HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-05-28•
•
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MAY 28, 1996
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Oat —
Clerl=
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in a special session on Tuesday, May 28, 1996, in
Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Vice Chairperson Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie,
Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter
(Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker
(Director of Engineering), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant
Town Planner).
ALSO PRESENT: Jason Peter.
Vice Chairperson Eva Hoffmann declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM. PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons to be heard.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD
REGARDING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS,
Vice Chairperson Eva Hoffmann stated that there were no changes to the checklist
requirements for the Subdivision Regulations compared to the last meeting, it has just been written
out without having the changes highlighted as they were last time.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that the only difference in format is that it is
proposed as a Local Law, because it would be an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr.
Kanter stated that under the current Town Law, the Planning Board could recommend the change
to the Town Board, but the Town Board must enact the change through a Local Law.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that having one completed and signed Development
Review Application put at the beginning of all sections is a great change to the checklists and that
what people see first would impress them more that it would need to be completed and signed
before the Planning Board could get started with their project.
Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that there were a few minor changes, and that it is a change
in the order of required items which makes more sense for the staff and for the applicant, because
it would go more in sequence of how the Board would actually prepare the document. Ms. Cornish
stated that before there was no order, and now it put the items needed in a more logical sequence.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 101 1996
Ms. Cornish stated that the Planning Staff has asked for revision dates to be on all the revised
drawings. Ms. Cornish stated that the Planning Staff has asked for graphic scales rather than just
in writing (like one inch equals fifty feet), so the staff has asked for it in bar form.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that now the staff is asking for 25 reduced copies of all sets
of materials, which more acurately reflects the actual number of people on the distribution list.
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if the applicant is to have three or four full size dark -line
prints, because on the proposed Local Law for Subdivision requirements, it says "four" prints and
on the draft of the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, on page 3, it says "three" prints.
Starr Hays stated that with the subdivision plats, there would be the mylar copy for the County
Clerk's Office, the owner's copy, the flat file copy, and the development review file copy. Ms. Hays
stated that with the site plans there would be flat file copy, development review file copy, and the
owner's copy.
Board Member Wilcox asked if there was a copy for the County on the site plan.
Ms. Hays responded, no, site plans are not filed at the County Clerk's office.
Board Member Robert Kenerson asked if the Planning staff has read through the checklists
as if they were the applicant, because it seems like a lot for the applicant to do. Mr. Kenerson stated
that he wondered how much value there really is to some of this stuff that could be done by common
sense.
Director of Planning Kanter stated, unfortunately, common sense usually is not the way the
process works when the applicant first comes in, it is more of a process of educating.
Board Member Kenerson asked if the Planning staff fills out the checklist or does the
applicant.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning staff fills it out with the applicant. Mr.
Kanter stated that the Planning Staff would sit down with the applicant when they first come in,
before anything is drawn up and review the requirements. Mr. Kanter stated that when the applicant
comes back in with the plan, then the Planning Staff would go through the list with them again. Mr.
Kanter stated that while going through the list with the applicant, the Staff would tell them what they
have met or what they still need to do. Mr. Kanter stated that the Staff finds that it has become a
good working document to bring to the Board. Mr. Kanter stated that his thoughts were that over the
years, the Planning Staff has come to know what the Board expects and this would help to prevent
confusion.
n
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
3
APPROVED: JULY 107 1996
MAY 28. 1996
Planner Cornish stated that this checklist would help the applicant to know what to expect in
the way of documentation for whatever they are bringing in. Ms. Cornish stated that it really has
been useful for them, especially for people who have come in and never done this before.
Board Member Kenerson stated that he remembers when he wanted to build a house and buy
a lot that there was not any of this stuff, and he further stated that he managed to get it built. Mr.
Kenerson stated that the people who are coming to us for this service and approval, certainly need
to have something that is comprehensible and as simple as possible. Mr. Kenerson stated that it
looks like it is just overwhelming for the people.
Law.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that most of this stuff was already there in the Town's
Board Member Kenerson stated that it is an over kill.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that for the large project, the applicant would need to
start with what they need in the major project and work backwards to what could be waived and do
without if it is just a two -lot breakdown.
• Board Member Kenerson stated that it just seems overwhelming, and he does not think that
it looks simple to people who are coming in to do business with us.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that 19 of the items that are required under the
Preliminary Subdivision Plat Checklist are actually just details that the Staff would like to see on the
survey drawing.
Board Member Kenerson stated that there is money involved here and time involved here.
Mr. Kenerson stated that he was wondering if that has been honed down to get what is needed in
order to make this simpler.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it has been done. Mr. Frantz stated that a lot of
this stuff appears on the standard survey. Mr. Frantz stated that the Planning staff needs to let the
applicant know that it is to be there.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that a lot of what Assistant Town Planner Frantz has
mentioned should be on the standard survey, but often when the applicant comes in they do not
even know that. Mr. Kanter stated that if the staff does not specify how it needs to be done it may
not get done the way it should be. Mr. Kanter stated that this is in the form that is required when
filing with the County Clerk's office.
•Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that when someone comes in with a two -lot subdivision,
the staff shows them the checklist form, and then points out to them that the staff needs these
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
conditions met. Mr. Frantz stated that the staff points out what the applicant needs to do and what
the surveyor needs to put on the survey to meet the Town's needs. Mr. Frantz stated that with two -
lot subdivisions the Planning Staff would very rarely see contouring intervals. Mr. Frantz stated that
up front the staff could tell what really is not going to be necessary, and then the staff would let the
applicant know, so they do not go through that expense.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that one of the reasons this is useful, is that it helps assure
that all the applicants are treated equally because all the applicants and the Planning staff need go
through this form, and then the Planning Board goes through it as part of the project review. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that if there was not this form, what could happen because the applicants do not
fill out the forms completely, is that the Planning Board and staff get frustrated and the applicants
get frustrated if it turns out that they should have had some information that the Board ends up
asking for, and they do not have it. Ms. Hoffmann stated that would be a waste of the applicants
time, and a waste of the Planning Board's time. Ms. Hoffmann stated that one of the things she
noticed that is different between the new form and the old one, is the little key to how the check
marks are done is missing on the new form.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would be in the checklist the Planning Staff gives
to the applicant. Mr. Kanter stated that it was formatted that way because it is an amendment to the
subdivision regulations, and it did not make sense to have that included in the Local Law. Mr.
Kanter stated that the actual format of what the Planning Staff would use for the applicant is like
what the Planning Board saw last time, and what is in form of the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town
Board enact the proposed local law Amending the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations modifying
the Checklist Requirements for Subdivision Approvals, dated 5/21/96.
There being no further discussion, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann called for a vote.
AYES - Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The Adopted Resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.)
AGENDA ITEM. DISCUSSION OF REVISION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
(6/95) AND FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST (6 \6 \95).
0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5
APPROVED-. JULY 10, 1996
MAY 28. 1996
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that this checklist has changes on it in bold letters for
everyone
to
see easily.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that this is not in a form of a law so the Board does
not need
to
go through
the formal procedure as done with the subdivision checklists.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that this agenda item is really just for informational
purposes, since it is not .enacted as a law.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that this is just for discussion and approval of the changes.
Planner Cornish stated that this has edited to make it more sequential in the order the Board
would do the work in, as'' discussed with the subdivision checklists.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that one thing he thought was good, which clarifies it a little
more, is specifying the 30 calendar days, which used to say 20 business days. Mr. Kanter stated
that the timeframe actually comes out to about the same. 30 calendar days parallels more of the
review period for the general municipal law referral to the County which has 30 days to respond
when staff has referred it to them. Mr. Kanter stated that this is true in both the site plan and
subdivision checklist.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that these are also very similar and very good changes
to make it easier to deal with.
The Planning Board was all in agreement to the changes of the checklists.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he would take the proposed local law for the
subdivision checklist to the Town Board, and they would set a hearing to consider approving the
Local Law.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING SIDEWALKS IN SOME AREAS OF TOWN,
Planner Cornish stated that there was a typo on the memorandum entitled "ESTIMATED
COST OF SIDEWALKS FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACAI) , the last line which reads 'A inches Wide,
2 inch Pavement, 6 inch Gravel Base" should read 'A feet Wide, 2 inch Pavement, 6 inch Gravel
Base ".
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that she was a little startled to read, asphalt concrete,
because she thought that asphalt and concrete were two different substances.
Planner Cornish stated that the asphalt that everyone sees on sidewalks is referred to as
asphalt concrete.
® Board Member Gregory Bell asked if asphalt concrete was anything different from regular
e PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
asphalt on the road. Mr. Bell further asked if it was a different texture for sidewalk.
Planner Cornish stated that it was the same thing. Ms. Cornish stated that the make up for
a road asphalt is a little different, but that it is basically the same. Ms. Cornish stated that the
strength of it is greater and the base is deeper, but it is still referred to as asphalt concrete.
Board Member Bell asked if there are two layers of the sidewalk like there is with roads.
Planner Cornish responded, no, there is a base and then a top layer of asphalt.
Board Member Bell asked if there would be a base of gravel.
Planner Cornish responded, yes, a six -inch base.
Board Member James Ainslie asked if in the construction industry, the road men actually call
it asphalt concrete.
Planner Cornish stated that was correct.
OBoard Member Finch asked if it was different from just plain concrete.
Planner Cornish stated that is different from asphalt concrete.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the actual specification, which is in the Exhibit A of the
Sidewalk Ordinance, is called "Hot Mixed Asphalt Concrete Pavement ". (Copy of the Sidewalk
Ordinance is hereto attached as Exhibit #3.)
Board Member Wilcox asked why this Board got into talking about sidewalks.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that it is a subject that has come up as the Planning Board
has talked about a number of subdivisions.
Board Member Bell stated that he has brought up the sidewalk issue slot. Mr. Bell brought
it up most recently with the Buttermilk Valley Estates project, and that he would explain his way of
thinking at the appropriate time.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Staff was interested to find out that there
was a Town Ordinance regulating the manner for construction and repair of sidewalks. Mr. Kanter
stated that just in case the Town needs to require one, there is this exhibit for the specifications
which may or may not be what this Board wants to see applied in some areas, but that this is the
standard spec. (Mr. Kanter referred the Sidewalk Ordinance which is hereto attached as Exhibit #3.)
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
Board Member Ainslie stated that it is not a cheap undertaking.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the ordinance came out of Judd Falls intersection,
when the whole intersection was redone which there is now a sidewalk up there.
Planner Cornish stated that the new sidewalk on Judd Falls Road intersection is not built to
the specifications that were set aside. Ms. Cornish stated that the sidewalk is not of the standard
width specified in the Town ordinance.
Board Member Kenerson asked if the sidewalk was narrower than the Town's requirement.
Planner Cornish stated that was correct.
Board Member Bell asked if part of the sidewalk had not been paved. Mr. Bell further stated
that the part by the intersection is paved, but the part along the horse field is not paved.
Planner Cornish stated that was paved, and it is asphalt.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that it was not paved for a while, but it is now.
• Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it took approximately a year before they could
actually get back to pave the sidewalk and lay down the crushed stone sub -base, and that they
paved it later.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that what surprised her with some of the figures provided
were that crushed stone or wood chips onto the gravel base is less expensive than wood chips with
filter fabric. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that filter fabric is very expensive.
Planner Cornish stated that it is a very expensive item, but it cuts down on the maintenance
of the walk considerably.
Board Member Wilcox asked if everyone is talking about the black stuff.
Planner Cornish stated that there are several types, green or black.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann asked if that would go on top of the wood chips.
Planner Cornish responded, no, it goes on top of the basin under the wood chips which would
act like a weed barrier, and it also prevents the wood chips from settling.
•Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that the Planning Board started the agenda, and she
asked Chairperson Cornell if she would like to go back to anything that she had missed.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
Chairperson Cornell stated that the reason why she planned the meeting as the agenda
reads, is because she was trying to develop a concept throughout the meeting. Chairperson Cornell
stated that she organized things in a particular manner, and the video addresses sidewalks, so that
is why she placed them after the video.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF NEW REPRESENTATIVE TO TOMPKINS
COUNTY PLANNING FEDERATION.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she thinks it is a very good organization. Chairperson Cornell
stated that she does not have the time to go to the meetings all the time, so she has tried to talk
Board Member Fred Wilcox into going. Chairperson Cornell stated that he would like to review their
agendas before deciding on what he wants to do. Chairperson Cornell stated that she could go to
half the meetings, and she would need someone to go the other half. Chairperson Cornell stated
that the meetings are held once a month.
Board Member Ainslie asked if Vice Chairperson Hoffmann could fill in for her.
• Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that she wishes she could, but that she has too many
committees she is serving on right now.
Board Member Finch asked Chairperson Cornell if she wanted a motion for this.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she would like someone to volunteer to be her co-
representative from the Planning Board.
Board Member Ainslie asked if the Tompkins County Planning Federation meets once a
month, and on what night do they meet.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it is consistent every month on Wednesday night.
Board Member Wilcox stated that his offer to Chairperson Cornell that he might still be
interested if he saw some minutes to the meeting to be sure that they were doing something
constructive and reasonable. Mr. Wilcox stated that if he felt like it, he would want to be appointed
to the position, and that he would not want to fill in when Chairperson Cornell was not available.
Chairperson Cornell stated that if he prefers to do the w hole thing that would be all right with
her.
®Chairperson Cornell stated that they have already accomplished some things, such as making
a good effort to educate current Planning Boards on the SEAR changes as well as a number of
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
things.
Board Member Wilcox stated that they sponsored the presentation at the Ramada Inn.
Board Member Ainslie stated that as a previous member of the Tompkins County Planning
Board that there was a representative from each of the Towns and everyone learned what was
happening in Tompkins County. Mr. Ainslie stated that it was interesting to go to and learn what was
happening in Groton, Trumansburg, and other surrounding Towns. Mr. Ainslie stated that it was like
an informational meeting, but that they did not do anything to change anything.
Chairperson Cornell stated that was correct. Chairperson Cornell stated that they have
focused on education, on making all the Planning Boards the best that they can be. Chairperson
Cornell stated that everyone puts out the issues, and the Planning Federation discusses them.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it is a group that wants to make a change.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION OF VIDEO ON CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY REPORT:
SUBDIVISIONS THAT PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND VISUAL CHARACTER.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the goal of this meeting is to do some planning and
discussions among the Planning Board and staff, and not have to deal with a project at hand.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she would like the Planning Board to review the movie called
"Conserving Rural Character Through Innovative Land Use." Chairperson Cornell stated that the
handouts that were passed out, would show them more in detail what the video is talking about. (A
handout entitled "Dealing With Changes in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for
Conservation and Development" is hereto attached as Exhibit #4.)
The Planning Board watched the above - referenced video.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the purpose of this video and meeting was to get the Planning
Board thinking about planning in a comprehensive way. Chairperson Cornell stated that the video
did not go into sidewalks that much, but that they did show them in perfectly reasonable facilities in
the Town.
Board Member Ainslie asked if there was a road that was sixteen feet wide that could permit'
two cars to go by each other.
Chairperson Cornell responded, no. Chairperson Cornell stated if the Town was going to
.have a short country lane someplace, it would really need to be black topped. Chairperson Cornell
stated the reason for this meeting was to get the Planning Board thinking of planning and to do some
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
planning and have small sections in certain meetings when the agenda allowed for specific issues.
Chairperson Cornell stated that in order to talk about street widths, the Planning Board would have
to hear the pros and cons from everyone. Chairperson Cornell stated that when she and Vice
Chairperson Hoffmann were discussing tonight's meeting and what to have on the agenda, they felt
that it is not always clear whether or not everyone understands what cluster is. Chairperson Cornell
stated that her thoughts of living in a subdivision, she feels that it should be more than just living
someplace, it should be a neighborhood. Chairperson Cornell stated that having ways for the
community to interact with one another and the environment around it to her seems very positive.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she likes the idea of sidewalks and the small front yard gardens.
Chairperson Cornell stated that since the house next door to hers burned down, that she
understands why the Town has side yard setbacks. Chairperson Cornell stated that if a farmer could
sell sixty acres, but that at the same time sells all the development rights for the entire property, then
concentrate the development on the sixty acres and figure out how to farm it without disturbing the
community. Chairperson Cornell stated that this could be done with buffers. Chairperson Cornell
stated that she finds this a provocative idea, and that she is in favor of leaving large areas of open
space and buffering the houses with trees. Chairperson Cornell stated that this would instantly
protect the environment, protect the rural character, and they could get just as much housing.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the idea of the village greens are interesting too. Chairperson
Cornell stated for instance, the Buttermilk Valley, it could have been possible to build the same
• development, but that there could have been a way to build it around the village greens
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that what he has been hearing, in recent years from
people in the market, is that those types of close clusters do not sell. Attorney Barney stated that
the ultimate goal is to have that single family home on their own lot with a little space. Attorney
Barney stated that he was interested in the zoning part of the video that seemed to make a pitch for
cluster and mandating it, which the Town of Ithaca has had that authority to do for approximately 20
years.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the video made the presumption that most
communities do not have that. Mr. Kanter stated that a lot of the presentation in the video was sales
pitch.
Chairperson Cornell stated that even though the Town of Ithaca has been clustering, that the
Town does not necessarily, really cluster.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town has some clusters which certain smaller lots,
but do not preserve open space, like Evergreen Lane.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the worst example of a cluster that did not work was the
Ciaschi cluster at the end of Woolf Lane.
• Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that is exactly the cluster the video is talking
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
about, sixty feet between front doors and thirty feet between houses. Mr. Walker stated that Mr.
Ciaschi is now coming in with a conventional subdivision because he cannot sell the lots.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the video was saying that there was sixty feet between
front doors with a public road in between them, but with the Ciaschi subdivision there are private
driveways.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that with the Ciaschi subdivision, there were different parts
of it, and it could have worked if the whole thing was done right. Mr. Kanter stated that the part he
had lived in had preserved a lot of the old mature trees which made a lot of difference. Mr. Kanter
stated that it all depends on the open space, landscaping, and the size of the houses.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the footprint of those houses does not match those lots.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that some of the Ciaschi lots contain huge houses.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Attorney for the Town Barney pointed out a major
obstacle with cluster subdivisions, at least in Ithaca, that people in this area are not interested in
attached housing. Mr. Frantz stated that people are not interested in homeowners associations
• either. Mr. Frantz stated that there is single family detached homes on slightly condensed lots that
resulted in open space, which is quite considerable, rather than being put into a homeowner's
association as being attached to Buttermilk Falls State Park. Mr. Frantz stated that there are ways
of getting cluster subdivisions developed that also avoid those two very important obstacles.
Chairperson Cornell asked if there was a reason why Deer Run did not sell well.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that there is difficulty selling them as attached units.
Chairperson Cornell stated that when she is speaking about clusters, she is still thinking
about single family houses that have more of a rural feel to it.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that some of these subdivisions could also look attractive
in the future.
Board Member Bell stated that the plan does make a difference. Mr. Bell stated that his
experience on this Board has been quite a lot of frustration over the last two years, because of the
tendency to have these classic subdivisions. Mr. Bell stated that this Board does a lot of things right,
but the classic subdivisions he thinks are really bad. Mr. Bell stated that the experience of the last
forty years in the United States has resulted in this pattern of widely spaced houses with no
sidewalks and very wide highway type standards for the street. Mr. Bell stated that all this stuff
•combined detracts from the family and the neighborhood, and creates a lack of a social cohesion.
Mr. Bell stated that he thinks one of the reasons why there are such social problems in the suburbs
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
is partly because what the Town has built physically. Mr. Bell stated that he firmly agrees in the
cluster business. Mr. Bell stated that he lives in Commonland Crest, but it is not Commonland. Mr.
Bell stated that the little group of 18 houses where he lives is clustered and they do preserve open
space intentionally. Mr. Bell stated that some of the houses are attached, but then some of them
are not. Mr. Bell stated that there is a real sense of a neighborhood. Mr. Bell stated that people live
close enough to each other, and they share some front yards and share some parts of back yards,
where they talk to each other and get to know each other. Mr. Bell stated that it feels like a
neighborhood. Mr. Bell stated that when he was absent a few meetings ago, as many of the Board
Members know, he was in France. Mr. Bell stated that this is a classic thing that every planning
student always tells everybody, but that he had never been in France before, and he said he was
totally impressed with the way village's stop and rural landscape begins. Mr. Bell stated that there
is a line where the urban development stops. Mr. Bell stated that if anybody drives in Upstate New
York, and what people would see are not generally farm fields, and what people would see are a lot
of very trashy stuff where the Town of Ithaca is somewhat better than the average, but that when
people go into the surrounding ring of towns there is just all kinds of trash. Mr. Bell stated that there
are houses and double wides, junk farm equipment and junk cars, aluminum siding falling off
houses, and building materials just laying around. Mr. Bell stated that he grew up in New York, but
that he does not really like what the place looks like very much anymore. Mr. Bell stated that cluster
development is a major way to build a community and make the place look better.
• Board Member Finch stated that this Board is not arguing it isn't, but the video is about 20
years behind us.
Chairperson Cornell asked Attorney for the Town Barney and Director of Engineering Walker
if the Town could have smaller front yard setback and larger back yards.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the Town has fairly big yards now.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it is desirable to set a consistency in the
neighborhood.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that is one of the dimensions that could be waived in
a cluster subdivision. Mr. Frantz stated that it was waived in the Chase Lane cluster subdivision,
where they attempted to move the houses closer to the street.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he agreed with Board Member Bell, where the piece of
property conforms to the zoning, and everything cannot be legally turned down if it meets all of the
criteria.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the Board could compel the cluster. Attorney Barney
•stated that under the Town's subdivision regulations, that a person can be mandated to come in with
a cluster plan. The answer is yes, this Board could turn him down on a conventional subdivision
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
13
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
layout and tell him to come in with a cluster.
MAY 28. 1996
Board Member Ainslie stated that even with the Shalebrook development, this Board allowed
development in the woods and now he sold a lot in the open field.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the other part is that when people come in, that all the Board
could do is work within the existing regulations, and that the Town has flexibility with the cluster
regulations. Chairperson Cornell stated that now is the time that the Planning Committee and the
Codes and Ordinances Committee is going over the Zoning Ordinance totally to see if there is
something that needs changes. Chairperson Cornell stated that part of this is to see if the Planning
Board has any changes for them to look into.
Board Member Finch asked if the Planning Board wished to instruct its representative on the
Codes and Ordinance Committee to take a particular position back to the Codes and Ordinances
Committee (COC).
Chairperson Cornell stated that maybe the Planning Board would want to think about this for
a little bit, and that maybe then they could.
is Director of Engineering Walker stated that one thing from the standpoint of a cluster is to see
how the village concept fits into their plans. Mr. Walker stated that the Board should keep that in
mind when they look into the Saddlewood proposal, and then compare it to the Connecticut Valley,
and see how much more compact that design is than most of Connecticut Valley was.
Board Member Ainslie stated that it is going to be interesting to see how this Board could
work that out to the satisfaction of everybody.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that their layout is conceptional now and it is certainly
subject to change, but that it does not seem to create a sense of a neighborhood. Mr. Kanter stated
that what they have done is maximized the views looking over each other down the hill side.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that Director of Planning Kanter is talking about something
that she has not seen.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that this proposal will be seen by the Planning Board at
their next meeting.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Planning Board would like to think about the possible
changes they could see in the Ordinances, and then give them to the Board Members that are on
the COC and the Planning Committee.
• Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that she thinks it would be worthwhile to think about being
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
•
MAY 28. 1996
able to have sidewalks in certain neighborhoods, being able to have narrower roads in certain
neighborhoods where there is not alot of traffic, and to be able to be more flexible on the standards
on how to do this.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that some of that has been defined by State Law.
Attorney Barney stated that there is a conference tomorrow night in Brooktondale, on the issue of
having somewhat minimum maintenance roads as opposed to the State requirements. Attorney
Barney stated that the Town of Caroline has in front of it, a proposed ordinance that will allow
something less than what the normal requirements are for maintenance. Attorney Barney stated
that a minimum maintenance road is a new concept between a seasonal road and old road.
Board Member Wilcox stated that Attorney Barney represents the Town of Caroline, and
asked if this was an attempt to get around the issue with the guy on a seasonal road.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that he thinks that is what provoked them to think about
it, but that it is basically in a number of townships not only in the Town of Caroline, and that slot of
rural townships have these tremendous numbers of seasonal use roads. Attorney Barney stated that
under current State law it could be seasonal use only as long as there is not a year round house on
it. Attorney Barney stated that once a person puts a year -round house on a seasonal use road then
it may be a gravel drive. If it is owned by the township, then it becomes a Town road to maintain.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this has been put together by the Cornell Local
Roads Program, and what they are trying to do is adopt national standards for road and highway
design to more rural areas where traffic volumes are not nearly as great as on State highways. Mr.
Frantz stated that a local road could be the same standards applying to the streets in Manhattan as
to the roads in Caroline.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the meeting in Brooktondale was opened to the public.
Attorney for the Town Barney responded, yes, and stated that it is at the Brooktondale
Community Center at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Cornell stated that if anyone from the Planning Board goes, they could give a
brief report on the issue at the next meeting. Chairperson Cornell stated that what she is getting at
is that this Board might need to have more flexibility in designing neighborhoods.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that there are some restraints on what this Board does
because of what the State Legislation and State Laws say.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
•
•
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING SIDEWALKS IN SOME AREAS OF TOWN
(CONTINUATION).
Director of Engineering Walker stated that asphalt concrete and cement concrete are different
types of concrete. Mr. Walker stated that concrete has to do with a stone bond, together with
another material, and that is what makes it concrete. Mr. Walker stated that asphalt concrete
happens to be stone mixed with asphalt that holds it together. Mr. Walker stated that what people
call cement or concrete sidewalks are not asphalt, but is Portland cement with sand and stone to
make that type of concrete. Mr. Walker stated that asphalt concrete is a flexible pavement and
cement concrete is a rigid pavement.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board decided that these sidewalks are expensive, and
asked if there were any benefits to this versus the cost.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that another basis for many law suits if someone trips
on the cracks.
Chairperson Cornell stated that for children where she lives on Hanshaw Road to get to
different places the kids have to trespass across neighboring property.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that they may not be trespassing if the children are
within the five or ten feet of the road way.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there are alot of places that are not safe for children unless
there is a proper sidewalk for walking to school, friends, or to get to the walkways.
Board Member Wilcox stated that
community. Mr. Wilcox stated that in hi
houses, and they have copies of his keys.
just a unique mix of people who have come
area which has low speed limits, woodland
it is just the way the people that live there
this discussion is going toward legislating a sense of
s neighborhood, he has keys to both of his neighbors'
Mr. Wilcox stated that this has not been legislating, it is
together in a very small area. Mr. Wilcox stated that an
very close, and the South Hill Recreation Way, but thal
get along.
Board Member Bell stated that all the things Board Member Wilcox mentioned were physical
features which were planned by somebody who made these decisions a long time ago. Mr. Bell
stated that what this Board is trying to do is to make these decisions in advance, so the Town of
Ithaca has these neighborhoods where these people are attracted.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he does not think this Board could legislate it by putting in
sidewalks.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
MAY 28. 1996
Board Member Bell stated that he thinks this Board could. Mr. Bell stated that it is not the
issue of whether or not this Board could legislate a community. Mr. Bell stated that what this Board
could do is legislate an anti - community, and he thinks that is what the Board is trying to avoid. Mr.
Bell stated that there are ways to have affordable housing that is not horrible, and that does not
consume all of the land. Mr. Bell stated that this Board is responsible for creating the future, and
if this Board is creating a situation where kids cannot get to their neighbors, that means they will
grow up unsocially. Mr. Bell stated that if these kids grow up unsocially, then drugs would become
a much bigger issue. Mr. Bell stated that the sense of community, of being supported by neighbors,
is supported by physical things.
Chairperson Cornell stated that is the same argument this Board used for encouraging
Bikeways and Greenways in neighborhoods, because it helped create a sense of community.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it helps people get to know each other because they are walking or
riding and see each other on a path, or it could be a sidewalk. Chairperson Cornell stated that by
seeing each other out there, there would be more communication with the neighbors. Chairperson
Cornell stated that she is talking about sidewalks in terms of safety and to help build the community.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the first step in sidewalks would be to do a
Transportation Plan to identify the areas that really need sidewalks. Mr. Frantz stated that Director
• of Engineering Walker has raised a very good point that there are many streets in the Town of Ithaca
where sidewalks are not necessary. Mr. Frantz stated that people could walk along the side of the
road or through the neighbor's yard to get where they are going. Mr. Frantz stated that there are
some roadways and streets where sidewalks should be constructed.
Vice Chairperson Hoffmann stated that children are not the only ones that need to walk
places, adults also have to walk to get to places or for exercise.
Chairperson Cornell stated that new sidewalks would be beneficial for everyone. Chairperson
Cornell stated that all she is asking of the Planning Board is to think about the sidewalks in the Town
of Ithaca.
Board Member Bell stated that the only issue this Board has not discussed is the cost of the
sidewalks, and asked if the Town of Ithaca is required to maintain these sidewalks.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the homeowners are responsible for maintaining
them. It is mandated by the Town that homeowners shovel their own sidewalks, but if they do not
do it and the Town does it, then they get a bill from the Town of Ithaca for this service.
Chairperson Cornell stated that sidewalks would also get people walking on the sidewalks
instead of the road which would be a great benefit for drivers.
•
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
MAY 28. 1996
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there are some other considerations people should
look at for the sidewalks such as drainage and maintenance which is a cost issue. Mr. Walker
stated that if this Board is looking at drainage in a configuration of the subdivisions, with a 50 foot
wide front yard, then the sidewalk is not a very big cost, but that alot of the properties in the Town
of Ithaca have 150 foot or 200 foot front yards. Mr. Walker stated that in one of the areas where
there is a fairly good drainage system, there is also a configuration of a 60 -foot wide right -of -way
for a reason. Mr. Walker stated that the Town has 20 foot wide pavements which are 10 feet per
lane, that is a safety issue on a through road. Mr. Walker stated that for safety purposes and
maintenance purposes there needs to be a shoulder that is four feet wide, and that is why roads are
configured that way. Mr. Walker stated that then there is a drainage ditch which is to be two feet
deeper than the surface of the road to properly drain the road base, so it does not go to pieces. Mr.
Walker stated that the Town of Ithaca needs to do a plan for all the drainage and maintenance for
the sidewalks that need to be developed. Mr. Walker stated that the best solution for the Town of
Ithaca to get rid of the drainage problems, would be to put the pipes under ground and carry the
water underground. Mr. Walker stated that his point, is that there is slot of consideration to take
in before a decision is made on the basis of the pros and cons. Mr. Walker stated that this Board
does not make the decision, but that the Planning Board could make a recommendation to the Town
Board who would make the ultimate decision.
• Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the Town Board could compel the installation of
sidewalks and charge the adjoining landowners of the cost amount to pay it over a five year period.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board could recommend to the Town Board on a particular
area that they would require that to occur. Attorney Barney stated that it is only the Town Board's
decision to whether it should or not.
After further discussion about a recommendation to the Town Board for sidewalks,
Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER SCHEDULING SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR
JUNE 11, 1996s FOR SKETCH PLAN DISCUSSION FOR SADDLEWOOD FARMS REZONING
AND SITE PLAN PROPOSAL, MECKLENBURG ROAD.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Planning Board has a problem with a meeting on June 11,
1996 for the discussion of the Saddlewood Farms proposal.
Board Member Kenerson stated he would not be able to attend that night due to other
obligations.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the Town Board has instructed the Planning Board to
provide them with a recommendation on the rezoning of the Saddlewood property.
•
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 101 1996
•
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town Board has also asked the Planning Board
to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the Planning Board should understand with this
proposal, that the developer claims that they loose their income tax credit, which is the higher
financial motivation for this, if they do not have a building permit by July 29, 1996.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there is no way they could get a permit by that time.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that he told the developers the same thing at a meeting,
but that they did not want to believe that. They also wanted to know what the Planning Board could
do to move things along, which is the reason for the special meeting and an effort to try and meet
the in possible dead line.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning staff told them the fastest time scenario,
even if that could be achieved, could probably not come close to July 29, 1996.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Planning Board would be available for a meeting June 11,
1996.
Board Member Bell asked if there was a reason why the Planning Board has to consider a
special meeting for people who are not going to meet the objective they want. Mr. Bell further asked
if there was a reason why these people would be more special than anybody else.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this project may have some merit. Chairperson Cornell stated
that this project could establish a precedent by that preserving agricultural land through purchasing
development rights of other agricultural lands out of the district.
Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board meets every two weeks.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the regular meetings are booked solidly up through
July. Attorney Barney.stated that in order to give them a shot at the July 29, 1996 deadline, it almost
necessitates a separate meeting. Attorney Barney stated that there is a strong push from the Town
Board, because they think this project should be looked at very carefully by the Planning Board.
Board Member Bell asked if there would be other things on the agenda for that meeting.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there could be more items added to the agenda.
Attorney for the Town Barney stated that this meeting would give the Planning Board a good
•look at the proposal with a lengthy presentation that could not be done at any other regular meeting
because they are fully booked.
0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 MAY 28. 1996
APPROVED: JULY 10, 1996
Chairperson Cornell stated that there will be a quorum for the June 11 1996 Planning Board
Meeting for discussion on the Saddlewood Proposal and other business.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING COORDINATION OF SITE VISITS WITH OTHER
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS,
Chairperson Cornell stated that in years past, a number of Board Members used to get
together to go out and do site visits together. Chairperson Cornell stated that one of the great
advantages of doing that, is that people could communicate together for the planning process.
Chairperson Cornell stated that if Board Members could try and coordinate some of these reviews,
it would help the planning process.
AGENDA ITEM: SCHEDULE TIME FOR SITE VISIT TO ITHACA ESTATES SUBDIVISION,
EAST KING ROAD.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning
with as many Board Members that might be able to make it.
are June 12, 1996 or June 13, 1996, late afternoon between
OMr. Kanter stated that this is a site that is owned by Evan K
Ithaca Estates proposal for a nine -lot subdivision.
staff would like to schedule a site visit
Mr. Kanter stated that possible dates
4:00 and 5:00 on either of those days.
lonkemeyer on East King Road for the
The Planning Board Members all agreed that June 13, 1996 between 4 :00 and 5 :00 will be
a good time to visit the site on East King Road for the Ithaca Estates Subdivision for Evan
Monkemeyer.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT.
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the May 28, 1996, Meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 :30 p.m.
Prepared by: rah A. Kelle
Y,
Keyboard Specialist /Minutes Recorder.
RAe tfully submitted,
942ys,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
c
Mary Brya ,
• Administrative Secretary.
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
MP
Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Enactment of a Local Law to
Amend Subdivision Regulations to Revise Article VI
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Requirements
Planning Board, May 28, 1996
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding
enactment of a local law to Amend the Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Ithaca
(Approved by Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 2, 1993, and Approved by Town
of Ithaca Town Board, March 8, 1993) to revise Article VI, Section 36, Preliminary
Plat Checklist, Article VI, Section 37, Form of Final Plat, and Article VI, Section 38,
Improvement Plans and Related Information, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board will act as lead
agency in environmental review, and
3. The Planning Board, on May 28, 1996, has reviewed the proposed local law Amending
the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations Modifying the Checklist Requirements for
Subdivision Approvals, dated 5/21/96.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the
proposed local law Amending the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations Modifying the
Checklist Requirements for Subdivision Approvals, dated 5/21/96.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Kenerson, Bell.
NAY - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Starr Hays, Recording Secretary
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
• 5/28/96.
C: \St=r Ruols \SUBDIVCL.REC; COMP.t9I2
•
h
T0: Members - Town of Ithaca Planning Board
FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Planner
DATE: May 14, 1996
RE: ESTIMATED COST OF SIDEWALKS FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA
At several recent Planning Board meetings, the subject of sidewalk design and cost has been
discussed. Attached, please find the ORDINANCE REGULATING THE MANNER OF
CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS, as adopted by the Town Board on
August 24, 1992. The following is an estimate based on Exhibit A, SIDEWALK
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA, located on page 4 of said ordinance.
• The estimate is based on a sidewalk length of one mile, and includes clearing and grubbing,
using figures for clearing heavy brush (up tt 4" diameter), excavation, compacted gravel base,
bituminous surface, hand grading along the edge of the completed walk, and a 20%
contingency cost.
0
ESTIMATED COST FOR ONE MILE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SIDEWALK:
Wide, 2" Pavement, 6" Gravel Base
2" Pavement, 6" Gravel Base
joann\planbd\townwalk.mem, comp #15
$ 529400.00
$ 327300.00
TOWN OF ITHACA
ITHACA, NEW YORK
FINAL
(CO[Ply
ORDINANCE REGULATING THE MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION AND
REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS
BE
Tompkins
IT ORDAINED
County, New
by the Town Board of the Town of
York,
as follows.
Ithaca,
Section 1. Title of Ordinance and Town Law Authority. This
Ordinance may be cited as the "Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Regulation
Ordinance" and is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by New
York State Town Law Sections 130 et. seq. and Section 200 -a.
Section 2. Construction of Sidewalks. Sidewalks constructed
within the Town of Ithaca, when constructed by parties other than
the Town of Ithaca where ordered by the Town Board as set forth
below, shall be constructed in accordance with the grades and
specifications annexed hereto as Exhibit A unless a specification
is waived by the Town Board in a particular instance because of
unique circumstances or if the Town Board specifically accepts a
• substitute specification as being equal or superior to the
specifications attached. No construction, reconstruction or repair
of sidewalks shall be permitted, in those areas where the Town
Board has ordered the construction or maintenance of sidewalks,
that does not comply with the attached specifications unless waived
or modified by the Town Board as set forth above.
Section 3. Maintenance of sidewalks. The owner and occupant
of premises abutting on any street where a sidewalk has been laid,
shall keep the sidewalk in front of such premises free and clear
from snow, ice, dirt, and other obstructions. All snow and ice
shall be removed from such sidewalk within 24 hours of the time of
its deposit, such time to be determined by the Town Engineer. Upon
default in maintaining sidewalks free and clear from snow, ice,
dirt and other obstructions, the Town may remove such obstructions
at the expense of the property owner. The charge to the owner for
the cleaning of any such walk will be the actual cost, plus 50% for
overhead and administration for such charges and shall be due 30
days from the date invoiced to the owner. Bills remaining unpaid
after 30 days shall accrue a late charge at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the bill or $3.00 per month, whichever is
greater, and may be added to the taxes due with relation to, and
shall become
paid,
a lien upon, the premises benefitted thereby, until
Section 4. Duty to construct and maintain sidewalks. The
• Town Board may adopt orders from time to time, directing the owners
of the respective lots and parcels of land abutting on any Town
street or highway, or, with the consent of the County
Superintendent of Highways or the State Commissioner of
1.
side. ord, wp51 ith, 08124192 1:12pm
Transportation, as the case may be, abutting on a County or State
highway within the Town of Ithaca, along which it is desired that
sidewalks be built, relaid or repaired, to construct the same to
conform the terms of this Ordinance, and specifying the time within
which the same shall be done. The procedures related to such
orders shall be as follows.
(a) The Town Clerk shall give notice thereof by certified
mail addressed to each such owner at the owner's address as it
appears upon the assessment roll of the Town or, in the
alternative, by publication of a notice thereof in the official
paper at least twice, the first publication of which shall be at
least 15 days before the time specified for the completion of the
work.
(b) If,
the sidewalks
have been so
cause the sam
• the same and
benef fitted as
•
within the time prescribed in the order and notice,
required to be built, relaid or repaired, shall not
built, relaid or repaired, then the Town Board may
e to be done and.audit and pay the expense of doing
assess the expense thereof against the property
a whole.
(c) Such assessment shall be in five or less annual
installments and shall be levied and collected from the several
lots and parcels in the same manner and at the same time as other
Town charges.
(d) The assessment against the property owners shall be in
the same manner as street improvements constructed pursuant to
Section 200 of the Town Law.
(e) If such expense be assessed in installments, there shall
be assessed as part of each installment, except the first, as
interest, an amount not exceeding 60 of such installment, such rate
to be fixed by the Town Board in the order providing for the
assessment.
(f) The provisions of law applicable to the sale of tax liens
shall apply to any unpaid assessed installment with the interest
thereon in the same manner as though such installment and interest
had been assessed as an assessment payable as a whole. Unassessed
installments shall be prepayable at any time with interest computed
thereon at the aforesaid rate from the date of assessment of the
first installment to the date of payment of the particular
installment.
2
C7
side. ord, wp51 ith, 08124192 1:12pm
(g) If such expense be assessed as a whole and the Town Board
resolution assessing such expense against a particular piece of
property shall so provide, the assessment against such property may
be paid in five or less annual installments on the dates fixed by
such resolution with interest, not exceeding 6% of each such
installment, fixed by such resolution.
(h) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town Board may adopt
a local law apportioning the expense of building, relaying or
repairing any sidewalk within such Town between the Town and owners
of the respective lots and parcels of land abutting any street or
County or State highway within the Town along which it is desired
that sidewalks be built, relaid or repaired.
Section 5. Applicability. This ordinance shall apply to all
property in the Town of Ithaca outside the limits of the
incorporated Village of Cayuga Heights,
Section 6. Invalidity. If any provision of this ordinance is
found invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect any of the other provisions of this
ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
ten days after its publication as required by law, except that the
same shall take effect from the date of its service (if earlier
than ten days after its publication) as against any person served
personally with a copy hereof certified by the Town Clerk under the
corporate seal of the Town and showing the date of its passage and
entry in the minutes of the Town Board.
Adopted: August 24, 1992
Published: August 1992
3
® side. ord, wpSl ith, 08124192 1:12pm
Exhibit A
SIDEWALK SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Asphalt Concrete Sidewalks
Materials and composition shall consist of Type 7 Top Course
as listed under section 401.2.02 Table 401 -1, Composition of
Bituminous Plant Mixtures, of the NYSDOT Standard
Specifications.
Sidewalks shall be constructed with a 6' width and 2"
thickness of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement, placed on a
compacted base. The asphalt concrete shall be placed and
compacted according to the requirements of Section 403 of the
NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if the Town Board designates a particular street or
road as a residential street for sidewalk purposes, the width
of the sidewalk may be reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet.
Sidewalk Base shall consist of a 6" thick compacted fine
crusher run limestone, or with the special approval of the
Town Engineer the base may be constructed of crushed bank run
gravel.
Sidewalks shall be constructed so that the finished surface is
flush with the adjacent grades. Maximum cross slope shall be
1/8" per foot. Maximum sidewalk grade shall be 8 %.
n
W
C'' 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 -1747
•
0
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA )
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and the
Corporate seal of the Town of Ithaca, New York this 25th day of
August, 1992.
Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca
I. Joan Lent
Hamilton, Town Clerk of the
Town of
Ithaca, New
York,
do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance
is
a true and
exact
copy of an
Ordinance duly
adopted by the Town Board
of said
Town
of Ithaca at
a Special Town
Board meeting
held on
the 24th day
of
August, 1992, and that the same is a complete
copy
of the whole
of
such Ordinance,
and that the
same was entered into
the minutes
of
the
Town
Board
on August 25,
19920
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and the
Corporate seal of the Town of Ithaca, New York this 25th day of
August, 1992.
Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca
r%
i
NOW
Yi
O
LAW
'0
LINCOLN
INSTITUTE
OF LAND POLICY
Candace E. Cornell
1456 Hanshaw Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
r
,4
Dealing With Change in the Connecticut River Valle
A Design Manual for Conservation and Development
Fourth Printing, December 1990
By:
Prof. Robert D. Yaro
Director, Center for Rural Massachusetts
College of Food and Natural Resources
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Randall G. Arendt, M.R.T.P.I.
Associate Director, Center for Rural Massachusetts
College of Food and Natural Resources
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Harry L. Dodson, A.S.L.A., Principal
Dodson Associates, Landscape Architects
Ashfield, MA 01330
Elizabeth A. Brabec, MLA, Principal
Scarfo -Brabec Design
Cheverly, MD 20785
Published by the Lincoln Institute Env ronme tal Policy and the
Aerial I Iiew of Site A Before Development
11)
U
•
•
t-
�.. ,
lcxira
B -. i
s
Ell
all
Asmvw
T
r,
s '
' Y ,
� f • Sin � %J
,c. tic
r
Aerial Vtew of Site A After Conventional Development
20
i J/
Z
s
1.
N
^-FYI.✓
1 /r,.
.. - -. =1
A�uu ,, nd'• C
Aerial view of Site A After Creative Development
21
I It
I
F PAP
` \ \\ 1•• .
\ \ \ \\ \ \. \ \,\ �. \ t �p�l
\ t
..
\ \
_ - --
r \ IN rate
IN
IN IN IN IN, IN
\\`•• >�C
�\
NNN IN.
\
NNNNIN
_.-V
It VI, If
It 1S`4 + YQ4iWU1•"I`'WI�IY, 7m/{( GI11- vy►- >`_....�..a....ve�.— �_:e7.. \_:.:...... IL
IN
IN
It
\ IN
OV
IN
IN
VN r— \\ -\
\\ \ \. �\ `\
\\ ;•
L \\
I IN
NN
N IN
If
It
IN
It A
Of
y -I� \ .. \\ .\ . \.
�- I Uale
.,. _
I /fir..•. -__ _ _ -. -_ - ___-- ___...... _... .__.- ...__.- ____- ......._- .. -_._�
it
Ito 4
y ,,r
.rl .,.l,4 "�•y
..I•r••
:: •h
Lq ,
1444 It"
1' Y+
.
..Sr, 14 �..
` r� !'
t: b+` wJ;
:.... OIk
I3 vi ' i
�ula�/i/
Ot
Aerial Vew of Site B Before Development
29
•
•
` „ 1" ow, t 6, g&IOWO t vs Joe/ lt�yv «•1`" '+l4!'Av
_ ...yam . -`. _ :�•- -• C,� _ �,`• ` \\ '\ ` \\ \ \ �N.,
\N\\
JIM
q
I 7l
pup
`-
•...- \ - ..- .sic+ •' �` \. --:� �
.y��
fir
lop 11
^T;: �_•p
to
1011, Mg,
v
1
� / � pry �1 �V /�!!,! ` „�,.aV,. •� /:', �,; f_ 1.
.140
IR
r
Aerial Kew of Site B After Conventional Development
30
No
kw
OJI
M
!
y
ti
>
y
4
.y
d
0�
U
O
i
y
ti
CS
C
y
0
rtR�««nnnnnnn[[_r n_�nnnnTirinnn�nnn