Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-08-15• • r. u • . .. FINA �� FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Cler AUGUST 15, 1995 e5 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 15, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, James Ainslie, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Wilcox, Scott Hamilton, Jamie & Bonnie Warren, Philip Winn, Larry Fabbroni, Clara Leonardo, Mr. Firenze, Mr. Leonardo. 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 August 7, 1995, and August 9, 1995, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice 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, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on August 10, 1995. (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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - JULY 18, 1995. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that there were only five Board Members currently present, and that he would not be voting on the minutes because he was not present at the July 18, 1995, meeting, which would mean that the minutes would not be approved. The Board decided to postpone any action on the minutes to see if additional Board Members arrived later in the meeting. Planning Board Minutes 2 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED RYDER TRUCK RENTAL AND STORAGE OPERATION AS AN ADJUNCT BUSINESS OF JUDD FALLS HARDWARE AT JUDD FALLS PLAZA, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF JUDD FALLS ROAD AND MITCHELL STREET ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOS. 62 -1 -11 62 -1 -2.2 AND 62- 1 -3.2, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C ". M. SUSAN AND SCOTT HAMILTON, OWNERS /APPLICANT, 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. Scott Hamilton of Judd Falls Plaza, addressed the Board and stated that since appearing before the Planning Board in July, the location of the designated parking spaces were changed, the pedestrian walkway was designated on the site plan, the plantings were brought in to act as a visual shield, and that a description of the signage was put on the final site plan. Mr. Hamilton stated that the sign has already been approved. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Board should notice that the designated parking spaces for the trucks have been • moved from what was discussed at the last meeting to an isle of spaces closer 'to the outside of the parking lot, instead of in the center isle. Mr. Kanter stated that is the location that the trucks have actually been stored, and that the location noted is appropriate. Mr. Kanter asked Mr. Hamilton if he had received the use variance needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hamilton stated that the variance was approved and that he is now asking for final approval of the site plan. 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 discussion. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ryder Truck rental and storage operation as an adjunct business of Judd Falls Hardware at Judd Falls Plaza located at the intersection of Judd Falls Road and Mitchell • Street on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 62 -1 -1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District C, M. Susan and Scott Hamilton, Owners /Applicant, and Planning Board Minutes 3 August 15, 1995 . Approved September 5, 1995 2, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 20, 1995, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval with conditions for the proposed site plan entitled "Alterations to Ide's Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza," dated May 9, 1995, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, 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, has, on June 20, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, at a Public Hearing held on July 12, 1995, has granted a use variance to, permit the above referenced truck rental service with conditions, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 15, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a site plan entitled "Alterations to Ide's Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza," dated May 9, 1995, and revised July 26, 1995, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: • 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the 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 Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan entitled "Alterations to Ide's Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza," dated May 9, 1995, and revised July 26, 1995, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, subject to the following conditions: a. No more than eight rental trucks shall be stored on the Ide's Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza site at any one time, including trucks that have been returned by renters after business hours and left overnight; b. That the one new truck space in the front parking area adjacent to Judd Falls Road designated as a truck return area be used only for the return of rental trucks, not for the storage of a truck for display or advertising purposes, that trucks not be parked in any other portion of this front parking lot along Judd Falls Road, and that trucks that are • returned to this front parking area be moved to the parking spaces in the rear of Ides Bowling Lanes as soon as practicable; Planning Board Minutes 4 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 c. Revision material of the site of the proposed plan sign to show the size, design and to be installed in conjunction with the proposed truck asked if the Board wished to consider rental the July use; and d. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Wilcox, Nay - None. Abstain - Cornell. The MOTION was declared Kenerson, Bell, to be carried. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated for clarification, that the provision on the sign is asking that Mr. Hamilton submit documentation showing what the face of the sign will look like. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would do that when he applied for • the sign permit. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ryder Truck rental and storage operation as an adjunct business of Judd Falls Hardware duly closed at 7:42 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995. There being time before the next scheduled Public Hearing, Chairperson Smith asked if the Board wished to consider approval of the July 18, 1995, Planning Board Minutes. Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Kenerson had moved the July 18, 1995 Minutes and that the motion was seconded by Mr. Ainslie. Chairperson Smith asked if there were any comments or corrections to the Minutes. Board Member James Ainslie stated that it was disturbing to have to read the Minutes because the inferences to the Assistant Town Planner, etc., were very disturbing to him. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. • Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. Abstain - Wilcox. Planning Board Minutes 5 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 The MOTION was declared to be carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1995. There was no action taken on the Planning Board Minutes of August 1, 1995, due to the lack of time for adequate review. The Minutes will be considered at the September 5, 1995, Planning Board Meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Town Attorney John Barney addressed the Board and stated that in working with the Ithacare EIS and the proposal, it is becoming apparent that even Ithacare is probably going to suggest a different location of the building than had been originally seen by the Town Board when the Town Board adopted the SLUD. Attorney Barney stated that, if nothing else, they are flipping the L- shaped part of the building from northerly to southerly. The Special Land Use District legislation that authorized it specifically provided that if there was going to be any "significant" change in the site plan, it was to be approved, not only by this Board, but, also by the Town Board. Attorney Barney stated that the legislation also provided that if there was a building that was going to be constructed different than what was shown on the schematic drawings that were originally presented to the Town Board, the proposal would need Town Board approval. Attorney Barney stated that the SLUD prohibits building the building differently. Ithacare will have to go back, probably to the Town Board, to have the SLUD amended to allow them to build something that is different. Attorney Barney stated that the question was how does that all interplay with the SEQR process because technically, the Planning Board did not name the Town Board as an involved agency because at the time it was originally before the Planning Board the. assumption was that the Board was reviewing only a site plan, and the Town Board would not see it again. Now it appears that the Town Board may, depending upon what this Board ultimately decides, but there is a very real possibility that they may see it again. SEQRA provides that if there is a possibility that an agency is going to have to take a discretionary act they should be considered as an involved agency. Attorney Barney stated that he did not think that the Town wanted to start the process all over again. Attorney Barney stated that the staff discussed the problem and made some calls to Albany and have concluded that probably the best way to do it is to request that the Town Board now take a look at the DEIS and give them an opportunity to comment on it, and in particular, the alternatives that would require the Town Board to take some action. Attorney Barney stated that the initial notice to require • an EIS would need to be amended to name the Town Board as an involved agency. Planning Board Minutes 6 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5,. 1995 Attorney Barney stated that the draft resolution is intended to get copies of the Draft EIS to Town Board Members individually, and receive comments from them by the September 19, 1995, Planning Board Meeting. Attorney Barney stated that at the same time, it requests the Town Board to concur with the Planning Board being the Lead Agency on this project. The benefit of this process is that if this matter does go back to the Town Board it will not require starting the SEQR procedures all over again because they will have had an opportunity to participate in construction of this EIS. The Town Board will have to make their own findings based on whatever the EIS determines, but it would not require starting over again. Attorney Barney stated that he requests that the resolution be considered, and perhaps adopted, at this meeting. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that by having the Town Board be an involved agency, if they look at Alternative B3 and the Modified Alternative B3 and decide that one of those or both are favorable, they would then submit comments to the Planning Board. Ms. Cornell asked what would happen next. Attorney Barney stated that they do not necessarily have to take a position with respect to the alternatives, but they do need to comment on whether enough information has been provided in the Draft EIS to evaluate appropriately all of the environmental impacts that might result from these changes in the site plan. Board Member Cornell asked if the SLUD will have to be revised. Attorney Barney responded that it depended on the result of what happens with this process, but that he would guess that the SLUD will have to be revised. Board Member Cornell asked how the SLUD would be revised. Attorney Barney stated that if this Board determines, for example, that Alternative B3 is the only option that the Board will approve, and Alternative 33 is possibly a significant enough variation in the site plan so that the Planning Board can approve that site plan, conditioned upon the Town Board modifying the SLUD to permit this Board to approve that plan. It would then go back to the Town Board and the Town Board would have to consider that action. Board Member Cornell stated that the last step after this Board gives conditional approval would be to amend the SLUD, and then the applicant could proceed. • Attorney Barney responded that was correct. Planning Board Minutes 7 August 15, 1995 0 Approved September 5, 1995 Chairperson Smith stated that there would have to be a Public Hearing to amend the SLUD. Attorney Barney stated that there would have to be a Public Hearing on amending the SLUD, but there would not have to be a new SEQR determination of environmental significance and the Town Board could rely on the EIS, which would be a Final EIS as prepared by this Board. Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board would have to make their own findings that relate to the particular matters they have considered. Board Member Cornell asked what would happen if the Board was not provided with enough information on a particular alternative. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board has to determine whether or not they feel that the EIS, in the final form, is what you want the document to be; whether it analyses all of the environmental impacts in the way you wanted to have them analyzed. If the Board determines that the answer to that is no, the Planning Board can do, or have done, additional analysis which are felt to be appropriate to make the document complete; or the Town can give the responsibility back to Ithacare. Attorney Barney stated that once the applicant has provided a draft, technically the final document is the Town's document and the responsibility for preparing the final document is the Planning Board's responsibility. Attorney Barney stated that if the Planning Board is unsatisfied with portions of the analysis in the EIS, the Board would have to make a determination of how to handle that problem. Board Member Cornell asked if the Board was interested in Alternative B3 or Alternative 33 Modified, were those alternatives covered in the scoping. Attorney Barney stated that is what the Board specified that they wanted to see, but you also specify generally, in fact the whole process is how the Board can mitigate a particular impact. And if this is the course of mitigating an impact of an alternative suggestion, one of the things the Board is supposed to do is take a look at alternatives and see what alternatives are practicable and what lesser effect, hopefully, they have on the various environmental aspects that are being considered. Attorney Barney stated that he did not feel that the scoping is a limitation in that respect. Board Member James Ainslie asked if changing the site plan would decrease the opposition to the project. Attorney Barney stated that he thought that the only way the opposition would be toned down would be to move the building down into the gully, and that would not be practicable. Attorney Barney Planning Board Minutes 8 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 stated that he did not know at what point the opposition would think it is cost effective to pursue it further. Attorney Barney stated that was irrelevant, and the issue is does the Planning Board feel that what is presented is an appropriate placement for this building to be located given all of the environmental considerations. Attorney Barney stated that the proposed resolution is an attempt to streamline the process, given the circumstances that exist. Attorney Barney stated that he could not find any law where you start out thinking that an agency is not an involved agency, and then in course of the environmental review discover that scenarios are being presented that will involve another agency. Attorney Barney stated that it is not an area that has been litigated. Board Member Cornell stated that she would make a motion on the proposed resolution, unless there was more discussion. Board Member Gregory Bell asked if the resolution would be acted on today. Town Attorney Barney stated that he would like to have the Board adopt the resolution at this meeting so that the Town Board • could review and comment in a timely manner. Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board had received the resolution only tonight, and he would like to have more time to read the resolution. Mr. Bell stated that it is true that the Final EIS is the Planning Board's document, and asked if it were customary that an applicant provide the professional consulting to do any revisions during this process. Attorney Barney stated that the Board is allowed under the SEQR process, to say to an applicant when you have made a determination that an EIS has to be prepared, that the Planning Board is not going to prepare it. If the applicant wants this process to move forward then the Draft EIS will be prepared by the applicant, if they chose not to prepare it, the process ends. Attorney Barney stated that was clear in the law. Attorney Barney stated what is less clear under the law is once the applicant has been told to prepare the EIS and it has been prepared and the Planning Board accepted it as complete, then is it the applicants responsibility to respond to the public comments and do the additional information? Attorney Barney stated that he has not researched that in any great detail, but it is not clear under the law. Town Planner Kanter stated that in practice, the Lead Agency • assembles as much information as needed, but the applicant is requested to provide details on contents. Planning Board Minutes 9 August 15, 1995 is Approved September 5, 1995 Board Member Bell asked if the Cornell Precinct 7 hearing process provided some instruction on this. Mr. Bell stated, certainly this Board did not prepare all of the revisions to the DEIS for the SLUD, it kept going .back to Cornell and their consultants. Attorney Barney stated t whether they would refuse Attorney Barney stated that with Ithacare, although he is more photographic analysis I process. hat it was never an issue with Cornell to provide requested information. he was not sure that it is an issue hearing some rumblings about how much thacare is willing to extend to the Board Member Bell 'stated that it makes sense that if the Board asks for photographic analysis to show what a new building has as an impact, Ithacare's consultants have the information on their computer all digitized, which would enable them to move information around easier than the Town could go find someone else to do the same thing. Attorney Barney is a bridge that the • hopefully we will not he is not saying that asked to. Attorney legal rights will be stated that logic would suggest th Town will have to cross when the have to do that. Attorney Barney Ithacare will not provide further Barney stated that if that point reviewed at that time, at, but that time comes, stated that analysis if arises the Town Planner Kanter asked if the Board felt it would help to suggest that Ithacare, at this point, provide a visual study as part of their analysis of the Modified B3 Alternative, Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if this matter could be tabled until later in the meeting because it was time for the next scheduled Public Hearing. Mr. Wilcox stated that would give members a chance to think about the resolution, which is what needs to be dealt with immediately, and then talk about other issues at their leisure. Attorney Barney stated that the resolution is independent of concerns Mr. Bell has brought up. Mr. Bell stated that the resolution is independent of his other concerns, but he was trying to lay out some ground work for the next few meetings. Attorney Barney stated that the resolution needed to be addressed so that the Draft EIS could be distributed to the members of the Town Board. The resolution creates a comment period for the • Town Board alone to respond to the DEIS over and above the public comment period. • C7 U Planning Board Minutes 10 1 August 15, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Chairperson Smith tabled the issue of the Ithacare proposal until later in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND /OR MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOS. 58- 2- 39.611 AND 58- 2- 39.612, A.K.A. 205 AND 207 WESTVIEW LANE WITHIN THE "GRANDVIEW SUBDIVISION ", FOR WHICH FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WERE GRANTED ON MARCH 4, 1986, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, RUFUS E. MILES, JR.; ELIZABETH KLAER MILES, OWNERS; PHILIP S. WINN, AGENT, Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:02 p.m, and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as Posted and Published and as noted above. Attorney Philip Winn addressed the Board and stated that he was representing Mr. and Mrs. Miles and Susan Merrill regarding the property at 205 and 207 Westview Lane. Mr. Winn stated that he is seeking whatever action is necessary and appropriate to authorize the Code Enforcement Officer, Andrew Frost, to issue a new Certificate of Compliance. In 1986, Ivar Jonson obtained subdivision approval, and the map as presented and approved showed all lots in the subdivision having frontage on a public road. There were certain provisions in that approval authorizing Mr. Jonson to alter the location of the lines between the dwellings on two lots, as long as the lot size was not changed by more than ten percent (100). On this particular lot, and at least four others, Mr. Jonson rotated the building so that one building had frontage on the public road and one dwelling did not and there was a right of way to the rear building for access. Mr. Winn stated that there are at least five dwellings like this. Mr. Winn stated that the Certificate of Compliance was issued for both of these dwellings in May of 1988, and Mr. Miles closed on this property in June of 1988. He subsequently sold the property a few months ago, a new survey showed an addition of a eight by ten foot storage shed and the attorney of the buyer asked if that was in compliance with the Town's laws. Mr. Winn stated that is why we are appearing before the Board at this meeting. 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 discussion. • • Planning Board Minutes 11 August 15, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Mr. Winn stated that the conditions in the resolution talk about adjusting the line, but the Board may not have thought about someone rotating the line 90 degrees. Mr. Winn stated that this property was the third lot to be sold with that adjustment of lot lines and Certificates, presumably, have been issued for all of the buildings up there. Mr. Winn stated that there are 10 properties in the same situation. Attorney Barney stated that the language "adjusting the lot lines" was because Mr. Jonson was building these duplexes and the party wall was going to be the boundary line between the two and what the Town did not want was to have the house misplaced by a foot, then a foot of a house would be across the line and belong to someone else. Attorney Barney stated that the idea of allowing an adjustment of the lines was to allow a very minor adjustment to accommodate a slight deviation in construction of the building during construction. Mr. Winn stated that the plan as originally presented in 1987 or 1988 did not comply with the subdivision map, but both dwellings had frontage on the road. Mr. Winn stated that the map as approved by this Board showed a line basically perpendicular to Westview Lane. The Building Permit application shows a line running on a 60 degree angle to the road, each lot had frontage. Then sometime during the course of construction, that was rotated to make the line parallel to the road. Board Member Wilcox stated that Mr. Winn represented Mr. Miles at the closing in 1988, and asked him if he had knowledge of whether Ivar Jonson turned the building around or whether Mr. Miles and Ms. Miles asked that the building be turned. Mr. Winn stated that the house was completed at the time of closing, the only thing that was not completed at that time was the eight foot by ten foot storage shed, which is attached to the rear of the building without a separate entrance. Mr. Winn stated that there was another question raised as to whether that was the rear of the building or the side of the building. Board Member Wilcox stated that was a house without road frontage.. Mr. Winn stated that is not uncommon, and that he did not think it was required that a house have road frontage. Mr. Winn stated that Town Law talks about a building having frontage on the road. Mr. Winn stated that the building, housing two dwellings, does have frontage on the road. C • Planning Board Minutes 12 August 15, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Board Member Wilcox stated th submitted with Part I of the Short the applicant submits that Section should have access to streets, creative interpretation of Section Mr. Winn talking about M is clearly one stated that an at in the applicant's comments Environmental Assessment Form, 28 requires that any building Mr. Wilcox stated that was a 28. stated that he did not think so, Section 28 was building and a structure, not a dwelling, and this structure with a party wall between them. Mr. Winn apartment complex is similar. Attorney Barney stated that in an apartment complex a fire wall is not a fire - proof, separating factor of the building. Attorney Barney stated that the nature of the wall that separates the two dwellings when there is separate ownership. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the problem is that there is a total of 7 of these A -B lots in the development where the line was rotated from 45 degrees on one lot to 90 degrees on the other six lots. Mr. Frantz stated that the homes are there. Mr. Frantz stated that in two of the cases, both lots do have road frontage, so there is a total of this lot plus four others that need to be considered. Mr. Frantz stated that this is the only lot being considered tonight. Chairperson Smith asked if the lot line was the official separation of these parcels. Attorney Barney stated that the Board approved subdivision of the lots to the extent of allowing two dwelling units to be constructed on a lot and the lot line to be the division between the two dwellings. Attorney Barney stated, what is not explicit is that when the Board did that it was operating off a subdivision map that shows the lot lines perpendicular to the road, and what the Board never contemplated was someone taking and inverting the lines 90 degrees. Apparently the culprit here has already sold out and there is not a way to reach him, and we have to separate the relatively innocent parties that have got houses now that do not comply with the subdivision approval. Chairperson Smith asked if the best way to solve this problem would be to grant easements or to create flag lots. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that 207 Westview Lane, the backlot, already has an easement. Mr. Winn stated that each of the lots have a 15 -foot easement to provide access to the rear dwellings. i Planning Board Minutes 13 August 15, 1995 ® Approved September 5, 1995 Board Member Bell asked why staff had given a Building Permit to these lots. Attorney Barney stated that at the time this occurred, the Zoning Officer was a relatively inexperienced, new employee, who played a dual role, and at that time enforcing the Building Codes was a greater emphasis than issuance of Building Permits. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the condition read that total square footage between each Lot A shall not vary by more than ten percent of the area of the related Lot B. Mr. Frantz stated that the subdivision plat meets that condition. Mr. Frantz stated that the problem was that there was no anticipation 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a whatsoever of the lot line being rotated the proposed site plan; by 90 degrees. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Stephen Smith: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Modification of ® Subdivision Approval and Modification of Site Plan Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 58- 2- 39.611 and 58-2 - 39.612, a.k.a. 205 and 207 Westview Lane within the "Grandview Subdivision ", for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted March 4, 1986, Residence District R -15. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Elizabeth K. Miles, Owners; Philip S. Winn, Agent, 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, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on August 15, 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 survey entitled "Map of Survey Lots 43 -A and 43 -B, Grandview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S. and dated May 30, 1995, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan; 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Planning Board Minutes 14 August 15, 1995 is Approved September 5, 1995 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 Bell asked if 205 Westview Lane burned to the ground, and the owner decided not to rebuild, would that make 207 Westview Lane an illegal lot? Attorney Barney stated that the Board is making both lots legal now. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. • MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie: 1. This action is the Consideration Subdivision Approval and Modification of Modification of of Site Plan Approval for Town of 39,612, a . k . a Subdivision ", March 4, 1986, Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 58- 2- 39.611 . 205 and 207 Westview Lane within the for which Final Subdivision Approval Residence District R -15, Rufus E. and 58 -2- "Grandview was granted Miles, Jr., Elizabeth K. Miles, Owners; Philip S. Winn, Agent, and 2 The Planning Board in granting Final Subdivision Approval on March 4, 1986, allowed the Applicant to vary the location of the boundary line on those lots bearing the letters A or B provided that the total square footage between each Lot A shall not vary by more than 100 of the area of the related Lot B, and 3. There is no indication on the subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board on March 4, 1986 that the above - referenced boundary line was to be rotated 90 +/- degrees from the orientation shown on the plat as approved, and 41 The Planning Board in granting March 4, 1986, imposed cert including the requirement that S from the Planning Board for any dwelling unit, and Final Subdivision Approval on ain conditions of approval, Site Plan Approval be obtain change to the exterior of any Planning Board Minutes 15 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 5. Evidence indicates that, sometime between May 4, 1988 and May 24, 1988, during the construction of 207 Westview Lane, an addition measuring 8 feet by 10 feet was constructed on the exterior of the dwelling without Site Plan Approval, and 6. A Certificate of Compliance for 207 Westview Lane was issued by the Assistant Building Inspector on May 24, 1988, and 7. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 15, 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 survey entitled "Map of Survey Lots 43 -A and 43 -B, Grandview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S, Russler, Jr,, L . S . and dated May 30, 1995, and other application materials, and 8. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review has, on August 15, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance. is 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, and ' 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Approval for the proposed Modification of Subdivision Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 58- 2- 39.611 and 58-2 - 39.612, a.k.a. 205 and 207 Westview Lane within the "Grandview Subdivision ", for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted March 4, 1986, as shown on the survey entitled "Map of Survey Lots 43 -A and 43 -B, Grandview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S. and dated May 30, 1995, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of the required Surveyor's Certificate signed and sealed by the applicant's surveyor prior to signing of the approved plat by the Planning Board Chair; b, submission of the original or mylar copy, and four (4) copies of the plat to be signed by the Planning Board . Chair prior to filing in the County Clerk's Office. Planning Board Minutes 16 August 15, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 AND BE IT FURTHER 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 grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the addition measuring 8 feet by 10 feet constructed on the exterior of the dwelling at 207 Westview Lane, as shown on the survey entitled "Map of Survey Lots 43 -A and 43 -B, Grandview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S. and dated May 30, 1995, Board Member Bell asked what was being waived as shown in the resolution which reads: "The Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist..."? Attorney Barney stated that the statement means that the Board is waiving the requirement for receipt of documents that may not necessarily assist in the decision making process. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Modification of Subdivision Approval and /or Modification of Site Plan Approval for 205 and 207 Westview Lane duly closed at 8:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED "REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAN, LEONARDO LAND ", PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE LOT LINES OF LOTS NO, 21 31 41 51 AND 6, A.K.A. TAX PARCEL NOS. 37 -1 -20.3, -20.41 -20.5, AND -20.61 FOR WHICH FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 16, 1978; MODIFICATIONS TO THE LOT LINES OF LOT NO, 10, A.K.A. TAX PARCEL NO, 37 -1- 20.10, FOR WHICH FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WAS GRANTED ON JUNE 6, 1978; MODIFICATIONS TO THE LOT LINES OF LOT NO, 9, A.K.A. TAX PARCEL NO. • 37 -1- 20.12, FOR WHICH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WAS GRANTED ON MAY 16, 1978; MODIFICATION OF THE EASTERLY LOT LINE OF TAX PARCEL NO. 37 -1 -20.2 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING LAND TO LOT NOS. 41 • • • Planning Board Minutes 17 Approved September 5, 1995 August 15, 1995 5, AND 6; AND SUBDIVISION OF TAX PARCEL NO, 37 -1- 20.11, 1132 DANBY ROAD, INTO TWO LOTS, TOGETHER WITH MODIFICATION TO THE ALIGNMENTS OF SESAME STREET, AN EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD, AND ALLISON STREET, A PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD SHOWN ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 16, 1978, AND FURTHER, CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 37 -1 -20.8, A.K.A. LOTS NO. 7 AND 8 ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED PLAT, ALL OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES COMPRISING ±23.8 ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD AT SESAME STREET, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. CLARA LEONARDO, RICHARD M. AND MAR LEE PARK, CHARLES W. AND SANDRA J. FIRENZE, AND JOSEPH M. AND MARLEA ANNE LEONARDO, OWNERS; LAWRENCE P. FABBRONI, P.E., L.S., AGENT, Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:35 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Larry Fabbroni addressed the Board and stated that since this proposal appeared before the Board, Town Engineer Daniel Walker and Town Highway Superintendent Fred Noteboom visited the site and looked at the layout. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they had discussed the issue of the radius of the cul -de -sac at the end of the street. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Mr. Noteboom conducted an in -field trial with his largest truck and wing plow and determined that they need a minimum of 96 feet 7 inches to turn the trucks around. Mr. Fabbroni stated that after determining that number, Mr. Walker requested that the diameter of the turnaround be 110 feet, which is what is now shown on the plat. Mr. Fabbroni stated that in addition, they viewed the existing culvert that makes an entrance to what will be Allison Drive, and both Fred and Dan requested that the 20 foot section be replaced, as well as an additional 60 feet that is proposed. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the culvert would be a total of 80 feet long. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they are requesting that the Planning Board remove the restrictions on Lot 4 and Lot 11 so that Mrs. Leonardo could sell those lots to fund the completion of Allison Drive and the realignment of Sesame Street to Town specifications. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there are minor changes in the profiles of the lots in order to make the change to the diameter of the cul -de -sac. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there is existing water and sewer that serves the existing lots and would serve the reconfigured subdivision as well. Chairperson Smith asked if Allison Drive would be paved. Planning Board Minutes 18 August 15, 1995 0 Approved September 5, 1995 Mr. Fabbroni stated that there is a Lot 7, Mr. Fabbroni stated that the re stop them from getting a permit for completed; which is fine. Mr. Fabbroni for some relief on the restrictions on lots have frontage on existing streets, house currently located on solution as proposed would Lot 8 until the road is stated that the are asking Lots 4 and 11, since both as mentioned above. 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 discussion. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Fabbroni if he would like to have the resolution would make sense to put the modified so that Lot 4 would Allison be excluded it from condition 4b of the resolution. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they wanted Lots. 4 and 11 to be excluded from the restriction of condition 4b of the proposed resolution so that Mrs. Leonardo would be able to obtain Building Permits for those lots if they are sold before the roads are completed. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a house on Lot 11 currently. Mr. Fabbroni responded that there was not a building on that lot. Chairperson Smith asked if a structure was built on Lot 11 would the access be to the cul -de -sac on Allison Drive, Mr. Fabbroni stated that was correct. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it has legal frontage on Danby Road, which is the reason he is requesting the exemption on Lot 11, Board Member Wilcox stated that it would make sense to put the driveway in from Allison Drive when it is built. Mr. Fabbroni stated that is how Lot 10 and Lot 7 have their driveways. Board Member Bell asked if the house on Lot 11 would face Danby Road or Allison Drive, Town Engineer Walker stated that Allison Drive exists as a driveway, and Lot 7, which technically has access on Danby Road, but the actual physical access to the site is on the driveway that goes to Allison Drive. Mr. Walker stated that there is a mutual understanding that allows the use of that driveway. Mr. Walker S stated that he would assume there would be a similar arrangement made with Lot 11 until the roads are completed. Planning Board Minutes 19 August 15, 1995 0 Approved September 5, 1995 Chairperson Smith asked Town Planner Jonathan Kanter if he had any concerns with lifting for Lot the restrictions on Lot 11 and Lot 41 Town Planner Kanter stated that the Board may want to add something to the resolution that indicates that the driveway from 11 will connect to Allison Drive upon completion of the roadway. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board may want to add the driveway to Allison that says access for Lot Drive for Lot 8 as well. when the Attorney Barney asked if the applicants would have a problem with a condition that says access for Lot 11 and Lot 8 be to Allison Drive and not to Danby all Road when the lots are constructed. Mr. Fabbroni responded that he did not think the applicants have a problem with that. Chairperson Smith asked if Lot 4 has sufficient buildable area. Town Engineer Walker stated that Lot 4 has sufficient buildable area, the only thing Lot 4 will not technically have ® until the subdivision is complete is 100 -foot frontage on a road, but it will have access to the existing Sesame Street. Mr. Walker stated that at the last Town Board meeting the Town Board accepted the location of the proposed Allison Drive and the relocation of Sesame Street and has agreed to proceed with the abandonment of a small portion of Sesame Street that will be consolidated with Lot 3 and the remaining Leonardo Lands, Chairperson Smith. asked if the Town Board's acceptance of the relocation extends the road all the way to the back of Lot 4. Town Engineer Walker responded, yes. Mr. Walker stated that the road is not owned by the Town until the improvements are completed and it is conveyed. Board Member Bell stated that the Board had not mentioned the turning radius of the cul -de -sac, and asked if the proposed was acceptable to Mr. Walker, Town Engineer Walker stated that the Highway Superintendent, Mr. Fabbroni and himself had walked the site, and tested the minimum radius needed to turn the Town's largest truck around, and the cul -de -sac is adequate for the Town's needs. Mr. Walker stated that the Town Board has already accepted the configurations for the roads and cul -de -sac. 9 There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. I I Planning Board Minutes 20 Approved September 5, 1995 August 15, 1995 MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Candace Cornell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed "Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo Land ", proposed to consist of modifications to the lot lines of Lots No. 2,3,4,5 and 6, a.k.a. Tax Parcel Nos. 37 -1 -20.3, -20.41 - 20.51 -20.6, and -20.7, for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 16, 1978; modifications to the lot lines of Lot No. 10, a.k.a Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.10, for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted on June 6, 1978; modifications to the lot lines of Lot No. 9, a.k.a Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.12, for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted on May 16, 1978; modification of the easterly lot line of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.2 for the purpose of adding land to Lot Nos, 4, 5, and 6; and subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.11, 1132 Danby Road, into two lots, together with modifications to the alignments of Sesame Street, an existing public road, and Allison Drive, a proposed public road shown on the subdivision plat approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 16, 1978, and further, consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -20.8, a.k.a Lots No. 7 and 8 on the above referenced plat, said properties comprising +/- 23.8 acres total, located on the West side of Danby Road at Sesame Street, Residence District R -151 Clara Leonardo, Richard M. and Mary Lee Park, Charles W. and Sandra J. Firenze, and Joseph M. and Marlea Anne Leonardo, Owners; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. 2, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 1995, granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval with conditions for the proposed plat entitled " Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo Lands, dated December 9, 1994, 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 April 4, 19951 made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 4. The Town Board, on August of the relocated portion Allison Drive, and the lc utilities as shown on the lands, dated December 9, 71 1995, has approved the locations of Sesame street, the location of cation of the proposed drainage and "Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo 1994 and revised June 30, 1995, and Planning Board Minutes 21 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 5, The Town Board, on August 7, 1995, has agreed to proceed with the abandonment of a portion of Sesame Street as shown on the aforementioned plat, and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 15, 1995, has reviewed and accepted a subdivision plat entitled "Revised Subdivision Plat Leonardo Lands, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, L.S., P.E., dated December 9, 1994 and revised June 30, 1995, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives the requirement for dedication of land for public park and open space purposes, for the above referenced action, 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, and with the knowledge that the applicant proposes to include a dedication of 2.4 to 2.5 acres of public park and open space purposes, as shown on the sketch plats entitled "Future Layout 1, Leonardo Lands" and "Future.Layout • 2, Leonardo Lands" dated February 6, 1995 respectively, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed modifications to the lot lines of Lots No. 2,3,4,5,6,9, and 10, a.k.a. Tax Parcel Nos. 37 20.3, -20.41 -20.5, -20.61 -20.71 - 20.12, and - 20.10; modifications of the easterly lot line of Tax Parcel No. 37 20.2 for the purpose of adding land to Lot Nos. 4, 5, and and modifications to the alignments of Sesame Street -1- -1- 6; and Allison Drive as shown on the plat entitled "Revised Subdivision Tompkins, Fabbroni, June 30, Plat, Leonardo Lands, Town of State of New York," prepared L.S., P.E. and dated December 9, 1995, and further Ithaca, County by Lawrence 1994, and revised of P. 3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.11, 1132 Danby Road, into Lots No. 11 and 12, and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -20.8, a.k.a Lots No. 7 and 8 as shown on the above referenced plat entitled "Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo Lands, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, L.S., P.E. and dated December 9, 1994 and revised June 30, 1995, and further • 4. That the Final Subdivision Approvals herein granted are conditioned on the following: Planning Board Minutes 22 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 Attorney Barney suggested the following revisions to the proposed resolution: Condition 4a read as follows: "prior to construction of improvements, detailed construction plans, specifications, and estimated costs, in accordance with the Final Subdivision Plat Requirements checklist, Improvements Plans and Related Information, shall be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent prior to the issuance of any Building Permits, and" Condition 4b read as follows: "completion of the roads and other public improvements and acceptance of all proposed dedications by the Town Board, as shown on the plat, prior to issuance of any additional building permits, except building permits may be issued for Lots 4 and 11 prior to such completion, and A new Condition 4c be added to the resolution to read as follows: "the driveways providing access to any buildings constructed on Lots 8 and 11 be connected to Allison Drive rather than • Danby Road." The modifications to the resolution were accepted by Chairperson Smith, who made the MOTION; and Board Member Cornell, who seconded the MOTION. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared the be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Final Subdivision Approval of the Leonardo Lands duly closed at 8:58 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Smith announced that he had received correspondence from Tompkins County asking the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to appoint one of its members to serve on the newly established County Planning Federation. • Planning Board Minutes 23 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she was a member of a steering committee that was formed to try to figure out how to make the County Planning Board a more effective Board, and the recommendation was to re- establish the County Planning Board into a County Planning Federation and a Technical Advisory Group, Chairperson Smith stated that Ms. Cornell was interested in being appointed to the County Planning Federation. -Board Member James Ainslie stated that Ms. Cornell would make a good candidate. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the County would be involved with the training of local Zoning Board of Appeal members and Planning Board Members, Mr. Kanter stated that they could put out newsletters and that they would serve as a community advisory and educational group. Mr. Kanter stated that the Federation intended this to be a broad -based group. Chairperson Smith stated that the request is for the Town of Ithaca to appoint someone to the County Planning Federation, and that Ms. Cornell expressed an interest in being appointed. Chairperson Smith made a MOTION that Board Member Candace Cornell be appointed to the County Planning Federation as a representative of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The MOTION was seconded by Board Member Gregory Bell. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Kenerson, Ainslie, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith asked that the Board return to the discussion of the draft resolution to bring the Town Board into the process as an Interested Agency regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Ithacare facility. Board Member James Ainslie asked what this resolution does to the timing of the project. Attorney Barney stated that the resolution is an effort to avoid a second SEQR process at the Town Board level which could stretch the process out an additional 6 months or more. • Planning Board Minutes 24 August 15, 1995 0 Approved September 5, 1995 Board Member Wilcox asked if the Planning Board was giving the Town Board any of the Planning Board's authority. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Town Board was willing to give the Planning Board the power to do the site plan review and act as Lead Agency. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board was asking the Town Board to defer to the decisions that will be made by this Board. Town Planner Kanter stated that he did not want to imply that the Town Board was "omitted" from the process, because they have not been, they have been listed on all notifications, through the Town Supervisor, and have received a copy of the DEIS, through the Supervisor. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town board has not considered themselves an involved agency or done anything formally up to this point to be involved in the process. Mr. Kanter stated that this resolution, is in anticipation that there may be some action taken by the Town Board in the future. Board Member Bell stated that he had a couple of concerns about the language in the resolution. Mr. Bell stated that in the fifth paragraph, it says that provisions of SLUD 7 provided that no building was to be erected in excess of 34 feet in height. Mr. Bell stated that he recalled from reviewing the topo lines that there was a drop of approximately 24 feet in the land from one end of the building to the other end. If you add two or more stories to the top of that, it would certainly be in excess of 34 feet, as they are proposing it. Attorney Barney stated that they put an absolute limit on a building of 34 feet in height except a particular building, and that is the building that is shown on the site plan that the Town Board had at that time. That building can and does exceed 34 feet in height, this synopsizes the fact that the prohibition of constructing any building in excess of 34 feet in height except a building in accordance with certain schematic sections and elevations referred to in the SLUD. Board Member Bell stated that the seventh paragraph, which says "the alternative of the building be suggested by the applicant may constitute a significant revision to the preliminary site plan..." is of concern to him, because it seems to exclude further proposals. Mr. Bell stated that it refers to only proposals being evaluated, which closes the door to proposals that the Board has not seen yet. • Planning Board Minutes 25 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 Attorney Barney suggested the following revision to the seventh paragraph as follows: "WHEREAS, the alternate locations of the building presently being evaluated by the applicant, or which may be evaluated in the future, may constitute a significant revision to the preliminary site plan and /or may result in construction different than the elevations and plans denominated "Schematic Sections and Elevations" (Drawing LS -3) made by L. Robert Kimball Associates, dated December 10, 1993; and" There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Candace Cornell: WHEREAS, Ithacare Center applied for and was granted a rezoning of certain property in the Town of Ithaca to a Special Land Use District No. 7 for the construction of the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community; and WHEREAS, the matter was then referred to the Planning Board • for consideration of whether to approve the proposed site plan; and WHEREAS, as a result of court proceedings and other actions a determination was made that a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community; and WHEREAS, in the course of the preparation of the DEIS alternative proposed locations for the building are being evaluated in an effort to mitigate the impact of the building upon views in the area; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the zoning ordinance creating Special Land Use District No. 7 provided that no building was to be erected in excess of 34 feet in height except a building in accordance with certain schematic sections and elevations referred to in the Special Land Use District; and WHEREAS, the local law creating this Special Land Use District also provided that there would be no significant revisions to the preliminary site plan dated October 4, 1993 without the approval of the Town Board prior to the issuance of any building permits; and is Planning Board Minutes 26 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 WHEREAS, the alternate locations of the being evaluated by the applicant, or which may future, may constitute a significant revision site plan and /or may result in construction elevations and plans denominated "Schema Elevations" (Drawing LS -3) made by L. Robert dated December 10, 1993; and building presently be evaluated in the to the preliminary different than the Ltic Sections and Kimball Associates, WHEREAS, when the initial determination of environmental significance was made it was understood that the Town Board would not be taking any further action and therefore would not need to be an involved agency under the SEQR requirements; and WHEREAS, it now appears that there is a possibility the applicant may return to the Town Board for either approval of a revised site plan or modification to permit construction in a, manner different than shown on the above referenced Schematic Sections and Elevations; and WHEREAS, as a result, the Town Board may be required to take further action with respect to the Ithacare Center proposal; and • WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor was listed with other agencies and received all notices related to the DEIS and a copy of the DEIS was supplied to him; and WHEREAS, it seems appropriate in light of the foregoing circumstances to formally refer the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that has been submitted by Ithacare to the Town Board for comment so that the Planning Board, in preparing the final Environmental Impact Statement would have the benefit of the comments of the Town Board relative to the environmental analysis related to the proposed alternatives upon which the Town Board may be requested to act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board amend its notice of intent to prepare a draft DEIS to include the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as another involved agency; and be it further RESOLVED, that copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement be forwarded to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for review by members of the Town Board; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board be requested to concur in the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency with respect to this matter; and be it further Planning Board Minutes 27 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 RESOLVED, that in an effort to provide as complete an analysis as possible relative, in particular, to the particular actions that the Town Board may be requested to take if an alternative location of the buildings is recommended, that the Town Board provide any comments it might have relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Planning Board no later than September 12, 1995; and be it further RESOLVED, that applicant to Environmental opportunity fc comment on the the Planning Board solicit the consent of the the extension of time to prepare a final Impact Statement, in part, so as to provide an )r the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Town Planner Kanter stated that while speaking earlier in the • meeting, one of the concerns was about the analysis of alternative building configurations and locations, and asked if there was any further discussion among the Board members. Chairperson Smith asked if it was appropriate for the Planning Board to discuss the Modified B3 alternative suggestion without seeing what the applicant has to present. Board Member Cornell stated that it would save some time if the Planning Board could say what they would like to see from the applicant. Town Planner Kanter stated that if there were strong feelings, as a Board, about what information they would like to see, it might be appropriate to voice that before the evaluation of Modified Alternative B3 is complete. Chairperson Smith stated that a mock up on some of the existing photos of the elevation of the blockage with the new alignment of the new location might be possible. Attorney Barney stated that the issue, from Ithacare's standpoint, is that they are saying that if they are required to move the building further it will create impossible conditions to meet financially. Attorney Barney stated that if they move the • building further down the hill, the septic system would have to be pumped up the hill for the entire structure. Attorney Barney stated that, plus some other considerations, makes it financially Planning Board Minutes 28 August 15, 1995 SApproved September 5, 1995 and operationally unfeasible as far as Ithacare is concerned. Attorney Barney stated that the alternative might show more of the view, but it does not matter because Ithacare does not believe that Modified B3 is a reasonable alternative, and they are prepared to justify that. Chairperson Smith indicated that, to state that position, Ithacare will have to present cost estimates, not just tell the Board that it is too expensive, but show the Board how much more expensive. Attorney Barney stated that if the done, then it has to be justified with Barney stated that Mr. Kanter felt that it being given up so that one could ba- improvements that result from that versus detrimental aspects of it. visual studies are not great detail. Attorney is useful to see what is Lance the environmental the costs and all other Board Member Cornell asked if Attorney Barney was stating that Alternative B3 is not feasible. Attorney Barney responded that Ithacare is saying that Modified Alternative B3, that was suggested by Board Member Eva Hoffmann, is not feasible for them to build. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that another issue that would need to be addressed with the Modified Alternative B3 is the environmental impacts of the additional grading and filling, and of course, the fact that it would be infringing upon the woodland area as opposed to the wetland area. Mr. Frantz stated that the Planning Board may not want to pursue that alternative because of particular environmental impacts. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he had spoken with Mark Macera, Executive Director at Ithacare, extensively about what kind of visual study could be done. Mr. Kanter stated that he had indicated to Mr. Macera that it would not necessarily have to be of the same full technical scope as the other photographic displays in the DEIS. Mr. Kanter stated that an estimated outline of where the line of the building would be, would not be very. expensive or time consuming to do, although it would not have the same exact surveyed information. Mr. Kanter stated he was not sure, given the quest ionabi1ity'of whether this alternative is feasible, whether it warrants as extensive an analysis, but certainly it would not be unreasonable to "do some kind of informational visual analysis. Board Member Cornell stated that the view analysis needs to be • superimposable on the existing photo boards for comparison purposes. Ms. Cornell asked why they could not move the building down and make an educated guess. Ms. Cornell stated that she would Planning Board Minutes 29 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 like to see that for Alternate B3 and the Modified Alternate B3, Ms. Cornell stated that she would like to see for the Alternate B3, where it would be located on the slopes, what the slopes are, and what the soils are. Ms. Cornell stated that she would like to see the same for the Modified Alternative B3 as well. Board Member Bell stated that the sewer issue has been mentioned, but the Board had not�seen much on the sewers. Mr .Bell stated that if that is the concern for them, he would like to see a map showing where the sewer lines would go. Mr. Bell stated maybe there is another alternative other than pumping straight up to Route 96, Assistant Town Planner discussed and this would mean sewer line. Mr. Frantz stated be disrupting the whole area stated, what he is hearing is Board's concerns in writing. Frantz stated that it has been several thousand feet of additional that the additional sewer line would to have it installed. Mr. Frantz that Ithacare needs to justify the Town Planner Kanter stated that Ithacare will be providing that information on the sewer lines, location, and cost. Mr. • Kanter stated that the question is what if any visual information should go along with that. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Board needed to be clear what is wanted to see on the Modified B3 Alternative from Ithacare, so that there would be no confusion about this later. Chairperson Smith stated that he did not expect that the Planning Board would expect the same detail as was provided on the photo boards. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that it could be just a cardboard silhouette of the building and stick it on one of the photos with an educated guess of where it would be, but she does want to see the footprint on the topo map. Attorney Barney stated that Ithacare is a little leery of educated guesses, because he thinks that is kind of what drew them into this lawsuit. Attorney Barney stated that they made some statements based upon what they understood, probably without completely scientific data and backup for it, so they are a little leery now of saying this will be the way it is. Attorney Barney stated that if they get into it, they want to get into it with enough depth that they can be fairly comfortable with what they are representing. • Board Member Cornell stated that she would like to see the footprint on the topo map with all the features for the Modified Alternative B3, at a minimum. • • Planning Board Minutes 30 August 15, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the topo map may be enough to convince the Board that a visual analysis may not be necessary. Chairperson Smith stated that it would be good to know the height of the final building in that location. Board Member Wilcox stated that he would like to see a topo for B3, B3 Modified, and make a judgement of how far the building goes down. The Board can approximate, even if Ithacare is not willing-to approximate. Board Member Cornell stated that she spoke with Tom Niederkorn and he thought that the building could be situated where there would be no other environmental impacts, except for the slopes. Ms. Cornell stated that she did not know for sure from conversations, she would need to see it on paper. Ms. Cornell stated that the Board needs to see figures in writing. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board reached a consensus that they need to document why Modified Alternative B3 is not feasible, and the Board would like to see the footprint on the topo map or the features map, and would like to know what the maximum elevation of the building would be for the Modified Alternative B3. Board Member Cornell asked if the staff could do an educated guess on what the impact to the view would be. Town Planner Kanter stated that if the Board is not going to ask for a visual study from the applicant, then why have the staff do one. Mr. Kanter stated if the Board is going to for ask a visual study, then ask for one. Board Member Cornell stated that she wanted to see the footprint on a features map and if it looks like it could be feasible, then she is going to want to see a visual study. Town Planner Kanter stated that the staff could do as Ms. Cornell asked, the staff certainly has the technical expertise on this matter, but the point is, if the Board wants to see it then ask Ithacare to do it because it is part of the EIS process; creating responses to questions raised by Board Members. Mr. Kanter stated if the Board does not feel, as a unified Board, that is what is wanted, tell staff that and they will not request it to be done. Planning Board Minutes 31 August 15, 1995 Approved September 5, 1995 Town Planner Kanter suggested that Ithacare could be scheduled for the September 5, 1995, Planning Board meeting, and request that they prepare a building footprint on a topo site map, and indicate the building heights, and.present that information to the Board. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board could then tell Ithacare what additional information they would like to see. Board Member Bell stated that he would like to have Ithacare bring cross - section drawings of the Modified Alternative B3 to compare those drawings with the existing drawings in the DEIS. Mr. Bell stated that he wanted to see the section of the building with the person standing next to it. Mr. Bell stated that he would like to see a plan showing the whole viewshed. The Board agreed to ask that Ithacare bring a topographic site map showing the footprint of the Modifiend Alternative B3, a cross - section drawing as described by Mr. Bell, and a viewshed analysis map to the September 5, 1995, meeting. Board Member Ainslie stated that there are so many people that wish for this sort of facility and see the benefits for the elder people. Board Member Bell stated that he really believed that there has been an orchestrated campaign of distortion being done by the Ithacare management, manipulating the whole feeling that people have about senior citizens. Mr. Bell stated that he did not think there was any question that they will provide a good service, but they are trotting this endless list of people in front of the Board, sending all of this information, and giving this heart -throb thing and we (the Board) are supposed to fall down and play dead and not do our job. Mr. Bell stated that he thinks they (Ithacare management) have manipulated the whole process. Mr. Bell stated that there are ways to solve this problem, to solve all of these needs, and they are blocking this from happening by forcing the Board to look at things that have first, been false, and then been inflexible after the falseness. Mr. Bell stated that he does not think that the process has been proceeding in an honest manner from Ithacare's perspective at all. Board Member Ainslie stated that he thinks there is more background than Mr. Bell gives Ithacare credit for. Board Member Cornell stated that she thinks that Ithacare is doing what any well thought out developer does in trying to get a project in the community. Ms. Cornell stated that if you were opposed to a project, you would do the same thing; they are playing • the same game. Ms. Cornell stated that has nothing to do with her decision making. Ms. Cornell stated that she is looking strictly at the data that is being received. Planning Board Minutes 32 August 15, 1995 • Approved September 5, 1995 Board presented Member Ainslie stated that he thinks that Ithacare a reasonable site plan does not get into the does not think the Ainslie stated that the other side that building is there, e on a reasonable piece of ground, wetlands. Mr. Ainslie stated that view of the lake is being obstructed, he thinks there has been misrepresentations has the he Mr. on says you drive down Route 96 and because that you can not see the lake. Town Planner Kanter stated that Ithacare will be tentatively scheduled for the September 5, 1995, meeting. There being no further business to be discussed at this meeting, Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the August 15, 1995, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:48 p.m. a 8/18/95. • Respectful submitted, �Jku Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Mary Brant, Administrative Secretary. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD • NOTICE OF PUBLIC.HEARINGS Tuesday, August 15, 1995 0 U By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, August 15, 1995, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ryder Truck rental and storage operation as an adjunct business of Judd Falls Hardware at Judd Falls Plaza, located at the intersection of Judd Falls Road and Mitchell Street on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 62 -1 -1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District "C". M. Susan and Scott Hamilton, Owners /Applicant. 8:00 P.M. 8:30 P.M. Consideration of Modification of Subdivision Approval and /or Modification of Site Plan Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 58 -2- 39.611 and 58 -2- 39.612, a.k.a. 205 and 207 Westview Lane within the "Grandview Subdivision ", for which Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval were granted on March 4, 1986, Residence District R -15. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Elizabeth Klaer Miles, Owners, Philip S. Winn, Agent. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed "Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo Lands ", proposed to consist of modifications to the lot lines of Lots No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, a.k.a. Tax Parcel Nos. 37- 1120.3, =20.41 -20.5, and -20.6, for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 16, 1978; modifications to the lot lines of Lot No. 10, a.k.a Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.10, for which Final Subdivision Apptoval was granted on June 6, 1978; modifications to the lot lines of Lot No. 9, a.k.a Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.12, for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted on May 16, 1978; modification of the easterly lot line of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 =20.2 for the purpose of adding land to Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6; and subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 20.11, 1132 Danby Road, into two lots, together with modifications to the alignments of Sesame Street, an existing public road, and Allison Street, a proposed public road shown on the subdivision plat approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 16, 1978, and further, consideration of final subdivision approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -20.8, a.k.a Lots No. 7 and 8 on the above referenced plat, all of the above properties comprising +/- 23.8 acres total, located on the West side of Danby Road at Sesame Street, Residence District R -15. Clara Leonardo, Richard M. and Mary Lee Park, Charles W. and Sandra J. Firenze, and Joseph M. and Marlea Anne Leonardo, Owners; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times support of such matters or objections t or in person. Individuals with visual other special needs, will be provided request. Persons_ desiring assistance than 48 hours prior to the time of the Dated. Monday, August 7, 1995 Publish: Wednesday, August 9, 199$ (rllft" n02 ae- e- se.Pr) And said place hear all persons in hereto. Persons may appear by. agent impairments, hearing impairments or with assistance as necessary, upon must make such a request not less public hearings. Jonathan Director 213y1747 Kanter, AICP of Planning