HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-03-16TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2004 DATE
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special session on Tuesday, March
16, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George
Conneman, Board, Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director
of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith,
Environmental Planner.
EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin
Talty, Board Member; Christine Balestra, Planner
OTHERS: Roger Perkins, 230 Stone Quarry Road; Kelly Anderson, 129
Triphammer Terrace; Bob Anderson, 21 Asbury Road; C. Denise Scott;
Alexander Perkins; 230 Stone Quarry Road; Gretchen Herrmann; 433
Bostwick Road; Susan Titus, 250 Culver Road; Peter Trowbridge, 1345
Mecklenburg Road; Taylor Peck, 6315 States Road, Alpine; Mike Thorne,
104 Brookfield Road; Diane Conneman, 197 Christopher Lane
Meeting called to order at 7:04 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and
accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the
Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 8, 2004
and March 10, 2004, 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 March 10, 2004.
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.
Chairperson Wilcox — I did get a phone call from Kevin and he was still east of
Binghamton and I told him no to hurry on our behalf. So, I don't know whether
we'll have more than four tonight or not, but four is sometimes enough so we will
proceed.
AGENDA ITEM : Persons to be Heard:
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox If there is a member of the audience who wishes to
address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item or -a topic which is
not on this evening's agenda,'we ask you to please step to the microphone, have
a seat, give up your name and address and we would be most interested to hear
what you have to say this evening.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p0m., With no
persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the
meeting at 7:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Perkins 2 -Lot Subdivision, 230 Stone
Quarry Road,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is one of the Perkins. here this evening? Any one of you.
Come on up, just don't speak yet. We've got to get you into that microphone so
that we can record you. It amplifies and records. That way we know every word
you say. What I will ask, if there are two of you, I will ask that. each of you give
me your name and address. If you go back and forth, just state your name before
you start talking.
Alexander Perkins, 230 Stone Quarry Road — With my father, who is also here
sitting with me.
Chairperson Wilcox — Could you give us a brief overview of what you are
proposing?
Mr. Perkins— What I am looking to do is build a house on this Parcel B. I want to
raise a family there when I get married. My father has offered to give this land to
me so that is why I am pursuing this subdivision, as it is required to be done
before the zoning changes go into effect. My intention is to build a house and my
family, which I intend to have in years to come. I had a few things that I wanted to
talk .about regarding the suggestions that were ... the proposed resolution. Do
you want me to go ahead and just...
Chairperson Wilcox — Be my guest.
Mr. Perkins — Okay, I'll read part of my prepared statement. I want to take the
opportunity to express my appreciation for what the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is doing to preserve the natural
beauty of the area. I enjoy our regional parks very much, especially Buttermilk
Falls State Park, since I live right near it. It's very convenient and fun to go to.
Although I believe their motivations are good and understand their concerns,
their plans to have 75 feet or no building and 50 feet of no disturbance from the
gorge boarder do interfere with my ownership of my property. This will be a new
2
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH. 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
restriction place on nearly, according to my rough estimates, 14,000 square feet
of property where there was no restriction before. I also wonder with restrictions
like these on my property, what the practical difference are between this nearly
14,000 square feet of land, which will belong to me and the land belonging to the
State across the gorge in the State Park. In fact, the practical difference I see
between the land owned by the State across the gorge and the restricted land,
which will soon be mine, is that I will be paying for land I can't really do as l
please with. I already will be paying taxes to support the State Parks System,
should I then also be required to pay tax on land that I supposedly own, whose
usage is dictated by the Office of Parks? Wouldn't 1 then be unfairly taxed ?. Like I
said before, I enjoy the parks very much, but if the State intends to appropriate
my rights to my land, I would expect to be treated fairly. I'd .like to appeal to your
sense of fairness and desire to uphold the rights of the individuals that reside in
the Town of Ithaca. I should not have my land appropriated without some form of
compensation, not my land really, but my rights to my land. I should not have to
pay the same tax per acre for restricted land, as someone who has not such
restrictions as if it were mine to do with as I please. Those are my main concerns
with the proposed resolution and I understand that there may be difficulties.
know that time is, we don't have tons of time with the zoning changing and all
that stuff.
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll get to those in a second. The first thing we do is
make an environmental determination. Are you aware of any environmental
impacts of the proposed subdivision?
Mr. Perkins - The subdivision itself shouldn't have any environmental impact
whatsoever.
Chairperson Wilcox — Though it would allow the construction of new unit.
Mr. Perkins = That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody want to address his comments ?. You want to go
or you want me to?
Board Member Hoffmann — You go ahead,
Chairperson Wilcox — How do I want to do this? This Town has zoning and as a
result, it has subdivision review, as a result: That's one of the powers that has
been granted to this Planning Board through State enabling legislation and then,
obviously, through the Town Board, which has granted us review. One of the
things that we always do, I think consistently do, when we review either
subdivisions or site plans is look at the impact on other areas, whether that's in
this case, as unique natural area that this property boarders or the State Park
that it borders. We have imposed buffers, no build buffers around other
subdivisions, notably, a large subdivision on Route 96 B bordering on State Park
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
land and also we've seen .some preliminary... another one that comes to. mind is
also on South Hill, East King Road, where we have seen preliminary sketch
plans from this developer and we have constantly said that we want to see 30
foot, in .this case, 30 foot no build zones. Sometimes it's an appropriate thing to
do. Now having said that, Chris is not here and this is hers. Do you know if she is
going o be here tonight?
Ms. Ritter — She will
unexpectedly.
not be here tonight. She had to go to . Syracuse
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Anybody else familiar with this one?
Ms. Ritter — I think we are both familiar.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any comments that you want to make?
Ms. Ritter — Just that. those are the concerns. That's why there was a 50 foot no
build zone. It's just this concern about, one, at the gorge. There is a fairly good
sized creek that runs along the border of State Parks and private property.
Concerns about water quality, concerns about the unique natural area and
concerns about the Parks. We've got several things going on here. It seems like
it is an area where you just have some environmental concerns and we wanted
to protect all of those from building. We're not so afraid of the subdivision itself,
it's where they are going to put the house and subsequent development on this
residential lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — The advantage is that it is a nice big lot.
Ms. Ritter- It seems to be a big lot, right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right, for an R -9 District, it's an exceptionally large lot.
Board Member Conneman — I wasn't sure, is it Alexander?
Mr. Perkins — My name is Alexander, yes.
Board Member Conneman — I wasn't sure what you were saying. Were you
saying that you didn't object to the buffer, but you thought you should not pay
taxes on that part of the buffer?
Mr. Perkins — Well, my concern is not that they have a buffer necessarily, but, I
mean, it is, in a sense, when you thing about it, right now, the land belongs to my
family. We have.the rights to do with the lands as we choose. For instance, right
now with the proposed 75 feet, we could do whatever we want with that right
now, but under the subdivision, it will be sort of taking away some of my rights to
the land and I was just wondering if it's normal to, is there no compensation for
Ei
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH. 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
doing that? This land, I will not be able to do anything with. In a sense, on the title
it is going to have these restrictions on it and isn't that make it.worth less than it
would otherwise, being that it's land that you can't use as you choose?
Board Member Conneman — Protecting. the park and the gorge and all that stuff,
doesn't that make it worth more and some buyers down the road will say wow,
what a nice place?
Mr. Perkins — They may do that any way, but they may realize that I did that of
my own accord, rather than being forced.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think the
that maybe when this lot was first set
was some time ago, and we didn't qui
natural areas and the park lands and
rules and regulations. As you heard
being asked to protect a certain part
important areas:
main idea that we need to explain to you is
up, I don't know when this happened, but it
to have the awareness of the importance of
so on and since then, we have put in new
already, you are not the only one who is
of your land that would border on several
Mr. Perkins — Right. I would like to point out that the land which I would be
acquiring as Parcel B is not, in fact; actual in a unique natural area, nor has been
declared that it, is a unique natural area, it's simply that it borders one and I that,
in a sense it takes a unique natural area and it says here's a unique natural area
and it's like expanding on that to sort of grow the whole thing. I think it's at my
expense. Like I said, I want to keep the trees, in fact, to be honest with you, I'm
probably not going to build ,anywhere right at the 75 feet, my concern is that the
whole building the house is a complicated one and you need distances from this
and that and locating the house in an appropriate part of the land becomes more
complicated as you further constrict the borders.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's true and especially in Ithaca, where we have
so many pieces of land which have great slopes on them and so on. I understand
that. If you were to look at our new Zoning Ordinance and the various rules and
regulations that we have, you will see that we have, what we can buffer zones
around sensitive areas and this is what this strip of land would be, it would be a
buffer next to the unique natural area to protect it. This, the Town has instituted
consistently in areas around Town where there are sensitive natural habitats and
we feel it's very important to have buffer zones, where possible.
Mr. Perkins — I agree. I am just saying that since this buffer zone, just happens to
fall in my lap, do I like ... I understand the importance of having a buffer zone, but I
am just saying since it is, in a sense, taking away rights from my land, I'm just
curious is there is anything that I get out of that at all, besides the good feeling in
my heart.
l:
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Barney — You get a subdivision. You want a subdivision don't you? You get a
subdivision, without that restriction, you may not get a subdivision. These
restrictions, on the other hand, you have setback requirements, you can't build or
put a house in the first ten feet of the land, you can't put a house within, I don't
know what the rear yard setback is, but there is a limitation there. Everything we
do these days has limitations, which are for the common good. There is a
concern, obviously, it's been articulated with respect to this gorge and the area
behind it and the way that we traditionally protect those kinds of things is to say
that there are certain areas of the lots that will be limited. The question I have
actually is have you talked to the Health Department as to where you are going
to put a septic system?
Mr. Perkins — I have not. I understand some of the concerns for that and, as far
as I understand it, there is no point in even doing a perk test for anything like that
simply because it's all rock there pretty much and it will probably require a sand
filter. I figured, a far as I understand it, you could put those and it's not as big a
deal. I may be ignorant on that. I haven't gotten to that stage. We're taking it one
step at a time.
Mr. Barney — The reason I ask that question is because if we put the 75 foot limit
on it, that's no build, you're now lopped off another 75 feet to be considered for a
possible reach for ' overflow from the septic system, which you may want to.bury,
but you're now making the lot a little bit smaller. The septic system is normally
down hill from the house , so it's toward the back and if you are pushing the
house back, presumably behind the driveway, I'm not quite sure what kind of a —
Mr. Perkins —. Understand that my concerns are, as far as Where I place the
house, you've mentioned some of them. Also, I intend. to keep, as it adds values
to the property and also it makes everything look nicer, I'd like to keep as many
mature trees as possible. I also would, in the interest of my neighbors, not like to
build on their back door. I think that's also good for the neighborhood as well: 1
find myself, as this is coming in , that I am getting further and further restricted to
just a few locations. I haven't finalized a design on the house yet.
Mr. Barney — Is it necessary for the drive to be where it is shown on this survey
map? The topography looks like, there's 'a ten foot drop.
Mr. Perkins — Yes, they are ten foot drops. Where the .driveway is right now, it's
like a tree -lined driveway with trees all the way up, very mature trees that were
specifically kept.
Mr. Barney — All the way around the bend?
Mr. Perkins — The bend, right down by the bend there are some as well. I want to
minimize the environmental impact of construction.
2
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board Member Hoffmann — It looks, from the drawing we have, as if the less
steep areas, it's pretty sloping all over, but the lesser of the slope is along the
boundary, the proposed boundary to the .north, where the existing house is and
the buffer area would be at the other end of the lot, where it's steeper.
Mr. Perkins — Yes, that is correct, but for the interest of being neighborly, I wasn't
intending to put my house there. If you actually look at the land itself, you would
find that the topography of the map is not really all that accurate. It gives you a
good idea, but we already sloped out the land and found at good area, where it's
flatter. Like I said, in the interest of being neighborly, I'd rather not build right next
to the border to the north.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, you wouldn't really be able to build right next to
the boarder, there has to be a —
Mr. Perkins — No, I know, but you know what I mean.
Chairperson Wilcox — Since you probably haven't been here before, we actually
have two votes to do. First what we have to do is the Environmental Impact and
then, if we get through that, presumably we will, then we'll hold the Public
Hearing, give the public a chance to speak, then we will bring it back here, so.
Any other discussion or further discussion with regard to Environmental Review
at this point? Would someone like to move the SEQR Resolution?
Board Member Howe - I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved. Seconded by the Chair. I'll second it. There
being no further discussion, all those in favor, please .signal by saying "aye ".
Anyone opposed? No one is opposed. The motion is passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -017: SEAR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Perkins 2 -Lot Subdivision, 230 Stone Quarry Road, Tax Parcel
No. 40 -1 -7.1
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 230 Stone Quarry Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40- 1 -7.1, Residence. District R -9. The
proposal includes subdividing the 3.36 + 1- acre parcel into two lots, one
1.26 + 1- acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 2.12 + 1-
h
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
vacant parcel for a future residence. Roger & Titiz Perkins.
Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review
with respect to Subdivision'Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on March 16, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey
map entitled 'Proposed Subdivision of Lands at 230 Stone Quarry Road,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by Allen
Fulkerson, LS of T.G. Miller P.C., dated January 16, 2004, 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, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 230
Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40- 1 -7.1, Residence
District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 3.36 +/= acre parcel into
two lots, one 1.24 +/= acre parcel containing the existing residence and one
2.12 +/= acre vacant parcel for a future residence. Roger & Titiz Perkins,
Owners /Applicants.
9
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney do you have anything else to say at this point?
Mr. Barney - No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions, comments, concerns from the Board,
at this time? We need to give the public a. chance to speak. Stay right there. If
anybody in the audience wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on
this particular agenda item?
Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:24 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — John you've raised a concern about the 75 foot setback,
the 50 foot setback and the issues with regard to having enough room to locate
the house and , potentially a septic tank and a septic system that would meet
with the approval of the County Health Department.
Mr. Barney — I suppose you could impose your restrictions and if it turns out that
it is impossible to or difficult to build, they could come back. When do you plan to
build a house?
Mr. Perkins — It could be anywhere probably from six months to a year, year and
a half. I had to do the subdivision now,, the starting of the .house hasn't been
finalized or anything, but I had to do the subdivision because the change in
zoning is, of course, going to render this impossible.
Ms. Ritter — I would assume that the Heath Department has some rules about the
proximity of creek and a septic system in the field. So, that might be a guiding
principal as to what the Health Department requires.
Mr. Barney — Well, sand, as I understand it, the theory is that the sand filter takes
care of, the engineer would know better than I would. Then they have to have, I
think it's a hundred foot run out of the sand filter, which then can be discharges, I
think into a —
Mr. Walker — Not any more. There is zero surface discharge allowed under State
Code at this point.
Mr. Barney — For a sand -
Mr. Walker — Sand filters with outlets are not up to code.
Mr. Barney — Then they may have difficulty.
0
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD.
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Walker — The Tompkins County Health Department has been very user
friendly in their approval of things.
Mr. Barney — Let's just say that the last one that I had approved had been my
own, it had a hundred foot.
Mr. Walker — And how long ago was that?
Mr. Barney — Several years.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not inclined to reduce the restrictions, unless compelled
to. That's my opinion. If it turns out that the only way to develop a house on this
lot with a County approved septic system is to, in some way, lessen those
restrictions, then. I would certainly consider that. I.,assume we don't want to
prevent building a house on the lot, especially given it's size, but on the other
hand, not every lot is buildable. That is another fact of life. There are, frankly,
some lots that you just can't build a. house on. I'm not sure this is one. Anything
else?
Mr. Barney - Just another question. Mechanically, when.you come in to build it,
do you get the Health Department approval before you issue a Building Permit?
Mr. Walker — Yes.
Mr. Barney — So, at that point, we would see the design, the layout of the lot of
the house and the septic system?
Mr. Walker — I would assume the Building Inspector would require a plot plan
showing the house and the septic system before a Building Permit would. be
issued.
Mr. Barney — Maybe as the resolution is written, if you are so inclined to grant the
subdivision, but we could stick in another little paragraph, which the law grants
anyway, the privilege of the. applicant to come back if it turns out that the
restrictions are such that make it impossible to have a reasonable layout for a
house and facilities.
Board Member Conneman — Assuming we approve the. subdivision, John.
Mr. Barney — If you approve it, but just to make clear, in the granting of it, that in
doing so, with these conditions that have been suggested that there be an
additional provision that says that the applicant is free to return at a later time
when they have definitive plans, to seek modifications of these restrictions, if
necessary in order to accomplish a reasonable construction.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have anything else to say?
10
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH. 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Perkins — No, I think I have said everything.
Roger Perkins, 230 Stone Quarry Road — I would like to thank the Town for their
assistance in going through this process, having never gone through it before.
Your Town employees are excellent in giving assistance and guidance in
answering all the homeowner's questions, they are to be commended about that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you for saying that. That is very nice to hear.
We know it, but it is nice to hear.
Chairperson Wilcox — I agree.
Board Member Conneman — I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by Rod
Howe. We'll give Mr. Barney just a quick second. He's writing up this proposed
amendment.
Mr. Smith— One word maybe on conditions "d ", make it a little clearer when you
are talking about immediate southwestern property boundary, just to make it a
little clearly which boundary it is add the word "south" in there.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, say that again Mike.
Mr. Smith — In the first line of condition "d ", it has immediate western boundary,
just to make it a little more clear, to the immediate "south" western boundary.
Chairperson Wilcox -Okay. Go ahead John, and you ready?
Mr. Barney — More or less, I just add a new paragraph "2" that the applicant,
when he has definitive building plans and septic system plans, may choose to
return to this Board for modifications of any of the above conditions, if the
conditions render it substantially difficult (I don't want to make it just difficult) to
construct a home and /or a septic system on the property.
Chairperson Wilcox — George that's okay with you?
Board Member Conneman - That's okay with me.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright Rod?
Mr. Howe — That's okay with me too.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD.
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox Any further discussion? There being none, all those in
favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? No one is opposed, we
have passed, four - nothing.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 018:Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Perkins 2 -Lot Subdivision, 230 Stone Quarry Road, Tax Parcel
No. 40 -1 -7.1
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 230 Stone Quarry Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40- 1 -7.1, Residence District R -9. The
proposal includes subdividing the 3.36 + 1- acre parcel.into two lots, one
1.26 + 1- acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 2.1.2+/ -
vacant parcel for a future residence. Roger & Titiz Perkins,
Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is. an Unlisted Action for which the Town
acting as lead agency in environmental review
Approval, has on March 16, 2004, made a
environmental significance, after having rei
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment
the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board,
with respect to Subdivision
negative determination of
hewed and accepted as
Form Part 1, submitted by
Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 16, . 2004, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Proposed
Subdivision of Lands at 230 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by Allen Fulkerson, LS of
T. G. Miller P. C., dated January 16, 2004, " and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That .the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision at. 230 Stone Quarry Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.. 40- 1 -7.1, . as shown on a survey map
entitled "Proposed Subdivision of Lands at 230 Stone Quarry Road, Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by Allen
Fulkerson, LS of T. G. Miller P. C., dated January 16, 2004y" subject to the
following conditions:
a. Submission of an easement agreement, for review and approval by
the Attorney for the Town, allowing the existing owners of Parcel A
12
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
continued rights to ingress and egress utilizing the existing
driveway, said approval to be issued prior to signing of the plat by
the Planning Board chair,
b. To protect the water quality of the area, an erosion and sediment
control plan should be submitted for review and approval by the
Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
development of Parcel B,
C. There shall be
southwestern t
buffer between
potential future
and protecting
boundary,
no development of structures within 75 feet of the
)oundary of Parcel B to create a visual and noise
the Buttermilk State Park campground nearby and
residence on Parcel B and to assist with preserving
the natural. buffer of the gorge and UNA along the
d. There shall be a "no disturbance" area of 50 feet along the
immediate southwestern property boundary of Parcel B to preserve
and protect the existing natural buffer of the Unique Natural Area,
such "no disturbance" area to be indicated on the deed for Parcel
B. and such deed to be submitted for review and approval by the
Attorney for the Town, and
e. Submission of one mylar. and three copies of the approved
subdivision plat, revised to show the 50 foot "no disturbance" area
I
long the southwestern property boundary, and signed and sealed
by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for signing by
the Planning Board Chair prior to filing at the County Clerk's Office.
2. The applicant, when he has definite building plans and septic system
plans, may choose to return to this. Board for modification of any of the
above conditions if the conditions make it substantially difficult to construct
a house or septic system on Parcel B.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination:
278,280 Hayts Road
Pokorney 3 -Lot Subdivision, 276,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
13
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Chairperson Wilcox — Is a member of the family here? There we go. Good
evening.
Douglas Pokorney — My son had a death that he had to go to so he won't be here
tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox — My condolences. Could .I have an address, please.
Mr. Pokorney — 282 Hayts Road,
Chairperson Wilcox — Since you were .here before, you saw what we are going to
do, we are going to ask you to give us a brief overview of what is being proposed
and any environmental impacts that you may be aware of.
Mr. Pokorney — I am just offering to give my boy two small pieces of lots to go
with the front of the two houses that he already has to make more frontage, could
be later on, for the two houses that are already there. It's land that I don't. use
and it's more useable by him.
Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental impacts that you are aware of?
Mr. Pokorney — I believe. that there was something in there papers of...
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you looking at the Town's comments with regard to the
short assessment forms, is that what you are looking at?
Mr. Pokorney — There is an environmental planner sheet here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any environmental issues yourself?
Mr. Pokorney — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Questions?
Board Member Hoffmann — I am a little bit confused about the division of these
parcels. It still looks like there are going to be two houses on one lot?
Mr. Pokorney At this point, I would say yes. I don't know what my boy's
intentions are, if he figures to combine them all or not, I am not use. I am just
making it possible, if that is what he wants to do in the future. I know years
before, we had been before the Planning .Board, my first wife and I owned a
kennel out back and I owned the land out back and they had a question about
the size of some of these parcels. I am just making it able that my boy can come
back before you, if he so desires or whatever to divide it or combine it or
whatever he would like to do. I'm not sure what his main intentions are ' at this
point really.
14
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board. Member Hoffmann — The lot, as it exists now, before the subdivision, is
bounded by the lines around both parcel "a", "b" and "c ", is that right?
Female voice — No.
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, I see now.
Kimberly Scott, 282 Hayts Road - We don't know how or when these two little
houses go onto parcel I %' nobody does. You go about five feet off of the
driveway from the one house and you are in parcel "c" and about ten feet off the
carport on the other house and you are in parcel "a ". Currently parcel "a" and
parcel "c" both of those have part of a grass mowed for lawn around the two
houses. Darrell is not able to be here tonight. One of his big concerns, right now,
both of the houses, they have an independent septic system, they both work. If
anything were ever to happen to either of the systems, he doesn't own enough
land to fix the problem.
Board Member Hoffmann — I see.
Ms. Scott — These two little parcels, "a" and "c ", they could never stand on their
own as lots. They are not desirable, they are too wet in the back, but added to
"b ", they would at least give Darrell and option to move one way other the other.
Board Member Hoffmann — So it is possible that parcel "b" might be split down
the middle and one house will have parcel "c" added to it, and another will have
1ia11
Mr. Pokorney — No, it would be an option that could be more desirable to you
frontage of what your requirements are then two little houses, which I read back
here were 1930, 1940. 1 know those two houses were some of them that were up
at Cornell when they cut the houses in thirds and sold them to people and you
had to put and end on or both ends on if you got the middle one. Darrell Is
grandfather bought two of them and moved them up there, set them on a lot,'on
foundations and had them as rental apartments or rental houses. Back in the
30's and 40's you got away with a lot more than you get away with today.
Chairperson Wilcox — Pre - zoning.
Mr. Pokorney — So they are there and they are very restrictive with what land
there is to do with it. The two parcels that I'm offering to give to him would give
him more desirable frontage, which I know, when the people rent the house
without the carport, they look at the parcel between that and the other driveway
and they think that's part of their yard and I say, no that don't belong to us,
because you go out that driveway ten feet and that's the end of the property. I
don't use it. I can't use it very well because there is a creek, if you notice on the
115
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
back line, there is a creek and a pond, it would take me major work to incorporate
that into anything that.l would want to do and Darrell has more use for it than I
do.
Chairperson Wilcox — The other thing is that this doesn't limit access to the rest
of your land. You still have access to the rest of your land.
Mr. Pokorney —Yes. If you look at the map. on the left hand side, I have a 60 foot
deed right of way that goes back into my land back there. It would take major
construction that I would have to come back before you if I ever wanted to come
back before you if I ever wanted to go through either one of them parcels with a
driveway because of the creek. I would probably have to come back to you for
major help.
Chairperson Wilcox — I just want to make sure that you don't box yourself out.
Mr. Pokorney — Right. No, I have my 60 foot driveway back there, what I
originally started with and stuff..
Chairperson Wilcox Questions regarding the Environmental Review? Not here.
Does someone want to move the SEQR?
Board Member Conneman — I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by? The
Chair. There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by
saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? There are no abstentions, the motion is passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -019: SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Pokorney Three -Lot Subdivision, 276, 278, and 280 Hayts Road,
Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -35 and 24 -1 -34.2
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 276, 278, and 280 Hayts
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -35 and 244-34.2, Agricultural
District. The proposal includes subdividing a 0.614 -acre parcel and a
0.560 -acre parcel from the 71 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No: 24- 1- 34.2),
which would be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 =35 to create a
1.884 -acre parcel containing two existing houses. Douglas J. Pokorney,
Owner; Darrell Pokorney, Applicant, and
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
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 March 16, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by
the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and a
survey entitled "Subdivision Map — Showing a Portion of Lands of Douglas
J. Pokorney" dated 1012512002, by Lee Dresser, L.S., 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, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 276,
278, and 280 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 =1 -35 and 24 =1=
34.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing a 0.614 -acre
parcel and a 0.560 -acre parcel from the 71 +/= acre parcel (Tax Parcel No.
24 -1- 34.2), which would be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 24 =1 -35 to
create a 1.884 -acre parcel containing two existing houses. Douglas J.
Pokorney, Owner; Darrell Pokorney, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public. Hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Have you seen the proposed resolution?
III
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Pokorney — If this is what I have in front of me.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have a resolution that was drafted for us?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — It has, as a condition, six months, within six months, the
parcels would be consolidated together. I assume that is acceptable.
Mr. Pokorney — I believe that would be with my boy.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay because that's the intend here is to consolidate those
three, what would be three tax parcels, into one tax parcel. Okay.
Mr. Smith — Fred, it is actually noted right on the subdivision. that II, note 1, for
those three lots to be consolidated.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Okay. Any further discussion?
Questions? Would someone like to move the subdivision?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I will move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Seconded by Rod Howe. Mr.
Barney, you are comfortable?
Mr. Barney — Very.
Chairperson Wilcox — Very. That's a good thing. There being no further
discussion, all hose in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? No
one is opposed. The Motion is passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 020:Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Pokorney Three -Lot Subdivision, 276,278, and 280 Hayts Road,. Tax Parcel
No.'s 24 =1 -35 and 24 -1 -34.2
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 276, 278, and 280 Hayts
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -35 and 24 -1 -34.2, Agricultural
District. The proposal includes subdividing a 0.614 -acre parcel. and a
0.560 -acre parcel from the 71 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 34.2),
which would be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -35 to create a
am
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
1.884 -acre parcel containing two existing houses. Douglas J. Pokorney,
Owner; Darrell Pokorney, Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town
acting as lead agency in environmental review
Approval, has on March 16, 2004, made a
environmental significance, after having rei
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment
the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board,
with respect to Subdivision
negative determination of
dewed and accepted as
Form Part 1, submitted by
Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 16, 2004, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Subdivision Map —
Showing a Portion of Lands of Douglas J. Pokorney" dated 1012512002, by
Lee Dresser, L. S., 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 Checklists, having determined from
the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant
alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated
or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 276, 278, and
280 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -35 and 244-34.2,
as shown on the survey entitled "Subdivision Map — Showing a Portion of
Lands of Douglas J. Pokorney" dated 1012512002, by Lee Dresser, L.S.,
subject to the following conditions:
I
. submission. for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -
lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office,
and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department, and
b. within six months of this approval, consolidation of Parcels A, By
and C, as shown on the survey plat, and submission to the
Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins
County Assessment Department for the consolidation.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe.
NAYS: None.
19
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Bostwick LLC 3 -Lot Subdivision,
between 415 and 433 Bostwick Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:41 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — I assume Tom is here this evening? Or somebody else?
We're used to seeing Tom Greenspun, he shows up every once and awhile.
Name and address please. You know the drill. Brief overview of what's being
proposed and any environmental impacts that you are aware of.
Tom Greenspun, 320 Washington Street — I'm not aware of any environmental
impacts, but what we are proposing is cutting out the two small lots in front of the
larger lot that goes all the way back to the creek there.
Chairperson Wilcox — The intended purpose of creating those two lots?
Mr. Greenspun — Possible sale, depending on whether the money is needed. Not
me personally, but my grandfather.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. The staff has been in consultation with you about
the impact of access to the rest of the parcel?
Mr. Greenspun - Yeah, at this point, I don't think that, you know, I .can't say for
sure, but I don't think that we are going to develop the rest of the land any
further. We still have enough to access the property as it is, we just wouldn't be
able to divide it any further, I think, as far as the zoning goes.
Chairperson Wilcox - I would not want you or your family to get into a positions, I
don't thing anybody would want that, to where a number of small subdivisions
occur and in some way, you impact your ability to do something within the zoning
for that parcel of land, as these lots are continually subdivided off unless you or
your family or extended family or whatever, has thought this through and have a
good idea where, eventually, you are going. I don't want you to come back here
and say I only have 40 feet of frontage, but I want you to allow me to put a house
in or build a road or something like that.
Mr. Greenspun — I feel pretty comfortable at this point. with the fact that's
probably not going to be an option in the future because from dealing with the
last subdivision, I understand what's needed, as far as zoning and I think that
we're all comfortable with that.
20
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to Environmental Review?
Comments from staff?
Ms. Ritter — No additional comments. Other than the memo
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney.
Mr. Barney — The width of the two lots is measured at 150 feet parallel to the
centerline of the road? How is this 150 foot dimension calculated?
Ms. Ritter — It's parallel to the right of way.
Mr. Barney — I always thought that they measured it perpendicular to the side
yard lines. If you were to take an extreme, you could have something that is 150
feet in width, the way that this is being measured, but in actuality, have ten feet
from the side yard line.
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is whether you might potentially need a variance
or two.
Mr. Greenspun — Yeah, I understand.
Chairperson Wilcox — Given. how that 150 foot
don't think we have and environmental impact
and do that and I think we can deal with the e
get to the actual subdivision, we can try to clear
environmental impact? Would someone like to
the Chair.
Board Member Conneman — I'll second it,
lot road frontage is measured. I
at these point, so you go ahead
nvironmental part of it. When we
that up. Questions with regard to
move the SEAR? So moved by
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. There being no further
discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed?
No one is opposed. Alrighty.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -021: SEAR: Preliminary & Final Subdivision
Approval, Bostwick LLC 3 -Lot Subdivision, Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No.
32 -2 -3.2
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
21
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Parcel No. 32- 2 -3.2, consisting of 68.3 + 1- acres, located on Bostwick
Road, Agricultural District. The proposal will result in the creation of three
parcels consisting of 2.75 + 1-, 3.11+1-, and 62.4 + 1- acres respectively.
Bostwick LLC, Owner; Tom Greenspun, 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 Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on
Environmental Assessment
Part 11 prepared by Town
Showing Proposed Parcels
Located on Bostwick Road,
prepared by T.G. Miller P.
materials, and
March 16, 2004 has reviewed a Short
Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Planning staff, a map entitled, "Survey Map
of Land To Be Conveyed by Bostwick, LLC
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York"
C., dated 1211212003, and other application
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, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located between
415 and 433 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 32- 2 -3.2,
Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing a 2.751 -acre parcel
and a 3.112 -acre parcel fronting on Bostwick Road from the 73 +/- acre
parcel for possible future sale. Bostwick LLC, Owner; Tom Greenspun,
Applicant,
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m.
22
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions ladies and gentlemen to the applicant with
regard to this. You want to have a seat. This is a Public Hearing and my
information is that there are people who wish to address the Planning Board this
evening, so please come to the microphone, you had your hand up first. Give us
your name and address and we will be very attentive.
Gretchen Herrman, 433 Bostwick Road — (See. attached letter, read by Ms.
Gretchen) Alice Garey wanted to be here, but she got plowed into here driveway.
She wanted to know if there was someway she. could right something.
Chairperson Wilcox — She could. It potentially could be after the fact. I don't know
how this Board is going to vote. We actually need four votes to do anything and
we've only got four tonight.
Ms. Herrman — (Continues reading letter).
Chairperson Wilcox — Can.we have a copy of this? Thank you. IS there someone
else? Yes ma'am. .
Susan Titus, 250 Caldwell Road — I used to live in Gretchen's house .about 18
years ago, at that time, I started doing painting from her home. The way her
come is positioned, you can see beautiful sunrises, moonrise and it overlooks
these farm fields. This is the view looking from Bostwick Road, looking south..
This is what you'll see in a few months, most likely. About a year from now,
don't think any artist would dream ever dream of painting this view. It is very sad.
You come up Bostwick that used to be farm field there on the left with a
hedgerow ran parallel to the road, now there is a church and several houses. If
you take a left on Seven Mile Drive, that whole area was farm land, unlit a year,
a year and a half ago, now it is all houses. This was one of my most favorite
paintings and 370 people own one of these and quite often they would ask me
exactly where is this place and they would go up and look at the view and come
back and tell me how beautiful it is. Every year, usually every year, I go up to
Gretchen's house and I still do paintings there and I'll go with another artist and
pain the views from her pond and across the pier, you can see, way in the
distance, you can see Ithaca. I'd like to give each of you a card, this is not an
advertisement. I'm really happy you will be protecting farmland, one. All over the
country, we are loosing thousands of acres every day and the Town of Ithaca
seems to keeping up with this trend. Thank you so much.
Board Member Hoffmann. —That you for the card. I think I have to say that it will
in no way influence my vote.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody else who wishes to address the Planning
Board this evening on this agenda item?
23
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Diane Conneman, 197 Christopher Lane — I serve on the View shed Committee
for the Conservation Board and I did not plan to come here to testify tonight, but
is seems appropriate to remind the Planning Board that somehow we have a
responsibility to maintain some of the view sheds, not for specific people, but for
all of us. I have been out on Bostwick Road, taking photo's looking across the
valley there and when you're across the valley looking back on Bostwick Road, it
is beautiful. You don't have to be on that road to enjoy it. I don't know how you
resolve the issues of meeting the needs of the community and private property
rights, but I remind you that the community is important and I ask you to take that
into consideration. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m
Board Member Conneman — Could I ask Tom some questions?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely.
Board Member Conneman — I don't know the history, I've been on Bostwick
Road many times and always admired the view also in various ways. What it the
history of the farm? Your grandfather's name was?
Mr. Greenspun — Paley.
Board Member Conneman — Paley and he farmed it for?
Mr. Greenspun — I think they bought it in 45 and I'm not sure exactly. when they
moved off of it They farmed mink on it, while they were there and I think ever
since then, the farming has been leased out.
Board Member Conneman — To?
Mr. Greenspun — Baker.
Board Member Conneman — Gretchen raised some questions about where the
houses might be placed, would that be an objection to you?
Mr. Greenspun — Not me personally.
Mr.. Walker — When you put a used tape into it to record on, it stretches so that it
Chairperson Wilcox — It's not making it now, so let's hope for the best.
Mr. Walker — Throw the tapes away next time.
24
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH. 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board. Member Conneman — Would you have any objection to having some
restrictions to place the houses in the way so that they would not ruin the view
shed.
Mr. Greenspun — Personally, I would not have no objection to that. I don't really
have a stand on this either way. I kind of have to try and speak for what I think
my grandfather would want. Just so that there is no miscommunication, he is
alive, he's just not here. I know that the reason that he is subdividing these is that
in case of financial trouble, he's got something that he can sell and anything that
would make that more difficult to do, I'm sure that. he would not want to happen.
Board Member Conneman — Most farmers I know would have some feeling about
land and veiw.sheds and all the kinds of things that go along with it and I was just
wondering how he felt about that. He wanted them set up so that he could sell
them at some point?
Mr. Greenspun — Yeah, if need by. I think he also feels strongly about this piece
of land, but it is just the financial aspect is leading him to decide to subdivide
these pieces so that he could sell them possibly.
Board Member. Connemara - Would the person building on this having certain
restrictions, I don't know what Gretchen has in mind or anybody else, would that
preserve some views for the people who built the houses, in other words, would .
they be better off, do you think?
Mr. Greenspun — Yeah, I think they'd be better off, they'd be further away from
the road. It would put them close to my mother's house, which is one of the
points that Gretchen brought up about them being close to the Baker's. Either
way, they are close to everything around there, no matter where you put them,
but if you put them further back, that puts them right up on my mother's place.
Board Member Hoffmann
— Just to remind
myself,
I seem to
remember that the
land slopes downhill form
north to south, as
well as
from west
to east.
Mr. Greenspun — It's pretty gradual.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but that's the way the slope goes. I am
completely aware that if you place a house down further down on a slope from a
road where you have nice views, it doesn't interfere so much with the view.
Whereas, if you place it very close to the road, even a small house will blot out a
big piece of the view.
Mr. Greenspun — I should add that if they're three hundred feet back, the grade is
such that that view is still going to be destroyed either way. The only thing that
25
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
would be better is that it wouldn't destroy Gretchen Is view and Alice's, but as far
as preserving that view, looking to the south, it's not going to change anything.
Mr. Kanter — May I ask a questions?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes you may.
Mr. Kanter — If these are going to be put on the market, they would obviously be
marketed to anyone who is going to be willing to buy them.
Mr. Greenspun — As far as I know, but Gretchen had expressed that, if this goes
through and they are put on the market, she would like to be the first one in line, I
forget what that is called. Right of refusal or something.
Chairperson Wilcox — 1 will also point out these lots, one runs from 733 to 128
feet deep and then the other lot.runs from 828 feet to actually close to 900 feet,
deep. They are exceptionally deep lots. They are 150 feet near the road and 186
feet at the back of the property. Any restriction that pushed the building envelope
back 100 feet, 200 feet, at least from the subdivision map would still allow plenty
of room to build the house. It would increase the cost of building'a house by the
length of the .driveway, for example and there might be other issues, whether
there's wetlands back there or the topography or whatever. That is possible,
either by us or by considerate owners of the land. Of course someone might buy
the land and keep it vacant.
Board Member Hoffmann —I'm almost more concerned about the views as they
exist from the road, than I am about the views from individual properties because
there are so many more people who will see them from the road.
Mr. Greenspun — I think that if that is to be considered, I think that Gretchen
offered that as kind of a compromise, but it's not that desirable, it's the lesser of
two evils to put the houses further back.
Chairperson Wilcox — What's the Board's pleasure?
Board Member Howe — This is more for future reference, for a view shed, when
can you say no to a subdivision like this? What is the balance of considerations?
Mr. Barney — I'd be hard pressed to say that you, cold turn down a subdivision
based on a view, basically.
Board Member Howe — So when does that become a factor? Is there just one, it
would be an extra piece that would tilt it one way or the other?
Mr. Barney — Until he comes in with a subdivision map that, from an
environmental standpoint and from. a technical standpoint, meets your
26
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
subdivision requirements, I'm not sure that you could turn it down simply because
there is an obstruction of view or a potential obstruction to view.
Mr. Greenspun — I think it is relevant to add right now, that for the rest of the land,
one of the ideas that we have talked about is putting into the Finger Lakes Land
Trust, so a large portion of this piece of land, which is all beautiful, not just this
front field, there is a good chance that it will be preserved.
Mr. Kanter — In further response to Rod's question, I think if the Town had a
scenic view inventory of some sort and, perhaps, say designated roads as scenic
roads under some, either local or state designation program, it would certainly
give. you something to consider during the SEQR review. Absent that, there really
is no inventory or documentation of the relative value of the views, so I think it's
difficult..
Board Member Hoffmann — We have the beginnings of that.
Mr. Kanter — Well, the beginnings, if we had the end product and
recommendations to the Town Board, then we would have something.
Board Member Conneman — Could we develop the end product before the Board
approves this.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think Lansing is struggling with this issue right now, aren't
they John Barney.
Mr. Barney — The Village
Chairperson Wilcox — Figuring out how do you judge a view shed and what is a
view shed and where do you measure it from or look at it from.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to say that it is not just any view shed, it
is scenic views that we. are looking at. Very special scenic views. Attractive
views.
Mr. Greenspun — If this piece were to become a catalyst for stopping
development on Bostwick Road, that would be a beautiful thing, but I don't know
if that's —
Board Member Conneman — Would you like us to try Tom? But I mean at what
point do you decide that community and all these things are more important than
somebody building . a house? You mean we blew if by approving the SEQR
John? You didn't tell us that.
Mr. Barney — You didn't ask. With the SEQR the view issue, it's obviously a
consideration, it's one of the elements that you can consider in the SEAR, but I
27
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
would be very, very uncomfortable standing before a judge somewhere saying
that we turned this subdivision down. We have subdivision regulations that say if
you build if you can provide a lot with a certain amount of size, certain amount of
frontage, certain amount of depth, in a particular zone. But because if someone
might erect a house there, we have height limitations, which with the
understanding that any construction will be within those height limitations. I think
we'd be laughed out of court.
Board Member Hoffmann — I can see that we can't deny a subdivision approval,
but couldn't we put some conditions on it to indicate that we are .aware of a
certain scenic value there that we don't want to see destroyed?
Mr. Barney — With consent of the applicant, you can put any condition in there
you want, that they are willing to accept.. IN the absence of that, you can impose
conditions that are reasonably related to the problems that are created by the
subdivision. If we wanted to go into this in any great depth, we would have to go
into executive session and take it as legal advice on a confidential client- attorney
privilege basis. Generally speaking, if you impose conditions that are not related
to the conditions that you have control over, those conditions are normally not
valid, unless they were agreed to by the applicant.
Board Member Conneman — Of course to night there are only four of us, if one of
us votes no, legally or illegally, then maybe this ought to be considered by the
whole seven people of the Board.
Mr. Barney = Well, I'm not sure that you don't have a basis for turning it down in
a way that measures the frontage, quite frankly. We are having. a little staff
debate here as to whether we can measure this as a diagonal.
Mr. Greenspun — I thought that was a little funny when the surveyor gave me that
map and I talked to them and they seemed to think that was the way the zoning
was worded.
Mr. Barney — I think, at a minimum, if you wanted to,. you could certainly refer
them to the Board of Zoning .Appeals for interpretation as to how this should be
measured. One can justify the way it's done here, on the basis that it is running
parallel to the centerline of Bostwick Road, but one could also say that the
intention of the Ordinance was to have a lot that was, in fact, 150 feet wide and if
you do the geometry here, if you have only 150 feet on the diagonal, you are
going to have less than 150 feet on a perpendicular line, right between the. two
lines. That troubles me. I know you folks are concerned with some of the views,
but from a legal standpoint, I'm having diffuculty using the view as a basis for
consideration.
W
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board Member Hoffmann — I agree with you that this is odd and it is not how we
usually do it. I think that I would be uncomfortable approving it too because of
that.
Board Member Conneman — John, there are things that are legal and you can do
it that way, but there are things that are wrong, that are unethical that we
shouldn't do. To me there is a difference there, maybe not to an attorney, but to
me there is a difference.
Mr. Barney — Attorneys don't have any ethics..
Board Member Hoffmann — Of course, John, which lien would you use as the one
to which the 150 foot line would be perpendicular because they are not parallel
with each other, these lines?
Mr. Barney — Well, at least perpendicular to one or the other, so that you get at
least 150 feet. Either way, as long as you get. 150 feet measured between the
two lines.
Mr. Greenspun — Oh, now that you mention it, I think that was what the map was
drawn up by at a certain point, "x" distance from the center line of the road, a
perpendicular line can be drawn that measures 150 feet. I believe that's what
they did.
Chairperson Wilcox — The lines are not perpendicular, that's the problem:
Mr. Barney — Not the ones that they show here. I think further back you could get
150 feet, but I'm not sure that you could get 150 feet at 60 foot setback, if drawn
perpendicular. We did consider depth when we defined the depth of a lot fairly
carefully, but this is actually the first time this particular issue has come up with
respect to the width.
Chairperson Wilcox — So what we can do it-
Mr. Barney — Let me suggest a couple things.. Number one, given the issue with
the width measurement, you could suggest to the applicant that if you are willing
to accept a couple of conditions relative to the preservation of the view, that you
are probably going to approve this, recognizing that there might be a slight
question with respect to the frontage or we could say because of the frontage
issue, we don't want to anything tonight until you get an interpretation from the
ZBA as to whether the measurement has to be the way it is here or whether it's
got to be side perpendicular and , if the applicant were willing to consent. to the
condition that said that there wouldn't be any homes or buildings over a certain
height, perhaps or even at all within so many feet of the road, then we could go
ahead and, if you chose to approve it tonight, I think that should be one of the
concerns.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — .Would it go to the ZBA or would it go to Andy first as the
Zoning Officer and then he would make the determination and then depending on
the determination that he made, it could then be appealed.
Mr. Barney — It could be either way actually, the law now, permits a direct referral
to the BZA.
Mr. Kanter — Or this Board could specifically request that the ZBA give it an
interpretation.
Mr. Barney — Or make the granting of the subdivision conditional on receiving an
interpretation.
Mr. Greenspun Is there specific language existing on that right now on that?
Mr. Barney — On the width?
Mr. Greenspun — No. We have the ge
that any term that is not otherwise
understood manner. My view is that
purpose of the Ordinance is to get
something that is skewed that you
diagonal line,
neral language in the ordinance that says
defined is to be. used in it's normally
the normally understood manner . of the
property that is truly 150 feet wide, not
get 150 feet because you measured a
Chairperson Wilcox — You could measure it from corner to corner, for example.
You're right, worst case. Who's interested in the potential of a setback with
potential of a setback in terms of the building envelope?
Board Member Conneman — You mean 300 feet?
Chairperson Wilcox — A number.
Board Member Conneman - Yes, as a number
Chairperson Wilcox — Ms. Herman mentioned 300 feet, I'm not sure if that is the
right number or not.
Board Member Conneman — I don't know either, I'm not a builder or an engineer.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would rather, have some language that stresses
sensitive placement on the building in such a way that the view is preserved, the
scenic view form the road is preserved.
Mr. Greenspun — That's not possible.
30
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board Member Hoffmann — No?
Mr. Greenspun — The view stretches, I don't know, the hill that are back by Van
Etten, exactly how miles is that and they are talking about 900 feet. Either way
these houses are going to be —
Mr. Barney — But they will be less obtrusive in the view, the further back from the
road they are.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the more down hill from the road.
Mr. Barney — Slightly down hill.
Board Member Hoffmann — That would give, whoever wants to put a house there
more leeway, but it would still, if one words it carefully, it would still protect the
view.
Mr. Greenspun — But who would interpret that?
Mr. Barney — If you're going to put a condition in, it's got to be a condition that
can imperially be determined whether it's been violated or not. IT would be a
condition if you are going to locate it sensitively for the view, your idea of what's
sensitive and —
Chairperson Wilcox — And my idea.
Mr. Barney — Mr. Greenspun's idea might be three different ideas. I think if you
tied it to a footage or a height or both, and if the applicant is willing to consent to
something.
Board Member Hoffmann — But how could we do that tonight? One would almost
have to go out there and look at it and measure to be able do that. If we're
anyway uncertain about this setback line maybe that's a possibility, if we were to
postpone the vote because of that and then we could come up with...
Chairperson Wilcox- I don't want to use the setback line as an excuse not to
move on this. We can get around the setback issue by conditioning it on the
review by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, that's what we normally would do.
Board Member Hoffmann — About the view, we can't just sit here and come up
with certain numbers without really looking at it, at the location.
Mr. Barney — I tend to agree, except I think there are certain numbers that might
be within the acceptable limit for the applicant and there are certain numbers
31
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
that, no matter what, that is not going to be able to cover it. I'm not sure that an
applicant with an 800 foot lot is interested in having a 500 foot driveway. I think
you have to be realistic in what you can expect..
Mr. Greenspun — That wouldn't be a decision that I could...
Mr. Barney — That you could make anyway. Then maybe the answer is to
adjourn it and everybody go home and take a look.
Board Member Conneman — I think, also John, that would give several members
of the Board the ability to make the .decision. I'm always uncomfortable when
there are four of us. Seriously.
Chairperson Wilcox — I agree.
Board Member Conneman — I just think that if it's a democracy, you ought to
have all the voters voting.
Mr. Barney - It's interesting under the law, if one of you would choose to say no
or one of you were to choose to say yes and the other three said no, if it were a
BZA matter, it would be turned down, but with the Planning Board it is less clear,
they haven't- really determined. The courts have ruled that in a BZA situation, if
you don't get an affirmative vote, it is automatically rejected, regardless of the
vote is three to one, you need four. The only thing with the Planning Board you
have default approval, if you have a split vote and you can't make a decision,
after 63 days, it is approved automatically. I haven't yet had to deal with that, but
I'm aware of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — If we 'should adjourn this, are people going to be able to
come back and say I think it should be 100 or 200 or 300. 1 am concerned that —
Board Member Howe —1 think that we need to give Tom something to go back
and talk to his grandfather about. The 300 to me, sounds like a starting point for
discussion. I don't know about the heights.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have a Zoning Ordinance on building height, which is,
depending on how you measure it is about 36 feet. I think that solves that
problem for me.
Mr. Kanter — I think we would also want some type of documentation,. like
photographs and —
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's right, I don't want to come back to another
meeting in two weeks or four weeks or whatever and we sit here and debate 200
or 250 or 300 and make an arbitrate decision. That's why I am struggling with this
32
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
as the Chair and making sure that we don't just postpone for a certain amount of
time another hour discussion about this.
Board Member Conneman - Are you going to make a motion about this Mr.
Chair?
Chairperson Wilcox — There is no motion on the floor right now.
Board Member Conneman — I make a motion that we postpone.
Chairperson Wilcox — For the stated purpose of?
Board Member Conneman — For the stated purpose of reviewing the options,
looking at the property and I would hope that Tom would go back and talk to his
grandfather and see how he feels about it.
Chairperson Wilcox — And we'd like to see something over a 200 yard setback,
maybe more?
Board Member Conneman - Maybe.
Chairperson Wilcox — One neighbor suggested 300 feet, but whether that's a
starting point or an approximation, it certainly an indication. A motion has been
made. Does anyone want to second it?
Board Member Hoffmann — I'll second it.
Chairperson Wilcox— Seconded by Eva Hoffmann
Mr. Barney — Just before you, do you want to adjourn this to a specific date?
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Kanter, what are we looking like .in two weeks for the
first Tuesday in April?
Mr. Kanter — Well, actually I think April 6th might be okay.
Ms. Ritter — Well, let me just ask this, I don't know if Tom wants to do this, but to
avoid this question of needing a variance, could he come in with new information,
with a new plat, for instance if he wanted to go back to the surveyor?
Mr. Greenspun — I hear that that's necessary right?
Ms. Ritter — I'm not sure, I guess it's uncertain right now whether it's necessary or
not. It may be that we require a variance and it may not and to ...
33
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Mr. Barney — I don't know whether you could do a plat in a way that would
eliminate that question. There is almost enough footage that it might work, I don't
know how it would be measured.
Mr. Kanter — Then we've got a problem with our zoning. Or you can take some of
the footage probably from the strip.
Mr. Barney — It's 152.26, that may be enough, if you did it perpendicular, you
would be able to get 150 pieces all the way across, I just don't know. That is a
possibility, just by wiggling the line on the western edge of the parcel "A ", a little
bit and the one between parcel "A" and parcel "B ", you might be able to get 150
feet perpendicular and the150 feet the other way so that we can remove that as
an issue.
Mr. Greenspun I guess before we do that, we would need to know that that is
necessary.
Mr. Barney — If you get it perpendicularly, there is no question it works, on the
reader interpretation, you clearly have the required frontage at that point.
Ms. Ritter — Or he can go, or if there is a question —
Mr. Barney — Or he can go with a variance.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or an opinion from Andy Frost.
Mr. Greenspun — I guess I am unclear whether or not there is a variance needed
at this point.
Mr. Barney — So are we.
Chairperson Wilcox — So are we, we don't know.
Mr..Kanter — That's why we had raised the question that you could refer it to the
Zonings Board for an interpretation and /or a variance and get it done in. one shot.
Mr. Barney — Before coming back here.
Mr. Kanter — Well, that would assume presumably.that we could grant preliminary
subdivision approval. I think that you would want to have something approved in
order to send him to the ZBA. So, that's an option, you could give preliminary
subdivision approval, send it to the Zoning Board with a request for an
interpretation of the lot width measurement and/ or a variance, if needed and
then come back for final approval, which would also then allow the opportunity for
any condition with regard to setback.
34
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Barney — The problem is that you might have difficulty with the setback, you
are giving. up your leverage.
Chairperson Wilcox — April 6th looks okay Jonathan?
Mr. Kanter — I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox — I do have a motion right now, so let me pursue that.
Mr. Kanter — At this point, it looks like we've got two subdivisions and a sketch
plan for the Sky Gardens Condominiums.
Chairperson Wilcox — So, if we bring this back and keep it relatively short, we can
squeeze it in.
Mr. Greenspun — So, the idea would be to bring it back and say that this is the
number that we have come up with?
Mr. Barney — Preferably one that you and the staff are comfortable with, you and
your grandfather and the staff. You also might just see if a surveyor can eke out
150 foot of frontage on a perpendicular basis.
Ms. Ritter — If this is between staff and the applicant, I need from the Planning
Board what it is we are looking at in terms of view shed, are we looking at the
Bostwick Road? Are we looking at the resident's homes?
Chairperson Wilcox — Talk to these two people right here, they were the most
vocal.
Ms. Ritter — Because we need to give Tom some guidance.
Mr. Greenspun'— Also, I would be hesitant to go get another map, until I know
that I have to, being that, you know, to me, that's a pretty big chunk of change.
Ms. Ritter — Sure, that's fine.
Mr. Barney — Is that a lot of money?
Mr. Greenspun — What?
Mr. Barney — I don't think you're talking a lot of money to have them run it
through their compute, because that's really what they do.
Mr. Kanter — They probably haven't set the pins yet, I wouldn't think.
Mr. Greenspun — They have set pins.
35
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Kanter — That would increase the cost.
Mr. Barney — They would have to move them.
Ms. Ritter — Then maybe it would just come back as is then.
Mr. Kanter — They may have just labeled it that way.
Chairperson Wilcox — Susan you asked a question about guidance?
Ms. Ritter — Right.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think both are important. Both the views from
neighbor's properties, but I think that the view from public roads or form any
public place within the Town is more important because it preserves the interest
of everybody in the Town, not just an individual on an individual piece of land and
to be; that has been the guiding principal about trying to look at views and how to
preserve views altogether. Other people might feel differently, but I feel strongly
that way.
Board Member Conneman — When we drove that road . rally last year, Susan, I
think the thing that was impressive is there are many places in the Town of
Ithaca that have beautiful view sheds. It's the public roads that, I think,.make the
difference. People travel through it. It's beautiful, it
really is. We are lucky. I would agree with Eva on that. It seems to me it's the
public road that's very important. If you can do the other in the process, that's
fine, but the public road is the most important.
Chairperson Wilcox — This is subjective, not objective.
Board Member Conneman — You never do anything that's subjective, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairperson Wilcox — I do a lot of things.
0
Board Member Conneman — That's what I thought.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm trying to help out the staff here.
Board Member Conneman — I'm just trying to help her out too.
Chairperson Wilcox I'm not sure we have, that's my point. I think we're still
asking them to read our mind too much.
36
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board Member Conneman —Well, maybe she can do a better job than we can do
ourselves.
Board Member Hoffmann — They need some guidance
Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe that's true. I don't have any guidance. One, I'm not
convinced that this is even the appropriate way to go, frankly. I'm not convinced
this is the way to go. If the applicant is willing to accept some sort of a stipulation
that we set back some number of feet, then fine. Then it's a win -win for
everybody, the applicant accepts it, we accept it, the neighbors accept it and
maybe even gain something in terms of the view shed. My feeling is that if
someone wants to protect the view shed, then buy the land. That's frankly, my
opinion. If they like the way it looks, then they buy the land or encourage the
owner to donate it to an agency that will.keep it preserved. That is my feeling.
Mr. Greenspun — I agree, if you put the houses "x" amount of feet back, like you
said, it may soften the impact, but it's not going to change it that much. I know
this view very well and there's no, we're not talking about much of a hill. It's not
like there are going to be houses off down there somewhere that you are barely
going to notice. If you want to address that issue, I don't think that putting them
300 feet back is going to do that, it's just not. That's the physical fact of that
piece.
Board Member Hoffmann — When I talk about seeing views, scenic views from
roads, I'm not talking about just one particular spot on the road, but as you go
along, whether you are walking or driving or however you go, you see it from
different viewpoints all along and some of them maybe are not as good, but there
could be others that are good and that could be helped .by the placement of the
house.
Chairperson Wilcox — I still have a motion and a second.
Mr. Kanter — Here is another take on lessening the impact on a view, understand
that you can't not put a house there. We can't require that a house not be built
there, but we could require that it meet certain characteristics, i.e. natural building
materials, as opposed to pink wash or something like that. So, what I am saying
is that besides sitting criteria, which is what a setback would be, you could also
consider some kind of design guideline that would help to make it compatible
with the view.
Board Member Conneman - You're allowed to do that?
Mr. Kanter — Well, see what we're entering into is an ordinance without the basis
for such and that is why I am still very uncomfortable about even pursuing any of
this until we have a view shed, scenic view inventory with recommendations from
the Conservation Board to the Town Board on how to go about protecting views.
37
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Once you establish that, then you can have specific guidelines for sitting, .building
design and things like _that, but absent and ordinance of that nature, I think it's a
difficult subject. Does that help?
Mr. Greenspun — Just to clarify my stance, I am not opposed to that 300 feet
back, I'm just...
Chairperson Wilcox — You just need to go back and check.
Mr.
Greenspun — Well, for one, but
I'm
just also trying to put it out there for that to
be
realistic, it really wouldn't make
that
much difference.
Board Member Conneman — But, I guess that it would be nice to have an
opportunity to look again and see what difference that might make.
Mr. Greenspun — I don't know if I said that, but —
Board Member Conneman — Well, you essentially said that.
Mr. Greenspun — We are sort of stuck and I am encouraging us to figure. out how
to —
Chairperson Wilcox — We are stuck.
Board Member Conneman — We are.stuck and I think that our Chairman usually
manages to get us out of these. things.
Chairperson Wilcox — As I keep saying, we have a motion. George it's your
motion, Eva you seconded it to postpone the hearing. If no one wants to
withdraw that, then we postpone it until April 6th. Is that the first Tuesday?
Mr. Kanter — Why don't we say April 6th or the next available opportunity, but
hopefully it would be April 6th
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.. Discussion, would you want to include anything
about seeking counsel or advice from Andy Frost, the Zoning Inspector, the
Zoning Enforcement Officer or it is inappropriate to do that without some sort of
approved?
Board Member Conneman- Does Andy have more wisdom . that Jonathan or
Susan or Mike?
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, it's his responsibility.
Mr. Kanter — Much more.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — And it's his responsibility, but it is his responsibility as a
Zoning Officer.
Mr. Barney — So he does the initial. interpretation?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it is his job to make that interpretation.
Board Member Conneman — If he made and interpretation, he would discuss that
with you and Susan and Mike?
Mr. Barney — He would discuss it probably with everybody at Town Hall.
Mr. Walker — Just to throw something out from an engineering standpoint? If we
talk about a 60 foot wide right -of -way, that's perpendicular, it's a distance
between the two parallel lines that you are taking. I don't think our subdivision
requirements require us to have lot liens perpendicular to the street line and that
makes it a little bit more complicated or indefinite. Generally, a width of
something is the distance between two parallel lines. If you consider this a
trapezoid, you wouldn't measure the edge of a trapezoid to be the width of the
trapezoid, we would measure the distance between two lines. But then again, the
ordinance states that it is the width at the setback line so if you take the two
points where the setback crosses the sued property line, then you have 150 feet.
Mr. Kanter — And that is why the surveyor defined it this way.
Mr. Walker — So, that surveyor will definitely define it as that's the width because
that's what it says what. is says where the setback line hits the property lines.
Chairperson Wilcox So, is it appropriate that we encourage that Andy issue an
opinion?
Mr. Barney — Well, Andy issues and opinion when he issues a Building Per I
think that the way that you want to. proceed, because I sense that the hesitation
here really isn't on the frontage, it's on the view issue. I would suggest that you
see if you can work something out that works with you and works with these folks
over here, at least two of the votes that you are going to need to have. I think that
you've got a little bit of guidance, everybody go take a look at it, adjourn it to the
6th and then you can condition you're approval, at that point, if you choose to
approve it, on getting an interpretation and variance.
Mr. Walker — Well, one geometric recommendation, you stated that the
remainder of the lien remain open and that that frontage for that parcel is
basically just a way to get to the back part, the big lot?
Mr. Greenspun — Yeah.
39
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Mr. Walker — So, if that was less than $150 feet, would that cause a diffuculty?
Mr. Greenspun — Well, yeah because, as far as the zoning goes, I don't think that
you could leave a piece that doesn't meet that requirement.
Mr. Kanter — Then that would need a variance.
Mr. Greenspun - Right, then we would need a variance for that.
Mr. Kanter — Our interpretation is to file the subdivisions like that too.
Chairperson Wilcox = I have a motion and a second, there being no further
discussion, -
Mr. Kanter - Well, then we're going to comeback without the right information.
Chairperson Wilcox — What do you need Jon?
Mr. Kanter — The question is if we come back with the recommendation is not
appropriate, will you accept that?
Chairperson Wilcox — I will.
Mr. Kanter — That a special setback, because of the character of the view and the
topography is not going to help and so the staff recommendation would be the no
setback beyond that required by zoning be imposed, would you accept that? If
it's documented that that's the case?
Board Member Conneman - That it's not helpful. Well, I guess so. I like to base it
on facts.
Mr. Kanter — Well, that's exactly what I was saying it for.
Mr. Greenspun — What you might do is if you are going to go out there, you might
just tell us when.
Ms. Ritter - That's what I was thinking it might be for everyone to go back out
there with the views in mind.
Board Member Conneman — We need to see it all together Susan, otherwise we
have different interpretations, as a Chairman says, be subjective.
Ms. Ritter — And it will give Tom an opportunity to talk to his grandfather.
Board Member Conneman - Sure.
.m
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH .16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Ms. Ritter — Okay.
Board Member Conneman — I believe farmers always want to preserve their land
and their view.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? All those in favor to adjourn to,
don't want to go through it again, essentially we are adjourning to Aprilj6th or the
next available. meeting so that staff can consider the potential impact on views
and what the recommendation would be. All those in favor? Aye. Rod that
included you?
Board Member Howe — Yes
Chairperson Wilcox - Good. Motion passed four to nothing.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -022: Adjournment of
Decision, Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Bostwick LLC 3 -Lot
Subdivision, Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.2
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
RESOLVED, that the' Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourns its decision on
Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval until Tuesday, April 6, 2004 or until
the next available Planning Board meeting to give staff and the Planning Board
an opportunity to consider the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the
viewshed.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe,
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously
Mr. Barney — We're adjourning the hearing?
Chairperson Wilcox — Right, well I actually closed the Public Hearing. We're
adjourning the decision.
Mr. Kanter — Good so we won't have to re- advertise the Hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you understand all that?
Mr. Greenspun — Yeah, but I have one question, as far as the application for the
subdivision being in prior to the zoning change.
41
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Barney — You're okay, unless you are diligently prosecuted.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alrightly. Thank you.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed
Country Inn & Suites hotel located at the southwestern corner of West King
Road and.Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37-
1 =17.1, Business. District "C ". The proposal includes subdividing off a +I.
2.74 -acre parcel from the +I= 4.82 -acre parcel for the construction of a 69=
room hotel at the intersection. The proposal also includes approximately
82 parking spaces, sidewalks, signage, landscaping, and lighting. David
Auble, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge,
Agent,
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have a cordless microphone right there, if you can just
pull it out of it's little holder and turn it on and that way we will record you and the
public can hear you.
Jagat Sharma, 312 East Seneca Street — The proposal is, as you mentioned a
three, story 69 room hotel located at the corner of King and Route. 96 on a lot to
be subdivided. I just came back, I've been gone for three and a half weeks, I'm
still in another time zone. The concept behind this hotel is a totally different
concept, every single room will be a suite. It will have a living room a bedroom a
bathroom, of course and a cooking area, so there is apparently a need for it The
marketing study indicated that there is a need for it in this area. It is for an
extended stay, you might say a home away from home: So, you basically can
have an extra stateroom. Peter will go through all the site plan issues with you,
but basically, the facility will have an indoor swimming pool, a meeting room and
a breakfast area, and one of the flagship lobby, which is if you stayed in a
Countrylnn, you know what they look like. I think they just built a new facility in
the Cortlandville. Architecturally, we are looking at a lot of the prototypes through
the website and material that We have received from them. We have riot, at this
point, made a decision on the collection of the materials, for the building, but we
are inclined.more and more.towards what they did on Route 281, basically a very
homey looking gable room. Peter has a rendering that we can show you. The
effort will be to fit in with the neighborhood.
Most of the issues related to the site plan, I think Peter can take over and
explain, unless you have questions on the floor plan. Basically, it is a central
corridor with rooms on both sides, 69 room, different sizes; king suite, queen
suite. There also is a two bedroom suite.
FIN
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Peter Trowbridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road — Thank you Jagat. As Jagat said,
this is a different kind of hotel than you have in the Town or in the City and even
with the new hotels coming on board, the new one across the street, out on
Route 13. It is a slightly different model as a suite and I bring. that up because I
believe everyone received a letter since we've provided the packet from SRF
Associates, we did ask them to do a traffic analysis, in terms of trip generation
and I believe that came into Jonathan, I don't know if it got distributed to the
Board. It will be important later on because we'll need to talk about State
approvals and curb -cut issues. So we have SRF Associates on board to assist us
with the traffic analysis. Just stepping back a little bit, as Jagat said this is a
subdivision request as well as a site plan approval request. The entire parcel is
being considered for future neighborhood retail development. One area of this at
the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road, is being proposed as the
Country Inn Suites Hotel. What we've tried to do with the site plan, as you can
see, is provide one curb -cut only. There is a concern because of the busy
intersection at King Road and Danby Road and our understanding of the State's
interests of having no curb -cuts in close proximity of the rig ht-of-way,' that we
have a single curb -cut that would be shared by any future neighborhood retail
development, as well as the hotel. After this evening's meeting, depending on the
kind of conversation that we have with the Board, we're going to be sending this
to the design division at New York State DOT with a traffic assessment from SRF
to begin the process of review and discussion with the Department of
Transportation regarding the curb -cut on Danby Road and as Jagat said, as well,
there is an egress lane only on West King Road that is also an emergency fire
access..The Fire Chief would like to see to means of access into the site and so,
the second driveway would provide a second means of access, but egress only
so there would be no entry in to the hotel off of West King Road. As an overall
site plan, what we've tried to accomplish was to take 82 parking spaces and
distribute them in a way that was not visually apparent as a single lot. We had
looked at positioning the hotel further away from the road and, unfortunately what
you then see is all the parking in front of the, hotel. Because of the circulation in
the site, we thought the best distribution of parking was in small parking lots in
and around the parcel. As you know, as well, with the Holly Creek Subdivision
there is a change of zones so there is a buffer requirement, both on the west side
of the parcel, as well as along West King Road, between the different adjoining
zones. We have looked at yard setbacks, as well a setback from the intermitted
creek that comes underneath Danby Road on the south side of the parcel. For
the overall layout and circulation is around the hotel with convenient parking in
several locations. We reviewed this with staff and realizing that one of the
primary markets for this hotel was Ithaca College, realizing that athletic teams
would probably stay here as well, we provided a couple of parking spaced for
buses assuming that athletic teams might also stay at the hotels.
Nationally, the occupancy stay is two nights or three days, so it is a bit
different, so the trip generation, if we continue with this project and get into this
43
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD.
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
further, you'll see the trip generation for this hotel is a little bit different then single
night stay hotels.
We have looked a preliminary grading and as you've seen from this
drawing, on the northwest comer in particular, there is quite a bit of grade
change and we found that we were able to grade the site with all ADA compliant
parking at the primary entrance at the east side on Danby Road and no grades
that exceed three percent any place in any of the parking lots. So, we have a
very adaptable site relative to grades. There is a need for a retaining wall, which
we will talk about in a little bit in the northwest corner. The grading plan, to date,
indicates that there should be no particular concerns about grading and
accommodating the program on this site.
We've also looked at, as I said, landscape and buffer and realized that
there is no uses allowed within the buffer. The only structure that I would like to
point out is that there is a large quarry block.wall in the northwest corner, that is a
retaining wall. It is the identical treatment that we used in a parking lot up at
Ithaca College next,to the Towers. So if you've gone in the °J" Lot area, if you've
gone to Wallen Center there is a large block wall, it's a natural stone wall, that we
would be using. That does sit within the buffer area and I guess there is some
question about the interpretation of structure, but we have made sure that there
is no parking, no other built conditions, other then the new landscape planting in
the buffer area. Country Inns does have a list of design guidelines that we have
looked at. They are very concerned about landscape treatment and percentage
of landscaped area on the site. We also looked the fairly natural context of the
area, so the landscape plan was trying to accommodate a combination of
evergreen and deciduous trees, not creating a traditional single line of trees
along Danby Road so they we paled in such a way that the landscape
characteristics were consistent with the area surrounding the site. Again,
suspect that this is probably not the most interesting panel, but there are some
details on here relative to the quarry block wall, the enclosure for the dumpster,
the bike rack accommodations and a lot of other detail issues. regarding curbing
and taking profiles. This is obviously taken in a wintertime view looking west. This
is from Sam Peter's parking lot, almost at the intersection of King Road and
Danby Road looking directly west. What we have done is done a visual.
simulations, which I think is very helpful in trying to understand what this hotels
looks like.
Chairperson Wilcox — Peter can I ask you to stop ?. All. set, thank you.
Mr. Trowbridge — As Jagat had mentioned before, we are looking at a
combination of masonry and traditional clapboard siding. We understand that the
building is taller than allowable in the zone, so that we will need to look at both an
area variance for height and, because the building is pulled up to the street and
there is a desire to have a covered entry way or arcade at the entrance, that
there is a variance required for setback as well because of the carport on the
..
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
front of the building that extends into the front yard setback. What we have tried
to do, again, is minimize the amount of parking and I think this is a fairly realistic
interpretation of exactly what that hotel would look like for both height and
character and materials as we would look, again, from the intersection of Danby
Road.
Mr. Barney — What happens to the telephone pole?
Mr. Trowbridge — Well, the telephone pole is right here. We are going to have to
look at some pole relocation, as well, because of the modification of some poles
at the intersection. It will either be located or maybe it will be right there John, I
am not sure. Some of the pole locations will have to be reconsidered.
I guess the points that I would like to address is that, while Gary Wood did
do a hydroelectric study for Holly Creek and I think, as most of you know, when
we went through his hydroelectric study, he did consider for the water quality
basins and retention basins, a surface drainage way that leads back to a
retention and water quality basin associated with the town homes on Holly Creek,
and we will, as suggested by staff, be re- assessing those numbers to make sure
that we can stand behind them as well, but our initials interpretation, it is our
understanding that there is adequate accommodation for both retention and
water quality basin associated with Holly Creek and we would be, as part of our
grading plan, discharging water into an open ripped wrap swale that would
ultimately lead into that basin. Again, the grading plan, allows .us to pretty easily
accommodate that surface drainage. There are a couple issues that staff brought
up that I think are quite reasonable regarding walkways and, it's probably hard to
see with your reduced plan, but the Holly Creek project does have a recreational
trail, we are showing a proposed walkway that would lead into that.trail system.
I'm concerned I guess, as I develop this site plan, we don't know that those town
homes would go in before the hotel. So, what we would like to do is allow for, on
this plan and future plans, reservation for a sidewalk connection. What I don't
want to do I build a sidewalk that ultimately , either doesn't lead anywhere or the
sidewalk locations for Holly Creek for some reason change and we have a
disconnect between those walkway systems. I agree with staff that we should
extend this walkway out to the intersection, there is a signalized intersection that
should allow for pedestrians to cross if they want to go to the convenience store
across the way. What we would also like to do is provide a sidewalk allowance
that would, since the neighborhood commercial is not determined yet either, that
would make a logical pedestrian connection, but build that portion of the sidewalk
along this location at such time when there is a site plan that we know we have a
logical connection to. So, I think we would like to carry those as a site plan, but
also realize that those walks would probably only logically occur at such time that
adjoining development would happen. Again, I am not sure how we would make
that has part of the condition. We would certainly show them on the plan, but I'm,
as I said, very hesitant to build them without more detail of adjoining properties
:9
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD.
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
and their plans so that we know they are actually linking to something that is
logical. I think that's overall our presentation.
Chairperson Wilcox.— Thank you. Who wants to start?
Board Member Hoffmann — I can start by telling you my first impression of this
very large building and that is that it feels much too close to the road. As I look at
the site plan, I see that it would be very hard to, with the parking all around, to
move it back very much because then it would be very close to the proposed
residential buildings that have been approved already. It feels like a massive
structure very close to the road.
Mr. Trowbridge — We did look at, as I said Eva, a variety of site plans and moving
it back, what happens, is all of the parking then ends up in the front yard and we
also try to balance the issue of how close to Danby Road it should be, as well as
distributing parking in such a way that it didn't seem quite so suburban. Of course
also trying to understand what the Town's sensibilities were towards a
neighborhood commercial center. My feeling is while this probably is, in some
ways inconstant with Sam Peter's and the convenience store across the way, it
does begin to create a spirit of community center that, more like a village center,
than what exists at the intersection now.
Board Member Conneman — Peter, I usually say what you do is very pretty, but
this is ugly, in my opinion. That's the first thing that l will say.
Mr. Barney' Don't hold anything back George.
Board Member Conneman — I'm in a very good mood tonight John, I want you to
know that.
Mr. Kanter — But Peter didn't design the building.
Board Member Conneman — I may not appear to be, but I`m feeling great.
Mr. Kanter — I don't think you can credit Peter with the design of the building
though.
Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that it is so massive and out of
character with the neighborhood. That the firs thing I would say. Secondly, is this
way out of the other side there onto East King Road, can you leave the hotel.
from there?
Mr. Trowbridge - Yes, it's an egress lane for the hotel.
Board Member Conneman — I've driven through that site lots of times, it seems to
me that that is awfully close to that traffic signal.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Trowbridge — Well, it is something we can assess and I'm sure that DOT will
have some, even though it's not a State Road, West King Road, I'm sure that
there will be some assessment. The issue is, as you know, as you drive down the
road, the grades fall pretty quickly and we do have some obligation to have an
entrance that is acceptable for fire and emergency access. So, there is a
balancing issue of grading and closeness to intersection.
Board Member Conneman — Is there a reason why you didn't put this on the
other half of the lot?
Mr. Trowbridge — Again, it is the larger parcel of the two and because of the
location of the creek, it seemed to be a more appropriate location.
Mr. Smith — I'll just mention about the exit onto West king, I was talking to Fred,
the Highway Superintendent, today and he had concerns about the same thing
that it was too close to the intersection. You might want to look at moving it down
the road a little bit more.
Mr. Trowbridge -- Sure. We'll definitely look at that and I think that's a good
concept.
Mr. Smith- We also talked about making that a right turn only coming out of that
so that you wouldn't have to worry about going across traffic and the visibility
coming from the intersection. If you are coming out, but you only turn right, you
wouldn't have to cross traffic.
Mr. Trowbridge — So, egress and right?
Mr. Smith — Yes. So, you wouldn't have traffic-crossing and going downtown
Board Member Conneman — It just seems to me that it is out of character of the
neighborhood and it's huge. You asked for all kinds of exceptions, I suppose
some of which either this Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant, but
it's not very pleasing to me as it is now. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote
against it at some time, but I just don't think it is in the character of the
neighborhood or the Town, at that point. This is something that should go in the
City or out on the Elmira Road, in my opinion. It's quite different than La Tourell,
for example. La Tourell is far back from the road and it's a country setting. Before
that question comes up, I might just well bring it up. It seems to me that that is an
entirely different thing. That's my first shot.
Mr. Trowbridge - I understand. It's a question I guess I have for the Board, there
is, as a part of the new zone, this idea for neighborhood retail, I don't know what
that is. I don't know if it is Italian Carryout is the character or if there is some
other direction that you are moving in.
47
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Kanter — Well, I think I can answer part of that. The purpose of the
neighborhood commercial zone is to provide for. smaller scale businesses and
there are building limits, building size limits and the limits on individual
businesses and the intent is to serve really the nearby residential neighborhoods.
In that sense the function of a hotel really is not consistent with the neighborhood
commercial zone, although we really did continue motels in that zone if they did
front on State highways, but, again, with the understanding that they would be
much smaller in size. Of course, this has come in prior to the April first deadline
and so we are in that transition period, that is why Peter is talking about the intent
of the neighborhood commercial zone, but going under the current guidelines of
the business C zone.
Board Member Conneman — That disturbs me too Jon.
Board Member Howe — My reaction was, as. well, with the growing population in
that area it would be nice to see services, commercial services in that area that is
going to serve them and I agree, I would rather see something like this in the City
of Ithaca, closer to the kinds of services that folks staying over night would want.
I don't know how much say we have in that since it is coming in before the
changes to the zoning go into effect.
Mr. Trowbridge — There is a market in the area, Ithaca College, I'm sure would be
the primary user both for their teams and families that are visiting Ithaca College
and longer stays, over weekends. So, it's not as if it is serving the downtown
population. I think there is a fairly immediate population that would be served by
this.
Chairperson Wilcox — You want my opinion? The zoning allows hotels. I'm not
sure that it was meant for a three -story structure.. I think it is just the mass of it.
I'm thinking of the Italian Carryout, I am thinking of the Ziebart place. and Sam
Peter's and unfortunately, what was Big AI's, I'm not sure if it's name has been
changed since it changed ownership. Hilltop. It's mass just seems to be big and
certainly the third story is adding to that because of the height. I don't know if it is
economically viable to do a 30 or 40 bedroom hotel as kind of what we want.
Maybe it is, I didn't do the market study, but if somebody can pay $30,000 a year
in tuition to. send their daughter or son, can they spend $225 a night for a hotel
room, instead of $125, 1 don't know. But that's my reaction, really, the size.
Mr. Trowbridge — That was the question that I brought up as well when we first
got into the project, why are we seeing hotels of a particular size. It's partly to do
with what we expect for resources. This does have a pool and it does have, it's
family based, but there's a restaurant. I think when you start to downsize what
you do get are things like Super 8. So, it's certainly viable, but it's a different kind
of facility. Once you start carrying certain kinds of accommodation in a hotel, then
.•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
you start to see a critical mass that is different. I guess that's the difference and
when you start to incorporate those kinds of amenities.
Board Member Hoffmann -- Is this a chain of hotels?
Mr. Trowbridge — It is, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — Where are they located mostly?
Mr. Trowbridge — The closest one is in Cortland.- It's on Route 281. If you are
driving, it used to be a big dairy farm.
Chairperson Wilcox — It just opened in the last few months.
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes it did.
Mr. Kanter — It's right near the State University Campus, Cortland,
Chairperson Wilcox - I know exactly where it is.
Board Member Conneman — Are they identical.
Mr. Trowbridge — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — This one is smaller.
Mr. Trowbridge — it is and, in fact, we, as a part of the simulation, we've looked at
some of the standard models and we have made adjustment, Jagat's office has
made modifications to the site plan. So, there are fewer rooms than you'll see in
the other hotels nearby. So, if you look at those, realize that those are bigger
facilities.
Board Member Hoffmann.— Could you tell me on a national scale, how large this
chain is and where the hotels are located. Is it along the eastern seaboard or is it
all over the Country?
inaudible voice
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you to move that microphone over? Thank you.
Mr. Sharma — In terms of what they offer to the public Country Inns is high end. If
you look at the prototypes, there are certain basic sizes they go for. I think we
looked from 86 room and then coming down to 69 rooms, it could be 64, 65, 68,
but the way the floor plans work, with the three story, if you add one more bay
you get six rooms, so ending up with the 69 room. They don't have any
prototypes in 30, 40 rooms. I guess, I'm doing a few of them, but I don't think the
EX
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD.
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
hotel would go that small because you end up with a mama and papa motel,
hotels and that's not the way things are going these days. So.any national chain
has certain requirements and also the amount of dollars that you have and the
cost that you paid for the land will not justify a small mama and papa kind of
business here. I know it looks three stories tall, but it is smaller than other
prototypes that we have. Also, when we are all done, the massing of it is broken
down, as you can see, by setbacks and changing in the height of the roof.
Board Member Conneman — You are asking for variations on the setback
already, so knowing the setback.
Mr. Sharma — This is a mass broken up by changing plans, both height wise and
material. These prototypes are what they are and we just finishing up a Hampton
Inn on the Elmira Road and we have to conform to their requirements.
Mr. Kanter — One thing I would hate see this one move up closer to the road. If
you see that Hampton Inn down on Meadow Street, it's like a huge wall all of a
sudden right along the roadway.
Board Member Conneman — All the parking is in back of it Jonathan.
Mr. Kanter — That's what you get when you put parking in the back sometimes
though, yes.
Mr. Sharma — That was a requirement of the Meadow Street corridor.
Mr. Kanter — Some of those requirements, I think backfire oftentimes. The same
thing happened with that CVS that they put up, with the black window backing up
to the residential section across the street on Clinton Street. Where they didn't
want light shining out the window so they put this ugly fake window there, it
doesn't work. Anyway, we don't' have those.
Board Member Hoffmann — You mentioned, Mr. Sharma, that there aren't any
individual rooms, there are all suites ?
Mr. Sharma — They are all suites, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann- And they have a bedroom and a living room?
Mr. Sharma — A living area, a living room, bedroom, a bathroom, and a cooking
facility, a small kitchenette.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. How many beds in each suite?
Mr. Sharma — the rooms will be five for either queen/ queen or a king bed.
50
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Do you know what the rates are per night?
Mr. Sharma — At the next meeting the owner will be here to give you all the
details of dollar amount.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would be interested to know if these hotels with
suites offer long- term rates and whether there might.be people living here on a
semi- permanent basis, like students.
Mr. Sharma — I'm sure they do that, but I don't know what the rates would be.
Mr. Kanter — I think you would tend to find not too many students living there very
long, but you might certainly find someone relocating or on a temporary
assignment.
Mr. Sharma — One other thing that has been mentioned is that they always get
professors coming for a whole semester and they don't want to live in a one -
room hotel someplace and. there is nothing this town offers. So, this is the very,
very first time that you have a suite concept in the County.
Mr. Kanter — Do you have any idea what typical room rates for these types of
things are, like, for instance the one in Cortland?
Mr. Sharma — I have no idea.
Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me, the rates would be different for
individual rooms, which those hotels seem to have and for suites like these.
Mr. Sharma — I know they will be lower than Hampton Inn, that much I know.
Board Member Conneman — The facility in Cortland is not suites?
Mr. Sharma — It is. If you drive by you can see that it is also very close to the
road and it looks very good.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, your reaction is luke -warm at best. I think that's the
best way to sum it up. I think the other comment that I wanted to make is that the
amount of land, the subdivision, somebody is trying to minimize the amount of
land being subdivided off here for this hotel. I'm not sure whether that has to do
with where the allowable business district boundaries are, but given hat the front
of the building, the carport in front, if you will, the drop off area might be within
the setback on the front. Given the retailing wall on the back, on the northwest
corner, Peter, it looks just a little tight, in terms of the parking spots. It's real tight
back in there. I would hope that somebody could pick up another acre of land,
but I'm not sure that it exists.
51
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD.
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 612004
Mr. Trowbridge — I think the difficult part, when we looked at this, because of the
creek, you end up having a natural boundary to the south and, given the Holly
Creek Subdivision with the creek and trying to keep the creek open and setbacks
from the creek, you end up with a pretty naturally defined parcel, unfortunately.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know, it's tight. Then that three stories. I can't by that
three stories and the size of it compared to the other businesses in that area, at
that intersection.
Mr. Kanter — The other thing that I was thinking about related to that Fred is the
remaining parcel, whether that actually would have room for that kind of
neighborhood retail uses that we were contemplating to go in there that could
serve the Holly Creek Residences. So, I know we've talked about this, he really
can't give us a good idea of what is planned to go in there, but I think that would
be a concern of that remaining piece of land. What use it really could be put
towards.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is about a two -acre parcel.
Mr. Trowbridge — We did look at a sketch plan for that and, .while it's not relevant
to this particular deliberation, we looked at an "U shaped building with parking
that would adequately serve that, so we do feel that there is quite a doable small
mall complex that is feasible on the parcel that remains because we did want to
understand if we did put the driveway here, how would it function. Here, clearly
we understand, a program and a tenant, so we don't want to imagine that, but we
did look at it and there is accommodation for a small "U shaped commercial mall.
Board Member Hoffmann — But wouldn't that also then, if you were to allow
enough parking, be very close to the residential area just west of it?
Mr. Trowbridge — Well, again, we would have buffer requirements because of the
differences between the two zones, so I think the buffer requirement is pretty
ample and does allow for that separation between residential and commercial
retail use.
Mr. Kanter — Actually here we have a double buffer, we have the buffer for the
MR zone and you have the buffer in this zone.
Mr. Trowbridge — There is actually quite a bit of green space between anything
that would happen on Holly Creek and these commercial parcels.
Mr. Barney — Did you look at any other sites in that area?
Mr. Trowbridge — This is the only site that was brought forward.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments?
52
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Board.Member Conneman — It seems to me that it's obviously by filing the
application by April first you have some privilege to go under the fool's zoning
ordinance, however whether that is ethical or not is my concern.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think it is ethical because it's allowed.
Board Member Conneman — What that means is that people are taking
advantage of the window, John, and doing things that we ordinarily say that we
don't want to do.
Mr. Barney — The window was put there for a reason:
Board Member Conneman — I know you have some sort of window, but it seems
to me that there are people taking advantage of that window.
Mr. Kanter — However, I think maybe if you look at it in a slightly different way,
you could use that theory to try to get this to fit the still current zoning without
variances. That's just something to think about
Board Member Conneman — I think that would be fine if you could do that, but
obviously this plan of a three story building in a small area there with all kinds of
variances doesn't meet that criteria in my book.
Mr. Trowbridge — Just.to get some clarification from the Board, is it primarily
height that's the issue? I just want to understand if we do go back and talk to our
client that we're getting clear. I want to make sure that it's not use, because if it's
use, then it's a very different conversation that if you are talking about an area
variance or height.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have no problem with a hotel there, it's zoned for a hotel.
It's zoned to allow hotels given the appropriate criteria. It's the mass Peter. I. just
see the mass of the building and I think the mass is mostly the height.
Mr. Trowbridge — I just have to make sure though, that at sketch plan, the Board
is giving us some feedback and guidance. If that is the issue, if it's a height and
mass issue, I just Want to understand if there are other things if we go back to the
developer, that we have a clear understanding .of what those issues are'.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, you don't want to come back with a two -story
building and then find out that we weren't going to allow a hotel anyway.
Mr. Trowbridge — You really wanted a gas station.
Board Member Hoffmann - In addition to what Fred said, I would say, also that
it's the huge footprint on the piece of land of the building and the parking lots and
53
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
then, of course the necessary grading in order to make those parts buildable. It
just feels crammed in there on that piece of land and it feels also like it's
crammed in too close to residential buildings that are proposed. Those are my
concerns in addition to what Fred said.
Mr. Trowbridge — Just an observation, but I think any retail that goes there,
unless it is a very small retail is going to occupy the usable, given the limitations
buffer on this site on two sides because of zone, I think any retail that goes in is
probably going to occupy most of the useable land on that parcel. It is a very
restrictive parcel. We're talking about two and a half acres.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I understand, but the fact that it is so spread out
on a piece of land, on top of being tall and massive, just it makes it feel like it is
too big for me.
Mr. Trowbridge — There is an issue of 70 percent site coverage and we're well
beneath that. So, when we look at what is allowable, relative to site coverage on
the parcel, where I think we are. below 50 percent and I think 70 percent is
allowable.
Mr. Kanter — Actually, it is 30 percent building coverage.
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes, but overall-
Mr. Kanter — And then 30 percent open space.
Mr. Trowbridge — That's right, so when we look at it, it's well within allowable site
coverage.
Chairperson Wilcox — Along with parking lot structures?
Mr. Kanter — No, not in terms of coverage.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, in terms of setbacks and things like that, yes.
Mr. Kanter — Because we never went to an actual site coverage, we have a
building coverage.
Chairperson Wilcox — Rod, anything to add?
Board Member Howe — I have some concerns with use, but it is allowable, so I
can't really say much about that. I am less concerned about the footprint, I think
that that works. It's more the massiveness of the building. I think if we're trying to
create a neighborhood here, it's too large of a structure. I would be nice if we
knew what might actually be going into that other piece, but we don't.
54
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 16, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, what else can we give you?
Mr. Trowbridge — I think I understand exactly what your view points are and that
the point of sketch plan, so that we can get early deliberation and input before we
just naively.....
Chairperson Wilcox — You .got enough for right now?
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes we do.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the other thing that I wanted to add that was
brought up in the notes, I think, is that there may be reasons to do archeological
studies on this piece of land. You know about that probably.
Mr. Trowbridge — We do and one thing that I want to bring up about that, this
corner, despite the fact that I have read and talked to staff, I know that Dave
Auble several years ago, did a substantial amount of filling here and if we do a
Phase 1 or even Phase 2 archeological dig, we're looking at the native soils that
in some of these areas, which is why there's this big level area here. The native
soils are very deep. So, despite the fact, not just us, let's just say we walk away
and someone else does an archeological study here, our conventional shovel
test is done or a plow test is fundamentally going to uncover fill that was placed
there, in my memory, not so long ago. So, the native soils or any artifacts in
some places are, even if they did sit on the site, are many feet down. So, it would
exacerbate any conventional archeological study. Clearly Phase 1 would give
some historical information with a literature search about the site, but any
conventional shovel test probably is not going to be very revealing despite, I think
there has been some conversation about this site. That's. just a personal
observation.
Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. That is interesting to know. I didn't realize
that there had been a. lot of fill put there.
Mr.' Kanter — I think, just to note, that some of that fill may have been placed
illegally. At least without the initially required permits and approvals through the
Town. So, that's always a consideration. That's not your fault, but it's certainly
something the Board should consider.
Chairperson Wilcox — I actually can't remember whether that is clean fill or if
there was construction debris in there. I'm just trying to remember, going back.
Mr. Walker - I think there was some ruble in parts of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Concrete pieces, you know that sort.of stuff.
55
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH-16,2004
APPROVED APRIL 6, 2004
Mr. Walker — Sidewalks. This may have been the site that caused us to create
the ordinance anyhow.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set because we are getting late?
Mr. Kanter — One thing that I just was going to quickly mention is because —
Chairperson Wilcox —:1 thought you we're going to be here tonight. Are we all .
set? Any other comments from here? Thank you Peter. Thank you Jagat.
AGENDA ITEM. Approval of Minutes: February 26, 2004 and March 4, 2004
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =023: Approval of Minutes, February.26, 2004 and
March 4; 2004
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the
February 26, 2004 and March.4, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town
of Ithaca. Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the March 16,..2004 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
R�pe� submitted,
Lori Love
ms
PB Meeting 03/16/04 Attachement #1
To. Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From. Gretchen Herrmann, 433 Bostwick Rd.
Date. March 16, 2004
Re.. Proposed Subdivision on Bostwick Rd.
Hi, my name is Gretchen Herrmann and I live at 433 Bostwick Rd.
I've lived there for over 25 years in a house that was built in 1930.
Warren Paley and his family lived there for many years and Tom
Greespun's mother, Barbara, grew up in the house. All of us who have
lived on this land dearly love it and want to do our best to preserve the
peace and natural beauty of the landscape. I'm very glad to hear that
Barbara and her children, which includes Tom (AKA Crow), will be
receiving the bulk of the Paley land, as I know they will do everything in
their power to care for and preserve it.
In case you are unaware of the how beautiful this area is, and
specifically the field proposed for subdivision, I bring to your attention
the painting by local artist, Susan Titus, which depicts the hedge row of
this very field, facing South. I have enclosed the note card copy of this
painting. She painted this when she lived at my house over ten years ago
(over the years I have taken in tenants to allow me to stay in this lovely
house). Building in front of the hedgerow would irrevocably alter one of
the landscapes that has come to represent Ithaca's natural beauty.
I am disturbed about the proposed subdivision. The view from my
dining room picture window, kitchen windows, from my porch, yard, and
all the upstairs Eastern facing windows would be directly and negatively
impacted by putting up houses in either of the two proposed lots. Every
morning I sit at my kitchen table and sip my tea, looking out over the
road and the field that would be subdivided. I shudder at the thought that
someday I may look down upon some undistinguished modular home or
strain to see beyond an oversized McMansion blocking the view. This is
not being unduly negative. Take a look at some of the development that
has taken place nearer the bottom of Bostwick Rd. hill, it has adversely
affected the beauty, character and charm of the road.
The proposed lots are right in front of the viewline from my house,
and I have attached a. photo showing the view of the field from the house.
Building there would change my relationship with the house and land and
would decrease the value of my house. I would also be overlooking the
daily activities of others living in any dwellings built below, since I am on
the upside of those proposed lots, impacting .upon their privacy. My
neighbor to the West, Alice Garey, would be similarly affected.
Despite the fact that the land is zoned agricultural and that this is
the sort of development that the 7 acre minimum is meant to curtail,
apparently these subdivisions would be legal, since the proposal came in
before the deadline of April 1.
There is one thing that would mitigate the impact of dwellings on
these proposed lots, however. A stipulation that any house be built 300
feet back from the front of the lot (as measured from the pin at the front
of the lot dividing the two proposed subdivisions) would keep the houses
out of the main area of the viewshed and help preserve the vista that has
existed from the house for over 70 years. Given how deep the lots are,
this is not unreasonable, especially since I was told that designated set
backs take into account the distance from the road of the houses on the
adjoining properties. The house at 415 is over 1000 feet back.
If at all possible, I request that the Board make this provision. This
provision would also help alleviate the negative visual impacts for Alice
and probably would be better placement for the Bakers, who are situated
just below the subdivision lots to the East. This way any houses would not
be right on top of theirs. (They winter out of town, and so would be
unlikely to get to this hearing, should they have any objections to the
subdivision) .
I have spoken to Crow who understands my concerns and I plan to
contact his grandfather, Warren Paley about possible purchase of the lots,
should they be for sale and at a reasonable market rate. Obviously, the
outcome is highly uncertain and any protection that could be put in place
would be welcome.
Thank you for considering this request.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. I SEQR Determination: Perkins 2 -Lot Subdivision, 230 Stone Quarry Road.
7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-
lot subdivision located at 230 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40- 1 -7.1, Residence
District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the .3:36 +/- acre parcel into two lots, one 1.24 +/- acre
parcel containing the existing residence and one 2.12 +/- acre vacant parcel for a future residence. Roger
& Titiz Perkins, Owners /Applicants,
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Pokorney 3 -Lot Subdivision, 276, 278, 280 Hayts Road.
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval-for the proposed 3-
lot subdivision located at 276, 278, and 280 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -35 and
24 -1 -34.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing a 0.614 -acre parcel and a 0.560 - acre.
parcel from the 71 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 34.2), which would be consolidated with Tax
Parcel No. 24 -1 -35 to create a 1:884 -acre parcel containing two existing houses. Douglas J. Pokorney,
Owner; Darrell Pokorney, Applicant.
7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Bostwick LLC 3 -Lot Subdivision, between 415 and 433 Bostwick Road.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3-
lot subdivision located between 415 and 433 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32- 2 -3.2,
Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing a 2.751 -acre parcel and a 3.112 -acre parcel
fronting on Bostwick Road from the 73 +/- acre parcel for possible future sale. Bostwick LLC, Owner;
Tom Greenspun, Applicant.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed Country Inn & Suites hotel located at the
southwestern corner of West King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 37 -1 -17.1, Business District "C ". The proposal includes subdividing off a +/- 2.74 -acre parcel from
the +/- 4.82 -acre parcel for the construction of a 69 -room hotel at the intersection. The proposal also
includes approximately 82 parking spaces, sidewalks, signage, landscaping; and lighting. David Auble,
Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Agent.
9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
10. Approval of Minutes: February 26, 2004, March 2, 2004, and March 4, 2004.
11. Other Business:
12, Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will
be held by the Planning Board of the Town of.Ithaca on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the' proposed 2 -lot
subdivision located at 230 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40= 1 -7.1,
Residence District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 3.36 +/- acre parcel into two
lots, one 1.24 +/- acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 112 +/= acre vacant
parcel for a future residence. Roger & Titiz Perkins, Owners /Applicants,
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot
subdivision located at 276, 278, and 280 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1-
35 and 24 -1 -34.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing a 0.614 -acre
parcel and a 0.560 -acre parcel from the 71 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 34.2), which
would be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -35 to create a 1.884 -acre parcel containing
two existing houses. Douglas J. Pokorney, Owner; Darrell Pokorney; Applicant.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the : proposed 3 -lot
subdivision located between 415 and 433 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
32- 2 -3.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing a 2.751 -acre parcel and a
3.112 -acre parcel fronting on Bostwick Road from the 73 +/- acre parcel for possible future
sale. Bostwick LLC, Owner; Tom Greenspun, Applicant.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or
other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must
make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, March 8, 2004
Publish: Wednesday, March 10, 2004
PThe- Ithaca Journal
:Wednesday, Mach 10;2004;.
11
TOWN OF ITHACA,`'
PLANNING BOARD;
".NOTICF,OF .
. PUBLIC HEARINGS'
l Tuesday,
March-16, 2004
113y ,direction, of the ..Chair -
1,person. --of, •the `'Planning
.,Board, NOTICE -IS rHEREBY-
i °GIVEN that<Public Heoririgs
will-be held by'. the Planning,
Board atilt a Town of Ithaca
on ;Tuesd6y;:.Md ch •16,-
i 2004, at.-215. North Tiopgga
i'Street,rlthoca,, N.Y. •ah the.
j following tiioes,ond ;ons the
following matteri:
I7 :1 O P.M., Consideration
af ',Preliminary'--,and' Final
Subdivision Approval for the
Proposed .2loL subdivision'
located at 230 Stone Quar
Iry-Road, Towri of'lthaca Tax
I Parcel'_No.~'40- 1- 7.'1,- Resi-
dence District R -9:, ;The. p'ro,
posal. includes'- subdividing .
the.3. ±/- acre�rib - I'in
ito. two lots, . one '1:24 +/=
,acre. parcel. containing the
existing: residence and one
2.12 +/- acre yocant parcel
for a future residence. `Rog-
er & Titiz ".Perkins,
Owners /Applicants. '
7:20P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary , and ' Final
Subdivision Approval for the
PProposed 3-lot -subdivision.
located ot'276, 278'
280 Acyts Road; -Town' of
,Ithaca Tax Parcel -No.'s 24-
1 -35 and.. 24.1.34.2,: Agri.*
cultural . District.'- 'The pro-
posal includes . subdividing a
10.614acre' parcel;: and ' a
0:560 -acre parcel from the
71 +/; acre parcel _{Tax .
.Parcel. ,;.No. 24.1 = 34.2)1
which' would. be consolidat-
ed with Tax Parce'l"No. 24.1.
35. to_ create' a 1.884-acre
parce f - .containing. )wo - exist- '
jingg houses.',;'. Douglas J'
Pokorney,`` Owner,'. Darrell .
IPokorney; Applicant.
17E30 P.M. Consideration
;of - Preliminary and'- Final,
I Subdivision Approval for the
l proposed .3-lot subdivision
}located :between 415 and
1433 'Bostwick, Rood,:.Town
iof Ithaca Tax parcel No. 32-
1
2-3.12, 'Agricultural i District.
The' proposal, includes sub:
dividing a 2.751 acre par -
cel and a 3 J I Zocre parcel
'fronting on Bo'stwick'Rood
from. the 73 +/- acre parcel'
for possible -.future sale.
iBostwick LLC, Owner; Tom
Greenspun, Applicant. -
-Said Planning Board will
at-said times and said place
hear. all persons in support
of such matters or objections
'thereto. Persons may iop-
pear'by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual im-
pairments, hearing impair-
ments or other .special
'needs, will be provided with
assistance as "necessary,
upon'request. Person's desir-
ng assistance -must make
such a request not less than
48 hours priorto the time of
the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
- Director of Planning
273 =1747
Dated: Monday,
March 8, 2004
Publish: Wednesday,
March 10, 2004
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD.
SIGWIN SHEET
DATE: March 16, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
IV
�
_
�' n
C.•il � s _ V�t /vJ (ti�7
ale
f'�7'�!Z 7/zoWB�ip�
l34✓� �?�l��P-� -r fop, /
t-
Q
r:V�•
V.
ice. n Co h e_ �
T / l % C t s . h42-r L r\,
IV
�
_
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose:and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday March 16, 2004
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting
Date of Posting: March 8, 2004
Date of Publication: March 10, 2004
STATE OF NEW YORK) 'SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Town Clerk:Sijzn Board — 215 North Tio agi Street.
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this l 0th day of March 2004,
Notary Public
CONNIE F CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 06