Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-06-18CJ • 0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JUNE 18, 1996 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date Cler' The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Geri Tierney (Planner). ALSO PRESENT: Pat Alessi, Jane W. Johnson, Martin Kelly, Jay Jacobson, Michael S. Husar, Tom Pruckno, Scott Whitham, Tony Ingraham, Kara Hagedorn, George D. Ryan, Jerry Weisburd. Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 9, 1996, and June 11, 1996, said Notice was served upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on June 13, 1996. (Affidavit and Posting and Publications is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Cornell read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard meeting. Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED STUBBS - ALESSI SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON SCHICKEL ROAD, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read from the Agenda as posted and as noted above. Patricia Alessi of 2 Schickel Road, stated that Lot 12 on the map entitled "James Stubbs & Patricia Alessi 2 -Lot Subdivision" dated June 11 , 1996, is the lot on which Mr. Stubbs built a house. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 The new owners knew that she and Mr. Stubbs owned the 36.44 acres (Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3). When the new owners bought the house they asked if they could buy another half acre. Ms. Alessi stated that she and Mr. Stubbs agreed to let the new owners have the extra half acre along with the house. Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting, and asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion for the environmental impact on the two -lot subdivision of Stubbs and Alessi. MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. • AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #2.) Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 0.51 +/- ACRE FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 36 -2 -3, 3644 +/- ACRES IN SIZE, FOR CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 36=2=12,1 BOTH PARCELS BEING LOCATED ON SCHICKEL ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. JAMES STUBBS AND PATRICIA ALESSI OWNER/APPLICANTS. Chairperson Cornell declared the above - mentioned matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Chairperson Cornell duly opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m., and asked if anyone from the public would like to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell duly closed the Public Hearing, and brought the matter of the two -lot subdivision back to the Planning Board for discussion. Attorney for the Town John Barney asked Ms. Alessi if she and Mr. Stubbs own all of Tax • Parcel 36 -2 -3 (36.44 acres). • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 1 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Ms. Alessi responded, yes. Attorney Barney asked Ms. Alessi who the new owners of the property would be. Ms. Alessi stated that the new owner is Marty Gardner, who purchased the lot with the house. He wanted to purchase another half acre to add to the lot. Attorney Barney asked if they would convey these lots simultaneously if the proposal is approved. Ms. Alessi stated that was correct. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she does not understand the pattern of the road and driveway on the survey map. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the driveway to the house is an extension of the existing driveway. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the driveway starts out at the end of the road on the • larger piece of land owned by Stubbs and Alessi, and then it would continue onto the part that would be owned by the new owner. Ms. Hoffmann stated that there should be some arrangements made where the new owner will be allowed to cross the Stubbs and Alessi land to get to the road. Attorney Barney stated that the new owners would legally have 60 -foot frontage on the road. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked Ms. Alessi if there was an easement on the property. Ms. Alessi responded, yes. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Ms. Alessi and Mr. Stubbs would be granting the new owners an easement across the portion of their property to get to the road. Ms. Alessi stated that was correct. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it seems there would not be any problems because the lot with the house is owned by the same owner, including the extension of the gravel part of the road. Ms. Hoffmann stated that there are no problems now, but that when the new owners take over the house, there would need to be different arrangements made for the new owners to go across someone else's land to get to the road. •Attorney Barney stated that the answer is two fold. What the Planning Board is doing tonight does not change the present configuration of these roads. The problem with the road is that it is • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 161r 1996 there, and would be there either way. Ms. Alessi stated that there was going to be an easement granted to allow the new owners to continue beyond the extension of the road in order to use the existing driveway to get to the house. The new owner's attorney would insist on that, otherwise they would need to relocate their driveway to connect to a public road. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the little part would still be owned by Stubbs and Alessi. Attorney Barney stated, not the westerly 60 feet, because that 60 feet would front on a public road. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. M TI N by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Gregory Bell: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.51 +/- acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2-3, 36.44 +/- acres in size, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2- 12, as shown on the plat entitled "Survey Map -- Portions of Lands of James Stubbs & Patricia Alessi, Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S. and dated May 17, 1996, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or Mylar copy of the plat and four dark -line prints of the approved subdivision plat; b. within six months of this approval, conveyance of the 0.51 +/- acre parcel being subdivided off of Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -3 to the owners of Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -12 and delivery to the Town Planner of a copy of the deed and communication to the Tompkins County Division of Assessment requesting consolidation of said 0.51 +/- acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -12. • Attorney Barney stated that he would like to offer an additional condition, that a notation be t PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 put on the map to reflect that the new piece of property would be consolidated with the old piece. Board Member Wilcox asked who would be making the notation. Attorney Barney stated that the surveyor would be making the notation directly on the map. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #3.) Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of the Stubbs /Alessi two lot subdivision to be duly closed at 7:52 p.m. • AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOVILLAGE COHOUS/NG COOPERATIVE, LOCATED AT 1323 MECKLENBURG ROAD, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Agenda. Jay Jacobson stated that representatives of EcoVillage have been before this Board many times before. EcoVillage owners are in the process of constructing 30 houses on 3 acres of land, out of 35 acres. A few weeks ago the construction was about 25% complete. EcoVillage owners have constructed a pond, which was previously approved. Mr. Jacobson said he believes that EcoVillage has satisfied all the requirements suggested to them for satisfying the Environmental Impact Statement. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that a previous map showed the road as Green Haven Road which relates to West Haven Road. The new map shows the road as Rachel Carsen Way. Mr. Bell asked which one is the correct road name. •Mr. Jacobson stated that he was not involved in the road name selection, but that someone in the Town told them that Green Haven Road would not be a satisfactory name. Mr. Jacobson 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 stated that they told him the road name closely matched another road names in the Town, so they needed to rename the road. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there are too many road and street names with "Green" and "Haven" then for the fire department and the Post Office service area. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell asked if any one was prepared to offer a motion. MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. • There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #4.) Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OFAPPROVAL OF MODIFICATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOVILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE, CONSISTING OF 30 DWELLING UNITS IN 15 DUPLEXES, A COMMON HOUSE AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND LOCATED AT 1323 MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79) JUST WEST OF WEST HAVEN ROAD, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD), ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 284-26.2. SAID MODIFICATION TO CONSIST OF THE RELOCATION AND RECONFIGURATION OF A PORTION OF THE CARPORT, AS WELL AS THE RELOCATION OF THE REFUSE AND RECYCLING SHED, FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ON • JULY 18, 1995. ECOVILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE, OWNER/APPLICANT 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 • .7 Chairperson Cornell declared the above - mentioned matter duly opened at 8:00 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Jacobson stated that the only differences he could see in the maps entitled "Final Site Plan, EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan North Section" dated September 2, 1995 and revised February 23, 1996, prepared by House Craft Builders, Inc., were the name of the private road and the change in the carports. Mr. Jacobson said that the only change he could see in the carports are the 27 covered bays (individual bays within covered carport) of which four are for storage and two are for refuse and recycling. EcoVillage owners previously submitted a plan with 21 covered carports with three of them for storage. There are 30 open parking areas in the revised site plan, and in the old site plan there were 34 open parking areas. The location of the storage sheds have been moved to consolidate them. Jerry Weisburd made the original site plan in order to provide the perspective residents a detailed description of the site by estimating the number of people who would want an open parking area and the number of people who would want a closed parking area. Mr. Jacobson stated that after everyone saw the site plan and the cost of their houses, they made a decision as to whether they would want an open parking area or a closed parking area. After a count, there was a slight difference between Mr. Weisburd's estimate and the actual number of people who wanted either a covered or an uncovered parking area. Chairperson Cornell stated that she went to the proposed site on 1323 Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), and felt that the carports are a lot bigger and taller than she expected them to be. Chairperson Cornell stated that Planner JoAnn Cornish had counted the number of parking spaces. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that she agreed with the numbers provided by Mr. Jacobson, but that her count of the revised site plan showed 51 parking spaces instead of the 52 parking spaces that was required in the Special Land Use District (SLUD). Ms. Cornish stated that it is not indicated on the site plan if the storage sheds are to revert back to parking spaces upon completion of the dwelling units or if they are to remain storage. Mr. Jacobson stated that he agrees with the count of 51 parking areas with the other bays used for either storage, refuse, or recycling. In the original and the revised diagram there was an optional parking area for 12 additional cars further from the neighborhood that is being constructed. Planner Cornish asked if the 12 parking spaces would be constructed in the same manner as the other parking spaces. Jerry Weisburd of House Craft Builders stated that the architect has constructed them in the sense that they would be cleared, graded, and drained, but they did not want to pave them until they saw whether that was needed or not. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 plan. there. JUNE 18, 1996 Attorney Barney asked if there was a place to put the 52nd parking space. Mr. Weisburd stated that he could pave one parking space in the optional parking area. Attorney Barney stated that would work, and that space should be shown on the final site Board Member Hoffmann asked if the intention was to keep all the storage space that is built Mr. Jacobson stated that the storage space is very important, and that he has contacted other, cohousing groups around the country who have informed him that they regret not having sufficient storage space. Mr. Jacobson stated that he thinks that would be an important item. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there was a reason for the extra height in the carports. Mr. Jacobson stated that there would be storage space above the cars. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he visited the site, and he was impressed by the • progress of EcoVillage. Mr. Wilcox stated he liked what EcoVillage residents had done to the pond with the island. Mr. Wilcox stated that they should make sure that they have 52 parking spaces, it doesn't matter where it goes as long as it is there. Attorney Barney asked if the 52nd parking space could be located opposite space 16 on the map entitled "Final Site Plan, EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan North Section" dated September 2, 1995 and revised February 23, 1996. Mr. Weisburd stated that the problem with that is that people are feeling fairly sensitive about parking being to close to the building, and that he knows no one would object to paving some parking spots on the optional parking lot, but that he thinks people might object to additional parking being closer to the houses. Board Member Bell asked if the 52nd parking space could be located above the "H" in "Rachel" on the Final Site Plan. 1. Mr. Weisburd stated that he would have to measure the area to make sure that would work, but that would certainly be a possibility. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she also visited the proposed site and was also surprised by the height of the carports. ® Mr. Weisburd stated that the Town did require elevations of the houses and the carports, 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 which were submitted. Mr. Weisburd stated that the scale and the height of the carports on the elevations submitted were part of the required submissions. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she noticed that the road name writer includes the name Rachel Carsen. Ms. Hoffmann point out that the name of the environmental writer Rachel Carsen is spelled Carson. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the spelling of the road name was intentional. Mr. Jacobson stated that was a typo on the site plan, so the name would be Carson. Chairperson Cornell opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Jacobson how people would access the storage above the cars. Mr. Jacobson stated that would be up to the individual carport owner to decide whether they are going to put a ladder up or build a ladder inside the carport. ® Board Member Ainslie asked how strong would the installed flooring be in the carport area. Mr. Weisburd stated that they put in flooring with a 30 pound square foot design load, which is the same load as what would be for a second story of a residence. The carports would be open so items stored would not be the same as what people would put inside a house. Board Member Ainslie asked if they have made any type of definite fixed ladder or anything for people to get up to the storage area. Mr. Weisburd responded, no, that they are leaving it up to the individual owners. Chairperson Cornell asked if they would need another structure for storage later on. Mr. Jacobson stated that it has not come up at any of the meetings. Board Member Kenerson asked if they plan on using the Common House for storage. Mr. Jacobson stated that they have not considered using space in the Common House for storage as this point. There is a root cellar in the Common House, that would be strictly for storing products from the gardens. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 MOTION made by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby waives certain requirements for Modification of Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants approval for the Modification to Final Site Plan entitled Final Site Plan, EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan North Section, dated September 2, 1995 and revised February 231 1996, prepared by House Craft Builders, Inc., and additional materials subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of the final site plan to show a minimum of 52 parking spaces or a note on the site plan that indicates which structures shown as storage sheds on the site plan are to revert back to carports upon completion of the dwelling 40 units. b. Revision of the final site plan to include the date as shown on the originally approved site plan (June 14, 1995) as well as the revised date as shown on the modified site plan (September 2, 1995 and February 23, 1996). C. Any additional revisions to the approved site plan shall be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for approval, as per the requirements of the original resolution of approval dated July 18, 1995, Local Law No I of the Year 1995, or other relevant portions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Planner Cornish stated that there was another thing she wanted to see on the revised site plan, which was the labeling for the emergency exit road. Attorney Barney stated that the revision of the site plan should show the corrected spelling of Rachel Carson Way and the labeling of the emergency access road. Director of Planning Kanter asked the Planning Board if they wanted to add another parking space in either of the locations that were mentioned. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board would want to add the one parking 40 space. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Director of Planning Kanter stated that condition (a) should be revised to say "Revision of the final site plan to show a minimum of 52 parking spaces including one additional space either opposite space number 16 or adjacent to the six space parking area on the plan above the "H" in Rachel." Mr. Kanter stated that the other option would, be to include one additional space in the optional parking area. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. NAYS - None. ` ABSTAIN - Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #5.) Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of EcoVillage Modification of Final Site Plan at • 8:20 p.m. 0 AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE LIBRARY STORAGE FACILITY (LIBRARYANNE)Q IN CORNELL'S PRECINCT 7, LOCATED ON PALM ROAD OFF ROUTE 366, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW. Chairperson Cornell declared the above noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the agenda. Tom Pruckno, Project Manager for Cornell University, stated that there is very little environmental impact with this proposal. Cornell would be increasing water usage on the site by 120 gallons per day. There would be minimal visibility from the recreational walkway. It is very difficult to see the building from the recreational walkway. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) had sent the Planning Board a letter, which Chairperson Cornell read to the Planning Board and public. Chairperson Cornell asked whether there might be a possibility of moving the building addition farther to the north. (The Environmental Review Committee's letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #6.) • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Pruckno stated that they would reshape the hill side for the expansion of the building where it would be extended to, readjusting it more would interfere with the interior warehouse scheme. Mr. Pruckno stated that this facility is a book depository for lesser used book materials based on certain isle widths and certain shelving widths. If they try to slide it further up it would interfere with the function of the facility. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the ERC was hoping that the drainage from the site would not be significantly worse because of the change. Ms. Hoffmann stated that this would not affect the drainage from the site, but the drainage toward the building would be taken care of easier if the building was moved further from the sloping parts of the site. Mr. Pruckno stated that he agrees with Board Member Hoffmann. Mr. Pruckno stated that after doing some engineering studies, there is some functionality to having a lift picker that goes down the isles and that has a certain swing radius on the front of the isles for turning around. Mr. Pruckno stated that this would also have a relationship to the existing facility. Mr. Pruckno stated that moving the building further would adversely effect the proposed operation of the facility. Leaving approximately 11 feet in back of the facility was the optimum in terms of changing the shape and configuration. Mr. Pruckno stated that by lengthening it by 20 feet, that it would widen the building out by one isle width and one shelving unit width. If they tried to make it even wider it would be adding costs. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that when looking at the large version of the Grading Plan Sheet L -2 of the submission it may look like a lot of grading, but Cornell University would essentially be scraping approximately a foot off the ground of the existing embankment. They are not changing the existing slope, they are simply taking approximately a foot of soil off of it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was comparing it to the old plan, entitled "Test Pit Location Plan: Cornell University Library Storage Facility (TP -1)" dated February 21, 1996, which the Planning Board received with the Full Environmental Assessment Form. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the grading looks different in TP -1 from Sheet L -2. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the slope would be at a grade of one foot for every two and a half feet of horizontal distance, so it is not that steep of a slope that is being proposed, Director of Planning Kanter stated that one of the reasons the addition was being moved to the north was to avoid the landfill area. The Environmental Assessment Form TP -1 drawing indicates boring locations and test pit locations that identify some of the landfill potential. One of the primary reasons to move the building north was to avoid those areas. Mr. Pruckno stated that he had taken some photos showing the building as it exists now. In .the photos there were two blue balloons and two pink balloons seen over the building which showed the height of the new building being proposed. These photos indicate what the warehouse addition • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 would be like in relation to the existing facility. Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Pruckno if he had taken a photograph of the building from the Recreation Way. Mr. Pruckno stated that he did take photographs, but that it was very difficult to see the balloons through the vegetation. He did not bring that photograph with him, but he would supply it to the Planning Department. Scott Whitham, Landscape Architect for Cornell University, stated that he was involved in setting up the balloons and helped take the photographs. When they took the photographs from the Recreation Way it was very difficult to see through the vegetation. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he prepared Part Two of the Environmental Assessment Form for the purpose of addressing this particular issue. Mr. Frantz stated that he went to the site and that his photographs did not come out either. Mr. Frantz indicated where the Recreation Way is in relation to the library, and stated that the only area along the Recreation Way where a small portion of the library might be visible, is approximately 450 to 500 feet southeast of the corner of the addition. Mr. Frantz stated that people might be able to see one or two feet of the top of the library through a number of trees. Board Member Finch asked Assistant Town Planner Frantz if he anticipates those trees growing any higher. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he anticipated the trees, and the brush will continue to grow. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Whitham if there still were plans to put trees on the site. Mr. Whitham stated that Cornell University had planned to vegetate the area to better the view even before the proposal was made. Chairperson Cornell stated that she felt fairly comfortable that there would be no visual impact with this proposal. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they knew if the new addition would be visible from the road further away, such as south of the Precinct 7 area. Mr. Whitham stated that within the Precinct 7 area, it would be visible. People would be able to see the building clearly from the north area of the library. Is Board Member Hoffmann asked what about the south. C. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 APPROVED JULY 161r 1996 JUNE 18, 1996 Mr. Whitham stated that he walked all the way up to the Recreation Way trail, and people would not be able to see the building from the south. Board Member Hoffmann asked what about further south of the Recreation Way. Mr. Pruckno stated that there is just dense trees. The sequence of items going south of the Recreational Way would be the stream and then the dense woods along the stream. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she meant further south of that, in the area of Judd Falls Road or Ellis Hollow Road. Mr. Whitham stated that they could not be sure of that, he did not think that they could see the building from there because of the dense woods along the stream corridor. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the building might be visible at the intersection of Ellis Hollow Road and Game Farm Road because that would be the highest point of Ellis Hollow Road. Director of Planning Kanter asked if they had looked at the view from the vicinity of Game ® Farm Road and Route 366, which is the area that was identified as the scenic protection area in the SLUD. Mr. Pruckno stated that they did not, and he believes that the land gently slopes up from Cornell University's warehouses. The area that Director of Planning Kanter is talking about is east of the proposed site, where the land gently rolls up in front of the Annex, and then it goes gently down and up again. Mr. Pruckno stated that he does not see how this addition would have a strong impact on that. Director of Planning Kanter asked if the intervening buildings such as the general store warehouse and the campus store warehouse, would block the views from that area fairly well. Mr. Pruckno stated that would be correct. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was some wording on the Summary Drainage Report that she did not understand. She asked what does the definition mean on the first page, where it talks about post condition hydrologic model. Director of Engineering Walker stated that post condition means when the project is completed. ®Board Member Hoffmann asked if there was a different meaning between post construction and post condition. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Director of Engineering Walker stated that post condition means after the new parking lot was built. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is a definition for TR -20. Director of Engineering Walker stated that TR -20 is a name of a computer program that the Conservation Service developed for modeling watersheds. HydroCAD is a Commercial Software Engineering Company that basically incorporated the TR -20 computer model into an AutoCad type format so it is easier to use. Board Member Hoffmann asked what is the definition of Tc was. Director of Engineering Walker stated that Tc means the time of concentration. The definition for time of concentration is the time it takes for a drop of water to fall from the furthest most hydrological distance point to flow to the end of the watershed. From the highest point of this project area, it would take nine minutes for the water to travel down into the watershed. Board Member Hoffmann asked what is the definition of CN. Director of Engineering Walker stated that CN means the run off curb number. That is based on the soil covered complex which is the combination of the characteristics of the soil to absorb water or whatever vegetation is growing. A curb number of 79 is typical of soils with a fairly hard lawn type surface. Curb numbers range from 30 to 100, with 100 being pavement. The overall curb number for this is based on the amount of area that is covered in the subarea by impervious surfaces mitigated by open space. What they are saying for this watershed of 28 acres, which is a fairly large area, that it would increase the impervious area somewhat, but not significantly. Board Member Hoffmann asked what is the definition of MSL. Director of Engineering Walker stated that MSL means the elevation of sea level. There is a book called TR -55 in the Planning Department with all these definitions. During the drainage ordinance process, it would be a good idea to give a seminar with the Planning Board on definitions. From an engineering standpoint, this report is very difficult, but a good report. Mr. Walker stated that he does not have any concerns with the drainage of this project. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any further comments. There being no further comments, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. MOTION made by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: ® NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #7.) Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE LIBRARY STORAGE FACILITY (LIBRARYANNEX) IN CORNELL'S PRECINCT 7, TO CONSIST OF A 14,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT ADDITION FOR • STORAGE OF LOW CIRCULATION LIBRARY BOOKS AND ASSOCIATED OFFICE SPACE, A NEW LOADING DOCK, ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND LANDSCAPING, LOCATED ON PALM ROAD OFF ROUTE 366, ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 64 -1- 1, CONSISTING OF 50 +/- ACRES, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD) NO. 9. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; TOM PRUCKNO, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared the above - mentioned matter duly opened at 8:52 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Pruckno stated that the original facility was built in 1979. This facility will be housing lesser used book material, microfilm and microfiche material from sixteen odd libraries from the main campus. When the project is completed, the library is estimated to house 1.6 million volumes on site. The idea of the operations would be to have people request material from the site or from a site on campus. The materials would be brought from the site to a requested site on campus in terms of deliveries with a van twice a day. Cornell is anticipating that their facilities on central campus would reach full capacity by 1997. This facility will be temperature and humidity controlled for preservation of the collection. Cornell is looking at approximately 11,000 square feet addition for the high density storage area, and approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square foot addition for the administrative and processing area. The materials will be received through either a loading dock or through the carport on the west side of the building, and then processed through the ®administrative area to be put on the shelves in the high density storage area. There would be provisions for a public use area, such as a reading room to review materials on site, or they could • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 request materials to be delivered to another library on campus for review. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Pruckno if he knows the number of parking spaces. Mr. Pruckno stated that there are four existing parking spaces on the west side, and that there will be 20 new spaces on the north side of the facility. Cornell is currently anticipating up to a maximum of eight employees for this site. These employees would consist of three temporary employees while they are moving books from the main campus to this facility. Two employees would be conservationists, and the other three employees would be the librarian and administrative support staff. Chairperson Cornell asked whether the current Precinct 7 Zoning has a higher parking space requirement. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that under the zoning for Precinct 7, based on the square footage, it requires one parking space for every 400 square feet of library, those figures would work out to 71 or 72 parking spaces for this facility, but Cornell is only proposing 24 parking spaces. • Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Special Land Use District has a provision recognizing that kind of situation commonly occurring in the Precinct 7 area. An alternative to following those parking standards is a provision for the applicant to provide a parking needs analysis and parking management plan to demonstrate why the number they propose is appropriate. Chairperson Cornell asked if the analysis had been submitted. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Staff has not received it at this point. Mr. Pruckno stated that he does not know what a parking lot needs assessment looks like. He prepared a paragraph which is attached to the EAF. Mr. Pruckno stated "The maximum number of vehicular trips generated per hour upon the completion of the project, is based on the number of deliveries and shipments to the site from the main campus libraries (2 per day), and the expected number of patrons coming to the facility (2 per day). The size of the staff is expected to be a total of no more than eight employees based on the number of five permanent employees and one to three conservation staff. The actual computation is determined by two deliveries plus two patrons per day divided by an eight hour day, which comes out to half of a delivery per hour. The size of the proposed parking lot is based on the anticipated use of the facility. The facility is a warehouse storage area for little use library books and such, which will not generate a large amount of traffic. Materials will be requested and shipped to and from the central campus twice daily by a library van, which would eliminate students and faculty members from visiting the site. There would be an occasional patron at the site, but because of the remoteness and the convenience of the twice daily PLANNING BOARD MINUTES W] APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 JUNE 18, 1996 deliveries, there would not be too many patrons visiting the site. The five to eight employees would require the largest block of parking spaces. The current zoning suggests a facility of this size would need about 70 parking spaces, but in fact 25 parking spaces would be more than enough. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Pruckno if he anticipates people doing research there. Mr. Pruckno stated that would be the two patrons per day visiting the site. Mr. Pruckno stated that there would be some patrons at the site, but again, because of the remoteness and the convenience of the van bringing materials twice daily to the campus that it would not get used often. Board Member Ainslie asked if the site would be fully handicapped accessible. Mr. Pruckno responded, yes. Board Member Wilcox asked if there would be any external noise makers of any sort. Mr. Wilcox asked if Cornell University would install a special air filtration system to accommodate the old books. Mr. Pruckno stated that they would be providing a humidity controlled and temperature is controlled system. Cornell University would be supplying an air conditioning system for the big open space. The equipment would be on the north side of the facility, and it would be screened with landscaping and fencing materials. Cornell University has done some preliminary calculations in terms of meeting the SLUD standard of the decibel level readings at the Recreational Way. Cornell University found the decibel levels would be negligible at the Recreational Way. The reason for the equipment to be in front of the building is so the noise would be dissipated enough by the screening of the building. The distance to the Recreational Way will result in noise levels below the required maximum SLUD. Chairperson Cornell asked if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan as shown in a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Demo Layout & Planting Plan & Details ", "Grading Plan & Details ", "Floor Plan ", and other related drawings, prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & Krause Architects and Engineers and dated May 23, 1996, and other application is materials, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to Final Site Plan Approval: • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 a. revision of the proposed site plan to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic survey, and date of said survey; b. submission to the Planning Board of a parking needs assessment demonstrating that the proposed number of spaces for the facility will be adequate to serve anticipated parking demands upon completion; C. revision of the proposed site plan to identify an area or areas to be reserved within which additional parking spaces up to the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance could be constructed should demand warrant, d. revisions of the proposed site plan to include details of any proposed lighting or signs; e. submission of documentation showing that the proposed facility will not create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth in Local Law No. 14 of 1995, • f. submission of a detailed soil and erosion control plan. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #8.) Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Cornell University Annex Library Expansion at 9:16 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR PHASE I OF THE PROPOSED "BUTTERMILK VALLEY ESTATES" CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 36 -1 -4.2 AND 36 -1 -6, 74 +/- ACRES TOTAL, SAID PHASE TO CONSIST OF 19 LOTS, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 LINEAR FEET OF ROAD, WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND 19 +/- ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN 1146 AND 1172 DANBY ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R -30 AND R -15, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT S -1. WALTER J. AND JOYCE Y. WIGGINS, OWNERS /APPLICANTS. • 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 Chairperson Cornell declared the above - mentioned matter duly opened at 9:17 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Walter Wiggins stated that he has submitted everything that the Planning Board and the Planning Staff had requested from him. He has met with Director of Planning Kanter and the Attorney for the Town Barney and reviewed some of the things that the Planning Board had concerns about for finalizing the plans. Mr. Wiggins stated that he was here to respond to whatever is appropriate at this final stage. Chairperson Cornell asked if the Planning Board had been supplied with copies of the letters that had been submitted to the Town regarding this project. (Six letters from the public are hereto attached as Exhibits #9, #101 #11, #12) #13, and #14.) Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board has gone through a long process over the past three years since the project was received. Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Wiggins was willing to make some adjustments to his plans to try and relieve some of the concerns as best as he could. Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Wiggins is not obligated to do that. • Mr. Wiggins stated that most of the comments have been directed to the possible impact in the third and fourth phase of the development as it reaches the boundary lines of the park. From a legal point of view, the time for those comments has long since past. Mr. Wiggins stated that he understands, and that he is sympathetic to the concept of preserving the park. One of the reasons he and his wife purchased this property over 30 years ago, was their interest and concern for preserving this area, but that it was not made clear in the Ithaca Journal article. Mr. Wiggins stated that he and his wife would be giving the park 18 +/- acres of land to become part of the park, and as a buffer against development. After the meeting with Director of Planning Kanter and Attorney for the Town Barney, it was decided that the buffer could be increased to 60 feet instead of 30 feet. Mr. Wiggins stated that the west boundary line would be comprised of lots 25, 63, 622 61, 60, 59, and 58, and that they would double the size of the buffer. He had submitted restrictions that limit the number of pets in the residences to one dog and one cat. Under the Dog Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca dogs are not allowed to run free. Mr. Wiggins stated that there was some concern about animals that would impact negatively on the park, but if the law is obeyed there should be no problems. He tried to respond to all of the comments, and has worked through some of the views and some of the issues. Chairperson Cornell stated that a majority of the comments focused on the proximity to Treman Lake through the back lots, and that it is approximately 450 +/- feet either way. Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Wiggins has agreed to putting a 60 foot buffer zone, but that he also stressed that he would like to save as many trees as possible that are already existing on • the site. One of the other concerns was for animals getting into the park disturbing the ecosystem 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 of the lake. Chairperson Cornell opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Jane Johnson of 48 Comfort Road, stated that she was concerned about the space that is between lot #46 and lot #48. She believes someone from the Planning Board suggested that there should be an access to the neighboring properties. Ms. Johnson stated that this abuts directly into Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -13 which belongs to Robert and Faith Chase, and that it is right in the corner of her lot, Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -12. Ms. Johnson stated that the land is all posted and is not for outside hunting. The space that is leading into that land is just an open area for hunters to go into, even though it is posted.` She would prefer having the houses adjacent with no access into the back of those lots, so the wildlife would not be disturbed from the park to the edge of her land. Chairperson Cornell stated that the reason the space was left there was because if the southern part of the land' was to be developed that there would be an access way into that property through the access way. ;- Director of Planning Kanter stated that was correct, and that there should be no reason for the right -of -way strip to be cleared unless a road was to be put through there. Ms. Johnson stated that she prefers not to have the access to her land, so the land cannot be developed. Ms. Johnson asked if there was someone who enforces the buffer provisions, and what are the penalties if an owner clears the access way. Attorney Barney stated that the Town can enforce it as a condition of the subdivision approval, and the adjoining landowners could enforce it. Ms. Johnson asked how do they enforce it and what are the penalties. if a person does clear the access way. Attorney Barney stated that they would be subject to a penalty of a fine and possible imprisonment. Ms. Johnson asked if a neighbor calls the Town with a possible violation, would the Town respond to it. Attorney Barney stated that the Town may respond. Ms. Johnson asked how does the limit of. one dog and one cat get enforced. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Chairperson Cornell stated that the SPCA and the Town are working on a census. The land owners purchasing their homes from Mr. Wiggins would be made aware of the conditions, and it would be their choice to move there or not. Ms. Johnson stated that it sounds scary having 67 new homes with families moving in behind her lot of land, and that she does not know what to expect. Martin Kelly of 48 Comfort Road, stated that he has concerns about the access way from the development. The access way is going into the land trust land, and the land trust land is supposed to be forever undeveloped. Mr. Kelly stated that it seems ridiculous to have that piece of land there. All the land would be doing is opening an access way to his back door for hunters to come in. The general public is much less likely to go through someone's back yard than to go through a road way. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the reason this right -of -way was put on the map was for regulation requirements (in the Town's subdivision regulations) for connectivity to adjoining properties to be maintained as part of the Planning Board's review. The right -of -way would probably look just like the side yards of the two houses on either side of it, unless a development is proposed that requires a Town road connection to the adjoining property. The Johnson's and the Chase's properties would be the most affected by the right -of -way, but that the Town needs to show ® the connectivity. This will also show the potential access to the State Park Land to connect to the trail system that would be part of the subdivision for the recreation to head back into the new portion of the State Park. Mr. Kelly asked, part of what trail system. Director of Engineering Walker stated that a trail system could happen some day. It is also accessed for passive recreation. Attorney Barney stated that if the land next door is never developed, then the right -of -way would never be opened. The Town would not open a right -of -way to nowhere. The only time the right -of -way would be opened would be if one of the two landowners, in the future, chose to develop. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a way to continue the 30 foot barrier strip through the unopened right -of -way. Attorney Barney responded, yes, and that the Town would own that right -of -way. The Town would not want to do much in the way of land maintenance there. The 30 foot buffer would be for a future road if needed, but there are no plans for a road at the present time. This proposal is only in Phase I, and would need to be made clear by some sort of restriction that the owners for lots 46 and 48 to extent their use or attempt to do anything on the Town's right -of -way. The 30 foot buffer ® would continue to be observed until such time the right -of -way is turned into a road. S PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Kelly asked if that restriction would be put in. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board could consider that restriction being asked of Mr. Wiggins to be imposed on the owners of lots 46 and 48. Chairperson Cornell stated that the right -of -way of the landowners, the Chases and the Johnsons are equal. The Chases have protected their land with the Land Trust, so the Johnsons may decide to do something also. Chairperson Cornell asked if the right -of -way could be moved over one lot from the Johnson's property. Mr. Kelly stated that he is part of the Johnson family, and that he does not want the right -of- way to go from the Johnson lot. Mr. Kelly stated that keeping the 30 feet uncleared, would not come right up to the border of the property, but right now there is not a restriction on doing that. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Wiggins if he had any objections to that. Mr. Wiggins stated that as the Planning Board knows he was interested in having the buffer put in, in the first place. Mr. Wiggins stated that he is supportive of Mr. Kelly's view, and that the right -of -way would not be developed by him, unless the Town needed it for a roadway. Mr. Wiggins stated that he has no intentions of clearing the area at any time. Mr. Kelly asked what does the neighboring deeds mean. Attorney Barney stated that the right -of -way would be conveyed to the Town. The Town would not impose upon a 30 foot buffer restriction, which then precludes using it for the purpose in which the Town would be taking it. The Town could control the use of it as long as the Town owns it, and the Town could direct the people on either side, to an extent, that they would want to use any part of it. Mr. Kelly asked Attorney Barney if he could put on the record that the Town's intent would be not to allow the 30 foot buffer to be developed until the Town chooses to make a roadway. Attorney Barney stated that it can go as far as to say that the Town of Ithaca can not develop any part of the 30 foot buffer. Mr. Kelly stated that he just wants the 30 foot strip kept the way it exists now. Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board is the policy making Board which makes the determination. There are a lot of these strips in the Town of Ithaca, and people do not even know they are there. Those lands are titled to the Town of Ithaca, but the people do not know the strips are there because they blend in so well with the neighborhood. • Mr. Kelly asked Attorney for the Town Barney if there was a way he could record the intent ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 to stay that natural or does the Town Board need to. Chairperson Cornell stated that there would be no reason for the Town to pave that section. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the Planning Board and Planning Staff would make a notation in the file for future phases of this final subdivision. If the lot is created as a Town right -of -way, the Planning Department will insure that the notation will go to the Town Board for the intent not to develop that parcel, and to maintain at least a 30 foot buffer or more. Tony Ingraham of 113 Nelson Road, stated that he works for the New York State Parks Service, and that he lives approximately a mile away from this proposal. The area of Lake Treman, west of the proposed development, is one of the most richly diverse areas in terms of wildlife in the Park system of the Finger Lakes Region. The area has become an excellent place for people to view wildlife and have a sense of solitude and the quiet of nature with the remarkability to see a great variety of wildlife. ,Mr. Ingraham stated that he has lead numerous public guided walks in the area of the park around Lake Treman. Some of the programs include beaver walks, owl prowls, wildlife watches, bird watches, and general guided nature walks around the trails and the lake. The Cayuga Bird Club organized a formal count of birds in the Ithaca area that were counted during their annual Christmas Bird Count. They counted thirty -seven species of birds in three hours in the ® upper park including the Lake Treman area, which included anything from warblers to thrushes, woodpeckers, geese, ducks, herons, owls, and other species. They have also recorded many different species of birds and other wildlife, particularly waterfowl during migration. Chairperson Cornell asked if that was a common number or an extraordinary number of species. Mr. Ingraham stated that was a rich number for just a few hours of being out to find that much variety in one area because of the variety of habit and the richness of the resources that are there. Lake Treman is becoming more and more of a wetland. Wetlands are amongst our richest biological areas with the largest abundance of wetland dependent wildlife and the greatest diversity. Thirty -seven species represents a small fraction of what is there. If they were to do a survey over a season, he believes that it would be much higher. Lake Treman is also a rich habitat for mammals, including beaver, muskrat, deer, raccoon, coyote, bats, and even bear. The Lake supports a variety of reptiles and amphibians, including painted turtles, snapping turtles, gray tree frogs, spring peepers, bull frogs, green frogs, and salamanders. People have discovered, on their own, that this is a special place to come see wildlife in a nice quiet area. This area is a unique resource, and the State Parks are precious things which are irreplaceable. This area is also a place which gets some international attention because they get visitors from all over the world at Buttermilk Falls State Park. This Park is one of the few parks that is close enough to a bus route for travelers. He feels that this development will seriously compromise these values of the Lake ®Treman area, and it does not appear in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that these values were addressed. Mr. Ingraham stated that he is concerned about the following probable impacts 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 25 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 of the development, with the greatest one being noise from lawn mowers, automobiles, dogs, children, and so forth. There would be 450 +/- feet to the parkland which would underscore the problem more. He believes that the wild character of the area and the experience of the people using that part of the park would be compromised by a development of this size. Another concern would be that people would be able to enter the park through the development with existing informal paths. It would greatly increase the human presence there. There would be some problems with management such as illegal swimming and other activities that would be hard to control. Dogs and cats have been talked about. With the leash law, it should control the dog problem, but cats are pretty hard to control as they would stroll through the neighborhood. Mr. Ingraham stated that two million birds are killed daily in the United States by 63 million house cats, so that might impact the bird population by the lake. Pesticides and herbicides used on the lawns will enter Lake Treman's watershed, and the Environmental Impact Statement did not reflect that. There may be some bio- accumulation of poison in the aquatic food chain affecting the fish, waterfowl, and aquatic mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, which could also affect human health because this lake is a popular fishing area. Mr. Ingraham stated that there were a couple things in the Environmental Impact Statement that were disappointing to him. One of them was a response to Ms. Chase made about the effects of the development on the wildlife and the park. The response was "Wildlife can be expected to migrate to other portions of the property and to adjacent land which has similar habitat character, including Buttermilk Falls State Park." Mr. Ingraham stated that Buttermilk Falls State Park is not a similar habitat, but it is a mature forest. The wildlife in the development area is in second growth or brush land, so it is not going to be suitable. Wildlife does not migrate from one area to another, it needs to have suitable habitat to live in. The assumption that the wildlife will move to another area should be the assumption that all habitat is now occupied. Habitat becomes available if someone removes the existing occupants so others may move in. The assumption should be that the wildlife would be displaced by the development and in fact would die. Another statement reads "It is reasonable to assume that reptiles and insects will adjust to the modified environment or migrate from the site to adjacent areas where vegetative habitat is similar." Mr. Ingraham stated that this statement is not true, and that it is not reasonable to assume that these species will move. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town uses all the facilities available to them to advertise to the public to tell people when it is time to comment. The Ithaca Journal has been covering the Town's affairs better than they used to. It takes something like this to make people more aware that if they care about something that they have to participate at the time that is available. Mr. Ingraham's comments did lead Mr. Wiggins to increase the buffer, and by allowing him to leave some of the existing trees to act as a sound barrier. The Planning Board does not know when the final phase of the project will be built. If the first phase is successful, then the rest of the development would be built right away. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Ingraham if it would be feasible for the parks to build a fence of some kind. ® Mr. Ingraham responded that he did not think they would do it. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Chairperson Cornell stated that people have certain rights to develop their land as they want. Mr. Ingraham stated that he appreciates the spirit of Mr. Wiggins in terms of wanting to accommodate the concerns and points that have been raised. He also appreciates the 18 acres of land that is being deeded over to the State Park. Some signage would be helpful within the development to make people aware of the potential impact on the park. He is concerned about the movement of pets in the area. Board Member Bell stated that the issue of fencing was raised, and asked Mr. Ingraham if an adequate fence with gates would be required to close the surroundings of the back part of the development to keep cats out. Mr. Ingraham stated that he was not sure. He has not had any experience with fencing, and that would be something that would need to be investigated. He believes that a physical barrier will not necessarily keep domestic animals out of the area, but some kind of measure should make it clear that this is not a proper entry to the park. It would need to be stressed that there is a proper entrance way to get into the park. Kara Hagedorn of 327 West King Road, stated that she has been a naturalist at Buttermilk ® Falls State Park for six years, and that she just heard about this development. She believes that there has been some missing pieces in this process, and that would be from the patrons of Buttermilk. A lot of the people who love Buttermilk were diverted by the Wal -Mart issue. She does not read Ithaca Journal, but that she has been very involved in this community and she reads the Ithaca Times. A lot of the patrons are just passing through town, so it is important to realize that the decision would be affecting all of them. She would like to invite everyone on a walk that she gives at Lake Treman, so the Planning Board could understand what is happening just 450 feet away from this huge, very dense development. On March 24, 1996, she gave a dusk walk, which was advertised in the newspaper. She had 24 people and they walked on the Bear Trail as she talked to the people about the birds of the thrush family. When they arrived at Lake Treman, two great blue herons flew in which some people have never seen before. There is a very productive cat tail swamp there that has not been invaded. There are a lot of animals that survive on cat tails, such as red wing black birds, muskrat, beavers, and others. The group saw a beaver at Lake Treman, which was very exciting for children and adults who have never seen a beaver. The group had seen swallows eating insects, and she talked about their roles in controlling insects. She called in a screech owl for everyone to see. The Lake Treman area is a magic area where it is serene and quiet, and this development will be 450 feet from there. Board Member Wilcox asked Ms. Hagedorn why didn't the State of New York ask her opinion when Mr. Wiggins approached the State saying he would give them some land. Ms. Hagedorn stated that is an important question, and that she is the person that spends the most time at Lake Treman who knows the wildlife the best there. Ms. Hagedorn stated that she ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 • and Mr. Ingraham were not consulted about this development. Most of these decisions were made by the engineering department in the basement, that do not come out for her walks and do not know the magic that happens at the lake. She is the only person that works directly with the patrons, and that security will become a big issue.with the budget cuts. Chairperson Cornell stated that the number of people that have contacted her since the recent Ithaca Journal article have asked why they did not hear about this project. Mr. Ingraham stated that these issues are being looked into right now with the Parks Department. Chairperson Cornell stated that is all anyone could do. The important thing to do would be to try and see how the system could work for them. Mr. Ingraham and Ms. Hagedorn should try to ask the Parks Department to protect their borders better. Ms. Hagedorn stated that these Parks were never designed to be suburban parks, so everybody would need to work together to work out how to preserve the integrity of the Parks. The Buttermilk Falls State Park is one of the greatest in the State because people come from all the world to see this. Board Member Bell stated that he had a number of comments. He lives in the single most analogous place in the Town to these developments. His house backs on the Six Mile Creek reserve, and that it is being totally invaded by young people partying between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. every warm day. The Town of Ithaca has provided no leadership whatsoever in stopping this. The State Police are being called every night by neighbors. The City Police say they cannot go there because the boundary is slightly over the City boundary, even though they own the watershed. The access point to the gorge and the lower reserve where the partying, drinking, and drug use takes place, would be Penny Lane, which is the street he lives on. The access point to Treman Lake is going to be this development. He thinks it is appalling that the Planning Board did not know, in the Environmental Impact Statement process, that this is only 450 feet away. Mr. Bell stated that the Environmental Impact Statement is totally inadequate because of the lack of information. Mr. Bell stated that he feels this Board has a serious responsibility to over turn the EIS findings and start that process over again. Director of Planning Kanter stated that page 20, figure 8, in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), clearly has an illustration that indicates the proximity of Lake Treman to the Buttermilk Valley Estates site. The DEIS contains the descriptions of the relationship of the park and the project site. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the newspapers do not cover what the Planning Board does very well, and unfortunately, what has been happening is that there is not much interest in ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 28 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 JUNE 18, 1996 what the Planning Board does in the early stages. It is only in the stage where the Planning Board either approves or denies a project that it becomes a "story ". Chairperson Cornell stated that there were earlier articles. Ms. Johnson stated that she disagrees with the statement Mr. Wiggins made on the Full Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted on November 16, 1994, page 5, number 8. The question was, "Is proposed action compatible with the adjoining /surrounding land uses within one quarter mile ?" Mr. Wiggins answered it, "yes ". Ms. Johnson stated that she disagrees with that statement strongly, both because of Treman Lake and Buttermilk Park and her own land which is second growth timber and wildlife usage. She does not think that 67 houses is compatible with Buttermilk Park or Treman Lake. Board Member Wilcox stated, for the record, that Faith Chase has spoken twice before the Planning Board as a neighboring property owner. Ms. Chase has expressed her opinions loud and clear a couple times during previous Public Hearings. Chairperson Cornell stated that tonight's action would be for lots 1 through 14. ® Mr. Wiggins stated that he does not want to misunderstand the process, but it is his understanding that when this preliminary plan was approved that this was a preliminary plan for 67 lots with the buffers. He said he has accepted this. He does not think that the law requires him to come back on other occasions for the various phases, to go through this environmental review process again. Mr. Wiggins stated that this might only have little meaning to some people, but that there has been approximately $100,000 invested in this process to make sure that everyone had a chance to say what they wanted to say, and that the Boards have had an opportunity to express their views. He does not want this to be confrontational, and that he shares most of the views that have been expressed here. Mr. Wiggins indicated that he cannot say that he will develop this better than someone else could, but for 30 years he has owned the land and paid his dues for ownership of the land. Mr. Wiggins stated that he has complied with the law. This development would be no higher density of use than if there were any changes in the zoning, because the same 67 homes could have been built on the whole 60 acres instead of putting 18 acres into green land. The density is the same and he has followed the Planning Board's guidelines. He hopes that he does not have to go through this process as each phase comes along. Chairperson Cornell stated that there would be a couple of hearings for each phase. The Planning Board cannot control what the public wants to express. Mr. Wiggins stated that he does not like it being so confrontational. isBoard Member Bell stated that he would like to have Attorney Barney answer Mr. Wiggins question about the process. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 29 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board has considered this development during the preliminary plat approval. If the developer comes in within the time frame required by law, that a final plat that conforms with the conditions that the Planning Board imposed as part of the preliminary plat, that the Planning Board would need a good reason not to approve the final plat. This is the reason for the double process. It is to work out the details and work out the problems as part of the preliminary plat. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby waives certain requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board, pursuant to Article I, Sections 2 & 4 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and Section 278 of the Town of Ithaca Town Law, hereby modifies the applicable provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow a cluster development as defined in Section 278 of Town of Ithaca Town Law on the site, and 3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I of the proposed Subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -6, to consist of 14 clustered lots, an 18 acre lot to be preserved as undeveloped open space, a .8 +/- acre lot to be a neighborhood park, a 29 +/- acre lot to be reserved for future cluster subdivision of 53 additional lots (Preliminary Subdivision Approval granted by the Planning Board on June 4, 1996), 17 +/- acre lot which contains an existing wetland,, inn, restaurant, a barn which has been converted to apartments, and a tennis facility, a.89 +/- acre parcel proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1-4.3, approximately 1,200 linear feet of road, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R -30, Residence District R -15, and Special Land Use District S -1, as shown on a submission entitled "Final Plat, Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision ", prepared by William F. Albern, P.E., dated April 26, 1996, subject to-the following conditions: a. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, the Declaration of Restrictions, shall be approved by the Town Attorney and I • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 30 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 the Town Planning Board. This declaration to be filed with the Tompkins County Clerk at the time of filing the approved subdivision plat. b. Prior to the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning Board Chair, a deed restriction shall be placed on Lot #69 to ensure it remains as permanent open space, along with a timetable acceptable to the Planning Board for conveyance to the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation for inclusion in Buttermilk Falls State Park, subject to approval by the Town Attorney. C. Completion of the road and other public improvements and acceptance of all proposed dedications, at each phase of development, by the Town of Ithaca Town Board as shown on the Final Plat, prior to the issuance of building permits for the phase under consideration. d. Transfer to the Town of Ithaca of the proposed public park within six months from the date of filing for Phase I of the subdivision. e. Revision of the Final Subdivision Plat, prior to signing of the Plat by the Planning' Board Chair, to include: i. Location of the property by legal description, including areas in acres or square feet. Source of title, including deed record book and page numbers. ii. Seal of registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic information. Reference on the plat to any separate instruments, including restrictive covenants, which directly affect the land in the subdivision. iv. Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property at a scale of 1 " =1000' or 1 "= 20001 . V. Label entrance road to include a note stating that the alignment of the road within the right of way to be determined based upon the location of significant trees. Entrance to include pavement 22 feet wide, concrete curbs, catch basins, storm sewers and a 15 foot access emergency lane. 0 f. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, a complete set of construction documents for the proposed improvements, to 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 31 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 include but not limited to, pavement of the temporary access easements and emergency access road, alignment of the entrance road, concrete curb, and utilities, all subject to approval by the Director of Engineering. g. Owner's certificate signed by the owner to the effect that they own the land, that they have caused the land to be surveyed and divided, and that they make the dedications indicated on the plat. h. Mortgagor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s) if any, to the effect that he consents to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat. I. Surveyor's certificate, in accordance with the Final Subdivision Plat Checklist. j. Within six months of the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chair, applicant shall submit proof of consolidation of Lot #71 with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.3. k. Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the water supply • and /or sewerage system. I. One original or Mylar copy of the Final Subdivision Plat to be recorded and three dark lined prints, on one or more sheets. M. Pursuant to Article V, Section 32(b), of the Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, distances between structures in this clustered subdivision shall be no less than thirty (30) feet. n. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, language concerning the temporary access easements, shall be approved by the Attorney for the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney stated that in Number 3, sub a, reads "Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, the Declaration of Restrictions, shall be approved by the Town Att� and the Town Planning Board. ", which should read "Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, the Declaration of Restrictions, shall be approved by the Town Attorney and the Town Board.. Attorney Barney stated that he would like to add two additional conditions, an "o" and a "p ". Condition "o" would be approval of the preliminary subdivision plat which was dated April 26, 1996, for the remainder of lots 15 through 67 shall expire by July 1, 2001, unless final plat sections for • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 32 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 161r 1996 those remaining has been approved and filed in the Office of the County Clerk by said date. The applicant may come back to the Planning Board to request an extension of said expiration for the burden of establishing if the approval should not be terminated, shall rest upon the applicant. Condition "p" would be `any subsequent section or phase of development for this subdivision that would includes lots #58, #597 #601 #611 #62, #63, and #25, shall show a forever wild buffer strip which would remain undisturbed in the amount of 60 feet measured from and perpendicular to the western property line. No permanent structure could be constructed within 20 feet of this established order. Deed restrictions for these lots shall include the wording to this effect, but the only exception to these clearing restrictions may be made when a lot owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that an existing tree is endangering health, safety, or property. The Planning Board Members were in agreement with the two additional conditions. Director of Planning Kanter stated, for the record, that the portion regarding the domestic animals, would say "No poultry or livestock of any kind shall be raised or kept on any lot. Dogs, cats, or other domesticated household pets may be kept provided that they are not bred or maintained for commercial purpose. Only one domesticated cat and only one domesticated dog may be harbored on any lot, and at no time shall an unleashed domesticated cat or domesticated • dog be allowed in the State Park. All domestic pets shall be restrained on leashes whenever they are off the owner's premises. No dogs shall be allowed to bark in a manner that is offensive to any adjoining landowner. Responsible use of domestic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides shall be kept to an absolute minimum and used only when absolutely necessary. No clear cutting of existing vegetation on the lot shall occur within the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, to the extent practical, outside the building foot prints and paved areas. Existing healthy vegetation including trees and shrubs shall Abe maintained and protected during and after construction." There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Hoffmann, Ainslie, NAYS - Cornell, Bell. Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. The MOTION was declared to be carried. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #15.) Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I of the proposed "Buttermilk Valley Estates" at 10:45 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED ITHACA ®ESTATES SUBDIVISION ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.43 -01 -3.32, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 24.12 +A ACRES, INTO 9 LOTS, WITH A NEW ROAD. PUBLIC WATER • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 33 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 AND SEWER ARE AVAILABLE. THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN 128 AND 134 EAST KING ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH DANBY ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. EVAN MONKEMEYER, OWNER; TERRENCE M. ROSWICK OF RYAN SURVEY, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared the above noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Agenda. Evan Monkemeyer stated that the land being considered for development has been in his family for over 50 years. His father passed away recently, and his father had purchased the land in the early forties. The land the Planning Board is looking at for a subdivision was originally farm land, which was a 28 acre parcel that was at one time corn and other agricultural crop. The land was part of a larger farm that was fronting on East King Road and Route 96B south, and some pieces of land on the south side of East King Road. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he has a proposal to come in with eight lots for phase I development, with a ninth lot to be considered for future planning and subdivision of a similar design of standard style of 30,000 square foot lots with a R -15 overlay zone. He would like to comeback for a future sketch plan review process with the Planning Board. He could incorporate a more detailed plan for the ninth lot, so that the Planning Board Owould be able to see what would happen on that parcel in the future. Mr. Monkemeyer indicated that from the site walk and review of the site, it was made clear that the Planning Board would like to see more of a design of the remaining lands. If he could come in with some kind of a sketch plan to give the Planning Board an idea of what would be happening to the ninth lot, this might help the Planning Board to consider the project. The land has some views to the north and the west, and it gently slopes up hill to the east. The proposal is to take advantage of this sloping site, and to site the houses and lay out the lots so that each house would have some kind of a view from the first or second floor of the houses. Terry Roswick of Ryan Survey, stated that the map entitled "Ithaca Estates - Sketch Plan" dated April 4, 1996, shows Mr. Monkemeyer's land as it is related to the general area and East King Road. Many of the Planning Board and Planning Staff members were at the site on June 13, 1996) for a site review looking at the conditions of the property. In 1984, the property was an old farm field, and in the middle of the property were some trees. The property was not farmed for some time, and in 1990, the parcel of land was getting over grown, and the land looked like a dense meadow. Mr. Roswick stated that Mr. Monkemeyer proposes to take the 24 acre parcel and subdivide it into eight lots of a minimum of 30,000 square feet. Mr. Monkemeyer's experience in developing property has been limitations of the setback for the R -30 zone, which is quite restrictive. What he is looking to do is to change the zone from R -30 to R -15, which is less restrictive with a minor setback. The Town's code includes a requirement that 10 percent of the land be used as either a designated park or money in lieu. Mr. Roswick indicated that they believe a park would not •be appropriate on Mr. Monkemeyer's site because of the topography. Mr. Monkemeyer has a petition from a group of local residents that they are looking for an active park. (Map entitled "Ithaca ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 34 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 Estates - Sketch Plan" dated April 5, 1996, is hereto attached as Exhibit #16.) Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the petition has approximately 160 signatures so far, and at the next meeting he is planning to have approximately 300 signatures from the South Hill residents that live within the Town of Ithaca. The South Hill residents have expressed interest for the Town to purchase some land on South Hill on either side of Hospicare. There is a piece of land owned by Cornell University that was just down zoned from multiple family to R -15. There is another flat area on the other side of the Malloy subdivision, which is owned by Manos. This property has a view and frontage that overlooks the top of Deer Run which is level with a flat terrain. Either of these locations would be a desirable location for a park for all of the South Hill residents, so the children and families could walk or bicycle to a public facility on a flat and level path. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board should consider this proposal. He feels that the owners /buyers of the land would rather not have a park right next to them, but within walking distance. He would be agreeable to paying dollars in lieu of providing land. Board Member Hoffmann asked if one of them could point out the property that they are proposing to develop. Mr. Roswick stated that the map entitled "Subdivision of Chase Pond" dated November 11, 1992, which shows the Chase subdivision. This map shows a good overview of the topography in the general area in relation to Cornell University. What makes this parcel of land very desirable looking, is the size and the proximity to the nearby residence. Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Roswick specifically to point out the location of the parcel that they are proposing as park. Director of Planning Kanter pointed out the parcel on the map entitled "Ithaca Estates - Location Map" dated June 14, 1996, and indicated that the parcels Mr. Roswick was referring to are to the east of the Monkemeyer proposed subdivision. The Cornell University parcel is at least partly in the South Hill swamp area, and Cornell has dedicated that entire piece as permanently protected land. He does not think that the Cornell piece would necessarily be a good site for an active park. Mr. Kanter indicated that the Manos parcel might be something to consider for an active park. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that this would be a terrific opportunity for the Town to step in now to acquire park land. A level piece of ground on South Hill is hard to find, especially in the neighborhood between Chase Farm, Chase Pond, Malloys subdivision, and Hospicare. He believes Hospicare would not mind having people nearby with play grounds, children, and have active things going on. ®Chairperson Cornell stated that it is too early in this proposal to discuss the park. The Planning Board should be concentrating on the nine lot subdivision. The Town is in the process PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 35 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16. 1996 of developing a Park Plan, and when Mr. Monkemeyer comes back with the comprehensive site plan the park issue will be discussed at that time. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the issue of parkland that should be discussed is the 1.77 acre parcel that was supposed to be turned over to the Town under a previous subdivision by Mr. Monkemeyer, but that has not been deeded over yet. There was an earlier subdivision of lots fronting on East King Road, which consisted of six lots. A 1.77 acre parcel was supposed to be set aside as parkland, and deeded over to the Town as part of that subdivision. He was not sure of the history on why that did not happen. Edward Thompson, Jr., Attorney for the Estate of Herbert Monkemeyer, stated that Herbert Monkemeyer is the owner of record of the parcel in question, namely the 1.77 acres. He is presently engaged in preparing a petition for probate of Herbert Monkemeyer's last will and testament. Upon submission of that to the surrogate within the next two weeks or thereafter, an executor or a co- executor would be appointed, and the proper procedures and lawful conveyance by persons in power to do so would be made of the subject 1.77 acre parcel. Within the next 30 days, he will have people in position to be preparing a deed, and he will be contacting the Attorney for the Town to make sure the deed is in compliance with the requirements of the development which has already occurred. • Board Member Wilcox asked if he could explain it a little more clearly for him. Mr. Thompson stated that since the owner of records died, there is no one in power to sign the deed at the present time. The surrogate will empower such a person or persons by issuing what is testamentary. At that point, somebody who is alive and well could sign the deed that is required to convey the property to the Town. Attorney Barney stated that the Town would get a title abstract, which would include going through a title search as any normal conveyance of real property. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Monkemeyer when did his father pass away. Mr. Monkemeyer, stated that he passed away on January 10, 1996. The 1.77 acre park is behind some houses on East King Road, and the Planning Board might want to take that into consideration. There has also been some discussion that the Ithaca Montessori School may want to expand by adding 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. He would like to meet the land needs for the school as much as possible. If there were to be any negotiation with the Town as far as taking another piece of land or swapping something else, that he would like to give the school all the land that they could use for their expansion. Director of Planning Kanter stated that this could be an opportunity for the Planning Board to re -look the park issue over for this area, and perhaps substitute and consolidate the 1.77 acre ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 36 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 piece into one bigger park. This would be the time to look this over as the Town is preparing the Park and Open Space Plan update. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Roswick if he could explain the. setback requirements in a R -30 zone and the problems that may cause them. Mr. Roswick stated that a R -30 zone has a front yard setback of 30 to 60 feet, where a front yard setback for a R -15 zone is 25 to 50 feet. A rear yard setback for a R -30 zone would be 50 feet minimum, where a R -15 zone would be 30 feet minimum. A R -30 zone has a side yard setback of 40 feet minimum, where a side yard setback for a R -15 zone would be 15 feet minimum. The R -30 lot size is 30,000 square feet, which these setbacks would allow people a small envelope within the middle of the property to locate the house. This would prohibit a lot of designs and saving some trees. The R -30 zone would limit people to a colonial style home. If they went to the R -15 envelope it would give them more latitude to produce something on one level. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Roswick if he was requesting a rezoning. Mr. Roswick responded, yes, that was part of the package also. Mr. Roswick asked if the Planning Board has declared themselves the lead agency for the Environmental Assessment Form S and SEAR. Chairperson Cornell responded, not yet, that this is only a sketch plan review. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the one thing that needs to be resolved before this proposal goes any further, is whether the rezoning is the correct procedure to use here. There was a discussion at the site about the zoning change as opposed to using the cluster subdivision regulations. Mr. Kanter suggested that at the same time, they could use the cluster provisions to preserve some of the buffer area adjacent to the unique natural area on the eastern part of the project site. Mr. Kanter stated that it was pretty clear when everyone walked the site that the significant parts of the unique natural area start on the edge of this site, and then proceed into the Ithaca College property to the east. There might be some reasons why it would be desirable to preserve some open space buffer on the eastern part of the site, and one way to do that would be through a cluster subdivision. The cluster subdivision would allow lots to be laid out as proposed, and allow even more flexibility in the site layout than a R -15 district would allow. The only restriction applied by thelPlanning Board would be the separation between buildings on individual lots of at least thirty feet. Mr. Kanter indicated that Mr. Monkemeyer would have quite a bit of flexibility, in terms of building and lot layout, using the cluster subdivision procedures. The only additional requirement in using the cluster subdivision, is that they could also be looking at preserving some significant open space area. Chairperson Cornell stated that she consulted with Nancy Ostman who is one of the co- ®authors of the Unique Natural Areas Report. She pointed out on the map entitled "Unique Nautral Area Map - Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -01- 3.32" , that there are a quite a few significant rare • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 37 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 species on this property. Mr. Roswick stated that Director of Planning Kanter submitted a map to him entitled "South Hill Swamp", which was a document that was enclosed, showed that the borders were different from the map entitled "Unique Natural Area Map - Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -01- 3.32 ".. Mr. Roswick asked why do the lines appear differently on these maps. Planner Geri Tierney stated that when she was putting the information into the computer so she could print out the maps, that she went to Nancy Ostman for clarification of the boundaries. Nancy Ostman gave an opinion that the computer map more accurately reflected her knowledge of the location of the Unique Natural Area. Chairperson Cornell stated that Nancy Ostman had told her that there are locally rare species on Mr. Monkemeyer's property. Ms. Ostman suggested that Mr. Monkemeyer's representatives go out with her and Bob Wesley for a site visit. If the Planning Board decides to entertain a cluster idea, then the open space area adjacent to the Unique Natural Area should be protected. There are rare species in the area, and the area needs to be protected as much as possible. is Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to get back to the issue of rezoning the land. The Planning Board would not be able to consider that without seeing how the rest of the land is proposed to be laid out. Without that, the Planning Board does not have a good reason to consider rezoning. Chairperson Cornell stated that the issue here depends on the future plans for the property. She knows that Mr. Monkemeyer may decide never to develop the rest of the property, but that the Planning Board needs to have the comprehensive information to make development decisions. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the reason for the rezoning, is that the current zoning, the way it is written, allows no flexibility for a large lot with reasonable side yard setbacks. What they have is a very restrictive square within a very large piece of land where people would only be able to build on. Attorney Barney stated that a 75 foot by 90 foot box would be a pretty good size house. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that if people put a basement in, 50 feet by 60 feet, that would only leave them approximately 20 feet to slide around on the lot. If someone puts a long rectangular house that may be 50 feet long, that only gives them 70 feet to work with. Attorney Barney stated that is assuming they do not put a garage on one end. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that if the Planning Board looks at the frontage on East King Road, ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 38 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 the lots that were already rezoned by the Town in the late 1980's (on 12 to 15 lots,) is all R -15 overlying on a R -30 size lot. There would be a 30,000 square foot lot and the ability to shift a house on that lot there. If he puts a two family unit, that would be roughly 4,000 square feet in size, would allow him to move the house as far back as he could from the road frontage, and tuck it back into the hill side lowering the elevations for the views. He would be preserving all the vegetation in the front of the house. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if the Board looked at this in a different way, as a cluster subdivision, that they might be able to look at the whole parcel of land instead of just a piece of it. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that his philosophy is that the cluster plan is wrong, that he does not want to build clustered. He wants to build what the Zoning Ordinance allows him to build for standard size lots. He feels that the market he would be building in demands that kind of land. Chairperson Cornell stated that there was a discussion at the site visit of the property, and that it would be constructive if Mr. Monkemeyer would meet with the Planning Staff to go through the concept of clustering. 0 Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he built the first possible cluster housing in Tompkins County, which is Springwood. Mr. Monkemeyer asked if he ends up with a single family for sale, cluster housing, would he be tied in with a Homeowners Association. Attorney Barney responded, not necessarily. Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Monkemeyer should meet with the Planning Staff to discuss the clustering concept. Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if this proposal should be adjourned for Mr. Monkemeyer to discuss with the Planning Staff the clustering concept. The Planning Board Members were all in agreement to adjourn discussion on the Monkemeyer subdivision. Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting at 11:31 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 21, 1996. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 21, 1996, be and hereby approved as written with the following correction: That on Page 19, Paragraph 1, states "Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had worked on this proposal for a long time; with the Conservation Advisory Council, the Conservation Board, 0 • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 39 JUNE 18, 1996 APPROVED JULY 16, 1996 and the Codes and Ordinances Committee, and this is the latest version which her thoughts were that this version has been whittled down. ", should be changed to state "Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had worked on this proposal for a long time; with the Conservation Advisory Council, the Conservation Board, and the Codes and Ordinances Committee, and this is the latest version. Ms. Hoffmann stated that her thoughts were that this version has been whittled down to a very satisfactory document." There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote: AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT. Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the June 18, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 :37 p.m. DRAFTED: 6/ /96 by DAK. Prepared by: Deborah A. Kelley, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder. Respectfully submitted, ta &rrl< a 4 Y� Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Mary'BryaXt� Administr6five • C. v TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I. Starr Hays, being duly sworn Recording Secretary for the Town of I County, New York; that the following the sign board of the Town of Ithaca duly published in the local newspape FINAL. depose and say that I am the thaca Planning Board, Tompkins Notice has been duly posted on and that said Notice has been !r, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Entrance of Town Hall. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) June 10, 1996 June 12, 1996 SS.. Bulletin Board, Front Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of June 1996. Notar' Public, Filename: Starr \Agendas \PPAFF \06- 18- 96.PPA NO AR'!'N(l STATE OF EW i`O?IN -# 4646 427 0 Wil TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF r "PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, June 18 1996 By direction, of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NO- TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held I by We Planning Board of the to _Town of Ithaca on Tuesday..I June 18, 1996, at 126 East i Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY, at the "following times and on 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdi- vision Approval for the pro- posed subdivision of 0.51 ± ocre from the "Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36.2.3, 36.44 t acres in size, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No. 36 -2.12, both parcels being located on Schickel Road, Residence District R -30. Jamds Stubbs and Patricia Alessi, Owners /Applicants. 80.00 P.M. Consideration of Approval of Modification of F,indl' Site Plan for the level. a ment of the Eco Village I ohousingg Cooperative, con - sisting of 30 dwelling units;in 15 "'duplexes; a Common House and other site' im- provemenh, and located at 1323 Mecklenburg Road' '(Route 79) just west of West oven Road Special Land -Use District (kUD) on a por. tion of Town -of fthoca Tax iParcel No. 28.1.26.2. Said modification to consist of the 'relocation and reconfig- uration of a portion of the carport, as well as the relo- •cation of the refuse and re- ,cycling shed, from that shown on the final site Ian that was a�proved by the Town 'of It aca Planning Board on July 18 1995. Eco Village Co�ousing Cooperative, Owner. Applicant. 'Preliminary Site . Plan Ap- ` �proval for the proposed ex- pansion of the Library Stor- age Facility (Libror Annex)' in Cornell's Precinct 7, to con -. list of a 14,000 t square foot ,addition for storage. of low circulation library gooks and ,associated office space, a +new loading dock, additional parking spaces and land - scoping located 'on Palm Road off Route 366 on a portion of the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64.1.1; con - sisting of 50f acres, Special Land Use District (SLUDI No. Tom Pruckno, Agent. 18:55 P.M. Consideration of i 'Final Subdivision Approval 'for Phase I of the proposed "Buttermilk Valley Estates" " !cluster subdivision of Town of t Ithaca Tax Parcel No.: '36.1.4.2 and 36.1 -6, 74t acres total said phase to con- sist ofNI9 Us, approximately '1,200 linear feet of road,' water -and sewer facilities, and 19t acres of permanent open space, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence Dis- trict R -30 and R -15 Special Land Use District S-1. Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, 'Owners /Applicants. Said Planning Board 'will at ;said time and said place hear all persons in support of such . ,makers or objections thereto. Persons• may appear by agent or in person. Individu- als with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be- pro- vided with assistance as nec- essary, upon request. Persons desir n9 assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathon Kanter, AICP" Director of Planning 273.174 June'l2, 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 0 Tuesday, June 18, 1996 By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Ithaca on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 126 East Seneca at the following times and on the following matters: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Board of the Town of Street, Ithaca, N.Y., 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.51 +/- acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3, 36.44 +/- acres in size, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -12, both parcels being located on Schickel Road, Residence District R -30. James Stubbs and Patricia Alessi, Owners /Applicants, 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Approval of Modification of Final Site Plan for the development of the Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, consisting of 30 dwelling units in 15 duplexes, a Common House and other site improvements, and located at 1323 Mecklenburg Road (Route 79) just west of West Haven Road, Special Land Use District (SLUD), on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 28 -1 -26.2. Said modification to consist of the relocation and reconfiguration of a portion of the carport, as well as the relocation of the refuse and recycling shed, from that shown on the final site plan that was approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on July 18, 1995. Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, Owner /Applicant. ® 8:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell's Precinct 7, to consist of a 14,000 +/- square foot addition„ for storage of low circulation library books and associated office space, a new loading dock, additional parking spaces and landscaping, located on Palm Road off Route 366, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9. Cornell University, Owner; Tom Pruckno, Agent. 8:55 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I of the proposed "Buttermilk Valley Estates" cluster subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -6, 74 +/- acres total, said phase to consist of 19 lots, approximately 1,200 linear feet of road, water and sewer facilities, and 19 +/- acres of permanent open space, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence Districts R -30 and R -15, Special Land Use District S -1, Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, Owners /Applicants, Said Planning Board will support of such matters or or in person. Individuals other special needs, will request. Persons desiring 48 hours,prior to the time it said times and said place hear all persons in objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent with visual impairments, hearing impairments or be provided with assistance as necessary, upon assistance must make such a request not less than of the public hearing. • Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, ,,June 10, 1996 Publish: Wednesday, June 12, 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA ® v \ 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 • LJ TO: 0k FAA Xt My105M E DATE: RE: Number of Pages (including cover sheet) Comments: FAX # FAX # (607) 273 -1704 M *TOWN, OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TPZRNSM I T COh4F I RMRT I Oro PEPORT NO 004 RECEIVER 607 272 4335 • TRANSMITTER TOWN OF ITHACA, NY DATE JUN 10'96 5 :21 DURATION 01'15 MODE STD PACES 02 RESULT OK • 1 • JUN 10'96 8:21 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Patricia Alessi/James Stubbs 2 -Lot Subdivision Schickel Road Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 18, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of a Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.51 +/- acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3, 36.44 +/- acres in size, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -12, both parcels being located on Schickel Road, Residence District R -30. James Stubbs and Patricia Alessi, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 18, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a plat entitled "Survey Map -- Portions of Lands of James Stubbs & Patricia Alessi, Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S. and dated May 17, 1996, and other application materials, and • 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed subdivision. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action, as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/19/96. . (FILENANIETC #12: Starr \Resols \STUBBSUB.FIN) ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Patricia Alessi/James Stubbs 2 -Lot Subdivision Schickel Road Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 18, 1996 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Gregory Bell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of a Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.51 +/- acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3, 36.44 +/- acres in size, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -12, both parcels being located on Schickel Road, Residence District R -30. James Stubbs and Patricia Alessi, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on June 18, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 18, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled "Survey Map -- Portions of Lands of James Stubbs & Patricia Alessi, Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S. and dated May 17, 1996, and other application materials. s NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.51 + / -• acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3, 36.44 +/- acres in size, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -12, as shown on the plat entitled "Survey Map -- Portions of Lands of James Stubbs & Patricia Alessi, Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S. and dated May 17, 1996, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chair of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and four dark -line prints of the approved subdivision plat; b, within six months of this approval, conveyance of the 0.51 + 1- acre parcel being subdivided off of Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -3 to the owners of Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -12 and delivery to the Town Planner of a copy of the deed and communication to the Tompkins County Division O of Assessment requesting consolidation of said 0.51 + /- acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -12. rI • • Patricia Alessi/James Stubbs 2 -Lot Subdivision Schickel Road Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 18, 1996 -Page 2- C, a notation be made on the survey plat, prior to signing of the plat by the Chair of the Planning Board, that the new parcel must be consolidated with and included as part of Lot 4 (Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -12). Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secretdhy Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/19/96. (FILENAME: PC #12: Start \Resols \STUBBSUB.FIN) ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative 1323 Mecklenburg Road Modification to Approved Site Plan Planning Board, June 18, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Modification of Final Site Plan Approval for the development of the EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative, consisting of 30 dwelling units in 15 duplexes, a Common House and other site improvements, located at 1323 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) just west of West Haven Road, Special Land Use District (SLUD), on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1 -26.2. Said modification to consist of the relocation and reconfiguration of a portion of the carports, as well as the relocation of the refuse and recycling shed, from that shown on the final site plan that was approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on July 18, 1995, EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative, Owner /Applicant,and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 18, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a revised site plan entitled Final Site Plan, EcoVillage Cohousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan North Section, dated September 2, 1995 and revised February 23, 1996, prepared by House Craft Builders, Inc. and additional application materials, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the site plan modification, as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. Nay - None. Abstain - Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/19/96. Mary Brya , Administ e Secretary Swff\Resolsloarpon. sqr C� L11 C ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative 1323 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte. 79) Modification to Approved Site Plan Town of Ithaca Planning Board June 18, 1996 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Modification of Final Site Plan Approval for the development of the Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, consisting of 30 dwelling units in 15 duplexes, a Common House and other site improvements, located at 1323 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79)-just west of West Haven Road, Special Land Use District (SLUD), on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 28 -1 -26.2. Said modification to consist of the relocation and reconfiguration of a portion of the carports, as well as the relocation of the refuse and recycling shed, from that shown on the final site plan that was approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on July 18, 1995. Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Modification of Final Site Plan Approval has, on June 18, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning Staff, and 31 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on June 18, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised site plan entitled Final Site Plan, Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan North Section, dated September 2, 1995 and revised February 23, 1996, prepared by House Craft Builders, Inc. and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby waives certain requirements for Modification of Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants approval for the Modification to Final Site Plan entitled Final Site Plan, Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan North Section, dated September 2, 1995 and revised February 23, 1996, prepared by House Craft Builders, Inc. and additional materials subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of the final site plan to show a minimum of 52 parking spaces on the site plan including one additional space adjacent to the existing planned (not optional) spaces. Eli E C] Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative -Page 2- Modification to Approved Site Plan Town of Ithaca Planning Board June 18, 1996 b. Revision of the final site plan to include the date as shown on the originally approved site plan (June 14, 1995) as well as the revised date as shown on the modified site plan (September 2, 1995 and February 23, 1996). C, Revision of the site plan to show corrected spelling of Rachel Carson Way and that the emergency access roads be fully labelled. d. Any additional revisions to the approved site plan shall be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for approval, as per the requirements of the original resolution of approval dated July 18, 1995, Local Law No 1 of the Year 1995, or other relevant portions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. Nay - None. Abstain - Bell. • The MOTION was declared to be carried. • Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/19/96, (Starr \Resols \Carport. Fin) • MEM4 June 18,1996 To: Candace Cornell, Chairperson, and Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Eva B. Hof fmann,for the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Subject: Second review of Cornell University Library Storage Facility The ERC appreciates having the opportunity to comment on this proposal again. In addition to the recommendations made in our first review, we have just one suggestion based on the current, somewhat modified, proposal. The southern wall of the addition has been moved to the north eliminating some of the formerly proposed excavation of the slope south of it. We suggest moving this addition even further to the north, eliminating even more excavation thus allowing for less steep slopes and avoiding some possible related drainage problems. u u l 0 U ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Cornell University Library Storage Facility Palm Road, Cornell University Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, June 18, 1996 MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell's Precinct 7, to consist of a 15,000 +/- square foot addition for storage of low circulation library books and associated office space, a new loading dock-, additional parking spaces and landscaping, located on Palm Road off Route 366, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 644-1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9. Cornell University, Owner; Thomas Pruckno, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 18, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Demo Layout & Planting Plan & Details "; "Grading Plan & Details "; "Floor Plan"; and other related drawings, prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & Krause Architects and Engineers and dated May 23, 1996, and other application materials, and. 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes. a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York. State Environmental Quality Review Act for the; above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be ;required. Aye ..:Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary •s Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/19/9.61 Mary Secretary. • ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Cornell University Library Storage Facility Palm Road, Cornell University Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, June 18, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell's Precinct 7, to consist of a 15,000 +/- square foot addition for storage of low circulation library books and associated office space, a new loading dock; additional parking spaces and landscaping, located on Palm Road off Route 366, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9. Cornell University, Owner; Thomas Pruckno, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 18, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public adequate, a site plan submission Plan & Details "; "Grading Plan prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & other application materials. Hearing on June 18, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as which includes drawings. entitled "Demo Layout & Planting & Details "; "Floor Plan"; and other related drawings, Krause Architects and Engineers and dated May 23, 1996, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan as shown in a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Demo Layout & Planting Plan & Details ", "Grading Plan & Details ", "Floor Plan", and other related drawings, prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & Krause Architects and Engineers and dated May 23, 1996, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to Final Site Plan Approval: a. revision of the proposed site plan to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic survey, and date of said survey; r� u b. submission to the Planning Board of a parking needs assessment demonstrating that the proposed number of spaces for the facility will be adequate to serve anticipated parking demand upon completion; C. revision of the proposed site plan to identify an area or areas to be reserved within which additional parking spaces, up to the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance, could be constructed should demand warrant; on N f. Aye - Cornell, Nay - None, revision of the proposed site plan to include details of any proposed lighting or signs; submission of documentation showing that the proposed facility will not create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth in Local Law No. 14 of 1995. submission of a detailed soil and erosion control plan. Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/19/96. 0 ( FILENAME :Starr\Resols \CUANXEXP.Fin) FINALlot ' 7 y l i l.i �al a iI`I�i I I i Comments on the "Buttermilk Valley Estates" Subdivision Proposal ��—' - - "- -"" �-�; •; June 13, 1996 The proximity of this very large, intense development to Buttermilk Falls State Park is alarming. The park is a public treasure and must not be compromised. Make no mistake about it: The impacts on the park of this project will be profound and permanent. Noise, lights, household pets, pesticides, fertilizers all will adversely affect the park. Wildlife populations, especially birds that need quiet isolation, will drop. Along with birds and other wildlife, gone will be the peace and quiet currently available to the public in that area of the park. The fact that the Finger Lakes State Parks Administration has no problem with the plans means nothing: State Parks typically does not interfere with private development along borders of State Parks, and employees who are bold enough to speak out, are likely to at least have their hands slapped, and at most, lose their jobs. The park naturalist has had to move both daytime and nighttime nature walks from Larch Meadows to the Treman Reservoir because of the excessive highway noise along the newly enlarged Route 13. At the time the Planning Board approved the DEIS, it did not have this information. Nature walks will be far less appealing around the reservoir. Thus we will lose much from yet another valuable part of the park. What can be done to lessen the impacts at this late hour? Here are some ideas: is 1. Increase the buffer from 30' to 200'. A 30 -foot buffer is way too small. That's only about half the width of the South Hill Recreationway: 30' is nothing. 2. Keep the buffer as a hands -off area with as much woody and herbaceous vegetation as possible. 3. Erect a fence along the buffer to keep people and pets out of the park in that section. 4. Eliminate the 7 or so lots that adjoin the park at the west end of the development and keep that area as open green space. I think the Planning Board has been wooed by the promise of so- called "moderate - priced" housing. While $120,000 homes are nice to see compared to ones twice that costly, $120,000 is hardly a modest price to pay for a home. In any event, the Board has a responsibility to protect important resources whether or not a project might, in the abstract, have some social merit. Protecting the park is not going to be possible with 68 homes jammed in right next to it. I am appalled at the prospect, and regret that many of us somehow didn't know this was happening until the final stage of your deliberations. If we had known that this development was going to adjoin the park, you can be sure you would have heard from us before the 11th hour. However, it is not too late to modify the plans, and I urge you to do so. ® Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Ave., Ithaca LA CORNELL /COLLUM TEL4607- 257 -6220 Jun 17'96 15:14 No.006 P.02 Er Candace Cornell, Chair Town or Itha(;a PlannIN Board Dear Candace, Jurle 1 G, 199G I just learned last week Or plans for the 6utterrnllk Vaileay Estates to be I;uilt at the southeast border of Buttermilk Fails State Park. I was very surprised about the high density of the proposed development and by the lack of publicity the project received, given It's close proximity to 3 State park Jr, a rural area. I was very diSappolnted to learn that a final environmental Impact statement (FEIS) has already been written and 8WQ&Ved, i am unable to attend the June 18 pub IIc meeting, $O 1 am writIng this letter to express my Concerns about this deveiOPMent. I nape that you will copy this to the other Planninq Board members, The density of housing proposed at this site is totally out of chaf'&Lefs wlth V* surroundinq area, and I hope It Is not too late for the Town of Ithaca to r#quirF a reduction In density. Also, the close proximity to the park Is of great concern, I understand that 30-rt. buffers have beer, planned between tree development and the Dark boundary. Such a narrow huffer Is totally Inadequate, The proposed development is very Close to Lake Treman which currently supports a diversity of 'wildlife. I am Concerned about the Integrity of this ecosystem, and I am appalled at the minimal attention given to this in the FEIS. If there is anything In your power to diminish the density and extent of this development, I encourage you to 00501 Thanks, Yarrow Nelsor, 327 West hinq Road I thaca, W 14850 Daniel A. Hammer, Associate Professor 362 Olin Hall (607) 255 -8681; Fax: (607) 255 -9166 E -mail: Hammer @cheme.comell.edu June 7, 1996 Cathy Valentino Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Valentino: id j4.Ii i 1U�� d iL N'd •r Ii IRCA PLANNING. ZC !ING. ENGINEERING This morning I read an article in the Ithaca Journal that upset me greatly. Ithaca's support of unbridled growth of residential construction and development comes at a time when the housing market is extraordinarily weak. If you ask your assessment office about the number of requests for downward reassessment, or ask any realtor about the excess of sellers to buyers, you will find the Ithaca housing market is in a total collapse. Now is not the time to promote the development of multi-unit residential facilities. I believe it would be much more prudent to allow the housing market to reach equilibrium before proceeding with such plans. For my own case, I have been trying to sell my house at 132 Woolf Lane for the last three years, with no success. The price of my house as listed has fallen 20 %. Every homeowner in the Town has lost money over the past three years, whether they have tried to sell or not, because the value of their house has fallen. This represents sever financial hardship for many families, including ours, who want to relocate. There is virtually no other housing market in the country where several years are required to move property. I believe it is your responsibility to take this into consideration in your future decisions on development in Ithaca. A particular case in point is Kendal, which has driven down real estate prices in the county. Also, I was not persuaded by the argument that we need more housing in the moderate price range. The development you were discussing, Buttermilk Valley Estates, has houses both under and over $ 120,000. Due to the weakness in the real estate market, there are plenty of houses of good quality available in that price range already. No additional development is needed, because there is no demand. And, if you find anyone who says that they cannot find an affordable house in this price range, they can call me at 255 -8681. I would be happy to show them my affordable home. Before promoting residential real estate, perhaps a better tact would be to promote business development that would bring jobs and buyers to the area. Then, there would be a reason to pursue additional residential development. cc: Jonathan Kanter Sincerely, ��"G ow Daniel A. Hammer CORNELL /COLLUM TEL:607 -25' -6220 Jun 17'96 15 :14 No.006 P.01 • ENVIRON. DATE: 17 June 1996 RE: HutWmilk Valley Estates Subdivision Approval COUNCIL 1). A 304(iot strip of land between a Clustered development housing 300 people and a treasured aatirrai area of Tampkim County is ta►oeftlliy inadequate to buffet. Notect or preserve the serenity and natural features of Rutternilk. At lout 150 feet mizht be a MM' =' m to even use the term buffbr for this $trip. Even this xime buffer will not prevent some aegative impacts on this area of the pads. 2.) -Nolie, light and dinimal belonging to honwwoers are major concerns as well u ranoff 4. 1 t r / conLanInanta ouch ao . _ • • :. .. products, , • pesticides. can ml*tr, damW W protect tho mlogy ftcm domatic animals onto-ring the park, although the Somid of .I Yv • • i. would AM havc an .A 150 foct away. i• . buffer of . . f .• will reduce but not ellminato noi&ep r.. i and trasha 3.) Wlu+ht, whidt arc praraRlugly from the tic soulhout In the aun>mer, will carry trash into lira park. Wurue, amisaium such m dwsu frum usvwM ass! Act oulduor wall eqtries a g the increased vehicular traffic to and from the housing development will drM inw the pork. Slower- moving =Me on DaWy Road also moan a rise In the amouz of pollutant in the sire Emmissions from gasoline engines are a proven prime cage of forest decline, i 1 . I .1 11 „ .: 1 : , ML.• :1 1 •. , . , .. , . 1 1 5.) Energy use naturally will increase in the area. Modena, improved, efficient energy devices, espmiWly in the areas of lighting, heating and passive solar design should be part of the developer's puns. 'Ibis kind of building plan along with heavily Insulated, tight house construction and proper house orientation to take advantage of solar gain will make the houses truly affordable for the potential occupar& hecause of drastically reduced energy auk. The Tnwn Planning Rrwrd, In particular, should be attentive to utperior energy design if it truly deairet efF)rdAble hvtlsinig, lba developer will tend to cut high up -frost costs is order to lower the purchase price to make the hming appear affordable. The housing is not affordable, however. !f operating and maintessaee oosta am not also low. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision - Phase 1 F I NAL Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. .36- 1 -4.2, 364-6 Final Subdivision Approval ® Town of Ithaca Planning Board June 18, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch. WHEREAS. 14 This action is consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for Phase 1 of the proposed 74.5± acre Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, to consist of 14 clustered lots, an 18 acre lot to be preserved as undeveloped open space, a .8 ± acre lot to be a neighborhood park, a 29 ± acre lot to be reserved for future cluster subdivision of 53 additional lots (Preliminary Subdivision Approval granted. by the Planning Board on June 4, 1996), 17± acre lot which contains an existing wetland, inn, restaurant, a barn which has been converted to apartments, and a tennis facility, a .89± acre parcel proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 36- 1 -4.3, approximately 1,200± linear feet of road, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R -30, Residence District R -15 and Special Land use District S -1, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did make a positive declaration of Environmental Significance on December 6, 1994, directing Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, Applicants and William F. Albern, P.E., Agent, to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, and ®. The applicant had a DEIS prepared which has thoroughly examined possible adverse environmental I mpacts of the proposed subdivision and has proposed mitigating measures to minimize such impacts, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead the DEIS submitted on January ,23, 1996, and the DEIS to be satisfactory with respect to iv public review, and 5. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the DEIS, and received public comment,. and Agency, with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed on February 20, 1996, adopted a resolution finding scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of March 19, 1996. in order to solicit public comment on 6. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, after public comment on the DEIS, on May 7, 1996, accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision incorporating, among other information, substantive public comments received regarding the proposed action, and responses to said substantive comments, for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR 617 (the SEAR Regulations), and 7. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has filed a Notice of Completion of Final EIS, issued the FEIS as required under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, and distributed the FEIS to involved and ® interested agencies and the public, and 8. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, on June 4, 1996, did adopt a Statement of Findings for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, and Final Subdivision Approval Buttermilk Valley Estates - Phase 1 Planning Board Meeting - 6/18/96 -Page 2- 9. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, at a Public Hearing on June 4, 1996 reviewed and accepted as adequate for purposes of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, a submission entitled "Preliminary Plat, Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision ", dated April 26, 1996, and other application materials, and 10. That the Town of Ithaca Town Board, did on June 10, 1996, consider and accept the location for the roads, park and public utilities, for the proposed Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby waives .certain requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board, pursuant to Article I, Sections 2 & 4 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and Section 278 of the Town of Ithaca Town Law, hereby modifies the applicable provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow a cluster development as defined in Section 278 of Town of Ithaca Town Law on the site, and 3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I of the proposed Subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -1-4.2 and 36 -1 -6, to consist of 14 clustered lots, an ® 18 acre lot to be preserved as undeveloped open space, a .8 t acre lot to be a neighborhood park, a 29t acre lot to be reserved for future cluster subdivision of 53 additional lots (Preliminary Subdivision Approval granted by the Planning Board on June 4, 1996), 17± acre lot which contains an existing wetland, inn, restaurant, a barn which has been converted to apartments, and a tennis facility, a .89± acre parcel proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -1- 4.3, approximately 1,200± linear feet of road, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R -30, Residence District R -15 and Special Land Use District S -1, as shown on a submission entitled "Final Plat, Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision - Phase 1 ", prepared by William F. Albern, P.E., dated April 26, 1996, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, the Declaration of Restrictions, shall be approved by the Town Attorney and the Town Board. This declaration to be filed with the Tompkins County Clerk at the time of filing the approved subdivision plat. b. Prior to the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning Board Chair, a deed restriction shall be placed on Lot #69 to ensure it remains as permanent open space, along with a timetable acceptable to the Planning Board for conveyance to the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation for inclusion in Buttermilk Falls State Park, subject to approval by the Town Attorney. • c. Completion of the road and other public improvements and acceptance of all proposed dedications, at each phase of development, by the Town of Ithaca Town Board as .shown on the Final Plat, prior to the issuance of building permits for the phase under consideration. 5 Final Subdivision Approval Buttermilk Valley Estates - Phase 1 Planning Board Meeting - 6/18/96 a -Page 3- d. Transfer to the Town of Ithaca of the proposed public park within six months from the date of filing for Phase I of the subdivision. e. Revision of the Final Subdivision Plat, prior to signing of the Plat by the Planning Board Chair, to include: i. Location of the property by legal description, including areas in acres or square feet. Source of title, including deed record book and page numbers. ii. Seal of registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic information. Reference on the plat to any separate instruments, including restrictive covenants, which directly affect the land in the subdivision. iv. Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property at a scale of 1" = .1000' or 1" = 2000. V, Label entrance road right of way to include a note stating that the alignment of the road within the right of way to be determined based upon the location of significant trees. Entrance to include pavement 22 feet wide, concrete curbs, catch basins, storm sewers and a 15' access emergency lane. f. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, a complete set of construction documents for the proposed improvements, to include but not limited to, pavement of the temporary access easements and emergency access road, alignment of the entrance road, concrete curb, and utilities, all subject to approval by the Director of Engineering. g. Owner's certificate signed by the owner to the effect that they own the land, that they have caused the land to be surveyed and divided, and that they make the dedications indicated on the plat. h. Mortgagor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s) if any, to the effect that he consents to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat. i. Surveyor's certificate, in accordance with the Final Subdivision Plat Checklist. j. Within six months of the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chair, applicant shall submit proof of consolidation of Lot #71 with Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 36 -1 -4.3 k. Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the water supply and /or sewerage system. Final Subdivision Approval Buttermilk Valley Estates - Phase Planning Board Meeting - 6/18/96 0 -Page 4- 1. One original or mylar copy of the Final Subdivision Plat to be recorded and three dark lined prints, on one or more sheets. m. Pursuant to Article V, Section 32(b), of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, distances between structures in this clustered subdivision shall be no less than thirty (30) feet. n. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, language concerning the temporary access easements, shall be approved by the Attorney for the Town of Ithaca. o. Approval of Preliminary Subdivision plat dated April 26, 1996 for remainder of Lots 15 through 67 shall expire by July 1, 2001, unless final Plat sections for those remaining lots have been filed at the County Clerk's Office by said date. The applicant may come back to the Planning Board to request an extension of said expiration. The burden of establishing that the approval shall not be terminated shall rest upon the applicant. P, Any subsequent section or phase of development for this subdivision that includes lots 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 25 shall show forever wild buffer strip which shall remain undisturbed in the amount of 60 feet measured from and perpendicular to the western property line. No permanent structure can be constructed within 20 feet of this established border. Deed restrictions for these lots should include wording to this effect with the only exception to • these clearing restrictions made be when the lot owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Enforcement Officer that an existing tree is endangering health safety of property. Aye - Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. Nay - Bell, Cornell, The MOTION was declared to be carried. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 6/20/96. 0 St=\Reso1s \bunm11.fin, comp. #12 CAYUGA NATURE CENTER 607 273 1719 P.02 • 330 West King Road Ithaca, New York 14850 June 17, 1996 Candace Cornell, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board Dear Candace: I am writing to the Town Planning Hoard to YeyuetiL LhcLL you refrain from approving the proposed Buttermilk valley Estates development until a more careful environnienLal rev ew van he made. While 'tne developer's Final Environmental Impact Statement appears to offer adequate mitigation of envirunmental impact, in tact it does not. No doubt Llit: Town Planning Board and Conservation tsoard relied heavily on the adm- inistration of Buttermilk Falls State Park, and the Commissioner of New York State Parks, to caretuil.y study the impact on the park. Correspondence from State Commissioner Bernadette Castro and Finger Lakes Regional director John Clancy (included in the FEIS) indicates their satisfaction with the developers' proposed mitigation efforts. I am urging the Town of Ithaca to rely less on these recently appointed State Parks staff to decide whether this area of the Town will be adequately protected. While I trust that they are trying to do their jobs to ® the best of their abilities, remember that they are recent political appointees who lack a professional background (or significant experience) as environmental planners. The citizens of the Town of Ithaca will have to live with the impacts of the Town Planning Hoard's decision on this development for a long time. Please consider the following facts: • The southwest corner of the proposed development (in the vicinity of proposed lots #57 -60) is within 60 feet of a st_ppp ;;lope plummeting down to Treman Lake. • Proposed lots are within 200 feat of t:hp Walking trail around Treman Lake, and within 450 feet of the lake itself. This is within hearing distanrp of lawn rnwers, construction machinery, autos, stereos, and even voices. • The proposed donation of acreage, while attractiva to the Town and to Buttermilk Falls State Park, is not located in the most environmentally fragile area, and will not reduce impact on the park. The barking and roaming doge found in most residential neighborhoods will chase wildlife, and reduce the peaceful enjoymont of Park user3. • The increased noise during construction and once the development i3 occupied, and increased traffic and lighting, will radically alter the quiet residential character of the neighborhood. • .Buttermilk falls State Park is both a major segment of the Town's • open space, and a significant tourist attraction which in turn supports the Town's and city's businesses. Any reduction in the CAYUGA NATURE CENTER 607 273 1719 P.03 Park "s attractiveness diminishes the quality of life for Town residents. Npi ghbors and park patrons were inadequately noti .f ied of the Public Hearing. For example, the neighborhood association which has been in existence since 1988 (Friends of Buttermilk Falls), and which has worked cooperatively with the Town in the past, did not receive notification. Neither did all of the owners of adjacent property. Please consider the following recommendations. • Require the developers to reduce the overall size development, and to re locate it so that all houses are a 300 feet from steep slopes and 600 feet from Treman Lake. Buttermilk Falls state Park. Increase the burrer portions of the development to at least 50 feet.' • Require a Sturdy fence aL leesL 6 reel. hiyh maintained on the borders nearest Buttermilk Falls • Limit hours of construction, to be determined with the neighborhood association* of the leant Houses away iron bordering BFSP, be ereu Led and State Park$ in c urnsulWLIU11 • Hold a second public nearing, adequately notifying neighbors and park patrons. Thank you for your consideration. I understand the difficult job of adequately reviewing all development proposals within the 'town, and appreciate the dedicated volunteers and Town planning staff who do this work. Respectfully yours, James volckhausen cc:`. Philip Zariello, Chair, Town Conservation Board j Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner n C7 should be located closer to Route 96D, and further Buttermilk Falls state Park. Increase the burrer portions of the development to at least 50 feet.' • Require a Sturdy fence aL leesL 6 reel. hiyh maintained on the borders nearest Buttermilk Falls • Limit hours of construction, to be determined with the neighborhood association* of the leant Houses away iron bordering BFSP, be ereu Led and State Park$ in c urnsulWLIU11 • Hold a second public nearing, adequately notifying neighbors and park patrons. Thank you for your consideration. I understand the difficult job of adequately reviewing all development proposals within the 'town, and appreciate the dedicated volunteers and Town planning staff who do this work. Respectfully yours, James volckhausen cc:`. Philip Zariello, Chair, Town Conservation Board j Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner n C7 C] c r� I To: Candace Cornell, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Tony Ingraham and Kara Hagedorn . JUN 17 i .rd June 160996:: 'T , Re: Buttermilk 'Valley Estates Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement We are employees of New York State Parks. We both also live near the proposed subdivision. Kara Hagedorn is park naturalist at Buttermilk Falls State Park, as she has been since 1990. Tony Ingraham is Conser- vation Educator for the Finger Lakes State Park Region, and has served in this capacity since 1979. Both of us are intimately familiar with the park, particularly the area closest to the proposed development. Kara lives at 327 W. King Road in the Town of Ithaca, and Tony lives at 113 Nelson Road in the Town of Danby, each of us approximately one mile from the development site. The comments we share with you here are our own, as area residents and park professionals, but are not submitted to you as representing our agency., Kara has a degree in zoology, and Tony a degree in environmental education. Both of us have lead numerous public guided walks in the area of the park closest to the proposed development, on the trails around what is called Lake Treman. The east shore of Lake Treman is only approximately "one thousand feet" from the park boundary abutting the proposed development.. Lake Treman is special for its diversity of wildlife and habitats, and its beauty, quietness and solitude. We are concerned that the proposed development will significantly compromise those values. Some of the public programs given to the public regularly at Lake Treman include: beaver walks, "owl prowls," wildlife watches, bird watching, and general guided nature hikes on the trails around the lake. They are a reflection of the high abundance and diversity of wildlife visible to the public in this area. For instance, during a formal survey of birdlife in the upper park, including Lake Treman, during three hours on June 15, 1996, we counted thirty -seven species of birds, from warblers to thrushes, woodpeckers, geese, ducks, herons and owls. Many other species 1 have been recorded on other dates, including a variety of waterfowl during 40 migration. Lake Treman is also a rich habitat for mammals, including beaver, muskrat, deer, raccoon, coyote, bats, and even bear. The lake supports a variety of reptiles and amphibians, including painted turtles, snapping turtles, gray tree frogs, spring peepers, bull frogs, green frogs and salamanders. This rich array of wildlife makes Lake Treman a special place for people to come on guided nature walks, or to investigate quietly on their own. Campground patrons visiting the park from all over the world use this area. Unfortunately, the proposed development will likely seriously compromise these uses. We appreciate the donation of eighteen acres of land to the state park by the developer in this proposal. This will protect that acreage, and the adjoining park acreage, from development and its effects. Unfortunately, however, it will not provide any direct reduction of the environmental impacts we expect on the Lake Treman area. We are concerned about the following probable impacts of the proposed development, which the FEIS does not appear to address. • Noise pollution from lawn mowers, automobiles and other motorized vehicles, dogs, and human voices will penetrate the 1000 feet of park land to the lake shore, degrading the wild character and experience of solitude sought by the people who walk the trails • Children and adults will enter the park from the development in large numbers along unauthorized herd paths, greatly increasing human impact on this special area. Increases in illegal swimming can be expected. • Dogs and particularly cats from the proposed development will stray into the Lake Treman area and prey on or disturb wildlife (some two million birds are killed daily in the United States by approximately 63 million house cats.). • Pesticides and herbicides used on lawns will enter the Lake Treman n 2 watershed. Bio- accumulation of poisons in the aquatic food chain could affect fish, waterfowl, and aquatic mammals, amphibians and reptiles. As fishing is popular in Lake Treman, affected fish could damage human health. Storm drainage mitigation measures do not address this problem On page 6, the FEIS states, "Wildlife can be expected to migrate to other portions of the property and to adjacent land which has similar habitat character, including Buttermilk Falls State Park." Also on page 6, it says, "It is reasonable to assume that reptiles and insects will adjust to the modified environment or migrate from the site to adjacent areas where vegetative habitat is similar." Both of these statements involve flawed ecological reasoning. All existing equivalent habitat nearby is already occupied by appropriate species, unless there has been some temporary reduction in population due to natural or human factors. Destruction or alteration of habitat in the proposed development area will simply result in the death of species that no longer find it tenable, as they try to find room in already occupied areas nearby, and result in net population losses. It is not reasonable to assume that "reptiles and insects will adjust." Statements such as these demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the most ® fundamental ecological principles governing wildlife. 0 We propose the following measures to mitigate the probable impacts on the park we've listed above. • Reduce the density of the development, thereby reducing all of the impacts on the park, or decrease the length of the development towards the park boundary. • Greatly increase the width of the conservation easement/buffer along park boundaries, perhaps as much as the 100 feet recommended by DEC for a buffer surrounding wetlands and watercourses. Thirty feet is simply not an adequate buffer for the park. • Erect a physical barrier, . perhaps a fence, that will discourage illegitimate entry to the park by people and pets along proposed development boundary. Maintain this fence over time. Combine this with signs and other information modes that instruct residents to use the park entrance on West King Road. 1 • Install street lighting that does not shine towards the park, reducing potential disturbance of nocturnal animals, including owls. Tony Ingraham (Anthony D. Ingraham) e-mail: tingraha @cce.cornell.edu Employed by NYS Parks -- Finger Lakes Region 2221 Taughannock Park Road (for shipping & FEDEX) P.O. Box 1055 Trumansburg, NY 14886 Work telephone: 607 - 387 -7041; Work FAX: 607 - 387 -3390 Home address Home Telephone 113 Nelson Road 607- 277 -2388 Ithaca, NY 14850 -9452 El n C7 M Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirement Section 37. Form of Final Plat. •1. A final plat.with the following information must be filed in the Office of the Town Engineer at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which final approval is requested. Four dark -line prints of the proposed plat. Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forms, with comments from the Town Engineer or Town Planner indicating whether the proposed subdivision is a Type I, Type II, or Unlisted action and indicating a recommendation for negative or positive declaration of environmental impacts. LX Highway and alley boundary or right -of -way lines, showing boundary, right -of -way or easement width and any other information needed for locating such lines; purposes of easements. Highway center, lines, showing angles of deflection, angles of intersection, radii, lengths of tangents and arcs, and degree of curvature, with basis of curve data. Lengths and distances shall be to the nearest one - hundredth foot. Angles shall abe to the nearest half minute. V Highway names. Key map, when more than one sheet is required to present plat. Accurate locations and descriptions of all subdivision monuments. V/ Accurate outlines and descriptions of any areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use or acquisition, with the purposes indicated thereon; any areas to be reserved by deed covenant for common uses of all property owners in the subdivision. , Border lines bounding the sheet, one -inch from the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other edges; all information, including all plat lines, lettering, signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines. Building setback lines with dimensions. Date of Plat. Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy line, giving dimensions to the nearest one - hundredth foot, • angles to the nearest one -half minute, and at least one bearing, the traverse shall be balanced and closed with an error of closure not to exceed one to two thousand; the type of closure shall be noted. Location and description of all section line corners and government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by true courses and distances. Preli)tiflaty & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -4- i Location, name, and dimensions of each.existing highway and alley and each utility, drainage, or similar easement within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision. 1 Location of the property by legal description, including areas in acres or square feet. source of title, including deed record book and page numbers. Name and address of all owners of the property and name and address of all persons who have an interest in the property, such as easements or rights -of -way. Lot lines, fully dimensioned, with lengths to the nearest one - hundredth foot and angles or bearings to the nearest one -half minute. Map Scale (1" =50' or 1" =1001) and north point. Mortgagor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s) if any, to the effect that he consents to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat. Name of subdivision, which shall not duplicate the name of / any other subdivision in the country. V Name of Town, County, and State. Name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s). Name(s) and address(es) of the.subdivider(s), if the /1 subdivider(s) is (are) not the owner(s). l� Name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer Who prepared the topographic information. Date of survey. l/ Name and seal of registered and surveyor who made the boundary survey. , Date of the survey. Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting the proposed subdivision. Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision. Owner's certificate: a certificate signed by the owner(s) to the effect the he /they owns the land, that he has caused the land to be surveyed and divided, and that he makes the dedications indicated on the plat. �Certification'signed by the chairman or other designated official or agent of the Planning Board to the effect that the plat was given preliminary approval by,the Planning Board. Reference on the plat to any separate instruments, including restrictive covenants, which directly affect the land in the subdivision. Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -5- �ez Surveyor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by a ® registered land surveyor to the effect that (1) the plat represents a survey made by him, (2) the plat is a correct representation, of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the subdivision of it, (3) all monuments indicated on the plat actually exist and their location, size and material are correctly shown, and (4) the requirements of these regulations and New York State laws relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied with. V V Tax and assessment certificate: a certificate signed by the county treasurer and other officials as may be appropriate, to the effect that there are no unpaid taxes due on the land being subdivided and payable at the time of plat approval and no unpaid special assessments, and that all outstanding, taxes and special assessments have been paid on all property dedicated to public use. The blocks are numbered consecutively throughout the subdivision and the lots are numbered consecutively throughout each block. The original or mylar copy of the plat to be recorded and four dark -line prints, on one or more sheets. Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the water supply and /or sewerage system. Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property, 1" =1000' or 1" =20001 . Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having non - parallel side lines, when required by the Planning Board. v Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements Section 38. Improvement Plans and Related Information. -6- 1. Where improvements are required for a proposed subdivision, the following documents shall be submitted to the Planning Board. Detailed construction plans and specifications for water lines, including locations land descriptions of mains, valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc. ✓ Detailed construction plans, profiles, and specifications for sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities, including locations and descriptions of pipes, manholes, lift stations, and other facilities. Highway paving plans and specifications. vle� The estimated cost of. a) grading and filling, b) Culverts, swales and other storm drainage facilities, c) sanitary sewers, d) water lines, valves, and fire hydrants, e) paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, f) any other improvements required by.these regulations.. The plan and profile of each proposed highway in the subdivision, with grade indicated,-drawn to a scale of one - inch equals 50 feet horizontal, and one -inch equals 5 feet vertical, on standard plan profile sheets. - Profiles shall show accurately the profile of the highway or alley along the highway - center line and location of the sidewalks, if any. Prelimi &Final SD 6/8/95 k .. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST = ITEM SUBMITTED 1il = NOT APPLICABLE t! = WAIVE Como = CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. (�_ Proposed preliminary site plan, to include: a. �_ Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property and proposed project at a scale of 1" =1000' or 1 '= 2000'. be Size, location, use and design of all existing structures, parking areas, access drives, off - street loading areas, signs, lighting, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and other existing features pertinent to plan review. C* X Size. location,. proposed use, design, and construction materials of all proposed structures. d. �C_ Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed parking areas, access drives and loading areas. e. k location of fire and -other emergency zones, including 0 - -the. location of fire .hydrants. f =Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed pede-strian and bicycle facilities. g• "�, Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed water and sewage facilities: he Location, proposed utility, abutting, project. name, and dimensions of each existing or street and alley and each existing or proposed drainage, or similar easement within, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the site including but not limited to streams, lakes, floodplains, ponds, wetlands, woodlands, brushlands, significant natural habitats or other features pertinent to review of the proposed project. j• �_ Existing and proposed site topography represented by contour lines with intervals as required by the Planning Board, but not to exceed 5 (five) feet, including a grading plan describing the volumes of cut and fill materials and their composition, and including elevations of proposed buildings, signage, lighting, and other features. C,L Preliminary Site Plan Checklist -2 k. �,X _ Drainage plan which includes a description of method used for analysis, the calculation of drainage area above point of entry for each water course entering or abutting the site, and proposed* method of on -site retention if required. 1. �C _ Landscaping plan and planting schedule including location and proposed design of buffers. m. COND Size, location, design, and construction materials of -r-- all proposed signs and lighting. n. _ (� Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy line, showing location and description of all monuments, giving property metes and bounds to the nearest one hundredth foot, angles to the nearest one - half minute, and at least one bearing. o. �_ Border lines bounding site plan sheets one -inch from the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other edges. All required information, including signatures, seals, dates and such information shall be within the border. p. _ (� -Map Scale and north.-point, with a map scale of 111=50' in bear or graphic form. Q. Name of proposed project. r. Y. Name of Town, County, and State. s. _� Date of Site Plan. t. NL Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted). u. COND Name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic survey and the date of survey. 2. 4. Name(s) and'address(es) of all property owners and persons who have an interest in the site and of parcels abutting the site, or within 500' of the site, including easements or rights -of -way, plus the tax parcel numbers. 3. �_ Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.) 4._ Payment of review fees 50 Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be prepared (preferably) by a licensed professional engineer. Preliminary Site Plan Checklist -3- 6a X Fully completed and signed �•Y.•I_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ull Environmental Assessment Form, Town Planner as to to submit.) 7. X Reduced copy of all sheets of the proposed site plan (no larger than 11" X 17 ") and copy of all other items required'above (except development review application and escrow forms). PRELIMI. SITE PLAN 6/95 • 11 Ica PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST ITEM SUBMITTED FINAL ® = NOT APPLICABLE WAIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Proposed preliminary site plan, to include. a• Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property and proposed project at a scale of 1" =1000' or 1" =2000'. b. Size, location, use and design of all existing structures, parking areas, access drives, off - street loading areas, signs, lighting, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and other existing features pertinent to review. c. ,plan Size. location,. proposed use, design, and construction / materials of all proposed structures. d. V Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed parking areas, access drives and loading areas. e•L, Location of fire and -other emergency zones, including ® - -the_ location _of fire hydrants. f. Location, design, and construction materials of all -proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. g• NL Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed water and sewage facilities. h. _ Location, name, and dimensions of each existing or proposed street and alley and each existing or proposed utility, drainage, or similar easement within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed / project. i. VV Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the site including but not limited to streams, lakes, floodplains, ponds, wetlands, woodlands, brushlands, significant natural habitats or other features pertinent to review of the proposed project. j• Existing and proposed site topography represented by contour lines with intervals as required by the Planning Board, but not to exceed 5 (five) feet, including a grading plan describing the volumes of cut and fill materials and their composition, and including ® elevations of proposed buildings, signage, lighting, and other features. Preliminary site Plan Checklist -2 k. W 'Drainage plan which includes a description of method used for analysis, the calculation of drainage area above point of entry for each water course entering or abutting the site, and proposed method of on -site retention if required. 1. M. N/ no o. PO J q. V r. so t. u. 2. 3. 4. 5. Landscaping plan and planting schedule including location and proposed design of buffers. Size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting. Exact boundary.lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy line, showing location and description of all monuments, giving property metes and bounds to the nearest one hundredth foot, angles to the nearest one - half minute, and at least one bearing. Border lines bounding site plan sheets one -inch from the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other edges. All required information, including signatures, seals, dates and such information shall be within the border. Map scale and north__point, _in bar or graphic form. Name of proposed project. with a map scale of 11t =50' Name of Town, County, and state. Date of Site Plan. Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted). Name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey and the date of survey. Name(s) and - address(es) of all property owners and persons who have an interest in the site and of parcels abutting the site, or within 500' of. the site, including easements or rights -of -way, plus the tax parcel numbers. Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.) Payment of review fees and deposit of escrow. Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be prepared (preferably) by a licensed professional engineer. �7 Preliminary Site Plan Checklist �W' 70 -/ PRELIMI. 6/95 E Fully completed and signed Short Assessment Form, Part I (SEAF) or Assessment Form, Part I (LEAF)* to which to submit.) -3- Environmental Full Environmental (See Town Planner as Reduced copy of all sheets of the propose (no larger than 11" X 17 ") and copy of all required above (except development review and escrow forms). SITE PLAN I d site plan other items application u v FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST - ITEM SUBMITTED NOT APPLICABLE CONDITION OF APPROVAL 10 V All items submitted with the preliminary site plan application with modifications made according to the 20 /pproval given by the Town Planning Board. Record 'of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. Submit copies of all permits or approvals so granted, �UILVIJ*N � 1c ?�Ak7 - cDlJ � l-IEF) 3. Detailed sizing and final.mater-ial specifications of ail requirad improvements. -4. Construction details of all proposed structures, roads, - water /sewage .facilities, and other Improvements. 5. Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.) 6. Payment ; of additional review fees as needed and �1 deposited in an escrow account. 7. h_ Original or mylar copy of final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. �1M7 •1 w /rl rqW 6/6/95 MB Q ARTICLE VI PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS ✓ = ITEM SUBMITTED W = WAIVED N/A = NOT APPLICABLE COND = CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL Section 36. Preliminary Plat Checklist 1. A preliminary plat with the following information must be filed in the Office of the Town Engineer at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which preliminary approval is requested. Four dark -line prints of improvement plans and information., if improvements are required. ✓ Four dark -line prints of the proposed plat. ✓ Fully completed _Environmental Assessment Forms, with comments from the Town_Engineer or -Town Planner indicating ® whether the proposed subdivision is a Type I, Type II, or Unlisted action and indicating a recommendation for negative or positive declaration of environmental impacts. ✓ _ General 3ayout, including lot lines with dimensions; block and lot numbers; highway and alley lines-, with 60 -foot wide . highway rights -of -way; areas to be reserved for use in common by residents of the subdivision; sites for nonresidential, nonpublic uses, easements for utilities ;' drainage, preservation of scenic views, or other purposes; and building setback lines, with dimensions. General layout of the proposed highways, blocks, and lots within the proposed subdivision. Tentative highway names. i� Key map, when more than one sheet is required to present plat. W Contour intervals,. to USGS datum, of not more than two feet when the slope is less than four percent and not more than five feet when the slope is greater than four percent. ✓ Cultural features within and immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision, including platted lots, highway improvements, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, other significant structures, parks, wetlands, critical environmental areas, and other significant features. Loel Date of Plat. Preliminary & Final subdivision Plat Requirements -2- 1rJ Direction of flow of all water courses. Calculation of drainage area above point of.entry for each water course enter i.xic_.or�. utting the trade. P': Location"and description of all section line corners and government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to at least one of which the subdivision shall be.referenced by true courses and distances:' "` ✓ Location,, A name%,:' anti' dimensions .:of each existing highway and alley 'arid 'each` ui3 iwty, drainage, or similar easement within ," °'abutting, or in the„ immediate vicinity of the prop - sub o's'e" d vis ion. ✓ Map Scale (119 =501 or 111 =1001) and north point. ✓ Name of 'planner, architect, engineer, land surveyor, landscape�'architect, or other person who prepared the sketch plat or preliminary plat. ✓ Name of `.Sub'division,-" -which shall not duplicate the name of any other ;subdivision in the county.. ✓ Name of Town,.County, and State. ✓ Name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s) Name(s) and address(es) of the subdivider(s), if.the subd.ivider�s) is(are) not the owner(s). ✓ Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting._the proposed subdivision. �A Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision. Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision, including drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, and other significant features. Identification of °areas subject to flooding as indicated on HUD Flood Boundary Maps, Wetlands Maps . CNef sJ *A snJOV. y Mop 0 f C i 1 3Ji'Ny' cuto rC d►•rceI &*tof /td "1&4A of Fi/�✓1tu HAAI♦ it"Ity Co. a "dofe.! 3 /7 /PV ,r,.i 1 ^6{V ^1 II� 1^ Restrictive covenants, if any. M�•�OGt fll�.� ✓ Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property, 111 =10001 or 111= 20001. jA Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having non - parallel side lines, when required by the Planning Board. (�! Border lines bounding the sheet, one -inch from the left edge and one ®half inch from each of the other edges; all information-, including all plat lines, lettering, signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines. • Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements 1. _..fir... .. Section 37. Form of Final Plat. _ ®1. A final plat .with the following information .must' b4 f;ile n c the Office of the Town Engineer at"least''ten (10) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which final approval. ,isti.. ;-.�,= requested. ;. . r ... r.R. =rf ✓ Four dark -line prints of the roposed lat i P p P P ... . Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forn4s�,.:. with.. comments from the Town Engineer or 'Town Planner, indicatin whether the proposed subdivision is". ar Type. 1:. ,Type T . 11., .or r; ..w •, ; ,.; Unlisted action and indicating a` recommendation..for�',negatxve, or positive declaration of environmental impacts: A11#4 Highway and alley boundary or right =of -way 1 lines " showing boundary, right -of -way or easement width and. any other �.74 information needed for locating.,such lines u r, p rposes .off ,. w easements, Sig Highway center lines, showing angles of deflection:, . angles of intersection, radii, lengths of tangents .and.. arcs;, *ana., .4.:;, -" degree of curvature, with basis of curve data'.- - Lehg. hs and distances shall be to the nearest one - hundredth. foot. .Angles shall Abe to the nearest half minute. N X Highway names. ® 14: Key map, when more than one sheet -is re '•'; r required, . to .pres eft ; x ..� ,; plat. �. ✓ Accurate locations and descriptions of all subdiv.ision;.y� monuments. nl a Accurate outlines and descriptions of any areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use or acquisition, with the purposes indicated thereon; any areas to be reserved by f_ deed covenant for common uses of all property owners in the,: subdivision. W Border lines bounding the sheet, one -inch from the left edge-„. and one -half inch from each of the other edges; all information, including all plat lines, lettering,,..,.:!."' , signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines. W Building setback lines with dimensions. ✓ Date of Plat. ✓ Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy' line, giving dimensions to the nearest one - hundredth foot, angles to the nearest one -half minute, and at least one ® bearings the traverse shall be balanced and closed with aa.. f error of closure not to exceed one to two thousand, the - „type:_. -�;; of closure shall be noted. I Location and description of all section line corners and government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by true courses and distances. , Preliminary 4°& Final subdivision -F-let Requirements -4- ✓ Location; alie,� 'and dimen fans eif each existing- highway and alley arid,- -eachil; ut l ty,,` .dramaage, or similar 't'easem6nt within ,r 4bifttiag , or in the immediate vicinity -of. _the proposed subdivision ' - '> > a_: ✓ Location o lithe% props rty key° legal description,_ including areas in acres " s'sc�uare -'feet °:� -° Source of .,title,..:ingluding deed record = •book -L and- -page` iiu�ers': ° ✓ Name and address of all owners of the property and name and address of all persons who have an interest in the property, A� d such as,,easementio'or r"ghts -o'f= way... ✓ Lot lili Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requiqrements :. �sr1, ; y �,- � r j r{ ✓ Surveyor's , certif irate o* certificate Aigned and sealed; by ra y04l �� f registered land ' utVveyor to the of fi�cct .that _,, {`l) .the.)p3a j, represents a s,ur "vey._made by him, ( Jr. the: plat is a•,corn fit. .i representation of all "exterior boundaries of they l.gd; surveyed and the subdivision of it, (3) all monuments indicated on the plat. actually exist- and aheir.,locat3Og� .Oil size and mateKial are ' correctly show, requirements "df - these "tequlAtions.,a ciNew., ',y,or tat @laws-,.! relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied with. ,.. r. a Tax and assessment` c"e "rtificate: ,a,Rcerii:c�te..signed yla they county treasurer and other officials�as� may be appropriate, ��•� 4 0w4 to the effect that there are.. no .'unpaid.;, taxes - ..,due on Vt4e yand.i 1i being subdivided and p able at the time of . f at,, -a _ zov 1, P - .. a i-1 . °� °r and no unpaid special pa and�� that all outAtan4ingLr _. ;- ,l °�` stir taxes and special assessments have been paid on all property dedicated to public use �.. r y , NIA The blocks are -numbered cons, ecitivel-3p,..througbout -, the-,w, s t•; v, -, ;;, w ,, -,. ; rr�� subdivision, and . the lots are .n imherYed consecurtively, ,; ,r S .51 +"r throughout -.each block.. VV L The original or mylar copy of the plat to be recorded and four dark -line ,,prints, on one ar,,more' - sheets, A " p �tll ,: � _��U Two copies of the County Health Department a p roval of the water supply and /or sewerage system. ✓ Vicinity Map showing the genera; iocationJofw ;the,-propertyz, 1" =1000' or 111= 200019 �.� y� Jf � at building ,, , : r. ,J. � «'_i - � tC i G � C `:_ F2.1.{�^. 1 '�... "•`�[� g line of -lots located_ on� a curve or hevingr non - parallel side lines, when required by the Planning Board. . _ .-t -, f - 1 4 0 `. PP IV yFl .._C. ._�•i '• "Y w.1[NY}. :..M.. y.`— .vrham. YY` "-tYr A ••• ru ys rt..n m:. n. •.. n.. . M. .au• .M •i` • s I. IIV,I 'Prel minar & Final Subdivisio A y n,.P_.lat� Requirements ., -6- ,c;� Seca n 38. {.� p�rovem t Plans and..Related Information. 11, Lv to a u \ 'c, 1 r s ..... 1+ cr Wrhere' impr ©ieeits A re requird for a proposed subdivision, cR'fie follbWi t g docu eats shall;be submitted to the P16nning t• . %d "`�;,. �etai lac �rtst,c iaonf,plans aid specifications for water e Iv linep ,ludiIg.:;gca� ions land descriptions of mains, valve ian t`� ra"PPUrtienancas ,:�etc t tailed icbntd Is ion plans,,; �ro7 'e.s, ,and specif#j.cat•i.ons a It, VIA { °pfr ,san <ib sew, �a�ld: St danageacilitie's o including 's Rl ��» al cat�ioirsa£ d e criptions �Vof, p'apcs;+ manholes;: lift satinns,�, .an qheacilit a f ; hway' p vi g 'plahs' nd clf.i�re ti ons It I it e e,stim ��tedcd�st oif S { - )' gzrac �h al; d + f i l Bing, 1 �swal ' a d .othe'r" st rip dr ina a facil ties c� j a�n t4Vy sewers; � a ; i wait l;7 1ie�s,' val ves, lannd fire ,hydrants pad rn urbS,.�..gt�ters:�i3d �Side;alks; `i s w �' R irel by ...these reejiz�.at'ions . '•. n . �e impr�vss ments x-equ It I A:. The plhnt a d JjRroti�e f '•.,ga'ch proposed'highw'ay. in: the' s-ub4i i o ;?�F.W h. g ade; 'ndicated' rir cvY t �'a �s .ale of 'one's+ r inch gi ,kls �o, feet `ho�ri.onal,"Iana +, oae- nh`E:euls• 5 feet ver;i'c�l I t onpra and L rd plan and pr_Of�]:e 'sheets -l� tof�iles I VIVI 3 e shall Oho *` `,a�cpuratsly the�,pro�file of the hiyhw�yq or, alley a om tie ;h 'ghway `c ntei. z 1 %ine and to anon of the.. sidew,a ks i ti } Pbel';i.mi SD. It L C �\ Ill sits. oll Ill 411% Ap to Is 111, ol look, logo "M� loft. lo, bIgggs, lIomool SZ oto Iloilo %l Ill Ill gall to, 'll Itto I'll "'Ostal oll "Wo. I, I -ttl to, logo I. logo III onolool lomm, tubtl Ift Aft. 11 "44%. "Ill 'I'll Ill 000" Ill I 5"OsIzz Il 1 \\ \ \\ \ \- \\ \\\ \\\ \� \ \` \\ \\ \\ \ \\ _ �� �4 t.2 \ %%- . \ \ -\ \\• � \ \ � al It logo t. \ �:% \ \\ \ \\ \ \ r• ivy >C F �/ A III Nl "I", roll sl N sl gl is*% Igo: tool laws, ol ol III sts, lost \ ' \ \ \ \ NA. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ® \ \ . eel!s� It / rte' �� p \,.- ' - \\ \ ,� \\ ,. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ s\n \£� y / -• ', Al �, {•. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r ice' 71 En Ill \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ .v. r''\ ( -< '\ 1 // !�/ ._ '.•"2., i!J �.� "I'll top \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ ` \` \ \� ` r.. \ s.. 4 r' \ ol ol "go most \-` \ \�. r. .r `\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ !7 Z��A w� ��,y •11 /r a. Ill I sj It to Is Lis I'lls. t, osto st, !t"'Isso Iss, lm0`gov �� \I \ \ \ �t� `\� J o�v�.e�°'��L; p1�1 !I? ,dI .;..j �.\ Of:. \ \ •rL6�1 C 1 •. IF ..ate \ + \ \ \ ��\ .` \� ., .ri \ itX � r L IF t . \ \ r, \ \ \ /p �1 s • `� I / + y �• \ - \ ✓ \ . -\ iii • \ ^' r v . 0.' \ J r \ \ \ i \\ \\ \\ \\ ( Cr 3I 'z r \ \ \ I'll ssmo low I'• +S< ° • y' \ , it l0.• \\ will \ \ \ \ ) 1. 114 }-t ' tai ° . _+ + , h f : ,-_ 1 loss. oft I Al Isto Ill go, Ill \` \`.` \\ \\ \\ \ \, .•..`` ...�. \\ \ \\ \` \ \ \ \_ �e�r�� Or It too \ \ �! - \ \..•?.\ , \ Vie:` o ��r � > t * / / of I. f �� �.\ \ \ \ \`�. J \ \\ \ \\ \♦ (,.w -° . �`g' is i + R �1�1 }. • ��4�q�fyi ( S �••�� �+ L�� ' •• logoo, �. w goo ollso \ \\ p•r••°�•`a"�T \ -�` T�` \ \ \ \\ \ A±`\ 0.-i u. Is ty �r� t4�t.'t r.. En _q 8 oft, Ill �r•/ ^\ a i \ \ \ \\ �v \� 'r t. } 'T1�1'7 f��� 1.; d i !a i7a _ o�. tL �` r j 01 1 III Al L: \.`' \,.-'- \ \\ \ \. ` \ \\r'� \`` \\ 1 ^-r. \\ i \` \\x_` \ \\ ` \�\ i5} ATx rt �..yt t����.'�.�u S.- t7i 1'y /i ). �' �$ As ~ \ \ \��.� ''• . \ ^ \ : •'- \ \� ,;,,\� p \ .—/ \ \ �- _ � � y - l I .. A � l.0. � t! � .. �� III ."ry •''? \ \\ \\rte-" \\ _ \ �\ 4\ \, \ \\ ` \\ �� i. 1' �%"?t t Il? \ �a i7_�° �� too, tom 4112"oolmoo, It" ..• -. \ \i - .A �!'(`� .+ \\ '•.. `� x �1�i� _�\ \ \\ a �. •\' '.} ..i �i - jt -���i ii'. 1^e loss '.% e +� ...,. • i N \ ,..\= %_\ \ \�`� •' - ._ t �ci F �� t•a taa i 'Jl t-, i, �i.4�� = j .'! 1' . /— yam../ / too �"mwm -"s^•: A s �\ \�'" F i 'p "� — _ IL Ike S i 1 �•"y'� r °t4,�w.1� �! y•! s 1, f'Ii�•r•+'°iM' •� // oll llttl m.a,,.., a i __ •i- ������ /I+y. ��',�`r'�i; C lD '•7+ : j ' A -i f"I to /.. •t�' w. r , . �•. ` "Sol r _ 1 \ + �T.. I ?�1 t CD v :l t-j } -, 1 . `.-1� v- r n r .. ..._.a..•` e•`\ �` _ ~— `' e - - pf*IllV,' \ ' t��./ R •Zr 7Y _N fi3 \�— ���'�. r " —�. �� r 'T—P.f 1P17 : r i]a Dl Y i,. r? v.� ®!_ � its / p ®A�/.'• MAY ® I `� 1 RAJ 0! ii E� PoKer 8uiOffiC too .A t •,.,.., ii N em Lighten Otfiea �,' M T i 1- =;le , S CUSS. N.Y. 132204 2k5 q. �.. SURVEYORS "PLAN — CONSULTANM , v (315) 455-T5}996 OJ _�_ •,. 11 Sheet 1 St 1 i u`ti ^' _ . ; i ; : _ :, y. !f• 9�o Scale: i — oo'- O r • p�pjSet No: 95000 -A ��. s PLAtititl oats: