HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-03-07TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 7, 1995
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, March 7, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Robert Kenerson, Eva Hoffmann,
Gregory Bell, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Candace
Cornell, 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: Nancy Given, James Eisenberg, Douglas Pokorney,
Nancy Brown, Lora Watts, George Lavris, Gordon
Madison, David Edgell, Elizabeth Classen, Bruce
Wilson, Doug shire, Jerry & Claudia Weisburd, Jen &
John Bokaer- Smith, Mary Webber, Deborah Chernin,
George Salvaggio, Karen Knudson, Joan Bokaer, Erica
Powers, William B. Webber, Steven Gaarder, David
Anderson, Liz Walker, Patricia Classen, Attorney
Bruce Wilson.
Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34
p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 27, 1995 and March 1, 1995,
respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property
under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of
Ithaca and 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 March 3, 19950
Chairperson Smith 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.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 0.255 +/-
ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 24 -1 -34.4, 67.7 +/- ACRES
TOTAL, FOR CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 24 -1-
34.1, 1.17 +/- ACRES, LOCATED AT 274 HAYTS ROAD, AG AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT. NANCY GIVEN, OWNER /APPLICANT.
Planning Board Minutes 2 March 7, 1995
Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 7:35 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted
above.
Attorney Michael May addressed the Board and stated that he
represented Mrs. Given. Attorney May stated that Mrs. Given was
asking to approve a subdivision, the 0.255 acre piece was deeded to
her in 1990.
Board
Member
Fred Wilcox
asked if there were any legal rights
for access
to Tax
Parcel No.
24 -1 -34.1.
Attorney May responded that Tax Parcel No 24 -1 -34.1 has a road
that runs along another parcel as shown on the location map
provided to the Planning Board. Attorney May stated that if 24 -1-
34.1 was ever conveyed to another owner, it would include access
over that road. (Location Map is attached hereto as Exhibit #1)
Mr. Wilcox asked if
Ms.
Given
had the right legally to access
her property over Parcel
No.
24 -1 -34.2.
the
Attorney May responded, yes.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked which parcels were owned by
Ms. Given. The parcels owned by Ms. Given are 24 -1 -34.1, 24 -1-
34.2, 24 -1 -35 and 24 -1- 34.62.
Chairperson Stephen Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing
and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion.
Chairperson Smith asked if any of the Board Members visited
the site. Board Members Candace Cornell and Fred Wilcox had
visited the site prior to the Planning Board Meeting,
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he was not aware that
Ms. Given owned the parcel fronting on Hayts Road, and asked if
that was recently acquired.
Attorney
May
stated that
he thought
that
the property was
owned prior to
the
conveyance
of the 0.255
acre
piece in 1990.
Ms. Given stated that she had owned the property for ten
years.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz addressed the Board and
clarified which parcels were owned by Ms. Given. (Please refer to
Exhibit #1)
Board Member James Ainslie asked Douglas Pokorney if the 0.255
Planning Board Minutes 3 March 7, 1995
acre piece extended back as far as the pond.
Mr. Pokorney responded that the 0.255 acre piece did not
include the pond.
There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone
were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch,
WHEREAS:
seconded by James Ainslie:
1. This action is Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed subdivision of 0.255 +/- acres from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.4, 67.7 +/- acres total, for
consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1,
1.17 +/- acres, located at 274 Hayts Road, AG Agricultural
District. Nancy Given, Owner /Applicant.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 7, 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 copy of the subdivision
plat entitled "Lands of Nancy D. Given, Hayts Road (Mil. Lot
41), (T) Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y." prepared by G. Bruce
Davison, L.S. and dated December 14, 1994, a survey of Tax
Parcel Nos. 24 -1 -34.2 and -34.2 entitled "Map to Show Area
Conveyed to Douglas J. Pokorney and Nancy Pokorney, Hayts
Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y., sealed by Howard
R. Schlieder, L.S. and dated October 11, 1978, and other
application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed action, as proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with
the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the
above reference action as proposed and, therefore, neither a
■ Long Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental
Impact Statement will be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
Planning Board Minutes 4 March 7, 1995
vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Ainslie, Wilcox,
Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that a mylar copy
of the subdivision plat had been received and therefore a condition
in the resolution was not necessary.
Chairperson Smith asked if Ms. Given intended to consolidate
the 0.255 acre piece into Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1.
Attorney May responded that all Ms. Given was asking for at
tonight's meeting was subdivision approval of the 0.255 acre piece
of property.
Mr. Frantz asked if this property had been consolidated by
deed.
Mr. May responded he felt that it was in the deed of the
rectangular parcel, the 0.255 acres, in Nancy Given's name.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Herbert Finch:
1. This action is Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed subdivision of 0.255 +/- acres from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.4, 67.7 +/- acres total, for
consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1,
1.17 +/- acres, located at 274 Hayts Road, AG Agricultural
District, Nancy Given, Owner /Applicant.
2, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 7, 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 copy of the subdivision
plat entitled "Lands of Nancy D. Given, Hayts Road (Mil. Lot
41), (T) Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y." prepared by G. Bruce
Davison, L.S. and dated December 14, 1994, a survey of Tax
Parcel Nos. 24 -1 -34.2 and -34.2 entitled "Map to Show Area
Conveyed to Douglas J. Pokorney and Nancy Pokorney, Hayts
Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. sealed by Howard
R. Schlieder, L.S. and dated October 11, 1978, and other
application materials, and
39 This is
an Unlisted
Action
for which
the Town of
Ithaca
Planning
Board,
acting
as lead
agency in
environmental
review
Planning Board Minutes 5 March 7, 1995
with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on March 7, 1995,
made a negative determination of environmental significance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
10 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
Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.255 +/- acres from
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.4, 67.7 +/- acres total,
for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1-
34.1, 1.17 +/- acres, located at 274 Hayts Road, as shown on
the subdivision plat entitled "Lands of Nancy D. Given, Hayts
Road (Mil. Lot 41), (T) Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y."
prepared by G. Bruce Davison, L.S. and dated December 14,
1994, subject to the following conditions:
a. Submission of a
Tax and Assessment
Certificate
from the
Tompkins County
Department
of Budget and
Finance.
b. Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any required
variance or variances.
c. The subdivided 0.255 + /- acre parcel be consolidated with
Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1 and that a copy of the
application for such consolidation filed with Tompkins
County Assessment Department be provided to the Town
Planner no later than April 15, 19950
Mr. Frantz pointed out the right -of -way, which is used for
access to Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1.
Attorney Barney stated that this troubled him, and asked what
the access was to the 0.255 acre piece of property.
Attorney May stated that access was via the right -of -way.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he was not sure if it was
a legal right -of -way, or if it was simply access over 'Ms. Given's
own property:
Attorney Barney asked if Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1 had ever
gone through subdivision approval.
Mr. Frantz responded that the parcel was subdivided off from
24 -1 -34.4 in the late 1970's before it was subject to the Town's
Planning Board Minutes 6
subdivision review process.
March 7, 1995
Attorney Barney stated
that the
problem was that the
Board
would be creating a lot, with
subdivision
recognition, that
has no
frontage on a public road. Attorney
Barney asked if there
was a
reason why the strip of land
that is
used as access could
not be
attached to lot 24 -1 -34.1 to
give road frontage.
Mr. Frantz stated that attaching that strip of land had been
discussed with Ms. Given, and one of the problems was that there is
a closing coming up on the 15th of March for the sale of Tax Parcel
No. 24 -1 -34.1, and there was not enough time to process the
subdivision of this strip because the proposal before the Board had
already been sent to the County for their review process under gml
239.
Attorney May stated that the parcel was going to be presented
to the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 8, 1995 for a variance due
to the lack of road frontage.
Mr. Frantz stated that the purchaser of the lot would be
getting a right of way across 24 -1 -34.2 to Hayts Road.
Attorney May stated that Mr. Frantz was correct.
Attorney Barney stated that what was being asked for was to
create a lot that has absolutely no frontage on a public road, a
lot that is substandard by size.
Mr. Frantz stated that the Board would be creating a lot for
consolidation with a lot that conforms to the zoning in every
respect except for the lack of frontage.
Nancy Given addressed the Board and stated when the original
house was built, she did not own the land. Ms. Given stated that
there was, in the deed, a permanent right -of -way to that house,
which at that time was agreed upon by the Town Planner and the
house was constructed.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked if the deed for Tax Parcel
No. 24 -1 -34.2 included a legal provision for access, be it a right -
of -way or an easement that would serve 24 -1 -34.1 if at some future
time either of the parcels are in separate ownership.
Attorney May stated that if 24 -1 -34.1 is sold, a right -of -way
would be granted over Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.2 as access to 24 -1-
34.1.
Ms.
Cornell
asked
if there
was something the Board could do
tonight
to insure
that
access be
granted.
Planning Board Minutes 7 March 7, 1995
Chairperson Smith stated that he would like to fix the problem
of the land locked parcel now, since it is all in one ownership
before the Board makes the current situation worse.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board may wish to add an
additional condition that there be a further application for
subdivision for the piece of property that is encompassed in the
right -of -way, and reprocess the application at a later date.
Attorney May stated that Henry Theisen was handling the sale
of Parcel 24 -1 -34.1, but that his understanding was that they
preferred the option of granting a legal right -of -way over Parcel
24 -1 -34.2 and not to have to sell the 60 -foot strip of land.
Attorney Barney asked why the 60 -foot strip could not be
conveyed.
Attorney
May
stated that Ms. Given
wanted to maintain some
ownership of
that
60 -foot strip of land.
Attorney May stated that
the contract
with
the potential buyers
of 24 -1 -34.1 involved a
right -of -way
not an absolute conveyance of
a 60 -foot wide strip of
land out to
the
road. The change would require rewriting the
contract which
is
up for closing on March
15, 19950
Attorney Barney stated that this strip of land should have
been conveyed originally.
The Planning Board discussed whether or not to require the
subdivision and sale of the access strip as a condition of
approval.
Attorney Barney suggested adding conditions "d & e", which
were accepted by the Board as amendments to the proposed
resolution.
d. Any conveyance of Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1 shall include
a legal right -of -way across Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.2 for
the benefit of Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.1 and the 0.255+/ -
acre addition.
e. Any sale of Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -34.2 shall be made
subject to the right -of -way for the benefit of Tax Parcel
No. 24 -1 -34.1.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith called
for a vote.
Aye - Cornell,
Nay - Smith.
Abstain - Bell,
Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox.
Hoffmann.
Planning Board Minutes 8 March 7, 1995
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for Nancy Given to be duly closed at 8:09 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL, AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR A SIGN VARIANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED USE
OF SUBJECT PREMISES AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR CLASSEN HOME
HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., IN AN R -15 RESIDENCE DISTRICT, TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 26- 3 -8.2, 1212 TRUMANSBURG ROAD. DENMARK
DEVELOPMENT, INC., OWNER; PATRICIA CLASSEN, APPLICANT.
Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Attorney Bruce Wilson addressed the Board and stated that
Patricia and Elizabeth Classen were the applicants for the request
for Site Plan Approval and that he would be representing them at
this meeting. Attorney Wilson stated that the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals had given the Classen's a. variance for use
for administrative offices conditioned upon the Planning Board
approval of the Site Plan. Attorney Wilson stated that they were
also requesting a sign be placed and that they needed to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance because of the size of the
proposed sign. Attorney Wilson stated that the proposed site plan
was revised to locate the 13 parking spaces. The proposed sign has
a height of six feet. Attorney Wilson stated that the site plan
shows the access, parking, shrubbery and the lighting involved.
Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the public wished to speak.
George Lavris of 1207 Trumansburg Road, addressed the Board
and stated that the north boundary of his property was directly
across the street from where the proposed sign will go. Mr. Lavris
stated that he was unable to find in the material provided to him
whether the sign was going to be one -sided or double- sided.
Patricia Classen stated that the sign would be double - sided.
Mr. Lavris stated that in the proposal, the Classens stated
that it is necessary to have a sign of that size to warn the public
that is approaching the property of where the driveway is located.
Mr. Lavris stated that if one were driving from the hospital toward
the property, the sign would not be visible in its proposed
location because of the shrubs. Mr. Lavris continued and stated
that one of his concerns with the site plan was that there is a
suggestion that an additional driveway be located on the north,
either on the Classen property or the adjacent property. Mr.
Lavris asked if there would be a request to approve a variance for
Planning Board Minutes 9 March 7, 1995
the secondary driveway for access as one approaches from the north.
Mr. Lavris stated that as one drives toward the hospital from
the Octopus, there are several signs along the way. One of the
signs of note was for Candlewick Apartments, which is approximately
8 -1/2 square feet, set in a large open area and is proportioned to
the site and readable from several hundred feet away. Mr. Lavris
mentioned a few other signs on Trumansburg Road and discussed the
size and whether or not they fit into the residential setting of
the neighborhood.
Mr.
Lavris
then stated,
speaking for himself, his rental
property
and
his
neighbors at
1201 Trumansburg Road, that the
proposed
sign
is
out of proportion
with the property that it is
intended
for.
Mr.
Lavris stated
that they felt that a smaller sign
would be
much
more
appropriate
and do the job very nicely.
Gordon Madison stated that he has lived directly across from
the property under discussion for 42 years. Mr. Madison stated
that Dr. Goodfriend had a sign that was very nice and unobtrusive.
Mr. Madison stated that he felt that the proposed Classen sign was
for advertising and that the sign was too large. Mr. Madison also
stated that his neighbors, the Lovelys and the Pollocks, were
against the sign being that large and that the neighborhood was
becoming too commercialized.
Chairperson Smith asked if there was anyone else from the
public that wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith
closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board
for discussion.
Chairperson Smith asked if any of the Board Members had
visited the site.
Board Member Fred Wilcox had visited the site.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked how big Dr. Goodfriend's
sign was.
Mr. Lavris responded that his sign was approximately 3 -1/2
square feet.
Ms. Cornell asked what information was on the sign.
Mr. Lavris stated that Dr. Goodfriend's sign had his name and
the street number on it.
Patricia Classen stated that there were two doctors names on
it as well as the street address. Ms. Classen stated that they
enjoy their new location and did not want to upset the neighbors.
Ms. Classen stated that the reason for the larger sign was to
insure visibility to potential clients and employees. Ms. Classen
Planning Board Minutes 10 March 7, 1995
stated that she was not opposed to
having
the sign made
a little
five times
smaller
the
as long as it would be
distance from the location
visible.
of the sign
Ms. Classen stated
to the edge of
the
that
road
was
noted on the
revised site
plan
maps.
(The revised Site
Plan
Map,
#2)
dated 1/30/95,
Revised 2/20/95,
is hereto attached. as
Exhibit
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the sign area without
the posts would measure 19.25 square feet.
Chairperson Smith asked what the permitted size of signs was.
Mr. Walker responded 4 square feet.
Board
Member
Gregory
Bell stated that the proposed sign was
five times
as big
as what
is permitted.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked how many employees were
currently occupying the offices.
Ms. Classen stated that there were 8 people that worked in the
office full -time, and approximately 100 people that work in the
field.
Mr. Kanter asked how many people would be visiting the office
in a given day.
Elizabeth Classen addressed the Board and stated that on
average, she would estimate 4 or 5 per day, with an increase in
that number on Fridays.
Patricia Classen stated that there
the office approximately once a month.
they had received a lot of complaints
including employees that work in the
unable to find the place. Ms. Classen
busy enough that the sign is needed for
was in house education at
Ms. Classen stated that
from people who drive by,
field, because they were
stated that the road was
early notification.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that the problem with the
employees driving by could be easily remedied by sending each of
them a map. Dr. Goodfriend's sign was very visible from the road,
and asked what made it so visible.
Ms. Classen stated that it was a gray sign with maroon
letters, and that it was a very pretty sign.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked why the sign was moved instead
of put in the same place as Dr. Goodfriend's sign.
Elizabeth Classen stated that there was something in the sign
ordinance that stated that it needed to be a certain distance from
the road and the driveway. Ms. Classen stated that the snow from
Planning Board Minutes 11 March 7, 1995
the snowplow would cover the sign at the old location.
Mr. Lavris stated that at the proposed location, the sign
would be blocked by the shrubs anyway, and that the sign needed to
be moved back 1 or 2 feet from the proposed location shown. Mr.
Lavris stated that the sign needed to be moved for safety purposes
as well, because in the proposed location it would block the view
for those needing to turn up the road.
Elizabeth Classen stated that they liked the sign put out for
Candlewick Apartments, and would agree to a sign of similar design
and size. Ms. Classen asked how big the Candlewick sign was.
Mr. Lavris stated that the sign was 8 -1/2 to 9 square feet in
size.
Elizabeth Classen stated that they would need a 2 x 2 foot
sign to keep within the sign laws, and that she did not feel that
would be sufficient for their needs.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that a sign 4 x 1. feet would
be within the sign laws and be visible and that was what she would
like to see.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she thought that the
employees could receive maps, or that they could incorporate maps
into the advertising, and still stay within the limitations of the
Sign Laws.
Mr. Lavris stated that he felt that the neighbors would go
along with a sign a little larger than 4 square feet as long as it
was done tastefully and fit into the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Classen stated, for the record, that their proposal
tonight was an attempt to keep in with the neighborhood. Ms.
Classen stated that there were many signs within 1/2 mile of their
location that were above the size allowed by the sign ordinance, so
they did not feel that their proposal was out of character. Ms.
Classen stated that if there could be a compromise that did not
limit them to 4 square feet, it would be appreciated.
Attorney John Barney stated that
the
Board had given the
impression that the proposed
sign design
was
too big, and the Board
would need to look at a
specific sign to
make
their determination.
Attorney Barney stated
that the Board should
address the site plan.
Attorney Barney stated
that if the Classens
wanted more than the 4
feet they should come
in with a newly
designed
sign. Attorney
Barney stated that the
Board listens to
the
neighborhood and they
felt that they would be
willing to accept
a sign
approximately 8 to
9 square feet.
Attorney Wilson stated that they were scheduled for the Zoning
Planning
Board Minutes
12
March 7, 1995
Board of
Appeals for a
sign variance on March 8,
19950
Elizabeth
Classen stated
that
before they return to the Board,
they will
have
discussed the
sign
with the neighbors,.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker recommended that they consider
changing the location of the sign because of the bushes and shrubs
on the site, the sign would not be visible if driving down the
road.
Chairperson Smith asked if anyone had any comments regarding
the Site Plan,
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he was concerned with
the access to the site. At one point in past years, there had been
an actual driveway connection to the property to the North, which
is shown on the site plan and labeled as "formal gravel drive no
longer exists ". Mr. Kanter stated that he thought that there were
two driveway locations on the site. Mr. Kanter stated, referring
to the original Use Variance that was granted for Dr. Goodfriend
when he proposed to operate in the house as a non - resident
physicians office, that the Zoning Board of Appeals had required
that the second access be provided to the adjacent driveway. Mr.
Kanter stated that he was not sure of the history of when the
driveway was there or why it was removed. Mr. Kanter stated that
he had spoken with Attorney Wilson about this issue and was hoping
to get a little more information and background on this, and the
possibility of a future connection back to that driveway to the
north because, Mr. Kanter felt that the existing Classen driveway
was not designed for office use. The driveway is a narrow
residential driveway and the distance to Bundy Road is less than
383 feet, and while looking south from the driveway toward Bundy
Road there is a limited sight distance. Mr. Kanter stated that the
best solution would be to reconnect a second access to the driveway
to the north.
Board Member Herbert Finch asked why Mr. Kanter wanted the
access through the second driveway.
Mr. Kanter responded both for the sight line and the speed of
the traffic coming up Route 96 northbound. The hard turn out of
the driveway would be the left turn, northbound onto Route 96, and
he felt that it would be safer with the second driveway.
Mr. Finch stated that he was not sure how the extra driveway
would help the problem.
Mr. Kanter stated that there was approximately 200 feet of
frontage on the Classen lot, and moving the driveway up the hill
away from the crown in the road opens up the sight distance a lot.
Mr. Finch stated that adding an extra driveway on the road
Planning Board Minutes 13 March 7, 1995
would seem to add to the problem.
Attorney Wilson
created had reserved
the lot to the north.
way was specifically
in the deed as a rig
neighbor.
stated
a 12 -foot
However
located.
,ht, but
that the title when this lot was
wide right -of -way for access across
it is not clear where the right -of-
Attorney Wilson stated that it was
.t had not been approached with the
Attorney Barney asked who owned the property neighboring to
the north.
Elizabeth Classen stated that Sally Schultz owned the property
to the north and that they were hoping that they did not have to
approach her.
Mr. Kanter stated that with the original house, the driveway
was never meant for this kind of use.
Ms. Cornell asked if there was a problem with the existing
driveway or if there were any accidents reported as a result of the
doctor's office.
Mr. Kanter responded, not that he was aware of.
Chairperson Smith asked if the driveway was level to the
highway.
Mr. Kanter responded that it was fairly level. with the
highway.
Board Member Fred Wilcox addressed the Board and stated that
he had visited the site on Sunday and sat in his car and watched
the cars come up Route 96 over the crest in the road and tried to
judge how much time a car would have to pull out and drive north.
Mr. Wilcox stated that he originally thought that cars would have
enough time to get out onto the road. He then stated that an
ambulance came up over the crest and gets to the driveway a lot
quicker than a car would. Mr. Wilcox stated that, under most
circumstances cars pulling out of that driveway going north would
have enough time to do so safely.
Mr. Kanter stated that another possible problem would be gaps
in the traffic during some of the heavy peak hours when cars coming
out of the driveways and side roads get impatient and take chances
pulling out into traffic.
Board Member James Ainslie suggested that the Board ask Mr.
Frank Ligouri, who lives on the corner next to the Classen
property, and may be able to give the Board or staff a history of
accidents on that corner.
Planning Board Minutes 14 March 7, 1995
Gordon Madison stated that he has lived there for 42 years and
that there had been four cars that had ended up in his yard. Mr.
Madison stated that people have to sit and wait or there will be
accidents and someone could get killed.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that it seemed that the
Classen business would generate less use and less traffic on the
road, and that the proposal seemed like an improvement to him.
Attorney
Wilson stated
that he may
not be able to deliver a
right -of -way
to provide the
second access.
Mr. Kanter suggested that the
Site Plan as well as the sign and
the Board at a later date. The
additional information about the
there is an easement and where it
the Board could make a decision.
Board table any decision on the
have the Classens come back to
applicants could try to bring
possibility of whether or not
is located, and at that point,
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that they could also find
out if there have been any traffic accidents or problems.
Elizabeth Classen stated she had spoken with Mr. Ligouri and
the Vanziles, and they felt that the traffic was less than it was
for Dr. Goodfriend. Ms. Classen stated that they would comply with
anything the Board wanted them to do, but currently things are
working out wonderfully at this location, and they have not heard
about any close calls regarding the traffic.
Ms. Cornell asked if the sign could be placed closer to Mr.
Ligouri's property so that there would be.better visibility from
both sides.
Patricia Classen responded that between their property and Mr.
Ligouri's property there was a small narrow strip of grass, there
would not be enough room for the sign.
Ms. Hoffmann asked if any of the 13 parking spaces were for
the handicapped.
Patricia Classen stated that they have a handicap ramp located
on the far side of the building, which would allow up to three cars
to park there if necessary.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the variance that was
granted was for both office and a 15 client day care office, so if
this Board approves this site plan they would be approving a site
plan for 8 office spaces plus 15 adult day care spaces. Mr. Walker
stated that the variance was specific and that in regard to
traffic, the variance allows for the adult day care unless there is
a condition put on by this Board at this meeting.
Planning Board Minutes 15 March 7, 1995
Attorney Wilson stated that the adult day care was granted but
the Classens are not exercising that at this point.
Chairperson Smith stated that the Board needed more
information relating to the potential access to the other lot, and
the questions about the variance and the right -of -way before a
decision can be made.
Attorney John Barney asked if the building was being used
currently by Classens.
Patricia Classen responded, yes.
Attorney Barney stated that theoretically the Classens should
have had Site Plan Approval before a Certificate of Occupancy was
issued to occupy the building. Attorney Barney stated that he
thought that this was an occupancy that's not legal.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Candace Cornell:
RESOLVED, that the matter of Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with
respect to a request for a Sign Variance, for the proposed use of
subject premises as administrative offices for Classen Home Health
Associates, Inc., be tabled until the March 21, 1995 Planning Board
Meeting, at which time the additional information and details
requested by the Planning Board be provided for further
consideration.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Finch, Hoffmann, Wilcox,
Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Classen Home Health
Associates, Inc., Site Plan and Sign Variance to be tabled until
March 21, 19950
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 35 +/- ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 28 -1 -26921 163.76 +/- ACRES TOTAL, AND
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ECO VILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 30
DWELLING UNITS IN 15 DUPLEXES, A COMMON HOUSE AND OTHER SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, ON MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79) JUST WEST OF WEST
HAVEN ROAD, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD) AND RESIDENCE DISTRICT
Planning Board Minutes
R -30. ECO VILLAGE AT
APPLICANT; HOUSE CRAFT
Chairperson Smith
matter duly opened at
Board Agenda.
16 March 7, 1995
:THACA, INC., OWNER; FIRST RESIDENTS' GROUP,
BUILDERS, AGENTS,
declared the discussion of the above -noted
9:14 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning
Jerry Weisburd addressed the Board and stated that a fair
amount of work had been done since they were last before the
Planning Board and that most of it was in the book of drawings
dated February 7, 1995, submitted to the Town staff and Planning
Board. One of.the things that had been submitted was a preliminary
drainage study. Mr. Weisburd stated that a complete study was
provided to the Town Engineer and a portion of the study was
provided to each of the Board Members and Town Planning staff. Mr.
Weisburd stated that there were two drainage maps, the first
entitled "Watershed Map 211, shows the watershed condition after
full development of the project, and that the second map, entitled
"Watershed Map 111, shows the watershed condition prior to
development. Mr. Weisburd stated that the drainage study was done
based on full development of the site, because they want to use
retention devices and the retention devices would need to be sized
so that subsequent development would still be handled by those same
devices. One of the devices they will have is a pond located just
to the south of the development site, as shown in Drawing No. 8A.
Mr. Weisburd stated that they had proposed a concrete spillway
wall, but that a specialist had advised them that an organic
spillway would last longer and look nicer, in the form of
stabilized cobbles in a scientifically designed cross - section. The
Soil Conservation Service suggested that at the point where the
water would cross the road that the culverts not be buried because
it would destroy the wet area. There would be two 30 -inch
corrugated metal pipes at existing grade, and the road would come
up 3 or 4 feet to surround them, as shown in Drawing No. 11A in the
middle of the page. Mr. Weisburd stated that they were suggesting
a concrete control box be poured around the end of the culvert
which would allow the water to pass through a slit in the box under
normal weather conditions. If there were hundred year flood
conditions, the slit would retain water and create a temporary pond
and then the water would slowly recede.
Mr. Weisburd continued and stated that on Drawing No. 10A were
the longitudinal cross sections of the Main Road. Mr. Weisburd
stated that by looking at the actual watershed, it takes all of the
water and concentrates it at the pond. The runoff from the road
and some of the development would follow the road and be retained
by the device on the west of the road and eventually filter down
the site in a more gradual manner.
Mr. Weisburd stated that there had been a lot of discussion
about what the common house would look like, and that it is
Planning Board Minutes 17 March 7, 1995
depicted
in Drawing
No.
12A. Mr. Weisburd stated that the
drawings
show 9 offices
and
that
there is a limit of
8 offices in
the SLUD
which was approved
by
the Town Board at
the January
30, 1995
Meeting.
Mr. Weisburd
stated that there was not going
to be 9
offices
that there
was
probably only going
to be 7, and
that the
drawing
would be corrected to reflect the
change. Mr.
Weisburd
asked if
there
were
any
questions from the
Planning Board.
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked Mr. Weisburd why it showed the
roofs of the buildings with one side being shingled and the other
side being steel.
Mr. Weisburd stated tha
pitch, because the snow doe:
they are easy to put up on a
they chose to use the steep
collectors. Also, because
easier to fasten something c
t the metal roof works well on a steep
not stay, they last a long time, and
steep pitch. Mr. Weisburd stated that
pitch because it is a site for solar
they have ridges, it is relatively
in the metal than on the shingles.
Mr. Wilcox asked if they were concerned with the roof looking
different on both sides.
Mr. Weisburd stated that he did not think you would be able to
see that the roof was different on both sides. Mr. Weisburd stated
that they were going to use compatible colors on both sides of the
roof.
Ms. Hoffmann asked if two toilets would be enough for the
common house for all of the people that would be using the building
at any given time.
Mr. Weisburd stated that it is not an open public building,
and the idea is to reduce redundancy.
Ms. Cornell asked if the toilet on the main level was
associated with the guest room.
Mr. Weisburd stated that the toilet was not associated with
the guest room, they just ended up next to each other„ The main
level toilet would be handicap accessible.
Ms. Cornell asked why there was a guest room in the common
house.
Jennifer Boaker -Smith responded that they chose to put one
guest room in the common house to eliminate the need for additional
rooms in their homes.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked if the basement was handicap
accessible.
Mr. Weisburd responded, yes.
Planning Board Minutes 18 March 7, 1995
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Weisburd if it was required to have
interior accessibility.
Mr. Weisburd responded that he did not believe it was
required, but that he would check to make sure.
Chairperson Smith stated that he had some concerns with the
length of the road and the amount of parking. Chairperson Smith
asked if the road specs were to Town specifications.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker responded that they were not quite
to Town requirements, but that he would talk to Mr. Weisburd to
work on the details. Mr. Walker stated that he would like a full -
size set of drawings regarding the road so that he could review the
information thoroughly.
Assistant
Town Planner George
Frantz stated
that there was
only six
inches of subsurface shown
in the drawings
and that he was
not sure
if that was sufficient
not
to
support a fire
truck.
Mr. Weisburd stated that they would check that with their
soils engineer.
Mr. Walker stated that the plans were okay for preliminary
approval but there was work to be done before there could be
approvable construction drawings. Mr. Walker stated that he would
be glad to meet with Mr. Weisburd to discuss this further. Mr.
Walker also stated that he had concerns about the pond which would
exceed 1,000,000 gallons of water stored there and that it would
require a pond permit from DEC. Mr. Walker noted that the concrete
spillway was probably not acceptable to DEC standards. The pond
would be a Class B structure with potential impacts to roads, or
possibly a Class C structure which could mean loss of life if it
fails because there are residences below the structure. Mr. Walker
stated that the level of detail was fine for preliminary approval.
Ms. Cornell asked if the Board could grant final approval
without the permit from DEC.
Mr. Walker stated that if the pond was required to meet storm
water management, he did not believe that the downstream analysis
was in enough detail.
Board Member James Ainslie asked if the size of the pond
should be reduced.
Mr. Walker stated that
if it
was going
what the
to be
used
strictly for
storm water management, the
pond
would
not
have
to be
as big.
Ms.
Cornell
asked
what the
Town needed in terms of a storm
water plan
for
them to
get complete
approval.
Planning Board Minutes 19 March 7, 1995
Mr. Walker stated that for final approval they would need to
provide the Town with a final drainage evaluation including details
of the storm water retention facilities. From a preliminary
standpoint the concept is a good one and it can work, but Mr.
Walker thought that the details should be provided to the Planning
Board before final approval is given. Mr. Walker stated that the
drainage study was to include the impact of run off from the fully
developed site including all phases, so it may be possible for the
first phase and the pond would not be necessary to allow final
approval for that phase of the construction. Mr. Walker stated
that enough detail of the actual construction as opposed to the
general detail as shown in these drawings would be needed for final
approval.
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked about a statement made in a
letter to the Town which was submitted by House Craft Builders
which requested reducing the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Weisburd stated that they would like to reduce the number
of parking spaces from 70 to 52 -1/2. Mr. Weisburd stated that
Tomtran had stated that if enough people use one of their vans,
they would come all the way into the development. Mr. Weisburd
stated that they were considering a loop for a Tomtran van to be
able to turn around without backing up.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that they may want to go
ahead and provide a turn around for other types of vehicles that
may need one.
Mr. Weisburd stated that Tomtran and school buses do not wish
to have to back up the vehicles at all.
Ms. Cornell asked how many people were needed to ride TomTran
for them to stop.
Claudia Weisburd responded, twelve.
Ms. Cornell asked how many children must ride the school bus.
Ms.
Weisburd responded that
the bus
most likely would not come
down to
the development because
it is a
private road.
Ms. Cornell stated that having public transportation available
to the development makes it much more agreeable.
Board Member Fred
Wilcox stated
that his concern was
that
it
was not clear to him
whether the
project reduces 'the
use
of
vehicles or the need
for vehicles.
Mr. Wilcox stated
that
he
agreed that the concept
tried to reduce the use of vehicles,
but
he
was not sure that it reduced
the need
for a vehicle. Therefore,
there is still the need to have cars
sit there although there may
be fewer trips in and
out. Mr. Wilcox
stated that was
why
he
Planning Board Minutes 20 March 7, 1995
questioned whether the reduction of parking spaces to 52 -1/2 was
appropriate or not.
Jennifer Bokaer -Smith stated that the number of vehicles among
the First Residents' Group was 45 and that several two -car families
were planning on selling one of their vehicles.
Ms. Weisburd stated that the Residents' Group would add more
parking spaces if needed from pressure within the group itself as
the need arises.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the number of spaces
that the Town looks at is not only the residents that live there,
but also the visitors and the common house for some degree of non-
residents.
Board
Member
Gregory Bell
asked why
the optional parking was
located on
the map
so that it
was cut off
from everything else.
Mr. Weisburd stated that the idea was to show the Town that
there is room to build more spaces if necessary, and that if
needed, people would follow the road into the development.
Chairperson Smith
stated that
Mr.
Weisburd's
letter also
requested a waiver from
the standard
set
aside for
open space.
Mr. Kanter stated that they were questioning the applicability
of open space reservations for this project under the assumption
that this is site plan approval, which does not specifically talk
about open space set aside. Mr. Kanter stated that this was also
a subdivision and that would trigger the decision of whether to
require a set aside or not. Mr. Kanter stated that a waiver would
be something to consider if it is something that the Board wanted
to consider.
Ms. Cornell stated that this topic was discussed at past
meetings and that there was talk of having trails and a connection
to the Coy Glen area.
Liz Walker of Eco Village at Ithaca, stated that the whole
project wanted to have trails and wildlife corridors. Ms. Walker
stated that for this 30 acres it did not seem as if designated open
space was needed because so much of it will be provided in the
project anyway.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked if the trails would go across
this piece of property.
Ms. Walker stated that if the trails go across the property
that would be wonderful, but that everyone would use them. Ms.
Walker stated that the intention was to create a small densely
populated community at the top of the 30 acre property and that the
Planning Board Minutes 21 March 7, 1995
rest would be used to grow field crops. Ms. Walker stated that it
is basically not going to be built upon.
Ms. Cornell stated that she thought that when this subject was
discussed before that it was talked about adding the three acre set
aside for this subdivision on to the remaining Eco Village parcel
so that when that was subdivided that would carry the additional
open space set aside acreage with it, and asked if her recollection
was correct.
Ms. Weisburd stated that she did not remember it the same way.
Joan Bokaer addressed the Board and stated that she remembered
the discussion and that Board Member James Ainslie had the final
word on the matter by stating that if the Residents' Group takes
care of what they have it would be wonderful for everyone.
Ms. Cornell stated
determined that the first
to have the 10% set aside
set aside that the Town w
remainder of the project
remaining project is for
Cornell felt that was the
that in other subdivisions the Board
parcel that was divided off did not have
taken out of it, but that the amount of
ould have received is transferred to the
so that the open space provision for the
the original size of the parcel. Ms .
way it should be for this project.
Mr. Weisburd stated that the regulations say that the land is
set aside for recreational purposes, not specifically for the Town.
Ms. Cornell
stated
that there were
two pertinent pieces of
legislation that
allows
for park
land to
be set aside.
Attorney Barney stated that there is a provision that states
that the Town could require reasonable assurances that the space
will be kept as open space and available for recreation.
Jennifer Bokaer -Smith addressed the Board and stated that the
Special Land Use District stipulates that the 27 acres are
permanent open space, and that she did not understand the problem.
Attorney Barney responded that normally when there is a
subdivision, the Town has required at least 10% of the land be
committed irretrievably to open space and for recreational
purposes, sometimes trails are permitted substitutes, and other
times the Board does not require it at all.
Ms.
Weisburd asked
Ms. Cornell if she
was suggesting that the
Town Law
stated
that
it
must
be dedicated
to the
public.
Attorney Barney responded, no.
. Ms. Weisburd stated that there was
no
requirement
that
there
be publicly dedicated open space, there
is
requirement
that
there
Planning Board Minutes 22 March 7, 1995
be open space adequate to meet the recreational needs of the
inhabitants of the subdivision. Ms. Weisburd stated that this
project does that already so it meets the standards for open space.
Attorney Barney stated not to confuse open space and
recreational land, 27 acres will be open, however, does that
constitute a play ground or recreational space as referred to in
the statutes.
Ms. Weisburd stated that she thought that between the common
house with its recreation spaces, the common court yard, and the
garden space, the recreational needs would be more than adequately
met.
Chairperson Smith stated that it may be the case with the
smaller community, but what about the larger community that may be
developed. Chairperson Smith stated that he liked the idea of
taking the 3 acre set aside at this stage and attaching it to the
remaining parcel to be looked at when that comes in for future
development at which point, it would have more of an impact on the
Town's resources. It is possible that the residents at the Eco
Village Community would be using the Town's resources to play ball
etc., which would not be provided on the Eco Village site.
Ms. Cornell stated that to be consistent, when the remainder
of the parcel is subdivided, at that time we ask for the set aside
that the Town would have asked for from the entire property. The
people of Eco Village would be using some of the Town's facilities
and that is why the provisions are in the Town Law, to ensure that
there are adequate recreational facilities for the residents of the
Town as the Town grows.
Nancy Brown addressed the Board and stated that the concept of
neighborhood after neighborhood, gives the residents of Eco Village
a playing field, a common ground for all residents to meet on which
is far larger than 100. The village green has been planned.
Chairperson Smith stated that the village green was not part
of the plan that the Planning Board was looking at. Chairperson
Smith stated that when we get to that level, the Board wants to
insure that they have the capability to make sure that the
recreational areas are provided.
Ms. Weisburd stated that she understood what Chairperson Smith
was saying. Ms. Weisburd stated for the record, that "one of the
things that is always an issue between municipalities and these
kinds of projects is that these kinds of requests are made. I
understand the open space and the requirement for recreation and
all that; at the same time, I just want to point out that when you
talk about the residents are going to be using the playing fields
Planning Board Minutes 23 March 7, 1995
and various places and Town facilities, the fact that they are
going to be providing much of their own recreation space, plus
maintaining their own private road, in no way gives them any relief
on the taxes that they pay. They are going to be paying property
taxes at the same rate and the same evaluation as everybody else in
the Town. They're entitled to use the Town facilities, they are
paying for them. And not only that, but they are providing a lot.
They are providing a lot of their own, but they are not getting any
tax relief for doing that. So, I understand the point, but you
(The Planning Board) also need to understand that they are going a
very long way on this and it is not as though they are trying to
get out of anything by any stretch, but they are doing an awfully
lot and it shouldn't be kind of forgotten that they are doing a lot
and a lot more than a lot of other places, and a lot more than a
lot of existing places."
Ms. Cornell stated that the Town of Ithaca is in the process
of updating its Park and Recreation Plan. At the moment the Town
does not have adequate facilities for the residents, and the Town
will not have adequate facilities for future residents unless our
park system grows. This is the one method the Town has for helping
our system grow. Ms. Cornell stated that since The Residents'
Group is fronting the burden of the road and all of the other
things that are being done, that the Board should not necessarily
ask the Group to donate land or fees in lieu of for park
dedication. Instead it seems as though it would be fairer to put
it back to the larger parcel and just add the 10% that your group
would be paying onto the total land. Ms. Cornell stated that it
had been done like that in the past, and the Board waived the
requirement in the past and therefore, the Town does not have
resources to build park facilities for the residents, and the Town
needs to start asking for these.
Ms. Weisburd asked Ms. Cornell if she was
the Residents' Group says okay, to take the r
next project, that it commits the land to being
space. Because Ms. Weisburd would want the
Planning Board that there is no implication to
open space.
suggesting that if
=.quirement from the
publicly owned open
assurance from the
it being dedicated
Ms. Cornell stated that the park set aside for when the land
is further subdivided will be based on the original acreage of the
parcel before your group subdivided off the number of acres they
are requesting.
Ms. Weisburd asked if the set aside needed to be "public ".
Attorney Barney stated that the Board can not compel any
subdivider to publicly dedicate land. As a practical matter most
people when they are required to put land into recreational or open
space dedicated to use by the public prefer to dedicate it to the
public to get out from under liabilities and responsibilities as a
Planning Board Minutes 24 March 7, 1995
result of continuing to own it because other people will be able to
use it.
Ms. Weisburd asked if Attorney Barney was saying that it does
need to be available for public use.
Attorney Barney responded, yes. Attorney Barney stated that
he felt it was premature to worry about a park at this point.
Attorney Barney stated that he thought that Ms. Cornell was
interested in there being an agreement that if there is no specific
set aside required with respect to this particular subdivision,
that we do not ignore the fact that 30 acres have been subdivided
out, and when we come to figure whether there should be a set aside
of land in some recreational capacity when the next subdivision
comes before the Board. And when the Town does a future
subdivision, everyone remembers that there was 176 acres originally
to this whole piece rather than the now 146 acres because the 30
acres has been subdivided off. Attorney Barney stated that the
land does not have to be conveyed to the Town. Attorney Barney
stated that it has to be made available to at least a portion of
the public that is in the area, not necessarily made available to
the entire public of the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney stated
that the Planning Board wants to reserve the right to request for
some future date.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that delineating the proposed
trails may go a long way toward satisfying the requirement for open
space.
Ms.
Weisburd
stated
that the Residents'
Group
did not
have any
trouble
with the
generic
intent that
176 acres be
looked
at.
Chairperson Smith stated that the Residents' Group was also
hoping to get a shortened time period for submitting materials.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that it was premature to
address that issue prior to the point of submittal. Mr. Kanter
stated that the purpose of tonights meeting is to let the
applicants know whether the information that has been submitted is
sufficient for a Public Hearing for Preliminary Subdivision and.
Site Plan Approval or not.
Ms.
Cornell stated that
Environmental Review
Committee would
need the
appropriate amount
of time to review the
project.
Mr. Kanter stated that there was a set time for General
Municipal Law (GML) County review, although there may be times that
a full 30 days would not be necessary. Mr. Kanter stated that if
it is a Public Hearing then there are more formal requirements.
Jennifer Bokaer -smith addressed the Board and stated that
every time there is a delay in schedule, the price of their houses
Planning Board Minutes 25
March 7, 1995
go up, and it means that those people for whom it is a push
financially become that much closer to not being able to
participate in this project.
Mr. Weisburd stated that all of the documents that the Board
has for tonights meeting were submitted a month ago and it was the
Residents' Group's intention to move ahead as soon as possible with
Preliminary Approval as well as the environmental determination.
The First Residents' Group would like to have a Public Hearing very
shortly after tonights meeting without another month delay.
Ms. Weisburd stated that they wanted to have a set date for
the Public Hearing for this project.
Mr. Kanter stated that staff wanted to get some feedback from
the Board on a few other issues, one of which is Part 1 of the
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).
Ms. Hoffmann stated that there were a few things that were not
filled in on the EAF.
Ms. Cornell stated that in the letter submitted by the
Weisburds it stated that they had appeared before the Planning
Board 8 times. Ms. Cornell stated that they had been before the
Board 8 times but that they had not always been completely
prepared, and that the Board realizes that the Group is under
financial constraints, but the Board has to have completed
documents before a decision can be made to insure that the decision
is based on all of the pertinent information. There are other
Boards that need to review the documents and submit their comments
as well.
The
Planning
Board reviewed the
EAF with
the Weisburds in an
effort to
answer
any questions and to
fill in
the questions which
were left
open by
the applicants upon
submission.
Ms. Weisburd stated that the EAF was completed based on the
smaller parcel only.
It was determined that from this point on the acreage of the
piece would be referred to as 34 +/- acres for consistency within
documents submitted for this project.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked whether there had been any
actual measurements or calculations of sight distance at the
entrance on Mecklenburg Road that could be submitted to Town staff
for review.
Mr. Weisburd stated that there had been some measurements when
the road was moved from its initial position at which time he went
out and measured off some distances and came to the conclusion that
moving the road did not effect the sight distances at all. Mr.
Planning Board Minutes 26 March 7, 1995
Weisburd
stated that he
had not
given
the actual
distances
to the
Town, but
that he would
provide
a copy
of them to
the Town Planner.
Mr. Kanter stated that they would be very helpful because the
Board wants to be sure of where the parcel outline was going to end
up going before preliminary subdivision approval is given.
Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Weisburd may want to locate
the property corners for the entrance way as well.
Mr. Weisburd stated that he would get those put on the map.
Ms. Cornell asked, referring to Part 1 of the EAF on Page 4,
Item #9, which read that there would be two jobs after the project
is approved, what would those two jobs be.
Ms. Weisburd
responded that
they would
be maintenance and
bookkeeping
or general management
for the project.
Ms. Cornell stated that she was specifically interested in who
would be plowing the road in the winter.
Ms. Weisburd stated that the roads will be either maintained
by the Groups own equipment and to do it themselves, or they would
contract out for the road to be plowed. Ms. Weisburd stated that
they were investigating both options.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Board needed to
determine whether or not they were satisfied with the road location
and alignment. If the Board was satisfied, then the Plan could go
ahead, if there were any concerns about it then those concerns
should be discussed at this time. Mr. Kanter stated that on what
will be submitted as the Subdivision Plat, it would be helpful if
lot numbers were labelled for easy identification. Mr. Kanter
stated that this would be a three lot subdivision of the 176+/ -
acre parcel.
Chairperson Smith asked the Weisburds if they had received a
copy of a letter submitted to the Town from Lois Levitan.
The Weisburds stated that they had received a copy of the
letter.
Chairperson Smith asked if they had any comments regarding the
letter. There were no comments made.
Ms. Cornell asked about the wind issue.
Planning Board Minutes
27
March
7, 1995
Darryl
stated that
Anderson, a
they wanted to
member of
generate
the First Residents'
electricity by using
Group,
the wind
because it
is very cost
effective.
However the wind has been
appallingly
low, and that
the
wind had been monitored for 6
months.
Ms.
Weisburd stated that the
issue
of the wind had been
addressed
in the packet provided to
the
Planning
:46
Board.
could
Mr.
Weisburd
stated
that they
were
worried about the over-
heating
the Eco Village Project duly closed at 10
:46
that
could
occur
due
to
the
lack
of wind.
The P1
Hearing for
Plan Approvi
the project
Meeting of
materials.
anning
Prelii
i1 f or
would
April
Board discussed when to schedule the Public
unary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site
the Eco Village project. It was determined that
be tentatively scheduled for the Planning Board
41 1995, pending submittal of the necessary
There
being
no further discussion, Chairperson Smith
declared
the discussion
of
the Eco Village Project duly closed at 10
:46
p-.m.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2/28/95.
The Board took no action on the Minutes of February 28, 1995
because they did not have sufficient time to review them prior to
the meeting tonight.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Board had
received a package of materials which will be part of the March 21,
1995 Planning Board Meeting. The Package deals with three
different subjects:
1. Revisions of the proposed Sunset Provisions for
Subdivisions,
2. A new proposal for Sunset Provisions for Preliminary Site
Plan Approvals, and
3. Fees in Lieu of Park Land provisions.
Mr. Kanter stated that it was important to get these on the
Planning Board Agenda for the March 21st meeting because the Town
Board will be setting Public Hearings for their April meeting. Mr.
Kanter stated that the Planning Board will be holding Public
Hearings on the Subdivision Sunset Provisions and on the Fee in
Lieu of provisions. Mr. Kanter stated that there were three Local
Law proposals that pertain to other related aspects of the topics
to be discussed. Mr. Kanter stated that staff would be sending out
additional information on the Fee in Lieu of proposal which gives
Planning Board Minutes 28 March 7, 1995
background on how the actual fee amounts were recommended based on
studies of land values and different zoning districts around the
Town.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that the Subdivision Sunset
provision is set with 10 years for a termination date, and asked if
that meant that the Planning Board would need to wait 10 more years
before any of the older subdivisions could be terminated.
Attorney Barney stated that it was not mandatory that the
Planning Board wait for 10 years. A ten year transition period was
put in the provision which says it is either 10 years from the date
of adoption or 10 years from the date of approval. The Planning
Board could make a shorter transition period. Attorney Barney
stated that the Planning Board may want to consider a different
transition period than 10 years.
There being no further discussion of the materials distributed
for the March 21, 1995 Planning Board Meeting, Chairperson Smith
asked if there was any further business to be discussed.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that there was an assumption
that the Planning Board has operated under in the past with respect
to the Park Land requirement, which is an unfortunate assumption.
Attorney Barney stated that there have been some recent cases in
the courts which have been constraining the ability of
municipalities to demand park land as an unconstitutional taking of
land. Attorney Barney stated that in Section 277(4) of the Town
Law, it gives the authority with a subdivision to require the plat
"shall also show, when required by the Planning Board, a park or
parks suitably located for playground or other recreational
purposes. But then there is a proviso that says that the Planning
Board can not require that until the Planning Board has made a
finding that a proper case exists for requiring a park or parks be
suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes
within the Town. Such finding shall include an evaluation of the
present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational
facilities based on projected population growth to which the
particular subdivision plat will contribute." Attorney Barney
stated that it is not an automatic right to demand 100. Attorney
Barney stated, 1) The Town has used 10o as a rule of thumb, and
that has been upheld in older cases, but it is not necessarily
going to be upheld in future cases; and 2) The Planning Board has
to make a finding that says there is a need for a park.
Attorney Barney stated that before the Planning Board can
require that a private individual set aside land, you must first
have a finding that says that what you are require the subdivision
would contribute to the need for that park.
Ms.
Cornell
stated that
in
the Town's
study on Park & Open
space it
had been
determined
that
West Hill
does not have adequate
Planning Board Minutes 29 March 7, 1995
recreational facilities.
the Eco Village
project
Ms. Cornell
will be
stated that the children from
using ball fields and soccer
fields,
its' finding
and they
a set aside of
will
that there is
not
be using
the open space on their land.
Planner 1, JoAnn Cornish stated that with the recreation
partnership that the Youth Bureau has just engaged in with these
outlying communities, they are looking for alternate sites for
recreation programs for the youth in Tompkins County.
Mr. Ainslie stated that the Town was building up tax load on
everything. Every time the Town takes over a park, the Town has to
maintain it.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she felt that the Eco Village land
could be better used by having a trail system across it, for use by
people for that sort of recreation, rather than large ball fields.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that the Town has to make its'
findings for an overall open space plan.
Attorney Barney
stated that
was not correct.
The Planning
Board needs to make
its' finding
when it requires
a set aside of
land, which must say
that there is
a need for a park
either on this
project or in the vicinity
of this
project and that
this project is
contributing to that
need, and that therefore the subdivider must
provide land either in the form of
a park that the subdivider would
operate or a park that the Town would operate.
Mr. Wilcox stated that if the Town has an Open Space Plan and
then the Board reviews a specific development, the Board would then
ask how the development would contribute or how would it impact the
Town in accordance with the Plan.
There was further discussion among the Board members regarding
the adequacy of the parks in the Ithaca area.
There being no further business to be discussed, the Chair
closed this segment of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the March 7, 1995
Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
3/13/95.
7'O T
i73�S
�SHObN3e!'
1�f�'7J
d?J t1iS.
)CBr L _WN _'r =v Kll I I
m
r
�O
i
I
' U -
L
^
ill G
CD
L• � I
c ul
oo: ocz
N
%. -� .
V �). H_1
:S♦
C Ip O M
)e� I OS 0 -.I
Illk
IT
I o
at
i
I
I�
l?
1
1�
0
N �
� � T
T •w
h•-
_._._�CI
in
U
U
^ I —
— C
CZ 2
119
i Iw�N3 0- 31.:�a :;Hs 0�p i�
t�
i Iw�N3 0- 31.:�a :;Hs 0�p i�
t�
• a
�,V ,
r�7
,f I'!
�5
N
r<
S
� I
-r
0
( A.K.A. SBURG� 'ROAb
MEW g0RV, JfAYE.
I ®uyE
416- 0 4 % E
ZO1.01) 1 '
- - GJUBJECI Yo R14l17S F'PUBLIC FOR AWy. •PUR -roe at
I'= �- �.�,.�r:
TURA --- _
Ri
- 4Ew 1lEbl,E'� ^�►� —y ti ti
r
9to
N / " 1212 YRV 2 S't1z,J
1 NAUSgup,( R°A'V r.
-- '1
way+ INLE ( \ 363.5' `{o 603TEF
CULVERT '6UUbl1 ,ROAV
=� o
�r t' cuaB
c • ,�- P I t,
Y
7J 1 til Op'/+
d. \(fie [ �1 .... -_._ — �✓ oo*o V of! r► < y w Q�
��✓ \� [oV /jEh Ivt� _ 11HAf.GJEWER E11�7ENElJF �/ l :+ +J�j✓ �• �ja<
t l.to Z /p•C.4Z °•V �., . Z4 s•LU(n a p
trS7S bRo iZO .Y�IIVE o co Y ,�p NA 000 111 V -:i uC— - - -- -- _ V I" rn �y ,of plE at W
If) Irk ' r; t{ .. Lq iOx M
,Y.,"...� A. r ••fib' ...i•'Z.. Y ItA IoCAYr = '�!
t\: + f ` , f /jr` 0.1��( py�•,, .1 0 . .' l[qh El 5' klrp�
; Ito FIR �91.r_.._.17_.ItS; �: ,� \ ASE [
ww
J �j E �� C'r �, �. to' �11rrE a r I i ?q� +. J 29' WILLOW
EL IJ t t oz 1 , <,, i ' 3 _, w�lrt ► ��� SNRUe N rn i1 oap
arl i �.o ' \�.,CN(gpY t `j _ _ EAv(g ov(R LrAIE
I� i; I I n�� K ` .t ' _r.1 +k a -e LJHgUB mot
,• �� \✓
1; rn r' P ���� l) .� bo' Itiz Wij
r� r sk.. f 1
or j do 14 �/ N tf '' ,Ao Ir: i 2o' VOUgtri 3 TR(( �
J� J, r011ALL SrRUC( �J' .Z 7oiLA0. f
fgLE/�� /,{ ; `i ' +1
4 O
t 1 y 1i Y A
o , In TA L[ A'—
I L rt yf�' — N °r - 'ham- -) v S IROx In
A0[ , 1 f�L,' J±% _ : I ,•� } .� � /or 1 C� Iv[ %[ rr�ll 1� Tat
car
2j, ow a r '.;��rr' Ito. Li w ni,t" AIq i IRE L'IAJr arc t.
lU I' A k,1'•N '/ J .., 44 �i - r' r l�A�tE ALE` ! E• E vA� ILL
m Ir ,o J , 4 ., j i 7_ P. 557.
1 In � - ,�!rr �' ,;. < • f•, f ' / & 18�
fit g AC. UJtVY R
Ii r r L O!1 }J
N 1,. ./r 1 R 41 ( g Wlt�okJ t 1 X850
r5 ; �
1, 1 ' t
o•
r'
rt- - •
IKQ. 4 F IT raE/
vou
I `98
ELAAJ
'106 IIZ 8u>JU 2(0 3 - 12 0' �. -7 14/ p Z4
MUTE. `� Ronb, (01ACA�
UWt7ERt,1 %0U1jt1 UllUllEeo uoy
l OCAYEb F3q 'fNlc, �L)RyEgfAoe show `(op'K 14850
IIERE;OM ARE AFFFoX1A'IAYE OJUEY' A M
l ocAY'OA'b ARE `oUBJEc.'f Yo ' �UAI
VERIFICATI0�1 FIEEb elrfE p1All,
-- - - - --
LAS` No F0k
HEALY N Ass o c s AY
- - -- ......
1otnllu of i'.f11AC,A • - -� i� '`
hILIYqRtj Ip� 8
Pin i -.. -... __._. •- ...._ ✓.11....)sv_C.
rllx N1AP >UO. 2 OumY`f OF ktoompK1u5
6.2 leoYAY E 0 F ki E p � V., �J
OWAIE,iZ �7Elll1/IAKK bEVEtop bEEb 1.738 P. 143
uaVEY
•a � ME>vY
"E`uR\/E`I FoFt , IAIL.
HAVE 81 MAMZARIIC�nEL A. Al�1b JOAJUAIE
10.4 • (994 REA4AA , LAAW eju VE40RS EVAb 'b �RA�'HtG ePICALE
0
LE4Emtb
EXi�,tl)J!y IROM rM OR
f lt'r A13
N YE- t.crNou>:1�1AIVIloLC
VOLIT4 F'DU
11Eb,4ER0w
40 FEET 80
1Z0
F�EVIhEt� Z•ZO• O
1995 Yo S,IovJ I I1J�NE5
PARK19 Loy VIM 2
_MANZARI �S ' YIlV{L�1c�ID�lJSYo 3
Exlvr,�J,rJ, Slti�s .
REAGA N
P-0-8 SURVEYpR - X11;1 9
0
R Y p 1 12 4 S r,:''\i ►` J'�cV
EN NEW YORK 13053 ta'o� lcJly �c
DATED, I �o
TEL : 60T_ 844_ 4'r
995 9837 1 •
DRAWN By, wE�4E ,�-
CA
S L I I • 40' 'rgrF0 rro. om
_ 08 NOI1, 945 -1107 N�