Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-04-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2004 ILE DATE • i.Q' The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special session on Tuesday, April 6, 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, Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Orkin, Acting Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Greg Gizewski, 441 Bostwick Road; Lory Peck, 6315 States Road, Alpine; Alice Garey, 453 Bostwick Road, Jeff Coleman, 107 South Albany Street; Herbert Deinert, 130 Honness Lane; Sam Nugen, 302 Sunnyview Lane; Julie Goddard, 302 Sunnyview Lane; Kathleen Downes, 33 Chase Lane; Ruana Weitzen, 36 Chase Lane; Jed Weitzen, 36 Chase Lane; David Harris, 7 Chase Lane; Sara Sullivan, 102 Terrace View Drive; Joseph Harrington,. 1,02 Terrace View Drive; Tom -Greenspun, 320 Washington Street; Susan Titus, 250 Culver Road; Irving Marks, 310 Sunnyview Lane; Melanie Stein, 306 Sunnyview Lane; Greg Roe, 27 Chase Lane Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 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 29, 2004 and March 31, 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 31, 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. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — . I wish to point out that we Barney, Grossman, Dubow and Marcus sitting in evening. Good to see you all. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 202 2004 have Jonathan Orkin from as the Town Attorney this 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 the agenda, we will ask you to come to the microphone, we ask that you give us you name and address and we would be very interested to heard what you have to say. With regard to the proposed Bostwick Road subdivision, the public hearing-has been held, but I. may allow — or will allow anybody here who .wishes to speak a brief opportunity to speak when we get to consideration of that. Understand that the public hearing was held and was closed, but we'll give you a brief opportunity to address the Board when we get there. So, if there is. no one' who wishes to address the Board and an issue that is not on this evening's agenda, we'll move onto the next item. Chairperson Wilcox closed.this segment of the meeting.at 7:06 p.m. Board Member Mitrano — Is that a statutory requirement? Chairperson Wilcox — What? Board Member Mitrano — To have the first five minutes open? Chairperson Wilcox — No, we could not do it, we could do it at the end. Board Member Mitrano — Just curious. I think it is a nice touch. Chairperson Wilcox — Actually, we split it, you notice, we put five minutes at the beginning and then the rest at the end ?What happened was, we had a couple of occasions where some people showed up and took, five, ten, 15, 20 minutes, which was not fair to the people who have public hearings at certain times, that is why we separated it. Board Member Mitrano — Thanks, I was just curious. Chairperson Wilcox — You're welcome. AGENDA ITEM: Continuation of 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 2.7.51 -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. 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening Tom. Do you wish to make a statement or not? Tom Greenspun, 320 Washington Street --- I spoke with my grandfather, he wasn't, he didn't like the idea of including something in the, I guess, I don't know what exactly you would include it in, but the thing about the houses being "x" number of feet back from the road, he would rather not do that. Chairperson Wilcox — As I said, I will give members of the public a brief opportunity to speak, since I see that some of them are here and may want to address us a second time. Ladies and gentlemen, as I said, we held the public hearing at our last meeting, but we would give those of you an opportunity to address the Board this evening, if. you wish. We ask that you keep your remarks brief and to the point. So; you may come. up to the table. Again, we will ask for your name and address and we will be very pleased to hear what you have to say this evening. I ask you to raise your hands and I will call on you. Gretchen Hermann, 433 Bostwick Road — Thank you for this additional opport unity, I have to say that it is frustrating being on the affected side and not being able to have the interactive ability that the applicant does in terms of the process. Thank you for coming to visit the site. I would just briefly reiterate my request for a setback of about 300 feet, if it goes all the way back, the buildings would get in the viewshed of Crow's mom, Barbara. Further, anything like a single -story limit, would also make a huge difference in this situation. Another observation about .the process, I may not understand it entirely, but since it seems important whether or not the viewshed issue was included in the SEQR, I do want to point out that I had mentioned this issue to Sue Ritter prior to the last meeting, I talked to her on Friday, March '12th, and that the SEQR was voted on prior to the hearing portion of the last meeting, that may be because of law or whatever, but if you're taking into account what people have to say about an issue, the order, if it's allowable by law, may possibly be adjusted for future reference. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Alice Garey, 435 Bostwick Road — Just up the hill form Gretchen's. I saw you all, I guess this was who was there looking at the view. So, I hope you enjoyed our view. My house is in front of Gretchen's so I look through her front yard and so the view is similar and therefore, I would say I hate to have an obstruction to the 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 view. It would be pleasant if you could do something about it. If that's possible. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank'you. Susan Titus, 250 Culver Road - The next street west of Bostwick. This is a limited addition of. a watercolor of the exact- view that is in question on. Bostwick Road. I brought it in because some of you might have missed it the last time. 370 families own one of these, so it speaks a lot to the beauty of the views in this area and how meaningful they are to people who live here. In the latest Town Newsletter, I was so pleased to read that someone wrote about the views in the Town and how important they are. So, I was just hoping then that, even though you may not be able to change what is happening with this view, there will be, perhaps, two houses in the foreground, that you will keep in mind, for the future, other locations that are very beautiful. By the way, this is Connecticut .Hill and. Newfield and you don't those views from views from very many places, except Bostwick Road. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else this evening wish -to address this Board? Limited 'addition prints are for sale. Ms. Titus — This is. not advertising. Chairperson Wilcox — I said it. Alright, thank you very much. Board members, those of you who visited the site, those of you who have formed an opinion since we were here the last time discussing this? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, it did help to go out there and look specifically how views might be affected by houses being built there and I agree with what Mr. Greenspan said, that it's probably not going to help very much to place the houses further back, except maybe for the eastern -most lot, I guess, because that one has more of a slope toward the back, but otherwise the land is fairly flat so, even if you set the houses back quite a bit, they would still be fairly obvious in the view as you see it from the road. I imagine that maybe the view, as if can be seen from Ms. Hermann's house, might still be there is the houses were set back further, but it is very hard to judge that when you come and look, just briefly, like we did. I was very pleased to see that, as you go, just a little bit further down hill there is another really gorgeous view where you see, here you have trees along the edges of the fields, you see through them in the winter time and right now to the distant hills, like you do on the art work that we were shown, but in the summer, I imagine that the trees block out a lot of that view, but if you go a little bit further east along the road, the fields are such and the slopes are such that you have a gorgeous open view year round. Didn't you think so too when you were there looking? 4 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member:Conneman — Actually, I would say to Susan that we walked over both sides of the. road. We went up to Gretchen's house and looked at things. In my opinion, and I was the one who raised this the last time so I should speak about it, is that really the view that you painted will always be therefor people to .see along the road. If you build those houses back too far, then I think you would obstruct Gretchen's view even more.. Now, according to the letter that Gretchen sent us, I think she is as concerned about the houses in front of here as she is about the view. It just seems to me that we are concerned about the view, I believe there is. a Conservation's Committee that is looking at sort of helping. to preserve the viewsheds in. the Town of Ithaca, but actually, if houses are built closer to the road, in_ my opinion, you will restrict Gretchen's view less and . actualy, the way that the land slopes, you will still be able to see the scene that you painted. Now, we may have to put a sign up there to tell people that that's the view that you painted, see. But the actual fact is that I was surprised that the view, in my opinion, was preserved as we looked at it from Gretchen's house. That does slope down hill, that does mean that those houses will be much lower and it..will not affect that view. I don't know if Rod and Kevin want to comment on that, but that was my opinion. Board Member Howe — Yeah, .I don't have much to add. It was very subjective, in terms of where you were actually standing and if you were coming down the road. I think the consensus was there is going to be a view there from some perspective no matter where you put the houses. I am. pleased to know that there is this committee working on what the important viewsheds are so that we have more to stand on in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — It is not clear that the Town has a policy with regard to viewsheds which we can use as part of our decision making process. Board Member Conneman — The Town could have a policy. Chairperson Wilcox — The Town could have one, absolutely and maybe this Board would like to recommend- Board Member Conneman — There are some people that believe it will have a Policy, Chairperson Wilcox — But right now, there is no such policy. Board Member Conneman — But, I really believe that that view is really protected. You come down that hill and, unless somebody plants 100 foot Norwegian Pines up there, you will always be able to see. that. We know that Tom is not going to plant them in the area which gives him access to the rest of the farm. Board Member Talty — I would just like to say that I think that viewsheds are very subjective like Rod indicated. I had no idea how fast the traffic comes along that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 road until you're walking on it, so with that in mind, if you're the driver, basically your viewshed is maybe 45 degrees outside the windshield to the left -and 45 degrees to the right, because if it's a true 90, you're going to clip somebody or get in-an accident along that road. The reason I bring that up is because people come over the top and are heading down into town of to the east, as Eva said, the view is more ahead and slightly to the right, then it. is directly to the right. So, by putting houses fairly close to the road, in my opinion, that would :block the viewshed of the drivers and not so much the properties, but if there is some kind of negotiated distance between, not only the road, and not only the rear of the property, maybe the viewshed could be spared from both points of interest. Board Member Hoffmann - Can I say one thing first? We know you want to say something. I have a request for all of us on the Board and on the staff, could we, instead of saying "viewsheds ", which is such a boring jargon word, say "scenic views" when we mean beautiful, attractive views? I . Board Member Talty — As so noted. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Board Member Conneman — You convince the Conservation Board to use the language, we'll use it. Mr. Greenspun — I just wanted to add real quick that, when .1 spoke to my grandfather, he did ask me to mention that if he ends up building there that he is going to be sympathetic to the scenic view. He just didn't want add in anything about if he sells the land, you know, putting restrictions on the potential b.uyer..i thought I should add that. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Any further discussion? Would someone like to move the draft resolution? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by George Conneman. Seconded? Seconded by the Chair. All set? There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? Are there any abstentions? The motion is passed. Thank you very much. Thank you Tom. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2004 =024: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval., Bostwick LLC Three -Lot Subdivision, Bostwick Road Tax Parcel No. 32-2 - 12 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: G PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax. 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 + / -, and 62.4 + /- acres respectively. Bostwick LLC, Owner; Tom Greenspun, Applicant, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on March 16, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, has held a public hearing on March 16, 2004, and has reviewed a plat entitled, "Survey Map Showing Proposed Parcels of Land To Be Conveyed by Bostwick, LLC Located on Bostwick Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated 1211212003, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32- 2 -3.2, resulting in the creation of 2.75 +A acre, 3.11 +A acre'and 62.4 + /- acre parcels, as shown on a map entitled, "Survey Map Showing Proposed Parcels of Land To Be Conveyed by Bostwick, LLC Located on Bostwick Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated 1211212003, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and 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. the granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning .Board of Appeals, prior to the plat being signed by the Chair of the Planning Board. iA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 24, 2004 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty, NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Fix 2 -Lot Subdivision, 131 Honness Lane. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Speaking for the applicants is? Good evening Mr. Coleman. Jeff Coleman, 107 South Albany Street — Just briefly, my understanding is that Giora and.Limor worked with the Planning Department to come up with this plan and it is fully in compliance with the Town's Zoning Ordinance and that it is also completely consistent with the type of development that consists in the neighborhood, particularly Ivar Jonson's development, which pretty much is what that neighborhood is up there and completely surrounds the proposed subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — You are representing the Fix's ? Mr. Coleman — Yes. Giora is here tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any potential environmental impacts of this subdivision? Mr. Coleman = I am not. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Just stay right there. Members of the Board, questions with regard to Environmental Review? Board Member Hoffmann — (.disagree with you about calling this neighborhood the Ivar Jonson Development because that is just a small part of it, the most recently built part. The houses along Honness Lane have been there much longer than that and, I think, they are more typical of the neighborhood for most people who live there. The house that is on this parcel is a house that was owned by the family that had the farm house a few houses down the hill. That was the farm that had the land where Ivar Jonson built all the houses. I forget what.that development is called. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Are you talking about the Blatchly residence? Board Member Hoffmann — Right. The Blatchly's' used to live in the farm house that is down here and there was a pond here, where. there is now a house. . Chairperson Wilcox — I used to skate on that pond as a kid. Board Member Hoffmann — There was actually a spring under the pond. I am wondering what's happening in that house that they built on top of the pond as far as water in the basement, if they have a basement. I go that road a lot because I live in that area. As :I look at this piece of land that is proposed to be divided up for another house, it looks to me like the existing house and that house and the house that exists, -but is not shown on this* map to the east or uphill from it, those three houses would be much closer together than the other houses along Honness Lane. The lot looks very small to me. It may be of a legal size, but it looks different from all the other houses and how they are spaced. Through my eye, it wouldn't fit in. It feels like it is too tight a squeeze there. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? It is small, yeah. It is a legal lot, though, of legal size. It is still legal. It is 15,000 square feet and has the setbacks. I am somewhat concerned about the shared driveway, but that simply requires the lawyers to go to work and draw up the appropriate easements for access and use. Board Member Hoffmann— It would have been helpful for us all, I think, to see the houses on either side of this land just to get a feeling for how close together they are. On the downhill side, the spacing is better, though there is a drop in the land. That house at 131 is on piece of level land and then it drops off down hill to the lot where there is a new house on top of the pond. Mr. Smith — I'll send around the aerial of the location. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you pass that around? Thank you. Mr. Walker — I just passed a copy of the zoning map that shows the house footprints on it also. Mr. Smith — Dan and myself got a call this afternoon from the gentleman behind this property and one of his concerns was about some of the drainage coming off of the site and if it would increase if there was a house put on the property. We both went up to the site today. I don't know if Dan has any comments, but it didn't look that bad once I was out there. It was very wet. Mr. Walker - There is a lot of water on the surface behind the house, the whole lot is quite wet, but that is kind of normal this time of year. There is also, if you E PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 look at the fence line shown on the survey map, that is an old field, line, hedgerow. I don't know whether it was meant to be a diversion', but if effectively diverts water and water runs and water runs from quite a ways up the hill along that, it appears and it drains into the house, the yard behind, actually if you look at where the fence line if, if you were to walk out there, that appears to be the back lot line of the house down below. on Sunny, but actually the property line is somewhat further to the south there. Where the fence line comes close to the property line, there is quite a bit of water that seeps through and into the yard of the house that is represented on the survey map it says Goddard. Then. the Harrington. property, to the west of that, I noted that on the Harrington property there is a very wet area in the corner, but that appears to be a poorly landscaped yard and that there is a low spot in the area where the water collects and it appears that it is very wet and there is some drainage work that could be done in there to improve that, both with subsurface drainage and construction of a swale which we could provide technical assistance for. Chairperson Wilcox — When and if they come in and apply for a building permit. Alright. There might be old drainage tiles still under there, who knows. Mr. Walker — That hill was farmed, it was wet soils. I'm sure it does have a lot of old drainage and storm drains in there. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you Dan. Have you all had a. chance to look at that? Any other further discussion with regard to the Environmental Review? Comments? There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR Review? Board Member Howe — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Board Member Talty, whose hand went up first. There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anybody opposed? No one is opposed, the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -025 SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Fix Two -Lot Subdivision, 131 Honness Lane, Tax Parcel No. 58.- 2 -39.2 . MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 4ot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdividing the 1.073 -acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 0.388 -acre parcel for 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 construction of a two family residence. Giora & Limor Fix, Owners /Applicants, and 21 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 31. The Planning Board on April 6, 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 "Proposed Subdivision of No. 131 Honness Lane" dated 212612004, by Allen T. Fulkerson, 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, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdividing the 1.073 -acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 0.388 -acre parcel for construction of a new two family residence. Giora & Limor Fix, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions at this point or are we all set? Everybody is on that side of the room. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, if you wish to. address the Planning Board on this particular come to the microphone, we ask that you give u would be happy to hear what you have to say. I Yes sir? I need you to come up here so that we you. You may remember me as your paper -boy PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 agenda item, we ask you to s your name and address and we believe I saw a hand in the back. can hear you and we can record 37 years ago. Herbert Deinert, 130 Honness Lane — Which is directly opposite 131. I have some concerns, but I came here mainly to get an idea what the new arrangement, if approved would look like. We have lived at 130 Honness Lane since 1965 and we have occasionally taken a look across.the street and it appears to me what is, in my view, a medium -size, dandelion barren, god - fearing, normal lawn should now bear a two - family structure and I have no idea how he would squeeze a large house between the two existing structures and I had hoped that I would have something like a slide presentation or, at least a map to look at so that I could form an opinion of what it was going to look. like. Chairperson Wilcox- We'll provide the map, but not the slide presentation. Mr. Deinert — Where is the existing house. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, we ask that you look at it, form an opinion and then we will give you a chance to address the Board. Board Member Hoffmann — Speaking into the microphone. Chairperson Wilcox — You have the aerial, they will show you the proposed subdivision, they will show you the setback line where the house would have to be built. Then you can, one at a time, come to the microphone and voice your opinions. Thank you Mike. Thank you Susan. Sir? Joseph Harrington, 102 Terraceview Drive — My wife Sarah Sullivan is a co- owner. So, I have some limited addition prints: These are photographs taken this morning standing about ten feet away from the back of our house and looking up the hill. So, this first. image has, there is a puddle here, which is aboutIen or twelve feet in diameter, it is there more than half the year, it is not just a spring feature. The house at 131 is here, the house to be built would be here. There is two sources of water for this puddle, which by the way we have a drainage that runs along this back property, it's below the surface and it is not adequate to drain the water that is coming down. When we don't have a rain storm, we just have a continual seepage of water down this hill from the property at 131 and. that extends all the way up. This morning, I took several additional images. This is standing close to the line, looking up the hill. This is showing you from the house at 302 Sunnyview, looking directly up into the property that would be built, just showing that there is quite a slope there and, as of this morning, following our initial spring thaw, there is ice on that slope. So, there is water coming down 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 that slope today, there. is water coming down that slope a good fraction of the year. That's one source. The other source is that during heavy rains there is a little stream that runs right down through these yards, partly fed by runoff here, partly fed by runoff from the other houses that goes into this pond, if you will (I don't want to call it a pond because then it is a wetland, isn't it ?) and then across our backyard and then into our neighbor's yard and soon, This is the second relatively recent development that I have lived in, in Ithaca, the other.one being the Park Lane/ Eastern Heights Development, both of them have very severe drainage problems that I don't' think were addressed during the planning phase. Our main concern here is that we have a drainage problem and that putting a house on this lot, possible cutting trees on this lot is going to make it worse. Since this house is pretty much going to be out of view from our house, I don't' think we have a major view issue, but we would definitely like to see at least some significant mitigation or perhaps a bond for this construction. At this point, I agree to the size of house, compared to the size of lot makes it a large fraction of the water that was held in that lot, will no longer be able to be retained by the soil. Board Member Talty — Can you pass those around? Chairperson Wilcox — Can you leave those with us? Very good. Thank you. Mr. Harrington — Do you have questions for me? Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? You are all set then. Thank you very much. Next? Yes ma'am. Julie Goddard, 302 Sunny view Lane — I just wanted to say that I basically second what Joe has said about the drainage issue and the concerns about additional construction making an existing issue worse. I am just hoping, that whether. it's in this forum or in the issuing of a building permit that the drainage issue be somehow stipulated and something be done about it. That's all. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Anybody else this evening? Melanie Stein, 306 Sunnyview Lane - Okay about the drainage, I moved into my house in 2001 in the spring and so, by the time I moved in, I don't know exactly when the church parking lot got expanded, but I think the decision was before my time. I have seen the river behind the houses and I kind of slosh through it on a regular basis. My neighbor at the end of the road, at the dead end, who is just below the church parking lot said that it wasn't anywhere near as bad before they expanded the parking lot and my neighbor, Michael, has explained that there were a lot of objections among my neighbors to the parking lot being expanded because there was this beautiful row of mature pine trees, there are a couple of them left over towards the edge so you get a hint as to what it used to look. like. So, that got paved, the trees are history and, as I understand it, that's why the 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 river,is so much stronger now. So, when it rains hard, it's just a flood back there. Except for the dry months in the summer, there is this constant flow, because these mature trees that were up there aren't there holding.things together any more, so the water comes washing across the church parking lot. I don't know if any of you were in on that, but even if you weren't, we can learn from that. The aerial shows very clearly, I've got to get oriented. Okay, East Hill Recreation Way comes. along and then if you just extend the line with your finger... I . Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have that in front of us. Ms. Stein = You're going to look at it in a moment. You're going to see pine trees .like the ones that got removed for the church parking lot. Also, mature, beautiful, it's a double row and that nice row kind of disintegrates into a little bit junkier growth which culminates into a very deep, rich hedgerow'right behind my house. So., I was particularly interested to understand where the walls would go on the aerial and on this one because I don't really understand how they could fit a duplex in there without doing away with that beautiful double row of pines and most of the hedgerow. So, there is the drainage thing and I'm hoping that the Planning Board will learn from the experience of what happened when that church parking lot got expanded, what happened to our drainage problems. I'm also concerned about wildlife in the hedgerow and the extension of the of the East Hill Recreation Way. There are birds, rabbits,. squirrels, deer, mice, moles, that sort of thing. We've got this really deep hedgerow and I always thought that the land behind our house was no man's land, between us and the lawn of 131 and I'm still a little unclear about exactly what's where, but there's this huge hedgerow. Just to the hedge of it, there is kind of a deer highway, they have eaten a track. I see their droppings, it's not a population that is out of control. It's. not like when you go to Cayuga Heights, in some places. It's just a little handful of deer, you see them from time to time, but they're going somewhere. If they can't go through my hedgerow anymore, I think they are going to go along the roads and cause problems for cars and they are going to get hit. Then the birds. . The birds are a constant presence in my hedgerow and we spend a lot of time out there because my son has a climbing tree, just at the edge of the hedgerow and we have a couple of lawn chars set up out under the tree and so there is this constant bird song. I'm not a bird expert, so I don't know if the birds that have their special visiting in.the East Hill Recreation Way have their special plants in that hedgerow or not, but I know I am getting lots of bird visitors. Then, the final point that I wanted to just let you think about is across the street from the existing house, there is what looks like student housing, it is a little cluster like this with a little turn around, frequent trash problems, not setting their trash out correctly, or not on the day and piling up, like pizza boxes. I really wouldn't like to see more of that. We're close to Cornell in that it is convenient to get to work, but we are a family neighborhood and we'd like to see that continue. If it's really possible to squeeze a house in there, one or two units, I don't know, without destroying that mini- wildlife refuge, that would be great. I don't' know if it is possible or not.. Thank you. Any questions? 14 PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — You're all set, thank you. Anybody else this evening? Yes sir. Michael Marx, 310 Sunnyview Lane — It is sort of interesting because the church that she brought up, I remember going to a meeting at the church where they sort of wanted us to agree and everybody complained that the water would get worse. They made it very clear.that it wouldn't. So, what did occur is that now every time I do my lawn, there is one section where I have to sort of slosh through, which.) never had to before that happened. So the water is a real consideration and anything that would make it worse wouldn't be any more pleasant. You do sink about almost over the top of your regular shoe when you mow your lawn. The other thing is that there is a nursery that is on Honness, so we get noise from that all during the day because that is adjacent to our, sort of kitty- corner to property. So, any more population added into there, especially if it's college people who have parties at night, is going to make it morning through night kinds of noise. That is another consideration. I think that's it. Chairperson Wilcox.— Is there anyone else who wishes to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item.. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Board Member Thayer — Didn't we address that drainage issue on the church parking lot, Dan. Mr. Walker — It thought we did, there is a retention pond down there. I haven't been up there for couple of years myself, but there is a basin behind it that drains out into Westview, the. drainage system. Fred, have we had any problems with blockages up there that you are aware of? Mr. Noteboom — No that I am aware of. Mr. Walker — I will check that out again to make sure. I did observe, there is a lot of ground water or a lot of shallow surface water and it may be due to shale that's perching the water table. We have had, historically, a lot of wetness problems on this part of the east hill. There are a lot of springs up there in different areas. We have run across old field drains and things like that, which indicates that there is a lot of water on the hill and when you build houses, you disrupt some of the drainage patters. It's true that the drainage put in as part of the Terraceview, Sunnyview, Westview Subdivision, I won't mention any names, but is.it not very well designed and was not executed very well when they build the houses. Now, we discussed among the staff quite a bit, especially between the Highway Department, the Engineering Department and the Building Department about how we look at drainage when they do building permits and we are still working on that issue. There is no question, there is drainage problems up there, as there 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 are in the Northeast. I get called out frequently this time of year. I think there are some answers. There are some ways to improve that that we can provide technical assistance on. Chairperson Wilcox — If someone come to the Town for a building permit to .build a structure on this land, they would go to Andy Frost and /or someone on his staff. Would he consult with you or someone else with regard to conditions that could be imposed with regard to the issuance of the permits? Mr. Walker — Usually not, unless there was some direction, resolution from this Board or another agency. If it comes to a real difficult situation, generally they depend on the contractors to develop the drainage plan and that doesn't work very well. I would definitely recommend any approval of this require an evaluation of the drainage and I am not saying a new house is going to create a bigger drainage problem because there is an existing drainage problem there that needs to be taken care of and building another house won't make it go away. I don't think it would extremely increase the problem. It is a pretty bad problem there right not. . Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — You said that there are ways to correct the situation, could you tell us what that might be? Mr. Walker — Well, in this particular case, and I was up there today and looked at it, the pictures tell a good story. If you look at this hedgerow, which is not the property line actually, the property line is somewhere down, but it's the upper part between numbers 302 and 304, the .property line is probably 20 feet out from the hedgerow into the back yards. of those properties. You can see that there is a .little bit of a swale that was built behind 304, but it is fairly flat, there is not much grade to it so water doesn't tend to runoff it very fast. Then there is a very steep bank between 302 and the Harrington property and this ponding area, I won't call it a pond, but the ponding area is in a very flat, it's actually a depressed area so it is going to collect the .water. If you move to the south on the Harrington property, the yard is pretty flat and then you get to the westerly, southerly property line and there is a very steep bank that goes down to the next property so that all of these houses are built on terraces, cutting into what was a fairly steep slope, which .means that you are cutting into the subsoil and any water that was trapped and moving there was now on the surface, in this site here I would say that there was an excavation of over five feet to create that grade from the natural soil conditions. To really correct this problem, you've really got to go all the way up this hill because I think there are, what people might call springs or there is water coming out of the ground all the way up the hill and it is running along the hedgerow, which probably acts as a diverging, so there is a lot of water coming down the full length of Honness Lane that happens to discharge across these two lower properties because there is a natural outlet there for it and it is creating 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 quite a wet area. I'm sure it is wet most of the year,. except in a very dry and droughty time period. To solver this problem, you would probably need a combination of a French drain, subsurface drain, plus some surface grading to allow the water and heavy rains to run off faster and take it down to a safe outlet onto Terraceview Drive. The unfortunate thing about trying to correct a problem after a subdivision is build, as opposed to designing it well during that subdivision construction, is when a developer is building a subdivision, it is all under one ownership and he can put all the drainage in the right way. Now, we are dealing with half a dozen owners and you have to get a cooperative effort to really solve the problems. There is a cost involved and distributing that cost is always an issue. Board Member Hoffmann — What part do you think the part of the expansion of the church parking lot has in all of this, not just the asphalted area, but removing a lot of the trees that may have absorbed a lot of the water? Mr. Walker— The area where the trees are removed and where the parking to was built, all that water was built, all that water is supposed to go into he detention area that was built and then a safe outlet into the road ditch system on Terraceview. We did an inspection of that as it was being built and then I believe it was constructed that way. I would have to go up and look at it again because we knew there were drainage issues up there. Board Member Hoffmann - I know that we required them to {plant new trees on the slopes west of the parking lot expansion, but either they maybe have died or they haven't grown big enough yet to have an effect or what do you think? Mr. Walker — I have not, personally, looked at that in the last couple of years so I'm not sure what the problem is. I don't know if Rich has been. up there, our parks manager. Mr. Noteboom — We can re -visit that. We'll go look. Mr. Walker — I do know that it was just last year that we did a final landscaping inspection, I believe, on that parcel. That project was open and Mike, did you do an inspection on that or was it Jon? Mr. Smith — No, I think it was Jonathan that did the inspection, but it wasn't that long ago. Board Member Hoffmann — It's true, they were slow to finish weren't they? Mr. Walker — Yep. It was like pushing a string up a hill. I think they finally did put landscaping in and, I believe Jonathan singed off on it as was required in the .resolution by this Board. So, it maybe that the trees just got planted late and it does take a fee years to get them in size. 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — That spring that fed the pond that has been covered up.. Mr. Walker — Where was that pond again, I missed the location of it? Board Member Hoffmann It was just west of the more recent Blatchly,house, that brick house at 131, .which is part of this lot hear. Is that right, those of you who live up there and have seen it? Chairperson Wilcox — It. was right there. Mr. Walker — Given that there was a pond there with a spring, it was a pretty good indication that there was a lot of subsurface water available and it is still there. Board Member Mitrano — What is a spring? Mr. Walker — A spring is basically where ground water comes to the surface in enough quanitity to be observed and collected. Board Member Mitrano — Does it flow? Mr. Walker — It will flow yes, generally. That is usually what a spring is instead of just a wetland, otherwise. Board Member Hoffmann — So, is it possible that the water from that spring is seeping out in other parts of this area? Mr. Walker — Well, a spring is formed when there is a layer of pervious material that gets exposed on the edge of a hillside. So, there is probably a pretty good aquifer that is holding water. In this area there is usually maybe layer of gravel or a layer of shale that is transmitting the water and then when it becomes exposed at the edge of a cut slope, it is where the spring would come out. So, it is very possible that that water is, it may be coming from your house, Eva. That whole East Hill. If you go back even further behind the equestrian facility, and the tennis facility, it is all part of the same geological formation and there is a lot of water .over there, too. Board Member Hoffmann — I certainly have wet spots that I slosh through in my lawn too. The way I think about it is that I am really getting fed up with all the drainage problems that we are having on East Hill and hearing about them and am very hesitant to approve something, however small, that will add to it until something has been done to improve the situation. I think we can't just keep adding things without doing something to correct the problems. 111:3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Mitrano — I appreciate that perspective, but without really having a clear plan of knowing what would or wouldn't effect it, is it fair to deny an applicant just on a general thought that something should be done, rather than knowing the full scope of what could or should be done and then, from that information, being able to say that it would have an impact if one more subdivision is created. I guess I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but without a whole lot more information, it is difficult to make a determination like that. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, the other question that I have is this proposal specifically says that it's for the purpose of building a new two - family residence, that they want to subdivide it. I just want to make sure what kind of two - family residence we are talking about here. Is it going to be the typical one that we have permitted before where you have one main residence and then maybe, in the basement, you have a smaller unit, which is- Mr. Smith = The second unit has to be 50 percent of the first unit. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, so we are not talking about two equal'sized units or something like that? Mr. Smith — No, not without getting a variance. Chairperson Wilcox — The zoning doesn't permit that. Board Member Hoffmann That's right, but I when we have been talking about two- family talked about the specific configuration of one smaller than the main unit and I think maybe with applications maybe aren't aware of that. always when they come in? just wanted to make sure because units lately, we haven't always . always having to be a good bit a lot of people who are coming in Do you make them aware of that Mr. Smith — I have talked quite a bit with these applicants, they have a copy of the zoning for this area. Board Member Hoffmann- Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, we have previously approved subdivisions where we have conditioned it upon submission of a drainage plan for approval by either the Director of Engineering or the Director of Planning or both. Mr. Walker — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — That might be a reasonable thing to do here? 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Mr. Walker — Well, I think, on larger subdivisions where you are building roads, there is a significant amount of erosion and sediment control that has to be taking place, this is more along the lines of a building permit. I think an appropriate thing here would be to, because one of the things, there is a lot of the water on that hillside, any basement is going to have to have foundation drainage. To have an adequate outlet for a foundation drain, without causing additional problems to the properties below this house, is going to be fairly.expensive. I think it means taking it all the way down to Terraceview Road or something like that, which, you know, I mentioned that one solution to the wetness in these yards would be a . more extensive drainage system. You don't want to build a drainage system that would work fine for the house and put it right into the backyard of the neighbors, which is what would happen here if you didn't carry it all the way down to a safe outlet. Chairperson Wilcox — So what are you recommending? Mr. Walker - I am recommending here, that prior to any building permit be issued, that a drainage plan be developed and reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, Chairperson Wilcox --Don't we usually do the Town Engineer and /or the Director of Planning? Mr. Walker — Not for drainage: Chairperson Wilcox — Not for drainage. Board Member Mitrano — Say that again, what you are proposing Mr. Walker — Just to condition that any building permit for that site not be issued until a drainage plan has been developed and approved by the Town Engineer. Board Member Mitrano — For that site or for the whole area? Mr. Walker — For that site. I think what effectively is going to happen is to have an adequate drainage plan, they would have to go through any adjoining properties to discharge it adequately and this may provide a vehicle where if there is cooperation between the neighbors, they could all have improvements. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you think that is reasonable, given the situation there today? Mr. Walker — Yes, I think so. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, very good. 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Talty —. Fred, I have a question. The. current house that is there on the property, the.gutters in the current water is drainage how? Is it just a free- flow? Is it tide in out to Honness? Is there a mechanism in .place right now? Do you know? Chairperson Wilcox — Can the applicant or the agent answer that. Board Member Talty — If they are going to put another house there, I would just like to know how the house is right now. Does the water go into some type of . drainage system already or is it a free flow right out onto the grass? Chairperson Wilcox — I.actually don't know. Mr. Walker — Is the gutters on the house, ground, but I don't know if it just goes out there. Mr. Coleman — Just to answer your quest the west, which is also a property owned causing a problem there. Board Member Talty — It is or is not? Mr. Coleman — Is not. they appear or if there is ion, apparer by the Fixes to go all the way to the an underground drain up tly the water is drained to and, apparently, isn't Board Member Talty — But we don't' know for sure if the water keeps moving towards Terraceview? Mr. Coleman — Well, I can't answer that. Chairperson Wilcox — The public hearing is done, thank you very much. You have had your opportunity. Thank you. Inaudible voice from the audience Chairperson Wilcox — The public hearing has been held and been closed, thank you. Board Member Talty — Another question, which they can answer is, do any other the three yards or four yards which butt up against this property, do you have basements or do you have slabs? Several voices from the audience- Slabs. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Comments? Are we all set from that side? .Dan is there anything else you want to say? Would -someone like to move 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 the motion, as drafted? So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Would someone like to second it? Seconded by Larry Thayer. Mr. Smith— I have a condition, if you are looking for one. Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead, let's try it Mike. Mr. Smith — "Submission of a drainage plan for approval by the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. Chairperson Wilcox Works for me. You okay with that Tracy? Larry? Thank you. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please raise you hand, let's just do it that way, just to make sure. I have one, two, three, four, five. All those opposed? I have Kevin and I have Eva. The motion is passed five to two. Thank you very much. pB RESO 2 -39.2 . UTION NO. 2004 Fix Two -Lot Subi 126: Preliminary and 131 S Tax Parcel No. 58.- MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal . includes subdividing the. 1.073 -acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing .the existing residence and one 0.388 -acre parcel for construction of a two family residence. Giora & Limor Fix, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on April 6, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 6, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Proposed Subdivision of No. 131 Honness Lane" dated 2126 12004, by Allen T. Fulkerson; L. S., and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 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 two -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. 58. -2 -39.2, as shown on the survey entitled "Proposed Subdivision of No. 131 Honness Lane" dated 212612004, by Allen T. Fulkerson, L. S., subject to the following conditions: a. 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. submission of an easement/maintenance agreement, for review and. approval by the Attorney for the Town, allowing shared use of the existing driveway by the existing residence at 131 Honness Lane (Parcel A) and the future two - family residence (Parcel B), said approval to be issued prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and c. submission of a drainage plan for approval by the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Parcel `B ". The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe NAYS: Hoffmann, Tally. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Harris 4 -Lot Subdivision, Chase Lane. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Speaking for the applicant is? Sir? 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 David Harris, 7 Chase :Lane — Good evening. Let me just, very briefly comment on what being proposed here. There is a.34 acre lot that sits at the end of Chase Lane, you can see it on your map. What we are proposing here is, essentially, to add another buildable lot at the end of Chase Lane. That is accomplished by dividing this initial lot into four pieces, not four buildable lots, one buildable lot. The first one is a piece that's 1.32 acres, that's where the house would go. The second.piece if .24 acres lot, it's really 60 feet wide and 200 feet deep or so, that. would sit immediately to.the south of the last house on Chase Lane on the west side. That is a lot that, the Goldstein /Flores who own the 34 acre lot, want to preserve, if, on the unlikely case in the future, they want access to the 82 acres that they own that are to the west. They are against development, in general so it is highly unlikely that they would want to use that, but they want to keep their options open. It also, by the way, creates a buffer between this new house and the last house on Chase Lane. Then the last piece of this is a .362 acre lot that would be for construction of a hammer head at the end of Chase Lane, which is,, as you probably all know, but I didn't, until recently, it has just extended and taken a right turn 90 degrees. The'reason to do that, the Town's interest in doing this and it actually came from the Town, this idea, is that currently just dead ends and there is no way to turn around. Kids who live down at that end, the school bus can't come and get them because the school bus can't turnaround. The plow can only turn around because it has an agreement with the current owners at the end, of Chase Lane, but that is an agreement that would have to be renewed with any additional owner down there. Emergency vehicles, other vehicles have a difficult problem. The Town has, as I've been told, would like this hammer head at the end to give them the opportunity to turn around emergency vehicles and also to give private vehicles a way to turn around. That creates the opportunity for this buildable lot. So, it is sort of the synergy so these came. together and that provides the 60 feet and 100 feet, 50 feet back for this new buildable lot. I'll leave it there at this point, but there are a whole bunch of other .things that I could say if you have questions about it. Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental concerns that you are aware of. Mr. Harris — None that I am aware of. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Noteboom, since you are here, can I ask you to pull the microphone up close to you. As a highway superintendent, give us your perspective on this. Mr. Noteboom — We have met with Mr. Harris and requested the hammerhead there because, as he said, Chase Lane ends. It was a phased project that never had the other phases go on. We made an agreement with the property owner there to use their driveway. Since then, a new property owner has been there the last year, I believe, we are on a little more shaky ground at the moment. Sue, though, has come up with some information. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Ritter — Just that the Town did have a temporary easement. It is shown on the plat that Mr. Harris provided. The Town does have a temporary easement,. but it is not clear when that expires, exactly. The wording made it sound as though when all the parties don't want this to happen anymore, it would go away. Or something like that. Mr. Noteboom — Probably that language was developed for the phased project so, that we would be able to use it until the road was extended, but,... Chairperson Wilcox — It is our understanding that the Town Board is interested in extending Chase Lane. for the purpose of putting in this hammer head, turn around facility? Ms. Ritter — We have not talked to the Town Board. This would go to the Town Board next, after this Board, if it were approved. Chairperson Wilcox — Presumably members of the Town Board are aware of it and this is not going to be turned down. Mr. Noteboom — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — You may not have implicit approval, but.. Ms. Ritter — We have new Town Board members. I don't know if they are familiar with this particular issue. The former Town Board members may be familiar with the end of Chase Lane. Chairperson Wilcox — But, this makes sense as far as planning is concerned? Ms. Ritter — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — And Highway is concerned? Mr. Noteboom — Yes, it makes a lot of sense for us. It makes out life a lot easier. Chairperson Wilcox — Not only can you turn around those plows and other equipment, but I assume school buses, can school buses use the hammer head? Can school buses back up into a hammer head turn there? I didn't know if they were in some way prevented from backing up. Board Member Thayer — Unfortunately, no, they have no restrictions. Chairperson Wilcox I have one question, I am looking at the subdivision map, the proposed map, this little eight foot piece right here, does this connect this parcel to this parcel up here? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Ritter — Yes, that's right, this is all part of the same parcel. Chairperson Wilcox —So, if I pull this out, this house, so that comes right through there. Ms. Ritter — No, I think it stops. Chairperson Wilcox — You think it, pinches off right.there? Ms. Ritter - Yes, I do think so. Chairperson Wilcox — That's an interesting little eight foot piece of land. Any questions of the applicant with regard to the SEAR Review? There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR Motion? Board Member Hoffmann — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by the Vice Chair sitting next to me. Seconded, Rod do I see your hand up? Seconded -by Rod Howe. Is there any further discussion. with regard to Environmental Review? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anybody opposed? No one is opposed, . the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NOm 2004 -027 SEQR: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Annrnval_ Harris Four -Lot Subdivision. Chase Lane, Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -2.2 MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the end of Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45= 1 -2.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdividing the 34 +A acre parcel to create a 1.32 +A acre lot to be used for a single family residence, a 0.24 +/- acre parcel to be reserved for future access and consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 45- 1 -1.2, and a 0.362 acre parcel to be conveyed to the Town for the purpose of extending Chase Lane for use as a snowplow turn- around, with the remainder of the property staying undeveloped. Tessa Sage Flores, Owner, David Harris, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 31 The Planning Board on April 6, 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 "Survey Map Showing a Portion of Lands of Tessa Sage Flores" dated 312104, by Michael J. Reagan, 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, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM : PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Chase Lane, Town of The subdivision of the acre parcel for a futu consolidated with Tax parcel to be conveyed for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the end of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45- 1 -2.2, Residence. District R -15. +/- 34 -acre parcel will result in the creation of a 1.32 +/- re single - family residence, a 0.24 +/- acre parcel to be Parcel No. 45 -1 -1.2 for future access, a 0.362 +/- acre to the Town of Ithaca for the purpose of extending Chase Lane for use as a' snow plow turn - around, with staying undeveloped. Tessa Sage Flores, Owner; the remainder of the property David Harris, Applicant, Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:18 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the proposed subdivision? There being none. This is a public hearing ladies and gentlemen. Since you've been sitting here, you know the drill, please come forward, speak into the microphone so that. we can hear you and name and address first. Kathleen Downs, 33 Chase Lane — One of my concerns is that the map that you have does not indicate the slope and one side of Chase Lane is considerable higher than the other. I am fortunate to live on the higher side. My neighbors live 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 on the lower side. There are serious drainage issues on the lower side: I have lived in Chase Lane for 14 years. When we were looking for lots, we were advised to buy on the higher side. Lots on the other side, most of those houses were built on slab. The houses that tried to build basements, initially filled with water. The families that built after the original corporation disbanded with the Auble Group, we're made aware of the fact that there.had been all the drainage issues and so those families built basements and, subsequently, have had many drainage issues on that side. So, similar to the case before, there seems to be some drainage issues that would have to be addressed before a house was built in that area. Even living on the higher side, we have ended up putting four drains on our property, which run continually, April and maybe stop in May and they feed into the culvert and they go around our entire property and they drain in and we had to put that in after we had lived there a couple of years and saw how much water actually was on the property. I also believe that partly the Phase II of . Chase Farm did not go through because of that issue of that area being a wetland back there. So, before any house was built there, there are a number of issues that I think would need to be looked into in terms of building on that lot and, at least the people who are building there being made aware of the fact that if they are going to have a basement, that they will have a lot of drainage issues . to deal with. The last point is because of the nature of the wetlands, all of the beautiful trees there are very shallow- rooted, they have very broad root systems, but shallow roots. When you build, most of those trees dies after just a little bit of fill is put on them because they have such a shallow, root system. We probably lost about 20 trees, just on our 3/4 acre lot after we had been there a year. So, think the future property owner should also know that, if they think they are getting a wooded lot. That is all I have to say. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody. else? Sir? Jed Weitzen, 36 Chase Lane — We are the Witzens, we own 36 Chase Lane, which is just north of the proposed subdivision, apparently it has been an issue tonight repeatedly. There is, in fact, standing water, throughout the year on south edge of our, property, which would be on the northernmost edge of the proposed subdivision. For most of the year, probably at least nine to ten months of the year, there is also some standing water on the western edge of our property. There is a delicate water balance in that particular area. Again there is a slope that.comes off the hill from the east to the west. Our concern is that this delicate balance will be disrupted by placement of the new house to the south of us. That water has to go somewhere and our concern is that it will create a risk to our property and our home. Already there are a series of dead trees along the southernmost edge of our property into the woods. There are no large trees that are in the area in that southern area, they are dead or dying. Let's see, make sure I didn't miss anything I wanted to say. Our concern is that building in that area will create a disruption in the current drainage pattern. Again, this is something that we've heard repeated again tonight. My apologies for bringing it up repeatedly. r; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 We are sort of shooting in the dark a little bit here. We have heard about he eight foot piece of property. There is currently a turn around, by the way, we have lived at the property since February of 2000 and there is a turn .around adjacent to our driveway, is that the eight foot piece of land that we are talking about? Chairperson Wilcox — I think we are going to get some assistance from Mr. Harris. The Flores own a small, well, the piece of property they own, tax parcel 45. -1 -2.2 from which these proposed three lots will be subdivided out, has that narrow eight foot strip of land, which, in some way prevents Mr. and /or. Mrs. Sawyer from potentially developing their property in a way that would allow connection of their land to Chase Lane. That is something that we have been made aware of by Planning Staff. Board Member Mitrano — Is the Sawyer property the old Christmas tree? Ms. Ritter — I don't know. Mr. Noteboom — Isn't it actually in the Town of Danby? Board Member Mitrano — Yes it is. Mr. Weitzen — Just so the Board Members know, we do have a sump pump and a basement that is finished and again, this is operating throughout the year to manage the water drainage in the area. Again, our concern is that the drainage will be upset by any new building in the area, certainly without further study. . Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Mr. Weitzen — Yes, thank you very much for your time. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. I should point out that Mr. Harris, who has made the presentation is the proposed purchaser of the land, so if he wasn't aware of the potential drainage issues, he certainly is now. Sir? Greg Poe, 27 Chase Lane — I'm a bit further down. I just want to start off, I have a couple points with each of the four parcels that are going to be subdivided. I just want to start off that one of the things that I am very excited about is someone who is currently a Chase Farm resident, like Mr. Harris, is seeking to stay in the neighborhood, rather than moving away. I think that says a lot about the neighborhood and his wanting to stay there. Given that, it is a neighborhood that I want to try to preserve. It is more an addition to the neighborhood, one more house, rather than a whole new subdivision and so, my hopes would be that if the house if approved, that Mr. Harris and his family stipulate that there is apparently a Chase Farm Group, code conformance, I guess or some sort of 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 aesthetic group that regulates all the houses when they are built there so that they have cedar siding and so on, it just .maintains the neighborhood feel. I don't know exactly a specific name, but Cathy Wiezner is a member of that committee and that would just be nice because it would maintain the feel. of the neighborhood and if, you've been up there, one of the attractions is that neighborhood feel. In addition, ,if a hammerhead is made, it would be nice if it was done esthetically. The current ending of the road, where the bases do turn. around, indeed one bus does go, up there presently for one specific child, so if is able to use that turn around, but if you could finish it off so that it's more of a cul- de -sac so that it's not just simply where asphalt is dumped. So that it's a feel of an in and not just something kind of trickling off.. That would be quite nice. Right now it is just where people walk their dogs and where the Town, apparently, dumped some asphalt. The 34 acres, I really have no issues with, I think it is going to stay the same. This future access road is to be consolidated with 45 -1 -1- 1.2 and this I don't particularly understand the need for that since it already has access via Compton Road. I am kind of interested.in trying to assess what is the intent. in doing that if there. is already access. It is not to save a, parcel that doesn't have access, but it is to connect it actually to Chase Lane and so, I don't know if it is within my purview, but it would be of interest to find out what the . intent of that land is. I don't know if that is allowed now, under new rules or anything like that. Chairperson Wilcox - I have no idea what the intent is, Ms. Ritter — I think the intent is to just maintain options for the future. I am quite sure.that the Goldstein /Flores don't' have any immediate plans to develop that land, but if they did, you would want to have some kind of, if it was developed., you wouldn't just want to have one access point, you might want two access points. This would allow residents, on Chase Lane, to have access to this .development, perhaps, I'm not sure how it would connect with Compton Lane. Mr. Poe- So, in essence, it is changing the status quo by making two entrances to a piece of land that previously only had one entrance? Ms. Ritter — No, right now, their land today, Mr..Poe — I understand, they have an adjacent property, they have two pieces of property correct? Ms. Ritter — That is correct and they are contiguous. Mr. Poe — They are contiguous. I am completely out of my element here, I am just a neighbor. What I'm really trying to look is that we don't get death by a thousand cuts. Here comes another one and we keep expanding into the wetlands issues. we PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Ritter — Right and brought this up with Mr. Goldstein, especially with this 34 acre lot, for instance, at the end of Chase Lane, we don't want to see just piece by piece development. We basically told .him that is he continues to develop or he has any plans for the end of Chase Lane, he needs to make that that a through road. He would need to connect that with Ridgecrest Road. So we do need to have a bigger plan than just piece meal. development on this lot. Mr. Poe — I guess my concern is that, it just looks like you're making a connection so they could potentially sell that all as one piece of property. if it's consolidation, I guess I don't know the term consolidation. Is it making it attached? Ms. Ritter — Consolidation means that it will get consolidated with that 80 acre parcel. Mr. Poe — If somebody else is interested in buying it for development purchase, now they would have an entrance on Chase Lane, without= Ms. Ritter — Which they always did: Which they do now, which they do today, except that now, the subdivision would be sort of in the way. Maybe I should show you the map. Chairperson Wilcox — It is good planning to have access to your parcels. Mr. Poe — I know that. Ms. Ritter — So, here is the current house, here is the road, here is the Harris lot, and here is this, the Tessa Flores own all of this. So, they, today, have access. Mr. Poe — So if they were to sell the land to this developer here ... if somebody was to buy this land, they would also have to create a deal, say this did occur, say they had the status quo, they also, in my understanding, would have to create a deal to subdivide this into some parcel in order to have access to this. Ms. Ritter — No, because it is the same owners. Mr. Poe — Okay, then that is a moot point. But, I guess I just want it on the record that we are concerned about, if this, I understand, that they not only own two plots in the Town of Ithaca, there is also an adjacent plot in Danby, the Flores family. That creates a potential for quite of few houses to be built in there and so we just want in on the record that we are interested in what their intent is in the future. In addition, it would be an appropriate time to ask, I ask why the access, what is the future intent, there is a lot of confusion, including one of your people at your law office, about what the heck is the current status of that area, which is the 80 acre plot and what is this wetland that was previously mentioned. There was a lot of discussion about, well there is forever wild and things like that. It appears to even carry over to your maps over there. Your anticipated land use 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 patterns map has designated that part of this 823 acre lot is designated as a conservation open space. Ms. Ritter — That's true. It has not been designated at this time, but it was on our open space plan. I don't know if it was the 80 acre parcel or part of the 34. Mr. Poe. — Well, it's a green blob that would be in that area. Ms. Ritter — You're right. It wasn't a priority, we did focus on the South Hill area, there was. a number of areas that have been zoned conservation, especially behind Ithaca College. This area was not a focus. of our recent zoning change. Mr. Poe — And there are some questions that have been raised, that as a part of the purchase from the bankruptcy courts, that when they purchased it that there was apparently a conservation component of that parcel of land. It would be nice if it could be cleared up because a lot of people use it. Ms. Ritter — I don't know about that, but I would say that the Flores- Goldstein's are very much into land conservation. They seem to care very much about the land and I think that is why they bought this piece of land was their concerns for it. Mr. Poe — Then I guess] am just concerned and I wanted. to voice my opinions. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There is only one person left back there who hasn't spoken. Male voice from the audience - l am just sitting back here for my neighbor up in that area. He is in Florida so I am taking notes for him. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you live in that area? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Kind of wet up there? Board Member Mitrano — I am very fortunate my house is not, although my neighbor has set up a drainage thing right into my property that has created one of these puddling or ponding area, so I have listened with great interest tonight. I have been very fortunate, my house is dry as a bone with the basement and no pump. Chairperson Wilcox — You are lucky. Okay. Dan, although there has been an attempt to draw some parallels between this proposed subdivision and the one 32 PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 on Honness Lane, one, we're dealing with a one and 1/3 are lot here versus something just slightly over a third of an acre on Honness Lane, so there is some difference there. The other thing is, is that I am not aware that the construction of a house on this particular parcel would have a potentially significant effect. on any of the neighboring parcels, mostly give the size of this parcel, unlike on Honness Lane where this is existing drainage problems from one parcel to another. The ground is just very, very wet up there. Mr. Walker — We waived certain things, like topography that would give us more information. Right now there is a ditch that drains to the north., it drains down Chase Lane and I am .assuming that is Chase Lane is extended this 100 feet or whatever it is, that that ditch would also be extended and that would take water. think whoever builds a house there would probably not want to put a basement under it, unless they make sure that they don't have it into...check and make sure how wet it is before you build the house because there are some wet spots up there. Mr. Noteboom — On the west side of Chase Lane where these people happen to live, behind all those house all the way over to Lagrand Court, they have graded that to drain to Lagrand Court behind their houses. It is a rather wet area. My impression is that as you go further up, that it would drain maybe more directly. west than north. Chairperson Wilcox — Then north along Chase Lane. Mr. Noteboom — That would be my impression as you go up in there. Board Member Mitrano — Fred do you mean you know this parcel on Lagrand that was double and we actually separated it some time last year, if I recall, there is a stream that runs through, is that what you mean about this area draining to the west? Mr. Noteboom — Yes. It's coming from behind those houses. It's quite a shallow drainage area. All the drains from those houses on that site of the road, they look like a very shallow pitch to me. I've been out behind there and go "wow but guess it functions. Mr. Walker — This is a very, it is a relatively flat area on top of the hill and there are a lot of wet areas, of course being wetlands in that whole hillside area, there was a fairly extensive roadway planned as part of the Chase Farm Subdivision, which didn't get finalized and I don't recall right now, which direction all that water was draining, but I think there is a break so some of it is going towards Ridgecrest at some point. Ms. Ritter — I've seen a map, there was a wetlands delineation done for Chase Lane II and it was south of this area. I would say that Mr. Goldstein would not 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 have allowed this if this was in one of the wetlands and he is aware where those are located. Mr. Walker _ Actually this lot.was one of the locations of the Town Park that we had looked at in one of the earlier, I think it was after the original, I think that was the subdivision was going to have a park in that area and that was one of the things that we didn't want to lose, was a neighborhood park, with the bankruptcy. and the second phase was not developed. Not only did we loose the through roads and eliminate the cukde -sac problem, but we also lost some recreation space. Chairperson Wilcox — The question was brought up with regard to what I believe are existing deed restrictions on the properties. There was the statement that the perspective owner adhere to those. That is something ' that we, as a planning board, can not enforce. If the owner, and Mr. Harris, I assume you are looking to buy this, simply because the subdivision map says proposed parcel be conveyed to David Harris. If he chooses to abide by the deed restriction that are part of the actual subdivision, then he does that, if he chooses not to, I don't think that this Board has the right to force deed restriction. Board Member Mitrano — And in fact, I think there are earlier questions. as to whether those deed restrictions would apply to, this parcel, given the phase developments. I raise that as a question, I do not know. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Harris? Mr. Harris— My belief is.that those restrictions do not apply to this parcel, but, as Gregg said, I am a current resident in that neighborhood and .I understand people's concerns about extending a road through and having through traffic go .through, I understand people's concerns about us building something that doesn't .fit in aesthetically with the neighborhood, but, hopefully those concerns will be diminished by the fact that I am a current resident in that neighborhood and that, if I thought, in any way, that in five years, ten, years, some relatively short to medium, even longterm, there would be two roads going through,. one to Comfort, I guess it is, and one to Ridgecrest, there is no way I would want to be at that ".T ". So, I am convinced that Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Flores do not want to develope. I had to talk to them long and hard to sort of encourage them to do this. As far as aesthetics are concerned, I don't know that we are required to abide by those rules, but I can't imagine us building something that wouldn't fit in with the neighborhood. Board Member Talty — You would be surprised. Not you personally, but there are instances where people have put structures in places that are not aesthetically pleasing. No way am I indicating that you are one of those people. Mr. Harris — I understand. 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — And again we do not have architectural review or anything like that. Board Member Conneman — Aesthetics and attractiveness are subjective. Can we get some sort of an agreement from the Town Highway .superintendent that we make the hammerhead somewhat attractive. I don't know what that means. Mr. Noteboom — Me neither. Chairperson Wilcox —.It's the Town Board that has to allocate the funds and has to approve it. Board Member Conneman — But is seems to me that they would be interested in doing that because this is part of the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — They would be interested in doing it right because they don't want to have to pay the maintenance costs and everything else. Board Member Conneman_— So, we don't have to worry about that? Mr. Noteboom — Well, it will be going to various Town Committees before we actually do the project so there will be review of it by more than just us. Board Member Mitrano — That actually is a nice point because of the unpredicted and precipitous nature with which Phase II 'did not occur, the end of that really just was never done with anything in mind, except that it was not going to be there very long, which has not been the case. Mr. Noteboom — If you look at Lagrand Court over the years we have attempted to make that as attractive as possible. I think we actually try to. Board Member Mitrano — Is there ever going to be, by the time my kids are through school, the park that is going to be off of King Road, that is adjacent to where Saunders is. Mr. Noteboom — That's an excellent question. Board Member Mitrano — And the answer is? Mr. Walker — It is not in this year's capital plan. It is probably not too far away, but it is all a matter of money. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there any further discussion? Would someone like to move the draft resolution? 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by? Seconded by Kevin Talty. I should point out that the resolution that is drafted and before us does have a condition, for those members of the neighborhood who are here, condition "c" Prohibit further subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -2.2 until an additional egress from Chase her to a public road is created. That is there, for safety reasons, in case one entrance should be blocked, emergency vehicles can access through a secondary road. Board Member Mitrano — So, heaven forbid, there is some kind `of horrible fire disaster problem at the end of the road, the only way that they can get there is through Chase Lane? Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. It is a very long cul -de -sac. Board Member Thayer — Can we add anything about:the buses coming in. and turning around? Chairperson Wilcox — Let me see. Board Member Mitrano — If we can add something about the buses turning around there, then I want to do something about the bus that comes and backs up into Lagrand Court and goes beep, beep at 7:22 every morning. Why can't it go around to the Court. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, I think that the buses are taken care of because this would become part of Chase Lane, this would be part of Chase Lane. This would be the Town Road. So, the buses could turn around using the hammerhead and they wouldn't be going onto private property. Mr. Walker — So, the bus only comes up to Lagrand Court now and actually backs up, as opposed to going in and turning around and corning back around? Board Member Mitrano — Who should I call? Mr. Walker — Call the school because I don't think they like to back those buses .up at all. Board Member Mitrano — I don't think it is a great idea and the beep, beep. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that you should go for the safety issue and not that you don't like the noise. I have a second, is there any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? The are no abstentions. The motion is passed. Thank you very much. 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 PB RESOLUTION NO 2004 -028: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Harris Four -Lot Subdivision. Chase Lane, Tax Parcel No. 4544.2 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the end of Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 454-2.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdividing the 34 +/- acre parcel to create a 1.32 +/ acre lot to be used for a single family residence, a 0.24 +/- acre parcel to be reserved for future access and consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 454-1.2, and a 0.362 acre parcel to be conveyed to the Town for the purpose of extending Chase Lane for use as a snowplow turn- around, with the remainder of the property staying undeveloped. Tessa Sage Flores, Owner; David Harris, Applicant, and 21 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on April 6, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 6, 2004) has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Survey Map Showing a Portion of Lands of Tessa Sage Flores" dated 312104, by Michael J. Reagan, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 31 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 4. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision off Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -2.2 resulting in the creation of 1.32 + 1- acre residential lot, a 0.24 +/- acre access lot to be retained by the current owners, a 0.36 acre parcel to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for a 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 road extension, and a 32 +/- acre remainder of the parcel, as shown on a map entitled, "Survey Map Showing A Portion of Lands of Tessa Flores, Lot 99, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Reagan, Land Surveying, dated 31212004, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, the Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance and the location of the land shown as 'Area of :Proposed Parcel to Be Conveyed to the: Town of Ithaca" on the above referenced subdivision map, for the purposes of extending Chase Lane with associated rights -of- -way, and for purposes of providing aturnaround for Town vehicles and snow removal, and b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the conveyance of the above referenced road to the Town of Ithaca, and c. Prohibit further subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 454-2.2 until an additional egress from Chase Lane to a public road is created, and d. Revision of the survey map to show extension of the 20 foot wide sewer easement through "New Lot 1 " into "New Lot 2" to allow hook - up to the public sewer line, and conveyance of easement to Town of Ithaca in form acceptable to Director of Engineering and Attorney for Town, prior to issuance of building permit, and e. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning :Board of an original or mylar copy of the final 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.lthaca Planning Department, and f. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of "New Lot 1 " with Tax Parcel No. 45- 1 -1.2, 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, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2004 o PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, approval of minutes, so moved by the Chair. Do I have a second? Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? No one is opposed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =029: Approval of Minutes — MARCH 16, 2004 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the March 16, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox; Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — We have the County here on May 4th to present the Comprehensive Plan. Right? Ms. Ritter — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — But that's not the big news, the big news is we've been sued. Board Member Mitrano — By whom? Ms. Ritter — It was the Overlook Project and it was by the Byrnes. Chairperson Wilcox - Ann and Andy Byrnes. Board Member Mitrano — Wow and what are the claims? Chairperson Wilcox — I just found out about it late this afternoon. Board Member Thayer — They were taking up a collection in the neighborhood, they didn't knock on my door though. Chairperson Wilcox — They didn't knock on your door. Ms. Ritter — It is a big, long document and I didn't have time to digest all of it, but I can kind of give you a brief overview of what I saw. It's essentially relieve 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . APRIL 6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 under Article 78, which maybe the lawyers can explain, it basically says the Planning Board's failure to take a look at significant impacts; did not take a hard look at traffic - generating congestion and safety issues; traffic study was flawed, the comparison of Linderman Creek to Overlook with the bus usage- flawed; failure to provided safe access to public transit at the development; failure to take a hard look a police and fire protection, they included the number of police calls to Linderman Creek for three consecutive years; there was an issue with the public hearing for March 4th, that there was only three days in advance given, that it was in the newspaper in advance instead of five. Chairperson Wilcox — That's, their claim. Ms. Ritter — It was the meeting that was a continuation from February 27. Then, the last one was an erroneous average market pricing provided by the developer. Board Member Conneman — Erroneous market price. Ms. Ritter — That they based the issue of pricing of the rentals based on what they said was the average price of the area. I think it was an $800 range and they are saying it was in the $600 range. Chairperson Wilcox — It's been a while, hasn't it. Board Member Thayer — This is a first. Board Member Mitrano- Weren't you guys sued over Lake Source Cooling? Chairperson Wilcox — No, the Town Board was sued, but I do not believe that we were. This is a first in my eight plus years. Board Member Hoffmann — The last suit was Longview, I think. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, which was just before I came on the Board, where the residents wanted a full environmental impact done and they sued to get one. Board Member Mitrano — The result was? Chairperson Wilcox — The result was that they won and a full environmental impact statement had to be produced. Mostly having to do with the view. I came on to the Board after that and before the approval process. Board Member Conneman — If they win this, we go back to square one? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not going to speculate. Board Member Talty — What is the outcome if they win this suit? 01 'PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1. APRIL 61 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Mr. Orkin — Well, let's not put the cart before the horse. First of all I took at brief look at it and it is not returnable until June 11th, I think June 11th or some time in June, so that is a substantial amount of time to take a look at it: When I spoke to John about it, briefly, his initial reaction, and don't' hold me to this, his initial.. reaction was that it is entirely premature and that none of the assertions that they were making were ones that they could make, given the process that you were in at this time. That was a 30 second conversation that I had with him. Other than that, I wouldn't be too concerned about it at this time. Board Member Thayer.- Can they come back for. a final with this pending? Mr. Orkin — I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Board Member Mitrano — Can the applicant? Board Member Thayer — Can the applicant come back for a final approval with this pending? Mr. Orkin -. There is nothing in there that is staying this, there is nothing in there that is keeping them from doing anything. They're objection to, what struck me as.. an interim decision that you have made. That is my first brief look at it as I saw it on John's desk and I said "hum, what is this ? ", but.that is my initial review of it. Mr. Smith — They have submitted the material for the final and, right now, we have. it scheduled for the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox —Also on the agenda is the proposed hotel on South Hill? Ms. Ritter — Not yet, they will be coming back, but they are not quite ready yet. Chairperson Wilcox — Across from Sam Peter's. Board Member Mitrano — A hotel proposal? Board Member Talty — If you want to see what it looks like, just go to Cortland. Chairperson Wilcox — It is out of scale. My complaint is that it is out of scale for the neighborhood. Are we all set? Anyone over here? Comments? Questions? Other business? Board Member Conneman — What else is going to come up? Mr. Smith — The next meeting, we have the Overlook, for final site plan and final subdivision; there is the Cornell Library storage annex, that would be for site 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL-6, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 plan; then we have tentatively scheduled the Skygardens on Mecklenburg Road, but we haven't received the materials yet. Board Member Conneman — I would like to request when we do that, I would like a big map that shows all of those things together because I think we can't get a concept of what is here unless we.see the whole thing.. Chairperson Wilcox — I asked, Jon Kanter gave a presentation to the Town Board, early March? Using that map and I have asked Jon Kanter to give us that same presentation which talks about the various linkages. between the parcels both automobile and non - automobile. Board Member Conneman — You've .got to see where the Overlook is, where the Perry Farm is... Chairperson Wilcox — The possible Linderman Creek additions. Absolutely. John Kanter did a nice presentation for the Board and I have. asked him to repeat that, for us, that will help us. Board Member Howe Did you say that the County is going to be. there too, giving an overview of the Comprehensive Plan? Chairperson Wilcox — No, they're the first meeting of May. Ms. Ritter — But, there are no shortages of projects coming up. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Orkin do you have anything to-say? Mr. Orkin — It's been a pleasure. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 6, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Lori Love 42 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, April 6, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Continuation of 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. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Fix 2 -Lot Subdivision, 131 Honness Lane. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdividing the 1.073 acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 0.388 - acre parcel for construction of a new two family residence. Giora & Limor Fix,. Owners /Applicants. 7:25 P.M.. SEQR Determination: Harris 4 -Lot Subdivision, Chase Lane. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the end of Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45- 1 -2.2, Residence District R -15. The subdivision'of the +/- 34 -acre parcel will result in the creation of a 1.32 +/- acre parcel for a future single- family residence, a 0.24 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -1.2 for future access, a 0.362 +/- acre parcel to. be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for the purpose of extending Chase Lane for use as a snow plow turn- around, with the remainder of the property staying undeveloped. Tessa Sage Flores, Owner; David Harris, Applicant. 7. Persons to be.heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2004 9. Other Business: 10. 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 -]747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, April 6, 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, April 6, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the' proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdividing the 1.073 -acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing the. existing residence and one 0.388 -acre parcel for construction of a new two family residence. Giora & Limor Fix, Owners /Applicants. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the end of Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45- 1 -2.2, Residence District R -15. The subdivision of the +/- 34 -acre parcel will result in the creation of a 1.32 +/- acre parcel for a future single- family residence, a 0.24 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel, No. 45 -1 -1.2 for future access, a 0.362 +/- acre parcel to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for the purpose of extending Chase Lane for use as a snow plow turn - around, with the remainder of the property staying undeveloped.. Tessa Sage Flores, Owner; David Harris, 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 29, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 The Ithaca Wednesday;' March r31, {2004' " I -'i PLANNING DVAKLJ "- adawith-,Ta'x Parcel No: 1 =1:2 for future'access; a to,'.:the!-Town. of he�purposeaof ex ase. Lane 'for, use h r... ith mCremamaer. or >rne operty ,staying undevef. )ed.' ., Tessa' Sage ;flores,.` wner, `.David`Harris, .Ap icant. .Said Planning Board.will :said times and said place I of such matters or objections_ thereto.' '. Persons may,'ap- i pear by agent or in person.' Individuals with visual im- pairments, hearing impair- ments or other, special - nee8s', will be provided with, assistance as _i- necessary; upon request. - Persons desir- ing 'assistance -must-, make i.sucha, request not less than 48= h66ts'priorto the'time of the public hearings.. _. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of.Planning 273.1747 Datedi Monday, March 29, 2004 Publish: Wednesday; . March 31, 2004 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION �► �D L-DR ' 3L s 4o4ct ) GC, ,1- . y�� Ivor +v��. Ne ti bow �✓ —�� 4 -� X33 sczvn /I/o -2n ��� hn v' /'n �. 4 k- A4 ,� 36 � e- /1%2, 1 a V1 rr r C� s Lq n P z �-c -v C5 %//z 16, Z r✓l 4' Vi v �r :acs Flgf �4Gr► 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, April 6, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North TioQa Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: March 29, 2004 March 31, 2004 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 31 st day of March 2004. O CU, , Notary Public Oani L. HOW Notary Public, State Ot New York No .01H06052879 Seneca Count 26,E My commission Expires