Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-08-01• • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 1, 1995 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular August 1, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, 7:30 p.m. FILED TOWN OF Date r session on Tuesday, Ithaca, New York, at PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Herbert Finch, James Ainslie, Fred Wilcox, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner) , JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: David Auble, Elena Salerno - Flash, Nan Julian, Bob Julian, Sam Peter, Thomas Santoro. 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 July 24, 1995, and July 26, 1995, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, upon the New York State Department of Transportation, upon the Chief of the Ithaca Fire Department, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on July 28, 1995. (A copy of the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication is attached hereto as Exhibit #1) 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 present to be heard. Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON A PROPOSED 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 above -noted matter duly opened at 7:38 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that the proposal for establishing fees to be paid in lieu of open space reservations went to the Town Board for consideration. Mr. Kanter stated that a number of comments were received on how the amounts were determined and the equity of the fees. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town Board sent the proposal back to the Codes and Ordinance Committee (COC) to determine a different method of determining said fees. Mr. Kanter stated that the COC came up with a straight forward, flat rate system, which would be taking either ten percent of the assessed value of the property involved in an application for subdivision or site plan approval, or, in a case where an Planning Board Minutes 2 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • applicant had pu approval, taking Mr. Kanter stated districts by lot assessed value of rchased the land within the last two years prior to ten percent of the actual sales price of that property. that instead of having different rate is different zoning or dwelling units, it now is based on the actual or the property. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked where the cost of the property would come from. Town Planner Kanter stated that the applicant would be requested to provide the actual sales price of the property when purchased. Mr. Kanter stated, if the sales value was not available, it would be based on the assessed value from the current Tax Assessment Roll. Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if the town planning staff felt that this proposal would generate more or less income than the previous proposal would have. Town Planner Kanter responded that the new proposal would generate quite a bit less than the original proposal. require Mr. Kanter stated that the original proposal ranged from $1500 to $2800. Mr. Kanter stated that he had looked at some of the sample properties that have come before the Board recently and tried to get a per lot count and found that there would be an average of $100 to approximately $500 based on the sampling of the • properties. • Chairpers actual demands a large number area and pay occupying the on Smith asked how that standard put on park space. Mr. Smith sta of residential lots could occupy the same amount as someone with same amount of gross area. ten percent related to the ted that a development with a specific amount of gross a less dense development Town Planner Kanter stated that is what happens when you establish a flat fee, there is not differential, other than establishing something based on the actual or assessed value of the property. Chairperson Smith asked if ten percent would be enough for the full development potential situation. Town Planner Kanter stated that he could not answer that question. Board Member Wilcox that one may have a large piece of property stated that the number is based on value not the number of people who may require those services. Town Planner Kanter stated that one may have a large piece of property and only aside for a few lots proposed on it, a subdivision at some point the Board could defer a future set in the future. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that deferring a set aside would be a dangerous precedent to set. Planning Board Minutes 3 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 iTown Planner Kanter stated that the way the fee formula is designed, that would not happen unless the Board makes a specific determination, but with the way the formula is set up the full fee would be taken at the time of the subdivision. Board Member Wilcox asked why the Town Board rejected the previous proposal, was it total cost to the developer. Town Planner Kanter stated that he thought it was largely because of the high costs that some people felt were associated with the proposed fees. Mr. Kanter stated that there were some reactions to the fact that the original proposal was based on a mixture of raw land and improved land values and that was a policy decision made by the Town Board. Board Member Kenerson asked if the proposal had anything to do with other infrastructure. Town Planner Kanter stated that this considered strictly parkland. Board Member Kenerson stated that the dedication needed to be related to the piece of property under discussion in some manner. Town Planner Kanter stated that the Board would have to make a finding that there is a need for the parkland and if the Planning Board determines isthat on that particular site, the land itself is not appropriate for park and recreation purposes, then the fee would be considered. Board Member Kenerson asked if the fees would go into a general fund for area parks, if the need for a park is found to exist. Town Planner Kanter stated there would be a park and open space fund which would ear -mark the funds for a certain area so that it could be related to the need for that site. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town is hoping to have the Park and Recreation Plan updated soon. Board Member Kenerson asked if the Board could determine that a fee is not required for a specific piece of property. Town Planner Kanter responded that it was likely that there be a fully developed neighborhood park close to the subdivision and if it could be determined that the park would serve the need of that subdivision, then there would be no need for any additional park in that area. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Dave Auble addressed the Board and stated that he owns 47 acres of property at the intersection of King Road and Route 96B, and stated that he has been heavily taxed on this property for the past five years that he has owned it with no significant benefits from the Town, County or the school Mr. Auble stated that he felt that the proposal was a tax on top •system. of a tax. Mr. Auble stated that he objected to the proposal because it is unfair to landowners because they are currently paying very large tax burdens for their property. Planning Board Minutes 4 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he wanted to be sure that the public understood what was being proposed with this amendment. Mr. Wilcox stated, if one were to subdivide their land for residential purposes, normally one would be required to set aside some amount for recreational purposes. The Board, at its' discretion has decided to allow you to develop the entire property without any land set aside but money in lieu of that set aside. Mr. Auble asked if that would be the option of the land owner or the Planning Board. Mr. Auble stated that he thought it should be the option of the land owner. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the prerogative is that of the Planning Board by State Law, Town Planner Kanter stated that the Planning Board already has the authority to do this, but this Local Law proposal sets actual fee amounts to implement what they already have authority to do. Mr. Auble asked how often a fee has been assessed by the Town. Attorney Barney stated that it was very rare that a fee is assessed. Attorney Barney stated that the problem that exists currently, is that to assess the fee it has to go back to the Town Board from the Planning Board. •The Planning Board has the authority to determine that a fee shall be paid in lieu of park set aside., but the amount has to be determined by the Town Board. Attorney Barney stated that this proposal regularizes the fee and therefore, everyone knows the process is and can bypass the need to go back to the Town Board, Mr. Auble stated that the proposal appears to be counter to the concept of affordable housing because every time there is an additional fee on the person that is trying to build, either the tenant or the purchaser of proposal would be another burdensome the cost the home. tax on the is going to be passed on to Mr. Auble stated that this property owner. Town Attorney Barney stated that there are several predicates that would need to occur before assessing a fee. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board must determine a need for recreation land, and then make a finding that there is no suitable land available for recreation on this property. Attorney Barney stated it is only in those two conditions that the Board can then assess a fee in lieu of a park land. Attorney Barney stated that if a developer can establish that there is available land for recreation, and it is suitable land then the issue of fees is moot. Mr. Auble stated that if this process in done fairly by the Planning Board then he would agree with that approach. Chairperson Smith noted that this is a Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public • Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Planning Board Minutes 5 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 46 Town Planner Kanter Local Law to those develc Meetings to voice comment review and be present at ,stated that staff had mailed the new proposed >pers that spoke at Planning Board and Town Board s on the previous proposal, so the opportunity to tonight's meeting was available. Board Member Kenerson stated that the proposal clarifies what the Board does if a need is established with no suitable land on a particular site. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: 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 (revised 7/20/95), as proposed and as the same is attached hereto. Board Member Gregory Bell asked if this proposal required a SEQR Resolution of no significance. Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board would make the SEQR • recommendation because they will be the Lead Agency. Board Member Wilcox stated, for the record, that he was going to vote against this proposal although he is in favor of the concept. Mr. Wilcox stated that the problem with the previous resolution was that the fees were determined to be too high, and instead of attacking that problem, the Town has gone to taking ten percent. Mr. Wilcox stated that it does not base the amount of money on the demand that the subdivision would place on the Town land for recreation. Mr. Wilcox stated that he wanted to see something that is based upon the number of lots or number of families that will occupy it, not that value. Mr. Wilcox stated that he would prefer the using the system of numbers used before and change them to something more reasonable, and not adopt a system like what is proposed. Board Member Bell stated that he felt that Mr. Wilcox was correct on the issue of demand, but the other side of it is that the value is determined by where that site is located. Mr. Bell stated that the Town would be asking for a different amount of money because of the different location, with the same number of children that would be using the parks. Mr. Bell stated that the proposal does not seem like the correct approach to him. Town Attorney Barney stated that the proposal allows the Planning Board to take into account whether the demand for park lands created by the proposed project warrants such lesser percentage. Attorney Barney stated that the Board must first establish a demand, if the demand is not enough •to warrant ten percent of the land then the Board can not asked for ten percent of the land. Attorney Barney stated that the Law says that the Board must establish a demand or need, and that the Board must make the request more reflective of the actual value of what the person is giving up. Planning Board Minutes 6 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Chairperson Smith asked how the Board would asses the demand placed on the adjacent parks and put a dollar amount on it. Attorney Barney stated that the Board must look at the totality of the circumstances and ask what kind of increased usage would evolve from a specific development. Attorney Barney stated the Board must determine if a park is needed, if you can not find land in the particular development, then request a payment in lieu of the set aside. Town Planner Kanter stated that in the Park and Open Space Plan, staff if trying to come up with something that will help have the basis for determining specific needs for parks in different parts of the Town, and that can be used in conjunction with this law. Mr. Kanter stated that certain areas in the Town may have adequate park improvements and other areas may have very little, this may give guidance for staff and the Board in making the determination of need. Mr. Kanter stated that the fee was to give a basis for setting an actual dollar amount. Mr. Kanter stated that the actual need has to be determined by the Board in a separate process. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell Nay - Wilcox. • The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Amending Local Law No. 10 for the Year 1994 to Establish Amounts to be Paid In Lieu of Open Space Reservations in all Residential Districts duly closed at 8:07 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 71- 1-10, 10+ ACRES IN AREA, INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.35± ACRES IN SIZE RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 302 SAINT CATHERINE CIRCLE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. SAINT CATHERINE OF SIENA CHURCH, OWNER; PAUL HESLER, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:08 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Elena Salerno -Flash addressed the Board and stated that she would be representing the Saint Catherine of Siena Church at this meeting. Attorney Flash stated that Saint Catherine Church is seeking permission to subdivide a small lot from the total 10.4 acre parcel owned by the church on Blackstone Avenue. Attorney Flash stated that the purpose for the subdivision is to create a building lot which complies to the R -15 zoning requirements. The church would retain ownership of the lot and construct a single- family residence for parish priests. Presently the church has a small cramped living quarter in the parish center. The pastor has resided in this inadequate space for many years. Visiting priests come to the •area, they have to share very small quarters. The present situation affords no privacy for the priests, their kitchen and living room is used by the congregation for parish events and, in essence, the priests have no home. Attorney Flash stated, furthermore, a committee of parishioners conducted a site study for the parish and determined that the parish needs Planning Board Minutes 7 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 all of the space of the parish center for community events for the parish. For these two reasons lack of privacy and the need to use the parish center for community events, the church seeks to build a single family residence on the subdivided lot as a residence for the priests. The subdivision site plan which we request requires no variances from the requirements of the R- 15 zone, the proposed single family residence will comply fully with the zoning laws. The proposed lot is situated far enough from the parish center to create as much privacy as possible. The plan affords screening with existing trees and vegetation from the parish center as well as from St. Catherine Circle which is the street that the lot will face. The surrounding neighborhood is all residential except for the church lot. There are a variety of styles and colors and sizes of home in the vicinity around Blackstone Ave. and St. Catherine Circle on Siena Dr. The proposed single family dwelling is similar to other raised ranches and homes around Blackstone Circle. The Church requests subdivision approval in order to build a quiet, peaceful and private dwelling for its priests. Thank you. Board Member Fred Wilcox a need for asked if there was a master plan for laying out lots on the 10± acre lot that the church is currently located on. Attorney Flash responded that there were no present intentions of creating any further lots. A lot was chosen, through consultation with the surveyors, so that if, at some point in the future subdivision were to occur lots could be established. Attorney Flash stated that at this point • there are absolutely no plans to subdivide the 10± acre parcel. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that many years ago there was a plan showing conventional lots on the parcel that the church is currently located on. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he was unsure why the church needed to subdivide. Mr. Bell stated that he felt that the priest's house would be considered an accessory use on this lot. Attorney Barney stated one cannot have more than one principle building on a lot, therefore subdivision is necessary. Board Member Wilcox asked if the church would retain ownership of the new lot. Attorney Flash responded, yes. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Tom Santoro of 313 Saint Catherine Circle, stated that his property is located directly across from the proposed new lot. Mr. Santoro stated that he was troubled because the proposed lot was the absolute minimum in size for a lot in an R -15 zone, which is out of character with all of the other lots along Saint Catherine Circle. Mr. Santoro stated that the church also •owns the lots on either side of the entrance point to Saint Catherine Circle. Mr. Santoro stated that he believed that there was a "For Sale" sign on one of the lots owned by the church and stated that he wanted to know why there was a need for an additional built lot given the large number of homes that are already in the area, the relative density in the Planning Board Minutes 8 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • area, and the fact that a large number of houses in that area are currently for sale. Mr. Santoro stated that the style of the proposed house is not within the character of Saint Catherine Circle, although it may be an accurate description of Blackstone Avenue and Siena Drive, but the houses along Saint Catherine Circle are all fairly distinct, one -of -a -kind type, architecturally distinct wooden structures. Mr. Santoro stated that none of the houses on Saint Catherine Circle are raised ranches, although that is a very common house type along Siena Drive and Blackstone Avenue, Mr. Santoro stated what is being proposed does not seem to be within character, and that he was not sure why that portion of the 10 acre parcel was selected. Mr. Santoro stated that until some further look of what the potential impact was on the neighborhood was done, a final approval would be precipitous. Mr. Santoro asked if the use of the property for a residence for the priest would involve more traffic than for ordinary residential purposes. Mr. Santoro stated that he would like to speak against the proposal for two reasons; 1) That it does not seem to be in character with the lot size for the neighborhood, notwithstanding its absolute minimum in compliance with the law that there may very well be environmental impact to such a subdivision at that location that has not been addressed, an 2) That there does not appear to be a need for a subdivision in the area given the number of lots available and the two lots available to the church which are presently open and in the neighborhood where the character of the building would fit in perfectly. Mr. Santoro stated that, for those reasons, he would urge the Planning Board not to • approve this proposal. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that if the proposal meets the minimum legal requirements, on what basis can the Board reject this proposal. Mr. Santoro responded that the environmental impacts might form a basis to reject the proposal. Mr. Santoro stated that he would have to concede that if the „only consideration here was whether or not the proposed lot meets the R -15 minimums, it seems that they fit within the guidelines. Mr. Kanter stated that the dimension conforms to all R -15 zoning requirements. Board Member Wilcox asked if Mr. Santoro received the notice of the meeting tonight. Recording Secretary Starr Hays responded, that Mr. Santoro was mailed the Agenda for this meeting. Mr. Santoro stated that he did receive the notice for this meeting. Mr. Santoro stated that the agenda was his first notice of this meeting and the proposal. Chairperson Smith asked if a sign was posted for this subdivision. .Town Planner Kanter stated that a sign was not posted, but that staff tries to post signs for subdivisions prior to meetings. Planning Board Minutes 9 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 1 • Attorney Barney stated that when someone comes in with a subdivision that meets the requirements of the Town, it would be difficult for the Town to deny the request, and try to defend that decision in front of a judge. Mr. Santoro stated that there was no necessity to grant final approval for this project tonight. Attorney Barney stated that unless there are some conditions placed on preliminary approval that are not met, it would be unlikely that final approval be denied. Mr. Santoro stated, what you are saying is that you would like to avoid any possibility of exploration of environmental impacts. Attorney Barney stated that a decision of environmental impact would be made as part of the process for approval tonight. Board Member Bell asked if Mr. Santoro' had reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) that was submitted for this project. Mr. Santoro responded, that the had not reviewed the SEAF. Mr. Santoro was supplied with a copy of the SEAF to review and Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. • Bob Julian of 313 Blackstone Avenue, addressed the Board and stated that he was in favor of granting the proposal. Mr. Julian stated that the houses on Saint Catherine Circle have a particular character to them, but if you look at the general overall neighborhood, the proposed house would blend in very well with the neighborhood. Mr. Julian stated, in terms of added traffic in the area, the proposal asks for a private residence for some privacy for the Pastor, and that is what it is. Mr. Julian stated that a Pastor needs to get away from his workplace just as we all do. Mr. Julian needs a place to get some peace and quiet, which is what he is seeking in a private residence. Mr. Julian stated that, in terms of the size of the lot, it may be meeting the minimal requirements, but it does meet the requirements. Mr. Julian stated that he speaks in favor of asking the Board to approve the division of the property. Attorney Flash stated that Mr. Julian had answered two of the concerns which she was going to address, so she would skip to the question that was raised with respect to lots off Blackstone Avenue immediately off Hanshaw Road. Those lots are owned by the Church and one of those lots is for sale. Attorney Flash stated that one of those lots are being sold to raise funds for construction costs. Attorney Flash stated that the 10.4 acre parcel is not going to be further subdivided, at least that is not at all contemplated by the Church. Attorney Flash stated that Mr. Santoro stated that another house might be suitable for the purpose, but after seeing several houses that are on the market, the analysis which was done determined that there was nothing that was quite right because they need a residence that can provide semi - separate living areas for one or two priests. Attorney Flash stated that they also found that they could build on property already owned much less expensively than purchasing something that would need renovation in order to meet the needs of two independent people who are living in a single- family dwelling. r� U n • Planning Board Minutes 10 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Board Member Bell asked if the house was actually a raised ranch style house or if it was used as a generic term. Attorney Flash stated that it is actually a raised ranch, and although there may not be any on Saint Catherine Circle, there certainly are around Blackstone Avenue. Board Member Herbert Finch asked if the applicant has decided where the building was going to go on the new lot. Attorney Flash stated that she believed that there was a plan for the position of house on the lot, with the required set backs, so there would be no requirements for a variance. Mr. Santoro stated that he had a question on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Question C2., which requires that the aesthetic neighborhood character be considered. Mr. Santoro stated that what seems to be offered as the explanation for this not having an aesthetic impact is because there are raised ranches along Siena and Blackstone, but that is irrelevant to what is on Saint Catherine Circle. Mr. Santoro stated that it is not irrelevant, and if indeed an aesthetic consideration is an appropriate one, then the members of the Board should go and view Saint Catherine Circle, which does not have a raised ranch on that road at all, it has a series of architecturally unique wooden oddly shaped houses. Mr. Santoro stated that the description that has just been given makes quite clear that the aesthetic of what has been proposed is very much unlike what is on Saint Catherine Circle now. Mr. Santoro stated that if that is not an aesthetic effect on the area, then he did not know what is. Presumably, neighborhood character and aesthetics is what it is the Board is being asked to consider, the form says there are none, and he disagrees with that, and would ask the Board Members to go and view it. Attorney Barney stated that the aesthetic effect is to the subdivision. Attorney Barney stated that the Town has no regulations to determine the nature of the buildings one would live in or build. Attorney Barney stated that the aesthetics being considered are the aesthetics that evolve around the subdivision. Mr. Santoro stated that it seemed that Attorney Barney was saying that his request is irrelevant and the information is not significant for consideration of this project. Attorney Barney responded, no, the request on the form is whether or not there is an aesthetic consideration, and the answer is that there probably is not, with the subdivision of the lot. Mr. Santoro stated that he could not envision what the nature of an aesthetic consideration would be, because he feels that is exactly the issue. Planning Board Minutes 11 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Town Planner Kanter suggested that the character of the neighborhood is more established and could be impacted by cutting down some of the mature trees on the site. Mr. Kanter stated that there were quite a few healthy, substantial, mature trees on the site which could act like a buffer around the outside of the property and then the significant mature trees which are inside the property be retained, would help quite a bit in terms of preserving the character, so that the actual style of the house would be less of an influence. Mr. Santoro stated that he would agree and that there are a number of mature trees along that area. Mr. Santoro stated that the siding of the house could make a difference as well. Reverend Gaesser of Saint Catherine of Siena Church addressed the Board and stated that they intend to take down only the trees necessary, he will not have a lawn. Rev. Gaesser stated that he was going to leave as many trees in a possible because he is looking for privacy, and other than the driveway into the property the house will not even be seen during this time of the year because there is that much vegetation there, which he intends to leave. Rev. Gaesser stated that the reason they chose to build in this particular location is because he wants the privacy and he wants the trees to help accomplish that. Rev. Gaesser stated that the lot is the minimum size is to meet the requirements, there are no intentions of selling the property, but needed to meet the requirements by drawing lot lines. Rev. Gaesser stated that it would be a private dwelling, there would be no church business conducted at the house and no more traffic than any other house on the street. Ann Julian of 313 Blackstone Avenue that she has belonged to the church for was envisioned a Catholic High School to now consider a single house for the past( Board Member James Ainslie asked if house and the church. addressed the Board and stated 24 years, and at one point there be built on that property and to )r is very minimal. there might be a path between the Rev. Gaesser responded, absolutely not, and if there are existing paths used, people' will have to find a new route to go. Chairperson Smith asked if there were any further comments from the public. There were none. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that staff had considered the question of recreational park set aside since this is a subdivision. Mr. Kanter stated that there probably was no significant need for a set aside for this project, so it is suggested in the draft resolution to defer any judgement on setting aside recreational lands until some later time when there is a large subdivision of the property. Board Member Wilcox asked if Rev. Gaesser currently lived in the • church building. Rev. Gaesser stated that he did, but that he had moved out of the building and turned the whole building into the parish center. Planning Board Minutes 12 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 iThere appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Fred Wilcox: WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 71 -1 -10, 10.42 +/- acres in area, into two lots of 0.35 +/- acre and 10.07 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 302 Saint Catherine Circle, Residence District R -15, Saint Catherine of Siena Church, Owner; Paul Hesler, Agent, 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 August 1, 1995 has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision map entitled "Map of Lots 6,7,10,11,12 on Arthur A. Prince Development, Town of Ithaca, N.Y.," prepared by Carl Crandall, C.E. dated July 5, 1960 and amended to show proposed new lot by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. on June 29, 1995, and other application materials, and .4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action, as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Long Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Town Planner Kanter suggested adding the following statement to the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF): "The site does contain a number of mature trees." The Board concurred with Mr. Kanter's suggested addition to the SEAF. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. • MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: Planning Board Minutes 13 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 01, This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of, Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 71 -1 -10, 10.42 +/- acres in area, into two lots of 0.35 +/- acre and 10.07 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 302 Saint Catherine Circle, Residence District R -15. Saint Catherine of Siena Church, Owner; Paul Hesler, Agent, 2, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 1, 1995 has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision map entitled "Map of Lots 6, 71 10, 11, 12 on Arthur A. Prince Development, Town of Ithaca, N.Y.," prepared by Carl Crandall, C.E. dated July 5, 1960, and amended to show proposed new lot by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. on June 29, 1995, and other application materials, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on August 1, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain • requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board.. 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -10, 10.42 +/- acres in area, into two lots of 0.35 +/- acre and 10.07 +/- acres in size respectively, as shown on the subdivision map-entitled "Map of Lots 6, 71 10, 11, 12 on Arthur A. Prince Development, Town of Ithaca, N.Y.," prepared by Carl Crandall, C.E. dated July 5, 1960, and amended to show proposed new lot by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. on June 29, 1995, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the survey to be recorded and four copies for signature by the Chairman of the Planning Board prior to recording in the Office of the County Clerk. Said original and copies to have the Surveyor's Certificate as required by the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and b. There be preserved, to the extent reasonably feasible, the mature trees on the site. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: • That should the need for a set aside of land for recreational purposes be determined by the Planning Board when the remainder of the 10.42 +/- acre parcel is further subdivided the set aside will be based on Planning Board Minutes 14 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • the acreage of the original parcel, or 10.421 acres as shown on the subdivision map entitled "Map of Lots 6, 71 10, 11, 12 on Arthur A. Prince Development, Town of Ithaca, N.Y.," prepared by Carl Crandall, C.E. dated July 5, 1960, and amended to show proposed new lot by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. on June 29, 1995, not on the acreage remaining after subdividing out the 0.35 +/- acre lot. Town Planner Kanter stated that he wanted to suggest an addition that would protect a wooded buffer around the perimeter of the lot. Attorney Barney suggested the following additional condition: "b. There be preserved, to the extent reasonably feasible, the mature trees on the site." Board Member Wilcox stated that the Board had the word of the applicant about preserving as many of the trees as possible. stated There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote on the resolution as amended. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the 2 -lot Subdivision for Saint Catherine of Siena Church duly closed at 8:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF A ONE - STORY, 11620± SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE SAM PETER FURNITURE STORE, LOCATED AT 1083 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 43 -1 -5, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C", SAM PETER, OWNER /APPLICANT. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:47 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Sam Peter, owner of Sam Peter Furniture Store, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to build a 90 foot by 18 foot warehouse addition, which will improve the aesthetics of the building currently there. Mr. Peter stated that he desperately needs more warehouse space. Mr. Peter stated that between the two buildings shown on the site plan, there is a board fence, which will come down when the proposed addition is built. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be access from the outside of each of the buildings on the site. Mr. Peter responded that there would be easy access to both warehouses • from the outside, and that the new warehouse would open into the store. Board Member James Ainslie asked what color the warehouse would be. Mr. Peter responded that they would be beige /tan with red trim. Planning Board Minutes 15 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Board Member Herbert Finch asked if there was going to be any landscaping on the site. Mr. Peter stated that there would be some plantings between the buildings because he needs to have excavating done to run the drain back from the south to the north. Mr. Peter stated that the drainage would be tapered down and that he will then put a catch basin in for drainage. Town Planner Kanter asked how many parking spaces Mr. Peter currently has on the site. Mr. Peter responded that there are approximately 30 spaces available. Mr. Peter stated that this was not a high traffic store. Attorney Barney asked how many employees worked there full time. Mr. Peter responded, four. Town Planner Kanter stated that for the retail square footage, which is approximately 5,400 square feet for the store, and the zoning requirements is one space per 200 square feet of retail, which breaks down to 27 needed parking spaces. Mr. Kanter stated that there was no guidelines regarding parking for warehouses. Mr. Peter stated that he could make more parking spaces, but he will • not be needing any additional spaces. Mr. Kanter stated that he would like to see the parking spaces added to the site plan to see where the parking areas are located. Chairperson Smith asked if there was sufficient space between the buildings on the site for access to the water and sewer lines if work would need to be done. around the building and some of the parking is within the Town Highway right -of -way. Town Engineer Daniel Walker responded that there should be enough room if access is needed for maintenance to the water and sewer lines. Mr. Walker stated that the Town may be modifying the water and sewer lines in that area. Mr. Walker stated that he felt there was adequate space for the proposed building. Mr. Walker stated that one of the issues is the size of the site, which is a non - conforming site on which there are some wide highway right -of -ways all of the way around the building and some of the parking is within the Town Highway right -of -way. Mr. Peter stated that he was not counting the space in the right -of- ways with the parking spaces. Town Planner Kanter stated that the size of the site is somewhat of a problem, the site is scheduled for the Zoning Board for August 9, 1995, because there are two aspects that do not conform to the Business "c" zone; 1) Business "C" has a maximum 30 percent coverage requirement and Mr. Frost of the Zoning Department calculated the existing buildings plus the •addition would end up with approximately 43 percent coverage, the existing buildings are approximately 38 percent coverage, and, 2) A side yard variance is needed because the requirement is 30 feet and the addition from the north boundary line is approximately 20 feet. Planning Board Minutes 16 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if the issues in the letter submitted by Evan Monkemeyer could be addressed at this.time. (A copy of the letter dated August 1, 1995, is attached hereto as Exhibit #2) Mr. Peter stated that Mr. Monkemeyer's letter refers to a pay phone that was installed without a Building Permit, and that he would not be responsible to get a Building Permit for a New York State Telephone. Mr. Peter stated that Mr. Monkemeyer is completely off base on the parking issue in his letter as well. Town Engineer Walker asked why the sign was not shown on the site plan. Mr. Peter stated that the sign was connected to the building. Mr. Peter stated that an answer to the issue of cardboard being outside of the buildings, as stated in Mr. Monkemeyer's letter, if allowed to build the warehouse the cardboard will be inside since there will then be adequate space. Town Planner Kanter asked if • additional truck traffic. Mr. Peter stated that there the warehouse, having additional doing a higher volume of business to give more space to store what the addition to the warehouse would cause vould not be additional traf f is because of space would not mean the store would be or buying more merchandise, it is simply is.currently there. Town Planner Kanter asked if Mr. Peter anticipated hiring additional employees as a result of the warehouse. Mr. Peter stated that they would not be hiring any new employees, that they could not afford to hire additional people. Chairperson Smith stated that making the identification of parking spaces appear on the site plan as part of the resolution. top Mr. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that Michael Herzing, owner of Big Al's which Mr. make Hilltop Quickstop store, is trying to improve the look is located next door to the Sam Peter Furniture Store, Peter could make some suggestions of what he could do to that area a more attractive part of the community that of his area, and asked continue exists at if to the top of South Hill. Mr. Peter responded that he felt a traffic light was desperately needed to actually stop traffic because there has been a lot of accidents at that corner. Mr. Peter stated that he had spoken with the State and was •told that if there are enough accidents they will consider putting a traffic light in at that corner. Mr. Peter stated that he thinks that the neighborhood looks nice and that the proposed addition will make it look even better. Planning Board Minutes 17 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: 1.1 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition of a one - story, +/- 1,620 sq, ft, warehouse addition to the rear of the Sam Peter Furniture store, located at 1083 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -5, Business C District. Sam Peter, 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 Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning reviewed and Board, at a Public Hearing accepted as adequate a Short on August 1, 1995, has Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by Town Planning Department, a site plan entitled "Stock Room Addition, Sam Peter Furniture" prepared by Tallman & Tallman Architects the and dated July 21, 1995, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of 0 environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan; 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. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that Question No. 11 of the Short Environmental Impact Form (SEAF) asks; `Does the proposed action involve permit, approval, or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local) ?' Mr. Bell stated that "No" has been checked as the answer, but since the project has to receive approval from the ZBA, the answer should be checked "Yes ". The Board concurred with Mr. Bell's suggestion. Board Member Wilcox stated that he wanted to change Question No. 10 of the SEAF which asks for present land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project. Mr. Wilcox stated that he felt that Open Space and Residential should be indicated as land use in the immediate area. The Board concurred with Mr. Wilcox's suggestion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Planning Board Minutes 18 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 0 MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by James Ainslie: l.rIF V IF 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition of a one - story, +/- 1,620 sq. ft. warehouse addition to the rear of the Sam Peter Furniture store, located at 1083 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -5, Business C District, Sam Peter, Owner /Applicant. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on August 11 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning reviewed and Board, at accepted as a Public Hearing adequate a Short on August 1, 1995, has Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, Sam Peter Furniture" prepared a site plan entitled by Tallman "Stock Room Addition, & Tallman Architects and dated July 21, 1995, 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 "Stock Room Addition, Sam Peter Furniture" prepared by Tallman & Tallman Architects and dated July 21, 1995, subject to the following conditions prior to the issuance of any building permit: a. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan; b, submission of detailed sizing and final material specifications for all required improvements, and construction details of all proposed structures, roads, and other improvements; C, submission for approval by the Town Engineer of detailed designs for any additional drainage improvements required as a result of the addition; d, revision of the site plan to show existing parking spaces; f, the granting of any required variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairperson Smith asked if the proposed resolution should be changed to ask for any additional parking that could be required. Town Planner Kanter suggested adding, "with sufficient area to accommodate a minimum of 27 spaces." Planning Board Minutes 19 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Board Member Finch asked if it would be inappropriate to ask that it show landscaping around the building as well. Attorney Barney stated that it would not be inappropriate to request that landscaping be shown. Board Member Finch.stated that he would like to see the plantings on the site plan. Mr. Peter asked if pictures would be sufficient. Board Member Finch stated that would be interesting to see. Board Member Wilcox stated that it may be interesting to see, but he did not think it would be sufficient. Chairperson Smith asked when Mr. Finch would like to see that, because the proposal tonight is for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval. Board Member Finch stated that he was unsure if he was ready to grant final site plan. Mr. Finch stated that the Board need not grant preliminary and final at the same point. Mr. Peter stated that he needed to get both preliminary. and final site plan approval because time is of the essence with this project. Mr. Peter stated that this project has been held up for a couple of months already and the plantings already exist. Mr. Kanter stated that a key factor in Mr. Peter's delay was finding the water and sewer lines on the site. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Walker would like to have the location of existing sign added to the resolution as part of condition 2.d. Condition 2.d. was agreed to as follows: "2.d. Revision of the site plan to show existing parking spaces with sufficient area to accommodate 27 spaces and location of existing sign." Condition 2.e. was agreed to as follows: 112.e. Revision of the site plan to show existing landscaping and additional landscaping to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town Planner." The modifications were accepted by Chairperson Stephen Smith who made the MOTION, and Board Member James Ainslie who seconded the MOTION. Board Member Wilcox asked if Town Engineer Daniel Walker anticipated any necessary drainage improvements for this site. Town Engineer Walker stated that there is a low spot in the back that will need to be corrected. Mr. Peter stated that was why he wanted to put a catch basin in on the site. Planning Board Minutes 20 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Town Engineer Walker stated that the drainage details could be worked out. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the Sam Peter Furniture Store to be duly closed at 9:26 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 40 -3 -9, 3.6± ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO FOUR LOTS, FOR THE SOUTH HILL RETAIL COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD, I - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. ICS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, OWNER; JAGAT SHARMA, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:28 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda. Jagat Sharma of 312 East Seneca Street, addressed the Board and stated that they received approval for the Site Plan, since that time, they have finished Phase A, the existing building to become occupied by Digicomp. Sharma stated that after Phase A was completed, Mr. Om Gupta tried to ®Mr. get the financing for the next phase and ran into a problem at the bank. Om Gupta of Digicomp Research Corp, addressed the Board and stated that he went to the local financial institutions and was told that he did not have enough money for a down payment to go into private financing. Mr. Gupta stated that they needed to get some government financing where Digicomp has to come up with less equity, only 350, that the banks desire because they are in the business of creating jobs. Mr. Gupta stated that the banks would put up 50o and other agencies put up 400, so that Digicomp needs to come up with equity of only 10%. Mr. Gupta stated that the Small Business Institute will take second position to the bank for the 400, but they will not take second position for the entire project as it stands now. Mr. Gupta stated that for the new construction, as proposed, SBA will put up 40% and take second position to the bank. Mr. Gupta stated that the financial institutions want a clear way to go and get their portion of the property and sell it off, if the loan goes into default or if something were to happen. Board Member Kenerson asked if Mr. Gupta thought the same problem would arise from Phase III or IV. Mr. Gupta responded that it might happen, and they had felt that splitting the property into two section may make it easier, but the immediate problem was to put up building C. Mr. Gupta stated that since then, one of the realtors approached the company about having a day care ®facility there. Mr. Gupta stated that the building sitting in the back would be more suitable because a small.playground could be built in there, be accessible to the rest of the complex, and remain isolated to protect the children. Planning Board Minutes 21 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Chairperson Smith asked if the property is subdivided how does one control the development of the road. Attorney Barney stated that his office represents Digicomp. Attorney Barney stated that the SBA does not want to be put in a position where they are second or third position on the whole project, they want to be second or third position on the particular building they are putting their money into. Attorney Barney stated that the bank wants to put a mortgage on only what is being financed, not on the entire project. Attorney Barney stated that from the banks standpoint they want to foreclose only on the piece the loan is granted for. Board Member Kenerson asked how one could create a subdivision without many exceptions to the Codes. Mr. Kenerson stated that the backlot does not conform to anything. Mr. Kenerson asked if they wanted to create two lots or if they wanted to create four. Chairperson Smith stated that he assumes that two lots would be Phase I and Phase II, Lot C and everything else remains one lot. Attorney Barney stated that the backlot becomes legal when and if the Planning Board permits the subdivision and provides, as part of that subdivision, some sort of access. Attorney Barney stated that the bank is not going to take a mortgage on just the quadrant that Building C is on, • without some assurance that they can get to that property. Jagat Sharma stated that there could be a lot of cross easements from building to building for the purpose of access. Board Member Wilcox stated that he was not sure that easement were enough, the regulations say frontage on a public way. Chairperson Smith asked if the entrance that adjoins the NCR entrance would be built at the same time that building C was built. Chairperson Smith stated that the phase II mortgage line could be moved to include the proposed road, which provides access. Board Member Bell asked if the ownership of the road would be retained by Digicomp or if it could be given to the Town. Town Engineer Walker stated that he did not think that the Highway Superintendent would like that. Mr. Walker stated that this subdivision would be creating a non - conforming lot, building code requires that before a building permit can be issued that the lot have access to a public thoroughfare. Board Member Kenerson asked what was the significance of single ownership. Attorney Barney stated that the Board could limit the salability as a ®condition of the subdivision, but the problem is that the banks run the risk that if Digicomp is not able to make its payments, then it will go into independent ownership. Attorney Barney stated that it must be treated as though there would be ultimately the possibility of reclaiming ownership of the property. Planning Board Minutes 22 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 • Town Planner Kanter stated that one of the considerations is how to subdivide and guarantee that site plan develops as it was supposed to with all of the conditions, and how the phasing would work out. Town Attorney Barney stated that he does not see a requirement that in an Industrial Zone a lot has to be on a public road. Section 50 states that driveways and walkways shall provide safe access to traffic circulation within the site, the placement, size, and arrangement to public streets shall be subject to Building Code, Attorney Barney stated that the yard requirements are in Section 61 and 63, so he wants to research this further before stating positively what the requirements would be. Town Engineer Walker stated that he would have concerns about the subdivision lines as proposed break up the contiguous site plan that included drainage and parking, and he has not looked at it to be sure that each individual building has sufficient parking on the appropriate lot to meet the requirements for that use. Mr. Walker stated that he would want some reassurance that some site work for Phase II is done before Phase III, and stormwater and sewer has to be done first. Mr. Walker stated that the construction sequence doesn't create a problem that not having all of the needed infrastructure built. Board Member Wilcox stated that the new Building C would require stormwater and drainage, and by the time you get to building Bi and B2, the •applicant may have!, to take some of the drainage out in order to get the necessary flow. Town Engineer Walker stated that there was a condition in the site plan approval that prior to any construction of main buildings, the stormwater management and light site work is done before the Building Permit, Mr. Walker stated that he would have to check on that to be sure. Mr. Walker further stated that, all of the utility plans have to be approved before a Building Permit can be issued, which means the applicant may have to build infrastructure on the B Building site at the same time they are constructing Building C. Town Planner Kanter stated that about the only thing that would not have to be built right away is the parking and the drives for the building way in the back for the building that is not going to be built for 10 years or whatever, and perhaps some landscaping. Chairperson Smith asked if the Board was being premature by breaking the site into four lots instead of only two since there is a ten year time span. Board Member Wilcox asked if the bank asked that the site be broken into fours. Mr. Gupta stated that the bank does not care how many lots. Mr. Sharma stated that they broke the site down without compromising parking requirements. Planning Board Minutes 23 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Chairperson Smith stated that he would prefer to have only two lots instead of four lots. Chairperson Smith stated that Buildings C & D would be one lot, and Building A and the two B Buildings would be the second lot. Board Member Wilcox asked if Mr. Gupta thought that the bank would accept a two lot subdivision. Mr. Gupta stated that they would accept two lots. Town Planner Kanter stated that he thought that two lots are better than four, but if four would work, it is acceptable to him. Planner II, JoAnn Cornish stated that she felt that with four lots the Board would be creating a lot of complications and the issue of the infrastructure itself would become very cumbersome. Ms. Cornish stated that two is less complicated and if the applicant can stick to the approved site plan and stick to the legalities of it then it should not be a problem. Town Engineer Walker stated that one of the conditions he would recommend to the Board would be that if this is subdivided, the conditions of the site plan not change. Mr. Sharma agreed with Mr. Walker's statement. rAttorney Barney stated that two lots would allow for the proposal to move forward than four lots. The Board felt that two lots were preferable over four lots. Town Engineer Walker stated that the continuity of the site was a critical issue when it was reviewed. Town Planner Kanter stated that the use issue was addressed in the site plan, other than the day care. The Subdivision should have no bearing on the uses and should have absolutely no change on the approved site plan. Mr. Kanter stated that if it does, he would recommend not approving the subdivision. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Gupta and Mr. Sharma should set up a meeting with Mr. Walker, Mr. Kanter, and himself need to schedule a time to work out he language and possibly a site plan. Chairperson Smith declared the discussion of the Sketch Plan for the South Hill Complex duly closed at 9:46 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 20, 1995, be and hereby are approved with the following correction: Planning Board Minutes 24 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 That, on Page 36, Paragraph 1, Last Sentence, which read: "Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Board needs additional information for final." This was changed to read: "Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Board needs additional information for preliminary and final." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 27, 1995, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. • Abstain - Wilcox. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995, The Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of July 18, 1995 were not considered at this meeting due to insufficient time for adequate review by the Planning Board Members. OTHER BUSINESS. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the New York Planning Federation was holding a program for Planning and Zoning Board Members from October 15 - 18, 1995. Mr. Kanter stated that there was enough money in the budget to send one member of the Board if anyone were interested in attending to let him know within the next couple of weeks. Board Member Trumansburg Road violated the Town' for several hours was occurring at t James Ainslie stated that the had been taken down since he s sign law. Mr. Ainslie stated and then wheeled it back out of he church. sign at the church on had mentioned that it that they displayed it view for an event that Board Member Wilcox asked Attorney Barney for his comments on the Civil Service Forms that each member has been asked to complete and return to the Human Resource Specialist at Town Hall, Sherman DiSanto, Attorney Barney stated that he had not seen the form. C r� Planning Board Minutes 25 August 1, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 The Board discussed the Civil Service process with Attorney Barney. Attorney Barney requested that he receive a copy of the form that Mr. Wilcox had asked about. Chairperson Smith stated that it appears that the Town may have to request an extension for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which is due September 1, 1995, Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that it is not definite that the extension is necessary. -Mr. Kanter stated the Town is working with Ithacare on further analysis on Ms. Hoffmann's suggested alternate location and, in terms of the number of letters that need to be reviewed. Town Planner Kanter stated that he would like to have a Draft FEIS ready to distribute to the Board at the September 19, 1995, meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that the draft would be circulated well ahead of that meeting date to allow ample time for the Board to review the document. The Board discussed the issue of the extension among themselves and it was suggested by Attorney Barney that the extension be requested with a deadline of October 4, 1995 to be on the safe side. Attorney Barney stated that if absolutely necessary, the Board could make final alterations to the FEIS at the October 3, 1995, Planning Board meeting. There being no further business to discuss at Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon adjourned 8/11/95. MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the August at 10:28 p.m, this meeting, 1, 1995, duly Respectfully s bmitted, r Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Mary Bry nt, Administrative Secretary.