HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-07-09..-%�
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Oat . 9�
Clerk
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 9, 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).
ALSO PRESENT: Bob Shaw, Nancy Ostman, John Augustine, Louise Mudrak, Charles
Guttman, Anne Morrissette, David St. George, Paul Salon, Ann
Silsbee.
Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:37 p.m. Chairperson Cornell
read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department
of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
Chairperson Cornell stated, due to an error, notices of tonight's Public Hearings did not get
published in the newspaper. Because this could be a possible procedural defect, particularly for
subdivision approvals, the Planning Board has been advised by legal counsel, that it would be
prudent to reschedule Public Hearings for the first four actions, which are subdivisions. The
Planning Board will act on the SEQR determinations, and discuss project detail for the
subdivisions. The Public Hearings will be rescheduled for another date. Chairperson Cornell
stated that she would like to propose Tuesday, July 23, 1996 as another date for these Public
Hearings.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the last Public Hearing on the agenda, the Coddington Road
Community Center's proposed pavilion, is a Site Plan Approval and recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for Special Approval, and the Planning Board will hold the Public Hearing tonight.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he recommends putting these Public Hearings on
the July 16, 1996 meeting.
Chairperson Cornell responded, no, because the July 16, 1996 meeting is already full.
Board Member Wilcox stated that if the Planning Board discusses these subdivisions
tonight, then they should only take approximately two to five minutes each.
Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that the legals for July 16th have already been submitted to
the newspaper, so it maybe too late to publish those legals.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that there would be some possible flexibility,
but he was not sure that the legals could be published.
n
LJ
•
1111111F� -I
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
Board Member Wilcox stated that he is worried about delaying the applicants.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the newspaper needed to receive the legal notice yesterday
for the July 16, 1996 meeting.
Attorney for the Town John Barney stated that there
1996 agenda that would be potentially time consuming, and
these Public Hearings for July 23, 1996.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning
determinations, and would ask the applicants to give a full pr
applicants come in at the next meeting, it would just be for
are several proposals on the July 16,
it might be a good idea to reschedule
Board would be doing the SEAR
esentation of the project, so when the
public comments.
Attorney Barney stated that if the Planning Board got through these proposals tonight, they
may want to reschedule the Public Hearings for July 16, 1996. It will be close for the newspaper
to get it in because the notice needs to run five days prior to the hearing meeting. Attorney Barney
stated that all of these hearings would be two to five minutes apart.
Board Member Wilcox stated that if the Planning Board discussed them thoroughly tonight,
that they would not have much more to discuss at the rescheduled meeting.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board should see how they go through tonight, and
then the Planning Department would notify the applicants to reschedule for an upcoming meeting.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are several items that also require Zoning
Board actions, which happens to be scheduled for tomorrow night, July 10, 1996. Whatever
happens tonight at the Planning Board meeting should not affect the Zoning Board review and
approval.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons present to be heard
the meeting.
Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED SORENG SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 275 BURNS ROAD, AS
FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW.
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:43 p.m. and read
from the Agenda as posted and as noted above.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
Charles Guttman, Attorney, stated that he was appearing on the behalf of Robert and Nancy
Soreng. The Sorengs would like to have a 0.09 +/- acre parcel of land taken out of their property,
and added to the adjacent property which is owned by William and Sharon Hilker. The new parcel
has 24 feet of frontage, and a depth of approximately 300 feet. This property is a triangular shaped
piece of land. The property is all grass right now. For years, the Hilker's have been mowing this.
Attorney Guttman stated that the Sorengs believed that this property belonged to the Hilker's. The
Hilkers have a driveway that runs adjacent to this triangular piece of property. At the present time
the Hilkers drive into their driveway, but have to back straight out onto Burns Road. The Hilkers
would like to use this parcel to build a turnaround in their driveway, which would be a safer way to
enter onto Burns Road. The Sorengs are willing to convey the property to the Hilkers. The
Sorengs are not receiving any financial consideration for this, it would be an act of neighborly
cooperative. The Hilkers have agreed to pay for the cost of the survey and pay for the recording
cost. There would be very minimal environmental effect of this subdivision, because there would
not be anything built on this property other than the driveway turn around. The only environmental
effect with this subdivision would be that the Hilkers would have a safer entrance onto the road
from the their property.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the memorandum from Geri Tierney that was mailed
to each Board Member in their packets, described this subdivision fully, and that there are no
• environmental issues with this subdivision.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he noticed Mr. Hilker's residence is referred to as house
#271 on the second survey map, but that it is referred to as house #273 in all the resolutions. If
the house number is indeed 273, the resolutions would be okay, because none of the resolutions
refer to the survey map of Mr. Hilker's current property. The survey map only refers to the Soreng's
property.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that Ms. Tierney is checking into that. Ms. Tierney has
asked the surveyor to correct the survey map if necessary, but the Planning Department has not
received a corrected version.
Attorney Guttman stated that he would call the Hilkers to find out the house numbers.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to
offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
4 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
•
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Statement will not be required.
4
APPROVED AUGUST 6.1996
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 #1.)
JULY 97 1996
Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of Burns Road subdivision at 7:50 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 0.09 +/- ACRE FROM TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 48 -1- 14.32, 2.3 +/- ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED AT 275 BURNS ROAD, FOR
CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 48 -1- 14.313, LOCATED AT 273
BURNS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. ROBERT AND NANCY SORENG, OWNERS;
CHARLES GUTTMAN, ESQ., AGENT.
The Public Hearing will be rescheduled to July 16, 1996.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED BABCOCK SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 230 CULVER ROAD, AS
FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW.
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:53 p.m. and read
from the Agenda as posted and as noted.
Nancy Ostman of Cornell Plantations, stated that Cornell University has two parcels that are
natural areas that protect Coy Glen Creek Valley. John Babcock has offered to give Cornell
University 32.5 +/- acres of land for protection as natural areas. There would be a deed restriction
that would say the property would be preserved as a natural area. The proposed natural area is
on very steep slopes, and most of the area would not be developable according to Town of Ithaca
guidelines. This area is also part of the Critical Environmental Area for Coy Glen. Mr. Babcock
is also asking, since the Fine for the Critical Environmental Area was never surveyed, if the newly
surveyed line could be the established boundary for the Critical Environmental Area in the future.
The newly surveyed boundary will be the boundary between the Cornell University land and the
piece of land that Mr. Babcock is retaining. Ms. Ostman pointed out where the boundary would
be on the map for the Planning Board.
Chairperson Cornell stated, for the record, that was the line that everyone agreed upon
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 JULY 9, 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
when everyone visited the site.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked Ms. Ostman if she knew who owned the parcel between
the proposed parcels A and B.
Ms. Ostman stated that the owner is Arthur Kraut.
Board Member Bell asked Ms. Ostman if there is any discussion about preserving the Kraut
Parcel at this point.
Ms. Ostman stated that the Kraut property is privately held, but part of the property is
included in the Town of Ithaca Critical Environmental Area. There is no designated protection that
privately held parcel
Board Member Bell asked Ms. Ostman if Cornell University has any plans for that.
Ms. Ostman stated that Cornell University would like to have it, but the Krauts would like to
keep it at this time.
• Attorney Barney stated that the proposed resolution that was provided by Shirley Egan has
a blank in the last paragraph.
Ms. Ostman stated that Ms. Egan left that blank, and she said that this would be an example
as what the language might read like, and that Cornell University would need to insert the proper
legal description following the survey.
Attorney Barney stated that he has some concerns about the last sentence, and he does
not know what arrangements Cornell University has with Mr. Babcock. It seems to Attorney Barney
that Cornell University has the right to erect a fence or gate at the boundary line of the property.
Ms. Ostman stated that her thoughts were that the last sentence refers to the easement
which provides access.
Attorney Barney stated that is correct, but what he is troubled with is that the access
easement may be used for some other purpose in addition to providing access to Cornell University
parcels. He would like to see this sentence modified to provide that if a fence or gate be erected
that it be on Cornell property.
Ms. Ostman stated that Mr. Babcock did not have a problem with the language.
Attorney Barney stated that there may come a time to make this a mode of access to the
back parcel. The deed would allow Cornell University at any time to shut the access off, which
O PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6,1996
C
could be a problem for some future developer.
Chairperson Cornell asked Attorney Barney if the last sentence should be eliminated.
Attorney Barney stated that would be a good idea, and for Cornell University's protection,
that they could put a gate at the boundary line.
Chairperson Cornell asked Attorney Barney what he proposes for the blank in the last
paragraph.
Attorney Barney stated that Ms. Egan would type a legal description which would be based
on the easement shown on the survey map.
Chairperson Cornell asked if that could be ready for the next meeting.
Attorney Barney stated that it should be ready.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he had drafted a resolution with wording to the effect
that final language would be subject to approval by the Attorney for the Town. If the final language
is not completed by the next meeting, that it could be conditioned that the Attorney for the Town
would need to approve it. The final plat would not be signed until the language is approved by the
Attorney for the Town.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that there is a lane off of Hackberry Lane that connects
to Cornell University property.
Ms. Ostman stated that there is a 25 -foot access way off of Hackberry Lane.
Board Member Finch asked if this was a marked area.
Ms. Ostman stated that it is not marked in the field. Cornell University is in the process of
negotiating better access from Hackberry Lane. When Tom Richard and Hackberry Lane
Associates gave Cornell University the 25 foot access, they were forced to put it in a particular
location in order to meet the subdivision requirements for the individual lots. There is a gravel road
that is very close to the 25 -foot easement, and it does not fall on the easement. Cornell University
is negotiating an easement from the neighbors to use the road instead of the access, which has
trees on it that they do not want to cut down.
Board Member Finch asked if Cornell University was satisfied to have blazed trees as marks
defining the boundaries, or are there enough other pins in the area.
-� Ms. Ostman stated that the surveyor was following Cornell University's instructions, and they
had put orange flagging on the trees that they wanted to use to mark the boundary. Ms. Ostman
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
said she is not sure if there are pins set in the ground or not.
Board Member Finch stated that there are some pins set along the way. The line goes from
a pipe found on the road to a blazed 14 -inch maple to a blazed 16 -inch hemlock, and then to a pin,
and it is not a straight line from one pin to the next. It seems like this does not represent a very
permanent boundary.
Attorney Barney stated that this would be okay, because this survey map does give specific
bearings and dimensions. If the owner takes the trees out, a surveyor could still draw this
boundary based upon the bearings and the footage.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this not a Public Hearing, but that the Planning Board would
entertain any questions from the public.
Paul Salon of 251 Culver Road, stated that it seems like there is a negotiation going on, as
far as the conservation of the critical area, and the fact that Mr. Babcock was giving a portion of
his land seemed a little suspicious. Mr. Salon stated that he is not sure if there is any certain
guidelines for critical area conservation areas, and that should be totally independent of whether
Mr. Babcock is giving some land to Cornell University or not. There might be some other parts of
the land that might meet the criteria of critical conservation areas. He was hoping that Mr. Babcock
was just being generous to be giving land, which is 30% or 40% steep and useless for development
purposes, that Mr. Babcock be given a favor, so the rest of the land would not meet any
conservation critical area designation.
Ms. Ostman stated that the first step in this procedure was for Cornell to try and ascertain
what part of Mr. Babcock's property should be included in a protected area, and that included a
number of Town Planning Board Members, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), Dana Batley
(the representative for Mr. Babcock), and members of the Natural Areas Committee for Cornell
Plantations. What was done in the walks was to establish on the ground a marking of the area that
they thought should be included in the Critical Environmental Area that should be protected. Mr.
Babcock's intention in this process was to define the boundary which has always been vague. He
was not sure where the boundary for the Critical Environmental Area was, and he wanted Cornell
to try and define the Critical Environmental Area.
Mr. Salon stated that there are some environmental concerns as far as the steep slope
going in the opposite direction of Coy Glen. Mr. Salon asked what is the critical area there.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Critical Environmental Area is a designation that the
Department of Environmental Conservation allows municipalities to grant.
Ms. Ostman stated that the Town of Ithaca has designated Coy Glen a Critical
OEnvironmental Area which was done in 1979.
S PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there were lists in the original Unique Natural Area
descriptions, prepared by the County Environmental Management Council, and it was referenced
in the Environmental Assessment Form for this subdivision, for causing the Coy Glen to be
designated as a Critical Environmental Area. Factors leading to the designation included scenic
qualities, unique geological foundations, several species of rare and endangered plants and
animals, and steep wooded slopes, which included the watershed for Coy Glen Creek. This is why
this particular boundary was sought by everyone that walked the site to try and define where the
boundary was.
Ms. Ostman pointed out on the Survey Map for Mr. Salon where the boundary would be and
where the parcels are that are being proposed.
Chairperson Cornell asked Ms. Ostman if any of the Town Board Members visited the site.
Ms. Ostman stated that there was not a Town Board Member present.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that if Mr. Bal
land, that he would have to come to the Planning Board.
consider whether the slope was too steep, and the Board
David St. George of 204 Culver Road, stated that he
when they want to develop that they have to have a land
would be part of the set -aside when subdivision is done.
Chairperson Cornell responded, no.
)cock wanted to develop the remaining
At that time the Board would need to
would need to look into it further.
knows when there are subdivisions and
set - aside. Mr. St. George asked if this
Mr. St. George stated that he supports the subdivision.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that reviewing the minutes from earlier meetings and
reviewing the proposed resolution, that she was reminded of the discussions that were done in
regard to proposing that there be no further need to create any more parkland with Mr. Babcock.
Also there was talk about if or when it happens, that the Board does not know whether Mr. Babcock
would be able to build within the buffer zone that was discussed before, adjacent to the Critical
Environmental Area.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he tried to word the proposed resolution in a way in
which there would not be a commitment for anything for future subdivision of the remaining parcel.
It appeared that the findings of this Board for this proposed subdivision and transaction between
Mr. Babcock and Cornell University would not result in the need for parkland set -aside or
recreation facilities. If the Board wants to reach a consensus at this point on something else, that
should be discussed.
49 Board Member Hoffmann stated that the proposed resolution says that with this particular
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
subdivision there is no need for additional parkland set - aside. The implication being that if there
were further subdivision of the remaining parcel, that might be something this Board could
consider.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she wanted to understand what was said. She took it as this
donation was in lieu of a park donation in the future, which it is not.
Mr. Salon asked if Chairperson Cornell could define it better for him.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it could be referred to as a park dedication. Both the
Town Law and the Town's Subdivision Regulations allowed the Planning Board to look at each
subdivision that is proposed, and make a determination on whether the proposed subdivision is
creating a need for park or recreation land or facilities. Each time a subdivision comes before the
Town Planning Board, the regulations require the Board to look at the overall conditions; is a park
needed for this subdivision, is the subdivision large enough for a park, or if there is a need for a
park in that area. If the Planning Board makes a finding that the subdivision is creating an
additional need for a park or recreation facilities in that area, then the Board can require land to
be set -aside within the subdivision to serve for park or recreation purposes. This does not mean
that the Town can or even should be able to require that this land be donated to the Town,
® although the subdivider can propose this. It means that some amount of land within the subdivision
can be required to be set -aside as permanently preserved park or recreation land. If the finding
for the need is there, and there is not appropriate land within the subdivision to serve for park or
recreation facilities, the Planning Board now has a mechanism that can require a fee in lieu of the
land to be set - aside, and given to the Town to be able to pay for acquiring parkland or
implementing additional park facilities in a nearby park.
MOTION by Gregory Bell, 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, 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 #2.)
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 JULY 97 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of the Babcock subdivision at 8:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31-
1-14, 105.9 +/= ACRES IN SIZE, INTO THREE LOTS, PARCEL A CONSISTING OF 28.22 +/-
ACRES, PARCEL B CONSISTING OF 4.18 +/= ACRES, AND PARCEL C CONSISTING OF 715
+A ACRES, LOCATED AT 230 CULVER ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. PARCELS A AND
B ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR PERMANENT
PRESERVATION AS A NATURAL AREA. PARCEL CIS TO BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER.
JOHN B. BABCOCK, OWNER; DANA BATLEY, AGENT.
The Public Hearing will be rescheduled to August 6, 1996.
AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED BALCOM- PEARSON SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 1035
HANSHAW ROAD, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW.
® Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:21 p.m. and read
from the Agenda as posted and as noted above.
Bob Shaw, 313 Roat Street and the Agent for Balcom- Pearson, stated that at the 300 -foot
mark on Parcel A would be where the new property line would be stopping, instead of going all the
way to Roat Street. The back part of this parcel is actually Mr. Shaw's front yard. With a
transaction with Balcom- Pearson, Mr. Shaw would be buying Parcel B, and at the same time Mr.
Shaw would be consolidating it with his property (Tax Parcel No. 71- 1 -20), so Parcel B could never
become a buildable lot. Parcel B is not a buildable lot at this time because it does not have the
necessary frontage. If this proposal gets approval, it would be stated that Parcel B will be
consolidated with Mr. Shaw's property. Parcel A will be going before the Zoning Board of Appeals
Wednesday, July 10, 1996, which has an 86 -foot frontage that is a substandard lot. Mr. Shaw
stated that his frontage is 15 foot, and is a substandard lot. The reason for the variance would be
because the frontage does not have a 100 foot of frontage, and they are subdividing a lot that does
not have a 100 feet of frontage.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Shaw if he knows what the total frontage would be after this
subdivision is done.
Mr. Shaw stated that Parcel B will be adding 49.8 feet to the 15 feet of frontage he already
f -� has. Both lots are non - conforming. Parcel A, after the variance is granted, would be a
standardized lot with a variance. Parcel B, will not have the standard 100 foot frontage, but it
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
•
would have more frontage than it had before.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Shaw what the former title line on the survey map means.
Mr. Shaw stated that he talked to Allen Fulkerson about the former title line. Mr. Fulkerson
is showing the former title line, and has removed all reference to the Wrights, who were the
previous owners. Parcel A went straight back, and the 12.8 feet former title line currently has 10
or 12, 100 foot evergreen trees in a row. The Wright's increased Parcel A prior to selling to it to
Balcom- Pearson, which encompassed those trees. Mr. Shaw stated that he does not plan to
remove the trees.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Shaw if there is an existing house on the parcel shown as Shaw
(Tax Parcel No. 71- 7 -20).
Mr. Shaw responded, yes, that is his house.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Shaw where is the house located relative to the parcel line.
Mr. Shaw stated that the house is located approximately in the middle of his parcel. He has
a 30 -40 foot front yard to the evergreen trees.
Board Member Finch asked Mr. Shaw how deep will Parcel. A be.
Mr. Shaw stated that it would be 303 feet.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Shaw what his timing is on this subdivision.
Mr. Shaw stated that there had been a closing scheduled for July 17, 1996, but the Balcom-
Pearson transaction in Connecticut put things behind. Parcel A sale is pending right now. Parcel
B, Mr. Shaw would like to have as soon as possible. Mr. Shaw asked how long the subdivision
signs needed to be posted.
Attorney Barney stated that the signs should remain posted until after the Public Hearing.
Board Member Wilcox asked if it is an issue that Mr. Fulkerson did not go out to the
property, because on the survey map it states "no field work ".
Mr.. Shaw stated that Mr. Fulkerson did the original field work four years. ago.
Board Member Wilcox asked if this would be an issue for any of the planners, engineers,
or legal council.
Mr. Shaw stated that Mr. Fulkerson would need to put the pins in prior to the closing with
e PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6,1996
Balcom- Pearson.
Board Member Wilcox stated that Mr. Fulkerson had modified the original survey to reflect
that he found the pin four years ago.
Mr. Shaw stated that all the pins are existing now, except for one that needs to be set. That
would be the one that would be the new line that would extend from his property line through
Balcom- Pearson. Mr. Fulkerson will need to complete all the field work for this subdivision and the
sale of Parcel A.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals would require an updated
survey map.
Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would not need an updated version
for this type of subdivision. The thing the Zoning Board of Appeals would be concerned about is
whether there is a creation of a substandard lot dimension on the side lot. Attorney Barney asked
Mr. Shaw if there is anything located on Parcel B.
Mr. Shaw stated that Parcel B is the parcel that he would be adding to his existing parcel
iswhere the existing house is. The reason for the variance has nothing to do with Parcel B, it has
to do only with Parcel A because it does not have 100 foot frontage.
Board Member Wilcox stated
that
Mr.
Shaw's lot would come into
conformance as a legal
lot with 60 foot frontage on the road
and
a 100
-foot width at the setback
line.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Shaw if there are any plans for subdividing Parcel B.
Mr. Shaw responded, no, that he does not have any plans for subdividing, and part of the
approval for Parcel B is to be consolidated with his current property, and never to be subdivided
in the future.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that this would be part of the proposed resolution as a
condition.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, 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, an Environmental Impact
•
n
U
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Statement will not be required.
13
APPROVED AUGUST
1996
JULY 911996
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 duly closed the matter of Balcom- Pearson subdivision at 8:37 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 0.41 +/= ACRE FROM TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 71 -7 -6, 1.1 +A ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED AT 1035 HANSHAW ROAD FOR
CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 71 -7 -20, LOCATED AT 313
ROAT STREET, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R45. DONALD BALCOM AND SARAH PEARSON,
OWNERS; ROBERT H. SHAW, APPLICANT /AGENT.
The Public Hearing will be rescheduled to August 6, 1996.
ADDITIONAL ITEM: HONORING ROBERT KENERSON.
Chairperson Cornell presented Robert Kenerson with a plaque from the Town Board of the
Town of Ithaca honoring Mr. Kenerson for dedicated service with the Town.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED AUGUSTINE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 109 RICH ROAD, AS
FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW.
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:41 p.m. and read
from the Agenda as posted and as noted above.
John Augustine, Jr. of 109 Rich Road, stated that he would like to have permission from the
Planning Board to subdivide his parcel on Rich Road. He would be retaining Parcel B for his son,
and eventually turn the existing garage into a house. Mr. Augustine is presently selling his house
on 109 Rich Road (Parcel A), but he has been having a problem with buyers with the parcel the
® way it stands. He said there is a purchase offer contingent on what happens with the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals on the subdivision for Parcel A.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Augustine what the problem was for buyers making a
purchase offer on the whole property.
Mr. Augustine stated that it is quite a large piece of property, and the garage itself adds
quite a bit of value to Parcel A.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Augustine if the buyers that have looked at the property are
only interested in the house on Parcel A.
Mr. Augustine stated that was correct.
Planner Cornish stated that the existing house has its own garage and driveway. Looking
at the property, the portion that appears to be the driveway to the rear garage is in fact a driveway,
so it has the appearance of being two separate parcels already. Parcel B is heavily vegetated.
The back garage is not visible from anywhere but Rich Road from the front. Parcel B is not visible
from Troy Road or Coddington Road. There is a parcel next to it that has a similar situation, where
a house was built in the back of the residence, and it was subdivided in a similar way to this.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that this proposal would be requiring variances, and it is
• scheduled with the Zoning Board of Appeals for July 10, 1996.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if this proposal would be for more than one variance.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would be for the frontage dimension on Rich Road
as well as the width of the lot at the setback line.
Planner Cornish stated that the frontage is the only variance the Zoning Board of Appeals
would be hearing on July 10, 1996. This is not a principal structure because it is a garage, not a
residence. The understanding is that the garage would be turned into a residence, since the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance does not allow for an accessory building to stand alone on a lot.
Attorney Barney asked if this proposal was a 280A variance.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he does not believe that it is a 280A.
Attorney Barney stated that 280A of the Town Law is a provision of law whereby someone
cannot build on a lot unless there is at least 15 feet of frontage on a public road, unless they get
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Planner Cornish stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda refers to this proposal as
a 280A.
®
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Augustine if his son plans on living on Parcel B even though
P 9 p 9 g
0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
he will not be living on Parcel A.
Mr. Augustine stated that was correct.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that from the requirements he was reading in the Zoning
Ordinance, the proposed lot seems to be deficient in the minimum width at the street line, which
is required to be 60 feet in an R -15 district. The minimum width at the maximum front yard setback
line, which is measured at 50 feet from the street is supposed to be 100 feet. It looks like both of
these dimensions are deficient in creating Parcel B.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Augustine when the closing is supposed to be on Parcel A.
Mr. Augustine stated that nothing is going to be signed until this proposal goes through the
Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Augustine if this proposal gets approved, when would be the
closing date be.
Mr. Augustine stated that it would be four months after their acceptance.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the proposed resolution would require that the dwelling
unit be created within 12 months from the date of passing the resolution.
Mr. Augustine stated that was correct.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Augustine mentioned that it would "eventually" be
converted into a house.
Mr. Augustine stated that is correct, and that the dwelling unit would be done within 12
months.
Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Augustine if this is a large garage.
Mr. Augustine stated that it is 26 feet by 52 feet.
Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Augustine if his son has any ideas to add onto the garage
to make a house.
Mr. Augustine stated that he would be converting the garage into a house by using the same
dimensions and the same structure. This garage was built to conform to house standards when
he built the garage for something to be done in the future like what he is proposing to do now. The
® building exterior would not be changed, except for adding some windows.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Augustine if this would be a two -story structure, so there
would still be a garage.
Mr. Augustine responded, no, it would be exactly the same as it is now. The garage on
Parcel B actually looks like a house.
Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Augustine if his son plans to add a garage to this once it
is converted into a house.
Mr. Augustine stated that he is not sure what is son would be doing, but eventually he might
want to put a carport off to the side.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there should not be a problem to add a garage
because Parcel B is a good sized lot.
Board Member Ainslie asked if someone wanted to build a carport, would that need
approval.
Attorney Barney stated that they would need a building permit.
® Board Member Bell asked Mr. Augustine what type of foundation the garage had.
Mr. Augustine stated that the foundation is the same as a regular house foundation except
that there is not a basement. The foundation is down 4'/ feet with footers and blocked off 4 feet
with a slab.
Board Member Bell asked Mr. Augustine if the framing is like a house.
Mr. Augustine stated that the framing is 2 inches by 6 inches with full insulation. Trusses
are 16 inches on center.
Board Member Bell asked Mr. Augustine if this existing garage is one big open space for
several cars.
Mr. Augustine stated that was correct.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Augustine if he built this existing garage with the intention
of conversion.
Mr. Augustine stated that when he built the garage, as he got older he would convert this
®garage into a house, and then use it for additional income, but things have changed. The garage
will be converted into a house for his son to live in.
0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 JULY 911996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
0
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, 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, 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 #4.)
Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of the Augustine subdivision at 9:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 0.84 +/- ACRE FROM TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 50-1 -5.4, 1.7 +/- ACRE IN SIZE, LOCATED AT 109 RICH ROAD, RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R45, JOHN J. AUGUSTINE, JR., OWNER /APPLICANT.
The Public Hearing will be rescheduled to August 6, 1996.
AGENDA ITEM:. CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER PAVILION SITE
PLAN, LOCATED ON CODDINGTON ROAD, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW.
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:00 p.m. and read
from the Agenda as posted and as noted above.
Anne Morrissette, Director of the Coddington Road Community Center, stated that the
proposal is for a youth pavilion to be erected. The pavilion would be built as a project of the Youth
Conservation Corp., that is where the funding and labor is coming through. The materials are to
be funded through private donations.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that somewhere in the text the pavilion was described as
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
11
not having a floor, but in the drawing it looks like it would have a floor.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the original proposal was for a dirt floor, but the architect
recommended that the pavilion have a concrete slab. A lot of things were contingent on what sort
of funding this project would get, and once it became fully funded they were able to go with the
better, long term plan.
Louise Mudrak stated that Assistant Town Planner George Frantz originally drew the plans.
First discussions were to have a chip bark type of floor, but looking at the accessibility for
handicapped and elderly, that would not be feasible for them. The reason for the change was for
a harder surface.
Ms. Morrissette stated, hopefully, the pavilion would be used for more secure programming
for a summer playground program that has taken place for the last 12 years. The program is a
Town of Ithaca and County- funded program that takes place at the Coddington Road Community
Center each summer. This program would be canceled if it rains because there is not any shelter
for the children. A pavilion of this size would have many possible uses for the community, such
as picnics. This pavilion would be adjacent to the play field areas and very accessible to them.
7IT*
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the storage area would create a wall on one of the short
Ms. Morrissette stated that the storage area is an added feature due to the funding from
donations.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if this would be an enclosed space of a small room with
storage inside it.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the storage area would be covering approximately 1/6 of the total
area and would be enclosed for lockable storage in the pavilion. There have been some problems
with sporting goods not being returned, and also this would create rain proof storage for programs
to keep their materials in. The Community Center itself, is just a two classroom building with a little
kitchen that is used primarily year round for the child care program that has been there for 12
years.
area.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the pavilion would have flaps to pull down in case of rain.
Ms. Morrissette responded, no, the pavilion would be totally opened except for the storage
Chairperson Cornell asked if that would be adequate in a rain storm.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the proposed pavilion is going to be approximately four times as
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
I]
•
big as the little pavilion that is on the site now, which would still remain. The proposed pavilion
would provide shelter from the rain.
Chairperson Cornell asked Director of Planning Kanter if there were any environmental
impacts on this proposal.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are not any impacts noted.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has some concerns about the drainage of this
proposal. There is no indication of how drainage from the roof or from the concrete floor is to be
handled.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the excavator has looked at the site. The plan is for a platform
for the site of the pavilion plus approximately 8 to 10 feet all the way around. The pavilion would
be built on a slope coming towards Coddington Road, so there would need to be a swale to divert
the water into the creek.
Ms. Mudrak stated that the area is very brushy, and the Community Center intends to retain
the brushy area as it is. As the water comes down the hill, it will have a slight swale. There would
be drainage from the roof which will flow away from the building on the uphill side toward the swale,
which is very important to maintain vegetation.
Board Member Hoffmann stated if there is not any foundation drainage at all, and there are
a lot of children anxious to run out right after a rain storm, the ground around the platform could
get very muddy.
Ms. Mudrak stated that she had proposed between the pillars on the side, would be a ramp
made of bark mulch, which would be contained by embedded landscape timbers.
Board Member Kenerson asked Ms. Mudrak if there would be any utility service to this
pavilion.
Ms. Mudrak stated that the Center would like to run electricity to the pavilion, but not water.
If the Center wanted to run water to the pavilion, that is another issue that would require adequate
and proper subsurface gravel. The Center is not intending to run water out there. The electric
would be helpful for people who use the pavilion for art projects, or if a coffee pot needed to
hooked up for serving.
Board Member Kenerson asked if the property is used during the daylight hours at the
present time.
Ms. Mudrak stated that there is not heavy late night use of the center now. The Center is
not programming to use the pavilion at night.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
0
Attorney Barney asked Ms. Morrissette if the Center is licensed to operate as a Day Care
Center or a Day Care Facility.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the Center is licensed by the New York State Department of
Social Services for the Child Care Program. The Center is regulated by the Health Department for
the playground program because it comes under the definition of a camp. The preschool and
toddlers, 2, 3, and 4 year old programs, are Day Care licensed, and the school aged children for
the summer are part of the Health Department.
Attorney Barney asked if the new pavilion would be part of the Day Care.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the pavilion would be part of the Health Department regulations.
The pavilion would be off limits to the Day Care.
Attorney Barney asked if the Day Care is run year round.
Ms. Morrissette responded, yes.
Chairperson Cornell asked why the new pavilion would not be used for the Day Care.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the Day Care had to give up their use of the small pavilion every
summer so the day camp could be done for the bigger children. If this proposal is approved, the
Day Care would be allowed to have their small pavilion back.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there was any possibility that the Community Center might
enclose this pavilion in the future.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the Community Center is very interested, in the future, in doing
something with the enclosed space of their building, but that was not feasible at this point. This
project is going with the demand of the times and the availability of the funding. This is really an
incredible gift, but that the Center needs to act quickly to take advantage of that gift. The architect
has donated his time.
Ms. Mudrak stated that the location of the proposed pavilion would be very expensive to
enclose.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that with the proposed pavilion being so close to the lot line,
that it would be okay with it being an accessory structure, but if the Center thinks of doing other
things with the pavilion such as enclosing it in, then it would be too close to the lot line.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the most enclosed the pavilion would be is if the Center puts up
any blue tarp on the side.
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 JULY 9, 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
0
Board Member Wilcox stated that he has one concern, and that is children could roller blade
on the concrete slab.
Ms. Morrissette stated that the Center would not allow it. There is a blacktop play ground
where they could roller blade, but the pavilion would have picnic tables in there.
MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
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.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Finch.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
(NOTE: Adopted Resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #5.)
Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of Coddington Road Community Center pavilion
proposal at 9:25 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING
SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A PAVILION, +/- 960 SQ. FT. IN SIZE, TO
PROVIDE SHELTER AND STORAGE CUPBOARDS FOR YOUTH PROGRAMS, TO BE
LOCATED AT 920 CODDINGTON ROAD ON TAX PARCEL NO. 47- 141.3, APPROXIMATELY
600 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH UPDIKE ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30.
CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., OWNER; LOUISE MUDRAK, AGENT.
Chairperson Cornell declared that above - mentioned matter duly opened at 9:30 p.m. and
read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board should have another Public Hearing after
the formal newspaper publication. To move forward for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on
July 10, 1996, the Planning Board should consider the resolution that has been placed here for this
proposal, and the Planning Board should make a recommendation for the Zoning Board of
.7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Appeals.
22
APPROVED AUGUST 6,1996
Chairperson Cornell asked if this should be held as a Public Hearing.
JULY 99 1996
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board can proceed by opening and closing the
Public Hearing. There is a question about the Day Care Center. If this is not a Day Care Center,
then the Public Hearing by the Planning Board is not needed at all, nor is a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would only need to grant the approval for
an enlargement a non - conforming use, and that does not require any actions from the Planning
Board. If it is a Day Care Center or Facility, that use is permitted in an R -30 zone, but only by
Special Approval and only if the site plan has been approved. Attorney Barney stated that the
Planning Board may need to have another Public Hearing for the Coddington Road Community
Center after proper notice in the paper.
Chairperson Cornell asked Attorney Barney if the Planning Board should adjourn the Public
Hearing.
Attorney Barney stated that he would like to have the Planning Board consider the resolution
for the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation for July 10, 1996 meeting. If no one raises an
issue about the Coddington Road Community Center Public Hearing within 30 days after the
Planning Board approved the resolution, that the issue would become moot anyway.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this is an Public Hearing, and asked if anyone from the
public wished to speak.
Louise Mudrak stated that she is in favor of the Coddington Road Community Center's new
pavilion proposal. She has sent her own children there, and she would like to see the pavilion
built. The Board of Directors of the Community Center was concerned when the proposed pavilion
idea came up, so they did send a letter to all of the abutting property owners. The letter was
mailed on June 19, 1996, and they have not had any negative response. There have been several
positive responses.
Ann Silsbee of 915 Coddington Road, stated that she came to the meeting for information,
which she said she has received. Ms. Silsbee stated that she is neutral about this proposal, but
she feels that the Community Center needs this. The.pavilion does not show any harm, and looks
like a very useful addition. She only would be concerned if there was any indication of some kind
of major expansion of activity, but it looks like everything is going fine. Ms. Silsbee stated that the
Community Center and the Day Care Center have been very good neighbors.
Chairperson Cornell asked Ms. Silsbee if the pavilion would have a visual impact.
Ms. Silsbee stated that the pavilion would be located behind the Community Center from
where her land is. There are no plans for her lot that abuts the Community Center parcel, but
® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 JULY 91 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
eventually it would be sold to another owner that may build a house on it. She wants to keep the
land in the state where it would not lose value because that would be a concern of the future, but
at the moment it seems all right.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there may be another Public Hearing for this project, and
that Ms. Silsbee is welcome to come again to speak in favor of the proposal.
Chairperson Cornell asked what the exterior would look like.
Ms. Mudrak stated that the most visible part would be the storage structure which would be
trimmed in pine or hemlock. The pavilion would be done in a natural state.
Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone was prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
® 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site
Plan 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 Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to
the proposed site plan entitled "New Pavilion, Coddington Road Community Center,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by the Planning Department
and dated June 19, 1996, and drawing entitled "CCC Youth Pavilion -- Preliminary,
Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, NY" prepared by Ernie Bayles,
RA and dated June 20, 1996, conditioned upon the following:
a. submission of an original or Mylar copy of the final site plan.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as
® demonstrated by the applicant;
n
•
n
u
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. the specific proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of
development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation
that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Finch.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
(NOTE: Adopted Resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #6.)
Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of the Coddington Road Community Center
Pavilion at 9:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES= MAY 28, 1996, JUNE 4, 1996, JUNE 11, 19966
MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 28,
1996, be and hereby are approved as written with the following corrections:
That on Page 7, Paragraph 4, states "Mr. Bell further stated that the part by the intersection
is paved, but the part along the horse field is paved.", should be changed to state "Mr. Bell stated
that the part by the intersection is paved, but the part along the horse field is n-at paved."
That on Page 11, Paragraph 4, states "Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Attorney
for the Town Barney pointed out a major obstacle with cluster subdivisions, at least in Ithaca;
people in this area are not interested in attached housing. Mr. Frantz stated that people are not
interested in homeowners associations. Mr. Frantz stated that there is single family detached
homes on slightly condensed lots that resulted in open space which is quite considerable, rather
than being put into a homeowner's association for being attached to Buttermilk Falls State Park.
Mr. Frantz stated that there are ways of getting cluster subdivisions developed that also avoid
those two very important obstacles. ", should be changed to state "Assistant Town Planner Frantz
stated that Attorney for the Town Barney pointed out a major obstacle with cluster subdivisions,
at least in Ithaca, that people in this area are not interested in attached housing. Mr. Frantz stated
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 25 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
that people are not interested in homeowners association either. Mr. Frantz stated that there is
single family detached homes on slightly condensed lots that resulted in open space, which is quite
considerable, rather than being put into a homeowners association as being attached to Buttermilk
Falls State Park. Mr. Frantz stated that there are ways of getting cluster subdivisions developed
that also avoid those two very important obstacles."
That on Page 15, Paragraph 2, states "Director of Engineering Walker stated that other
bases for lots of law suits from cracks and if someone trips on it.", should be changed to state
"Director of Engineering Walker stated that another basis for many law suits is if someone trips
on the cracks."
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.
MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Herbert Finch:
• RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 4,
1996, be and hereby are approved as written with the following correction:
That Page 19, Paragraph 3, states "Ms. Hoffmann stated that the smaller rectangles pattern
path is 5% percent grade or less, and that the other one is the trail. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in
the new plans both paths were removed. ", should be changed to state "Ms. Hoffmann stated that
the smaller rectangle pattern path is 5 percent or less grade, and that the other one is the trail.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that the smaller12ath shown was available to the residents only. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that in the new plans both paths were removed."
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Wilcox.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 11
1996, be and hereby are approved as written with the following correction:
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
That on Page 6, Paragraph 5, states "Board Member Bell asked if both affordable and
market rate units would have the same size of lighting fixtures. ", should be changed to state "Board
Member Bell asked if both affordable and market rate units would be the same size."
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Kenerson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Board Member Wilcox asked if the Planning Board would be having a special meeting on
July 23, 1996.
Attorney Barney stated that after hearing the matters discussed on the agenda, there
appears to be two matters that needed to be dealt with quickly. There were the Soreng subdivision
. and the Coddington Road Community Center. He suggested having short Public Hearings on July
161 1996 for Soreng and the Coddington Road Community Center, and the other three proposal
can be added to the August 6, 1996, Planning Board meeting. Attorney Barney asked the Planning
Board if they would want to reschedule these Public Hearings as he stated.
The Planning Board Members were all in agreement.
Board Member Ainslie asked if Assistant Town Planner George Frantz's packet which was
sent to the Planning Board Members regarding Saddlewood Farms would be much of a problem.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board would be discussing this proposal
thoroughly.
Board Member Ainslie stated that this proposed site is in an Agricultural District for four
years until it comes up for revision.
Director of Planning Kanter stated, to clarify the record, that the memo was not sent by
Assistant Town Planner Frantz. The memo was put together by Christiann Dean as Chair of the
Agricultural Committee, and she reflected the results of the Agricultural Committee meeting
regarding Saddlewood. The memo was not put together or done by staff.
Chairperson Cornell asked if a landowner wants to take the land out of an Agricultural
• District, would they have to pay back any of the tax relief they got, and what about the section that
states the land has to stay in for the remaining four years.
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 JULY 99 1996
APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1996
•
•
Director of Planning Kanter stated that has no effect on what they can do with the property.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the land stays in the Agricultural District, would the land still
be developable.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that was correct.
Board Member Ainslie stated that in the letter, Marybeth Holub, Chair of the Tompkins
County Agricultural Protection Board, stated that they cannot take public money, which this is, that
they cannot run water and sewer through an agricultural district and hook houses onto it.
Chairperson Cornell asked if this would be approved by the commission.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that what it does is trigger a process where the State
Department of Agriculture and the County Agricultural Farm and Protection Board enter into the
process as advisory bodies to help the localities determine whether there is going to be any
adverse impact on other properties within the Agricultural District. This is really a process, not a
regulation that tells them what they can or cannot do on the property while being in an Agricultural
District. This simply triggers this additional level of review.
Chairperson Cornell asked if someone wants to remove the land from the tax district, then
do they stop getting the tax breaks and pay back the taxes saved. Then they would request that
the land be removed from the Agricultural District when the next review period came, which in this
case would be four years, and if there are any public monies to be used, then they would have to
involve the State Commissioner of Agriculture for the discussion making process.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would also require what would become part of the
Environmental Impact Statement, which is specifically an Agricultural Impact Statement, which
needs to identify what specifically the effects on the rest of the agricultural district would be if this
parcel is developed.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the memo from Christiann Dean is confusing, because she
is trying to convey what the committee is talking about.
Board Member Ainslie stated that there is nobody that is going to farm that land, so the
Planning Board suggested that the Eddy's should do something with the land. The Town set up
an Agricultural District that was to be farm land, but if there is no one to farm it, then there is a
problem.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that if someone develops the land, the possibility that
someone in the future could farm that land may be precluded.
Board Member Ainslie stated that would be alright if someone would want to pay the taxes
•
r:
41
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
for the land.
28
APPROVED AUGUST
EtlL
JULY 99 1996
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT.
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the July 9, 1996, Meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
DRAFTED: 7/11/96 by DAK.
P ar
ep�ed�b`y�
De orah A. Kelley,
Keyboard Speciali:
nutes Recorder.
:Resp_ tfully sub itted
to
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Mary Br nt,
Administrative Secretary.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Date:
ATTENDANCE SHEET
PLEASE.- PRINT. YOUR, NAM F.: ADDRESS OR AFFILIATE*
( Please. PRINT' to, ensure Accuracy in Official Minutes )
'
l0 R)G
s
. i iI�^rte
C�`
•
L
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION. SEQR
FINAL
Soreng to Hilker Property Transfer
275 Burns Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, July 9, 1996
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 0.09 +/- acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48- 1- 14.32,
2.3 +/- acres in size, located at 275 Burns Road, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 48- 1- 14.313, located at adjacent on the northeast, Residence District R-
30. Robert and Nancy Soreng, Owners; Charles Guttman, Esq., Agent.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to
Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on July 9, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning Department,- a survey map entitled "Survey Map of
Lands & Dwelling at 275 Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York "; prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, N.Y.S.R.E.& L.S. dated June 21, 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.
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
7/10/96,
Administrative
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR
John Babcock (Coy Glen) Subdivision
230 Culver Road
® Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Tax Parcel No. 31444
Planning Board, July 9, 1996
MOTION by Gregory Bell, Seconded by Herbert Finch.
WHEREAS,
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -1 -14, 105.9+ acres in size, into three lots,
Parcel A consisting of 28.22+ acres, Parcel B consisting of 4.18+ acres, and Parcel C consisting
of 73.5+ acres, located at 230 Culver Road, Residence District R -30. Parcels A and B are
proposed to be conveyed to Cornell University for permanent preservation as a natural area.
Parcel C is to be retained by the owner. John B. Babcock, Owner; Dana Batley, 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 Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on July 9, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the
Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of John B. Babcock
Located on Culver Road," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors and dated
February 7, 1996, and amended May 28, 1996, and June 19, 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 Approval;
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 Environmental Quality Review Act for the
above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be
required.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
__O� 414cel ZL�,
��&AA Z �2/= (Z C / 114, R � 11 ,
Starr Hays, Secretary, Mar Bry n , Admini r tive Secr ry.
Town of Ithaca.
7/9/96.srh
•
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR
Balcom/Pearson Two -lot Subdivision
1035 Hanshaw Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Planning Board, July 9, 1996
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Herbert Finch:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 0.41 +/- acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -7 -6, 1.1
+/- acres in size, located at 1035 Hanshaw Road for consolidation with Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 71 -7 -20, located at 313 Roat Street, Residence District R -15. Donald
Balcom and Sarah Pearson, Owners; Robert N. Shaw, Applicant/Agent.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to
Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on July 9, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning Department, a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No.
1035 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York "; prepared by
Allen T. Fulkerson, P.L.S. dated June 10, 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, RecordingF Secretary,
® Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
7/10/96.
O ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR
Augustine Two -Lot Subdivision
109 Rich Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
July 9, 1996
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision
and
of
Final
Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 50- 1 -5.4, 1.7±
parcels, 0.86± and 0.83± acres in size
at 109 Rich Road, Residence District
Jr., Owner /Applicant, and
acres in size,
respectively,
R -15. John J. Augustine,
into 2
located
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 July 9, 1996, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I
prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town
Planning staff, a subdivision plat entitled "Survey Map of 109
Rich Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County - New York"
®' prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, 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 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, Mary ryanVve Recording Secretary, Administra Secretary.
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
® 7/10/96.
FINAL
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR
Coddington Road Community Center Youth Pavilion
® 920 Coddington Road
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board, July 9, 1996
MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and
further, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval
per Article 12, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the placement
of a pavilion, 960 +/- sq. ft. in size, to provide shelter and storage cupboards for youth
programs, to be located at 920 Coddington Road on Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3,
approximately 600 feet east of the intersection with Updike Road, Residence District
R -30. Coddington Road Community Center, Inc., Owner; Louise Mudrak, 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 July 9; 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan entitled "New Pavilion,
S: Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York"
prepared by the Planning Department and dated June 19, 1996, a drawing entitled
"CRCC Youth Pavilion -- Preliminary, Coddington Road Community Center, Town of
Ithaca, NY" prepared by Ernie Bayles, RA and dated June 20, 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, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Finch.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
ZAM�, Al
® Starr Hays, Recording ecretary, Marvel ryant dministrativ Secretary.
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
7/10/96,
C
L]
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Coddington Road Community Center Youth Pavilion
920 Coddington Road
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board, July 9, 1996
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS,
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and
further, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval
per Article 12, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the placement
of a pavilion, 960 +/- sq. ft. in size, to provide shelter and storage cupboards for youth
programs, to be located at 920 Coddington Road on Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3,
approximately 600 feet east of the intersection with Updike Road, Residence District
R -30. Coddington Road Community Center, Inc., Owner; Louise Mudrak, 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 July
9, 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 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 9, 1996 has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a site plan entitled "New Pavilion, Coddington Road Community
Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by the Planning
Department and dated June 19, 1996, a drawing entitled "CRCC Youth Pavilion --
Preliminary, Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, NY" prepared by
Ernie Bayles, RA and dated June 20, 1996, and other application materials;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site
Plan 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 Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the
proposed site plan entitled "New Pavilion, Coddington Road Community Center, Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by the Planning Department and
dated June 19, 1996, and drawing entitled "CRCC Youth Pavilion -- Preliminary,
Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, NY" prepared by Ernie Bayles,
RA and dated June 20, 1996, conditioned upon the following:
In Coddington Road Community Center Youth Pavilion
920 Coddington Road
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board, July 9, 1996
a. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan.
C
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
-Page 2-
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as
demonstrated by the applicant;
b. the
existing
and probable future
character of the neighborhood
will
not be
adversely affected as
a result of the proposed project;
C, the specific proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation
that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Finch.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Starr Hays, Recording Secretary
Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
7/10/96.
( FILENAME: \Starr \Resols \CRCCsite.Fin)
Secretary.
in
0
1.
a.
b.
c.
LiZC'C
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
Coo6NAL
= ITEM SUBMITTED
NOT APPLICABLE
WAIVE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Proposed preliminary site plan, to include.
VVicinity Map showing the general location of the
property and proposed project at a scale of 1" =1000' or
1"= 2000'.
V
d. �'In
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.
Size. location,. proposed use, design, and construction
materials of all proposed structures.
Location, design, and construction materials of all
proposed parking areas, access drives and loading
areas.
e. Location of fire and -other emergency zones, including
- -the_ location of fire hydrants .
f. V -Location, design, and construction materials of all
- -proposed pede- strian -and bicycle facilities.
s. NSA'
h.
io v
i. W
•
Location, design, and construction materials of all
proposed water and sewage facilities.
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.
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.
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.
Prelim nary site Plan Checklist 0102
Drainage plan which includes a description of method
i.
11
n.
o0
p-
q-
r.
so
t.
u.
2.
3.
4.
59
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
1A� retention if required.
yv Landscaping plan and planting schedule including
location and proposed design of buffers.
Size, location, design, and construction materials of
all proposed signs and lighting.
V 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.
v 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,, with a map scale of 111-=50'
- /
in bar or graphic form.
y Name of proposed project.
V_ Name of Town, County, and State.
V Date of Site Plan.
Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted).
V" 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.
JCompleted and signed Development Review Application,
Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up
RnJ Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.)
vv 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.
u
r�
LI
•
•
•
Preliminary Site Plan Checklist
,. J
z
PRELIMI.
6/95
Fully completed and signed Short
Assessment Form, Part I (SERF) or
Assessment Form, Part I (LEAF)e
to which to submit.)
-3-
Environmental
Full Environmental
(See Town Planner as
Reduced copy of all sheets of the proposed
(no larger than 11" X 17 ") and copy of all
required above (except development review
and escrow forms):
SITE PLAN
site plan
other items
application
•
•
L.J
C �cc )6j 1 RV1 t 110(i
20 Q9, .►n. -b/p\ "
FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
V = ITEM SUBMITTED
►y /A = NOT APPLICABLE
G = CONDITION OF APPROVAL
w = wP1 V I
1. All items submitted with the preliminary site plan
application with modifications made according to the
approval given by the Town Planning Board.
29 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
F/ granted.
3. v Detailed sizing and final.mater.ial specifications of
all required improvements.
- -4. V - Construction retails of all proposed structures, roeds,
- water /sewage facilities, and other -improvements.
50 Completed and signed Development Review Application,
Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up
withholding Form (if required). (only (1) copy each.)
60 y Payment of additional review fees as needed and
deposited in an escrow account.
7. % original or mylar copy of final site plan to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca.
rotr l•1u /rltwee
6/6/95
MB