p e► r' m T n eJ ° W 0° m C° �'' = c9 O m_ m m ",O G 1 m R "'i `< R O o T ,. r_ n n c r °' m R p O -• o :. rD m m ,� •� ? '1 O ^! WOO. "!�•'1C II. Q. m m C'm .-G "'m m n i m "•i'� tD —'CIC m C ....� m m .t m O L. O m 3 R G X00 �j' C oim<< a i—� m _ p —c ? m �� c m ., ° , m m `° ° FJ �'� _ _ << __ r. �p o G m m n F m 3 O•.O• h C L7 G m b R O 9 F'3 m m m '< .^+ �� C C fD •i � n _j y m 0 R �.�J. � Co R O -_+1 O' m f r m m ..., 3 'Y w '� m p m ..., G w n .°i y m '7 n y `� C r mw r }' m �+ m m Rp �'1= r--, y1m c m _ o m d �c S r R 3. n 00000 r1 "_ ° �' m �. O Z m _r.. —' R : at _ m `p' n O R'•" 0.� 'fl+' -� m, m +. 3' O C• T ? w O 3 'J r s .t to j S O' O p° tC 3. R O R -• m m RE m m w rc c ° c m '' ;av c o m <_ m w c-o r1 aq i qr m Or fD m O Q' m e•r Oq too to rD w � I < m m <•o E o gm m� a z m C .ym COq•m MTO`"mt 0Oq. �^r r. co CO Omo ^+ E flm <' O$ m n G^ S o fD ri m C fD OOt1'•b m (D 7 m c+ n G.' m r' f9 O n '< m C co ra '' V ^off cD m d m' rD ca CD o'er �.m m ^O cc In CD 10 M so _ n fl m ID _� S m tD 0 C� G y � O m �• ro G �. = „= W m. CG O tD O fD m ^•9 fl � CD n°•y fD •°o ti � O m p w ti o- C � C4 ca to 0 to �. p CA p 10 C4 n p o to � � O C7• �tmo C.0 V V 1\ A fop c � r w m O m m G cn m c O 2 O A m - e "c3b c, ID I G r-� O to to O � O fD � m CG O J °p' O N '3 � m q' C O cr G. 0_ m Lj m m L✓. CD 00,-. CA aq m °c 0" a a woo e°►�tD n G NGR R'J me P 7 y�,am� GR > 7 g W m o G o ° zz3 m '— _ � j < < b O Cz C, � = A OQ go go 7 P n m a <" 7 ma f0 .7.`m.. 3 Gm =' CrJGGrm•- 7 lD !D N OD �p (D •' GGC GOO Ct? DO >> n � m ciao o °-m o A ol o G R :1 R 9 z0 m o 3 N m D m N R -' n o m Gm m < G S CD vC O O= N� �00 C m t0< y 7 7 to fD - O — � O . � C O m G<< Q O 7 m Rm G� � ... f0 3 �° A n '•7 � tN O m eo .T. < m Q< 7 E m ^J G C O 9 = •ni r N•� •fit ej R 7 j i•f O 'O 9 cz F mo O m Ow m m r — n •_ A e+ O N `� 'S rj s y' A iv m s 7 0 -• ' 3< �. P_ to o m eb 0 c: Nl- tD .: .. n R =004 m am cmD I r FL GO N o '. ^ �^ OC O P 0 7 p z�t9 a ." -G^ C ..30 O c•g'�r.��oc G 00 7 �o to P T `t n P n D0 o m G N Q ^7 (b �� O m E 7 '� r• P T O cw m •+s 7 m " � 00 •t A m v t7a n� y 9 7 a s A O rn• masn- ° We m m zm Sao - &moo; = _ E G-`• m V1a� _ � n x N + m n '•' ,O 00 G r � P CC R O < Nn �O OOC� Z= O � t9 _ O i r ^ < (nD C s O O C? 7 ^c �m 3 07^,.'m.�'m�G Z N 'O O n ^..a rj "'q G �p O (p •• ° ^ CJ O .-. m m n m G a C -. .••. t�� a N fC cp to - SmS x og a + o o= 9rD 00 m� O �.t � .• m m C C n .. •7 — <. n o 00 m coy m "'i ••n O .y G rD O A cD n OQ `w m. "° r• f! fl r 14 P m 1 e-. t7 (D m R 7 .,n R m f0 '1 7 '.y �.. �• t0 n 0 m O 9 O G O - m !D m 7 'D ar O -- n m «w N ^ N O^ O ° C X O -. �_sy 7 m N o y 7..s m tD -f 7 C = m O• O '= fD O -• - CD C_ > _= tmD �'Ot = m -mi P m G rD 7 G m �- m '� G ? ^ '_`. 7• O s fl = ^. m• m p < a m = _�^. =. °_ ° m— C 7 C n o P Oq S G G 'rr•• 3 p�'O Oq G cC,r O M = -w0 S ^'= "'� 't7 CD .b G 6 ti m m o 0 G ma c= 4A co m m IT O 5.S� �m p�� -^� �� o < ° _m o C' m �, R , m L m m =o G _., m m m C. S m S G -. m. m N P c�'m� ,�, m C+ n G O eC G Oq G. m p S (<D O �. O e•► 7 K ° ?� m o � S ^° 7 7 a m r CQ w. w "011 ...- ." m° m ^+ m ~? ^CS % C n m CO m G C' ^' O s m E n .°.� �• 7070 O °• =9. t0 CD• ry O fD O f0] ^ Q• .r0�.. n < O �p C m C C S � Gy o. c Co m o0 m m o R -� mmt •°% O. °► ..e. O cXD c. o 'mC m cn 7 7°t �' "'' a; •t t-t7 G m. m >> m G m 'S t=+ 7 P G r- 1 N .-n p < O ..m-. <�. O �• O m "' _ 7 n O m '•G e+ ^ tp' O R O 5' M O m m CD o? '• O - r N m e s m G m A CD ^1' = < "O m O .= O m n m p 0 O Oq fl t' -_ m =• e7+ G S_ 7 N s C� C+ fD = m m rp`, "t o r' T R m 7 m O on "' o (0 P -< O O" R G m _ m m o m A> > 7 :: m `�`t$� 90 '^T �e tmD C e' !<D ^^.'O^s cD O E m C O o X CL c w < E 1m ^_<` �o fl = m m w co (D ... r. tD m O OC _ .— e••' C m V i _— =P 7 o_ mm m �' k .t IMP O• r C' .�^.. C.. T C_ (p' = -^-• ° fD ° C '+ CIO �' m C P ^ m m s mmi m C !'. m m =s' em► . =`p S in• O< m° en+ O T m' t+ n 7 < O ^ cD tD r. t C� = C CD 7 00 �• r 7 R C n ^. ri 'p 00 o f0 c0 m m D•� O m pc O fJ O '-^C '6 m lD �' _ m S W m- w m' O- -^ ^..� m N= 0 S' m O e+ A s y C E fl 7^ n fD co O O C lD ° >;t� m05 5.o '* m �' �' --, ^ _? 5,O O - n O �1 II = �G t17 P _ - fD = c P- �. 0 c to O' � 'O. ^ �. = o �< S Cm. fl _ c o cD G A t;7 G^ 7 m A G t0 mm fD m O O O m e ^'� ^ e► O m p �D O n O O E ��. m m^ C m fl S G �•C S G ry O fD e"b OQ O G ? m n 070 O �m 7 E - m t< (�j CD O '^. O^r my m m CD m "' ° R v^"Di m :.700 C 7 T O 7 m S 00 X CD m m r`II .f D. X C m^ p7 (D � IMP C ^ (mD ' pfl ✓ — v n C (� -• m a 00 ' R m O r i. fD CD 7 m m G r: C e+ �•G 'C In m G O co 0 .•� `°' P m. m < m `°� C r. G o co Q = ^°f G G. p ....� O r'. O m m m• < S. < r', •� ^+ 7 n O n P m C (D < 7m _ cD aC •� G. O O O 7 O O m ° �. m f�D " tp C — _ - O X O t► fD `r ^ m 7 G y m m " S O O OG ^ G CD �R+ m I '� CD O fD fJ 'C 'T' O p —►. �D ►•• G (p n = C 7 Do CID R -s tT m O— m c 22 IMP 0 CL CD CD tz a R O NS . N .- .� O a_ Oq .Z m ►. ,•P.. � � k n • . � � � 4. O. ^' O 7 OOq "°•t `•C- � O c�D O S oa O • U FEB 27 '95 10 :20AM MEN10 T0: John Whitcomb, Town Supervisor CC: Steve Smith, Chair = Town of Ithaca Planning Board Jon Kanter, Town Planner FROM: Fred Wilcox F=T— Z SUBJECT: Association of Towns meeting DATE: Febn.:ary 27, 1995 Here are some (mostly relevant) notes and comments on the recent meeting of the Association of Towns of the State of New York which I was privileged to attend. Richard Boos (Principal Planner) and Harry Willis (Local Government Counsel) of the Department of State presented very informative training sessions for both Planning and Zoning officials. Highlights were: Pae. • State law has been changed as to the number of members on the Planning Board. Instead of five (5) or seven (7) plus the agricultural member, the law now states that the Planning Board will consist of five (5) or seven (7) members including the agricultural member. Towns can adopt a local law to alter the number of members. • New regulations can make it more difficult for Planning Boards to require the set aside of recreational land (or money in lieu of land) for subdivision approval, Now, some sort of recreational needs analysis of the community should be performed first. This assessment of recreational needs must make findings to justify the requirement for land set asides (or money). In addition, Planning Boards must establish the need for additional recreational facilities caused the proposed development. The most anticipated session (for me) was entitled "Revisions to SEQR - Part 617' presented by Barbara Rinaldi and Jack Nasca of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Unfortunately, this was the worst session that I attended. Although Jack presented a decent overview of proposed changes to the SEQR regulations, Barbara's portion on SEQR training quickly disintegrated into a gripe session. For example, a significant amount of time (maybe thirty minutes or so) was spent by attendees complaining that the State should do more because of the incompetence of their own town employees. Three interesting points made during the session were: • Proposed changes to the SEQR regulations will allow Planning Boards to focus on only those issues that are determined to be of significant impact, Currently, the EIS requires that issues be addressed that are not significant. This means less resources can be applied to the significant impacts. Exhibit #6 2/28/95 Planning Board Minutes FEB 27 '95 10:21AM • Jack Rinaldi's interpretation of the current regulations is that erection of signs does • not require an Environmental Assessment Form. Although signs are not specifically mentioned on the Type II list of actions, they are not subject to review and don't require SEQR. o Cumulative environmental impacts can be mitigated through zoning changes which identify the limiting environmental resource. Other notes and comments on the conference in no particular order: P.3 /6 • The Planning Board has the right and the obligation to "stick its nose" into anything having to do with planning and development. A Planning Board has the ability to initiate investigation, This can be both an opportunity and an opening for conflict with the Town Board. • Town boards, through Iocal law, can enact training requirements for Planning Board members. • The Planning Board can require a developer to install excess facilities as part of the approval process as long as he /she is compensated for those improvements that are over and above what is necessary for the subdivision itself. • Planning Boards should be careful not to grant a bonus to a developer (in the number of building lots permitted) because of a proposed clustered subdivision. This is best accomplished by requiring the developer to submit a standard subdivision plat before submission of a clustered proposal. There was a good session on Paper Streets. A significant amount of time was spent on driveways verses private roads. Relevance to EcoVillage. Attached; please find three pages of information on Road Maintenance Agreements and road standards that were distributed at the session. • Another good session on Access Management by Town of Penfield officials. It is more important now that access to roads be managed so that thoroughfares can carry the load (vehicle counts) that they were designed for because state funded upgrades are less likely to be available. • Municipalities can require clustering, For example, along shore lines, in areas with steep slopes or in environmentally sensitive areas. • The training session on Zoning provided a through introduction to both use and area variances; what they are and what the appellant must show in order to be granted a variance. Overall, I was pleased with the information available at the conference. Except for the SEQR session and one on GIS, I found the gathering to be informative and useful. A minor complaint would be that the general planning board training was held on Tuesday instead of on Monday. I appreciate the opportunity provided by the Town for meeting with other Planning Board members to discuss their problems and proposed solutions as well as for the knowledge gained from the various sessions. MATTHELFEB X27 P95 10 � 1AMES, INC. • 0 Road Maintenance Agreements and Legal Considerations P. 4/6 Below is a checklist of itens that should be addressed in the planning of private roads and arrangements for maintenance, ownership, etc. Municipalities may wish to consult an attorney to further define these provisions. Legal and Plat Arrangements for Private Roads General �. Easement or separate parcel: A private road should be protected by a well- defined permanent easement or a separate road parcel which should provide for "sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be suitably located to accommodate fire protection and to provide access of fire fighting equipment to buildings..." and must be "suitably graded and paved..." (Town Law Section 277, Subsection Z). The above "standard" provides for a great deal of discretion on the part of decision - makers and requires assessment of the density of the development, character of the terrain, and nearby development. Town Laws Section 277 and 2WA delineate the above. 2. A road maintenance agreement, or similar agreement governing ownership, repair and maintenance, should be provided for all private roads involving even as few as two lots. In some towns, shared driveways between residences require road maintenance agreements. If an existing road is governed by an RMA then it should be revised to address new lots added to the road. 34 Where there is shared interest in real property, for example, several property owners own a road parcel in common, the New York State Attorney General's approval is required. Road Maintenance Agreements, Specific Features. These provisions could also be denoted on subdivision plats as needed. 1. Both the RMA and plat should clearly identify the private roadway parcel and improvements, its layout and dimensions and specify the lots which are associated with the RMA parcel. The RMA should refer to the plat and vice versa. Where a separate lot for private road is involved, a homeowners association (HOA) or other organization or entity specifically responsible for ownership may be necessary. P. r r m e O 7J I • CC.' HI'I MATTHEW D. RUOIKOFF ASSOCIATES, INC. • • r.�it 20 The RMA and plat should specify that each associated lot has an easement and right -of -way over the roadway parcel for both vehicular and non•vehicular access for each lot affected. 3. Maintenance of the road should be provided to keep the road accessible under any traffic or weather conditions, and accessible particularly to any type of emergency vehicle. 4. The members affected by the road' maintenance agreement should be specifically delineated (as owners of specifically identified lots, not identified by name) and an equitable apportionment of the expenses of the agreement should be specified. Expenses will include maintenance, repair and /or rebuilding of the roadway. Any lot owners not part of the specific subdivision which may, be affected by the RMA or gain access to the private road should be specified 5. The agreement should be binding and enforceable by all lot owners. The agreement should run with the land and any. changes in lot number or configuration should be. added td revisions of the RMA. 6. The RMA will affect all lots specified until the road is formally accepted by the town as a public road. 79 The agreement should be validated by a notary public by all parties who. are affected by the RMA at the time it is executed. Immediately after filing of the subdivision map or plat, the approved agreement should be recorded m the county clerk's office as are plats. 8. The subdivision plat, before it is approved in final form, should contain a notation indicating that the roads shown on the plat are private and that a road maintenance agreement has been approved that affects all lots which gaha access from the private road. It may be appropriate to include the requirements of the RMA as part of the resolution granting final approval of a plat. 90 For inclusion in the RMA and on the plat, a note should be provided that indicates that the road discussed and the road shown there is a private road and that the town shall have no liability or responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the private road until the event when the town board is offered and formally accepts the road as a public highway. Matthew D. Ruaikoff Associates, Inc 328 Main Matl Poughkecpsie, NY 12601 rebmuy, 1991 FFR ?7 '9c; 41 A: ?RAM MATTHEW D. RUDIKOrr A.^+i0CIAT5Z, INC. is • P. Aelfi ISSUES REGARDING ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR DRIVEWAYS (WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF PAPER STREETS) AND PRIVATE ROADS Presentation at the New York State Association of Towns Conference February 20, 1995 1. Consideration of Development Thresholds For what number of lots does a :driveway become inadequate access and a road should be developed? 2. Standards for Shared Driveways should include: . Grade Width Paving /Drainage Requirements Location and Number of Driveways within a Paper Street Rn2d Maintenance Agreements 36 Private Road Staudw -ds shuuld izzclude, but not be limited to: Grade Right -of -Way Width Pavement Width Vcrlic,al /Horiwntal Carves Sight Distances Paving /Drainage Requirements Design Specifications - Utilities, Curbing, Asphalt, etc. Bonding and Performance Guarantees Road Maintenance Agreements C&de -sac Length � and other General Provisions as may be indicated in existing standards for Public Roads Marthew D. Rudikoff Associates, Inc 328 Main Mall rouolakccYsia, IvY 1260; Te[ephoc (914) 4735633 7