Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-06-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 6, 2000, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; James Ainslie, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning; Joan Lent Noteboom, Town Clerk; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Andy Frost, Director Building /Zoning (8:10 p.m.); Mike Smith, Planner; Nipawan Nitiprapa, Planning Intern. EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. ALSO PRESENT: Greg Halkiopoulos, 409 North Cayuga Street; David Neish, 214 Sapsucker Woods Road; James Skaley, 940 Dryden Road; Helen & Bill Scoones, 15 Sapsucker Woods Road; Emia Oppenheim, 3D Vista Lane; Bill Hastings, 3 Vista Lane; Joseph Giordano, 100 Christopher Circle; Gordon Chambers, 3C Vista Lane; Arthur L. Bloom, 118 Judd Falls Road; Steve Lucente, 981 Taughannock Blvd; David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects; Rocco Lucente, 435 Taughannock Blvd; Scott Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 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 May 26, 2000, and May 31, 2000, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the 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 May 31, 2000. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. OTHER BUSINESS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, stated that he would like to introduce the summer intern, Nipawan Nitiprapa, to the board. She is a graduate student in the Cornell Planning Program. She helped with the first item on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVD - APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, East Side Restaurant — Outdoor Seating Area, East Hill Plaza. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Greg Halkiopoulos, 409 North Cayuga Street, stated he does not believe that there are any environmental issues. They would like to utilize the front of the restaurant. They would like to use ten tables and up to thirty chairs for a specific period of time from May to September. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does like the idea. She does have some concerns about the foot traffic that passes by the restaurant. She is concerned that the tables might interfere with the foot traffic. Mr. Halkiopoulos responded that he feels that they will not be interfering because of the size of the area. There is an adequate sidewalk between the flowering plants and the parking lot. It is over six feet wide. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the sidewalk was recently refinished. It has pitted over the winter. There must have been something wrong with the original concrete. Mr. Halkiopoulos stated that the concrete was poured during the fall. It caused the problem. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is another restaurant one store over to the west. They might want to put table outside as well. It might be too much of a good thing. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this is a unique location because of the planters and the area set aside out front. Board Member Ainslie stated that the planters become very convenient. Without the planters he probably would not have been interested in outdoor seating. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the only problem would be when it is raining and foot traffic will not want to walk around. It is less likely that they will be offering outside food service when it is raining. Mr. Kanter stated that the day before when it was raining the rain was coming into where the tables would be located. It might not be that desirable when it is raining. Mr. Halkiopoulos stated that they probably would not use the outdoor tables when it is raining. There are not many people who wish to eat outdoors while it is raining. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the tables could be easily moved in. They have made room indoors for the tables. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVD - APPROVED Nipawan Nitiprapa, Planning Intern, stated that there is enough room for the tables to move them indoors and outdoors. There is enough space for walking. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it mentions that the restaurant would be open from 8:00 a.m. everyday. Mr. Halkiopoulos stated that the restaurant operating hours are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. He mentioned 8:00 a.m. so that he would have the flexibility in case there is a need. Sunday is the only day that they serve breakfast. They close at 5 :00 p.m. on Sundays. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the packet the hours mentioned were 8 :00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. Mr. Halkiopoulos stated that there is a possibility that they might want to expand their hours during the summer depending on how busy they are. Board Member Hoffmann asked if Mr. Halkiopoulos is asking the board to approve the maximum number of hours. Mr. Halkiopoulos responded yes. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -54 — SEQR, Proposed Use of Chairs and Tables Outdoors, East Side Restaurant, 335 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by James Ainslie. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed use of chairs and tables outside at the East Side Restaurant located at 335 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C." The tables and chairs will be brought out from inside the restaurant during business hours, which are Monday to Saturday from 8 :00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday from 8 :oo a.m. to 9:00 p.m., from May until end of September. The proposed action will not increase the seating capacity of the restaurant. Greg Halkiopoulos, Owner /Applicant. 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 6, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD-APPROVED Planning staff, site plan no. SP 101 dated May 11, 2000 (date stamped May 15, 2000) and SP 102 dated May 12, 2000 (date stamped May 30, 2000), prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan, 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. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed outdoor seating area to consist of approximately 26 chairs and 10 tables at the East Side Restaurant located at East Hill Plaza, 335 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.121, Business District C. The tables and chairs will be brought out from inside the restaurant during business hours and will not increase the seating capacity of the restaurant, Greg Halkiopoulos, Owner/Agent. Mr. Halkiopoulos stated that it should be 30 chairs and 10 tables. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the proposed resolution refers to site plans SP101 and SP102. The site plans have 30 chairs. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she noticed that configuration of the tables is different on one plan compared to the other. She thought it was just to show a variety of how to set up the tables. SP101 looks as if it has 28 chairs, but the other materials state up to 30 chairs. Mr. Kanter stated that SP101 was meant to be a location map. SP102 is the revised plan. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD-APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that it also mentioned in the text 28 chairs, but in another location it was 26 chairs. Mr. Kanter stated that there was an earlier proposal that included a lower number of chairs. When staff went for a staff visit, the tables were setup for sample seating. It was evident that the configuration on SP102 was fine. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the resolution does not refer to a specific number of tables and chairs. It refers to SP101 and SP102. SP102 clearly shows 10 tables and 30 seats. Mr. Kanter stated that they did receive a letter from Cornell University relating to item d of the resolution. It stated that it was written notice of the landlord's approval for the East Side Restaurant placement of outside seating at 335 Pine Tree Road. This approval is subject to the East Side Restaurant receiving proper approval from the Town of Ithaca and the necessary permits. The landlord reserves the right to limit the outdoor seating and withdraw the approval at any time. Condition "d" has been met. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-55 - Proposed Use of Chairs and Tables Outdoors, East Side Restaurant, 335 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza. MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed use of chairs and tables outside at the East Side Restaurant located at 335 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.121, Business District "C." The table and chairs will be brought out from inside the restaurant during business hours, which are Monday to Saturday from 8.00am to 11.00pm and Sunday from 8.00am to 9.00pm, from May until end of September. The proposed action will not increase the seating capacity of the restaurant. Greg Halkiopoulos, Owner/Applicant. 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 6, 2000, 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 on June 6, 2000 has reviewed and accepted as adequate site plan no. SP 101 dated May 11, 2000 (date stamped May 15, 2000) and SP 102 dated May 12, 2000 (date stamped May 30, 2000), prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD-APPROVED 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 Checklist, 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 for the proposed use of chairs and tables outdoors as shown on the plans entitled "SP 101" dated May 11, 2000 (date stamped May 15, 2000) and "SP 102" dated May 12, 2000 (date stamped May 30, 2000), prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, subject to the following conditions: a. That this approval be limited to a period of one year from the date of this approval, after which the applicant may re-apply for site plan approval for the outdoor seating area, b. That the hours during which tables and chairs can be placed outdoors be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. — Mondays through Saturdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. — Sundays, c. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plans SP 101 and SP 102, d. Submission of documentation that the owners/managers of East Hill Plaza have given permission to operate the proposed outdoor seating area. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Judd Falls Plaza — Phase I Interior Modifications, Karate and Mail Store, 350 Pine Tree Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m. David Bravo-Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, stated that this is Phase I of internal renovations to Judd Falls Plaza and Ides Bowling Lanes. One store is combining into another store. The resulting vacant space is being taken over by the adjacent store. The Karate Studio is expanding into space adjacent to it doubling its size. This space is being vacated by the dry cleaner. The dry cleaner is moving to space Number 1 and is being consolidated into the Mail Store. The Mail Store is getting small extra square footage from the bowling alley. It is minor partition changes that are taking place within existing construction. The square footage and parking remains the same. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there would be changes to the exterior. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD-APPROVED Mr. Bravo-Cullen responded no. Board Member Hoffmann asked if what one sees on SB1, the space referred to as Number 2, is the Karate Studio after it is complete. Mr. Bravo-Cullen stated that Board Member Hoffmann is correct. Drawing Al shows the detail of the renovations at the Karate Studio. They are removing the wall between the two spaces. Drawing A3 shows the renovations in the Mail Store. It has an addition of approximately 145 square feet. This space is gained from the bowling alley and is added to the Mail Store by a partition change. It allows space for the dry cleaning pick-up area. Chairperson Wilcox asked if it would only be a drop-off and pick-up area. Mr. Bravo-Cullen responded yes. The dry cleaning will be done at their main store. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:55 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-56 — SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Karate & Mail Store, 350 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62-1-1, 62-1-2.1, 62-1- 2.2 and 62-1-3.2. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62-1-1, 62-1-2.1, 62-1-2.2 and 62-1-3.2, Business District C. Phase I alterations, which are the subject of the current application, include expanding Seido Karate into an adjoining space by removing an interior wall, and Angelo's Drycleaners will be vacating their current space and moving into the expanded space of the Mail & More Store. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner/Applicant; David Bravo-Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, 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 6, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Site Plan," dated May 4, 2000, "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Floor Plan at Karati Studio," "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Demo Plan at Mail Store," and "Alteration to Judd Falls Plaza — Floor Plan at Mail Store," dated March 21, 2000, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and other application material, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD-APPROVED 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan 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 State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 62-1-1, 62-1-2.1, 62-1-2.2 and 62-1-3.2, Business District C. Phase I alterations, which are the subject of the current application, include expanding Seido Karate into an adjoining space by removing an interior wall, and Angelo's Drycleaners will be vacating their current space and moving into the expanded space of the Mail & More Store. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner/Applicant; David Bravo-Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the public hearing is only for Phase I. The board did receive some information on Phase II. Does the board need to consider this at the same time? Chairperson Wilcox asked what might there be about Phase II that might have an impact on approval of Phase I. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is an implication in the letter from the County that it would be more of a traffic generator. She cannot imagine that the improvements in Phase I would create more traffic. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it would be difficult to measure any increase in traffic. When and if Phase II comes before the board, the board can look forward to some long discussions. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD-APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that Phase II will be before the board at the June 20, 2000 meeting. There will be some traffic information provided to the board. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they could assume that all the Ryder trucks would be moved from this parking lot to another location. Scott Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane, stated that it is not a function of Phase I. Phase I will not have an impact on the trucks. The trucks will be gone in Phase II. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the business would still remain. Mr. Hamilton stated that the business would no longer be there. It will never be back. Chairperson Wilcox stated that when Mr. Hamilton was before the board for the approval of the truck rental he was very positive of the business and owner. Mr. Hamilton stated that everyone learns from experience. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-57 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Karate & Mail Store, 350 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62-1-1, 62-1-2.1, 62-1-2.2 and 62-1-3.2. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62-1-1, 62-1-2.1, 62-1-2.2 and 62-1-3.2, Business District C. Phase I alterations, which are the subject of the current application, include expanding Seido Karate into an adjoining space by removing an interior wall, and Angelo's Drycleaners will be vacating their current space and moving into the expanded space of the Mail & More Store. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner/Applicant; David Bravo-Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, 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 6, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 6, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Site Plan," dated May 4, 2000, "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Floor Plan at Karati Studio," "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED — Demo Plan at Mail Store," and "Alteration to Judd Falls Plaza — Floor Plan at Mail Store," dated March 21, 2000, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and other application material, and 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza, located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62-1-1, 62-1-2.1, 62-1-2.2 and 62-1-3.2, Business District C, as shown on plans entitled "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Site Plan," dated May 4, 2000, "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Floor Plan at Karati Studio," 'Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Demo Plan at Mail Store," and 'Alteration to Judd Falls Plaza — Floor Plan at Mail Store," dated March 21, 2000, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, subject to the following condition: a. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding owner occupancy requirements at 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road and at Cayuga Vista Townhouses on Vista Lane. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Attorney Barney stated that there are two separate projects and their history is a little different. Sapsucker Woods was originally constructed as two-family homes. Each home had 7 bedrooms at a time when the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance permitted two-family houses and defined family as people related by blood, marriage or up to 7 unrelated people. During the course of that construction the Town changed its rules and reduced the number of unrelated people to 3 persons. However, it was done at a time when a couple of the houses were built and building permits issued for others. There were 8 or 10 buildings under construction. It was litigated as to whether the rule could be made applicable to those. The Appellant division ruled it could not be. For whatever reason after a PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED period of time, the operation of these buildings as two 7-bedroom apartments was not attractive to the owner. The owner came forward with a proposal that they would like to change the buildings to four- plexes. There would be four apartments in each house. It had the stipulation that the owner of the property would occupy one of the apartments. After a considerable amount of discussion, the Town Board adopted a Zoning Ordinance amendment that incorporated those provisions. Over the years, the enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement has been difficult for the Town. Initially the homes were sold and largely owner occupied. It was at the height of the real estate market. Then shortly thereafter, market prices came down considerably. The ability to re-sell the properties with the owner occupancy restriction was limited. A number of them were sold and from time to time the Town Board told the enforcement staff not to start enforcement proceedings because it is unfair to people because of the market. This has changed. The market has started to improve. The Town Board is now considering whether or not they want to enforce the requirements. Cayuga Vista was a Townhouse project close to Ithaca College. This board might have been involved with the owner occupancy requirement with the expectation that with having the owner occupancy requirement it would preclude turning the property into rental property for students. When the project was underway, some of the buildings were sold and were owner occupied. It was at a time when it was a difficult time for the developers to sell some of the units. Law imposes the Sapsucker Woods requirement. It is part of a separate Multiple-Residence District with special requirements. The Cayuga Vista limitation is imposed by a restrictive covenant approved by the Planning Board and the Town Board. The Town Board is interested in the Planning Board's view of the matter as to whether there is a strong feeling that the owner occupancy requirement should be maintained. Mr. Kanter stated that this was set up as a public informational hearing. It is different than normal because there is no specific proposal for the public to react to. It does allow the public to share their views on the matter. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there is no proposed resolution. The board needs to decide what they would like to recommend. Attorney Barney stated that these are the only two developments in the Town of Ithaca that have this restriction. Chairperson Wilcox asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Emia Oppenheim, 3D Vista Lane, stated that she is an owners daughter of a Cayuga Vista property. What is the specific owner occupancy? They have had trouble getting a hold of the original contract. Is it two years? Attorney Barney responded that they have a couple years that they can lease. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Ms. Oppenheim stated that she does not know how many condos are owned. There is only one of the three units that is actually lived in by the owners. Ithaca College students rent all but one condo. They do look like it. There is one family that is renting. Attorney Barney stated that no unit should be rented for a cumulative period of 12 months within a continuous 36-month period, although permission can be received to rent for a longer period of time from the board of managers. In no case may a unit owner rent or sublet a unit for more than 24 months cumulative in a 5-year period. Arthur Bloom, 118 Judd Falls Road, stated that in 1987 they purchased a Sapsucker Woods property from a private owner that was occupying the home. They formed a family partnership with his two sons. The one son took residence and management requirements. They kept it until 1996. They then realized that they would be in violation of this current regulation. It was immediately put on the market. It was privately advertised for one year. In 1997 they turned it over to a realtor. They have not had any luck selling it at a considerably lower price than what they paid for it. The issue of owner occupancy always comes up. They are no longer able to maintain it. They have had to turn the property over to a management company. They are losing money every month on it. The restrictive clause is against them trying to sell the property. He does not think it is in the business of the Town Board to punish them for a bad real estate investment. He would like to sell the property. They do recognize that they have been in violation of the law for several years. Joe Giordano, 100 Christopher Lane, stated that he is a rental agent with Lucente Homes and Apartments. He was a managing agent at a real estate company called Belcore Real Estate in 1985. These were good intentions. He was here since this began. His first contact with the Cayuga Vista project was after the project was built. The owner had to move. The townhouses are not desirable. The Deer Run Townhouses are much more attractive and put Cayuga Vista out. He rented one of the Cayuga Vista townhouses. It is a row of buildings that look like apartment houses. It is their best use. He has been close to the Sapsucker Woods project. His brother is an owner occupant of 206 Sapsucker Woods Road. There is an absentee owner house next to their property. The house looks like a dump. The value can be restored to the neighborhood. The best way to restore the value of the neighborhood is to restore the value of the real estate. There needs to be increasing income. There are some problems with apartments, but if the owner occupancy is changed, the property will earn more money. Better cash flow will give the owners better resources to work with. He strongly urges the board to revoke the owner occupancy requirement. It was a good intention, but it has gone astray. It would be difficult to convert the houses to two-family houses, which would cause a great hardship to each owner. Attorney Barney stated that the proposal is not to require the units to be changed back to two- family houses. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Bill Scoones, 15 Sapsucker Woods Road, stated that there is the stipulation that these apartments be owner occupied. Everyone realizes that it has been very difficult to enforce it. When they bought the property at 15 Sapsucker Woods Road they were assured that the opposite side of the street would be owner occupied. Mr. Scoones presented pictures to the board of the homes on Sapsucker Woods Road. They have lived in the house for 12 years. The problem is that no one is supervising the tenants. The garbage goes out on Saturday for a Tuesday morning pick-up. As a result the animals get into it. They think that it is unfair to have Mr. Frost be the patrol person. He has been a terrific guy to work with. They do not think it is fair for the zoning officer to patrol Sapsucker Woods Road. The property values could go the other direction if the owner occupancy requirement is removed. There is no one single reason to believe that just because it is eliminated everything will be fine. It could go the opposite way and get worse. They have seen some evidence in those houses. They go out several times a year to clean up the mess on the other side of the street. If the board does change their legislation, then there should be a restriction on absentee landlords. Sapsucker Woods Road is a nice area. He and his wife are not anti-landlord. He has many friends that own property in the Town. They are responsible landlords like most landlords. They have tried to work with a couple of people that live on the other side of the street. It is virtually to no avail. He does not know the answer. The board needs to think long and hard before they give up the requirement. He does appreciate that it must be a difficult position to be in. He would not want to be in that position. There may be a way to shape some legislation that would put some responsibility on the backs of landowners. Steve Lucente, 981 Taughannock Boulevard, stated that he does agree that there is lack of control by the landlord of the tenant and the resulting garbage. Today, without the owner occupancy restriction, 210 Sapsucker Woods could be bought and brought back to health. It is imperative when someone moves to sell something that it be desirable to the people you are trying to sell it to. The owner occupied multi-family concept everywhere it has been tried in Ithaca has been a failure. There is no real evidence of a successful project of this type that owner-occupiers would come in and solve the problems. If there is the owner occupancy rule, there is going to be a bunch of people continuing to try and evade the law in order to save their financial life. If the rule is eliminated, perhaps the market itself will bring order. Instead of there being 14 owner, maybe there will be 2 or 3. There needs to be a product to sell that the public wants. The public has voted no on this type of product. Their message is loud and clear. James Skaley, 940 Dryden Road, stated that he owns 124 Sapsucker Woods. He has owned it for 14 years. He was an owner occupied owner for 11 of the 14 years. He recently purchased a house in Varna. He rented the apartment that he formally occupied. The way these properties were originally sold made it possible for it to be owner occupied. Rocco Lucente provided very favorable financing and a private mortgage. It would not have been possible for him at the time to acquire a mortgage through a regular bank. As a single parent at the time, it made it possible for him to live in a circumstance that was much more favorable. It produced income for him over the long term and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED built assets. Part of his reasoning at the time was that it would eventually become a college fund for his daughter. He would like to reiterate that this law has not been enforced in 15 years. He has spoken with Mr. Frost regarding this point. He sent a letter a number of years ago to Shirley Raffensperger regarding this issue. He felt that it was going to limit sales of the property in the future. In the next few years he will desire to sell the property. It has been evident that the properties are not selling. If he were to sell, it would seem that he would be selling at a considerable loss. He has tried to maintain his property to the best of his ability over the years. He has invested a fair amount of money in upkeep over the years. Mr. Skaley stated that he has always thought of the property as commercial. It has been treated as commercial but is zoned R-15. There is a conflict regarding the use of the property. The clause to which the Town is referring has interesting problems with regard to enforcement. After having occupied the residence for 4 consecutive years, the premises maybe leased and not owner occupied for a period up to 12 months out of each consecutive periods of 60 months. It was put in to accommodate people. It does become a significant problem in terms of maintenance. David Neish, 214 Sapsucker Woods Road, stated that his property is next door to 210 Sapsucker Woods Roads, which has not been owner occupied since it was purchased. It is the biggest wreck on the street. He would like to buy 2 or 3 of the homes but is precluded from doing so by the Town's ordinances. The biggest problem is that it is discriminatory. It is selectively enforced. It cannot be enforced. The Town has spent untold sums of money trying to enforce this haphazardly. It has not worked. It is only costing the tax payer money. There are a few homes where people have never lived in them. They are dumps. There are repeated calls to the Zoning Office. There is nothing that they can do. They admit that their hands are tied. There needs to be a plan that can be enforced. They are unable to sell the houses. He does not want to sell his; he would like to buy more. He feels that the owner occupancy restriction needs to be removed. Mr. Giordano stated that his brother is part owner of 206 Sapsucker Woods Road. He does not allow garbage to accumulate in front of his house. Mr. Lucente stated that they have two able landlords that are prepared to buy the wrecks on Sapsucker Woods Road and bring them back. He hopes that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the restriction be removed so that they may do so. Mr. Scoones stated that the trash problem is a related problem. It is enforceable. It is not difficult to pass an ordinance to do something about trash and junk. It is reasonable for people to bring their garbage in within 24 hours. It is not done. There are some people on Sapsucker Woods Road who put their garbage containers out on the street and fill them from their house. They need to take them back to someplace where they cannot see them. It is unsightly. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would like to deal with Sapsucker Woods first. Then they could discuss Cayuga Vista. The board may have the same opinion on both, but they need to be dealt with separately. Chairperson Wilcox asked the board how they felt about the Sapsucker Woods issue. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has a few questions. Chairperson Wilcox stated that before he came in to the meeting, he was thinking about the fact that the owner occupancy requirement seemed to be a reasonable trade-off in an R-15 zone where there are four-plexes. He was not on the board at that time. The Town of Ithaca does allow structures with two units in areas zoned residential. Structures with four units do not fit into with what the Town Board wanted when the zoning was set up. When there are four unit buildings, the owner occupancy requirement mitigates the effect of having a row of four-plexes. It was probably the right thing to do at the time. The question is has it worked. The situation is not as good as it could be. Many of the residences on Sapsucker Woods Road are fine. There was one where there was trash all over. There were some that were borderline in terms of their appearance. It is not working now. It is not working given the fact that there are people telling the Town that the Zoning Ordinance is being violated. There are actually people willing to buy the units. The Town needs to come up with something else. If they drop the owner occupancy requirement, then they need to make sure that these rows of four-plexus do not turn into undesirable slums. The owner occupancy requirement is more likely to ensure that the building is kept looking nice than with an absentee landlord. He feels that the owner occupancy requirement along Sapsucker Woods Road should be rescinded. The Town needs to look at other ways to ensure that the properties are kept looking nice. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was a reference to other townhouses in the Town of Ithaca as being good examples. She is not sure that the houses along Sanctuary Drive are owner occupied or if they are rentals. Dan Walker, Director of Engineering, stated that they meet the zoning requirements. They are two-family homes. The occupancy is by families or no more than 2 unrelated people. The homes on Sanctuary Drive and Sapsucker Woods are not comparing apples to apples. The homes on Sanctuary Drive are very luxurious compared to those on Sapsucker Woods Road. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she sympathizes with people owning a house that they are unable to sell. This is not a unique situation in this area. She spoke with a lady who has moved out of her house that she and her husband own in Cayuga Heights. They have not been able to sell it. It is listed for less than they bought it for. She is worried about setting a bad precedent. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would hate to ease the situation in these two areas and then have problems in other areas because of it. In reading the December 21, 1999 minutes, it mentioned the units that Mr. Monkemeyer owns on Danby Road. It said something about the units being built for 8 people to live in them. She was wondering what is going on. Is this something that they have allowed? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that he does not recall that situation. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is sure that there are other locations in the Town where they could run into problems if the board is not careful when they correct this situation. Board Member Conneman stated that he does sympathize with Mr. Bloom, but the Town does not save people from bad investments. The issue is what can the board construct that would keep the neighborhood looking nice. He does not want to create problems in other parts of the Town. Owner occupancy has not worked. They need to increase the attractiveness of the neighborhood. The board should not do that in this neighborhood, and then run another neighborhood down. The area is not very attractive. If changing the rule and allowing absentee landlords would increase the attractiveness then it is a plus. Board Member Ainslie stated that he agrees with Board Member Conneman. He would not like to live in that situation. He does think that times change. If another neighborhood were to come in, they would have to treat it as its own entity and not use this situation as a guide. He does think that there has to be a solution for the garbage problem. Board Member Howe stated that he does agree with discontinuing the owner occupancy. He is concerned about what contingencies that can put on this. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Frost what other means he has available to insure that the grounds and the buildings are kept up. Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning stated that when he started with the Town of Ithaca in 1986, some of the units were already completed in the transition from two-family to four-family units. They have a property maintenance law that has been around the Town for a long time. It is the Town maintenance law that they have used when people have called to complain. They keep a monthly record and an annual record of all the complaints that they investigate in the Town of Ithaca. The number one complaint has been property maintenance. There is an effective law that works well. They have issued court appearance tickets and brought people into Town court. For the most part they do have voluntary compliance. Sometimes it means badgering a property owner for weeks on end. The law gives someone two weeks to clean up a property. Sometimes it takes two months to get the property cleaned up. Going through the court process can take even longer. The Town does have a very effective property maintenance law. He has not been up in the area the past couple of days to see garbage. They cannot investigate a complaint if no one calls to complain. If there is garbage on one particular property and he does not know about it, they are unable to clean up the property. Every one of the four unit buildings has to have an operating permit from the Town of Ithaca. They need a permit to operate an apartment building. They have a record for every property. If anyone from the board wanted to look at the record they will see fire safety inspections, complaints against the property. Everything that comes into the Town has a written document prepared stating the complaint and the actions taken. The complaint appears on a monthly report that is given to the Town Board. Anything that has not been cleaned up appears on the following month's report until the property is cleaned up. They take complaints seriously. If they receive a complaint by telephone, it is PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED documented and there are continual follow-ups. It does not disappear from the monthly report until there is compliance with the law. Mr. Frost stated that he couldn't recall having any occupancy complaints. They have had some garbage complaints. It sounds like there is more garbage out there than they are getting complaints in his office. They do follow through with the complaints. They do fire safety inspections there every 3 years. Mr. Frost stated that the biggest problem that they have with owner occupancy compliance is when a landlord is out of the County. They have to track people down in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. It is much more difficult to get compliance. On some rare occasions they have people in Syracuse that care about their property in Ithaca and do fairly quickly respond to complaints. If the owner lives in the area, they have good luck in getting compliance. It sometimes takes more than 2 weeks to get someone to respond. There are some landlords that respond quicker than others. The ones that have more properties are more responsive to when his office calls them. Mr. Frost stated that part of the wisdom in the owner occupancy requirement was also noise besides student housing and garbage. He has not heard any complaints about noise. It might be a problem, but has not come before his office over 14 years. Board Member Ainslie stated that evidently they have in force what they need, but they are not getting information in to the Zoning Office. People need to notify the Zoning Office of problems. Mr. Frost stated that if his office receives a complaint, it is documented. If they are having trouble getting someone to comply they will call the person that complained to let them know it is taking more time to get it resolved. Board Member Hoffmann asked if property maintenance includes other things beside garbage. Mr. Frost stated that property maintenance does not regulate aesthetics. The condition of the building and peeling paint are not regulated. The Town does not have a law requiring someone to cut their grass. If he receives a complaint, he will tactfully approach the landlord and let them know that they had a complaint about their land. He did have someone make the argument that they liked the wild weeds. The accumulation of garbage one can argue is an aesthetics problem, but it is also a health problem. The property maintenance law does use the word unsightliness. He would not try to pursue an enforcement action based on something being unsightly. The court would take the position that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It is more of a health issue. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there are regulations against people storing old cars in their yard. Mr. Frost stated that they do have regulations that cover vehicles as well. It is one of the most common complaints that they have. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that she could not say that she favored lifting the owner occupancy regulations. She does not favor lifting the regulations. She would like to see another way of trying to fix it first. Chairperson Wilcox asked Attorney Barney if the Cayuga Vista Townhouses are technically condominiums. This is more than just apartment buildings. Mr. Frost stated that they are individually owned. The property line runs through the building. Attorney Barney stated that the building walls are the boundaries of the property. There is a common area that is governed by an association. Mr. Frost stated that the common area is the grass area. Chairperson Wilcox stated that when the board arrived there was a letter from Mr. Ed Mazza. He was one of the original developers. Does he have a financial interest in this? Attorney Barney stated that they are not sure. Chairperson Wilcox asked that the Planning Board take Mr. Mazza's comments with the knowledge that they believe him to be an owner. Mr. Frost stated that they had problems with garbage and occupancy on this property 5-years ago. He has not heard anything about these properties over the last 5 years. There were some letters written by Attorney Barney to owners. There has been discussion between the Town Board and Attorney Barney over what type of action to take. Mr. Walker stated that the only problems that they have had have been traffic control problems. There is parking on the streets. Snowplows have trouble on Vista Lane. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is a fancy apartment complex. It should be treated as such. He would like to offer to the Town Board that the restrictive covenant that goes with the properties be relaxed. It is a different situation. Sapsucker Woods has a series of houses along the road. This is a large parcel of land on South Hill. It is no different than many of the apartment buildings in Lansing. Attorney Barney stated that there are a number of other apartment complexes in the Town of Ithaca that do not have the owner occupancy requirement. Does the Town receive the same kind of complaints there? Mr. Frost stated that with College Circle Apartments the number one complaint is parking in the fire lane. There is a property manager on-site. Attorney Barney asked what about the Monkemeyer properties. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that there are occasional garbage complaints. Most of the garbage complaints come from single or two-family residences around town. Mr. Walker stated that Commonlands is similar to Cayuga Vista. Many of those places are rented. They also have a very active homeowners association that controls it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the problem that she has with both of these places is that they were built with an understanding that it was going to be a certain way. Then it was not lived up to. It would have been better if they had originally applied to build it a certain way. She does not like to have to correct problems afterwards. It is not good planning. Mr. Frost stated that what really prompted the last memorandum to the Town Board and the referral to the Planning Board is when they do the fire safety inspections for the operating permits they have some owner occupants and non-owner occupants giving an opinion and his office is not enforcing anything. He either needs the support of the Town to pursue enforcement or the law needs to be changed. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is a tough situation to be in. Attorney Barney stated that both parties at the time were comfortable with the restrictions. Time has suggested to the Town that owner occupancy may not be the way to get to what the Town really cares about which is noise, garbage and those types of things. The theory that an owner will take better care of its property is probably true, but to enforce and mandate that someone must own a property and live there has turned out to be a hurdle. Mr. Frost stated that they have some older developments that have deed restrictions that suggested owner occupancy. The older laws were very clear that the Town had no obligation to do any enforcement. These two properties came along when he started working for the Town. In his early days with the Town, occupancy by students was a big issue. It was an issue that his office took at the time to follow through with complaints about occupancy. It is clear that with developments since then the Town has been very careful not to impose owner occupancy requirements. Attorney Barney stated that the Town could get an injunction and make the owner do something about their property because it is not owner occupied. The Town could take the position that it must be vacated until they comply. It would do wonders for the market on that piece of property. It drives the price down considerably. It could aggravate the situation. The Town Board made the judgement call that it would not result in the outcome that is wanted. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Town does not want to force residents to vacate buildings and force owners not to collect rent. They do not want to shut businesses down. They want to work with them to resolve any problems or issues. Attorney Barney stated that they need to look at the present situation and what will improve the situation. Will enforcing the owner occupancy requirement improve the situation or will relaxing the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED requirement improve it? Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Frost and himself feel that relaxing the requirement is the more appropriate way to go. Mr. Frost stated that some of the people who may have bought the properties with the intent of not living there in the first place are not present. They have not heard too much from those people. There are a few people that he suspects bought property without any intention of complying. The people that are present before the board had good intentions. People's lives change and sometimes they need relief in one fashion or another. The people that he would like to see pinned to the wall for blatantly violating the restrictions are not present. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Town often has to deal with people who are pushing the envelope. They are trying to extend the limits of what the Town is trying to do. She does not want to give in easily to a request because there are circumstances that are difficult for some people. Board Member Conneman stated that if they do nothing it will get worse. Board Member Ainslie stated that the way it is now is not working. Board Member Conneman stated that the board would not be changing standards for other neighborhoods. The worst thing in the world is to improve one neighborhood and trash another. Attorney Barney stated that these are the only two neighborhoods that have this requirement. Mr. Frost stated that it is a valid point if there were other properties. He cannot think of any other properties that have been developed with such a restriction. Chairperson Wilcox stated that these restrictions are a result of Town action. There are certain properties in the Town and County that have restrictive covenants that require owner occupancy. It is not a result of Town action. Mr. Frost stated that the origin of Cayuga Vista is very different than what happened with Sapsucker Woods. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is a chance that someone could come in and say that if the people in the Sapsucker Woods area are allowed to do this, he should be too. Mr. Frost stated that the City of Ithaca has some owner occupancy provisions. He often receives calls asking about owner occupancy for one and two family residences. The laws that the Town has are effective. Board Member Ainslie stated that he would like to make a motion to recommend that the Town drop the owner occupancy requirement on Sapsucker Woods and Cayuga Vista. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has come around to realizing that this might be an okay way to deal the problem, but she is not happy with it. Chairperson Wilcox stated that they do not know if it will work. They also do not know what the Town Board will decide to do. Mr. Frost stated that if there is a garbage complaint and someone does not clean it up they have been using the courts a little more. They have issued court appearance tickets. Attorney Barney stated that if there is a constant repeat offender then they could go to Supreme Court. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-58 - Owner Occupancy Requirements at 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road and at Cayuga Vista Townhouses, Vista Lane, Recommendation to the Town Board. MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. Local Law No. 4-1984, as amended by Local Law No. 6-1985, requires that at least one dwelling unit in each of the buildings at 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road, if converted under the provisions of those local laws, be owner-occupied, and the owner-occupancy requirements are further documented in the restrictive covenants for those buildings, and 2. The restrictive covenants, approved by the Town Board, for the Cayuga Vista Townhouses on Vista Lane require that all owners of units, with the exception of the Sponsor, must have their primary residence at Cayuga Vista Townhouses, and 3. The Town Board has discussed whether the above-stated owner occupancy requirements are still necessary or appropriate, and have referred the question of said owner-occupancy requirements to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Informational Hearing held on June 6, 2000, has reviewed the above-referenced owner-occupancy requirements, and has provided an opportunity for the public to comment on these provisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board consider elimination of the owner-occupancy requirements pertaining to the four-unit houses on Sapsucker Woods Road and the townhouses in Cayuga Vista. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 21, 1999; February 15, 2000; March 7, 2000. Board Member Hoffmann stated that on Page 31 of the December 21, 1999 minutes, there is a comment about the Monkemeyer apartment on Danby Road and there being groups of 8 people. It is in the lower third of the page. Mr. Tessier had been talking about the development of the whole area with some low, medium and high density. They even talked about College Road. Board Member Mitrano asked what was happening with Fraternity Row, Mr. Tessier responded that the college might not even like the idea. They have not explored it yet. The apartments on Danby Road are groups of eight people. Attorney Barney stated that he thinks he might have been referring to College Circle. It is off Danby Road. There are some eight-unit buildings. There is a variety. He does not know whom Mr. Tessier is referring to. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-59 - Approval of Minutes — December 21, 1999, February 15, 2000, March 7, 2000. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the December 21, 1999, February 15, 2000, and March 7, 2000 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Howe. NAYS: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox stated that there was a letter on the table for the board where the Town of Ithaca concurs with the designation of Tompkins County as lead agency for State Environmental Quality Review for the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Revitalization Plan. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated he received a call from the County Planning office saying that they had just spoken with the State Department of State and they had just told them that the County could not be the lead agency. Tompkins County has been leading the project. He is not sure why the State would not allow the County to be the lead agency. There are certain things recommended in the plan that the County would have to act on. The County itself will be adopting the plan. There is a proposal that the County would have involvement to do the consistency reviews. This is review of coastal policies. To do that they need a State or County law. There has never been another County doing it. The County asked if the Town would be interested in doing the review. If there is any one municipality that is more involved than another it is the City. It would be difficult for any one municipality to speak on behalf of all the others. He suggested that they could tell the State that all the participants request that the State be the lead agency. They are the ones that have to approve all the plans. Board Member Hoffmann referred to Page 24 of the March 7, 2000 minutes, the sixth line. It is when Ms. Egan and Attorney Barney were talking about the Moore House lease. It states there is a ground lease and then they have title to the improvements. They are the owners of the house, not the renter. She thinks that it should be the land. Cornell is the owner of the land. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the issue was that Cornell could take possession of the house within a specified period of time with a very short notice. Board Member Hoffmann stated that they have possession of the land. They do not own the house. The house was given to Historic Ithaca to be sold. Chairperson Wilcox stated that did not Ms. Egan say that if the President of the University wanted that house then they could take the land and the improvements upon it including the house. Attorney Barney stated that he does not understand Board Member Hoffmann's question. The underlying title is Cornell's. It is correct. They have title to the improvements. They, Cornell, are the owners of the house not the renter. He believes that it is correct. Under the terms of the lease, any improvement that becomes part of the realty then reverts to Cornell at the termination of the lease. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the people who have bought and paid for the house from Historic Ithaca do not receive payment for it. Do they have to hand it over? Attorney Barney stated that Cornell University has to buy it back at market price less 20%, exclusive of the land. If the house is worth $100,000 and the land is worth $50,000, the total is $150,000. If it were sold independently on the market the buyer does not get anything for the land and $80,000 for the house. Chairperson Wilcox stated that is the standard lease. There were changes made to the standard lease. Attorney Barney stated that it is still the same. It cannot occur to the 99th year of the lease. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 JUNE 6, 2000 APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED- SEPTEMBER 5, 2000-APPROVED-APPROVD -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that at the next meeting the Phase II alterations to Ides Bowling Lanes will be presented. They are proposing a Subway. Board Member Conneman asked if it is a fast food restaurant. Attorney Barney stated that is a franchise of subs. The Subway is not a drive-through. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the June 6, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie L. Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.