Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-03-21• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 21, 1995 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date Cler� The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March 21, 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) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Bill Hilker, Attorney Bill Seldin, Attorney Bruce Wilson, Sally Schultz, Patricia Classen, Elizabeth Classen, Michael Herzing, Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and.the Ithaca Journal on March 13, 1995 and March 15, 1995. 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 ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS OF ABANDONED SUBDIVISIONS. 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. At 7:36 p.m, it was determined to hold the Public Hearing open until Attorney Barney was prepared to give a presentation on the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1995. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 28, 1995, be and hereby are approved as written. Planning Board Minutes vote. 2 There being no further discussion, March 21, 1995 the Chair called for a Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. Abstain - Hoffmann. The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1995. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March 7, 1995, be and hereby are approved with the following corrections: 2. That at the top of Page 8 it read: "The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously." There were two abstentions, so this was changed to read: "The MOTION was declared to be carried." 3. That on Page 13, Last Paragraph, which read: "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 down Route 96 over the crest of the road..." This was changed to read: "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 of the road..." 4. That on Page 25, Paragraph 4, which read: "Mr. Kanter stated that there was a set time for gml County review,..." This was changed to read: "Mr. Kanter stated that there was a set time for General Municipal Law (GML) County review,..." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 1. That on Page 7, Paragraph 8, which read: "The Planning Board decided not to require the subdivision and sale of the access strip as a condition of approval." This was changed to read: "The Planning Board discussed whether or not to require the subdivision and sale of the access strip as a condition of approval." 2. That at the top of Page 8 it read: "The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously." There were two abstentions, so this was changed to read: "The MOTION was declared to be carried." 3. That on Page 13, Last Paragraph, which read: "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 down Route 96 over the crest of the road..." This was changed to read: "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 of the road..." 4. That on Page 25, Paragraph 4, which read: "Mr. Kanter stated that there was a set time for gml County review,..." This was changed to read: "Mr. Kanter stated that there was a set time for General Municipal Law (GML) County review,..." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Planning Board Minutes • 3 March 21, 1995 Chairperson Smith reopened the Public Hearing for CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTIONS OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS OF ABANDONED SUBDIVISIONS at 7:46 p.m. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that there had been revisions made to the proposed resolution based on the discussion at the February 28, 1995 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that Attorney Barney had made the revisions to the proposals which was given to the Board for this meeting. (Proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to Provide for the Extinguishment of Subdivision Approvals of Abandoned Subdivisions is attached hereto as Exhibit #1) Mr. Kanter stated that the time frame was changed from three years as proposed in the draft presented at the February Meeting, to ten years was requested by the Board at that same meeting. Attorney Barney stated that a definition of "significant hardship" was included on Page 2. Mr. Kanter stated that the draft presented tonight gave additional wording to determine whether or not there were significant changes in the zoning, subdivision, and /or environmental standards. Board Member Fred Wilcox addressed the Board and asked, for the record, a subdivision that was approved 10 or more years ago would not be effected by this law for another 10 years. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Wilcox's statement was correct. Mr. Wilcox stated, for the record, that he was unhappy that the Board could not do anything about the older subdivisions any sooner than 10 years from the time this change goes into effect. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not think that the Planning Board had made a decision about that yet, but that there had been discussion. Attorney Barney asked if his recollection was correct of a straw vote among the Board members to determine what time frame was wanted by Board was the Board the Planning Board, for a 10 year time could change that and the will of the majority of the frame. Attorney Barney stated that time frame if they wanted at this meeting, and if they chose additional Public Hearing. to do so, the matter would need an Planning Board Minutes Mr. Wilcox stated that his comment was not time frame. Mr. Wilcox stated that his subdivisions that have been there for 30 years years. Mr. Wilcox stated that he would like 1 older abandoned subdivisions now. March 21, 1995 against the 10 year concern was the now have another 10 :o take care of the Attorney Barney stated that the Board could said in the form of "an existing subdivision has 10 years from the date of its, approval or 4 years (or what ever amount of time the Board feels adequate) from the adoption of this amendment, which ever is later." Attorney Barney stated that the Board could make the transition period less than 10 years. Chairperson Smith asked if there was anyone else that felt that the time frame should be shortened from the 10 years proposed. Chairperson Smith stated that he could see the advantage of putting in a shorter time frame for existing subdivision approvals, but that he was not sure if it were fair. Attorney Barney stated that he thought that the draft accurately reflected what the consensus of the Board wanted. Attorney Barney stated that the Board could modify the amendment, but if it were modified significantly, there would be the need for another Public Hearing. Board Member James Ainslie stated that if the Board leaves it the way it is at this meeting that no one would feel discriminated against. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he did not have a problem with 10 years because it makes everyone even. Mr. Bell stated that no one would feel discriminated against. Mr. Bell stated that the amendment was directed at a handful of subdivisions anyway. James Ainslie stated that the subdivider must still be paying taxes on the property, or they would not have the land. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Bill Hilker addressed the Board and stated that he strongly opposed the amendment and that he had made his comments at the last meeting. Chairperson Smith stated that there was no one else present to be heard and closed the Public Hearing. • Planning Board Minutes • MOTION by Herbert Finch, 5 March 21, 1995 seconded by Gregory Bell WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a 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; and WHEREAS, 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 the adoption or amendment of the Town's Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, The Town Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 21, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II for this action; RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that the input from the public that spoke at the last meeting had changed the minds of some of the Board Members to use 10 years as the time frame in the provision. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Candace Cornell BE IT RESOLVED that the Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Ithaca as adopted by the Town Planning Board on March 24, 1956 approved by the Town Board on March 24, 1956, as amended by Planning Board on several subsequent occasions, the most recent being March 2, 1993, as approved by the Town Board on March 1993, be further amended by adding a new Article VII, Section reading as follows: and the 8, 39, "ARTICLE VII • EXPIRATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Planning Board Minutes 6 March 21, 1995 0 Section 39. Expiration of Subdivision Approval. 1. In addition to any other provisions of law governing expiration of subdivision approvals, including those provisions which provide the subdivision approval expires if the approved subdivision map is not filed 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 ten years of the date the Planning 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 final and preliminary) shall expire and the permissible uses and construction on the property shall revert to those that would otherwise be in effect in the absence of such subdivision approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if final subdivision approval was granted prior to April 1, 1995, the time for work to materially commence or lots to be sold shall be extended to April 1, 2005. 3. For the purposes of this Section 39 (a) work will not have "materially commenced" unless, at a minimum, (i) 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 started and is being diligently pursued; and (b) a lot will not have been "transferred" unless conveyed by a deed, duly executed and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, to (i) a person unrelated to the subdivider in a bona fide transaction for value, or (ii) a person related to the subdivider or for less than reasonable value in accordance with circumstances related to the Planning Board as part of the subdivision approval (e.g. a subdivision where the intention is to convey a lot to a relative or to convey a lot to an adjacent landowner for less than full value). 4. If the proposed subdivision does not require the construction of any facilities, the subdivision approval (both final and preliminary) shall expire within the time limits set forth above with the consequences set forth above and subject to the ability to obtain extensions as set forth below, unless at least one lot of the subdivision has been transferred. Planning Board Minutes 7 March 21, 1995 • 5. In addition to the foregoing, a subdivision approval for a subdivision requiring construction of facilities shall likewise terminate as to any untransferred lots in the event that the facilities are not substantially completed within ten years of the date of final subdivision approval. 6. The Planning Board, upon request of the subdivider, after a public hearing, may extend the time limits for such additional periods and upon such conditions 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. The Planning Board shall grant the request for such extension if the Board finds: (a) The imposition of the time limits set forth above in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 would create significant hardship on the subdivider; and (b) There has not been a significant change in zoning, subdivision, engineering, environmental, or other relevant review requirements or standards since the initial approval or any subsequently granted extensions. For the purposes of this section, a "significant hardship" includes, but is not limited to (i) a significant economic loss that the subdivider would suffer if an extension were not granted; or (ii) the subdivider's inability to timely proceed because of (A) a generally adverse economic climate, or (B) the subdivider's own economic circumstances have changed detrimentally, or (C) an adverse event or events in the subdivider's personal affairs. 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 L_ ] Planning Board Minutes E'O March 21, 1995 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 recording in the same location as the notice previously effecting such termination. Any determination of the Planning Board regarding such termination may be reviewed by a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules. Such proceeding shall be commenced no later than 30 days after the decision being reviewed has been filed by the Planning Board with the appropriate Town Clerk. 9. Nothing in this section 39 is intended to alter the effect of Town Law Section 265 -a on lots in a subdivision when zoning is changed to increase lot sizes or other requirements thereby rendering an existing subdivision's lots non - conforming. AND 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. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Bell, Kenerson, Cornell. Nay - None. Abstain - Wilcox. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Board Member Fred wilcox stated that he agreed with the concept and that he expressed his concerns earlier. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith declared the consideration of the extinguishment of subdivision approvals of abandoned subdivisions duly closed. OTHER BUSINESS. 1. Wal -Mart - Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Planning Board Members was provided with a copy of the letter addressed to David Kay of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and dated March 7, 1995, which was signed by Chairperson Smith. Mr. Kanter stated that the letter incorporated the comments that were made by the Planning Board at the February 28, 1995 meeting. (The above - referenced letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #2) 2. Eco Village - Mr. Kanter stated that the Board also received copies of a letter to Jerold Weisburd of House Craft Builders, which indicated the remaining material needed for Eco Planning Board Minutes 0 March 21, 1995 Village to come to the Board on April 4, 1995. Mr. Kanter stated that all of the material had not been received as of this day. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that it was a good letter, forceful but stating that the Town wants to be cooperative and work with them. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that it was a good letter and asked what had prompted it. Mr. Kanter stated that it was because of the discussion at the last meeting regarding the time frames for submission of materials prior to the subsequent meeting, and we still had these things missing, and wanted it to be on record. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO MODIFY THE PROVISIONS FOR PARKLAND RESERVATIONS AND PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SAME, AND CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD ON 1)ENACTING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR OPEN SPACE RESERVATIONS IN MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, AND 2)ENACTING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NUMBER 10 FOR THE YEAR 1994 TO ESTABLISH AMOUNTS TO BE PAID IN LIEU OF OPEN SPACE RESERVATIONS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:00 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that in the Public Hearing Notice all three items were listed, but that the Subdivision Regulation amendment to modify the existing provisions for parkland reservations and payment in lieu of same. Mr. Kanter stated that the other two items would be recommendations to the Town Board and the Town Board would be holding Public Hearings on those two items on April 10, 1995. Mr. Kanter stated that since they were all related to one another, they were advertised under one uniform heading for the Public Hearing. Mr. Kanter stated that the rewording of the Subdivision Regulations was to comply with the new conditions of New York State legislation, which put in some additional requirements that Planning Boards must consider in requiring open space reservations. Town Attorney Barney addressed the Board and stated that the Commission on Rural Resources is a body that has undertaken to rewrite a lot of the New York State zoning and planning legislation for a number of types of municipalities. Attorney Barney stated that they rewrote the portion of the Town Law which relates to open space and to bring it into conformity with a number of cases which held at the top court of the State that a Board can not demand a I 1 l 1 Planning Board Minutes ice March 21, 1995 park unless you determine there is a need for a park by virtue of what that subdivider is doing. Attorney Barney stated that language has now been implemented in a statute by the legislature and the Town has carried it into the subdivision regulations proposal. Attorney Barney stated that in Paragraph 3, the Planning Board has to make a finding that there is a proper case for requiring a park. Mr. Kanter distributed copies of the rewritten Section 277 of the Town Law to each of the Planning Board Members. (Attached hereto as Exhibit #3) Chairperson 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 further discussion. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a resolution amending the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Al Regulations to Modify the Provisions for Parkland Reservations and Payment in Lieu of Same by amending Article IV, Section 22; and WHEREAS, 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 the adoption or amendment of the Town's Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, The Town Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 21, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II for this action; RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. • MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: Planning Board Minutes 11 March 21, 1995 BE IT RESOLVED that the Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Ithaca as adopted by the Town Planning Board on March 24, 1956 and approved by the Town Board on March 24, 1956, as amended by the Planning Board on several subsequent occasions, the most recent being March 21, 1995, pending approval by the Town Board, be further amended by amending Section 22 thereof to read as follows: Section 22. Reservations of Parks and Recreational Land. 1. Before the Planning Board may approve a subdivision plat containing residential units, such subdivision plat shall show, when required by the Planning Board, a park or parks suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes. The amount of land to be so reserved is normally, subject to the provisions below, in the amount of ten (10) percent of the gross area of the subdivision. The area shall be shown and marked on the final plat "Reserved for Park and /or Playground Purposes." 2. Land for park, playground or other recreational purposes shall not be required until the Planning Board has made a finding that a proper case exists for requiring that 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 in the Town based on projected population growth to which the particular subdivision plat will contribute. Such evaluation may also include reference to any current Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan existing in the Town. 3. In the event the Planning Board makes a finding pursuant to paragraph 2 of this section that the proposed subdivision plat presents a proper case for requiring a park or parks suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes, but that a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the requirement cannot be properly located on such subdivision plat, the Planning Board may require a sum of money in lieu thereof in an amount to be established by the Town Board. In making such determination of suitability, the Planning Board shall assess the size and suitability of lands shown on the subdivision plat which could be possible locations for park or recreational facilities, as well as practical factors including whether there is a need for additional facilities in the immediate neighborhood. Any monies required by the Planning Board in lieu of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes, pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall be deposited into a trust fund to be used by the Town exclusively for park, playground or other recreational purposes, including the acquisition of property. 4. If the Town Board, by resolution or local law has established the amounts, or a formula by which amounts payable in lieu of land reservation may be determined, the amounts payable pursuant to this section shall be as set forth in, or determined by, such local law. 5. If the Planning Board, upon the findings set forth above, requires a reservation of parkland or recreational land, such reservation shall be of suitable size, dimension, topography, and general character and shall have adequate road access for the particular purposes envisioned by the Planning Board. The Board may require that the recreation area be located at a suitable place on the edge of the subdivision so that additional land may be added at such time as the adjacent land is subdivided. The subdivider may dedicate all such recreation areas to the Town. Planning Board Minutes 12 March 21, 1995 • 6. Land reserved for use as playgrounds or playfields shall be of a character and location suitable for such use. This land shall be relatively level and dry and shall be improved by the subdivider to the standards required by the Planning Board. 7. The provisions of this section are minimum standards. None of the paragraphs above shall be construed as prohibiting a subdivider from reserving other land for recreation purposes in addition to the requirements of this section. AND, 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. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Cornell, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith stated that the second item for consideration was the ENACTMENT OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR OPEN SPACE RESERVATIONS IN MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICTS. Attorney Barney stated that at present, the Town Law provides that the Planning Board can require open space reservations in site plan approvals, but had never formally adopted any legislation in the Town of Ithaca allowing that. Attorney Barney stated that this Amendment allows the Planning Board to require open space in a Multiple Residence zone, which Section 274 -a of the Town Law permits the Planing Board to do as part of the site plan review process. The Planning Board must make findings that what is being done requires or creates the need for a park, and that if the Board requests payment in lieu of parkland that there is no appropriate on the land for a park to be located. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak on this subject. No one spoke. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Herbert Finch: THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Provide for Open Space Reservations in Multiple Residence Districts, as proposed and as the same is attached hereto. Attorney Barney suggested that the resolution be modified by adding the following: • "RESOLVED, that the Planning Board finds that the proposed Local Law is in 1 1 Planning Board Minutes 13 March 21, 1995 • accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town of Ithaca," Board Member Candace Cornell stated that a goal of the Comprehensive Plan was to provide adequate recreation space for all of the Town residents and to provide recreational areas for the future Town residents. The modification suggested by Attorney Barney was found to be acceptable to Board Member Candace Cornell, who made the MOTION, and Board Member Herbert Finch, who seconded the MOTION. Attorney Barney asked that an official vote on the resolution as modified be taken. Chairperson Smith called for a vote on the modification of the proposed resolution with the following results: Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the Public Hearing. Chairperson Smith stated that the third item for consideration was the ENACTMENT OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NUMBER 10 FOR THE YEAR 1994 TO ESTABLISH AMOUNTS TO BE PAID IN LIEU OF OPEN SPACE RESERVATIONS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that this was a fee provision which allows the planning Board to assess fees in lieu of the park set aside if it were determined that setting aside open space land on a particular site was not appropriate. Mr. Kanter stated that there was never a provision in the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance or in any other Local Law which told the Planning Board how that fee should be determined, which is the overall intent of this provision which is to establish amounts to be paid in lieu of open space reservations when that determination is found to be necessary by the Planning Board. The Town Board had in December of 1994 taken all of the fee provisions from everything where the Town charges a fee and put it into a new Local Law Number 10 for the Year 1994. Mr. Kanter stated that the new provision sets amounts that the Planning Board could charge in lieu of setting aside open space or park land. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Committee and the Codes & Ordinance Committee 41 spent a lot of time reviewing this issue and trying to determine how to establish the amounts, • Planning Board Minutes 14 March 21, 1995 and that staff had prepared a procedure for how those fees should be set. The fees were based largely on an evaluation of land values in different parts of the Town. Staff reviewed each of the different zoning districts in the Town, the recent land sales records at the County Assessment Office and for each zoning district tried to determine average values for land so that we could make some fair determinations of amounts for those particular zoning districts. Mr. Kanter continued by stating that the fee amounts were based on actual land sales transactions, the R -5 District, which is the Mobile Home District, and the Multiple Residence (MR) District, there was no recent sales information, so staff had to look at assessed value in the Assessment rolls. Mr. Kanter stated that the formula was to take the value of the land for each building lot which is determined by the minimum lot size of that district and then taking 10% of that amount which results in the fee schedule in the proposed Local Law. Mr. Kanter read the proposed fee schedule on a per district basis. Board Member Candace Cornell asked when the determination for the fee is made if the proposal involves accessory apartments. Attorney Barney stated that it would depend on the circumstances. Attorney Barney stated that at the time the developer creates a subdivision, they may not know how many units are going to be one unit, how many would have secondary apartments in them. Attorney Barney stated that you do know the number of lots at the time of subdivision approval. At that point in time, the developer would be assessed and pay the fee multiplied by the number of lots being requested, the number of dwelling units would be irrelevant. Attorney Barney stated that if it were a site plan for a multiple residence then it would be different because it would be figured on a dwelling unit basis, whereby a subdivision is based on the number of lots. Attorney Barney stated that the other choice would be to asses the fee when they go for a building permit, but the problem with that would be that you would want to get the money for the park when the approval occurs, not several years later when they apply for a building permit. The recommendation of the Codes & Ordinance Committee was to collect the fee at the time the development is granted or approved. Ms. Cornell asked what would stop a developer from putting in the plans that there was not going to be any accessory apartments. Attorney Barney responded that it did not matter because they would be paying by the number of lots. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that a developer that says from the beginning that 40 he is planning on building 50 two - family homes would have to pay twice as much as if he says Planning Board Minutes 15 March 21, 1995 • he is going to build on 50 lots without knowing if they will be two - family homes or not. Ms. Hoffmann stated there was a little bit of unfairness in that. Ms. Cornell stated that the proposal specified per dwelling unit. Attorney Barney stated that per dwelling unit would be used only when it could be calculated, and that the minimum charge would be based on the number of lots. Ms. Cornell stated that she saw a flaw in the proposal. If the Board had a way of limiting the number of accessory apartments being built on any given development, then she could see how the proposal would work. Ms. Cornell stated that without the mechanism in effect, it would make no business sense for any developer to come in and say that they are going to have accessory apartments. Attorney Barney stated that in a R -15 zone you might get that, because it is the most expensive zone. Attorney Barney stated that in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Barney was not sure that it would make that much difference to a developer whether they declare one or two units if they have a particular type of plan that they want to build. In today's construction costs, an additional $2,800 would not make that much difference to a project of that size. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that this would be in lieu of a land set aside, so the need for the park is not effected by the dwelling unit. This is an alternative only for a time for when the Planning Board would not expect a land set aside. Ms. Cornell stated that the land set aside was always based on lots. Attorney Barney stated that this was based on straight acreage. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that whether they were building one -unit or two -unit structures, it would be 10% of the land set aside. Mr. Wilcox stated that with a set fee, it would be consistent. Attorney Barney stated that the values that were determined were figured on the average number of dwelling units per acre. Attorney Barney stated that it was a choice of when the Board wanted to require payment. Ms. Cornell asked why "proposed dwelling unit" was used in the proposed Local Law to establish amounts to be paid in lieu of open space reservations. Attorney Barney stated that the Town would know what the dwelling units are going to be. In Multiple zones the Board would be approving specific building on a specific site, you do not know how many units there will be in a particular subdivision. Attorney barney stated 40 that in R -30, R -15 and R -9 zones, approximately 30 percent of the homes have a second unit u Planning Board Minutes in them. 16 March 21, 1995 Ms. Cornell suggested changing the language to be based on a "per building lot" basis. Board Member Herbert Finch, a member of the Codes & Ordinance Committee, addressed the Board and stated that the Committee found the Multiple Residence District the most difficult to determine the best way to address the situation. Mr. Finch stated that the other districts are straight forward. Ms. Cornell suggested that for Multiple Residence Districts and the R -5 District remain on a per dwelling unit basis, but for the remaining districts zoned as, R -30, R -15, R -9 and AG Districts be calculated on a per building lot basis. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that the Board could have each zoning district description written to read, "for each proposed lot or dwelling unit as defined ". Attorney Barney stated that language regarding the dwelling unit is already in the ordinance and defined in the definition portion of those ordinances. Ms. Cornell stated that the Board would be encouraging a developer to come in and say that they will not be building accessory apartments when they do intend to do that. Chairperson Smith stated that they usually say that to increase their density. Attorney Barney stated that Ms. Cornell's solution says automatically that whether or not there is a accessory apartment, they pay the same amount for the lot. Ms. Cornell stated that it seemed to her that the Town would be setting up a situation where people would cheat. Attorney Barney stated that the developer would need to count the number of units for the density permitted in that zone. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the number of people that would need the park land is determined by the number of units rather than by the number of lots. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would keep the language as presented in the proposed resolution. units. Ms. Cornell stated that there seemed to be no way of enforcing the number of dwelling 49 Attorney Barney stated that you would always get the minimum number of units. 0 Planning Board Minutes 17 March 21, 1995 Ms. Cornell stated that the proposal could be enacted, and amend it in the future if it does not work out. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked what the rational was for putting fixed amounts for fees in the law, as opposed to by a schedule. Attorney Barney stated that the Local Laws would be revised regularly as opposed to leaving it in separate various statutes. Attorney Barney stated that the Town has a thorough Town Clerk and about once a year she goes through the fees and suggests revisions. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Bill Hilker addressed the Board and read a letter that was addressed to the Planning Board, written by Jim Hilker. (Letter from James Hilker dated March 21, 1995, is attached hereto as Exhibit #4) Mr. Hilker stated that he had reviewed the proposal thoroughly and there are a few points that he would like to address. Mr. Hilker stated that when the developer comes before the Planning Board they have no control, according to this legislation, as to whether they can set aside land or whether they will be required to set aside fees because it says that it is at the discretion of the Planning Board as to whether this will or will not happen. Mr. Hilker stated that he heard the discussion of how the fees were derived. Mr. Hilker stated that he felt that the fees were extremely excessive. Mr. Hilker stated that they were based on fully developed lots on an individual lot basis, 10% of that value or more. Mr. Hilker stated that when a developer develops a piece of property, he buys a large section at $2,000 to $3,000 per acre which relates to about 3 lots per acre in an R -15 zone. Mr. Hilker stated that in an R -15 zone, the park land would cost the developer approximately 10% of $3,000. In the proposal, the R -15 would be charged 3 x $2,800 for park land. Mr. Hilker stated that there is something grossly wrong in the formula. The set aside was based on raw land because the park land is not developed. Mr. Hilker stated that this proposal would be like a 30% surcharge against the lots. Mr. Hilker stated that he has heard that the developer pays the fees. Mr. Hilker stated that he would like the Board to keep in mind that the developer never pays, the cost goes directly to the customer or the homeowner. Mr. Hilker stated that proposal would make it unaffordable for the middle class and affordable housing people to live in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Hilker asked how the Town would track who paid the fee and who had not yet paid the fee in lieu of five or ten years from now since the fee is not paid until the lot is sold. Mr. Hilker stated that there was no cost - effective way to track those lots that the fees were paid on and those lots that the fees were not paid on. Ms. Cornell asked if the fees were based on developed land prices or undeveloped land Planning Board Minutes prices. March 21, 1995 Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the fees were not based on developed land. There was a mixture of the types of parcels looked at which varied largely by zoning district because in R -15 and R -9 there are mainly small lots left because many of the larger parcels have been developed already. Mr. Kanter stated that in the larger lot size districts primarily most of what was found was large undeveloped vacant lots largely removed from infrastructure services. In the R -15 and R -9 zones, there were some that were served by infrastructure and some that were not, but most were. Overall, Mr. Kanter felt it fair to state that many of the parcels that were looked at would have to be considered vacant, non - developed parcels. Mr. Hilker stated that vacant lands in an R -15 and R -9 districts are priced at approximately $3,000 per acre of land. When a developer buys land, he buys 5 to 15 acres to make the development work. The value would be less than $1000 per building site for raw value of land that a cost of $3,000 per acre to purchase. Then to consider $2,800 for a fee in lieu of park land set aside makes that value even less. Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated that he thought that Mr. Hilker's numbers were low for the raw value of land in R -15 zones. Mr. Walker stated that a fair value for raw land would be between $5000 and $10000 per acre for 5 to 10 acre parcels. Attorney Barney stated that he had a little trouble with the concept that the value should be based on raw land. When a developer is done with a project the park, by subdivision requirements, will sit on a road, and that road will be put in by a developer. It is no longer an undeveloped, raw piece of land. Attorney Barney stated that the property will have water, sewer and a road built there, which will give the land a higher value. Ms. Cornell stated that the Town was updating a Park and Open Space Plan that will show where the Town is in need of parks, and what type of parks exist and where they are located. Attorney Barney stated that the Town of Ithaca can require a fee, but they must first make a finding showing that there is a need for a park generated by the proposal. And it must also be shown that the park can not be put on a property. It is only in that circumstances that the fees in lieu of comes into play. This proposal gives a schedule to let the developer know exactly what will be expected. Mr. Hilker stated that he hoped that Attorney Barney's statement is correct. Mr. Hilker stated that there are two affordable housing project that have been proposed recently, and would not be able to stand this kind of fee and still remain as affordable housing. I 1 , 1 Planning Board Minutes 19 March 21, 1995 Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that tax payers pay for the maintenance of the parks in the Town of Ithaca, not just the developer. 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 noted that there was no further discussion, and asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Planning Board finds that the proposed Local Law is in accordance with the comprehensive plan of development of the Town, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the Proposed Local Law Amending Local Law Number 10 for the Year 1994 to Establish Amounts to be Paid in Lieu of Open Space Reservations in All Residential Districts, as proposed and as the same is attached hereto. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Cornell. Nay - None. Abstain - Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the Recommendation to the Town Board to Enact a Local Law Amending Town of Ithaca Local Law Number 10 for the Year 1994 to Establish Amounts to be Paid in Lieu of Open Space Reservations in all Residential Districts duly closed at 9:01 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUATION OF 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. ® ACTION WAS TABLED FROM MARCH 7. 1995 PUBLIC HEARING. ,a Planning Board Minutes 20 March 21, 1995 Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:02 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda. Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if the proposed sign was done in conjunction with the neighbors prior to the Board Meeting tonight. Elizabeth Classen of Classen Home Health Associates, responded that it was a collective decision made with the neighbors, and that the proposed sign would be agreeable to everyone. Mr. Kanter stated that his secretary did receive a phone call in which they stated that they were happy with the sign at 9 square feet. Ms. Classen stated that the neighbors were pleased with the revisions to the size of the sign and also reviewed the placement of the sign on the property. Ms. Classen stated that the new sign would be placed in the same location that Dr. Goodfriend had his sign. Board Member James Ainslie asked if the sign was going to be two - sided. Patricia Classen responded, yes. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that if the Classens are happy and the neighbors are happy then the changes should be acceptable to the Board as well. Chairperson Smith asked if the sign would interfere with the vision for the vehicles leaving the property. Patricia Classen stated that the sign was far enough away from the road not to obstruct the vision of the road. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that a revised site plan would be needed to be supplied to the Town staff if the sign was not going to be located as noted on the revised Site Plan Map dated February 20, 1995, if approval was granted. Attorney Bruce Wilson stated that a revised site plan could be added to the resolution as a condition of approval, and that a revised copy would be given to the Town. There was discussion of the coloring and visibility of the sign as proposed. There being no further discussion, the chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Candace Cornell: Planning Board Minutes 21 March 21, 1995 0 RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the request for a sign variance for one free standing sign be granted, conditioned upon the following: 1. That the size of the sign not exceed nine (9) square feet in area, and that the height of the sign not exceed six (6) feet above ground level. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Cornell, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board would address the issue of the site plan proposal, and asked if the applicants wished to give a brief description of the plan. Attorney Bruce Wilson addressed the Board and stated with regard to the secondary access, that there was an easement created in 1949, but they have not been able to determine the exact location of that easement. Attorney Wilson stated that he had drafted an easement agreement to provide the easement needed for the secondary access, but that it was found to be unacceptable to Ms. Sally Schultz, the neighbor to the north. Attorney Wilson stated that he and the Classens wanted the Planning Board to approve the site plan with both ingress and egress through the existing driveway that was used by the Doctors office. Attorney Wilson stated that the only other option would be to created a roadway through the hedges, which would eliminate the hedge altogether. Board Member Candace Cornell mentioned a horse -shoe driveway, and asked if it would be too close to the Ms. Schultz's driveway. Attorney Wilson responded that a horse -shoe shaped driveway would be very close to the neighbors driveway. Attorney Wilson stated that he felt it would be safer to use the existing driveway rather than create a second access onto Route 96. Attorney Wilson stated that the only request made by the Planning Board was to research the easement for a second access, which was explored, the neighbor to the north is not receptive to that. Attorney Wilson stated that he deferred to the Board on what they thought the Classens should do at this point. Attorney Wilson stated that he would prefer not to get into a litigation at the request of the site plan. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he agreed with Attorney Wilson and that he would prefer not to have a new access point onto Route 96 because of the proximity to the driveway to the north and the number of driveways along Trumansburg Road. Mr. Kanter • stated that another reason for not having the additional entrance was because cutting into the 1 1 Planning Board Minutes 21 March 21, 1995 0 RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the request for a sign variance for one free standing sign be granted, conditioned upon the following: 1. That the size of the sign not exceed nine (9) square feet in area, and that the height of the sign not exceed six (6) feet above ground level. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Cornell, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board would address the issue of the site plan proposal, and asked if the applicants wished to give a brief description of the plan. Attorney Bruce Wilson addressed the Board and stated with regard to the secondary access, that there was an easement created in 1949, but they have not been able to determine the exact location of that easement. Attorney Wilson stated that he had drafted an easement agreement to provide the easement needed for the secondary access, but that it was found to be unacceptable to Ms. Sally Schultz, the neighbor to the north. Attorney Wilson stated that he and the Classens wanted the Planning Board to approve the site plan with both ingress and egress through the existing driveway that was used by the Doctors office. Attorney Wilson stated that the only other option would be to created a roadway through the hedges, which would eliminate the hedge altogether. Board Member Candace Cornell mentioned a horse -shoe driveway, and asked if it would be too close to the Ms. Schultz's driveway. Attorney Wilson responded that a horse -shoe shaped driveway would be very close to the neighbors driveway. Attorney Wilson stated that he felt it would be safer to use the existing driveway rather than create a second access onto Route 96. Attorney Wilson stated that the only request made by the Planning Board was to research the easement for a second access, which was explored, the neighbor to the north is not receptive to that. Attorney Wilson stated that he deferred to the Board on what they thought the Classens should do at this point. Attorney Wilson stated that he would prefer not to get into a litigation at the request of the site plan. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he agreed with Attorney Wilson and that he would prefer not to have a new access point onto Route 96 because of the proximity to the driveway to the north and the number of driveways along Trumansburg Road. Mr. Kanter • stated that another reason for not having the additional entrance was because cutting into the Planning Board Minutes 22 March 21, 1995 ishedges would significantly effect the residential character of the neighborhood. Board Member James Ainslie asked if two cars could pass each other in the existing driveway. Patricia Classen responded, yes, that they do it all of the time. Town Attorney John Barney asked Attorney Wilson what the deed that the Classens have said about the easement. Attorney Wilson stated that effectively it gives to the property that is presently owned by his clients a 12 foot easement for access across that property to enter 96. It was created in 1949, he was not aware that it had ever been used, although the site plan does show an abandoned gravel driveway. The description of the easement is very difficult. It was a common grantor of both properties, and then one property came out and it reserved the right of access out. It was in the succeeding deeds of property that is presently owned by the Classens, but it was not carried forward in the reference to the deeds which is presently owned by Mrs. Schultz. Town Attorney Barney asked if the easement was reserved or granted to the Classen. Attorney Wilson responded that the conveyance of the Classen property took with it an easement to the north. Attorney Barney stated that an easement was granted to Doctor Goodfriend. Attorney Wilson requested that the Planning Board approve the site plan without the additional drive. Ms. Hoffmann stated that even though there had not been a problem with the traffic in and cout of this property when Dr. Goodfriend used it, the increased traffic on Route 96 was of concern now. Attorney Bill Seldin addressed the Board and stated that he was here representing Sally Schultz, the neighbor to the north in the discussions for this project. Attorney Seldin stated that when Ms. Schultz purchased the property in 1992, and when she did she got a warranty deed that was not subject to this easement. The updated survey map appended to the deed,did not show an easement. Consequently, Ms. Schultz did not learn about this reported easement until this issue came about because of the application for site plan approval. Attorney Seldin traced the history of this for the planning Board, in 1949 there was an easement. There is no way you can match the description of this easement with anything on either Ms. Schultz' map or the Classen map. Attorney Seldin stated that it is their opinion that this easement has been terminated legally because it has not been used for a long time, there is no way to locate that easement, and it has gone into disuse because there has been a method of ingress and egress devised for this property (the Classen Property) that has come about since the granting of this easement. Attorney Seldin stated that Ms. Schultz does not want her driveway being used by anyone other than herself. Attorney Seldin stated that Ms. Schultz supports the sign and the Planning Board Minutes 23 March 21, 1995 business, but not the easement. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the requirement for a second access was a condition of approval for the doctors office. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he felt that Attorney Wilson had made his good faith effort to locate the easement as requested, but was unable to do so. Attorney Wilson addressed the Board and stated that there would be no adult day care given on that site without appearing before the Planning Board for approval. There was a brief discussion about monitoring the access problems at that site for a set period of time, but it was determined that there was no feasible way for the monitoring to be accomplished. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the driveway would be adequate as shown, if any expansion of this site was proposed, then the Board would need to worry about the access. Mr. Walker recommended that the Planning Board approve the site plan as submitted. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she wished to make an amendment to the Environmental Assessment Form. Item 10 asked the question of what the present land use was in the vicinity of the proposed project, the applicants responded, "Professional Offices Only ". Ms. Hoffmann stated that "residential" and "open space" should be marked as well, and that "professional offices only" should be deleted from the answer as well. The Board concurred with the changes suggested by Ms. Hoffmann. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed use of subject premises as administrative offices for Classen Home Health Associates, Inc., located at 1212 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26- 3-8.2, Residence District R -15. Denmark Development, Inc., Owner; Patricia Classen, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and • • 0 Planning Board Minutes 24 March 21, 1995 3, The Planning Board, at a public meeting held on March 21, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled "Classen Home Health Associates, Inc.," dated January 30, 1995, and revised February 20, 1995, prepared by Manzari and Reagan, Land Surveyors, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan, as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Candace Cornell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed use of subject premises as administrative offices for Classen Home Health Associates, Inc. , located at 1212 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26- 3-8.2, Residence District R -15. Denmark Development, Inc., Owner, Patricia Classen, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on March 21, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 7, 1995, and at a subsequent meeting held on March 21, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled "Classen Home Health Associates, Inc.," dated Planning Board Minutes 25 March 21, 1995 • January 30, 1995, and revised February 20, 1995, prepared by Manzari and Reagan, Land Surveyors, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan entitled "Classen Home Health Associates, Inc.," dated January 30, 1995, and revised February 20, 1995, prepared by Manzari and Reagan, Land Surveyors, subject to the following conditions: a. That the final site plan be revised to show the location of the new sign to be at the location of the existing sign reading "1212 Trumansburg Road ", and b. That a variance for Zoning Board of Al nine (9) square feet if such variance is plan, and the proposed sign shall )peals, and that the size in area, nor exceed six granted, and that such be obtained from the Town of Ithaca of the proposed sign shall not exceed (6) feet in height above ground level, notation be revised on the final site C. That the site plan referred to above includes Classen Home Health Associates administrative office use only, and does not include adult day care or any other use. Any additional use will require review and approval of a revised site plan by the Planning Board, and d. Submission of an original or mylar copy and two copies of the final site plan, as revised above. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he wanted to add an observation about the process of granting use variances that the Town currently has does not require site plan approval, does not require even a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board • for a use variances granted. Mr. Kanter stated that the thought that was something that the % • Planning Board Minutes 26 March 21, 1995 Town should look at. In this particular case because these access issues were raised at the time use variance request came from the Classens to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board did say that there are some parking and access issues that need to be addressed, and sent them to the Planning Board for site plan review. That was not a formal Town process, it was just a condition of the use variance. Mr. Kanter stated that he thought, not saying whether in this case it would have been any different, that the process where use variances require some kind of recommendation from the Planning Board might be appropriate. Mr. Kanter asked that the Planning Board think about what he had just stated. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith closed the matter of the Classen Home Health Associates, Inc. Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Sign Variance duly closed at 10:02 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCES, AND CONSIDERATION OF SKETCH PLAN FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS FOR BIG AL'S HILLTOP QUICKSTOP, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 43 -2 -1 AND 43 -2 -21 1103 DANBY ROAD. BUSINESS DISTRICT C. MICHAEL HERZING, OWNER /APPLICANT. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:03 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings and posted and published and as noted above. Michael Herzing addressed the Board and stated that he was proposing to keep signs for his convenience store. Mr. Herzing showed the Board some pictures of the signs he wished to keep. He stated that there were three convenience stores in the Town of Ithaca and his is the only one that is a full service gas station and without the signs advertising what was available in the store, most of the customers would never get out of their cars. Mr. Herzing stated that Sunoco requires all of the signs that are showed in the photos. Mr. Herzing stated that he was hoping to move the diamond shaped Sunoco Sign in the future. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Page 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form has a summary of the variances requested. Mr. Kanter gave a brief summary of what the sign law allows. The Sign Law allows one wall sign on each building facade, a free standing sign has a maximum allowance of 50 square feet, and the one Mr. Herzing has is calculated at 63 +/- square feet as determined by Mr. Frost. Mr. Kanter also stated that Mr. Frost had stated that under the gasoline canopy there were two separate free standing small signs, which were also non - conforming according to the sign law as well. Mr. Kanter stated that Mr. Frost had also pointed out that there were too many window signs at the store. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that Mr. Herzing had already removed several of the signs that he used to have displayed. • Mr. Herzing stated that the signs were removed at the recommendation of the Town's Planning Board Minutes • 27 Building and Zoning Inspector, Andrew Frost. March 21, 1995 Board Member Herbert Finch addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Herzing had made the corner on which his store is located quite a lot more attractive that what the corner looked like when the store was first purchased. Town Attorney John Barney stated that Mr. Herzing is allowed to maintain one permitted wall sign, and there are two wall signs on the north end, and on the west end there are four wall signs, and only one would be permitted. Mr. Frost feels that Mr. Herzing would only be allowed two. The signs on the north side of the building could be consolidated and be within the allowable amount of square footage. On the west side, Mr. Herzing would exceed the 60- foot square footage that would be permitted by approximately 10 feet. Ms. Hoffmann stated that there are also window signs on the north wall and the west wall, one window sign on each. Mr. Herzing stated that the signs referred to by Ms. Hoffmann are the luminous beer signs that was made mention to. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that it seemed to her that Mr. Herzing could reduce the number of signs he had and use them more efficiently. Ms. Cornell asked Mr. Herzing if the ICE signs could be removed. Mr. Herzing responded that the ice machine had been moved to the back of the building and was not really visible, and that without the sign no one would know that they had ice available at the store. The Board Members discussed alternatives for the signs that Mr. Herzing wanted to keep. Mr. Herzing offered explanations of why each sign was needed and the benefit for keeping each sign. Mr. Herzing stated for the Board to tell him what they wanted him to do and that he would comply with what the Board asked. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the variances could be granted for a specific amount of time on the condition that the signs be reduced or removed by the end of that time frame. There being no further discussion Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: is Planning Board Minutes 28 March 21, 1995 RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for sign area variances for ten signs (four prohibited wall signs, three prohibited free - standing signs, a Sunoco logo sign on the gasoline canopy and two exposed luminous tubing window signs) be granted with the condition that no additional signs be allowed on the premises unless signs at least equal in size be simultaneously removed, and in any case unless approval is obtained from the Sign Review Board (Planning Board) and the Zoning Board of Appeals, and further RESOLVED, that it is further recommended that any variance be subject to the following conditions to be complied with no later than two years from the date of the variance: 1. The north wall have no more than one wall sign. 2. The west wall have no more than two wall signs. 3. The luminous tube signs be brought into conformity with the sign law. 4. There be no more than two free - standing signs. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Bell, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. Herzing stated that he had purchased the land around the gas station and was hoping to present a sketch plan for subdivision to the Planning Board to expand his business within the next few months. He was considering a car wash and an expansion of the store itself, but there are additional possibilities available at that location. He wants to move the store back on the property and add some additional parking spaces. Mr. Herzing stated that they were considering nine additional spaces and that if more than that was needed in the future, they would be provided at that time. Mr. Herzing stated that he had drafted rough draft of what he has proposed. (Copies of the drawings submitted are hereto attached as Exhibit #6) Mr. Kanter stated that the proposal would come to the Board in the future after the details of a site plan have been discussed with the Town Planning staff. There being no further discussion Chairperson Smith declared the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for Big Al's Hilltop Quickstop to be duly closed at 10:58 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON ENACTING A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OF THE TOWN Planning Board Minutes 29 March 21, 1995 OF ITHACA TO PROVIDE FOR EXPIRATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the reason for this Local Law was that the Town currently has for subdivision approvals a provision which says that if you don't apply for your final subdivision plat within 18 months of the preliminary subdivision approval. If you don't, then you lose the preliminary approval. Attorney Barney stated that there are no provisions for site plans and this is to require that action be taken within 18 months of received preliminary site plan approval to receive final site plan approval. This gives an applicant 18 months to file for final approval and 24 months to receive final site plan approval. Attorney Barney stated that there was an escape clause which says that if there is a hardship the time frame could be extended. (A copy of the recommended local law is hereto attached at Exhibit #7) There being no discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by James Ainslie: is RESOLVED, that the Planning Board finds that the proposed Local Law is in accordance with the comprehensive plan of development of the Town, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Provide for Expiration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as proposed and as the same is attached hereto. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the March 21, 1995 Meeting of the Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:16 p.m. r] Planning Board Minutes • 3/31/95. • 30 Respectfully submitted, March 21, 1,095 Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board.