HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-10-02TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2001
FILE
DATE
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 2, 2001, in Town
Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member;
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of
Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner;
Christine Balestra- Lehman.
EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member.
ALSO PRESENT: Ron Brunozzi, Pyramid Site Acquisition; Joan Jurkowich, Tompkins County
Planning Department; Tom Mank, Tompkins County Planning Department; Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill
Road; Bev Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road; John Gutenberger, Cornell University; Dan Rakow, Cornell
University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Kim Martinson, Cornell University; Kathryn Wolf,
Trowbridge & Wolf; Jessica Keltz, Ithaca Times; Tim Frateschi, Harris Beach LLP.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m., and accepted for the record the
Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on September 24, 2001, and September 26, 2001, 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 September 26, 2001. (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.
The first two agenda items were not recorded due to technical difficulties.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. With no persons present to be
heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of Tompkins County Vital Communities Initiative, County
Planning Department,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Joan Jurkowich and Tom Mank from the Tompkins County Planning Department gave a brief
presentation regarding the Tompkins County Vital Communities Initiative. Please see attachment no.
1.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Cornell University Oxley Parking Lot, NYS Route 366,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf - We are here this evening seeking a negative determination on the
SEQR review, approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for special approval of an institutional use in a residential zone. I thought that I would briefly
recap the proposal. Then elaborate a bit on some points that we did not get into during sketch plan.
The site is currently used for storage. The eastern end of the site is largely disturbed. The proposal
is to rehabilitate the landscape. The parking lot is being pulled back from Cascadilla Creek. The
storage shed that is currently on the site will be removed. The parking lot will be paved.
A recreation trail is proposed as part of the project. The trail will be a linkage to the East Hill
Recreation Way. We have made minor modifications to the original submitted trail. The trail has
been pulled back away from the parking lot so that people are not walking right up against the edge of
the parking lot. There will be additional vegetation between the trail and the parking lot.
The existing parking lot is sloped towards and sheets directly to Cascadilla Creek. The new
developed site will improve water quality. The water will now be treated before it is outlet to the creek.
The parking lot will have a curb on it. There will a number of outlets along the curb that direct the
water to a stone trench. From that point the water will move through a series of dry swales that are
located on the north edge of the parking lot. The swales will have a sand filter underneath them. A
pipe will then connect them to an outlet that will be covered with stone. It goes through three levels of
filtration before it reaches the creek. The swales will be maintained to insure that they function, as
they should. We are happy to submit a maintenance plan as part of Final Site Plan approval.
Don Rakow, Cornell University Plantations - There are four points that I would like to address. These
are in response to inquiries that were raised by staff in response to our previous presentation. One of
these has to do with trying to screen the parking lot from the roadway. We concur with this and feel
that any opportunities to screen the parking lot should be seized. We are currently developing
proposed species for planting along the parking lot that will provide a year long visual barrier between
the parking area and Route 366. A second proposal from staff is to provide screening between the
path and the parking lot. It will be difficult because of the drainage swales. It will not be possible to
plant many trees or shrubs in association with the swales. There will be plantings in the swales to
provide stabilization. The final site plan will specify the best species for plantings down in the swale.
We described in the previous meeting that what we are trying to create in this long corridor is a
naturalistic planting. It is something that will be a great enhancement over what exists there
currently. We also are trying to use as reference early 20th century photographs of this larger area.
2
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
It showed a large, maturing meadow. It had large clusters of trees, shrubs and meadow plants
between them. There is a description of a meadow mix in the site plant. The meadow mix will be
seeded onto properly prepared soil in all of the areas between the clusters of trees and shrubs.
Plantations have considerable experience in the establishment of meadows. We have discovered
that it is far more challenging than taking a sprinkler can and sprinkling meadow in a can on your bare
soil. Fortunately, we have learned from those mistakes. We now know how to successfully establish
meadow. We have meadows all along the south rim of the ponds out at the Plantations Arboretum.
We will be using the experience and knowledge that we gained from that in consulting on the
establishment of meadows between the trees and shrubs in this area.
The fourth point that I will address is the change that you see between your plan, which shows the
fabricated pathway and what appears on this plan. We are trying to be responsive to the NYSDOT's
plans for the re- construction of the Route 366 Bridge and realignment of that section of Judd Falls
Road. The State has finally completed what they are planning on doing. It is still subject to change.
We also want to be sensitive to connecting this wonderful pedestrian pathway with the East Hill
Recreation Way. We are showing a termination to the path that hopefully can connect with the
pathway that would then lead to the east and would also allow for a connection to the south with the
existing East Hill Recreation Way.
Ms. Wolf - The proposed resolution suggests that any vegetation that
is a retaining wall on the site that is failing. It will be removed and
vegetation. It will be reflected on the Final Site Plan. We would like
language regarding the screening between the path and the parking I
the room because of the swales along the parking lot. We might be
will be limited,
is removed be replaced. There
replaced. We will replace that
to see some modification of the
ot. We feel that we do not have
able to fit in a few shrubs, but it
Kim Martinson, Cornell University - The proposed schedule has not changed much since Sketch Plan
Review. There is a need for Duffield Hall to use the existing parking area. We do not plan to actually
construction the parking phasing until the need has been succeeded. We are assuming construction
will start on the parking lot in 2004. Prior to that date we plan to begin site restoration. The first thing
we would do is clean up the site with all of the existing storage materials that are on the site and to
get rid of the existing storage shed. We will begin the landscape rehabilitation and the trail. At this
time Cornell is very aware of the NYSDOT project and plans to cooperate with them. There has been
no official proposal from them to the best of knowledge to use the most eastern area of the site. We
do not know how the trail will end in the area. We are showing the best we can with the knowledge
that we know of the project. It is our intention to work closely with them to make sure the east end
does fit with what they are doing and the needs that they have. We plan to begin the rest of the site
immediately after site plan approval.
Mr. Walker - When does the storm water management portion of the site begin to be built?
Ms. Wolf - I would assume it would be built at the time the parking lot is constructed. It would not be
possible to do that entire earthwork. The parking lot expands further north than it will in the future.
We will have to set the grade along that curb.
3
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Walker - This parking lot as it stands now is on an extension of a permit that was limited time
wise. The Town has concern about the environmental aspect of the storm water management. I
understand that the parking spaces need to be used as a contractor's parking area. It would be more
beneficial if we could at least put the storm water management along the creek into effect as part of
the earlier phase of the project clean up.
Ms. Wolf - I understand the point, but I hope you understand the difficulty.
Mr. Walker - I also understand that this site was supposed to be completely restored by the year 2000
under the original proposal. It is my only comment to the board.
Ms. Wolf - It would be reasonable for the buildings to be taken down early on.
Mr. Walker - Can you reduce the size of the existing gravel parking to build the storm water
management as part of the earlier phase?
Ms. Wolf - We will need to look at it.
Mr. Walker - One of the positive things that the Engineering Department has recommended is that the
storm water drain is good, but we want to see it in place as soon as possible.
Ms. Wolf - I fully appreciate the concern. We will look at if for Final Site Plan approval.
Board Member Conneman - The parking lot construction will start in 2004. Will the Plantations' work
start immediately?
Ms. Wolf - The Plantations' work would start in the spring of 2002. By the time this is approved it will
be into November.
Board Member Hoffmann - The Conservation Board had some comments. Most of them were
complimentary. They did comment on the trail. They hope that the eastern end will be connected in
a useful way. The second comment is, "though the lot is relatively small, and not intended for general
university community use, it is yet another surface parking lot, with many of the drawbacks of such
wasteful use of valuable space within close proximity to campus. We feel it would be feasible, and far
more advantageous and efficient, to provide dedicated spaces in a multilevel structure, which we
would urge the University to consider as it pursues its future development and growth."
Mr. Rakow - I do not think that a multi -story structure has been considered for the site. For one
reason it is far more expensive to build a multi -story structure than surface parking. The feeling is
that a multi -story structure would be a far greater visual blight in this than would a surface lot that
could be screened from pedestrians and drivers. It would have minimal negative impact on the site. I
think that Cornell is looking at additional multi -story parking areas elsewhere on the campus. It is
really outside my domain.
Board Member Hoffmann - Is there any new information on the NYSDOT project?
0
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Ms. Ritter - There will be a pedestrian bridge as part of their project. It will link up with the old Judd
Falls Road and bring it up Campus Road.
Mr. Kanter - The State's plans are advancing rapidly. We did meet with them about one week ago.
They do have final alignment drawings of their project. They are starting to fill in landscaping and
other design elements. The Cornell representatives that were at the meeting took a copy of their
preliminary plans. It was to be made available to any Cornell individuals who needed to see it. It is a
specific plan. The State wants to keep in contact and coordinate this knowing that this plan is
progressing at the same time. It should come together pretty well.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would be interested in seeing what preliminary plans are available.
Ms. Ritter - I can get the information to you.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -88 - SEOR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Cornell University — Oxley Site
Development Protect, Route 366, west of Wilson Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2
and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3144.2.
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for proposed Cornell University Oxley
Site Development Project located on NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2
and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 1 -1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes
the construction of a permanent paved 149 -space parking lot, removal of the existing barn,
development of a seasonal pedestrian trail, landscaping, site lighting, stormwater
management and treatment facilities, and rehabilitation of the area east of the parking lot to
natural green space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Martinson and Kathryn
Wolf, Agents, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has declared its intent to
act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 1I prepared by
Town Planning Staff, and site plan drawings and detail sheets including drawing No. T -101 "Title
Sheet ", drawing No. C -101 entitled "Cover Sheet ", drawing No. C102 entitled "Demolition ",
drawing No. C -103 entitled "New Layout ", drawing No. C -104 entitled "New Grading and Drainage
Plan ", drawing No. C -105 entitled "Striping Plan ", drawing No. C -106 entitled "Planting Plan ",
drawing No. C -107 entitled "Details", drawing No. C -108 entitled "Details ", drawing No. E -101
5
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
entitled "Lighting Plan ", drawing No. S -101 entitled "Retaining Wall" all dated 8/30/2001, and other
application material, and
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 establishes itself as lead Agency to conduct
the environmental review of the above referenced action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 6176,
AND BE IT FURTHER 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, Thayer, Howe, Tally,
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Cornell
University Oxley Parking Lot located on NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 =1=
8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 1 -1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes
the removal of the existing barn, development of a seasonal pedestrian trail, construction of a
permanent paved 149 -space parking lot, landscaping and site lighting. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Martinson and Kathryn Wolf, Agents,
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. With no persons present to be heard,
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - The authority to use the parking lot ends December 31, 2001. Does the
granting of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval provide the applicant the right to park in the lot
after the end of this year?
Attorney Barney - The right to use the lot expires at the end of this year.
Shirley Egan, Cornell University - I gave this some thought a week or so ago. I tried to draw an
analogy to other instances when a landlord comes in and gets a site plan approval for something to
do. I guess that from the moment that that new site plan approval has been granted the old site does
not conform to the newly approved site plan. Yet, that landowner is afforded three years from the
N
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
time of the grant to commence the project. No one would say until that commencement that the
existing site plan does not conform to a new one. Therefore it could not be done.
Attorney Barney - There is a distinction. In that case you have a valid use that has an indefinite right
to extend and occur prior to the granting of a revised site plan. It is not the situation where the right to
use it expires by definition. Here it is different. There is a time period where the application expires
at the end of the year. At that time the right to use the lot ceases. The right to use the new lot will
begin when the new lot is constructed. There is a hiatus that needs to be addressed. A simple
application to extend the time period would solve the problem.
Ms. Egan - It is only a problem if the Final Site Plan approval was granted after December 31, 2001. 1
do not think it is necessary. There is a new approval. A new approval assumes control over the site.
Attorney Barney - Cornell wants to continue to use the site as is in the interim. The term needs to be
extended.
Ms. Egan - It seems logical to make this another condition of the approval rather than a separate,
stand alone application as if it had no relationship to the site plan approval application that is before
the board. They are integral. The board probably would not grant one without the other.
Attorney Barney - Extensions are normally done in a public hearing after an application has been
made.
Ms. Egan - We will take a look at the preliminary application that we made and see if there is
sufficient mention of the fact that the use would continue. We will consult with you and staff about if
we need to make an amendment to the existing application or some different application to cover it.
Board Member Conneman - I do not necessarily believe the numbers in the project have merit. With
that aside, this implies that the employees or construction workers will park in that lot and walk to the
site. Is there bus transportation?
Ms. Wolf - It is my understanding that they will walk to the work site.
Chairperson Wilcox - The issue has been brought up with regard to item 2d (3) in the resolution.
Ms. Ritter - It seems difficult for the applicant to meet that requirement.
Chairperson Wilcox - The wording could be changed to add, "to the
acknowledge that it is difficult to meet the condition. There is still C.
end of the trail. I was thinking that we could add a condition to Final
Cornell to have to come back before the board for minor changes
final DOT plan to the Route 366 Reconstruction Plan. I would like to
of Planning,
extent practicable ". We need to
ome question regarding the east
Site Plan approval. I do not want
to the trail to make it fit with the
give that authority to the Director
Board Member Conneman - Is it clear that we are talking about 2002 and 2004 for this project?
7
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - It is clear that we are being asked to grant Preliminary Site Plan approval. We
have been told that construction of the parking lot will not begin until 2004.
Board Member Conneman - There ought to be a statement in the resolution stating construction of
the parking lot will not start until 2004 and the Plantations' work will start in 2002. It seems
reasonable to me.
Chairperson Wilcox - What is the purpose of the statement?
Board Member Conneman - It is to be sure that it is done.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that in terms of when the construction is started?
Board Member Conneman - Yes, to insure the sequence of the projects.
Mr. Rakow - It is fine and we are very comfortable with it as long as the wording states, "the
landscaping work will commence in the spring of 2002 ", not that it will necessarily be complete then.
Board Member Conneman - I did not say that. I said that it would start in 2002.
Attorney Barney - Mr. Walker had a concern in subparagraph b. We can add the wording, "schedule
of construction" to the paragraph.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do we need to state in the resolution that the parking lot construction will
commence in 2004?
Attorney Barney - In our Ordinance, the applicant has a right to site plan approval. It carries with it
the right to do the work within a stated period. I think that it is 36 months. It can commence anytime
within the 36 month period. The board is imposing a greater responsibility on Cornell in this situation
than you normally would on any other applicant.
Board Member Conneman - Cornell told that board that is what they were going to do.
Attorney Barney - Okay, I want the board to understand what you are imposing.
Mr. Kanter - My understanding from reading the application materials was that Cornell had the intent
to continue using the existing parking lot until the new parking was completed. I do not think the
Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing has been published and announced yet. Their meeting is
scheduled for October 15, 2001. Could this board include a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals in their recommendation for special approval even though tonight's public hearing did not
include such a reference? Then when and if the Zoning Board of Appeals acts on it at the October
meeting, we could include something in the Final Site Plan resolution of this application. Is it really
necessary to have another publication and another series of hearings and wasting this board's time
just because of perceived technical problems? If there are actual technical problems, then that is a
different story.
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Thayer - I would be in favor of that if it were legal.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is reasonable. I think this board would want to have a discussion about
extending the use of the parking lot. It would be nice to have the opportunity to address potential
issues.
Attorney Barney - The board can give a recommendation. I am not sure if the board has to hold a
public hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox - Extending the use of the parking lot for three years would give Cornell until
2004 to start the parking lot.
Attorney Barney - I think given the significance of the application, the board can make the
recommendation this evening that the extension the occur. We will need to make sure that it is
published at the Zoning Board of Appeals level.
Chairperson Wilcox - The ERC commented, "Cornell staff responsible for this improvement are to be
commended not only for apparently taking our comments into consideration, but for taking initiative to
comprehensively revise the proposal and produce an alternative that is vastly superior in its sensitive
treatment of the site, which directly adjoins a portion of the Tompkins County Unique Natural Area." I
also want to thank staff. It is my understanding that staff had a lot to do with encouraging Cornell to
revise their initial site plan as submitted.
Ms. Wolf - I would like to clarify something. With the recommendation that was just discussed about
the extension, under that scenario, does that mean that we do not have to submit any separate
paperwork regarding the extension?
Attorney Barney - It would be useful to make sure that Mr. Frost when he advertises for the Zoning
Board of Appeals public hearing that he includes the extension as part of it. You might want to write a
letter to Mr. Frost regarding the special approval. I will try to remember to contact him as well.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -89 - Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval Cornell University — Oxley Site
Development Proiect, Route 366, west of Wilson Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2
and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3144.2.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Rod Howe,
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for proposed Cornell University Oxley
Site Development Project located on NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2
and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 31- 1 -1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes
the construction of a permanent paved 149 -space parking lot, removal of the existing barn,
development of a seasonal pedestrian trail, landscaping, site lighting, stormwater
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
management and treatment facilities, and rehabilitation of the area east of the parking lot to
natural green space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Martinson and Kathryn
Wolf, Agents and,
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in
environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, has, on
October 3, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted
by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 3, 2001, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate for preliminary approval, site plan drawings and details sheets including drawing
No. T -101 "Title Sheet ", drawing No. C -101 entitled "Cover Sheet ", drawing No. C102 entitled
"Demolition", drawing No. C -103 entitled "New Layout ", drawing No. C -104 entitled "New
Grading and Drainage Plan ", drawing No. C -105 entitled "Striping Plan ", drawing No. C 406
entitled "Planting Plan ", drawing No. C -107 entitled "Details ", drawing No. C -108 entitled
"Details ", drawing No. E -101 entitled "Lighting Plan ", drawing No. S -101 entitled "Retaining
Wall" all dated 813012001, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Oxley Site Development Project located at Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 63 -1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 1 -1.2, as shown on site plan drawings and
details sheets including drawing No. T -101 "Title Sheet ", drawing No. C -101 entitled "Cover
Sheet ", drawing No. C102 entitled "Demolition ", drawing No. C -103 entitled "New Layout ", drawing
No. C -104 entitled "New Grading and Drainage Plan ", drawing No. C 405 entitled "Striping Plan ",
drawing No. C -106 entitled "Planting Plan ", drawing No. C -107 entitled "Details ", drawing No. C-
108 entitled "Details ", drawing No. E -101 entitled "Lighting Plan ", drawing No. S -101 entitled
"Retaining Wall" all dated 813012001 and other application material, subject to the following
conditions to be completed prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
a. the granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
b, submittal to the Town of Ithaca of a maintenance and inspection plan and schedule for
construction for the stormwater treatment facilities, for review and approval by the
Director of Engineering, and
C, revision of the "New Layout" plan (Sheet C -103) to include Town /City municipal
boundary, and to adjust the east legs of the pedestrian path to correspond to NYS DOT
plans for pedestrian facilities as related to the Route 366 Bridge project, and
10
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
d. revision of the "Planting Plan" (Sheet C -106) to include:
(1) additional landscaping near new parking lot entrance to help buffer parking area
and parked vehicles from view from Route 366,
(2) description of the type of ground- covers /grasses to be used in natural area and
around parking lot,
(3) additional plantings between path and parking area to help provide some buffering
to the extent reasonably practicable,
(4) replacement of any vegetation that may be removed for the construction of the new
retaining wall.
e. landscaping work to commence in 2002 and parking lot construction to commence in
2004.
3, The Director of Planning is granted authority to permit a minor modification of the site plan to
adjust the east legs of the pedestrian path to correspond as appropriate to the NYSDOT
project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation regarding Special Approval 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 use;
C, the specific proposed use as a result of the proposed project 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 granted and that the use of the existing
parking lot be extended for three additional years to December 31, 2004.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
11
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination, Telecommunication Antennas, 385 West King Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Tim Frateschi, Harris Beach LLP - I am an attorney for Harris Beach. We are the attorneys for
Independent Wireless One Corporation. We are requesting a negative declaration under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act on a co- location of six telecommunication antennas on the existing
Voss property on West King Road. We are also requesting consideration and approval of preliminary
and final site plan along with a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special approval.
We have submitted to the board an application. Hopefully the application will speak for itself. I can
make a presentation, but I think the application covers what we are looking to do. It is as simple as
adding the telecommunication antennas to the existing silo at an 80 foot level. Does the board have
any questions?
Board Member Howe - The materials were very thorough.
Board Member Talty - I agree.
Board Member Thayer - The materials were very well done. I was amazed.
Mr. Frateschi - What we try to do with the application is go through the local law and address each
point in the local law. This way we can handle any questions that you might have as we come before
the board. Obviously there might be questions even beyond what we presented. We are ready to
answer any questions.
Board Member Hoffmann - I am sorry to disagree with you gentlemen, but I do not think that the
application was complete. You say that Exhibit A shows the site as it is and what it will look like. The
view as you see it from the Sand Bank Road intersection is of the whole silo from the top to the
ground practically. The simulated photograph does not show the other structures that will be on the
ground.
Mr. Frateschi - There will be an eight foot fence around the silo. It is pursuant to your local law. It
requires an eight foot high fence.
Board Member Hoffmann - The ground installation structures that are inside the fence are not shown.
It seems that these structures would be visible. Why didn't you include them in the photo simulation?
Ron Brunozzi, Pyramid Site Acquisition - Typically when towns ask for photo simulations they are
really interested in what a tower would look like and the height. The ground installation is an
afterthought.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, maybe that is what people on other boards think of, but since you
have come in with it, why didn't you provide it?
12
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Brunozzi - It was an afterthought on our part. We should have provided it. One thing I would like
to point out, though, when you refer to ground installation structures, they really are not. What we
have is a nine foot by twelve foot concrete pad with two cabinets, with a potential for a third. They are
not structures. You cannot occupy them. They are the size of small refrigerators. They are about
five feet high. There is a fence around them to prevent vandalism.
Board Member Hoffmann - Structures does not necessarily mean buildings. I also noticed from one
of the drawings that there were some other boxes along the way of this buried electrical line. There is
a proposed single face transformer indicated on the plan away from the silo. I went to a presentation
about a month ago at the Tompkins County Library on these types of communications equipment. We
were told that very often it is the part that goes on the ground that is very objectionable. It was a very
good presentation. If you did not go, it was showed on Channel 15 and I taped it if anyone would like
to borrow it.
There was a request in the resolution for most information about how the ground structures would
look and what materials and colors they would be built of. My main point is that I did not have a
photograph of what was going to be built. It is not a complete application.
Mr. Frateschi -
Let
me offer this. We looked at
your
local law.
We go
through
the local law to see
what it requires.
It
is my understanding that your
local
law does
not even
require
photo simulations.
Attorney Barney - That is correct.
Mr. Frateschi - It only requires the visual EAF, which we did provide. We provided the photo
simulations in addition to the Environmental Assessment Form visual. Certainly there was no
intention not to show the fenced area and cabinets. It has been explained what they would look like.
In the past, many telecommunication companies built sheds to house their equipment. We do not do
that any more. We try to minimize as much as possible the equipment that is related to the antennas.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman - The applicant passed out more the equipment cabinet details. It shows the
shape, size and height. What they are proposing is a lot smaller than some of the things that I have
seen. It was in front of the board this evening. The color is going to be beige.
Mr. Brunozzi - The drawings show an eight foot chain link fence. In the past, many boards have
requested a stockade fence. Some have requested a chain link fence with shrubbery around it. We
are willing to do whatever the board required for a fence or ground screening.
Board Member Hoffmann - There needs to be some screening of the structures from the road. I am
wondering how you are going to deal with the other structures that I mentioned like the proposed
single face transformer. What is that going to look like?
Mr. Brunozzi - It is a small box. You probably have seen them in residential neighborhoods. They
are about two feet high. It is a transformer with the utility that we put in for a panel our installation.
We pick -up power from that point.
13
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Thayer - Instead of having them be a gray color, they could be green and we would
not see them.
Board Member Hoffmann - I do not think that is necessarily true. It depends on the kind of green.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman - I went out on the site for a site visit. I observed that there is some significant
screening along West King Road. The silo is a significant distance from the road. Based on my
observations, it is suggested that they do not have additional buffering and screening. It is up to the
board.
Board Member Hoffmann - Where did you see screening? I did not much see screening. There were
occasional bushes.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman - There were bushes along West King Road. From what I recall, they were
significant along the angle that you would see the accessory structures.
Board Member Hoffmann - It was open fields between the road and the silo.
Mr. Kanter - Chairperson Wilcox, maybe some of the other board members would like an opportunity
to comment?
Chairperson Wilcox - I walked the site Saturday morning. I was on the west side of the silo. I was
concentrating on what it would look like when you glance up. The silo and the other buildings next to
the silo dwarf the size of the proposed electronics equipment on the pad next to the silo. They are
not on the side of the silo facing West King Road,
Attorney Barney - Has the FCC approved the standards?
Mr. Frateschi - The application contains all standards set forth by the FCC in its regulations.
Chairperson Wilcox - Exhibit G refers to the Town of Ulysses. It should be Town of Ithaca. The
applicant has asked for a waiver of some of the requirements under the local law. Does anyone have
an issue with what they have asked for?
Ms. Balestra- Lehman - The agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants to locate on the
telecommunications facility does not apply. It is not the applicant's silo. It is Mr. Voss's silo.
Board Member Hoffmann - This structure is being leased by the applicant. I did not understand the
co- location.
Chairperson Wilcox - The applicant does not own the silo. It is Mr. Voss's. It is up to Mr. Voss to
negotiate with other telecommunication companies.
Mr. Frateschi - We do not have that authority.
i[l
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Brunozzi - It would be different if we were proposing to build a tower. The requirement would
prevent us from competitively not leasing to an interested telecommunication company looking to co-
locate. We could not do that with the silo because we do not own it.
Board Member Hoffmann - Could you work out an agreement with the owner saying that they would
not lease to anyone else?
Chairperson Wilcox - If you owned the silo, would you want to give that right away to somebody? It is
your silo. You want the right to negotiate and have the control over who you are leasing to.
Board Member Hoffmann - That is true, but couldn't you include something that would allow us to
have the owner do it?
Mr. Kanter - The board needs to consider if these antennas would preclude other companies from
negotiating with Mr. Voss to locate on his silo. That is one possibility, but there are many other
structures that exist on West Hill that could also serve the purpose. The purpose of the law provision
was to ensure that if a new structure were being built, it was built in a way that it could accommodate
other structures. I really do not think this is what the intent of what that law was.
Board Member Hoffmann - What if another applicant comes in and because they could not locate on
the silo, they want to build a tower? We would have a situation that we did not want.
Mr. Kanter - Then we would have a legitimate case and procedure to fully investigate if the tower is
necessary or essential or needed. It is the whole purpose of the law. It is control the haphazard
construction of new towers.
Mr. Walker - In the lease agreement with the owner of the property, I do not see any clauses that
preclude someone else from leasing space on the site.
Mr. Frateschi - The only issue would be if there were any interference with our antennas. The FCC
would not allow them to put up antennas that would interfere with our antennas. It would be an issue
out of our hands and the board's hands. The Town's local law is very strong in that co- location is the
preference of this town. We have followed the local law to make co- location our preference. It is
always our top preference. If we can co- locate on an existing structure, most telecommunications
companies will co- locate on an existing tower, silo or steeple. To request us to try to get the
homeowner to agree to other co- locations will make it more difficult for us to co- locate on their silo. It
would undermine your own local law.
Board Member Hoffmann - I was just trying to envision the situation.
Chairperson Wilcox - The point is there is nothing in the lease to preclude Mr. Voss from leasing to
another company.
Attorney Barney - The alternative is to build a tower. I do not understand why there is a lot of
concern. The applicant has gone out of their way to put the antennas up in a place that have already
15
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
exists. It will have very minimal impact. You are making hurdles for the applicant to go through that
are not very practical hurdles to meet.
Mr. Walker - This is co- location already.
Board Member Hoffmann - I am just trying to look at the details.
The materials indicate that there will be no signs or advertisements except for what is required by the
FCC. What is required by the FCC?
Mr. Frateschi - The FCC requires a sign with the name of the company along with emergency
numbers that need to be on the sign in case of an emergency situation.
Board Member Hoffmann - Do you have any information on how the sign will look and how big it will
be?
Mr. Brunozzi - The signs are very small. They might be one foot by one foot. It is nothing that could
be seen from the road.
Mr. Walker - There are typical signs on every cable crossing in the Town that the telephone company
has to put on. They are smaller than normal street signs.
Board Member Talty - Is there barb wire on top of the chain link fence?
Mr. Frateschi - No.
Board Member Talty - My preference would be to hide the chain link fence with landscaping.
Mr. Frateschi - We will provide vegetative buffering if that is what the board prefers. The reason for
the fence is that the Town local law requires that we put a chain link fence of eight foot around the
structure.
Mr. Walker - We have several water tanks in the Town that have chain link fences with barbwire.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -90 - SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, I WO
Telecommunication Antennas on Silo, 385 West King Road, Tax Parcel No. 35 -3 -1.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed
16
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
telecommunication antennas on a silo at 385 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
35 -3 -1, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching six cellular antennas to the
top of an existing silo, constructing a 12 foot wide gravel access road approximately 360 feet
long, and constructing an eight foot high chain link fence inside of which the cellular equipment
cabinets will be located. George Voss, Owner; Independent Wireless One, Applicant, Timothy
A. Frateschi, Harris Beach, LLP, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has coordinated with
other involved agencies and has indicated its intent to serve as Lead Agency in environmental
review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll and Visual
Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning staff; a report entitled "IWO Application for Special
Use Permit," prepared by Harris Beach LLP; plans entitled "Buttermilk Silo/Voss, 385 W. King
Road, Ithaca, NY," including Sheet No. LT0746cZ1 entitled "Zoning Plans & Elevation," Sheet
No. LT0746cZ2 entitled "Zoning Overall Site Plan," and Sheet No. LTO746cZ3 entitled
"Zoning Property Plan," all prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc., and dated August, 2001; and
other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to conduct a
coordinated environmental review for the above - referenced action, pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617.6,
AND BE IT FURTHER 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, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed
telecommunication antennas on a silo at 385 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
35 -3 -1, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching six cellular antennas to the
17
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
top of an existing silo, constructing a 12 foot wide gravel access road approximately 360 feet
long, and constructing an eight foot high chain link fence inside of which the cellular
equipment cabinets will be located. George K. Voss, Owner; Independent Wireless One,
Applicant; Timothy A. Frateschi, Harris Beach, LLP, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. With no persons present to be heard,
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - I had a visit with Mr. Voss Saturday when I walked the site. Mr. Voss greeted
me very politely. Mr. Voss mentioned that he had been approached previously to construct a cell
tower on his property. He declined. I think for that he is to be commended. Within the last six
months there has been new technology developed which allows for this sort of system. Mr. Voss felt
this was reasonable use of his land. The Environmental Review Committee complimented it as well.
They also stated, "the CB wishes to commend the system operator (IWO) for taking the initiative to
search out siting locations that take into consideration the use of suitable existing tall structures,
rather than building a new structure for the purpose."
Attorney Barney - Did you look in Danby?
Mr.
Frateschi -
We did look in
the Town of Danby.
We
have a site
in the Town of Danby.
The site
that
we looked
at closer to the
Voss property would
have
required a new telecommunications
tower.
Attorney Barney - There is someone building one there now.
Mr. Frateschi - We just co- located on a tower in Danby. I think it is an AM /FM radio antenna that we
have co- located on.
Chairperson Wilcox - Board Member Hoffmann would like to see landscaping around the concrete
pad and chain link fence. I do not see any objections from other board members.
Attorney Barney - What type of plantings would you like to see around the chain link fence?
Board Member Hoffmann - I would like plantings, which are similar to the plantings in the area.
Board Member Talty - It would be nice to have something that blends into the landscape. A chain link
fence will work better than a stockade fence because it is intrusive no matter what vegetation
surrounds it. You are able to see through a chain link fence. It blends in with the background.
Attorney Barney - Does Mr. Voss have any objections to additional plantings?
Mr. Frateschi - I do not know if he will object to additional plantings. I do not suspect that it would be.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman - We had two other conditions in the resolution for submission of elevation
drawings including the colors of the cabinet and the submission of construction details of the gravel
access road. Those are the two items that the applicant passed out to the board tonight. They will
have to meet the board's approval.
in
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -91 - Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, IWO Telecommunication Antennas
on Silo, 385 West King Road, Tax Parcel No. 35 -34:
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe,
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunication
antennas on a silo at 385 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -3 -1, Residence
District R -30. The proposal includes attaching six cellular antennas to the top of an existing silo,
constructing a 12 foot wide gravel access road approximately 360 feet long, and constructing an
eight foot high chain link fence inside of which the cellular equipment cabinets will be located.
George Voss, Owner; Independent Wireless One, Applicant; Timothy A. Frateschi, Harris Beach,
LLP, Agent.
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 and Special Approval, has, on October 2,
2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and a Part 11 and Visual Addendum, prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 2, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a report entitled 'IWO Application for Special Use Permit," prepared by Harris Beach
LLP; and plans entitled, "Buttermilk Silo /Voss, 385 W. King Road, Ithaca, NY," including Sheet No.
LTO746cZ1 entitled "Zoning Plans & Elevation," Sheet No. LT0746cZ2 entitled "Zoning Overall
Site Plan," and Sheet No. LTO746cZ3 entitled "Zoning Property Plan," all prepared by C & S
Engineers, Inc., and dated August, 2001; and other application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
�. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
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 & Final Site Plan Approval
for the proposed Telecommunication Antennas on the Silo at 385 West King Road, Tax Parcel
No. 35 -3 -1, as shown on plans entitled, "Buttermilk Silo /Voss, 385 W. King Road, Ithaca, NY,"
prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc. and dated August, 2001, subject to the following conditions,
all to be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits:
19
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
a. submission of elevation drawings and construction materials, showing colors of the
proposed cellular equipment cabinets, to be a cream color, to be approved by the
Director of Planning, and
b. obtaining of the Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
C, modification of the site plan to show vegetative buffering, using native plants
satisfactory to the Director of Planning, and
d, submission of an original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan
(Sheet No. LT0746cZ2) to be retained by the Town of Ithaca.
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;
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 change in use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance
with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca;
d, the proposed telecommunication antennas are necessary to meet current or reasonably
expected demands for services;
e. the facility conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules or regulations
promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation
Administration, or any other federal agencies having jurisdiction;
f, the facility is considered a public utility in the State of New York;
g1 the facility is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes (i) visual
impact to the extent practical, and (ii) adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds
and wildlife;
h, the facility complies with all other requirements of this ordinance, unless expressly
superceded herein; and
i. the chosen site is the most appropriate site among those available within the technically
feasible area for the location of a telecommunications facility.
a
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, and
3. That the Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals waive the following
requirements of Local Law No.4, 1998, relating to the Construction and Maintenance of
Telecommunication Facilities:
a. an inventory report specifying existing telecommunication facility sites and evaluation of
opportunities for shared use,
b, the dimensional standards indicating the fall zone having a radius equal to the height of
attached antennae,
C. the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co- locate
telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Three Lot Subdivision, 149 Pine Tree Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:38 p.m.
Mr. Smith - The land is owned by the Baldwins. The Town is looking to develop a bikeway trail
connecting at the intersection of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road to Tudor Park. Mr. Smith
described the subdivision map to the board.
The subdivision should not have a negative environmental impact. The trail will be 10 feet wide.
There will be a parking area for the trail. The Baldwins will be retaining access to their back parcel in
case they need to subdivide it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are the Baldwins' giving up all road frontage on Snyder Hill Road?
Mr. Smith - Yes. They will be retaining a right -of -way to the back parcel.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is one property that extends a few feet further out than the other
properties. There might be an issue of people taking a shortcut across their property.
Board Member Howe - It might not be a problem if the trail is paved around their property.
Chairperson Wilcox - Will the trail be asphalt or gravel?
21
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Walker - I think it is going to be something like the South Hill Trail where it is half of it will be
gravel and the other half will be asphalt paving. We will look at the plantings, vegetation, and type of
walkway and fencing during the design review to minimize any wandering off the path.
Board Member Thayer - Mr. Smith, the big lot in the back could never be used as building lots if they
are giving up all access to Snyder Hill Road.
Mr. Smith - They have a right -of -way across Town property.
Mr. Kanter - The Baldwins' have talked about their feeling that they would really prefer not seeing any
heavy level of development on that interior part of the property. They have thought about putting
some kind of permanent protection on the property.
Chairperson Wilcox - The other proposed lot does not have road frontage. I discussed this with Ms.
Ritter today before the meeting. I am bothered by that. The resolution leaves it open- ended. It talks
about a variance or consolidation.
Mr. Smith - We left it open ended because we are not sure how the parcels are going to be acquired.
We are not sure if they are going to be acquired as parkland or general municipal land.
Attorney Barney - The water tank is on the landlocked parcel that exists. If we wanted to use the
property to run waterlines we were concerned about the lands being a park dedication.
Mr. Walker - The waterlines already run through the adjacent parcel. It may be parkland. We have
several parks in the Town where we have done drainage improvements on to eliminate flooding
problems that have occurred in the Town.
Mr. Kanter - The parcel to the east that the Town will also be obtaining is owned jointly by the
Baldwins and Colles. As part of that conveyance, they have indicated a number of different kinds of
restrictions that they would require of the Town on that property. Their intent is to continue the use of
the large parcel by the neighborhood as a nature area. It does not matter if we call it a park or not as
long as the restrictions that the Baldwins and Colles would like to see are clearly spelled out in the
deed restrictions. My preference to insure that we can do some of the storm water management that
we need to do in a very natural way could also be tied into the deed. It would be better for the Town if
we could get it as general - purpose land. Again, we are not sure if the Baldwins and Colles will agree
to do it that way. This is why this particular kind of wording has been included in the resolution. The
third alternative would be to when the Baldwin Colle property is conveyed to the Town to further
subdivide the parcel including the water tower with the piece that connects to Regency Lane and
square off the area. The two parcels could be consolidated.
Chairperson Wilcox - What is the timeframe?
Mr. Smith - The parcel is being surveyed now. It will be two months at least before the transactions
take place.
Board Member Hoffmann - Does the large parcel continue further to the east than is shown?
WA
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Smith - If you look at the small map that was produced to show the trail location, it is about 25
acres.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -92 - SEOR, Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Baldwin 3 -Lot
Subdivision, 149 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 -7.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three lot
subdivision at 149 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 -7.2, Residence District
R -15. The proposed subdivision will create a 4.399 +/- acre parcel, a 1.824 +/- acre parcel and
a 16.282 +/- acre parcel (to be retained by the Baldwins) from the original 22.5 +/- acre parcel.
The 6.2 +/- acres being subdivided off the original parcel will be used for the William & Hannah
Pew Bikeway and drainage access. Frank & Blythe Baldwin, Owners; Town of Ithaca,
Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by
Town Planning staff, a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Frank C. Baldwin JR.
& Blythe C. Baldwin," prepared by Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 412312001,
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 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.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: NONE.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
23
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed three lot subdivision at 149 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 -7.2,
Residence District R -15. The proposed subdivision will create a 4.399 +/- acre parcel, a 1.824
+/- acre parcel and .a 16.282 +/- acre parcel (to be retained by the Baldwins) from the original
22.5 +/- acre parcel. The 6.2 +/- acres being subdivided off the original parcel will be used for
the William & Hannah Pew Bikeway and drainage access. Frank & Blythe Baldwin, Owners;
Town of Ithaca, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:56 p.m.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road - I was pleased to hear information about the parking area. I was
worried that people would be parking across the street on my lawns. I am the lower house. I think it
is a nice idea in general. It is a nice area to walk right now, but it is very muddy footpath. I see it
getting more and more traffic. It is probably time to take it over and do it well. My concern would be
the construction of the parking area and what its site impact is going to be and traffic impact coming
out there. I am referring to the triangular area to be used as a parking lot.
Beverly Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road - My house is at
across from. I have known that this was in the works.
the land. It was all that I really knew about other than
curious about what is being planned and when it is go
enthusiasm for the project. I think it is a good idea. It
urged for a long time.
the opposite end of where Ms. Erb's house is
I knew that the Baldwins were going to give
that there is a grant for the trail. I have been
ing to be done. I would like to add my basic
is something in general I have promoted and
The question that I have been asking is when is the public going to have input. The neighborhood
should be involved in the plan before everything is cast in stone.
Mr. Smith - Once we have preliminary plans then we will hold a public meeting for suggestions and
information.
Mr. Kanter - We do not have plans finalized at this point. All we know right now is that it will be
somewhere within the yellow area depicted on the map. Mr. Smith has been working with
Engineering staff to come up with preliminary concept drawings. The way we would probably handle
it is that we would go out to the neighborhood and try to fine tune the concept plans. We will try to
address landscape and buffering needs. It will be to get the neighborhood much more familiar with
the project. I would say that it would be early next year that we will bring the plans forward.
Ms. Livesay - You may know that I believe in bringing the public in sooner rather than later in projects.
The public might like to be involved in things before it is just down to the fine - tuning. I would hope
that that would happen. I would hate to see any big neighborhood division over this issue or that
issue. It will be good to get the concerns right up front. The design should be to meet neighborhood
concerns. It is not always a matter of plantings. Sometimes it is a matter of removing some planting.
When we built the house up there, this was a mowed field. The view went on forever. It was
spectacular. We designed our house to the view. Now we live on the edge of woods. It would be
nice to have a place to peek through every now and again. I think it would be good for those
I•Z
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
considerations to be addressed. I love trees and I do not want people just clear- cutting. I think it is a
shame when we have the vistas we have to hide them behind bushes.
The other question that I had is regarding the access that is furthest up. It is one that I understand is
being given up as really any kind of an access to the property other than the Town might use it. I
read something some place that the folks that live in that house will be allowed to continue to use it.
Their driveway is now elevated above the other half of it. Is it intended to just allow them to have their
driveway? Could it be deeded over to them? Are there any plans for the Town to use that as an
access for anything other than perhaps access to the trail itself?
Mr. Smith - The access off Regency Lane would be used to access the water tank.
Ms. Livesay - Since it is such a nifty triangular piece up there, would you have any plans to do
anything else with it?
Mr. Smith - The trail was originally designed to go up into the area. It was just included in part of the
subdivision to the Town.
Mr. Kanter - Is the area mostly wooded now?
Ms. Livesay - Yes. The trees have grown up. After talking with Ms. Baldwin about it, I have cleared
some of the dying Ash trees from our property and their property. With all the fires in California I was
beginning to get concerned. My preference would be some trees down and then maintained.
Ms. Erb - I think one of the access strips gets pretty heavy sledding use in the wintertime. You might
want to plan around it. I think it is the lower one. It might make a difference in terms of plans for how
heavily you want to barb wire it.
Mr. Kanter - Those types of things the neighborhood could tell us will be very helpful. I did not mean
to imply that we would be coming to the neighborhood that would be too far in advance to change. It
is exactly the kind of input we would like.
Ms. Erb - One access point is fairly wide and sort of grassy. There was a lot of sledding activity a few
years ago.
Ms. Livesay - None of the access points are really at all good for road access because of how they
are located on the steep hill. The same thing goes for the one on Slaterville Road. It is not an
appropriate access for the land. It is very dangerous. The intersection of Honness Lane and Route
79 is extremely dangerous too. There is no sight distance. While the speed limit is 45 mph, a lot of
people do not go 45 mph. They are coming 55 mph until they hit the City line. Pulling out of Honness
Lane is difficult. I think something needs to be done.
Board Member Hoffmann - The intersection of Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane is very dangerous.
There is more traffic in the area.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 10:09 p.m.
25
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I would like to see consolidation of the one landlocked parcel. I do not want my
legacy to be landlocked parcels. They are awful. They will cause problems in 10 years, 15 years, 50
years or 100 years.
Mr. Kanter - This is for a public purpose. The others have been for private lots and or development.
We did not originally seek this parcel. The Baldwins were kind enough to offer it for the Town
specifically for drainage improvement purposes. It has public benefit in mind.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is the rest of the board concerned?
Board Member Howe - I do not have a concern with it.
Board Member Talty - I would not want a landlocked parcel on anything. I do not know if there is
anything we can do about it. This could be the exception and not the rule. That would be fine with
me too. I agree with Chairperson Wilcox about landlocked parcels. It could come back never or it
could come back in a week.
Attorney Barney - I am not in favor of landlocked parcels. This is a unique situation.
Mr. Kanter - We, as staff, would prefer consolidation as well. We do not want to land lock ourselves
into a situation that we might not be able to get out of it.
Board Member Thayer - We could refuse the gift.
Mr. Walker - I would not recommend that. There is a tiny lot at the end of Regency Lane with small
building on it. It is our pump station. It is located only five feet below the top of the water tank. It
draws water out of the water tank. The pump station does not like to work in the suction mode. The
pump station is located there because the owner of the property would not allow us to buy the square
lot above the eastern boundary. The owner did not want to sell it. If we can through this other
negotiation obtain that, we would want to expand the Town water tank lot to have access directly to
Regency Lane. It would unlandlock that parcel and the adjoining parcel. It is the goal of the
Engineering Department to get that to happen.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -93 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Baldwin 3 -Lot
Subdivision, 149 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 -7.2.
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS.
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three lot
subdivision at 149 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 -7.2, Residence District
R -15. The proposed subdivision will create a 4.399 +/- acre parcel, a 1.824 +/- acre parcel and
a 16.282 +/- acre parcel (to be retained by the Baldwins) from the original 22.5 +/- acre parcel.
The 6.2 +/- acres being subdivided off the original parcel will be used for the William & Hannah
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Pew Bikeway and drainage access. Frank & Blythe Baldwin, Owners; Town of Ithaca,
Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on October 2, 2001, made
a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 2, 2001, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate, a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Frank C. Baldwin JR. &
Blythe C. Baldwin'; prepared by Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 412312001, 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 Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision at 149 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 57- 1 -7.2, as shown on the plat entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Frank C.
Baldwin JR. & Blythe C. Baldwin'; prepared by Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated
4/23/2001, subject to the following condition:
a. obtaining of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, or
consolidation of the 1.824 +/- acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 57- 1- 11.12.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: NONE.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: September 18, 20018
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -94 - Approval of Minutes - September 18, 2001.
MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the September 18, 2001
minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as
presented with corrections.
27
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairperson Wilcox - The October 16, 2001 meeting has been cancelled.
I would like Town staff to look into getting board members nametags for when we do site visits. It
would be nice to be identified. We are walking on other people's property.
Mr. Kanter - We have discussed it at staff meetings.
identified as well.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
We think it is a good idea for staff to be
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the October 2, 2001 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Res Jectfully submitt d:
C ne fiiore,
Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes
NE
0
ma
U)
0
O
molb
C
N �
� 3
d0v
zr�
00
oM
rMOL .3
ATTACH�IIV'I' #1
�i
O
3
"a
n
O
c
G
rt
n
0
3
3
c
r-r
CD
ol<
D
Ic r
n
O
`3
�c
2
IN
V
n
7
CD
V)
0
i
0
C
�G
CL
O
::E
(D
C
n
O
3
3
■
0
rim
CD
C
cu
(i
0
3
3
c
ru'
_
rim
_
C
■ J
1
l
Cj
D 4rpa.
Ste Vi N. "!D',� - s ° •�M1 a it �! .j�J +.�j,�*� 1` r•� .! itr, J{FLFl a R 1 "•
•�1 7i k '�- i f tl ' ; aJ + i V
. 11
1 i.cAY' Y ^� (Tf Lt 4S I Y' r ail. t.l• • -•
<ai`a •icrrcj M
rr
pi '< f ��� .�t Y._�� +,e(T1.�t r ♦ ,.1. 'L: r r 't i 1� ri.�jj(d-
�'� }•i.(' T.'�., .'ifi D rjri9l '[lY i r /� 1.7Ijtl✓('f't5 r i•�xl 4 a L .51�
t �tf
� r
f yT+"'k'�:1� S 1 1 -i �+y S. : rt �b t�' <. 12= iyy Jrt C µ+i jJj�i.+a�.� 1 - ` J•x.
! �,r� •.1 J L! r ,.r-f`�t:_ Y{ nip _ a � t• �' .1 rt °t Ff ,'r ' • �•f/r. �..
�'99t
nt +rf �i�y a. a/ ,• T j,�"�a "yr��,`i is r�(1� a' .`ru yam' Ya
N m',? i, �t° ry .i w•t r.;2'', fi !q x 1 JI lt
.ry mod- �� C• /�ra =lYkl: �1,i� .�T "•�s � y
"LJ Pr' +k / ♦w lDr r}�fy. �'f *• j.i�
s'. y+7+ - Yrt (c
' N rr ft-4 yL 4 x�l ,: i :� ,✓ i S 1
41 •fir 4= �' l §"(f if LS JJ t fy9� "1"�•.r
v ._;L.. _i J�.�' /1 �� : "- �is.�t ' /��;��{e•SLi �j 1%�.�k _ ;> . ` ` fJ r ijt ''V
_, f I J R Jai ✓ j�'`�k i g S Z 6t ii'. ' }' r jcl
J, .>rr*
�. 4 5•T ,Fa M t{ �' 1� J Z
/ _ . r ; � a i]+ tR,3 .d' x-� i /1yy� a t � s � J ' ly S i p •.
• a•. i^ i r� V1t All
1
Ilk
o' D
n O
o ;
Z
H
m
N
■ ■
l 1
� -�
cu cu
MMI
n• �
Lo
O
:3 a)
O �
C:).
O _.
3
3
rot
O
C
CD
0
cam
0
O
CD
c
D
CL
a)
rim
Om
O
om
CD
O
3
D D
c)
O
O
MMI
Om
r--r
[D
n
a)
ID
O
rim
O
Lo
n,
rt
O
O
n
r
i
UAI
J
F
r--I'
(D
° D
r
4 0
n 0
°3
�c
■ r.
IN
(m \/
• .I
0
n
_ ■
eeee_
�c /wD ■
Y
■ ■
Y / "
D (v
o -'
mo co
3 n
o
3
3
cu
0
MMI
Y •
0
wo
■
Ln
• 11/
0
CL
m
M7
o
07
n
CL
0
La
c�
n
0
3
3
_.
rmt
3
c�
rim
rmtm
0
0
i
� ■
i
19
N ik
•
�J
lee
ddddd
i
� ■
i
19
N ik
•
�J
o<
o;
r
N
m
N
CIO -O Q
�� (D (D
LO :3 Omt cD
(D Or
a, n- ()
= � U) (D
n�
O
-O LO fl.
cD
Q Om �.
(D O r-r �
=� 0
� �
r* Q V)'
O
LO
0
c
V)
3
mo
3
c�
a)
rr
0
0
3,
X
O
Ln
Q
0
0
E
O
3
3
al
3
�1
�r
n
Cr
wb
44
d`
O
1�
� 1
I
1
• i �. t
. 7; �. ' ':�s , r ,'a' i�' •� 'fir I
1 N q
E
� }
OA
FA
LIP
frl.i�i >. S # y rl ...yy • 1
lk
If
i gi�jD11
1
i
I
4
•
�D 2
74
a
O
Z
IN
O m O �
C: O C: O
to CD lc) rot
O n O
. � 0 cn
tea' �3
l�
CL
cr
MMI
cr
ca
c�
X
• r
CD
C�
O
CD
0
(D�
0
s
0
c
�o
O'
w
0
3
0
tilt
O
n'
c�
Q
1 I
1�
1
•
I
1
1
,'R
if
1
ft
1 g
S ` ■ t
■
1
1�
L
1�
,i
3'
a
a
ti��srrrlr� n,-
Oki
',• V � ri C , U.
pll
el
dk
1p
A. n, �• i Pol. _ Y r i I
t 5
�s
F •[ 'ri,t' =�L j.,��, is {`:r �° . - �
p, r
tirL( rvll� 'S?k aw4 F' ,1 ti zi�
)�• fit`' L�`{` 4! ;:�. :. L'44 `� ' xJ' 7t-.`.
w e ri
r �•. � tryyttq`+YY'r *`^'^IL. •;1 �1 t. f•�1
At lo
� x ►1 ,1
i x !tom 4' �'a-j� L!Iyr I.fj��r r J t f` 2y` t
I
1
U
•
bow
■
O
3
0
M
0
(son�
3
I I
.f.
IN
rim
m
W
0I
O
n �
� n
0
0
u
O
rt
c(D
M
3�
0
Cr
Ul
■
M
-o
70
O
wn
0
=�
can
Un
rmr
co
70
3
■
wl
0
3
3
m
i
i k
a�
rD
o�
c�
Bull
y
0
O
n
O
O
1!
ONO
CD
lk
-i
1�
•
•
1
•
�o
N
N
CL
0
mo
3
ror
0
0
cr
U)
70�
rim
OMI
1.
rt
cu
ror
C
mo
0
4
(n
V
Ln
0
mo
0
0'
CD
j
rmt
0
rt
0
CL
0 �+
7
�3
0_
rim
3
CL
mv
0
� V
0
n
0
a�
Q1,
rb
"h
V
0
0
y
O
tot
O�
O
n'
c�
Ik
•
•
t
lk
ge
O
or
Z
zi
IN
■
Z
O
O
CL
C-D
=�
O
CD
O
�
r+
O
O
<
rt
3
CD
rr+
m
<0
CD
■
m
Q'
r
U�
m
m
C(D
co
Cl)
-
CD
O
n
0
c
O
O
U)
om
CD
=�
cn,
CD
CDa
C
rt
CD
CD
O
v)
cot
cD
Lo
n
0
c
■
X
r
A�
.a
r+
(D
so
=0
O
n
r*
CL
LO
I..
r ■
omo
/mow,
om
O
3
n,
aj
a)
=�
Lo
CD
O
O
CD
r:3-r
Q)
a)
LO
rt
r ■
LO
�_/wI, ,
n
0
c
.O
O
CAD
CL
CD
co
rim
O
�
Y w ,
CD
La
' 1
.
Y O
I-)
IN
Lommq I W�Vmll
O O o 3
lQ �.
O
wo
CD CD
Q-
-.
� � °
cr —
om cam c� 3
CD — • C:
WM
COl� �o W CD —. cn
O O cn m0
(D
CD , r ml COMI
a :3 cn r* ° CD
C a ■
{
mo °
40
c� 70
CD
s ■
ca •
can
� � n
n
FTP
°D
r
w O
�3
�c
■ FA
la
IN
Do
�rn
rim LO
o
rl
Lo
0
Un
� o �
Q
C
0
rmv
Q
0
fi
•
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
121 East Court Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274 -5560
Fax (607) 274 -5578
Thank you for your interest in the Vital Communities Initiative. Please make
comments on the attached draft Development and Preservation Principles and
leave them on your chair (to be collected by the presenter) or submit them to.
Tompkins County Planning Department
121 E. Court St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
T: (607) 274 -5560
F: (607) 274 -5578
planning @tompkins- co.org
http: / /www.tompkins- co.org /planning /vci/
Principle LA
Build strong, cohesive neighborhoods and communities.
• Encourage the development of communities that provide a mix of uses, a
variety of employment options, social and recreational opportunities, and
an assortment of amenities within walking distance of residential
development.
• Enhance the quality of conrnmunities by including visually appealing
architectural elements and streetscapes that encourage pedestrian travel
and facilitate community interaction.
• Preserve and enhance the distinct identities of existing neighborhoods,
and encourage the development of new neighborhoods that possess
their own special sense of place, through attractive design of public
places; proximity to schools, parks and other services, and community
festivals and events.
Comments:
Princip /e 2
Encourage nodal development patterns that build on
existing infrastructure and population centers.
• Strengthen and enhance the City of Ithaca's downtown area as the
urban center of the County.
• Increase the amount and density of housing, office and retail space
in the central business districts throughout the County.
• Use in -fill development to promote greater density by filling the
existing "gaps" left by abandoned buildings, vacant parcels available
for development, and land located behind existing development
along roads.
• Save public costs by directing new cluster development to places
where sewer, water, roads, and other necessary services already
exist, or are planned as part of a comprehensive plan to
accommodate projected growth.
Comments:
Principle M
Promote choice and affordability in housing options.
• Provide for a variety of living experiences, including rural, suburban,
small villages, big villages, and urban, each with its own distinct
style and personality.
• Protect consumers' housing choices by providing a mix of choices
(i.e., location, housing types, and neighborhood character).
• Provide more affordable housing options for low-to- moderate
income residents.
Comments:
3
Principle 4;
Protect natural resources, green spaces and recreational
resources.
• Preserve and protect open space, unique natural areas, wetlands, water
and woodland resources, scenic views, areas of natural beauty, and the
rural character of Tompkins County.
• Create, preserve, and enhance parks, hiking trails, active and passive
recreation facilities, and historic resources; enhance public access to
Cayuga Lake.
• Provide a system of interconnecting greenways and ecological corridors
that connect agricultural lands, natural areas, and open space.
• Protect water quality and quantity in the County's streams, lakes, and
groundwater and consider the potential regional impacts on water supply
and wastewater management for all proposed developments.
• Protect the areas where crucial aquifers are replenished and avoid new
development in flood prone areas.
Comments:
0
Princip /e 2;
Encourage nodal development patterns that build on
existing infrastructure and population centers.
• Strengthen and enhance the City of Ithaca's downtown area as the
urban center of the County.
• Increase the amount and density of housing, office and retail space
in the central business districts throughout the County.
• Use in -fill development to promote greater density by filling the
existing "gaps" left by abandoned buildings, vacant parcels available
for development, and land located behind existing development
along roads.
• Save public costs by directing new cluster development to places
where sewer, water, roads, and other necessary services already
exist, or are planned as part of a comprehensive plan to
accommodate projected growth.
Comments:
0
Principle 1;
Build strong, cohesive neighborhoods and communities.
• Encourage the development of communities that provide a mix of uses, a
variety of employment options, social and recreational opportunities, and
an assortment of amenities within walking distance of residential
development.
• Enhance the quality of communities by including visually appealing
architectural elements and streetscapes that encourage pedestrian travel
and facilitate community interaction.
• Preserve and enhance the distinct identities of existing neighborhoods,
and encourage the development of new neighborhoods that possess
their own special sense of place, through attractive design of public
places; proximity to schools, parks and other services; and community
festivals and events.
Comments:
Principle 4; _
Protect natural resources, green spaces and recreational
resources.
• Preserve and protect open space, unique natural areas, wetlands, water
and woodland resources, scenic views, areas of natural beauty, and the
rural character of Tompkins County.
• Create, preserve, and enhance parks, hiking trails, active and passive
recreation facilities, and historic resources; enhance public access to
Cayuga Lake.
• Provide a system of interconnecting greenways and ecological corridors
that connect agricultural lands, natural areas, and open space.
• Protect water quality and quantity in the County's streams, lakes, and
groundwater and consider the potential regional impacts on water supply
and wastewater management for all proposed developments.
• Protect the areas where crucial aquifers are replenished and avoid new
development in flood prone areas.
Comments:
0
P�incip /e 3;
Promote choice and affordability in housing options.
• Provide for a variety of living experiences, including rural, suburban,
small villages, big villages, and urban, each with its own distinct
style and personality.
• Protect consumers' housing choices by providing a mix of choices
(i.e., location, housing types, and neighborhood character).
• Provide more affordable housing options for low -to- moderate
income residents.
Comments:
Principle S;
Promote agriculture and protect farmland.
• Protect prime agricultural soils and areas of contiguous
agricultural activity.
• Support existing farming operations and agricultural
businesses, and encourage new ones to be formed.
• Encourage cluster development to preserve open space and
valuable agricultural land.
Comments:
5
Principle 6: - - -_�
Enhance development of a local economy that supports
strong communities.
• Concentrate commercial, industrial, and retail development onto
relatively small amounts of land, in proximity to housing and
consumers, and in existing developed areas (through vertical growth,
where appropriate).
• Increase the proportion of well -paid jobs within the local economy.
• Provide a climate where local businesses can flourish by enhancing
the County`s natural resources, arts and culture, lively urban core,
and vital neighborhoods.
• Support tourism in the area by encouraging local institutions,
businesses, and facilities to better plan and coordinate tourism
related activities.
• Enhance the capacity of existing water and sewer systems to
accommodate commercial growth in the urbanized areas of the
County.
Comments:
0
Principle 6;
Enhance development of a local economy that supports
strong communities.
• Concentrate commercial, industrial, and retail development onto
relatively small amounts of land, in proximity to housing and
consumers, and in existing developed areas (through vertical growth,
where appropriate).
• Increase the proportion of well -paid jobs within the local economy.
• Provide a climate where local businesses can flourish by enhancing
the County's natural resources, arts and culture, lively urban core,
and vital neighborhoods.
• Support tourism in the area by encouraging local institutions,
businesses, and facilities to better plan and coordinate tourism
related activities.
• Enhance the capacity of existing water and sewer systems to
accommodate commercial growth in the urbanized areas of the
County.
Comments:
Principle 5:
Promote agriculture and protect farmland.
• Protect prime agricultural soils and areas of contiguous
agricultural activity,
• Support existing farming operations and agricultural
businesses, and encourage new ones to be formed,
• Encourage cluster development to preserve open space and
valuable agricultural land,
Comments:
5
Principle 7: - - -- —
Promote transportation choices that support compact
development patterns.
• Provide public transportation to improve connectivity among outlying
nodes, the Ithaca urban area, and destinations outside the County.
• Provide affordable and accessible public transportation for County
residents to services, jobs, shopping, recreation, and educational and job
training opportunities.
• Enhance transportation options that allow passengers to transfer easily
and safely from one mode of transportation to another (e.g., biking to
bus service).
• Enhance and promote the use of bicycles and walking as viable forms of
transportation by providing public facilities, including multi -use trails,
bicycle routes, and sidewalks.
• For the urbanized and growing areas of the County, enhance
transportation options, and improve air service frequency, destinations,
and cost to support business development.
Comments
7