HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-03-19•
The
Tuesday,
Ithaca,
PRESENT:
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FILED
TOWN! OF ITHACA
bate
v
Clerk
March 19, 1996
Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
March 19, 1996, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
New York at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva
Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert
Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter
JoAnn Cornish (Planner), John
Town), Daniel Walker (Director
Hoffmann, James
Kenerson, Fred Wilcox,
(Director of Planning),
Barney (Attorney for the
of Engineering).
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Albern, Tom Niederkorn, Walter Wiggins, Matt
Wall, Faith Chase, John Novarr, Martin Kelly,
Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:38
p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavits of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 1, 1996, and March 5, 1996,
as well as on March 11, 1996, and March 13, 1996, said Notice was
served upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on
February 15, 1996. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is
hereto attached as Exhibit #1)
• Chairperson Cornell 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
Cornell closed this segment of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) AND
PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED BUTTERMILK VALLEY ESTATES SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE 70 LOTS
CONSISTING OF 67 CLUSTERED LOTS, AN 18 ACRE LOT TO BE PRESERVED
AS UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE, A 0.8± ACRE LOT TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK, AND A 17± ACRE LOT WHICH CONTAINS AN EXISTING WETLAND, INN,
RESTAURANT, BARN, AND TENNIS FACILITY, APPROXIMATELY 4,159 LINEAR
FEET OF ROAD, AND WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, TO BE LOCATED
BETWEEN 1146 AND 1172 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOS.
36 -1 -4.2 AND 36 -1 -6, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30, RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R -15, AND SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT S -1, WALTER J. AND JOYCE Y.
WIGGINS, OWNERS /APPLICANTS; WILLIAM F. ALBERN, P.E., AGENT,
Chairperson Cornell
above -noted matter duly
Public Hearings as poste
•
Wally Wiggins of 98
declared the Public Hearing in the
opened and read aloud from the Notice of
d and published and as noted above.
1 Taughannock Blvd., addressed the Board
• Planning Board Minutes 2 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
and stated that he thinks that the plan and statement speak for
themselves. Mr. Wiggins stated that there were a number of
suggestions made by the Board and Planning staff at the last
Planning Board Meeting for this project. Mr. Wiggins stated that
there were recommendations for lighting, which has been provided
for. Mr. Wiggins stated that Board Member Bell had stated that
there should be some kind of connection with adjoining land in
the event that land be developed by the landowner in the future,
which was also addressed. Mr. Wiggins stated that there were
concerns relating to surface water disposition, which he thinks
have also all been addressed. Mr. Wiggins stated that at the
last meeting the Board asked to make certain that the buffer zone
on the highway and he agreed to do that. Mr. Wiggins stated that
Mr. Wall, one of the adjoining land owners, asked that having
water and sewer be extended to the edge of his property and have
a right of way in an easement between Lots 1 and 2, which would
allow Mr. Wall can connect his land to be hooked to water and
sewer. Mr. Wiggins stated that he would be happy to put the
water and sewer line up to his property line. Mr. Wiggins stated
that he had relocated the park as the Board had requested. Mr.
Wiggins stated that the number of lots have been reduced from 70
to 67 in order to accommodate the road, the park relocation, and
increase the size of the park to provide the easement for the
water runoff facilities. Mr. Wiggins stated that he thinks that
they have done everything that the Board had concerns about and
would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that tonight is
a concurrent hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Mr. Kanter stated
that the Board can not take any action of the Preliminary
Subdivision Approval until after the environmental review process
is completed is the Findings Statement before the Board can grant
Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Mr. Kanter stated that JoAnn
Cornish, Project Manager, will review the time frame for this
i
project later in this meeting.
Chairperson Cornell noted that this is a Public Hearing and
asked if there was anyone present that wished to speak regarding
this project.
Faith Chase of 106 Comfort Road, addressed the Board and
stated that she owns a piece of property adjacent to Mr. Wiggins'
proposal, and stated that she is concerned about the creeping
urbanization. Ms. Chase showed the Board where her 12 acres of
property was located on the Preliminary Plat that was shown at
the meeting. Ms. Chase stated that she purchased the 12 acres to
give to the Finger Lakes Trust to enlarge the state park, and
felt that this development would obviate that efforts. Ms. Chase
stated that lighting was mentioned earlier in the meeting, that
this was a rural area and lighting would change that.
n.
Plannin g Board Minutes 3 March 19 1996
0
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell asked what Ms. Chase thought about the
studies and the issues.
Ms. Chase stated that it would impact on the State Park.
Chairperson Cornell asked how it would obviate her wishes to
combine her land with the park.
Ms. Chase stated that the idea was to increase the State
Park, not to decrease the size of it. Ms. Chase stated that it
seems as though the high- density housing would impact the park
and the wildlife. Ms. Chase stated that there are certain
animals that can not exist when the environment is condensed.
Chairperson Cornell asked if Ms. Chase has any additional
specific concerns.
Ms. Chase responded, no.
Martin Kelly of 48 Comfort Street, addressed the Board and
stated that he shared a corner on the south side of the
development. Mr. Kelly stated that he recently moved to the area
and bought his property so that he could live in the country.
Mr. Kelly stated that he wanted to express his disappointment
that he will no longer be living in the country. Mr. Kelly
stated that he is not at all in favor of this project.
Matthew Wall of 1172 Danby Road, addressed the Board and
stated that his land borders this proper and his preference would
be that the property stay the way it is. Mr. Wall stated that he
wishes that the proposal was not as dense. Mr. Wall stated that
he is not against a responsible development of property, and he
thinks that Mr. Wiggins will develop the land responsibly. Mr.
Wall stated that he has requested access to the water and sewer
because with home next door to his property with public
facilities, it would reduce his property value, because he does
not have public services. Mr. Wall stated that was why he asked
them to run a line to the border of his property,`so that he
could hook up if he chooses to, and Mr. Wiggins seems to be
willing to do that. Mr. Wall stated that he is one of a handful
of homes in the Town of Ithaca that does not have access to
public facilities, and his preference would be that the Town make
provisions for extending the sewer and water lines to the end of
the Town.
Chairpers
sewer services
the Town can 1
Mr. Wall
property value
on Cornell stated that the extensi
is an ongoing issues, but is also
imit development.
stated that with him, it is simply
. Mr. Wall stated that within his
on of water and
one of the ways
a question of
own property, he,_
i
Planning Board Minutes 4 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
has made provision for a lot of thick buffer, which will
! hopefully provide enough buffer between him and his impending 12
neighbors. Mr. Wall stated that the reason he is not more
concerned about the development on Mr. Wiggins' land is because
of the buffer on his own land along his property line.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that he was concerned
about some of the possible impending developments that are coming
to the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Ainslie stated that developers need
to look ahead and realize that there is going to be occupancy in
all of these lots. Mr. Ainslie stated that he does not think
that Mr. Wiggins would go into this project without hoping to
occupy the lots. Mr. Ainslie stated that we know of the
possibility of 240 apartment -type units proposed on Route 79 and
i the old Mordof property with a possible 200 units there, and he
can not see that much growth. Mr. Ainslie stated that Cornell
University and Ithaca College are not downsizing, but they are
not increasing that much easier. Mr. Ainslie stated that small
industrial complexes are coming in to the Town.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that the biggest issue for
him right now is drainage. Mr_ Wilcox stated that on the west
side of Danby Road there is a drainage problem, which exists from
0i Ithacare all the way down the hill and flowing to the west. Mr.
Wilcox stated that he urges the Board to pay particular attention
i to making sure that we properly deal with drainage to protect the
j people who buy the lots within this development, the property
owners on both sides, and to protect the state lands that also
abut this property as well. Mr. Wilcox stated that drainage is
handled very carefully in this area.
Chairperson Cornell stated that from her own research on the
property, there seems to be a fragipan of impermeable layer on a
lot of the property. Ms. Cornell stated that she thinks the
water flow stays pretty high and flows in a sheet under the
ground. Chairperson Cornell stated that because of that, it is
very important that the wetland that is proposed to be Lot 70
i because it is important to the drainage.
i
� Director of Planning Kanter stated that a letter was
received from the Tompkins County Health Department regarding the
DEIS, dated March 14, 1996, which indicates that they are
satisfied with the efforts to mitigate overflowing sewers in the
City, through cooperative efforts between the City and the Town.
Mr. Kanter stated that they mentioned that the stormwater runoff
in the City was not relevant because they misinterpreted the
original generalized maps of the areas around the Spencer Road
I area. Mr. Kanter stated that a letter was also received from the
Tompkins County Planning Department, dated March 14, 1996, which
had a couple of comments about the drainage calculations.
0 Planning Board Minutes 5 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that the
drainage courses sufficient to hold runoff increase, which he
thinks will be reduced when the final construction plans come in.
Mr. Walker stated that there have been some changes in the
drainage patterns, in which we are diverting the water away from
the slopes and into existing drainage courses. Mr. Walker stated
that those drainage courses have sufficient capacity to handle
the slight increase in runoff that is being anticipated. Mr.
Walker stated that on this particular site a retention pond to
hold the water may end up causing more problems because of the
steeper slopes. Mr. Walker stated that he will review this
project closely, but that he did not anticipate any major
problems.
Director
of
Planning
Kanter
stated
that
this
issue will be
addressed in
the
Final EIS,
which
will
be the
next
step.
Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. Walker concurred with the
200 and 100 year flood plains.
Director of Engineering Walker stated
frequencies that are looked at for delineat
Walker stated that there was more work done
the Tompkins County Planning Department has
Attorney Barney stated that the docume
Phase I included Lots 1 through 14, and Lot
meant the road would be constructed all the
that is the normal
ion purposes. Mr.
on the drainage than
reviewed.
ntation indicated that
68, and asked if that
way back to Lot 68,
Bill Albern of 2 Sunny Slope Terrace, addressed the Board
and stated that it was not anticipated that the road would be
built back to Lot 68 in Phase I.
Attorney Barney
stated that
he
was
looking at the phasing
plat and it shows Lots
1 through
14
and
Lot 68.
Mr. Albern stated that the reason that Lot 68 was part of
Phase I was because the Town was concerned that they obtain
ownership of the park, which is Lot 68.
Attorney Barney asked how people were supposed to have
access to the park without the road being completed.
Mr. Wiggins stated that there are no problems making a
right -of' -way to the park, if that would be acceptable to the
Board.
Attorney Barney stated that they would need a place for
people to be able to park their cars.
Mr. Albern stated that he would not expect much use of the
1
0 Planning Board Minutes 6 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
park with Phase I.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there is no
parking being provided at the park because it is intended to be a
neighborhood park for the use of the residents in the project.
Mr. Walker stated that an easement or right -of -way over the
alignment of the proposed road for access to the park.
Mr. Albern stated that he had expected the park to be part
of Phase II or Phase III, except the staff raised the question of
ownership of the park, so it was then made part of Phase I.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the Town would
want ownership of the park and the access to get to it if
necessary.
Board Member Wilcox stated
would be addressed as well.
Mr. Albern responded, yes.
that if grading is needed, that
Director of Engineering Walker stated that he did not expect
the need to be doing a lot of earthwork on this property to gain
access to that park. Mr. Walker stated that one could walk to
that area now, in fact, the path pretty much follows the
alignment of the roadway.
Attorney Barney asked, with the phasing, if the plan was to
build the road only as far as what is shown in Phase I.
Mr. Albern responded, yes.
Attorney Barney asked if there was a problem with giving the
Town temporary turn around rights on the undeveloped portion of
the property.
Mr. Albern stated that he thinks they will have to develop
some type of turn around in each phase of this project.
Director of Engineering Walker stated, from the standpoint
of environmental review, that does not make any difference. Mr
Walker stated that his understanding was that the Preliminary
plat was to address the entire subdivision, and the final plats
would come in phases.
Attorney Barney stated that he thinks that regardless of
preliminary or final, there would have to be some provision for
turn around of some sort. A hammerhead or a circle turnaround.
Mr. Albern concurred with Attorney Barney's statement.
0 Planning Board Minutes 7 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell asked what Mr. Wiggins' timetable was
for this project.
Mr. Wiggins responded six to seven years for the total
project. Mr. Wiggins stated that his concern was that if he has
misjudged the need for this project, it would stop at the first
phase.
Board Member Ainslie asked if would be concerned about
giving the Town that amount of land for park if only Phase I was
completed.
Mr. Wiggins responded, that he was not concerned about
giving that amount of land to the Town for a park. Mr. Wiggins
stated that he would be glad to do that. Mr. Wiggins, referring
to some of the concerns of the neighbors, stated that he shares
the desire to maintain the rural aspect of the neighborhood. Mr
Wiggins stated that Ms. Chase had a concern that the park was
going to be made smaller, which is not the case. Mr. Wiggins
stated that Lot 68 would be turned over for a park, and Lot #69
would be added to the State Park.
Chairperson Cornell stated that in the Subdivision
40 Regulations there is a provision for having a 30 foot buffer
around the outside perimeter of a subdivision. Ms. Cornell
stated that it might be appropriate in this case, considering the
opinion of some of the neighbors.
Mr. Albern stated that the 30 foot buffer around the
perimeter of the subdivision was already shown on the preliminary
plat.
Chairperson Cornell asked how that would be maintained,
possibly by the deed to each lot.
Mr. Wiggins responded, that the provision has to be part of
the deed for each lot, the only difference was that consideration
was given to the possibility of a walking or jogging trail within
that 30 foot buffer.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she felt it would be
preferable to have some place along the road within the
development for people to walk and jog on, and for other
activities for children, rather than being in the area around the
periphery of the development. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it would
be better not to have a jogging trail in the buffer zone, and
then the buffer zone could stay natural.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the jogging trail would be
additional space and land, whereas, with it being within the
buffer zone.
0 Planning Board Minutes 8 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
•
Mr. Wall stated that 30 feet is not much, but that he would
prefer it to be thickly brambled. Mr. Wall stated that he runs
on the road every day and he thinks other people should do the
same thing.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he would be happy to withdraw the
suggestion and leave it wild and brambled if that pleases the
neighbors.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Board felt strongly that
there should be a path.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he would like to see a two -
foot -wide path is what he would like to see so that someone could
jog if they chose to.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town of Ithaca
Environmental Review Committee and the County brought up the
issue of preserving flow to the wetland, and the streams that are
existing. Chairperson Cornell asked how the applicant planned to
preserve that flow.
Mr. Albern stated that the present runoff is from the hill,
the stream will not be disrupted at all. Mr. Albern stated that
the present drainage system that is there will not be upset by
the development.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if drainage would be added when
the development is added into that area.
Mr. Albern responded, yes, there will be drainage comes from
Danby Road from the south and diverts into the existing swail dry
stream bed and comes down and fills the pond and then drains down
into the gorge. Mr. Albern stated that there is presently
drainage that goes into the State Park from two directions. Mr.
Albern stated that the future drainage would not go onto Mr.
Wall's land as much, but will go into the swail, which is where
the sewer pump station will be. Mr. Albern stated that the whole
intent, while working with Mr. Walker, was to disperse the water
as much as possible. Mr. Albern stated that drainage pattern has
been extensively discussed with the Finger Lakes Park Commission
and with the Director of Engineering for the Town.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the intermittent stream
would be on Lot 70, as well as the wetland, and asked if it would
be possible, if the Board agrees, to have something in the deed
of Lot 70 requiring that the wetland and the intermittent streams
remain intact and that the drainage is preserved.
Mr. Albern stated that is what the plan shows.
• Planning Board Minutes 9 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996,
•
•
Chairperson Cornell stated that she wanted something in the
deed.
Mr. Wiggins stated that there
because he owns it, and it will not
Mr. Wiggins stated that he owns it
restrictions as described here. It
can not do anything on it.
is no deed for that lot
be transferred to anyone.
and it.would be subject to the
can not be built on and he
Chairperson Cornell asked where it was going to be written
that it can not be built on.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he assumed that it would be in the
subdivision approval.
Attorney Barney stated that the wetland is currently
governed by the Special Land Use District requirements, which
requires any site plan, construction, or alteration to come
before this Board. Attorney Barney stated that because of that,
nothing can happen on that lot without the blessing of this
Board. Attorney Barney stated if there is a concern about the
water and drainage, a declaration of restrictive covenants could
be drafted to deal with that issue, and record them.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that drainage is an
issue that has been addressed during project review and have not
made provisions in the past to make sure that it is maintained.
As part of this project and all future subdivisions that have
drainage requirements built into them. The Town will be
requiring an agreement that the owner of that large parcel will
maintain that drainage way to function as its designed to prevent
the excessive runoff. And also the Town will have a right, not an
obligation, to go in and maintain that drainage if at some point
in the future the owner of that land does not keep it maintained
properly.
Mr.
Albern stated
that at one time
with this proposal, the
wetland
was going
to be
part of two
lots, which was not
acceptable
to the
Town
Planning Board,
Mr. Albern stated that
now, the
owner of
Lot 70
will be in
control over that and the
Board
will
be able
to restrict
it.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that the land will
received the same amount of rain with the development as will be
there without the development, as long as the water is diverted,
there will be no problems.
Chairperson
Cornell
stated that there will
be the same
amount of water,
but with
less permeable soil
there.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the hydraulics
• Planning Board Minutes 10 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
will be reworked with the final designs. Mr. Walker stated that
he is not uncomfortable with the drainage analysis because it is
very conservative because the runoff figures are higher than what
they are actually going to be. Mr. Walker stated that they are
trying not to change the flow and concentrate water more, but
allow it to take the same path and try to increase the flow
length of it to slow it down a little bit, and the net impact
would be minimized. Mr. Walker stated that the wetlands on Lot
70 would be protected.
Board Member Hoffmann asked how the buffer around Lot 1
along Danby Road would be maintained.
Mr. Wiggins stated that it is intended as a natural buffer.
Board Member Hoffmann asked who would be responsible to
maintain that buffer.
Mr. Albern
stated
that
the buffer
on
Lot 1 would be the
responsibility
of that
owner,
with
a deed
restriction.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board had talked briefly
about incorporating the buffer on Lot 1 with Lot 70 so that the
maintenance would be owned by one person and maintained
similarly.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he had no objections if that is what
the Board wishes.
Director of Engineering stated that would mean creating an
additional lot.
Mr. Albern asked if Chairperson Cornell was saying that she
wanted Lot 70 to be extended across the road to include the 30
foot buffer strip from Lot 11
Chairperson Cornell responded, yes, and with that change the
owner of Lot 1 would not have to go through the expense of
maintaining the buffer.
Mr.
Albern
stated that
it
would not cost anything to
maintain
the
buffer
because
it
is a natural
buffer.
Chairperson Cornell
that as their brush pile.
would be nice since that
that to be kept in equal
kept,
stated that the land owner could use
Chairperson Cornell stated that it
is the entrance to the subdivision for
condition as the one in Lot 70 will be
• Mr. Wiggins stated that they could either make it Lot 71 to
be retained by the owner of Lot 70, or make it part of 70 with
}
• Planning Board Minutes 11 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
the easement to the entrance way running between them. Mr.
Wiggins stated that which every way the Board feels is
appropriate is fine.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he thinks that
legally, this would be a problem. Mr. Bell stated that the goal
is admirable, but the Board can't make it Lot 71 because it does
not meet the lot requirements at all.
Director
of Engineering Walker
stated that a
smaller lot
could be created,
but one could not
build on
it.
If there are
deed restrictions
for it to remain
forever wild,
Mr. Walker does
not see that
as a problem.
Attorney
Barney asked why the
Board did
not
put the deed
restrictions
on Lot 1, which would
be the easiest
way to handle
this.
Board Member Bell stated that the rest of the argument is to
keep it as part of Lot 70, this would create a major flag lot,
and is a bad geometric configuration for any lot. Mr. Bell
stated that it is based on the assumption that the owner of Lot
70 is going to be the same owner it is now, and what it that
changes.
Attorney Barney stated that if Mr. Wiggins wanted to make a
legal requirement for the owner of Lot 1 to maintain the buffer,
it is his responsibility.
Mr. Albern
stated
that
they
will put a deed restriction on
Lot 1 and leave
it as
it has
been
presented.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Board was satisfied with
the deed restriction on Lot 11
The Board felt that the deed restriction on Lot 1 was
acceptable.
Mr. Wall stated that the Board seems to be making a
distinction between the buffer on Lot 1 and the buffer around the
entire property and asked why.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there does not
need to be a distinction.
Mr. Wall stated that he is interested in the 30 -foot buffer
that is contiguous with his property and if there is going to be
a deed restriction, he will then be responsible for maintaining
the buffer area along the property lines.
Attorney Barney stated that there would be deed restrictions
• Planning Board Minutes 12 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
in all the deeds that say that the last 30 feet of each lot would
be maintained in a vegetative state, with detail of what can and
can not be put within that space.
Mr. Wall stated that means that the 30 feet would stay a
vegetative state like it is currently.
Attorney Barney stated that was correct. There are some
objective standards to make sure that they do not clear cut the
buffer.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the cleanest way
to maintain the bramble patch on Lot 1 is to show the buffer on
Lot 1, Lot 70, as well as all the way around the perimeter of the
property on the Preliminary Plat, which is not shown on the plat
in the DEIS.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she did not feel that
someone should assume that there is to be no maintenance
whatsoever and to simply let that area grow wild, because it is
not practical. Ms. Hoffmann stated that one could not have a
tree die and be in danger of falling over the road or into the
properties, they need to be maintained.
• Director of Planning Kanter stated that there may need to
have some clear sight area cut around the entrance so that there
is sight distance for pulling out onto the road.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there are two
things, there is the buffer and the State right -of -way. Mr.
Walker stated that he believes that the property line, shown on
the Preliminary Plat Figure 2 of the DEIS, is probably the State
right -of -way line.
Mr. Albern stated that there is a plat that was dated
December 20, 1995, shows a 50 foot forever -wild buffer on Lot 1
Mr. Walker stated that he thinks he has already done what
the Board just asked him to do.
Mr. Albern stated that the drawing dated December 20, 1995
shows a 50 -foot forever -wild buffer on Lot 1.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated, for the record,
that there is a map dated December 20, 1995, which was not
available to those reviewing the EIS.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what forever -wild meant.
• Attorney Barney stated that forever -wild could mean whatever
the Board defines it to mean. Attorney Barney stated that part
of the Preliminary Subdivision approval should be constructing an
• Planning Board Minutes 13 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
acceptable set of covenants that deal with the buffers in the
project.
Mr. Kelly stated that the Board is discussing Lot 1 a lot,
and asked if the buffer that goes all the way around the
development is also to be forever -wild.
Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes.
Mr. Kelly asked if a lawn area qualified as forever wild.
Director of Planning Kanter responded, no. Mr. Kanter
stated that in the Subdivision Regulations there are provisions
for adding requirements for additional landscaping within that
buffer area if the Planning Board feels that is necessary or
appropriate.
Board Member Wilcox asked if the applicant had been into
contact with the State regarding Lot 69,
Mr. Albern stated that the State Parks are definitely
favorable of having Lot 69 deeded to them as an addition to
Buttermilk Falls State Park, and they felt the drainage was
• handled appropriately.
Board
Member Wilcox
they do
asked
Mr.
Albern if State parks have
said that
they want
that
piece
of
property.
Mr. Albern stated
that
they do
want the
property
and that
they have received meets
and
bounds
description
of the
property.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that he has had
discussions with Jesse Miller and Jeff McDonald of State Parks,
and they both have indicated that piece of property would be a
welcome addition to the park. Mr. Walker stated that Lot 69 had
a dog leg shape that extends to the road,and asked if Mr. Wiggins
intended that to be part of the park land dedication.
Mr. Albern stated that he does not think that they want the
property extended to the road.
Mr. Wiggins stated that the property it borders on is owned
by his daughter, and that Lot 69 would be cut off along the back
property line, and consolidated with her land.
The portion of Lot 69 will be corrected on an updated
drawing as being separate from Lot 69 and labeled as Lot 71 to be
consolidated.
• Attorney Barney stated that it needed to be labeled "to be
consolidated" since it will be a non - conforming lot.
• Planning Board Minutes 14 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell noted that this is a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing regarding the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, and brought the matter back to
the Board for further discussion.
Attorney Barney suggested that Chairperson Cornell only
adjourn or maintain the Public hearing regarding the Preliminary
Subdivision Approval until the Board has made their Findings on
the DEIS.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she assumes that the
future Town of Ithaca Park and right -of -way will be maintained by
the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the walkway from the
southern to the northern part of Jonni Circle would be maintained
by the Town.
Attorney Barney asked if the walkways were going to be
conveyed to the Town.
Mr. Albern stated that it would have to be maintained by the
Town of Ithaca.
• Mr. Walker stated that there was a discrepancy in lot
numbers between the drawing in the DEIS, Figure 2, dated December
15, 1995; and the Map dated December 20, 1995, Mr. Walker stated
that there have been a number of things brought up at this
meeting as far as buffers and lot numbers, and would ask that the
developer provide a revised plat prior to the next meeting, with
as many of the recommended changes on that plat, with the
revision date noted on the drawing. Mr. Walker stated that will
provide the staff and Planning Board with one clean document to
work with.
Mr.
on the
extend
Walker stated that there is a Town Park and the midpoint
north side of Jonni Circle, there is an intention to
a walkway from the Town Park site southward from the north
side of
would be
Jonni Circle, which would
deeded to the Town when
be a 20
the road
-foot wide parcel that
is deeded to the Town
for the
purposes of maintaining a
walking
path for the residents
of
the
subdivision.
Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. Wiggins would consider
putting in a sidewalk.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the Town does not
want a sidewalk.
• Chairperson Cornell stated that some Board Members like
sidewalks.
• Planning Board Minutes 15 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Board Member Hoffmann stated that when she was talking about
having a jogging trail along the road inside the project, she was
not thinking necessarily of a sidewalk, but something like a
grassy edge, which could be used by anyone.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that this is a
residential street with limited access, but the Town is not going
to encourage having activities for children on or near the
roadway, because it is not safe. Mr. Walker stated that he
thinks this will be very similar to the Chase Farm Subdivision
which has a pathway incorporated in the widened portion of the
right -of -way. Mr. Walker stated that there is a four foot
shoulder on the side of this roadway, which will provide adequate
space for walking and jogging.
Board Member Wilcox stated that Mr. Walker was referring to
a 22 foot wide road, a 4 foot shoulders, which is 30 feet and
there is 60 feet for the right -of -way.
Mr. Walker stated that was correct and the road ditches
would be on the other side of that.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he raised this issue a
• year ago, when this project first came up. Mr. Bell stated that
he thinks that the quality of life of this project is greatly
diminished by not having sidewalks. Mr. Bell stated that it
seems to him not to be as safe or friendly, and this is not a way
to build a community. Mr. Bell stated, in terms of cost, the
cost of these houses is going to be pretty high, so the amount of
additional money that would need to be spent on a sidewalk is
pretty small. Mr. Bell stated that if he were a customer
shopping around for a house, the additional cost of the house
with a sidewalk in front of is, divided out over the 20 year
mortgage would not be very much. Mr. Bell stated that he would
be a lot less inclined to buy a house like this with no
sidewalks, than he would one with sidewalks. Mr. Bell stated
that he has been looking around since he raised this issue many
months ago, both in the Town and in other neighborhoods. Mr.
Bell stated that he saw streets with no curbs and no sidewalks,
streets with no curbs and sidewalks, and streets with curbs and
no sidewalks. Mr. Bell stated that the three configurations were
very different from each other. Mr. Bell stated that he thought
that the sidewalk is probably the more important of two, in some
ways to still maintain the kind of village atmosphere, or a more
urban feeling. Mr. Bell stated that the combination of curbs and
sidewalks really does make it more urban feeling, and would not
be opposed to that either. Mr. Bell stated that when the
intentions were not to be so urban, the sidewalk without the curb
• would still work for this project.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that if the Planning
• Planning Board Minutes 16 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Board decides that they want to see sidewalks the Town Board
needed to be aware of that because a sidewalk is a structure
within the road right -of -way, which then becomes the Town's
responsibility to maintain. Mr. Walker stated currently the Town
has no provisions for maintenance of sidewalks in the Town other
than sidewalk districts, which are special benefit districts.
Attorney Barney stated that the Town has a statute that
requires maintenance of a sidewalk, which is on Judd Falls Road.
Director of Engineering stated that there is also a walkway
on Mitchell Street, which is maintained as one of the Town
trails.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there is also a path on the
Chase Farm project.
Attorney Barney stated that he feels that the sidewalk is a
decision that the developer makes. Attorney Barney stated that
the Town Subdivision Regulations does not require sidewalks and,
under the cluster regulations the Town can require certain things
that are not normally required, but it would be a stretch to
impose the construction of a sidewalk on the entire loop, based
on the cluster regulations. Attorney Barney stated that he
thinks Mr. Bell's point is well taken in terms of the amenities,
but should be up to the developer, and that the Planning Board
should not impose this as a condition of approval.
Mr. Bell stated that he is not singling out this particular
project, but there are a number of other projects coming up. Mr.
Bell stated that he is raising it more as a policy issue, and
that he understands that it is a Town Board issue. Mr. Bell
stated that there are some pretty big projects coming along and
it makes sense to start addressing it as a policy issue.
Director of Engineering Walker stated if the Planning Board
want to see that amenity in the Subdivision Regulations, the
formal request to the Town Board should be made to consider that.
Mr. Walker stated that the Planning Board needs to give some
direction to the Planning Staff to develop those provisions. Mr.
Walker stated that as part of that process would have to be a
cost - benefit analysis.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she had asked Town staff to
give her an idea of how much sidewalks cost, to get an idea of
the feasibility of sidewalks being included in developments.
Planner JoAnn
Cornish
stated, for the record, that
the map
dated December 20,
1995,
as referred to earlier in the
meeting is
• obsolete, and all
of the
other maps have been changed.
The map
dated December 20,
1995
has now been marked obsolete.
Planning Board
Minutes 17 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Mr. Albern
had asked him
stated
to number
that
the
the difference was that Town staff
lots in the same sequence as the
phasing, which
not received an
was done.
updated
Mr.
map.
Albern stated that Town staff had
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Planning Board felt
comfortable with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
and whether or not the DEIS contained enough information to draft
a Statement of Findings.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there is no action
to be taken regarding this project tonight. Mr. Kanter stated
that the next step is to prepare the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
Planner Cornish outlined the tentative timeframe for this
project. (A copy of the proposed timeframe is hereto attached as
Exhibit #2)
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Wiggins if he consented to
adjourning the Public Hearing because the Board needs to review a
completed plan with all of the changes on it prior to making a
determination. Attorney Barney stated that this Board also needs
to make its findings and that requires any addition or
subtraction to the plat, it should be done before Preliminary
Subdivision approval is given. Attorney Barney stated that he
would anticipate the Board to complete the Public Hearing as soon
as the final EIS and the Findings were done and close the hearing
at that point in time.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he would consent to anything that
would help expedite the process.
Chairperson Cornell adjourned the Public Hearing in the
matter of the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Subdivision
Approval.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 43- 1 -2.21 30.5± ACRES IN SIZE, INTO 3 LOTS,
16.30 ±, 13.74 ±, AND 0.46± ACRES IN SIZE RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 920 FEET NORTH OF ITS
INTERSECTION WITH EAST KING ROAD, ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS
COLLEGE CIRCLE APARTMENTS, MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT. JMS
ITHACA REALTY, INC., OWNER; JOHN NOVARR, AGENT.
Chairperson Cornell
opened this
portion
of the meeting,
asking that the Board
and members of
the public
address the
• environmental issues of
this project
at this
time.
0 Planning Board Minutes 18 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that some of the numbers in
the documentation provided were inconsistent. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that in the proposed resolution and the EAF, the total
size of the parcel is different; one states 30.5± acres, and one
states 26.8 ±, and the individual lot sizes is different as well.
Director of Plannin
inconsistencies was that
Parcel Nos, 43- 1 -1.2, 43
in the resolutions were
the actual parcel being
g Kanter stated that he thinks one of the
the SEAF included three Tax Parcels (Tax
-1 -2.2 and 43 -1 -6), and the figures used
revised to focus in on 43- 1 -2.2, which is
subdivided.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that 'there is a number
of items that need to be addressed by this Board in the
Subdivision Approval process, and staff is willing to recommend
Preliminary Subdivision Approval at this time because there are
significant changes to the plat that need to be made. Mr. Walker
stated that he, as Town Engineer, can not recommend a Final
Approval until those final changes are put on the drawing.
Board
Member Fred Wilcox
stated
that some documents say
Parcel A to
be subdivided into
16.3
acres and some say 14.0
acres. Mr.
Wilcox stated that
Part
I of the Short Environmental
Assessment
Form has different
numbers.
Mr. Wilcox stated that
the other
two parcels would not
make
up the discrepancy in the
acreage.
John Novarr addressed the Board and stated that he resides
at 404 Highland Road, Ithaca, and that his place of business is
located at 1001 West Seneca Street, Ithaca. Mr. Novarr stated
that the actual total parcel is 30.4 acres and he felt that staff
had changed the numbers when the recognized, correctly, that
there are three Tax Parcels but less than that is under
consideration tonight. Mr. Novarr stated that the map shows the
entire parcel and the difference in acreage should be corrected,
but he thinks it is technical and does not think that it is an
issue from what needs to be discussed tonight.
Chairperson Cornell
stated
that the
Planning Board can not
grant even Preliminary
Approval
without
knowing the acreage.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that if the acreage was
the only problem, then the Board could consider this proposal,
but there are a number of other issues that need to be addressed
as well. Mr. Kanter stated that he drew up a large size boundary
map to make it easier to read,and the areas shaded in red are not
part of this development or these parcels, they are separately
owned parcels. Mr. Kanter stated that he did notice that there
• is a separate Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -6 which, for some reason, is
still shown.as a separate tax parcel but it also was included as
part of the overall site plan for the College Circle Apartment
• Planning Board Minutes 19 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Development,
and
it actually includes
parts of
two buildings.
Mr.
Kanter stated
that staff is
not quite sure
how that happened,
but
that maybe Mr.
Novarr could
explain that.
Mr. Novarr
stated that he
never looked at this as
separate
tax parcels, he
considered it
a 30+ acre site for development,
and he got the
approval based
on that acreage.
Mr. Kanter stated technically, there is a building that is
partly on one tax parcel, and partly on another tax parcel, which
is probably not a good thing to have.
Mr. Novarr stated that they have that in other locations in
the City of Ithaca. Mr. Novarr stated that he would consolidate
all of the parcels if it makes everyone happy.
Mr. Kanter stated that when the map is revised, the Board
may want that to be part of the changes made.
Board Member Wilcox stated that according to the large
drawing, there is another tax parcel 43- 1 -1.2, which is noted on
the map as being part of the development. Mr. Wilcox stated that
tax parcel no 43 -1 -1.2 seems to have the secondary access running
• through part of it. Mr. Wilcox thanked the Planning staff for
putting the drawing together and outlining the parcels with the
red, as he had requested late this afternoon.
Mr. Novarr stated that the access that Mr. Wilcox is talking
about is actually a foot path.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that normally in a
project when there are multiple parcels under one use, the Town
would require consolidation of the individual parcels. Mr.
Walker stated that the small parcel to the right, has an
interesting feature that the parcel line goes right through the
middle of several buildings, and stated that these parcels need
to be consolidated. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Novarr if he would
consolidate the parcels.
Mr. Novarr stated that he would consolidate them.
Board Member Wilcox stated that in Parcel B, it references
43- 1 -1.1, and he feels that it should reference 43- 1 -1.2.
Attorney Barney stated that 43 -1 -1.1 is the entire piece of
property.
Board Member Wilcox stated, if that is true, please show him
• where it says 43- 1 -1.1, because he reviewed the map and was
unable to find that Tax Parcel No.
• Planning Board Minutes 20 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell asked that the Board address the
environmental aspects for the SEQR right now, and direct the
staff to go over the numbers and revise them as necessary.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that somewhere in the
documentation, it was mentioned that a semi - circle be preserved
as open space. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she was worried about
whether or not that is a good location for open space because if
a road were to continue into this property, it would either
continue along the southern edge of the property through the
parking lot show on the drawing, or it would continue from the
access way straight through the open space area.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that another problem with
the plat is that it did not show the site plan, which would have
showed the Board some of the things that have been discussed.
Mr. Kanter stated that the open space area was shown in the site
plan as an amphitheater surrounded by landscaping and plantings
as Part of Phase IV. Mr. Kanter stated that the development was
approved in four phases, Phase One and Phase Two have been built,
and Phase Three and Phase Four have not been built yet. Mr.
Kanter stated that the reason for the boundary for Parcel B is
for that very reason, because they coincide closely with Phases
• Three and Four. Mr. Kanter stated, referring to the approved
site plan, that the road system has ben planned out, going in a
circular direction around the existing road, and around the
central open space area, and some other conservation areas
throughout the development. Mr. Kanter stated that part of the
process should include seeing what the approved site plan was and
how that fits in with the subdivision plat, which staff tried to
do as much as possible at the early stages.
Chairperson Cornell stated that even though there are plans
for developing, if this subdivision is approved as presented,
there would be only one access through the planned roads that are
on the site plan. Chairperson Cornell stated if Parcel B is not
developed as approved, there would still need to be access to
that portion of the property, which would have to go through the
planned roadway as is.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was referring to the
possibility of extending the roadway into or through the open
space, which would make the area being considered for open space
completely inappropriate.
Attorney Barney stated that the solution to her concern is
that there is an approved site plan, and the possibility of
routing the road through the open space would require a
• modification of the already approved site plan by this Planning
Board. Attorney Barney stated that the subdivision itself does
not effect the fact that the property is to be developed
0 Planning Board Minutes 21 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
according to the approved site plan.
Chairperson
Cornell
asked
if the Board needed to consider
future possibilities
for
this
land.
Attorney Barney stated that the future is what is shown on
the approved site plan.
Director of Engineering Walker asked mr. Novarr if he
intended to proceed with the approved site plan at some time in
the future.
Mr. Novarr stated that the reason he is before the Board has
nothing to do with planning, it has to do with financing. Mr.
Novarr stated that he had built two phases of this project in
1989 and 1990 and had some modest financial trouble in the
beginning trying to fill the project up, and finally got it on
its feet. Mr. Novarr stated that Ithaca College enrollment
dropped off by approximately 18 percent. Mr. Novarr stated that
about a year ago he needed to find new financing and ended up
with a conduit loan, which involves bonds being sold on Wall
Street. This is a new way to do real estate lending, and it is
complicated. Mr. Novarr stated that the conduit loans have a
• restriction on having secondary financing on ones property. Mr.
Novarr stated that he had to separate this business deal from all
debt other than the debt that was to be put on the buildings.
Mr. Novarr stated that if they took a mortgage on the whole
property, which they have done, he would have no way of financing
Phases Three and Four because there is no way to incorporate
additional financing on this project. Mr. Novarr stated that he
got the lender to agree that if a subdivision was received within
the course of six months they would release Parcel B and C from
the loan. Mr. Novarr stated that in addition to that the person
that sold the land had a lien on the undeveloped land and so the
lien was taken personally until this issue could be resolved.
Mr. Novarr stated that he had discussed this with the Planning
Department staff about what Town staff thought would work because
once this is closed, which was on December 15, 1995, it is set in
stone and can not be changed. Mr. Novarr stated that there are
no plans to sell Parcel B, nor does he have plans to change
Phases Three and Four. Mr. Novarr stated that he is just trying
to clean up financing. Mr. Novarr stated that he needed to close
by December 15, 1995 or he would have lost the property. Mr.
Novarr stated that they met that timeframe and got that done, but
he is now standing before the Planning Board why this is needed.
Director of Planning Kanter asked how could the lender place
a conduit loan on the property without it already having been
subdivided.
Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Novarr is saying that
• Planning Board Minutes 22 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
currently
there is a
mortgage on the
entire parcel, but that he
has an
agreement with
the lender that
they will release Parcels B
and C if
the subdivision
is granted.
to
Mr. Novarr stated that was correct.
Director of Engineering Walker asked why Parcel C was
created as a separate parcel.
Mr. Novarr stated that was created at the advice of the
Planning Department staff because there is some kind of rule
having to do with some road frontage.
Board
Member
Wilcox
at the drawing now, he
stated
that the draft resolution calls
for Parcels
are not together as one
B and
but he would have
C
to
be
consolidated.
meaningless to
Director of Engineering Walker asked why not just have
Parcels B and C be one lot.
Mr. Novarr stated that he did not know why it was done that
way
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he was not involved
• in discussion on this project. Mr. Kanter stated that when Mr.
Novarr referred to the Planning Department, yes, one
representative provided his input and views on how this would
work out. Mr. Kanter stated that he does not see why Parcel C
has to be there because it would mean that Parcel B would have no
frontage on the road.
Mr.
Novarr stated
that as he looks
at the drawing now, he
does not
understand why
Parcels B and C
are not together as one
Parcel,
but he would have
to contact an
attorney about that. Mr.
Novarr
stated that it is
meaningless to
him whether those two
parcels
are together or
apart, as long
as the lender is happy
with
it.
Attorney
Barney asked Mr. Novarr
if the lender
would release
Parcel C, or
will they only release an
easement over
Parcel C.
Mr. Novarr stated that he felt that the lender would release
Parcel C.
Attorney Barney stated that could be the reason why Parcel C
is being created on this proposal.
Mr. Novarr stated, maybe that was why Parcel C was done that
way. Mr. Novarr stated that there was no intention to ever build
• a road on that little strip of land, Parcel C.
Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were willing to offer a
• Planning Board Minutes 23 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
•
motion of determination of environmental significance.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43- 1 -2.2, 28.6 +/- acres in size, into
3 lots, 14.4 + / -, 13.74 + / -, and 0.46 +/- acres in size
respectively, located on the east side of Danby Road
approximately 920 ft. north of its intersection with East
King Road, MR- Multiple Residence District. JMS Ithaca
Realty, Inc., Owner; John Novarr, 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, on March 19, 1996, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form
Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by
the Town Planning Department, a plat entitled "Survey Map
Showing Lands of JMS Ithaca Realty, Inc., Located on New
York State Route 96B - Danby Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York" prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and
dated November 21, 1995, and other application materials,
and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed subdivision;
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, an Environmental
Impact Statement will not be required.
Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wanted to be sure that
• Planning Board Minutes 24 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
•
the SEQR
resolution was
adopted with
the
assumption that
the
acreage
was researched
and corrected
on
the final Resolution.
right hand
Chairperson Cornell noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there was anyone present from the public that wished to
speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public
Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
Board Member Wilcox stated that
he wanted
to be sure
that it
was clear that
the big parcel
is 43- 1
-2.2, and
the little
parcel
on the bottom,
right hand
side of the
drawing
is 43 -1 -6,
and this
little parcel
over here is
labeled either
43 -1
-1.2 or 43-
1 -1.1.
Mr. Wilcox stated
that the
survey map
does not
say that the
large
parcel is Tax
Parcel No. is
43- 1 -1.2,
but the
resolution
says
that the large
Parcel is 43-
1 -2.21
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Tax Maps show
that parcel as being 43- 1 -2.2.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it seemed appropriate to a
number of the members of the Board that the open space be rotated
so that it was more level with Parcel A, in the event that Parcel
B is not developed, it would be a more sensible design for open
space.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there were two
options, one would be to have very specific cross easements which
would guarantee access to both Parcels A and B to that open area,
and the second would be to change the boundary lines of the
parcels.
Mr. Novarr
stated that
he is better off with the
easement
than with the dedication because
he has to go back and
get this
approved by the
person that
the original piece of land
was
purchased from.
Mr. Novarr
stated that when all is said
and done
at this meeting,
that person
will come back and take a
lien
against Parcel B, but if that parcel gets smaller, it would be a
modest problem for him.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would be helpful,
if not appropriate, to show the approved site plan development on
Parcel B, as well as Parcel A so that the Board can see exactly
what is supposed to be happening there. Mr. Kanter stated that
with the site plan information on the plat, if there were any
modifications, all of the pertinent information would be on one
drawing.
Mr. Novarr stated that the reason that was not done was
because he presumed that to hold the permits for the rest of the
property, and any modification would take another visit to the
Town of Ithaca. Mr.'Novarr stated that all of the drainage,
•
Planning Board Minutes 25 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
water and sewer lines would work the same as they were proposed
when the site plan was approved.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that everything for
Phases Three and Four is totally dependant on what was put on
Phases One and Two. Mr. Walker stated that the utility design
was for the whole site, and if for some reason a different owner
comes in and decides that they do not want additional people on
Parcel B. Mr. Walker stated that there would be a problem then
because that person could decide not to give permission to allow
the water and sewer connections.
Mr.
Novarr stated that the owner
of Parcel B
would have the
problem,
and that would be reflected
in the price
that person
would have
to pay for that parcel. Mr.
Novarr stated
that there
are two
reasons for needing this subdivision,
one
is the rule
against
secondary financing with the
conduit loan,
and the second
is that
there is an agreement on the
part of the
person that held
the mortgage
on the undeveloped land,
after this
process, he will
take
a
lien
on
Parcel
B.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board has to look
at whether the lender on parcel A would allow easements that will
allow hookups.
Mr. Novarr stated that the easements are written into the
deal for financing.
Attorney Barney asked about an easement across the road to
continue the road around as shown on the site plan.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there are certain
easements that are proposed to be shown on the plat before it was
signed by the Board Chairperson. Mr. Walker stated that there is
a loop road from Danby Road into Phase One, which would extend to
Phase Four, Phase Three and back down into Phase Two, which
provides the circulation and the access to all of the buildings
in the two future phases. Mr. Walker stated that assumes that
the owner of Parcel B would have the right of access through the
roadways on Phase One and Two. Mr. Walker stated that the
easement needs to be delineated on the plat, but right now all
that is shown is the roadway. Mr. Walker stated that the maps
also do not show that water and sewer for the whole parcel enters
the lot from Danby Road near building four.
Attorney Barney stated that he was trying to determine if
the Town would be able to get the easements for the lender for
Parcel A, legally.
Mr. Novarr stated that he believes that he has those
0 Planning Board Minutes 26 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
•
easements in the loan documents.
Attorney Barney
stated,
to create a
self -
contained unit,
there is a site plan
that says
these lots
must
be connected, and
whoever owns Parcel B,
in the
approval by
this
Planning Board
would be assured that
Parcel
B has the ability
to have traffic
flow through this site
plan,
not through
some
25 percent around
the
perimeter.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that he would
recommend preliminary approval on this subdivision with the
exception that Parcel B and Parcel C become lot B, unless there
is some legal problem with doing that. Mr. Walker stated that
the easements for the roadway be shown on the plat, the sewer and
water lines that would be used by Parcel B be shown on the plat
and the easement language be included, and the stormwater
management needs to be shown on the plat. The easement s through
the parcel including the flood water detention pond and any
easements that are there. Mr. Walker stated that a cross
easement from Parcel A to have access to portions of Parcel B for
the open space, if that is appropriate.
Attorney Barney stated that this may be too much stuff to
put into preliminary Subdivision approval, and felt that the
Board should treat this as a Sketch Plan Review for this project.
Attorney Barney stated that it could then come back with the
additional information on it for accurate review of the entire
project. Attorney Barney stated that he was having trouble with
a few things on this property, for example, how is the pond going
to be handled. Currently there is one owner of the pond, but the
subdivision will set up a situation where two potential owners,
and both need the pond, who will maintain that pond.
Mr. Novarr stated that the people on Parcel A, should they
need to sell Parcel B, are either going to be smart enough to let
the new owners of Parcel B know that they will have to help
maintain the pond, or they will maintain it themselves.
Attorney Barney stated that the Town is a party to an
agreement that needs to be clarified in case there are two
owners.
Chairperson Cornell noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing and brought the
matter back to the Board for discussion.
Chairperson Cornell asked Attorney Barney if he felt that
• Planning Board Minutes 27 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
there is sufficient work that needs to be done on this Site Plan
and that the Board should not consider this for Subdivision
Approval.
Attorney Barney stated that he is concerned that if the
Board grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval, and in so doing
the Board can articulate conditions, but once approval is granted
with those conditions, basically the final subdivision approval
is a stamp that these conditions have been met. Attorney Barney
stated that by then the Board's options or discretion is
relatively limited. Attorney Barney stated that he is having
trouble with the easements, cross easements, and other site plan
aspects, and would like to see them on a plat and then do
Preliminary and Final if the information given is complete
enough.
Attorney Barney
stated that
at
that
point
the
Board can
narrow
down the scope of
additional
work
that
needs
to
be done.
Chairperson Cornell advised Mr. Novarr that if he submitted
enough information to the Board so that they are satisfied with
that information, Preliminary and Final approval can be done at
the next meeting and it would not effect his timeframe for
approval.
• Mr. Novarr stated that he has to have subdivision approval
done within six months from December 15, 1995. Mr. Novarr stated
that he tried to work this project through with the Planning
Department already and what has been given to the Board is what
he was asked to deliver to the Board.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that most of the work Mr.
Novarr has done, was done over the phone with one member of the
Planning Department, Mr. Kanter suggested a meeting with Mr.
Novarr, Director of Engineering Daniel Walker, Attorney for the
Town John Barney, and himself to review the materials and discuss
what is needed.
Mr. Novarr stated that he thinks that he has what the Board
is asking for, but he did not bring them or know that the Board
would want them.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board should
indicate now, whether there is a problem with the concept of this
project.
Board Member Finch stated that he feels that Mr. Novarr can
go ahead with this project and the Board would support what he is
trying to do, as long as the various details are worked out.
Board
Member Wilcox
stated that the concept is fine, it is
• the legalities
that
are
of concern.
• Planning Board Minutes 28 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Sketch Plan
review of the College Circle Three Lot Subdivision duly closed at
9:42 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED SIX MILE
CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
Director of Planning Kanter stated
that
the Town Board had
discussed this at their last
meeting and
agreed
to refer it to
the Planning Board for their
recommendation.
Mr. Kanter stated
that the Planning Board will
be scheduling
a
Public Hearing which
is tentatively set for April
16, 1996.
Mr. Kanter
stated that it
was put on tonight's agenda
to give the
Board
Members an
opportunity to look at it with
enough time
to
review it and
become familiar with the concept of it.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this is the first of what is
hoped to be several Conservation Districts to be proposed in the
Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Cornell stated that this site was
chosen because it has a very high number of features that need to
be preserved and it is fairly clear cut why this is a sensitive
area and needs some type of additional protection. Chairperson
Cornell stated that the biggest point of controversy is the
• western boundary line of the district. Chairperson Cornell
stated that the critical issue is that it reduced the density
within the district.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are two
alternate proposals for the boundary now, the original proposal
on the Coddington Road side was to have the boundary along
Coddington Road, but received a lot of comments from residents in
the area that were supportive of the overall district, but were
opposed to having the areas immediately around their houses along
Coddington Road affected by the district. Lot sizes would become
non - conforming in the district so it was decided to move the
boundary line back, but then the question became does the Town
use the railroad right -of -way and the South Hill Recreation Way
as a border itself, or should the features on the southwest side
of the South Hill Recreation Way be included in the district.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Town ended up producing a natural
features map which primarily includes steep slopes and erodible
soils. Mr. Kanter stated that there are several places where
other features extended beyond the proposed border. Mr. Kanter
stated that the original number of 200 feet from the right -of -way
was just an arbitrary setback drawn, but the 500 feet setback
line reflects more of the actual topographic and soil conditions
that exist there.
• Board Member Gregory Bell stated that there were comments
received from the people on Coddington Road that did not want
their houses included because of the lot sizes. Mr. Bell stated
. Planning Board Minutes 29 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
that the house that he lives in is already within the proposed
Conservation District, and everything that was said about
Coddington Road residents would also apply to the Penny Lane side
of the proposed district.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there would
definitely be some properties that would be in the district that
would become pre- existing non - conforming lots, and would have to
go through some process for specific types of improvements. Mr.
Kanter stated that Penny Lane and the whole Common Lands area,
which also had originally been proposed to be within the
Conservation District, was taken out because it is a fully
developed area in terms of the site plan, and the remaining land
is permanently reserved open space. Mr. Kanter stated that it
was felt that the areas that were "built up" should be excluded,
so the boundary along Slaterville Road remains at the existing R-
15/R-30 zoning boundary. Mr. Kanter stated that Commonland is
unaffected.
Board Member Bell stated that the part of Penny Lane he is
asking about is the four or five houses that do exist there that
are not part of Commonlands, but that are on Penny Lane, and are
totally within the Conservation District.
• Director of Planning Kanter stated that the reason for that
is because that is where the existing R- 15/R -30 zoning boundary
lines are, and it would be better not to do any shifting of that
boundary.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that it did not appear,
while looking at the natural features map, that there is enough
difference in the soils to move the boundary out the 500 feet
from the South Hill Recreation way.
Mr. Kanter stated that some people felt that there was
enough of the soils between the 200 and the 500 foot boundaries
to extend the boundary to that 500 feet.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the same thing is true
of the Slaterville Road site, if one looks at the natural areas
map, the soils come all the way up to Slaterville Road,
essentially.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there is quite a bit
of erodible soils of the Slaterville Road side.
Board Member Finch stated that nothing is going to happen
between the 200 feet and the 500 feet boundaries anyway, because
• there are creek beds and steep slopes, and gorges.
• Planning Board Minutes 30 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell stated that there are a lot of pros and
cons for this project. Chairperson Cornell stated that this is
the first Conservation District as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Cornell stated that it is her
opinion that if the Planning Board chose the 200 foot boundary,
less people would be aggravated. Chairperson Cornell stated,
that if the Planning Board chose that boundary and then later on
found out there are still runoff problems, the Town could go the
neighbors, explain the problem, and ask if they would consider
extending the border. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Unique
Natural Area (UNA) map, the UNA ends approximately at the 200
foot boundary. Chairperson Cornell stated that the South Hill
Recreation Way needs a buffer no matter what, and 200 feet seems
to be good. There does not seem to be any remarkable flora or
fauna in that area, but there are sensitive gorges and highly
erodible soils.
Board
Member Bell
asked
if
all
of
the
land owners in and
around the
district be
notified
through
of
the
Public
Hearing.
Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes. Mr. Kanter
stated that they have already been sent almost the same packet of
materials that the Planning Board had received tonight, before it
• went to the Town Board, Mr. Kanter stated that all of the
landowners would received individual notices of the Hearing, and
other neighborhood Associations.
Board Member Finch stated that he did not feel that an
argument for this district should be a buffer for the South Hill
Recreation Way, because people would not be impressed with that
as a reason for needing this district.
Board
Member
Wilcox
stated
that a
lot of
people expressed
displeasure
of the
trail
being
through
their
back yards.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there was a sheet included
in the packet that focuses on why the Town wants this district,
and those should be focused on at all times during the Public
Hearing,
Board Member Bell asked if there was any activity going on
in the Town of Dryden regarding this project.
Director of
Planning Kanter stated
that people
from the Town
of Dryden should
be invited to the Public
Hearing as
well.
Board Member Bell asked if anything was being done in terms
of preservation across the Town of Ithaca town line with the Town
• of Dryden.
!..
• Planning Board Minutes 31 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Director of Planning Kanter responded, no, nothing in terms
of ordinances in those areas.
Board Member Finch stated that the City of Ithaca continues
to own land on up the Six Mile Creek Valley, even into the Town
of Dryden. Mr. Finch stated that the City of Ithaca Watershed
goes quite a ways into Dryden.
Board Member
Fred
stated that the proposed
Local
Law for
this district does
not
reference the boundaries
or a
map.
Attorney Barney stated that there should be a- clause in the
Local Law that references the modified Zoning Map, if it is not
in there it will be amended.
Chairperson Cornell closed the discussion regarding the Six
Mile Creek Conservation District proposal.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1996.
MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of
March 5, 1996, be and hereby area accepted with the following
changes:
That on Page 10,
Paragraph 5, Last Sentence, which read:
"Mr. Frantz
stated
that because they
eliminated the proposed
parallel
committee
along Building No.
14."
This
has been
changed to read:
"Mr. Frantz stated that
because
they eliminated
the proposed
parallel parking along
Building
No, 14."
That on Page 10, Paragraph 7, which read: "Board Member
Hoffmann stated that she had asked at the last meeting that
Cornell University check into having the staff that would service
the housing handled directly from the housing nearest to those
places needing those services."
This has been changed to read: " "Board Member Hoffmann
stated that she had asked at the last meeting that Cornell
University check into having the staff that would service the
housing handled directly from the maintenance facilities nearest
to those places needing those services."
That on Page 10, Paragraph 9, which read: "Board Member
Hoffmann stated that her point was that in order to decrease any
traffic that would have to go through the residential areas of
the Town."
• This was
that her point
to. go through
changed to read: " "Board Member Hoffmann stated
was to try to decrease any traffic that would have
the residential areas of the Town."
Planning Board Minutes 32 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell
called for a vote.
Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Cornell reminded everyone that March 20 and
March 21, 1996, there would be the SEQR Workshop, and encouraged
Board Members to attend.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town had
received a request from the City of Ithaca to provide a response
to their proposed Inlet Island Park Substitution, which involves
deparking certain lands in the City, which involves proposing
part of their substitute park lands several parcels in the Six
Mile Creek Valley. Mr. Kanter stated that staff thought it would
be appropriate if agreeable to the Board, to come up with a very
simple response letter indicating their support for the overall
• idea of preserving additional land in the Six Mile Creek area,
which would compliment the Town's efforts to preserve the Six
Mile Creek area. Mr. Kanter stated that he had submitted a draft
letter for the Board's consideration.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she endorses the City buying
more property in the Six Mile Creek. Ms. Cornell then asked if
the Board would be endorsing whatever plans they have for
deparking land.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he did not feel it
was the Towns intentions to endorse that, and tried to word the
letter which focused on support for the preservation of lands in
the Six Mile Creek Area. Mr. Kanter stated that it takes an act
of legislature to alienate park lands.
Planner Cornish stated that in order to alienate parkland,
there must be substitute parkland given in exchange, and it
follows that criteria.
After some discussion and review of the letter, Chairperson
Cornell agreed to a revised letter to be sent to the City of
Ithaca. (A Copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #2)
r1
U
• Planning Board Minutes 32 March 19, 1996
APPROVED April 2, 1996
Chairperson Cornell stated that Assistant Town Planner
George Frantz's father passed away suddenly last week, and moved
to extend condolences to him and his family on behalf of the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board,
ADJOURNMENT,
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the March 19,
1996, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting duly closed at 10:35
p.m.
•
DARFTED: 3/28/96.srh
Resp tfulAly submitted,
�' vU
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
M ry Br ant,
Y GG'r�
Administrative Secretary.
I
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783
FAX (607) 273 -1704
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND - PUBLICATION
•
I, Starr Hays, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the
Recording Secretary for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Tompkins
County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on
the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been
duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca
New York, on Tuesday, March 19, 1996, commencing at 7:30 P.M.
as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting:
Entrance of Town Hall.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
March 11, 1996
March 13, 1996
SS..
Bulletin Board, Front
ZJl,dl1 ricly6,
Recording Secretary,.
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of March 1996.
Filename: Starr \Agendas \PPAFF \3- 19- 962.PPA
ar ub10
BETTY F POOLE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEW YORK
# 4646 427
•
•
u
_TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
i HEARINGS
Tuesday, March 19 1996 I
By direction of the dairman
,ot the Planning Board, NO- I
iTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held
-by the Planning Board of the
Town of Ithaca on Tuesday,
,March 19, 1996, at 126
tiEast Seneca Street, Ithaca,
INY, at the'following times on
ythe following matters.
7:35 P.M. State Environmen-
tal Quality Review Act hear
ing on the Draft Environmen;
{tat Impact Statement (DEIS)
land Public Hearing on Pre'
liminary Subdivision Ap=
Proyal for the Buttermilk Val-
ley Estates Subdivision to
include 70 lots consisting of
67 clustered lots, an 18 acre
Ilot to be preserved as un-
ideveloped open space, a 0.8
+/- acre lot to be a
neighborhood park, and a
;neighborhood
+/ acre lot which con-
tains an existing. wetland,
i inn, restaurant, barn and ten- ,
nis facility, approximately
4,159. linear, feet of road,
and water and sewer facili-
ties, to be located between.
1146 and 11.72 Danby,
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par-
cel Nos. 36 -1 -4.2 � and
36 -1 -6, Residence District
R -30, Residence District R -15
and Special Land use District
S -1, Walter J. and Joyce Y.
;Wiggins, Owners/
Applicants; William �F: AI-
bern, P.E. Agent.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Subdi• i
vision Approval for the' pro-
f t h
osed subdivision of Town of
aca Tax Parcel ?No.
43- 1 -2.2, 30.5 +/- acres in
size, into 3 lots, 16.30±,
13.74± and 0.46± acres in
size respectively, located on
the east side ofyDanby Road
i of 'its intersection' with 'East
King Road, on" the property
'known as College Circle
Apartments, MR Multiple i
;Residence District. JMS Ithaca i
;Realty, . Inc., Owner; John
jNovarr Agent.
,Said Planning Board will at
Isaid times and said places
ihear all persons in support of
isuch matters or obiections i
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person. Indi- '
wduals with visual impair-
ments, hearing impairments
,or other special needs, will
be provided with assistance
as necessary, upon request, f
Persons desiHng 6ssistdnce
must make such a request not
less than 48 hours prior to the
time of the public hearing
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
-'March 13, 1996 ____ __
:7
•
0
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday. March 19. 1996
COPY
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, March 19, 1996, at
126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:35 P.M. State Environmental Quality Review Act hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) and Public Hearing on Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision to include 70 lots consisting of 67
clustered lots, an 18 acre lot to be preserved as undeveloped open space, a 0.8 +/- acre
lot to be a neighborhood park, and a 17 +/- acre lot which contains an existing wetland,
inn, restaurant, barn and tennis facility, approximately 4,159 linear feet of road, and
water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -6, Residence District R -30, Residence
District R -15 and Special Land use District S -1, Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins,
Owners /Applicants; William F. Albern, P.E., Agent.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2, 30.5 +/- acres in size, into 3
lots, 16.30 + / -, 13.74 + / -, and 0.46 +/- acres in size respectively, located on the east
side of Danby Road approximately 920 feet north of its intersection with East King
Road, on the property known as College Circle Apartments, MR Multiple Residence
District. JMS Ithaca Realty, Inc., Owner; John Novarr, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or
objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments,
hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon
request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the
time of the public hearing.
Dated: Monday, March 11, 1996
Publish: Wednesday, March 13, 1996
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747
FAX (607) 273 -1704
•
FAX MESSAGE
TO: Lonnet rar✓
FROM: �ry�
DATE:
RE:
Number of pages (including cover sheet):
Comments:
FAX #
FAX # _(607)_273 -1704_
ZONING 273 -1783
-TOWN -OF ITHACA, NY ID :60?2�'31T04 MAR 11'96 9 :44
TRRhk SM I T CONF I
rRMRT
I OIA REPORT
NO.
• RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PACES
RESULT
O01
TOWN OF
MAR
01'06
STD
02
OK
607 272 4335
ITHACA, NY
11'96 9 :44
r:
•
FINAL C(DPY
TOWN OF ITHACA
• 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA ' N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783
FAX (607) 273 -1704
•
March 20, 1996
Douglas Foster
Planning Systems Manager
City of Ithaca Department of Planning
and Development
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Foster:
Thank you for the notification regarding lead agency and environmental review for
the proposed "Inlet Island Cass Park Lands Conversion." The Town of Ithaca
Planning Board would like to express support for the City of Ithaca's proposal to
acquire land in the Six Mile Creek Valley to be preserved as passive parkland. The
City's efforts in preserving these private parcels would complement the Town's
proposal to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to establish a new
Conservation District in the Six Mile Creek Valley.
Very truly yours,
& ,, W,, //
Candace Cornell, Chair
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
cc: Catherine Valentino, Supervisor