HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-06-11TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
Clerk
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special session on Tuesday, June 11, 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,
Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), Hugh Kent
(Attorney), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), JoAnn Cornish (Planner).
ALSO PRESENT. John Wishart, Tori Wishart, Janet Breslin, Lauren Stanforth, Glenn
Hubbell, Michele Devine, Tony Creal, Bob Lama, Ann Wexler, Maria
Coles, Paul Slade, DeeDee Slade, Phyllis S. McNeill, Phil Zarriello, Lois
King,. Debbie _Teeter, Ira Goldstein, Tessa Flores, John Baker, Mark
Baker, Paul Brandford, Peter Trowbridge, Peter Salmon, Lois Levitan,
Cathy Valentino.
Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35-p.m. 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.
Ira Goldstein of 155 Compton Road stated that he has a concern about the Buttermilk Valley
development that was on the agenda at the last meeting, and the development is scheduled for
consideration of final approval on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Goldstein stated that he
failed to notice the development until recently, and that he has alot of concerns about the project.
Mr. Goldstein stated his thoughts were that this project would change the character of the area and
there is a lot of thigh density in the area. Mr. Goldstein stated much of the area on the south side
of the Town of Ithaca is R -30, and this project would be in a sensitive area right next to Buttermilk
Falls State Park: Mr. Goldstein stated that approximately 70 acres would be potentially 67 building
lots-. Mr. Goldstein stated in terms of looking more comprehensively at the development of the Town
in that area, he would like to urge the Planning Board not to jump ahead to final approval for this
project. Mr. Goldstein stated he would like to explore the possibilities, because this development
looks like it is going to have a large impact on the community in many ways.
Chairperson Cornell stated, unfortunately, the Planning Board accepted the preliminary
approval at the June 4, 1996 meeting. Chairperson Cornell stated the Planning Board did declare
a positive significance' through the SEAR process, and there was appropriate time for public
comment. Chairperson Cornell stated the public should get involved when the projects.are started
and when the public comment periods are opened. Chairperson Cornell stated -that Mr.' Goldstein
could write his comments down with regard to the Buttermilk Valley development and forward them
to the Planning ;Board and staff for review.
S PLANNING BOARD MINUTES J
2 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED -ULY 91 1996
Mr. Goldstein stated he would forward his comments to the Planning Board and staff, and
thanked the Board for their time.
Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SADDLEWOOD
FARMS APARTMENTS, TO CONSIST OF 276 +/- RENTAL UNITS, LOCATED ON TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 27444.2, 9149 +/- ACRES IN SIZE, 1310 MECKLENBURG ROAD.
ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD WILL INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN
BOARD ON THE PROPOSED REZONING FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) AND R -15 RESIDENCE
TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD), AS WELL AS SITE PLAN APPROVAL. ALFRED,
MILDRED, NELSON, AND JACQUELINE EDDY, OWNERS, SADDLEWOOD FARMS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT.
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read from the Agenda
as posted and as noted above.
• Michele Devine, Representative of Development for Landmark America from Portland, Maine,
stated she would summarize what Landmark America is, who they are, and what they have done.
Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America began over 19 years ago, and was founded by the
president, Pamela Gleichman. Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America had developed over 2,
000 units throughout ten states in the country, and currently have another 3,000 units under
development. Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America has developed all of the properties
themselves, they own the developments, and they manage all of them with another company called
Gannex. Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America comes into a community, works with the
community and the Planning Board to create a development that is distinctive, creative, and has a
component that is wanted by the Town. Ms. Devine stated there usually is a mix of units that are
affordable and moderate income. This would be the case for the Saddlewood Farms proposal. Ms.
Devine stated the Saddlewood Farms proposal would be for 276 units. 125 units are rent restrictive
and 175 units are market rate apartments. Ms. Devine stated there are 40 one bedroom units, 185
two - bedroom units, and 50 three - bedroom units. Ms. Devine stated they are offering a lot of
amenities. Ms. Devine stated this is a 93.8 +/- acre parcel, and Landmark America is leaving much
of the parcel as open space. Ms. Devine stated the buildings are arranged to utilize the wonderful
views of the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Devine stated there would be a swimming pool, wading pool, a club
house which would act as a community center with a deck overlooking the development, central air,
gas, water, and heating. Ms. Devine stated the second floors have cathedral ceilings and all units
would have attached garages. Ms. Devine stated there would be jogging and walking paths
throughout the community, and with the use of a local landscaper there will be landscaping done.
•Ms. Devine stated Landmark America would not be doing the landscaping or plantings until they
receive recommendations from the Planning Board on where and what to plant. Ms. Devine stated
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED -JULY 97 1996
that, in all the units, there would be a refrigerator, disposal, ranges, washer and dryer hookups, and
dishwashers. Ms. Devine stated she would be turning the presentation over to Tony Creal, and that
she would be glad to answer any questions from the Planning Board.
Chairperson Cornell stated she handed out three different handouts on Affordable Housing
and Agriculture for the Planning Board to review. (Handouts as referred to above are hereto
attached as Exhibits #1, #2, and #3.)
Tony Creal, Architect for the Saddlewood Farms project, stated he passed out a packet to
members of the Planning Board which contained a number of the projects which Landmark America
had done over the years. Mr. Creal stated that Landmark America has been particularly active in
historic restoration of older buildings by turning the buildings into affordable housing in a number
of states. Mr. Creal stated this presents a different type of housing development. Mr. Creal stated
the planning process is like an evolution and they are open to people's ideas. Mr. Creal stated the
Site Plan dated December 10, 1995, was the earliest sketch of this project. Mr. Creal stated he had
received a topographic survey of the parcel. The second Site Plan dated April 23, 1996 drawing is
a result of twice having gone to the site to verify where the stream is on the northern part of the
property, where the woods are, what the views are and the surrounding properties, in an effort to
try and make this project blend into the land as much as possible. Mr. Creal stated that he is still
• in the evolutionary process. He thinks he is gradually getting the Site Plan done, and he is still open
to suggestions. Mr. Creal stated he would like to summarize where he is with the project. Mr. Creal
stated one of things on the Site Plan drawing he would like to point out is the extension of West
Haven Road on the map entitled "Saddlewood Farms Apartment Homes: Site Plan" dated June 3,
1996. Mr. Creal stated the concept of the site plan is to come off of Mecklenburg Road into the
complex by the Club House and recreation facility. Mr. Creal stated from the point towards the lake,
they have layered the buildings going down hill as the topography drops towards the lake, so each
of the apartments have a view facing the lake. Mr. Creal stated there would be several buildings
along the edge of the woods. Mr. Creal stated they would not be imposing any structure on, or
disturbing the environment of the stream that goes through the property. Mr. Creal stated they would
like to retain the stream for the enjoyment of the tenants that are there and the people that are living
in the area. Mr. Creal stated four buildings would not have the view of the lake, but they would have
a view of the beautifully wooded area. Mr. Creal stated he had walked the entire length of the
parcel, and his thoughts of the area are that it is an attractive area. Mr. Creal stated there would be
a bike trail that would circle the entire site, and there is a jogging trail in the interior of the site. Mr.
Creal stated that the pond that is already existing on the site, would be turned into a landscape
feature. Mr. Creal stated there is a park and ride pickup area for bus traffic. Mr. Creal stated in back
of all the units there is one garage for every unit on the projects, so that every tenant would have
the potential to have their own garage if they desire. Mr. Creal stated that if a tenant does not want
to have a garage it would be deducted from their rent. Mr. Creal stated they are proposing two
additional retention ponds near the bottom of the site to catch the water before it leaves the site.
Mr. Creal stated the sanitary line would be extended up Mecklenburg Road so this proposal would
tie into that. Mr. Creal stated Landmark America would be extending the water system up
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
4
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
Mecklenburg Road, so that this proposal would have adequate water and water pressure, not only
for this development, but to help the homes that are on the south side of Mecklenburg Road.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal if the drawing he is pointing to (SP -1 dated June 3,
1996), is identical to the plans that the Planning Board was given dated May 22, 1996.
Mr. Creal stated there are a couple of subtle differences.
is the road tying into Mecklenburg Road. That Landmark Ar
overview on the drive through road, so if people wanted to come
they could do that. Mr. Creal stated they have eliminated some
and make the pond more of a landscaping feature.
Mr. Creal stated the main difference
nerica is proposing to put a scenic
in and have a view of the lake, that
of the trees around the pond, to try
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal if the road he is referring to is West Haven Road
Extension.
Mr. Creal stated that was correct. Mr. Creal stated there has been contradictory views as to
how much landscaping and trees should be along Mecklenburg Road. Landmark America is open
to suggestions from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on how much and how little should be done
there. Mr. Creal stated Landmark America is open to what the community would like to recommend.
Board Member James Ainslie asked Mr. Creal if people were looking directly east from this
proposed site, would they be looking at the lake or at Cornell University. Mr. Ainslie stated that if
they wanted to look at the lake they would need to look to the north.
Mr. Creal stated that it varies on the site.
Board Member Ainslie stated that is the confusing thing because Mr. Creal is saying the
houses would be looking at the lake. Mr. Ainslie stated the lake is northeast, and if people were
looking directly over, they would be looking at Cornell University.
Mr. Creal stated that was correct. Mr. Creal stated all of these units would have a second
parking space in the back of their garages, so they would be able to park a second car if they should
own a second car. Mr. Creal stated they have also provided additional parking across the road, so
if someone was to have a party, there would be additional parking spaces for guests.
Alfred Eddy stated they would be able to see the lake from the proposed site. Mr. Eddy stated
the units would be in a half circle, so they would not be directly east. Mr. Eddy stated there are a
lot of spots from which they would be able to look at the southern tip of the lake.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that the Site Plan dated June 3, 1996, showing West
®Haven Road being extended, but that it does not show it connecting to anything. Mr. Bell asked Mr.
Creal what the purpose of extending West Haven Road is.
r:
r�
�J
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
5
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
Mr. Creal stated that the Town could decide in the future to extend the road for better access.
Board Member Bell asked Mr. Creal why he would want to extend the road past West Haven
Road and past the future drive.
Mr. Creal stated the Town would decide to extend this road.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the reason this is shown as a possible extension is
because some of the planning work the staff has done with some of the subdivisions in that area,
have included discussions of a future road going from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road. Mr.
Kanter stated that this would make a better connection toward the hospital, and also provide better
fire department access to that area of West Hill.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal if he was proposing this access for emergency use.
Mr. Creal responded, yes.
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked Mr. Creal what he meant by turning the pond into a
landscaping feature.
Mr. Creal stated there are some trees he thought did not look attractive around the pond. Mr.
Creal stated there are trees that have wild grapevines growing through them, and they would like
to clean them out. Mr. Creal stated they would like to add flowering bushes so this would become
an attractive feature, and, people would feel free to walk near it. Mr. Creal stated they think this pond
has potential, and they would like to make this pond look better.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal if they were going to keep this as a pond.
Mr. Creal responded, yes.
Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Creal where the low cost housing units would be situated.
Mr. Creal stated that they will not be segregated in the development. They would be
sprinkled throughout the development with the market rate units.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal if there would be a physical way to distinguish them from
one of the market rates.
Mr. Creal responded, no.
®Ms. Devine stated'that they will be mixed throughout the development. They would have to
identify certain units as affordable, so that if someone moves out, a market rate person does not
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED -JULY 9, 1996
move in. Ms. Devine stated that all the amenities are the same for both the market rate and
affordable units.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked Ms. Devine if the apartments are identical, on how they
are equipped and built.
Ms. Devine stated that was correct, because they have all the same amenities.
Mr. Creal stated these units would have the same exact kitchen cabinets, they would have
the same carpeting, the same flooring, and the same light fixtures.
Board Member Bell asked if both affordable and market rate units would be the same size.
Mr. Creal stated that was correct. Mr. Creal stated that by State Law they have to be the
same size.
Ms. Devine stated there is something called applicable square footage. There has to be a
certain percentage of square footage for the entire development as being affordable.
• Chairperson Cornell asked if the only difference between the affordable housing and the
market rate would be on paper.
Ms. Devine stated that was correct. That all the buildings, whether the units are affordable
or market rate, have to b6 built to market standard, so that they would be allowed to get the market
rent. Ms. Devine stated these units would be affordable, and very high quality.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she was not sure this was the right time to ask detailed
questions about the site plan, because there are more major questions that the Planning Board
needs to deal with such as rezoning the land, extending water and sewer, and some discrepancies
in the market study. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the market study talks only about one and two
bedroom units, but that Ms. Devine has been talking about one, two, and three bedroom units. Ms.
Hoffmann asked Mr. Creal if Landmark America owns the land where he sketched the proposed
scenic overview.
Mr. Creal stated he was not sure.
Board Member Wilcox stated the proposed extension of the road appears to go into the
Hubbell property where it connects with Mecklenburg Road.
Mr. Creal stated that was correct.
0 Board Member Bell asked Mr. Creal if they have any arrangements with the Hubbells.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ' 7 JUNE 111 1996
APPROVED -JULY 9, 1996
Mr. Creal stated that he would need to check with Mr. Eddy and Mr. Lama.
Bob Lama of 409 Warren Place, stated that Mr. Eddy and Mr. Hubbell have had discussions
about developing a right -of -way through the Hubbell property. Mr. Lama stated that as this proposal
progresses that dialogue will also proceed.
Chairperson Cornell asked Attorney Hugh Kent if there is a need for a firmer answer for the
right -of -way.
Attorney Kent stated that was at the Planning Board's discretion at this point.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the Planning Board does not need a commitment at this
point, because the Board should be talking about bigger and broader issues.
Chairperson Cornell responded, okay.
Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that if this proposal goes through sketch and
preliminary approval, then he would recommend a letter of commitment from Mr. Hubbell to
Landmark America that this is under contract.
Board Member Wilcox stated he would like to read a couple things from the document. Mr.
Wilcox stated "the site is surrounded by residential districts on three sides, the present owners are
extremely limited in the use of the property, and the Eddy family has made it clear that the proposed
development to the north and to the south of this site would make agricultural activities impossible
due to spraying and other fertilization processes necessary". Mr. Wilcox asked Ms. Devine if she
could explain these statements to him.
Ms. Devine stated that they had originally sketched out a map that showed the limitations on
the property that were restricted to land use for cattle. Ms. Devine stated in her conversations with
Mr. Eddy he had made it very clear that it was not a viable option for him to farm that piece of
property due to spraying and incidents with limestone where it has actually blown into neighbors
yards.
Mr. Creal stated that people cannot spray within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. Mr. Creal
stated that if they come within 1,000 feet of the three areas, that there would only be a small area
on the site that could be sprayed.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal if there was a reason to spray.
•Ms. Devine stated that she thought the limitation was for raising livestock animals. Ms.
Devine stated that the spraying was more of a moral issue, and not getting it into cars as they drive
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED -JULY 97 1996
by with open windows.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there is a law in New York State that protects farmers to an
extent who need to spray.
Board Member Ainslie stated that there are no houses on the north, east, or west, and that
the road is on the south side of the parcel.
Mr. Creal stated that was correct.
Board Member Ainslie stated there would be children in the yards, but
only from
this
development. Mr. Ainslie stated that he is a farmer, and that farmers
are allowed to spray around
houses. Mr. Ainslie stated that farmers can spray when the air is still.
Mr. Ainslie
stated that
the
Town of Ithaca has an Agricultural District, and farmers are allowed to
carry on farm
practices.
Mr.
Ainslie stated that the only discrepancy that he could see, is that
there are no
houses on
the
perimeters of.this land. Mr. Ainslie stated that Landmark America is
saying that the
Eddy's could
not spray because there were houses with children, but there are no
houses close
by.
Mr. Creal stated that he misspoke rather than saying that there are children nearby, he should
® have said there are residential zones on three sides of the property.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there are alot of issues the Planning Board needs to look at
with this project. Chairperson Cornell stated that (Application Booklet) the Planning Board members
could make comments on the book. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board needs to
concentrate on, and try to decide if, in concept, the Board thinks this proposal is appropriate for the
proposed site.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the 1,000 foot set back, which comes from the Zoning
Ordinance in Article 11 for Agricultural Districts, has restrictions on the establishment of raising fur
bearing animals, animal hospitals, kennels, or for the boarding of animals. Mr. Kanter stated that
these uses cannot be within 1,000 feet of any residential district. Mr. Kanter stated that any
characterization of spraying or other agricultural uses being restricted in that area are not true in
terms of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the Town of Ithaca does zone land for agriculture, and he
keeps coming back to the Board saying that it is only agricultural if there is a farmer working the
land. Mr. Ainslie stated that the proposed site is an isolated property that the Eddy's do not want
to work any more. Mr. Ainslie stated that this is agricultural land in an agricultural district, but there
is not a farmer to farm the land. Mr. Ainslie stated that everyone needs to realize that agricultural
land does not do much unless it is farmed. Mr. Ainslie stated that he did not like the idea that Ms.
• Devine and Mr. Creal are trying to say that farmers can not spray there because that is a mistake.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES UL
9 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED -JY 95 1996
Board Member Hoffmann stated that these days she thinks there could be just as much
spraying and other treatments with pesticides in residential areas as in farm areas which could be
harmful. Ms. Hoffmann stated one thing that is being proposed for the site is an orchard just west
of the entrance to this property. Ms. Hoffmann stated if this was a fruit orchard, it would need to be
sprayed if these trees were to provide any fruit.
Mr. Creal stated that Landmark America is very open to eliminating that orchard.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there seems to be a number of errors in the application book
itself, and asked if the Planning Board Members could review the document, and mark it up, and
return it to the Planning Staff.
Board Member Bell stated, that the presentation tonight is certainly rounded out. Mr. Bell
stated that when one person hires another person they would want to know what that person has
done in the past, and that person would go look at the work. Mr. Bell stated that the Planning Board
is in the position to look at what everyone else has, but until this presentation, all the Planning Board
had was the (Application Book). Mr. Bell stated he is totally appalled by this document. Mr. Bell
stated that this document is full of errors. Mr. Bell stated that the document is so badly written that
it is hard to tell what they are talking about half the time. Mr. Bell stated that it is hard to wade
through the swamp of falsehoods and this is very bad planning. Mr. Bell stated that he read through
three quarters of the document and found approximately 74 individual mistakes, and that is just by
his reading, not by researching any of this stuff. Mr. Bell stated that he does not think that this Board
should be wasting their time until these people can write a document that is written in correct English
that has correct information and is adequate in planning.
Chairperson Cornell asked Board Member Bell if he could give a few examples.
Board Member Bell stated there is nowhere in the document (Application Book) that he has
read, that describes the project itself, or the funding mechanism of the low income housing aspect
or any of that. Mr. Bell stated that the farming inconsistencies are another issue. Mr. Bell stated that
there is a total lack of explanation or understanding of the funding. Mr. Bell stated that on page 2
of the introduction dated April 30, 1996, for example, the applicant says "Saddlewood Farms is
possible because of Section 42, Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program administered and notified
New York State Department of Housing for renewal ". Mr. Bell stated that the application says that
this project was made possible because of Section 42, but that it does not explain in any way what
Section 42 is. Mr. Bell stated they do not even get the name of the department right, which is not
department of housing, it is a division of housing which is in the New York State government was
a different meaning. Mr. Bell stated that on page 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form, there
is a question that says, does the project involve local, state, or federal funding which they checked
off no. Mr. Bell asked if that sounds like a mistake. Mr. Bell stated that on page 5 of the
•Environmental Assessment Form there is a list of approvals that are required by the City Boards,
Town Boards, and a lot of different agencies. Mr. Bell stated there is check next to the State agency,
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
10
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
but then it does not say what. Mr. Bell stated there is a check next to the Federal agency, and they
say New York State Division of Renewal. Mr. Bell stated that everything is inconsistent throughout
the document.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Board Member Bell should ask if the applicant was asking
for funding from three or four different New York State agencies.
Board Member Bell stated that there are a number of mistakes in the document, that these
specifics give an illustration of what the Planning Board is trying to deal with. Mr. Bell stated that
it is hard to trust anything when he knows certain things are wrong. Mr. Bell stated that the issue
is not correct grammar and all that, the issue is that this Town has been a victim of pretty big
mistaken projects. Mr. Bell stated that the Town of Ithaca should not spend any more time or money
on this project until the applicant can clean up this document and bring the correct information back
to us.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town Board has asked the Planning Board to look at this
project. Chairperson Cornell stated that she is interested in everyone's comments, and asked the
Planning Board to mark up the document, and hand it into the Planning Staff to look at. Chairperson
Cornell stated there are a lot of comments for the staff and the applicants to go over together, so that
• everyone would be able to get the information straight and accurate.
•
Board Member Hoffmann stated that her document is already marked up, and that she would
be happy to forward it along to the Planning Staff. Ms. Hoffmann stated that while they are reviewing
the information, they could figure what happened to the three bedroom units that were mentioned
in the letter, but that there is no mention of in the market study.
Ms. Devine stated that when Landmark America came to the Tow
several comments about the market study, that there was a need for
Devine stated that the market study was done correctly for one and two
to evidence that they should consider three bedroom units. Ms. Devine
and revisited the market studies, and decided that the market was more
mix of units rather than just one and two bedrooms.
n Board before, there were
three bedroom units. Ms.
bedrooms, and that it lead
stated that they went back
suitable to support a large
Chairperson Cornell asked Ms. Devine if the marketing study was changed since the
presentation to the Town Board.
Ms. Devine stated that this is the same information that the Town Board received.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the market study is pivotal, because that this is a large
number of housing units and the Board wants to make sure they are economically viable.
Chairperson Cornell stated that getting the market study updated would be useful.
n
LJ
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
11
APPROVED - JULY 97 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
Board Member Ainslie asked if he could get a simple answer on how this project is being
financed and by whom.
Ms. Devine stated,that the project has secured private funding. Ms. Devine stated that they
have a construction company and a permanent lender lined up. Ms. Devine stated that there is a
component which is funded by New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal which is
referred to as Section 42 Tax Credits. Ms. Devine stated that this is a federal program that gives
tax credits to each State, and then each State has the right to put together a Qualified Allocation
Plan. Ms. Devine stated that this is how the State disseminates those tax credits for affordable
housing. Ms. Devine stated that the developer applies to the State to get tax credits over a period
of ten years, and then those tax credits Landmark America sells for a certain amount of cents on the
dollar. Ms. Devine stated that income is used to allow Landmark America to create affordable
housing at a higher qual,ity.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it sounds like a mix of State and Federal funding.
Ms. Devine statedthat when she filled out the application on the last page she filled out the
lines for State and Federal. She called the Planning office to figure out what to put together. Ms.
Devine stated that she was not sure what to fill in and a lot of it was to be filled in as the project went
along.
Board Member Ainslie asked if any of the State or Federal Funding would go for anything
other than the 45% of low cost housing.
Ms. Devine stated that it goes to the developer.
Board Member Ainslie asked if 45% of this goes for low cost housing, does Landmark
America get State and FFederal money for the other type of housing.
Ms. Devine responded, no, they would get it for the percentage of affordable units. Ms.
Devine stated that if this was 100% affordable housing, they would have gotten many more tax
credits.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the money they received went mainly for funding the apartments.
Ms. Devine stated that it goes for development, and to building the entire development for
what the State has approved.
Director of Engineering Walker asked Ms. Devine if the tax credits are federal money coming
into this project.
• Ms. Devine stated'that the money they get comes from the syndicator or Walt Disney World.
0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
Director of Engineering Walker asked if the private investor is taking the tax credit and getting
a tax break on income tax.
Ms. Devine stated that was correct.
Director of Engineering Walker asked if there is no direct State or Federal money coming into
this project, and it is approved, their tax credits would be indirect.
Ms. Devine stated that was correct.
Attorney Kent stated that if the development qualifies, the State issues tax credits which are
available for private investors to capture if they meet the project. Attorney Kent stated that tax
credits are out there and are available, so the private investor gives the money to the developer in
the traditional fashion. Attorney Kent stated that would go along with the shared investment in the
project.
Chairperson Cornell stated she does not understand the time frame problem for getting State
approval.
• Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America applied for these tax credits back in December
1995. Ms. Devine stated that when they get a commitment for tax credits there is a general time
frame. Ms. Devine stated they would meet several criteria until they get a binding commitment from
the State. Ms. Devine stated that New York State asked Landmark America to have a construction
closing to get the binding commitment which means that Landmark America needs to get their
environmental assessment, their market studies, and everything else done. Ms. Devine stated that
the construction lender and the permanent lender would sign on so that Landmark America could
have a construction closing. Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America has the money and would
like to assure the Board of this. Ms. Devine stated that DHCR had delegated too many tax credits
to developers. The State would not have too many developers who would actually come through
and get the developments done. Ms. Devine stated that the State has given Landmark America until
July 29, 1996, to get as much of the approval process done as they could.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that part of subsidizing low income units comes from the
success and sale of the market rate units.
Ms. Devine stated that this allows them to make a development of a higher quality, and that
is why some states are encouraging a blend of affordable and market rates.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that one of the things that was discussed at the Town
Board meeting was the importance of making sure that there is a market for that level of market rate.
• Ms. Devine stated that was correct.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 JUNE 111 1996
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
Board Member Hoffmann stated that referring back to the market study, her thoughts are that
it is very important for the study to be updated to give more accurate information before a decision
is made. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the market study should be in a language that can be understood
by most people. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she has some specific questions about some of the
tables. Ms. Hoffmann stated that Landmark America is talking about the primary market area being
the City of Ithaca which is in the center and the Town of Ithaca which is around it, and that there is
a problem identifying the difference between the two Ithaca's. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the
secondary market area is the area between the primary market and Cortland County. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that in some of the tables it is not clear if that is referencing the City or the Town. Ms.
Hoffmann asked Ms. Devine if there was a reason why Cortland County was included in the
secondary market study area when it is far away from the proposed site.
Ms. Devine stated that she would need to check with Jeri Coombs.
Lois King of 181 West Haven Road, stated that the notice she got in the mail was stamped
"FINAL ", suggesting to her that she missed something along the way. Ms. King stated that she was
involved with community work for a long time, that she never understood why the Planning Board
would be talking about the plans and specifics such as a pond when they have not discussed the
need to establish something different in terms of zoning in the community. Ms. King stated there is
• a comprehensive plan, and she would like the Board or the developers to talk about how the current
proposal is consistent with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and how would that fulfil that
mission.
Phil Zarriello, Chair for the Conservation Board for the Town of Ithaca, stated that Lois
Levitan is on the Conservation Board and has responded to the document with a six -page statement
showing the inconsistencies with the document. Mr. Zarriello stated that the inconsistencies should
be resolved before the Board move any further. Mr. Zarriello stated that there are questions about
what is low to moderate income, and he says he has not seen any numbers as to what the units are
going to rent for and how long they will stay rented for that amount. Mr. Zarriello stated, in general,
just the way this project is being proposed, subjugates the purpose of the Special Land Use District
(SLUD). Mr. Zarriello stated that the intent in the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about SLUD, is
to trade off units that could be developed in a parcel and putting it into a more dense area, thereby
preserving the open space. Mr. Zarriello stated that in the - proposal, there are various numbers for
open space including grass strips between buildings, which he does not particularly consider open
space, but considers that part of the development. Mr. Zarriello stated that open space to his way
of thinking is undisturbed land. Mr. Zarriello stated that he was not sure how much of the land is R-
15 or how much of theland is agricultural zone which could be developed at R -30. Mr. Zarriello
stated that what he looked at would amount to about 125 housing units, and given somewhere in the
neighborhood of 2,500 square feet, they would end up with 7 acres of developed land. Mr. Zarriello
stated they are talking about 14 acres of developed land. Putting it into context by doing something
special for the Town and preserving open space, they are really looking for much more. Mr. Zarriello
stated that these issues need to be addressed, and asked if that is what the Comprehensive Plan
•
0
0
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
14
APPROVED - JULY 95 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
is suggesting is good for the Town. Mr. Zarriello stated these are the questions that should be
addressed, not whether the houses have washer and dryers in them, but the bigger issue is, is this
appropriate for the Town. (Lois Levitan's statement Mr. Zarriello referred to as above is hereto
attached as Exhibit #4.)
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Zarriello if the Environmental Review Committee would be
sending in their comments to the Planning Board.
Mr. Zarriello stated they have not been requested yet because this project is still provisional.
Mr. Zarriello stated that his thoughts on the issues pertaining to the zoning needs be addressed first.
Mr. Zarriello stated that the Planning Board should look at this proposed site and see how it could
be developed under its present zoning, and then see how this property fits into that.
Chairperson Cornell stated that for the Planning Board to entertain the question of rezoning,
that they would need to look at the project at hand.
Mr. Zarriello asked if the Planning Board knows when the Conservation Board will have an
opportunity to respond to this proposal. Mr. Zarriello asked if the Planning Board received the first
letter from Lois Levitan.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town Board received the first letter. Mr. Kanter
stated that when he received Lois Levitan's letter today, he decided to pass the second letter on,
but if the Board wants a copy of the first letter he would provide them with a copy.
Chairperson Cornell asked if Ms. Devine or Mr. Creal would explain who calculated the
percentage of open space. Chairperson Cornell stated that if the Planning Board is going to look
at rezoning they would need the project, and to look at the offering of affordable housing for the
Town of Ithaca.
Mr. Creal stated that they need to find out what the Town's definition of open space is to be
sure they are calculating open space the way the Town calculates it. Mr. Creal stated they would
discuss this with the Planning staff to make sure this is done properly.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Creal what he used in the document for the calculations.
Mr. Creal stated they added up all the impervious areas, and deducted that from the total of
93 acres.
Board Member Ainslie asked if the Planning Board needs to know what the proposed rental
costs are for the low cost apartments, and further asked if that would have any bearing on what the
Planning Board decides.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 911996
Chairperson Cornell stated she thinks the Planning Board should be assured that they are
low cost.
Board Member Ainslie stated that when he was on the County Planning Board, Becky
Bilderback finally got people to realize affordable housing had to be under $100,000. Mr. Ainslie
stated they had people coming in to set up affordable houses for $120,000. He wondered what
figure is necessary to know what the low cost apartment would go for.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the marketing study has that information in it, but he is not
sure how current it is.
Ms. Devine stated Landmark America's term of affordable is determined by the areas median
income separate and between one, two, or three persons. Take 60% area median income, divide
by 12 and multiplied by 3' Ms. Devine stated they could charge 30% of someone's median income
assuming that is 60% of the area median income.
Board Member Ainslie asked if they have a figure here.
Ms. Devine stated the moderate or the affordable rates are from $426 to $589 from the 1 to
• 3 bedroom apartments, and the market rates went from $720 to $1200 for a three bedroom.
Mr. Zarriello asked if the target income was $15,000 to $26,000, was that gross or net.
Ms. Devine stated she gets the figures from the DHCR, and that she is not sure. Ms. Devine
stated that she would guess that it would be gross.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that would be information the Planning Board would need.
Board Member Wilcox stated in the back of the document, the market study quotes data from
a company called Clarion. Mr. Wilcox stated that he is the vice president of that company, and his
responsibility is data that is cited in this publication. Mr. Wilcox stated, for the record, that he did
not know anything about the market study being done, and first saw the market study when it was
presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Wilcox stated there should not be any conflict of interest.
Board Member Bell asked if the developer could tell how long the low income stays low
income.
Ms. Devine stated that when Landmark America applies for tax credits it has to remain
affordable for 15 years,!, and they signed a waiver saying Landmark America will be leaving the
affordable units there for 30 plus years. Ms. Devine stated they signed this with the State.
0 Board Member Hoffmann asked what happens after 15 years.
. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
Ms. Devine stated Landmark America has signed for 30 years. Ms. Devine stated Landmark
America chose to give them another 15 years on top of that to assure them of good faith.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what happens after that.
Ms. Devine stated Landmark America has never sold any of the developments, and have left
them as is. Ms. Devine stated they have gone into deed restrictions with Towns before, and there
are many things that could be done, but that is up to the Planning Board.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that was one of things the Town Board had indicated was
important.
Ms. Devine stated the required minimum is 15 years, but Landmark America has certified they
would do it for 30 plus;, years. Ms. Devine stated if the Town requests Landmark America do
something further, it is possible as they have personally done so before.
Director of Planning Kanter stated if this proposed site is rezoned as a Special Land Use
District (SLUD), very specific language would be put into the SLUD for whatever was agreed upon
by the Board.
Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor for the Town of Ithaca, stated that she might be able to
help clarify. Supervisor Valentino stated as far as the 30 years, during discussions with Landmark
America, they have indicated they would certainly be willing to extend that beyond 30 years.
Supervisor Valentino stated as Director of Planning Kanter had stated in a SLUD, the Town could
mandate more than that, and Landmark America said they do not have any problems with the Town
doing that. Supervisor Valentino asked why the Town is dealing with this proposal at this time and
in this place. Supervisor Valentino stated that all the years she had been involved with the Town
Board and ran for election many times, the question always comes up about what the Town of Ithaca
is going to do about affordable housing. Supervisor Valentino stated that no matter if people are
democrats or republicans, they always say they would look into, or pursue trying to provide
affordable housing in the Town of Ithaca. Supervisor Valentino stated the Town has this proposal
that is a mix between affordable and market value, which is healthy. Supervisor Valentino stated
when people visited just low income or affordable housing, that they often do not do for the
community what the Town had hoped. Supervisor Valentino stated a mix is healthy especially for
lower income people that may have a better quality of life. Supervisor Valentino stated this would
be good for the upper income people to understand and get to know some people in the lower
income bracket, so it would be a two -way street. Supervisor Valentino stated this would not just help
one group, it would help both groups. Supervisor Valentino stated the question is, maybe all of the
information Landmark America has given the Town is not perfect. Supervisor Valentino stated very
few developers come before the Town with a perfect document. The Town has always had problems
®with documents they have looked at. Supervisor Valentino stated that as a Board, they do a very
thorough and a very good job of sorting out the information, and that is what needs to be done for
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17
APPROVED - JULY 911996
JUNE 117 1996
this proposal. Supervisor Valentino stated there is a map that shows a proposed site that is in the
Town of Ithaca, and shows where the zoning is around this property. Supervisor Valentino stated
her thoughts are that it is unfortunate in the time frame of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, that as
a planning group, the Planning Board has not begun the study of agricultural districts and
conservation districts where the Town could preserve land. Supervisor Valentino stated the Town
has not looked beyond on the Comprehensive Plan to say where some areas are zoned one way
now that would make more sense if they were zoned differently because the Town needs to have
reasonable growth. Supervisor Valentino stated she is not basing this on merits of this particular
project in this spot, but one of the questions the Town needs to ask themselves is, does it make
sense to look at the project in the context of the land that is around it, and further asked if this
proposed site would be a logical place for a development. Supervisor Valentino stated if people
drive out there, which she has done, and walked over the land to the crest of the hill, it is clear that
the character of the community changes substantially from where the R -15 homes are to where the
Town has a real rural farm atmosphere. Supervisor Valentino stated that she would urge everyone
to take a ride out there to see how the character changes. Supervisor Valentino stated these are
the issues that the Town should be focusing on. Supervisor Valentino asked Director of Planning
Kanter if Landmark America developed in a Agricultural zone where clustering is not allowed, what
was the density that could be put in there.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that under the current zoning the density would be 125 to
127 units. Mr. Kanter stated that the site is approximately 10 acres in the R -15 district, and the
remaining 83.5 acres is in the agricultural zone.
Supervisor Valentino stated with that kind of zoning there would be no open space available,
that the land would be used up. Supervisor Valentino stated that this would be a conventional
development.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that was correct.
Supervisor Valentino stated that could happen there because it is zoned for that.
Chairperson Cornell stated that only if the Planning Board approves.
Supervisor Valentino stated that was correct. Supervisor Valentino stated the road that goes
to nowhere, was a request by the Town Board for the developer to show a connector road for future
planning. Supervisor Valentino asked the Board not to criticize Landmark America because the
Town Board instructed the applicant to try and get some easements and to think about a road for
fire protection. Supervisor Valentino stated that the fire chief indicated he had a great deal of
trouble getting around there to service the places that already exist. Supervisor Valentino stated
that it makes sense for the Town to get those easements now, and has asked Landmark America
®to do so. Supervisor Valentino stated that Landmark America has worked with the Town Board and
the City to talk about a park & ride lot which they are willing to provide to help mitigate some of the
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
is
traffic. Supervisor Valentino stated that she has been talking with the City and they are willing to
make sure that the bus stop is on the development. Supervisor Valentino stated that sewer is
already available. Supervisor Valentino stated that the developer will be paying the total cost for
water. The Town has informed Landmark America that there is concern about extending water out
because it may encourage sprawl. Supervisor Valentino stated that Landmark America is willing to
put in a water system that will only serve that development, and will not encourage growth beyond
that. Supervisor Valentino stated that this development will help with serious pressure problems the
Town has now, and it would be taken care of at no cost to the Town. Supervisor Valentino stated
one of things she usually asks right away, is if they are going to ask for any reductions in their taxes
because of the affordable part of this development. Supervisor Valentino stated that she asks them
if they are looking for some kind of a break, and Landmark America said absolutely not. All the
property would be fully taxable in the Town of Ithaca just like any other taxed property. Supervisor
Valentino stated the impact in that way is favorable, but she thinks the Planning Board should
consider seriously the rezoning. Supervisor Valentino stated these are some of the points she
raised in her mind as she worked through it, and she thought it might be helpful for the Planning
Board members if she raised those concerns now.
Chairperson Cornell stated her intentions tonight were to have people talk and get their initial
reactions out, and then bring it back to the Planning Board. Chairperson Cornell asked if would be
appropriate to rezone this land or is this land appropriate for agricultural. Chairperson Cornell
stated her opinion on making that decision, she feels she needs the input of the Town's Agricultural
Committee, which is made up of active farmers. Chairperson Cornell stated Board Member Ainslie
and a few members from the audience are on the committee. Chairperson Cornell stated she would
rather have the farmers tell the Town what they think first. Chairperson Cornell stated that the
Agricultural Committee plans on meeting sometime this week, and she would like comments from
the Committee before the Planning Board decides to make any decisions. Chairperson Cornell
stated that the Planning Board should take a look at this project in comparison to the Comprehensive
Plan and the Affordable Housing handouts.
John Baker of 421 Warren Place, stated that he called around and inquired about land that
is already identified as low cost housing, and they say there about 150 acres that have been
identified. Mr. Baker asked if this property had been considered prior to the decision to locate on
West Hill.
Chairperson Cornell stated there have been proposals to the Town of Ithaca before for low
cost housing, but nothing has ever materialized.
Director of Planning Kanter stated there were two recent proposals that were also applying
for federal low income housing credits that did not materialize.
•Chairperson Cornell stated this project is the only one that actually has the financial backing
of an organization.
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 JUNE 117 1996
APPROVED - JULY 97 1996
Mr. Baker asked if property that is already owned and zoned for low cost housing, has been
considered for this project.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town does not have any properties zoned for low cost
housing.
Mr. Baker asked if they have been identified.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that one of the low income projects that was proposed
earlier was in a Multiple Residence Zone on Danby Road which was a much smaller site. Mr. Kanter
stated that a Multiple Residence Zone certainly would be an appropriate type of zone to put
affordable housing in, but again, a developer came in and purchased that property and nothing
materialized. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town cannot control exactly what developments come in,
but that the Town does have sites that are zoned for multiple residences.
Board Member Bell stated that is true, that the Town cannot force the developer to look at a
different piece of land. Mr. Bell stated however, under SEAR, the Town could certainly require that
they do the alternative site analysis and tell the Town what sites they have looked at.
® Director of Planning Kanter stated that would be appropriate.
. Maria Coles, 502 Warren Place, stated that this is a very important project and the Planning
Board is being called upon to make a very important decision. Ms. Coles stated this might be the
first very large development upon completion, so what happens to West Hill and beyond is a very
important issue. Ms. Coles stated that in part, could be answered with what is done about this
development. Ms. Coles stated that West Hill already has a significant segment of housing for low
income. Ms. Coles stated there are fairly large houses next to tiny little houses, and then, of course,
there are huge developments. Ms. Coles stated these people who live on West Hill have no problem
with low income housing. The problem these people have is the question a what will happen to the
rest of West Hill as a result of the opening up that will occur with the building of roads and what will
happen to the community as a result. Ms. Coles stated that the Planning Board is the only board
that could plan for the community in a way to protect them as a community rather than to allow
outside developers to make a plan for the community. Ms. Coles stated that this is a very important
issue. Ms. Coles stated she moved to West Hill three years ago, and she chose West Hill because
it had a blend of people living there. Ms. Coles stated she does not want to see Route 79 suddenly
become a four -lane highway, and that concerns her enormously. Ms. Coles stated that she has a
little bit of history to bring to the Planning Board which has to do with the area of New Jersey from
which she moved. Mr. Coles stated that Central New Jersey is filled with garden apartments which
started out being beautiful and pretty, but within ten years they have become run down and nobody
cares for them. Ms. Coles stated, in addition, what happens is that the property owners falls behind
®on their taxes. Ms. Coles stated that she came from Highland Park, New Jersey, which continued
to run into the problem of having attorneys settle for what taxes on which garden apartment was
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 93 1996
going to be paid. Ms. Coles stated that a garden apartment is zero income in terms of taxes for any
Town or City, and if anything, a Town or City would lose money on the development.
Ann Wexler, 418 Richard Place, stated that she also came from New Jersey, and after seeing
what happened to New Jersey it is very scary because it started just like this. Ms. Wexler stated
that she grew up in an area like Mecklenburg Road, and this Board would not want to see what
happened to it. Ms. Wexler stated that it happened because of lack of Planning and lack of
Comprehensive Planning with one shot deals like this proposal. Ms. Wexler stated that she agrees
with the Planning Board in terms of trying to keep the integrity of a Comprehensive Plan and not
allowing one shot proposals. Ms. Wexler asked if people submit their written comments to the staff
who corrects the document along with the developer, does the property owner's taxes pay for the
time it takes staff to correct something that should have been done correctly to begin with.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that applicants pay a review fee which pays for staff time
for reviewing projects.
Board Member Bell asked if the Planning Board could hear the number of dollars that the
developer does pay for this particular project and an estimate of how many staff hours it will take to
correct this.
® Chairperson Cornell stated that is not appropriate to this discussion.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that to expand on where the Planning staff goes from here,
he would much rather have the Planning Board focus on the in -depth environmental analysis that
needs to be done. Mr. Kanter stated there are much bigger issues the Planning Board needs to
work on for the SEAR process which the clock has started on June 4, 1996, when the Planning
Board issued an intent to serve as Lead Agency on this proposal. Mr. Kanter stated that the
involved agencies have 30 days in which to respond back to the Town, at that point the Planning
Board would need to make a determination of Environmental Significance. Mr. Kanter stated that
the soonest that could happen would be the July 9, 1996, meeting, assuming that the Planning Staff
gets the necessary materials from the applicants. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Board needs
to identify what kind of information they are going to need to make that determination.
Chairperson Cornell stated the 30 -day period the Planning Board is in right now, is the
determination of Lead Agency which they usually do not get. Chairperson Cornell asked Director
of Planning Kanter, if the Planning Board decides to continue with this proposal in a preliminary
stage, when would be the first date.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the soonest opportunity to consider the determination
of significance would be at the July 9, 1996 meeting, but the materials need to be provided ahead
®of that. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Staff needs the materials as soon as possible for review,
and the Planning Board would need the materials at least a week prior to the meeting for review.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 93 1996
•
Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if they feel they want to continue considering
this project or not. Chairperson Cornell stated the document has a lot of errors in it, but there are
merits to this project which is an opportunity to have some low cost housing built in the Town of
Ithaca. Chairperson Cornell stated that the developers have made a commitment to up keep the
apartments. Chairperson Cornell asked Ms. Devine if there any mechanisms for the landowners to
upkeep the apartments, lawns, trash removal, etc.
Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America is the developer, and Gannex is the management
company. Ms. Devine stated that they would be managing the development. Ms. Devine stated that
there would be an on site manager, and there is an entire company whose sole purpose is to
manage the properties. Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America maintains ownership and they
have Gannex manage all their developments. Ms. Devine stated that Landmark America has a
reserve fund, that in order for the lender to fund the deal, Landmark America needed to show that
they had adequate funds, called replacement reserves, so they could upkeep their property.
Board Member Wilcox stated this is the second proposal for the West Hill that the Planning
Board has seen, but there is an R -15 on the Base Map. Mr. Wilcox stated that the Planning Board
has seen a sketch plan for the other parcel, which may or may not come back to the Board, where
the owner was proposing 150 +/- units. Mr. Wilcox stated that he believes the development is going
to occur on West Hill after the octopus problem is resolved, and will be open for development. Mr.
Wilcox stated after listening to members of the Planning Board discuss the original site plan for the
R -15 site below this proposed site, this Board is very sensitive to the concerns of the development
that is done along Mecklenburg Road and is sensative to the residents and suitable to the land on
West Hill.
Chairperson Cornell stated that if this project does go through, the water improvements would
be solely for this project and for the immediate neighbors. Chairperson Cornell stated that for using
any mechanism the Town has, it should not open up the rest .of Route 79 for the development.
Chairperson Cornell stated she would like to pick this project up and put it somewhere else in the
Town that is already zoned appropriately, but that is not possible. Chairperson Cornell stated she
would like Landmark America to restore a historic building which they have done in the past, but that
is not possible. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board and other applicable Boards
really need to review this thoroughly and express their opinions to the Planning Staff and Planning
Board. Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board how they felt about continuing to consider
this project.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to continue to look at the project and consider
it. Ms. Hoffmann stated the Planning Board needs to read all the handouts and other papers that
were provided. Ms. Hoffmann stated the Environmental Review Committee and other committees
need time to look at this project just as the Planning Board does. Ms. Hoffmann stated all the
comments would be going to the Planning Staff and they would be working with Landmark America.
. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
Chairperson Cornell stated the Planning Board would be giving general guidance.
Board Member Ainslie stated there was a very active farm on both sides of Mecklenburg
Road, which was called Starling Farms owned by the Marshall Family. Mr. Ainslie stated the Town
has parceled off one side of the road to EcoVillage, and the fact that the Town did that, that the
Town should take a look at this. Mr. Ainslie stated the Town let EcoVillage come in, so the Planning
Board should consider rezoning.
Board Member Wilcox stated he walked the property, and it was a lovely piece of property.
Mr. Wilcox stated he saw evidence of recent farming on the property such as corn stalks.
Mr. Eddy stated he planted some sweet corn last year, but he did not take a penny off that
crop. Mr. Eddy stated he lost everything last year because the deer ate it up. Mr. Eddy stated there
is 40 acres there and his brother owns half of it. Mr. Eddy stated there are ten acres that is no good
to farm that is on the upper side. Mr. Eddy stated that EcoVillage has most of the land on the other
side of the road. Mr. Eddy stated that he gets upset when people tell him that he does not know
what he is talking about.
Chairperson Cornell stated she appreciates his comments, and she is sorry because that is
• not the way Board Member Wilcox meant it.
Board Member Wilcox stated he would like to finish his comments. Mr. Wilcox stated he did
see evidence of farming there recently, and he agrees with Mr. Eddy that it is only on a relatively
small portion of the property. Mr. Wilcox stated he is not a farmer, and it is not up to him to decide
whether farming is still viable there today or not. Mr. Wilcox stated that consulting the Agricultural
Committee is a good idea. Mr. Wilcox stated he would prefer to keep it as an agricultural area if it
is viable for farming, but if it is not, then he would agree to a proper development. Mr. Wilcox stated
he thinks the Planning Board should consider the rezoning.
Board Member Bell stated he has real problems with the project. However, from a legal
process point of view, he is not sure on what basis the Planning Board could say that tonight the
Board cannot consider the rest of the process. Mr. Bell stated the Planning Board does not have
a basis to stop right now without going through the SEAR process. Mr. Bell stated a request for a
zoning change is a significant action, and that it is subject to a SEAR, so to make a decision without
a SEAR means they can clearly sue us. Mr. Bell stated he does not have any doubts about
continuing the process, but there are a lot of unanswered questions that the Planning Board should
have the answers to before making a final decision. Mr. Bell stated that Board Member Ainslie was
right in terms of a farm takes a farmer, but that is only half of the story. Mr. Bell stated a farm takes
a farmer who is willing to farm and a piece of land to do it, and if there is no land then the farmer
cannot have a farm.
Board Member Ainslie stated that is not a one to one basis. Mr. Ainslie stated just because
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 JUNE 11, 1996
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
•
someone has a piece a land does not mean they have a farmer on that piece of land that they need
to farm. Mr. Ainslie stated they would need everything that goes along with farming. Mr. Ainslie
stated the land is only 25% of a farm.
Board Member Bell stated it is all of those thing, it is not just the farmer. Mr. Bell stated if the
Town eliminates the land from that use and puts a subdivision in instead, then that would answer
the question for the future that the land would never be a farm again. Mr. Bell stated there might be
other types of agricultural uses other than what the Eddy's were able to do or are having trouble with
now. Mr. Bell stated there are a lot of other things that could fit into agriculture which is not the only
kind that has been done. Mr. Bell stated that EcoVillage, across the road from the proposed site,
would be doing some low intencity farming. Mr. Bell stated the Planning Board needs to look at all
of these things, and the Planning Board needs to push ahead. Mr. Bell stated he is bothered by the
level of the basic information.
Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if they could mark up the document, and give
it to the Planning Staff by June 17, 1996. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Staff would
be able to get some of the errors worked out in the document with Landmark America.
Mr. Zarriello asked if a letter would be sent to the Conservation Board.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the Lead Agency letter has gone out to 45 to 50 different
agencies and places. Mr. Kanter stated each Conservation Board Member was delivered one at
the meeting on June 6, 1996. Mr. Kanter stated the Market Study was a long document and it was
decided not to include it with the main packets. Mr. Kanter stated the decisions for the Planning
Board would be based upon a complete environmental analysis, and whatever the Board defines
that to be, it should be in the environmental studies. Mr. Kanter stated he has outlined some of the
issues and the Planning Board has talked about a number of them tonight. Mr. Kanter stated he
would briefly summarize the outline he presented to the Planning Board: impact on the State
Agricultural District and farms operating in the AG District; impact on traffic for surrounding roads,
intersections and neighborhoods, impact on drainage; Visual impact on community character;
consistency with Town's Comprehensive Plan; Impact of extension of utilities; and impact on
Community services. Mr. Kanter stated this is the kind of information the Planning Board would
need to see before making a decision. (Planning Department Memorandum is hereto attached as
Exhibit #5.)
Chairperson Cornell asked if these are all necessary for the rezoning.
Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Director of Planning Kanter's memorandum is very complete.
Chairperson Cornell stated if the Planning Board Members could hand in the document (Proposed
do
Project Book) by June 17, 1996, the Planning Staff should be able to begin their process.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
24
APPROVED - JULY 97 1996
JUNE 111 1996
Chairperson Cornell stated the Conservation Board should have a copy of the market study.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the Planning Board needs a corrected market study before
further review.
Chairperson Cornell responded, yes. Chairperson Cornell stated the Environmental Review
Committee could review this proposal the same time the Planning Board is reviewing it. Chairperson
Cornell stated the correct market study would need to be done by the July 9, 1996, Planning Board
meeting.
Director of Planning Kanter stated to the Planning Board that while they are marking up the
document, they should also write down any other changes or additions they would like to make to
this proposal.
Chairperson Cornell asked Ms. Devine if Landmark America is trying to get an extension.
Ms. Devine stated that was correct.
Chairperson Cornell stated the Planning Board is going to.follow the Planning Board schedule
• that they have.
Director of Engineering Walker stated EcoVillage and a couple of other projects have taken
a significant period of time. Mr. Walker stated it is not the Planning Board that is causing problems
with time on those, but that it is inadequacy of the submission and this proposal is grossly lacking.
Mr. Walker stated that after several meetings with the developer, they have provided a complete and
accurate submission. Mr. Walker stated that Landmark America submissions have been excellent
and they have been doing all their homework. Mr. Walker stated that Landmark America has
supplied more materials to the Planning Staff than they normally would get from a complete
subdivision project.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that in many cases, the time frame is set by State Law
Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF WORK OF CONSERVATION BOARD VIEWSHED
COMMITTEE WITH A BRIEF SLIDE PRESENTATION.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Board Member Hoffmann will present the slides at a later
date.
•AGENDA ITEM. BRIEF STATUS REPORT ON PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS (WORK BY PLANNING COMMITTEE AND
•
•
U
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
CODES & ORDINANCES)
25
APPROVED - JULY 9, 1996
JUNE 11, 1996
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the outline entitled "Status of Implementation of
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations by Planning Committee, Codes & Ordinances, Staff', and
he briefly reviewed them to the Planning Board. (The outline as referenced above is hereto attached
as Exhibit #6.)
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Board Member Wilcox reminded the Planning Board of the memorandum of the Site Visit to
Evan Monkemeyer property on June 13, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. (Memorandum is hereto attached as
Exhibit #7.)
Chairperson Cornell stated that she would get the information for Board Member Wilcox for
the County Representative meeting.
AGENDA ITEM. ADJOURNMENT.
Upon MOTION,; Chairperson Cornell declared the June 11, 1996, Meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
DRAFTED: 6/19/96 by DAK.
Prepared by:
Deborah A. Kelley,
Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder.
Respectfully submitted:
:?AlZAA��
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Ma=Bry
Administrative Secretary.
L�
•
I
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
r
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard.
7:35 P.M. Discussion of sketch plan for the proposed Saddlewood Farms Apartments, to consist
of 276 +/ rental units, located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 274-14.2, 93.49 +/-
acres in size, 1310 Mecklenburg Road. Actions by the Planning Board will include a
recommendation to the Town Board on the proposed rezoning from AG Agricultural
and R -15 Residence to Special Land Use District (SLUD), as well as site plan
approval. Alfred, Mildred, Nelson, and Jacqueline Eddy, Owners; Saddlewood Farms
Limited Partnership, Applicant.
3. Discussion of work of Conservation Board Viewshed Committee with a brief slide
presentation.
4. Brief status report on progress of implementation of Comprehensive Plan
recommendations (work by Planning Committee and Codes & Ordinances).
5, Other Business,
6. Adjournment,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY STARR
HAYS AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum Iof four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
T_OWN�_iOF "ITHA`CA'- 'P_LANNI'NOIB6AA 4
€ATTENDANCE" -SHEET
Date.: L Z?J 2
PLEASE YOUR NAME ADDRESS OR AFFILIATE
(Please PRINT to ensure Accuracy in official Minutes)
► / +
ru
Malmo
EN
FA OR
all
,j
�l ?_ AAWAp99
'
� 1
lKill
r
Mac
ru
•
n
LJ
is
EXCERPTS RELATING TO ARE FROM
THE 1993; TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter II INVENTORY
0.Affordability;. The affordability of housing has become a problem
throughout the country. While its causes are complex, one of the basic
reasons is that incomes have not risen at the same pace as the cost of
housing (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development).
Primary avenues for municipal affordable housing initiatives are through
changes in development regulations, financial support of housing
programs, and economic development policies.
Housing is generally defined as affordable if its occupants spend one -
quarter or less of° their total income for it. The median value of owner -
occupied housing ,units in the Town of Ithaca increased from $62,200 to
$141,300 (127.2 %) between 1980 and 1990, higher than all other towns in
Tompkins County.':, During the same period, the increase in the City of
Ithaca was from $37,800 to $95,600. (152.9 %), from $79,500 to $210,900
(165.3 %) in Cayuga Heights, and from $47,154 to $94,700 (100.8 %) in
Tompkins County. (All figures in current dollars.) Rents were also higher
in the Town (including CHV) than in any other town or the City of Ithaca.
Median contract rent in the Town in 1990 was $468 per month.
The 1991 Tompkins County Housing Market Study stated, "Tompkins County
has the highest housing costs in the housing market region, which has been
the case at least since 1970." College students are major contributors to
the high cost of housing because about 50% of Cornell students and about
25% of Ithaca College students live off - campus. Several students may
reside together, each contributing to rent. Three or four students can then
pay $800 to $1000 a month for rent. Few moderate - income families and
other non - student households can afford these prices.
Review of the assessed values of a group of recently constructed single -
family residences (attached and detached structures on varying size lots)
confirms their high prices. New houses in the following subdivisions were
reviewed: Deer Run, Chase Farm, Woolf Lane (Westwood Hills),
Commonland Crescent, Eastwood Commons Townhouses, Frandsen
1
I
Pw
Subdivisions (Dove Drive, John Street), and Black Oak Lane. With the •
exception of several townhouses at Deer Run and Commonland Crescent,
assessed value (which is typically the sale price for new dwellings)
ranged from $130,000 to over $240,000.
An income of approximately $60,000 is required to handle typical
financing of a $150,000 home (10% interest, 30 -year term, $17,000-
$23,000 for a down payment and closing costs). Housing built in the Town
between 1950 and 1970 was usually more affordable, even when brand
new. The implications are that the Town is gentrifying; young families of
the sort who moved into the Town of Ithaca 20. years ago are no longer
able to purchase a home here. 'In the future, unless proactive steps are
taken, the percentage of middle- income Town residents will likely
continue to decline [currently 28% fall into the household income range of
$30,000 to $50,000 annually (1990 dollars)].
[Break between text]
Although some higher- income jobs do exist in the educational service
sector and other sectors, most jobs in the service sector are at lower
levels. Service sector jobs are among the least well paid. Cornell
employment provides a salient example of the relationship between
higher- and lower -paid service workers. In 1991, Cornell reported that
there were 3,868 employees who were faculty members, executives,
administrators, managers, or professionals. The remaining approximately
5,830 were clerical, secretarial, technical, paraprofessional, skilled,
maintenance, or academic nonfaculty employees. While job titles alone do
not always indicate wage levels, a pattern is apparent: for every higher -
paid educational service employee, there are 1.35 employees who receive
much less, often around $15,000 annually. These lower -paid service
workers in the educational sector are not able to afford higher - priced
housing in the Town. They are, for the most part, the people who use Town
roads commuting to work from other towns in the County, the City, and
adjacent counties. This pattern of a few high -paid employees and many
modestly paid ones is similar to the other two major service sector
employers, retail trade and the finance, insurance, and real estate
sectors.
•
2
t
Irt
C
0
r1
LJ
What is the future of income levels in the service sector?
current service sector wages are looked at in constant
there appears to be a decline in wages earned per worker,
Projections by
the 1992
that when
1982 -84 dollars,
The report goes
on to state,
It ,service industry workers are a majority of the County's
workers [as well as the Town's] this trend is not a positive one for the
County."
employers and labor analysts are not available. However
Tompkins County` Economic Development Strategy report s
For several years' Tompkins County has had the lowest unemployment rate
in the State. From 1987 through 1990 the unemployment rate was just
over 2 %. During the 1990 -92 recession, the unemployment rate increased
to 3.4% in September 1992, but it was still much lower than the rest of
the State and many parts of the country. The 1990 Census reported that
3,484 people commuted to work in Tompkins County from other counties,
up from 2,405 in 1980.
Chapter III GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Overall
GOAL: To provide public utilities, facilities and services
that efficiently meet present needs and anticipate future needs
of residents, in' accord with the goals and objectives of this
Plan.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
d) Continue to investigate and promote additional public and
private funding sources for open space, affordable housing, infrastructure
repair and construction, farm land preservation, etc.
c2.C. Housing and Residential Land Use
GOAL: To promote the availability of diverse, high - quality,
affordable and attractive places for people to live.
The objectives are" to have...
3
1. A variety of housing styles and patterns of development to meet the
diverse needs of the community.
20 Neighborhoods which are quiet, clean, and safe and that have low
traffic, low vehicle speeds, and attractive landscaping.
30 Creation of opportunities for affordable housing.
4. Provision for customary and reasonable home occupations while
guarding against the creation of nuisances.
Recommended Actions for .Each Objective:
1. A variety of housing styles and patterns of development to meet the
diverse needs of the community.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
e) Encourage the construction of a range of housing types, styles,
and prices to satisfy the diverse needs and desires of the community,
including housing accessible by the handicapped.
3. Creation of opportunities for affordable housing.
To accomplish this objective' the Town should...
a) Use incentive zoning mechanisms to provide for affordable
housing. (See Conservation 1(b) for a brief description of incentive
zoning.)
b) Explore requiring that a small percentage of large
developments be devoted to affordable housing.
c) Ensure that a portion of the Town's undeveloped, residentially -
zoned areas have lot -size requirements that do not preclude affordable
housing.
d) Provide
in order to
criteria
#3.)
e)
result in
f)
agencies
g)
housing
for some flexibility in creating and applying design
promote affordable housing. (See Growth Management
Consider pursuing legal or other mechanisms which would
affordable housing remaining affordable over the long -term.
Work with Tompkins County, the City of Ithaca, and other
to plan and create affordable housing.
Explore making provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for creative
concepts, e.g., co- housing (such as the "Eco- Village" proposal) and
M
6C
n
i
• elderhouses.
h) Review development review processes to determine how they
affect the construction of affordable housing; work to eliminate
unnecessary hindrances,
i) Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance such that accessory
apartments would require special approval. Accessory apartments should
provide either affordable housing or some other social benefit such as
elderly housing.
Chapter IV PLAN SYNTHESIS
The desire for affordable housing provides another example of the
importance of striking a balance. The Town is aware of the need to keep
down or even reduce the costs of housing, both new and existing,
especially as it examines new or revised plans and regulations. This need
does not have to' conflict with other goals, objectives, and recommended
actions. For example, the costs of new residential development generally
can be contained by focusing development toward areas where
infrastructure exists and away from areas difficult to build on. When
ecombined with allowances for sufficient densities, reasonable incentives,
innovative design, and other measures, affordable new housing can be
more feasible than at present. Affordable housing can be realized without
compromising other goals and objectives. In fact, as indicated above, they
can assist in making it more feasible.
Related to sidewalk issue:
Chapter III GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
2. Neighborhoods which are quiet, clean, and safe and that have low
traffic, low vehicle speeds, and attractive landscaping.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
e) Stress 'the importance of amenities such as sidewalks, parks,
vegetation, streets, and community centers in establishing and
maintaining neighborhood character.
5
® EXCERPTS RELATING TO AGRICULTURE FROM
THE 1993 TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Since 1900 there has been substantial change in the Ithaca area as
elsewhere. The American frontier continued to move west, as did
agriculture. As evidenced throughout the United States, the shift away
from an agrarian ''way of life to an urban - industrial society has resulted in
very notable changes in the environment. In the eastern United States
much of what had once been farmland has either been developed or has
reverted to woods; brush, or meadow. In the Town of Ithaca, development
has been primarily residential and institutional, along with some
commerce.
Chapter II INVENTORY
The Town's total area is about 19,105 acres, including 1,090 acres in
Cayuga Heights. Village and 685 acres of Cayuga Lake. In 1990, more than
• three - quarters (78 %) of the Town's land area was undeveloped:
agricultural (27 %),° recreational (6 %), or simply open (45 %). In 1968,
undeveloped land comprised 84% of the Town's area. With the gradual
decline of agriculture, much former farmland has begun a slow reversion
to forest. In 1990, 'about 26% of the Town's land area was wooded and
another 16% was brush land or meadow (data for 1968 are unavailable).
The Town's woods, brush land, and meadows support a wide variety of
plants and animals.
The Economy: This section gives an overview of the local economy and
includes information on employment, the influence of the local colleges,
trends, agriculture, and economic development.
Agriculture. After; higher education, farming c a
that distinguishes the Town of Ithaca. Farming
benefits to farmers and provides food for Tow
also imparts a rural character valued by Town
to the local tourist industry. Farm fields
and their openness provides view corridors
can
n be noted as the land use,
not only provides economic
Town residents and others, but
residents and is important
be aesthetically pleasing,
across the hills and valleys.
Farming n the Town of Ithaca peaked over a half-century ago, as it did
9 P Y 9
elsewhere in the northeastern United States. Even so, farming is still the
predominant land use in several areas of the Town. There are presently
about 5,000 acres of agricultural land, about 70% of which is actively
farmed (69% on West Hill, 21% on East Hill, including some Cornell lands,
and 10% on South Hill). These lands include cropland, pastureland, and land
used to grow vegetables and fruit. About one -third of the active and
inactive lands have prime farming soils (Soil Conservation Service Class
& II soils; see the Agricultural District Lands & Important Farmland Soils
Map and the Agricultural Land Use Map.) In addition to the farmland
discussed above, there are approximately 1,050 acres of mature (over 40
years old) woodlots in the Town of Ithaca on land owned by farmers or
farmland owners.
During the period over which this Comprehensive Plan was developed, the
Agriculture Committee of the Town's Conservation Advisory Council
prepared a report entitled, "Planning for Agriculture in the Town of
Ithaca." The report examines the history, geography, economic trends,
farmers' perspectives, and regulations that govern local farming. A series
of actions were recommended, many of which have been incorporated into
Chapter III, "Goals, Objectives, and Recommended Actions." Among these
recommendations was the establishment of a permanent Town of Ithaca
Agriculture Committee reporting to the Town Board. This Committee was
established in 1992 and met with Town Planning staff in early 1993 to
comment on the Comprehensive Plan.
According to a 1990 survey, there were 15 active farms in the Town
(excluding Cornell) employing a full -time equivalent of about 43 people
( "Survey of Farmers in the Town of Ithaca," M. Hastie and C. Carson, May
1990). Some of these farms extend outside of the Town. Hay, corn, oats,
and wheat are the major farm crops in the Town, as well as fruits and
vegetables. There are three dairy farms remaining in the Town. In addition,
the Eastern Artificial Insemination Cooperative has a large .facility and
croplands in the northwest area of the Town. A notable recent innovation
is the establishment of three organically farmed Community Supported
Agriculture farms (CSA) within the Town, in which consumers buy a share
of the harvest, providing the farmer with startup capital early in the
1k
•
2
0
• season and sharing in both the bounty and the risk of that year's crop.
In responding to the 1990 survey, farmers felt that lower taxes would
provide the greatest help to enable them to continue farming. Farmers also
raised concerns about ill- considered local government actions and their
consequences (e.g., the extension of water and sewer), as well as apparent
expectations or desires by some people that farmland should remain
undeveloped to preserve open space.
About one - fifth of; the Town is zoned for agriculture (AG), all on West Hill.
Farming is also allowed in R -30 Residence Districts. AG zoning applies to
just over half of the active and inactive agricultural lands on West Hill.
None of the 1,650 acres of farmland elsewhere in the Town is zoned AG.
Such zoning, while allowing farming, is not a protection from
development; non' -farm activities are also allowed. This situation can
produce conflicts between farmers and other people caused by the
unavoidable aspects of farming (noise, dust, odors, irregular working
hours, etc.).
Across New York ;State, farming occupies less than half the land it did in
1900, even though farm output has increased substantially. Throughout the
State, thousands of acres of farmland have been sold for development or
abandoned. Here in Tompkins County, the total number of farms continues
to decrease. In 1987 there were 532 farms in the county, a decrease of 6%
since 1982. Approximately 200 of these farms were full -time commercial
operations. The number of mid -sized farms has decreased while the
number of large farms has remained steady. The number of small farms
has increased, in part because of a movement toward "nontraditional"
farming (organically grown vegetables and fruit, vineyards, sheep /goat
farms for wool and milk and other high value crops on small acreages).
While the market value of agricultural products has been increasing
steadily over the past decade, the number of farms has decreased. Fewer
people are involved in farming, with a shift toward employees rather than
family members. Farming accounts for about 3.5% of total county
employment.
The socioeconomic factors working against farmers result in lower
profits, uncertainty about the future (which translates into a hesitation
3
to invest further in the farm), taking land out of production, and
bankruptcy. These factors include low prices for farm products,
development pressures, government regulation, soil quality, and personal
factors such as retirement and lack of family members with a desire to
farm.
Protection of farming is primarily provided through the State - County
Agricultural Districting Program, Almost 80% of the agricultural land in
the Town (active and inactive) is enrolled in the Tompkins County
Agricultural District program. Ten of the 15 .respondents to the 1990
"Survey of Farmers in the Town of Ithaca" participated in the program
(and three others have joined since the survey). The New York State
Agricultural District Law of 1971 provides participating farmers with
limited property tax relief through assessments based solely on value for
farming. Other provisions limit municipalities from regulating farms
excessively and restrict local taxation for water, sewer, lighting, and
nonagricultural drainage facilities. Specifically, the State law protects
farmers from local laws and ordinances that may "unreasonably restrict
or regulate farm structures or farming practices" unless such
restrictions are necessary for public health and welfare. In agricultural
districts, NYSDEC approval is required for local expenditures for water
and sewer facilities and for residential, commercial, or industrial
development on more than 10 acres. The Agricultural District program is
voluntary, and not all farms qualify. The program requires a farmer to
gross an average of $10,000 from agricultural products for two years.
CHAPTER III GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The Economy and Associated Land Uses
AGRICULTURE
GOAL: TO ENHANCE AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY AND PRESERVE
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES.
The objectives are to have:
1. Land use and development regulations which address the special
4
R�
C
0
• needs of farmers, including provisions which stipulate that farming
activities take precedence over other uses in areas zoned for agriculture.
2. A reduction in the potential for major development in areas zoned
for agricultural uses.
3. Productive agricultural lands remain in agriculture.
4. Agricultural practices which minimize contamination of the
environment, soil erosion, and surface water runoff.
5. A renewed and diversified agricultural sector.
Recommended Actions for Each Objective:
1. Land use and development regulations which address the
special needs of farmers, including provisions which stipulate
that farming activities take precedence over other uses in areas
zoned for agriculture.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
a) Stipulate that farming activities take precedence over other
• uses in areas zoned for agriculture. Possibly include a "right -to- farm"
clause.
b) Expand Agricultural Zoning to cover the actively farmed areas
on South Hill, East Hill, and in Inlet Valley.
c) Continue to allow farm stands in agricultural zones.
d) In the course of development review and the issuance of
permits, work to ensure that future residents are informed of the
practical realities of living in agricultural areas (e.g., odors, noise in
early morning, mud and other stuff on roads, no water and sewer).
2. A reduction in the potential for major development in areas
zoned for agricultural uses.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
a) Limit the placement and size of public water and sewer lines,
highways, and other infrastructure that would encourage growth and
development in areas designated for agricultural use.
b) Revise the Zoning Ordinance to limit residential development
5
in Agricultural Zones. 0
c) Consider establishing a voluntary purchase of development
rights program, a transfer of development rights program, sliding -scale
zoning, or other innovative measures for protecting agriculture.
3. Productive agricultural lands remain in agriculture.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
a) Encourage the State, County, and farmers to renew, sustain and
expand the Agricultural Districts under the New York Agricultural
Districts Law.
b) Encourage legislative changes at the County and State levels
that would reduce property tax pressures on agricultural lands or provide
other tax relief such as reduced school taxes. Take action on similar
measures at the Town level when feasible.
c) Investigate voluntary tax abatement programs for farmers
willing to commit their land to agricultural purposes for a long period of
time (e.g., 15 -25 years). Abatements might also cover water, sewer, and
fire protection benefit assessments. Consider imposing a penalty (e.g.,
back taxes or benefit assessments, including interest) for selling off lots •
for development.
d) Not extend water and sewer lines into or through areas zoned
for agriculture except when required for public health and safety.
4. Agricultural practices which minimize contamination of
the environment, soil erosion, and surface water runoff.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
Work with farmers, Tompkins County /Cornell Cooperative
Extension, the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, and
other agencies to foster improved farm practices including minimization
of fertilizer and pesticide use, soil erosion, and surface water runoff.
56 A renewed and diversified agricultural sector.
To accomplish this objective the Town should...
a) Consider allowing non - farming agribusiness in agricultural
zones (e.g., feed & seed dealer or farm implements dealer), limited by the
0
•
r-
t
aextent of negative impacts on traffic, non - farming, soils, housing, etc.
b) Support the local production and sale of food and agricultural
products.
c) Participate with Tompkins County /Cornell Cooperative
Extension and others in establishing a farmer recruitment program. Such a
program would match farmers desiring to move from urbanizing areas, as
well as new farmers, with active farmland that may become available. It
would assist in their integration and also study ways to encourage people
to remain in farming.
d) Designate (a) Town official(s) (elected or appointed) to visit
with. farmers annually.
•
7
• RECOMMENDED POLICIES EXCERPTS FROM
1990 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING FOR AGRICULTURE
There are a number of ways in which the Town of Ithaca can address the
needs of its farmers through the Comprehensive Plan. The first step
would be the development of a set of policies which address the needs and
concerns of farmers in the Town. By establishing a set of clear policies
and enacting measures to ensure that those policies are carried out the
Town can ensure, the long term preservation of its agricultural land
resources and enhance the economic viability of its farms.
To this end the Agriculture Committee has developed the following set of
policies to guide the Town of Ithaca in planning for the future of its
agriculture. Together they provide a framework for land use decisions,
capital improvements programs such as new roads, water and sewer
service, and other implementation measures to guide growth and
development in a way that accommodates the needs of future Town
residents while protecting its farms and farmers from the adverse
effects on them of growth and development.
A major premise of these recommendations is that preservation of open
space and an active local agricultural economy is important to the
preservation of the quality of life enjoyed by all Town residents.
The overall goal of the Town of Ithaca as it plans for the future of its
agricultural sectorl should be to:
Maintain the viability of the Town's agricultural economy
and preserve, the agricultural land resources of the Town
for the use of future generations of Town residents.
To guide the Town and its various boards and staff toward the above
goal, the Agriculture Committee recommends adoption as part of the
Comprehensive Plan the following policies:
A) Foster agriculture in the Town of Ithaca through the adoption
of land use regulations and protective measures which actively
encourage agriculture and do not inhibit or curtail farming
1
operations within the Town's agricultural areas. •
B) Recognize the primacy of agricultural land uses within
agricultural -zoned areas of the Town and enact measures to
protect farmers from so- called "nuisance suits" which may
result from conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural
land uses in those districts.
C) Manage residential development in productive agricultural
areas so as to minimize potential& disruptions to farming
operations and the loss of viable agricultural soils.
D) Evaluate the placement of public water and sewer lines,
highways, power lines, and other facilities that would
encourage growth and development in those areas of the Town
designated for agricultural use on the comprehensive plan map.
E) Encourage the State and County to renew, sustain and expand
the Agricultural Districts formed within the Town under the
New York Agricultural Districts Law,
F) Encourage legislative changes at the Town, County and State •
levels which would reduce property tax pressures on
agricultural lands so as to minimize the conversion of '
productive agricultural land to residential, commercial, or
other uses.
G) Permit agriculture - related commercial and industrial land
uses in agricultural areas only where such uses will not be
detrimental to agricultural and. farming operations.
H) Encourage agricultural practices that would minimize water
pollution, soil erosion, and surface water runoff.
Recommended Implementation Measures
There are a number of measures which the Town of Ithaca can take
to further the above policies. The Agriculture Committee
recommends that the Town:
•
KA
I
•
1. Incorporate the above policy statements
Comprehensive Plan currently being prepared.
29 Revise Town zoning regulations in areas where agriculture
predominates to better reflect today's agricultural enterprises.
Zoning in existing agricultural areas of the Town should encourage
agriculture, recognize its primacy as a land use in those areas, and
protect farmers from adverse impacts of suburban sprawl. The
Agriculture Committee recommends that Town of Ithaca zoning
regulations for agriculture be revised to better reflect the needs of
contemporary Town farmers and to better protect them
from the problems associated with population growth and
residential development.
To further the 'above goal the Town's agricultural zoning district
should:
1. Ensure the primacy of agriculture as a land use within the
• .zoning districts. Town zoning regulations should be revised to
include a "right =to- farm" clause that would make farming
(including all accepted farm practices, necessary farm
buildings and facilities, and houses for the farm family and
hired help) the primary land use in areas zoned for agricultural
uses.
Such "right -to farm" clause would help protect farmers from
nuisance (suits and restrictions on generally accepted
agricultural practices such as early morning and late night
operation of farm equipment during planting and harvesting
seasons.
2. Allow roadside farm stands for the sale of agricultural
products and items produced on the premises through a
customary home occupation.
3. Provide for alternative uses of the land that are compatible
with the agricultural and rural character of the district,
•
3
3
including activities such as golf courses and driving ranges, •
public and private for profit campgrounds, clubhouses or
lodges, private hunting preserves and lodges, including those
for profit.
4. Provide for a variety of agriculture- related commercial
enterprises, including farm implements dealerships (but not
automobile, truck or RVs); grain, feed, seed, non - residential
buildings, silos, and other farm physical plant dealerships;
wholesale and retail nursery operations; wholesale and retail
distribution of agricultural products, including grains and
vegetables, fruits, and dairy products.
Such enterprises would be allowed subject to Special Approval
by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.
5. Allow for customary home occupation as already provided for
in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
6. Allow for doctor's or other office of a recognized profession o
as currently provided for in the Zoning Ordinance,
74 Allow for research facilities dedicated to research in
agriculture and animal husbandry.
Five areas of the Town are recommended for revised agricultural
zoning.(Map 3.) The largest of these areas is that portion of West
Hill bounded by the Town of Ulysses and NYS Rte. 96 on the north,
Hopkins, West Havgn and Calkins Roads on the east, Robert Treman
State Park on the south, and the Town of Enfield on the west. Except
for residential frontage lots along roads and highways and the small
Drew subdivision off Sheffield Road, much of this area is comprised
of large contiguous tracts of rural and agricultural land. Soils in the
area are well suited for agricultural use. Also, much of it is outside
the current limits of public water and sewer service.
The second large tract of land recommended for agricultural zoning
is that portion of South Hill between Buttermilk Falls State Park and
El
LJ
• Inlet Valley. Excluding the small clusters of homes along West King
Road near the Park, agriculture is the predominant land use in this
area. As with West Hill, much of this area is covered with soils
well- suited for agricultural use, and is outside the existing .public
water and sewer areas.
Two areas on East Hill, both owned by Cornell University, are
recommended for protection through agricultural zoning. The
University maintains approximately 200 acres of fields and pasture
between Hanshaw Road and Fall Creek, and approximately 500 acres
of orchards, farm fields and pastures in the area bounded by NYS Rte.
366, Game Farm Road, Snyder Hill Road and the City of Ithaca. The
University's fields along Hanshaw Road preserve the view southwest
from Hanshaw Road and are a major component of the largest tract
of contiguous open space in the northeast corner of the Town. Its
fields, pastures and orchards between NYS Rte. 366 and Snyder Hill
Road also create major viewsheds and contribute to a rural
character for the eastern and southeastern approaches to the Town,
the University and the City.
In the same way the approximately 75 acres of actively farmed
fields in the southern portion of Inlet Valley enhance the rural
character of the southern approaches to the Town and the City. In
addition much of the soil being farmed in the area consists of Class
I and II soils, especially in the bottomland areas between NYS Rte.
13 and Cayuga Inlet. Although relatively small in comparison to
other areas of 'the Town where agriculture predominates, this area
of continued active agriculture remains an important agricultural,
visual and open space asset to the community.
30 Investigate a voluntary Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
Rrogram for active farmland. Under such a program the Town of
Ithaca could pay farmers willing to accept a permanent easement
limiting development on their land the difference between the value
of their land for development and the value for farming. Farmers
would be free to use this payment for any purposes they chose:
retirement investment, capital improvement, etc. Payment options
could include lump -sum payment or annual payments over a set
40 5
period. In other areas this type of program has been funded through
municipal bond issues, a percentage of real estate transfer tax or
mortgage tax revenues, or as a regular budget line item. A key issue
with regard to such a program to be investigated is its ultimate cost
to Town of Ithaca taxpayers, compared to the benefits accrued.
(Appendix A contains a sample agricultural preservation easement
from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.)
4. Investigate the alpropriateness of a Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program for active farmland. Transfer of development
rights is similar in nature to purchase of development rights (PDR)
in that farmers would be allowed to sell the development rights on
their land. However under TDR the development rights do not
disappear. Rather the purchaser of the development rights transfers
them to another parcel of land in a designated "receiving area"
elsewhere in the Town in the form of an increase in allowed
development density. In some municipalities the local government
acts as the development rights bank, purchasing development rights
from landowners and then selling them to developers.
58 Initiate a three - pronged program to reduce tax burden on 10
farmers through:
a) Reducing the Town fire protection levy on land and
improvements committed to active farming. through the
provisions of the State Agricultural Districts program (Art.
25AA). The State has recently passed enabling legislation
which may allow some Towns to set up such a program for at
farmers who participate in the County Agricultural
Assessment program. However the legislation as adopted
appears to preclude the Town of Ithaca from enacting such a
program. The Committee thus recommends that the Town
pursue legislative authorization from the State to establish
such a program in time for Town implementation in 1993.
Such an abatement program would offer some tax relief to
local farmers at relatively small expense to the Town.
Currently there are 15 farmers or landowners in the Town who
A
• participate in the County program, together owning a total of
23 tax parcels with a combined assessed valuation of
$3,894,000. The combined fire tax revenue generated for 1991
on the above 23 parcels was approximately $8,000. The cost
to individual farmers averages approximately $350. However
the four largest farm operations in the Town pay an average of
approximately $1,000 per year, with one farmer paying
approximately $1,700. Thus an abatement of the fire tax could
provide measurable relief to Town farmers.
The cost to the Town of Ithaca from this proposed abatement
in terms of lost revenue would be modest: just over $4,000
per year out of total revenues of $837,832. This proposed
abatement program could also be used by the Town as an
incentive to farmers to enroll or remain enrolled in the
Agricultural District program, and thus further the goal of
preserving the agricultural land resources of the Town.
b) Investigate a voluntary property tax abatement program for
• farmers willing to commit their land to agricultural purposes
(using same criteria as PDR program) for up to 25 years.
Instead of receiving payment as in the permanent PDR program
land owned by farmers and other landowners participating in
this tax - reduction program would receive an additional
decrease in taxes above and beyond that provided by the
agricultural assessment program.
9
A possible prototype for the Town of Ithaca to follow is the
Town of Perinton program for acquiring easements on
agricultural lands and other open spaces deemed important. It
is a voluntary program, established about 15 years ago,
whereby in exchange for an easement the landowner receives a
reduction in the assessed valuation of their property, and an
attendant reduction in property taxes. The easement requires
that the landowner refrain from building upon or otherwise
changing the land during the term of the easement and, in the
case of a conservation easement for farming purposes, that the
land be principally and actively used for agricultural purposes.
F
The size of this property tax abatement varies according to the
term of the easement. For instance the property tax bill for a
landowner who grants the Town of Perinton an easement for
five years would be based on 40% of the pre- easement value of
their land. An easement with a ten -year term would result in
a tax bill based on 17% of the pre- easement value of the land.
Landowners who grant the Town an easement for 15 or more
years are taxed at a rate based on 10% of their pre- easement
assessed value. The Perinton program allow landowners to
cancel the easement, but only upon payment of back taxes and a
penalty. (The Town of Perinton program is further explained in
Appendix B.)
Two potential drawbacks of the above program have been
identified. The first is that, due to the property assessment
structure in Tompkins County, the Town of Ithaca may not be
able to unilaterally implement such a program. Unlike in the
Town of Perinton, which has its own assessors and the power
to set assessment levels within its boundaries (subject to
limitations of State law, of course), property assessments in
the Town of Ithaca are set by Tompkins County. The Town
would probably require County and even State cooperation to
set up such a program. The second drawback is that even with a
further reduction in Town property taxes, the total property
bill for Town of Ithaca farmers will still be quite high. This is
because Town property taxes make up a relatively small
proportion of farmers' property tax bill. For instance in 1992
the Town property tax levy of $1.11 per thousand of assessed
valuation represented only 6% of the average
Town /County /School property tax bill. Any abatement program
would thus have to include county and school taxes to be
effective.
The above program would complement, but not replace the
county Agricultural District program.
c) The Town should revise its water and sewer service benefit
E:?
I I
U
• assessment formulas to ensure that the rates charged
landowners who participate in the above proposed voluntary
property tax abatement program reflect the lack of
development potential on such land. The Agriculture
Committee anticipates that a small number of parcels which
would be enrolled in a voluntary tax abatement program may
also be served by public water and sewer, and thus subject to
the full benefit assessment.
S
Currently the formula for calculating the water and sewer
benefit assessment on larger undeveloped tracts of land served
by public water and sewer is based on a number of factors
including the number of acres and amount of frontage on a
public road. The result is that the annual water and sewer
benefit assessment on larger parcels of land in the Town can
exceed $1,000. Unless an accommodation is made in the
Town's water and sewer rate structures a landowner who
grants the Town an easement may still be liable for a large
annual public water and sewer assessment.
6. Redefine the boundaries of the existing Town -wide water and
sewer districts. Those areas of the Town where agriculture
predominates should be removed from the Town's water and sewer
districts. The Town of Ithaca in 1977 consolidated all existing
water and sewer districts and created a townwide district. Because
of this consolidation there are expectations on the part of some
Town residents that water and sewer service will at some point be
extended to all 'areas of the Town. Redefining the boundaries of the
water and sewer districts would limit the extension of public water
and sewer service into those areas of the Town where agriculture
continues to be the predominant land use, and would result in
reduced development pressures on active agricultural land in the
Town.
The fiscal implications to the Town of eliminating water and sewer
charges on farmland which is not expected to be earmarked for
development in the coming decades by the Comprehensive Plan
appear to be minor. Currently the Town assesses properties not yet
9
served by public water and sewer a "penny assessment" of 0
$.02/$1,000 of assessed valuation for water and $.02/$1,000 for
sewer. The Town assessment in 1991 for agricultural properties
owned by Town farmers or farmland owners not yet served by public
water and sewer was $3,236 out of a total assessment of
$1,025,000, or about 3 /10ths of 1%,
The actual reduction in revenues is expected to be even less than the
$3,236 figure given above. This is because a large percentage of the
developed and undeveloped properties not currently being served by
public water and sewer are outside area where agricultural areas
and would still fall within the reduced water and sewer districts.
Any reduction in revenues will also be offset many times over by the
savings in costs to the residents of the Town of extending and
maintaining water and sewer service to future development in these
areas.
7. Establish a farmer recruitment program . Such a program
would match farmers moving from other areas, as well as new
farmers, with active farmland or inactive farmland that comes onto
the real estate market. The program would assist in the integration
of these farmers into the local community. Another aspect of such a
program would include developing ways to encourage people within
the Town's farming community to remain farmers.
8. Establish a permanent Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee.
This committee would report to the Town Board, work cooperatively
with the Town Planning Board and Conservation Advisory Council,
and represent different types of farm operations within the Town,
including farm operations and farm - serving organizations such as
Cornell University, Eastern Artificial Insemination Cooperative
Breeders, and Cooperative Extension. The purpose of this Committee
would be to oversee and assist in the implementation of the above
recommendations, to educate Town residents and officials about
farming and farmland, to manage the Farmer Recruitment and PDR
programs (with Town staff assistance), and other appropriate tasks
requested by the Town Board or Town Supervisor. The Committee
would review Town programs relating to agriculture and make
reports on a regular basis to the Town Board, and where necessary or
W
W]
• requested to, make recommendations on specific issues to the Board.
Meetings of the Committee would be opened to farmers and other
members of the public interested in agriculture.
•
•
11
►. - i - 1 -yep
DATE: June 10, 1996
® TO: Town of Ithaca Planning Department, Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town
Conservation Advisory Board
FROM: Lois Levitan
766 Elm Street Ext., Ithaca, NY (phone: 277 -2790)
Member of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Board
RE: Landmark America's petition of April 11, 1996 for rezoning agricultural
land to multiple residential use (or SLUD) for the purpose of developing
the `Saddlewood Farms' apartment complex.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Landmark America, a development company located in
Portland, Maine, is petitioning for the rezoning of ± 94 acres of agricultural land fronting on
Mecklenburg Road and to the west of West Haven Road. They are proposing a rezoning to
multiple residential use (or SLUD) for the purpose of building 276 apartment units, 125 of which
are to be income - restricted ($15,000- $26,000 household income) and 151 of which are targeted for
households with incomes in the $25,000- $35,000 range. The low income housing will be built
with subsidy from the Section 42 Tax Credit Program. The land proposed for development is
currently owned by the Eddy Family. Justification for the proposal rests. largely on the findings of
a commissioned market study (appended to the application), and on the argument that the site is no
longer suitable for agricultural use.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: I have closely read the six documents submitted to the Town of
Ithaca on April 11, 1996 by Landmark America developers as well as additional materials dated
April 30 and May 24, 1996. I respectfully submit this response, summarized into four topic areas:
® (1) Conservation of agricultural lands
(2) Demand for the proposed housing
(3) Environmental impacts on the community
(4) Conservation of town character.
Comments on some of these issues are included in a memo I prepared prior to the Town Board
Meeting in early May, 1996, but in that memo comments were limited to specific points raised by
the Landmark America documents; and points were addressed in the sequence of the documents.
Those comments may be'useful to individuals as they examine the Landmark America proposal.
This memo speaks more generally to the environmental impacts of the proposed development'
Conservation of agricultural lands
Long -Term Issues
This parcel forms part of a `green belt' that flanks Ithaca to the West. Most of it is zoned as
agricultural land and falls within an agricultural district. It is situated well beyond the bounds of
high density residential and commercial development in the City and Town of Ithaca and is not
within practical walking or bicycling distance of the city center. If town planners are interested in
maintaining the viability of agriculture in the Town, and are interested in limiting sprawl
development into the periphery, then this parcel should not be rezoned to enable high- density
development.
' I define environmental impacts broadly, as target and non - target impacts on human and non -human
® biota and on "the settings, the surroundings and the conditions of life" in the present or in the
future (Quotation from the European Commission, cited in A. Gilpin. 1995. Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA): Cutting Edge for the Twenty -first Century, p.1. Univ. Press: Cambridge. 182 pp.).
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 1
Although planners are limited in the tools they can use to encourage farming and conserve open
space, it is within their purview to think about long term and broad scale implications of land use,
conversion -- issues that go beyond current ownerships of individual land parcels to affect regional
environmental quality and food security. While food shortages are not part of our current local
reality, it is not fantasy to project land use needs over a 25 -year time horizon and find greater
dependency on local agricultural systems as a result of global and national scarcity of arable land.
For the past decade, for example, crop yields worldwide have not kept apace with population
growth. Most indicators suggest this situation will only worsen as water supplies for irrigation
dwindle and become ever more costly, as pests become ever more resistant to agricultural
pesticides, and as ecological systems in general become more stressed . 2
A perhaps - less - abstract argument for continuing to encourage farming in the Ithaca periphery is
that this area has developed many of the components of a viable regional food system, with several
farmers markets and numerous small scale producers who make significant portions of their
income supplying a local niche market. The broader community, as well as the individual
producers benefit from this activity in the rural landscape because agriculture and open space serve
multiple purposes: Farming is not only a way to make a living and to provide goods and services to
a local and global market, but in addition the working landscape of farms and managed forests,
together with other public and privately -owned land, provide the expanse needed for purification,
regeneration and dilution processes to occur in the environment. And in addition, open space-is the
key feature that defines rural communities and describes an amenity valued by residents and
tourists alike.
The viability of any individual farm is increased when a stable network of suppliers, support
services and markets is maintained - -and this network depends upon a threshold number of farms
and level of agricultural activity. The insidious creep of residential developments into agricultural
lands, enabled by rezoning and building on individual parcels, in response to individual petitions,
will cumulatively spell the permanent demise of an agricultural economy in an area where niche
market agriculture is beginning to thrive. This has impacts not only for the production of goods
and services, but also for quality of life in the area and the draw that both provide in stimulating
tourism in our region.
Rebuttal to the Landmark America Petition:
The Landmark America petition argues that the current land owners are essentially prohibited from
farming this parcel any longer, and therefore that the parcel should be rezoned to allow the owners
to capture value from it. To quote from the petition: "the present owner is extremely limited in the
use of his property. The attached plan shows the area of the site that is not restricted in some way
by local ordinances. The 4.3 acres shown is less than 5% of the property... The Eddy family has
made it clear that the proposed developments to the North, South and East of the site will make
agricultural activity impossible due to the spraying and fertilization processes necessary."
However, as was clarified at the May Town Board meeting, the only restrictions are on agricultural
activities involving fur - bearing animals within 1000' of residential properties. Other types of
farming are not restricted.
In terms of other social pressures or legal limitations on agricultural practices, the 1992 NY
Agricultural Protection Act and revisions to the 1971 Agricultural Districts Law have strengthened
`right -to -farm' ordinances in agricultural districts to prevent scenarios such as those implied by the
petition, in which new residential neighbors exert pressure to prevent agricultural activity.
It should also be noted that the Eddy family recently sold the adjacent parcel (across Mecklenburg
Road to the south) to EcoVillage of Ithaca, a non - profit group that is siting clustered multiple
residences on their property in a way that will allow for continued agricultural activities on much of
2 Lester Brown's Who Will Feed China? : Wake -Up Call for a Sinall Planet (1995. New York: W.W
Norton & Co.) provides an excellent overview of the complex of environmental and social factors
at play.
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 2
1
n
a._
the land. It therefore seems unlikely that the EcoVillage organization or future EcoVillage residents
® would advocate for restricting agricultural activities on adjacent parcels.
The Landmark America petition implies that rezoning will reduce public danger from pesticides.
However, converting this land to the landscaped lawns of a managed residential complex is likely
to increase rather than reduce public exposure to pesticides, because pesticide use on such lawns
tends to be far greater than in agriculture. One of the few exceptions to this is the large quantity
and frequency of pesticide use in orchards, such as the one proposed for the SW corner of the
property (Doc. 1 -pl; Site plan; and mentioned in Part IA of Doc. 4).
In sum, maintaining the opportunity for agriculture in the periphery of the Town of Ithaca
promises ongoing and long -term benefits to the community and to individual farmers and
farm businesses. Conversion of farmland to high density residential use is a near -
permanent land use change with indelible impacts on the environment and economy of the
region. Existing land use ordinances provide a few avenues for encouraging agricultural
use by providing benefits for farmers (eg: Agricultural Districting - -which enables property
tax relief and other benefits for farmers), but very limited opportunities for protecting
agricultural land for future open space uses. Although agricultural zoning in the Town of
Ithaca is not exclusionary- -it can only limit but not prevent incompatible land uses - -it is
virtually the only means available for maintaining agriculture in the Town. This safeguard
should not be removed.
Demand for the proposed housing
Justification for this development seems to rest in large part on a market survey commissioned by
Landmark America from a Florida consultant (Koontz and Salinger) in December 1995. Issues
® raised by this market study are addressed below, but first I will speak more generally to the issue
of housing demand in the Town of Ithaca. As a Town resident and interested observer, I am
confused about the local housing market. I read and observe contradictory bits of information,
such as:
• There is a glut of moderate - priced houses on the market.
• Low and moderate income families can't find desirable rental units.
• Student housing demand pushes lower income Cornell (and other) employees to live
out of the county.
• Many Ithaca (and Cornell) employees have roots are in more distant communities
and are uninterested in relocating to Ithaca.
My own confusion could perhaps be cleared- -but more importantly, an accurate description of
housing demand provided - -if one of the local planning agencies were to conduct a demand -based
housing survey sensitive to income level. Commuters could be queried about why they do not live
in Ithaca and whether they would move to the City or Town if suitable housing were available.
Definitions of `suitable' should of course be made explicit - -at a minimum, in terms of cost and size
of units.3
Community Needs "Study:
I have two concerns about the Landmark America proposal with regard to the demand for low and
s The TCAD study referred to at the May Town Board meeting and in the May 10 letter from
Landmark America may provide the answer, but the reported information that 40% of new area
employees reside out -of- county does not answer the question of whether employees want to live in
Ithaca, and would move here if `affordable' rental units were built.
As an addendum it should be noted that 40% of the net 800 new county employees = 320, which is
approximately equal to the number of vacant rental units in the primary market area, according to
the Koontz and Salinger study.
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 3
moderate housing. First, as described above, I am concerned that decisions about meeting a
community need for low income housing take place in the context of a community discussion'about
the issue. A low income housing project of this scale will go a long way toward defining low
income housing and low income neighborhoods in the Ithaca community for a long time into the
future. The community should not abdicate its responsibility to think seriously about the
configuration of the town and the siting of low income and elderly housing. Landmark America
may indeed have the wherewithal to develop and maintain very successful subdivisions of mixed
low and moderate income rental housing, but they should not be in the position of defining the
needs and character of this community.
Koontz and Salinger Market Study
My second concern is with the Koontz and Salinger market study commissioned by Landmark
America. It contains several technical and conceptual errors4 , results of which are embedded in
the Landmark America cover letter and petition to the Town. When corrections are made for these
errors, the market study fails to demonstrate demand for the development, and in fact could be
interpreted as showing that a development of this scale is not needed, is overpriced for.the market,
and could devastate the existing rental market
The study defines the target market for the development as non - student renter households in the
Towns of Ithaca and Lansing and the City of Ithaca, with household incomes within the prescribed
range for subsidized housing ($15,000- $26,000) or the market rate units ($25,000 - $35,000).
Drawing on published county -wide data, the study estimates that 21% of renter households have
incomes qualifying them for subsidized housing, and that 13% fall into the market rate target
income group.
Vacancy Rate
A telephone.,survey done in the course of the market study show a 3% vacancy rate in rental units
in the primary market area. This number of vacant units (355) is considerably larger than the
projected increase in rental demand from new rental households (180 total new households in area
by 1997; 60 new households in target income groups) -- indicating that demand could perhaps be
met from existing rental stock.
F
Market Rate'Units- -Rents
Landmark America is proposing a one - bedroom gross rent (heat and hot water included in the net
rent) of $600 to $750 and a two- bedroom gross rent of $850 to $1,200 (p.24). Garages are
expected to rent for $50 additional, per month. A survey of six comparable `conventional'
properties (p.28 -34) indicates that the proposed rent for the two - bedroom market rate units far
exceeds rents at any of the apartment complexes included in the market survey (see Table I
below).' This raises questions about whether these units can be filled, and if not, whether the
° Major technical errors are (1) substitution of a 50% mobility factor - -which clearly reflects mobility
rate of the student population - -for the regional mobility rate of 25% (p. 39); (2) confusion between
numbers of market rate units and subsidized units in calculating the capture rate for low income
units (p 42); and (3) the resultant omission of any calculation of demand for market rate units. The
cover letter states that "The market for the proposed 151 market rate units is considered to be very
deep," but it is not at all clear what data underlie this statement. The major conceptual error is the
use of mobility as the indicator of housing demand.
5 Table 1, Data from Koontz and Salinger Market Study. D. 24:
When questioned about this disparity at the May Town Board meeting, the Landmark America
representative explained that price differentials of up to $400 between her units and comparables
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 4
•
e
Proposed
Rents at Comparable
Saddlewood
Units Included in Market
Farm Rents
Survey
1- bedroom
$600 -$750
$600 -$700
2- bedroom
$850 -$1206
$700 -$800
When questioned about this disparity at the May Town Board meeting, the Landmark America
representative explained that price differentials of up to $400 between her units and comparables
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 4
•
e
developer and management can afford to construct and maintain the apartments and the many
proposed amenities. These concerns are exacerbated by serious problems in the methods and
numbers used to calculate market demand, as described below.
Calculation of Demand
Demand is projected from (1) demographic trends showing that 180 new renter - occupied
households will move into the primary market area between 1995 and 1997; plus (2) a mobility
factor - -the percentage ; of the market which moves in a given year. Correcting for technical errors
in the study, about 60 new households in the targeted low and moderate income groups are
estimated to move into the primary market area prior to 1997, the first full year of occupancy.
However, most of the projected demand for the 276 new rental units is assumed to come from
current residents who are expected to move . 6 Not only is this mobility factor bloated, it
also rests on the assumption that potential `mobility' equals `demand'. By
extension and implication, we are then expected to equate this `demand' with low
income housing `need'.
To estimate the viability of filling the proposed development, the market study calculates a `capture
rate' - -which is the percent of rental units in this development as part of the total target market. The
rate reported (28.2 %) is based on several errors (p.42); when corrected, the re- calculated
capture rate is 66 %.'
What are the implications?
These calculations suggest that two - thirds of renter households in the target income
groups who are looking for apartments are expected to relocate to Saddlewood Farms! And
that one - eighth or 12.5% of all qualifying low income residents are expected to make the
move!' These underlying assumptions call into question the statement (p.44) that `the
is proposed development will not significantly (negatively) impact the existing apartment rental
market `.
If this proposal becomes reality, the migration of such a large proportion of the community
to a relatively remote rural location without social infrastructure or support services will
have tremendous impacts on the Ithaca community.
are due to cost of utilities, which are included in Saddlewood Farm rates. However, $400 per month
seems excessive for utility costs in new, rather small apartments.
6 American Housing Surveys for the metro markets of the NE report a 25% mobility rate among
renter households, but the 1990 Tompkins County census reported a 56.5% rate (p 39). The
analyst chose to use a 50% mobility factor in projecting market `demand' for these apartments,
clearly not recognizing that mobility in this county is driven up by the student population -- despite
the fact that the study acknowledges that half of renter households are undergraduates and that this
population has been explicitly eliminated from the target group.
' Calculations (p.42) show 151 units in the proposed development divided by 536 units in the
income - qualifying target group = 28.2% capture rate. However, this 151 includes only the market
rate units. When all 276 units are included in the calculation, the capture rate is over 50 %. When
corrections are made for the mobility factor (reduced from 50% to 25 %), and the total number of
renter households is adjusted to include only those in the target group (33% x 1250 mobile
households), capture rate is 66 %.
R The study projects 11,820 renter households in 1997; 6,820 households are eliminated from
® consideration because :'they are student households or deeply subsidized, leaving a residual of 5,000
households, 20% of which (1000) are in the low income target population. Saddlewood Farms is
proposing to build 125 units for this target group.
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 5
it
Environmental impacts on the community
Among the greatest immediate environmental impacts of the proposed development are the many
ramifications of the social dislocation implied by the migration just described. In addition:
Vehicular Traffic
Traffic will increase substantially. This fact is seriously understated by Landmark America in the
SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 (question B. Lg) where they predict that these
276 households will generate a maximum of only 24 car trips per hour - -this estimate permits only
1.5 one -way trips per day per household.9 Even with a well- developed mass transportation system
beyond that currently available, this estimate of vehicle use seems quite low. The ramifications
include increased energy use, congestion, and pollution.
Impacts on the Business Community
Downtown retailers and service providers will find that over 200 households which were once
within walking distance of downtown, are gone. Now much more reliant on cars, these
householders may find that it takes only moments more to drive to outlying shopping centers than
it would take to drive and then pay for parking downtown.
Sprawl
The expansion: of water and sewer services to a new area increases_the probability -of
housing development and sprawl, as`. ell as; the push for dispersed commercial serve
areas. The economic�costs-of sprawl are felt by all town residents because infrast"
development and maintenance is costly. Sprawl also destroys natural habitats.
.inued
:.=
nrural
Scenic Viewsheds.
This property is a significant part of the-vista seen from the Cornell Arts Quad looking to West
Hill, a view that is now primarily a scenic rural landscape. Community identity and character are
shaped in part by views and images that are shared. If views of apartment complexes incrementally
replace those of fields and woods, then incrementally views change and their scenic value perhaps
diminishes.
In sum, this development would exacerbate sprawl, place a burden on Town infrastructure
and on the tax base to maintain additional. infrastructure, and - -based on figures provided in
the market study - -would overload the area -wide residential housing market. As I understand
the intent of the Town's comprehensive master plan, construction of a large apartment
complex on land that is currently zoned for agricultural use and that is beyond current water
and sewer hookups is not consistent with recommended uses adopted in local land use plans
Conservation of town character
There is a fine line between environmental impacts and the conservation of town character, because
the characterization of the significance of an impact will differ depending upon baseline conditions
and community expectations. In this concluding section I do not argue against the merits of this
specific development proposal, but want to encourage and validate processes of community
introspection and visioning that may enable us to better design the path we wish to follow into the
future. Community planners need to give give serious thought.to the ramifications and many faces
of growth and development, and to recognize that bigger is not necessarily better as a measure of
the quality of life.
9 Calculated by assuming 24 trips per hour for 1.8 hours of the day, generating 432 trips total for
276 households =1.5 trips per household per day.
Levitan Comments on Landmark America Rezoning Petition June 10, 1996 Page 6
n
.3
•
..,
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
1
FROM: JON KANTER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
RE: SADDLEWOOD FARMS - SKETCH PLAN DISCUSSION
DATE: JUNE 11, 1996
At the June 4, 1996 meeting, the Planning Board adopted a resolution declaring its
intent to serve as lead agency in the environmental review of the proposed
Saddlewood Farms Apartments, 1310 Mecklenburg Road. Attached is a copy of the
letter that was sent to involved and interested agencies (June 5, 1996) announcing the
intent to serve as lead agency and requesting concurrence of involved agencies with
lead agency designation. Involved agencies have 30 days from June 5th to respond.
® Tonight's sketch plan discussion will be an opportunity for the applicant to describe
the details of the proposed project to the Planning Board, and for Planning Board
members to ask questions about the proposal and provide early feedback to the
applicant on issues or concerns about the project.
The next step after tonight's meeting will be for the Board to issue a determination of
significance (positive or negative declaration). The soonest that could happen would
be at the July 9th Planning Board meeting, assuming that sufficient information to
make a determination has been provided by the applicant. In preliminary
discussions with the applicant, it has been made clear that the likelihood of a positive
declaration for this project is very high. The proposed rezoning and site plan
approval are both Type 7 actions under SEQR. Key issues that could lead to the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement have been discussed with the
applicant and include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
Impact on State Agricultural District No. 2 and on farms operating in
the Ag District
Impact of traffic on surrounding roads, intersections and neighborhoods
Impact of drainage, surface runoff on surrounding areas
- Visual impact, impact on community character
Consistency with Town's Comprehensive Plan
Impact of extension of utilities (e.g., water, sewer) on Ag District and
surrounding area, including pressures for additional development on
West Hill
Impact on community services (schools, fire, police, public transit, etc.)
In addition, although not necessarily an environmental impact issue, the Town Board
has asked the applicant for further documentation and clarification on the need for
rental housing in the income categories proposed. Another issue of concern to the
Town Board was the guarantee of long -term affordability of units in the low -
moderate income category. This would have to be addressed in the provisions of the
Special Land Use District that is proposed for this project.
Also attached for the Board's use is a "Property Analysis" prepared by the Planning
Department describing pertinent information about the site at 1310 Mecklenburg
Road.
Att.
,
[V
C]
n
Iro
TOWN OF ITHACA C(DP)f
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
TO: Involved Agencies:
Kevin R.' Carlisle, Assistant Commissioner, New York State Division
of Housing & Community Renewal
Charles E. Moynihan, P.E., Regional Director, New York State Department
of Transportation
Dr. Donald R. Davidsen, Commissioner, New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets (and liason for New York State Advisory
Council on Agriculture)
John M. Andersson, Tompkins County Department of Health
James W. Hanson, Jr., Commissioner, Tompkins County Department of
Planning
Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town Board
FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
DATE: June 5, 1996
RE: Request for Concurrence in Lead Agency Designation,
Saddlewood Farms Apartments, 1310 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca
The Town of Ithaca has received a request for rezoning and site plan approval for the
following proposed project:
Project No.: 9604196. , Saddlewood Farms Apartments, 1310 Mecklenburg Road
Description: Proposed Saddlewood Farms Apartments, to consist of 276 +/- rental units,
located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 144.2, 93.49 +/- acres in size, 1310
Mecklenburg Road Actions by the Planning Board will include a recommendation to the
Town Board on the proposed rezoning from AG Agricultural and R -15 Residence to Special
Land Use District (SLUD), as well as consideration of site plan approval. The site is situated
within State Agricultural District No. 2 in Tompkins County. Alfred, Mildred, Nelson, and
Jacqueline Eddy, Owners; Saddlewood Farms Limited Partnership, Applicant.
Status: Town Board referred rezoning request to Planning Board for recommendation and
requested that Planning Board act as lead agency for environmental review under SEQRA.
Tentative Date For Next Planning Board Meeting: June 11 . 1996 (to discuss sketch plan).
SEQR Concurrence Letter, 6/5/96
Saddlewood Farms Apartments
Information on the proposed project is contained in the attached materials, including:
10 A completed Development Review Application;
2. A completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (Part 1);
3. Reduced copies of the proposed site plan.
4. Completed Agricultural Data Statement
The proposed actions are subject to environmental review under provisions of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The*proposed rezoning and site plan approval
are Type I actions per the thresholds set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Section V of Town
of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of 1988 providing for environmental review of actions in the
Town of Ithaca. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on June 4, 1996, declared its intent to
act as lead agency for environmental review of this proposal under SEQRA. Within thirty
days of the date of this letter, we request your concurrence and comments as follows:
16 Concurrence with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board as lead agency.
2. Any preliminary concerns related to potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please contact me at (607) 273 -17470
cc: Michael D. Zagata, Commissioner, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
Daniel Palm, Director, Region 7, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
Gordon Reimels, Resident Engineer, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation, Region 3
MaryBeth Holub, Chair, Tompkins County Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board
David Boyd, Director, Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council
Dwight Mengel, Ithaca Transit
Mayor Alan Cohen City of Ithaca
Julie Conley Holcomb, City Clerk, City of Ithaca
Brian. Wilbur, Fire Chief, City of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee
Ralph Jones, President, West Hill Civic Association
Joan Bokaer, EcoVillage at Ithaca
John Barney, Attorney for the Town of Ithaca
Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering, Town of Ithaca
Pamela Gleichman, President, Gleichman & Co., Inc.
Karl Norberg, Landmark America
Michele Devine, Landmark America
Thomas K. Creal, Creal, Hyde and Larson, Architects
Thomas J. Wolanski, Partner, Clough, Harbour & Associates
n
LJ
C OG'y
• PROPERTY ANALYSIS: PROPOSED SADDLEWOOD FARMS SITE
Tax Parcel No.: 27 -1 -14.2
Location: 1310 Mecklenburg Road, approx. 700 feet west of West Haven Road
Owner: Eddy, Alfred & Mildred; Eddy, Nelson & Jacqueline
Acres: 93.49
Current Zoning: AG Agricultural (83 acres + / -); R -15 (10.5 acres + / -)
Potential Development Under Current Zoning: In the range of 127 +/- lots,
depending on site conditions. Cannot cluster in AG zone, unless site is
rezoned to a Residential District.
Current Comp. Plan Recommendation: Most of the site is designated as "Agricultural"
in the Comprehensive Plan, which has the goal of preserving the potential for
agricultural use. The eastern edge of the site (i.e., the portion zoned R45) is
designated as "Suburban Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan.
® Agricultural District. Site is in NYS Agricultural District No. 2, and the owner has
been getting the agricultural tax abatement under the Ag District program.
Surrounding Zoning: R45 to north (Perry Farm) and east ( Cerrache). R -30 to south
(EcoVillage). AG Agricultural to west.
Surrounding Land Use: Primarily agriculture and vacant /undeveloped land, with
low density residential along West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads. Also two
antique dealers nearby. EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative is being built to
the south.
Public Water: Yes, water line through adjacent Cerrache property and along West
Haven Road. Most of the site is outside of the water pressure area, however.
Public Sewer: Yes, sewer main at West Haven Road,
Environmental /Site Constraints: Power line along western edge of site; Class III
agricultural soils (not considered "prime" but are considered "other important
agricultural soils" in Comprehensive Plan).
Development Proposal by Landmark America: 276 +/- rental apartment units. 125
• are proposed as low income units under the Federal Low Income Housing
Credit program; the remaining units would be market rate rental units.
Comments: The Landmark America proposal would require a rezoning probably to
MR Multiple Residence to permit the density and type of development
proposed. The Multiple Residence District allows one, two and multiple
family dwellings, and requires site plan approval by the Planning Board. If
rezoned to MR,, it is recommended that a maximum number of dwelling units
be specified in the rezoning as a condition, since the MR zone permits a
maximum density of approximately 17.4 dwelling units per acre. Another
zoning option is the Special Land Use District (SLUR), in which the zone can
be tailored to regulate a specific development proposal.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
Revised 5/7/96
L I
•
t Status of Implementation of Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
by Planning Committee, Codes & Ordinances, Staff
Enacted:
Elderly Cottage Law
Subdivision, Site Plan Sunset Provisions
Establishment of Amounts for Fees in Lieu of Parkland
Cornell Precinct 7 Special Land Use District
In the Works:
Six Mile Creek Conservation District
Amendment to Subdivision Regs. (or Zoning Ordinance) regarding 'Buildable Land"
Implementation of Geographic Information System ' (GIS)
Environmental Atlas
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Update
Comprehensive Zoning Revisions, including:
Rural Residence Zone
Strengthen Agricultural Zone
Add new Institutional or Educational Zone
Second Dwelling Unit in Residential Zones (by right or by special approval)
Update Provisions for Home Occupations
Update Off -street Parking Standards
Modify Special Approval Process (Special approvals requiring site plan go only
to Planning Board)
Revise /Update Sign Law
Identify Needs for Affordable Housing
Scenic Resources /Viewshed Analysis
Develop 5 Year Capital Plan (for planning long -range Town improvements such as
parks, roads, sewer and water facilities)
Future Efforts:
Transportation Plan
Northeast Connector (Corridor) Study
Stormwater Management Plan
Establishment of additional Conservation Zones (e.g., Coy Glen)
Historic Resources Survey
Open Space Preservation /Agricultural Land Protection Strategies:
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
Tax Abatement Programs /Mechanisms
Town of Ithaca Planning Dept.
May 28, 1996
0 1 TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members
FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
DATE: June 7, 1996
RE: Confirmation of Ithaca Estates Subdivision Site Visit
This is to confirm the site visit for the Ithaca Estates subdivision scheduled for Thursday, June
13, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. We will meet the applicants (Evan Monkemeyer, Owner and Terry
Roswick, Consultant) at the "dirt road" entrance to the site on East King Road (between 128 and
134 East King Road). The enclosed materials have been provided to familiarize Board members
with the site and the proposal.
• Sketch Plan Review is scheduled for Planning Board consideration at the June 18, 1996 meeting.
The current proposal also includes a request to rezone the parcel from R -30 to R -15 in order to
obtain lots that do not all conform to the dimensional requirements of the R -30 District. (An
alternate that has been suggested to the applicant is to pursue a cluster subdivision, in which the
Planning Board can modify the lot requirements, as long as the overall number of lots does not
excede the number that could otherwise have been approved under the existing zoning. Please
note also that the eastern portion of the site contains part of the Unique Natural Area known as
"South Hill Swamp ". Portions of the UNA may contain rare or scarce plant species and rare
birds, and insects have been reported in this area.
Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at
273 -1747.
Encl.
is