Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-07-20FILE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE TUESDAY, JULY 205 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 20, 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; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner: EXCUSED: Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS: Diane McPherson, 950 Coddington Rd; Marilyn Rivchin, 95.0 Coddington Rd; Gale Smith, 930 Coddington Rd; Stephen Nicholson, 220 Yaple Rd; Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Rd; Brian Martinson, 146 Troy Rd; David Herrick, TG Miller. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 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 July 12, 2004 and July 14, 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 July 14, 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 7:04 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR: Young 5 -Lot Subdivision, Coddington Rd Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Rd Good evening. My name is Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Rd in Ithaca and I'm the agent for Mr. John Young of Triphammer Rd in Ithaca. was at this Planning Board back in March at which time we did a sketch review, you may recall, of a small five -lot subdivision that we proposed on Coddington Road. The feedback was positive at the time so it encourages us to move forward, which we have done over the last few months. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Let me just refresh your memory as to where this is. This is on Coddington Road about 870 or 880 feet south of the intersection with Updike Road and it is our plan to propose a five -lot subdivision of the 15 -acre parcel on that property. The back nine acres of which you might see here on the map labeled parcels A, would be a donation to the Coddington Road Community Center, which lies just adjacent to the property to the north. We have talked with the Coddington Road Community Center about this donation. They see some value in having this property, in particular, for their summer recreational activities. We sent them a formal letter that provided we got permission to continue the subdivision, we would go ahead and make the donation. They wrote back to us and said they would gladly like to accept. The letter has been included in the materials that we distributed. One thing that I would point out about that, I did contact the Assessment Office because that question came up during our sketch review session and I showed them the proposed subdivision and they foresee no reason why they can't consolidate those two parcels into one, which the Community Center has agreed to do provided we can proceed and it is going to be connected by a 25 -foot lot path that has been expanded from 15 feet since our first get- together. The front half of the property, if you will, the goal is to subdivide it into four individual parcels, each about an acre and a quarter to an acre and three - quarters, which we would make available for individual sale. We propose serving those four lots with a private driveway, which you can see here on the map. Our hope there is that for there to be residential home building on those lots that each of those lots would be .serviced from that driveway, thus limiting the curb cuts to Coddington Road to just one. Since we last got together, we have talked to a number of people. I would just like to review one or two of those, if I may, just to tell you where we've been. We have contacted the Health Department. They see this, John Andersson sees this as a four -lot subdivision not a five -lot subdivision. Consequently, incidentally because of the consolidation of course, consequently there is no special permitting that we need to do. We just need to make sure that each of the individuals; again, were they to build a house that they file permits for their own individual septic systems because there is no public sewer there. We did investigate pretty thoroughly whether those individuals would have problems obtaining the permit and each of these lots meets their 30,000 square foot requirements, half an acre useable land, 100 -foot diameter within the useable land and no particular set backs from ponds or steams or rivers or anything. So we feel pretty comfortable that when the time comes, we won't have problems with the Health Department. We did contact the Highway Department about the private driveway and began the process of filing a driveway permit with them. That prompted them to go out and check site distance, which they've done and they've given us their clearance that they foresee no problem with the prevailing speed limit. They also checked our culvert and the plans that we had to put culverts in at the end of the private driveway and they are consistent with our plans. So they seem to be okay with what we are proposing. 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 207 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED We talked with Chief Wilbur at the Fire Department and met some of his requirements for the driveway. The turn around, as you can see here, enable the trucks to turn around, a 20 -foot width and also a durability enough that his trucks can get by without any problem. We did also talk about whether there would be additional hydrant necessary and he said it would not given that this driveway is not more than 500 feet. The utility, I won't get into the details, but you are probably aware there is municipal water here. As I mentioned, there is no sewer. There's no gas, but there is electric, of course there's telephone. We have talked with each of those service providers to ensure that we could bring those services to these lots was it necessary. We have also enlisted TG Miller to do a stormwater management analysis of this project. The short of it, in our opinion, is their view that this subdivision will have nominal impact, nominal additional runoff and will not impact the total watershed. But we do have David Herrick from TG Miller here who might be able to answer some questions. My guess is that they might come up. So I guess that is just a quick overview. Our plan is to come to you with the hope that we might get preliminary and final subdivision approval, at which case we would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because as you can see, parcels B and C require a variance because it doesn't meet the minimum road frontage requirement. Is that okay? Chairperson Wilcox — Good start. Questions of Mr. Leahy, or should we go right to David Herrick? David. A little background for the members of the audience who are here, we have a letter from the County signed by Ed Marx, Commissioner of Planning, which he speaks to concerns about stormwater runoff and consistency with the Department of Environmental Conservation's Phase II Stormwater Regulations. We have a response from the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department indicating that there seems to be a difference of opinion. We have a subsequent response from Joan Jurkowich, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Planning, indicating that the County is standing by their original concerns. So David, why don't you help us out? David Herrick, TG Miller David Herrick with TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors, 203 North Aurora Street. There are certain conditions within the State's new Phase II SPDES permit that, in my opinion, allow a municipality to exclude from the current Phase II permit process the design and construction of permanent, on -site stormwater management practices for residential projects of this scale. The development of the permit, I think, all across the State would agree was hasty. There is a lot of uncertainty in the language. There is a lot of misinterpretation across the State, even amongst DEC regions as to how the permit is to be apply and some of the conditions, but I think that in this case it is quite clear that residential projects that disturb between one and five acres in total of land and they have to be residential projects, they can't be townhouses, apartments or commercial facilities, that these residential projects are excluded from having to provide a permanent stormwater management facilities. They are required to prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which is what we did complete for Mr. Young in our Stormwater Management [c� PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED -JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED Study. In our . Stormwater Management objectives, we clearly stated up front that we recognize this project as not having to comply with the permanent practices and I think that triggered the response that you received from the County. It didn't take very long for me to catch wind of this interpretation and inquire here at the Town what did the Town understand of the conditions and I think research here concluded that the interpretation that we presented to Mr. Young and to the Town was correct. It doesn't mean that the interpretation has been resolved within the State Region here of DEC, but I'm sure that it will be. In the end, what we concluded with our pre and post development analysis was that there is, as there should be, a slight increase in the stormwater runoff from particularly the ten and 100 -year storm. events, but also recognize that the capacity of the culverts that are in front of this project and pass beneath Coddington Road can accommodate easily the 25 -year design storm, which is what's recognized at the County as being a typical event sized culverts. So that is what we found; concluded, presented and I think we are here, I'm here because of this interpretation issue. Chairperson Wilcox — The acreage of the four ... the total acreage of the four residential lots is 5.75 acres. Would you hazard a guess as to how much of that would be disturbed as part of the construction of four residences? I know I'm a little bit outside your area of expertise, but would you hazard a guess? Mr. Herrick — Well, I'm often on the other side of the table and have to look at these requests that come in and I make generous allowances for septic system construction, yard disturbance, foundation construction, driveway construction, I think the total disturbance of this project would clearly be less than 2.5 acres. Chairperson Wilcox — And the DEC limit that we are talking about is five? Mr. Herrick — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen. Questions? Board Member Conneman — Is there anybody here from the County Planning Department who would like to say something to us? Those letters don't help me very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Nobody here from the County. Board Member Conneman — Well, if they want to do something they should come, in my opinion. Chairperson Wilcox — The affect of those letters at this point is to require a super- majority of this board, which would be 5 of 7. And, should this receive approval from this board when they go to the Zoning Board having required a super- majority there, which would be 4 out of 5 unless the County should alter their opinion. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 207 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — I think Dan's letter was pretty straightforward and very well written. You can tell him that, Creig. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Board Member Conneman — I thought he was right on target. I was surprised at these other follow -ups from the County. Mr. Herrick — I do feel the need to point out something in the most recent letter that included my name perhaps inferring somehow that I was responsible for this determination and I would tell you that are not correct, and maybe this doesn't infer that, but that's kind of how I read it. My inclusion in the second paragraph that I somehow agreed to or persuaded the County to take this position and quite to the contrary I tried to point out those sections of the DEC's manual and information that supported my original presentation. Board Member Conneman — So you would delete the sentence that says the project engineer, David Herrick, has resulted in the determination that the developer would need to comply, right? Because you didn't do that. You didn't say that. Mr. Herrick — Well, the project does need to comply with DEC's Phase II Stormwater regs and it does to the extent that it has completed the erosion and sediment control plan and would file a Notice of Intent, but not that permanent practices are required. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Members of the public, would anybody like to address the board this evening? You will get a chance to speak at the public hearing with regard to subdivision. Would somebody like to address the board specifically to any environmental concerns? Steve Nicholson, 220 Yaple Rd My Name is Steven Nicholson and I'm the Chair of Management Council, but I would like to add that because I'm on the Board of Directors at the Coddir really here to talk about that, but I would like to talk issues since you have given me the chance. the Tompkins County Environmental the reason that I am here tonight is igton Road Community Center so I'm a little bit about some environmental First of all, I don't know anything about Ed Marx's letter to the planning ... I wish I had known ahead of time or I would have done more homework. The Phase II Stormwater Management plan, its fine to say that only 2.5 acres are going to be disturbed. I think it is highly dependent on what the property owner has in mind for his land or her land. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the site, its what I would call heavily wooded. If anyone wants a lawn or wants total lawn that would mean the entire site will be disturbed. If someone wants to live in the woods, conceivably only 2.5 acres would be disturbed. 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED Getting more to Coddington Road property, the Community Center ... I see the link the has been increased to 20 feet. Chairperson Wilcox — Actually, 25. Mr. Nicholson — Oh, it said 20 on that. Chairperson Wilcox — The paper said 20, but its actually 25 and I apologize. I said 20 to Roger, but 25 feet is now the width of that little piece that will allow the connection between those two parcels. Mr. Nicholson — Once concern that I have is that this section here is the baseball field and you can see the 25 -foot setback comes just back here to the corner. Actually, the field probably ends right about at this line. It would be, and I would talk to this later from the Board of Director's point of view, but this 25 -foot stretch, if this was continued all the way down to the road that would guarantee that the atmosphere at the ball field, which is now a field surrounded by woods would remain. My concern is that if the owner of Parcel D decides to cut down every tree, then that house will be visible from the baseball field. That's all I have to say as long as I get to talk later. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you do. Absolutely. Gale Smith, 930 Coddington Rd I'm Gale Smith. I live at 930 Coddington; the property adjacent to this. I'm not aware of all the details of the plan, but I am concerned about hearing that there is no concern about runoff. As far as I know, the only culvert under Coddington Road is right in front of my property and in a major storm now it is hardly able to deal with runoff. I think there is reason to be concerned about what is to be done about that. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Gale, you and I met many, many years ago. I think there is concern about the runoff and I think that is why David Herrick and TG Miller was hired to do the stormwater analysis and in the papers that we've been provided and David's statement, the culverts there are sufficient to handle a 25 -year storm. If you can provide something more than I'm concerned about it, I want to hear,you, but David has provided the analysis that shows they are sufficient to handle the 25 -year storm. Now maybe in the last couple of years or five or ten years we've had a ... didn't we have a 50 or 100 year storm about 2 years ago? David, I'm looking at ya. Certainly up on South Hill. Mr. Herrick — Depending on where you lived. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, you're right. Depending on where you lived, which caused significant damage in some areas. So that is my response to that right there. Anything else with regard to... Board Member Thayer — Do we have any control over the trees as far as who cuts down what on individual lots? We don't, do we? N PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 207 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney is shaking his head no. Attorney Barney — I suppose if you wanted to impose some well- crafted conditions, I'm not quite sure how quickly we could craft them so well. In the subdivision process to preserve them, you might be able to ... (inaudible) ... there are regulations ... (inaudible)... Board Member Hoffmann — Couldn't we ask for a buffer between the school property and these lots? Board Member Thayer — Maintain a 50 -foot amount of trees. Mr. Kanter — I think as an environmental issue, you do look at community recreational resources and if there is a concern that such a resource could be impacted by if trees were that that could be a link as far as the environmental review to say that in the subdivision you would like to see a buffer of trees preserved, but I would say that I'm not quite sure. Chairperson Wilcox — There is on the plat shown a 40 foot setback from the... Board Member Thayer — I would think that was sufficient for a buffer. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, its interesting. One would expect ... I could understand... is there someone from the Coddington Road Community Center here? We are assuming the expectation that they would like to be screened from any residences, but I would also think that the residences would want to be screened from ... the fact that we sit here and say we think that they want to be doesn't control that. It would be possible I think to potentially put some restrictions on activity within the 40 -foot buffer to what is described as the north end of the property.. Mr. Smith — I would just mention that you do have a letter in your packet from the Coddington Road Community Center from the President and at that point they didn't mention anything about that. Chairperson Wilcox — No and in fact we don't have anything from them other than thank you very much, we'll gladly accept the land. Mr. Smith — Well, they do mention about the width of that strip, which... Chairperson Wilcox — And asking that it be increased to 25. Board Member Hoffmann — But in this case, there are two different uses. There's residential and there is and I don't know what you would call the community center. A school use? Board Member Thayer — Recreational. 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 205 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, in this particular, its recreational in that area. Board Member Hoffmann — And we do very often require buffers, actually, between certain other uses and residential uses so it doesn't seem to me to be very far fetched to request that trees be left in that area as a buffer. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, any comments? Board Member Hoffmann - And maybe it shouldn't only be along that boundary, which is the northerly boundary, but also along the western boundary to the parcel that is being donated to the community center in back of parcels B and C. Mr. Kanter — The only thing about that area is that is where the NYSEG power line easement goes and that's pretty much what it is. Attorney Barney — Plus they have to cut trees to keep the lines... Board Member Hoffmann — But I'm talking about on parcel B and C having the tree buffer that would be to protect the people who live there. Actually again I think, like you said Fred that they would want to keep the trees there. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney — Well the buffers that we normally have are between residential and commercial or residential and industrial. They are not between residential and what is otherwise what I think is zoned residential. So first we would be setting up a situation putting a buffer where I'm not sure that ... (inaudible) ... that we have the authority to... (inaudible) Mr. Kanter —That 3 S.11 Chairperson Wilcox —Say that again. You must have some basis in the law... Attorney Barney— You basically have to have some reason. I guess Jon is right. You could say there is an environmental consequence of not having it there then you might be able to hang your hat on that. It is a little bit iffy because your law does not require a buffer between residences and neighboring residential uses. Board Member Hoffmann — But couldn't we do what we have talked about doing in the past and request that the developers... Attorney Barney — That's fine. Board Member.Hoffmann - ...have agreed to do this because it would seem to me to be in the developer's interest to have lots that have desirable to people who want to buy them and build on them. E PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 2012004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, in this particular, its recreational in that area Board Member Hoffmann — And we do very often require buffers, actually, between certain other uses and residential uses so it doesn't seem to me to be very far fetched to request that trees be left in that area as a buffer. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, any comments? Board Member Hoffmann - And maybe it shouldn't only be along that boundary, which is the northerly boundary, but also along the western boundary to the parcel that is being donated to the community center in back of parcels B and C. Mr. Kanter — The only thing about that area is that is where the NYSEG power line easement goes and that's pretty much what it is. I . Attorney Barney — Plus they have to cut.trees to keep the lines... Board Member Hoffmann — But I'm talking about on parcel B and C having the tree buffer that would be to protect the people who live there. Actually again I think, like you said Fred that they would want to keep the trees there. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney — Well the buffers that we normally have are between residential and commercial or residential and industrial. They are not between residential and what is otherwise what I think is zoned residential. So first we would be setting up a situation putting a buffer where I'm not sure that ... (inaudible) ... that we have the authority to ... (inaudible) Mr. Kanter —That's... Chairperson Wilcox — Say that again. You must have some basis in the law... Attorney Barney — You basically have to have some reason. I guess Jon is right. You could say there is an environmental consequence of not having it there then you might be able to hang your hat on that. It is a little bit iffy because your law does not require a buffer between residences and neighboring residential uses. Board Member Hoffmann — But couldn't we do what we have talked about doing in the past and request that the developers... , Attorney Barney — That's fine. Board Member Hoffmann - ...have agreed to do this because it would seem to me to be in the developer's interest to have lots that have desirable to people who want to buy them and build on them. l7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We can request. That is easy to do. Attorney Barney — I'm a little bit more troubled with that. Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of making an appropriate determination as to why... Attorney Barney — The other question that I have is how to define the buffer. Is it forever while no cutting or say you can cut diseased trees. That's why I said getting into the crafting of it because these people who own the lots are presumably going to put homes on it and they will want to, I assume, determine how much trees are left and how much are not. The question in my mind moving quite clearly from legal to policy is how much control this board wants to put on each of these individual lots. The homeowner bought and paid for it and is paying taxes on it. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, John. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me if the developer wishes to have the project approved, he might be willing to do it. Board Member Mitrano — And what is that? Board Member Conneman — Establish the buffer. We are reasonable people here. Board Member Mitrano — I am in favor of the.:. restrictions on each of the lots. Chairperson Wilcox - B and D are the only ones I think we are concerned about because they border the school. I'm not sure it's appropriate to call it a school, but it certainly borders the institution. Mr. Kanter — I should remind you that the field is operated and maintained by the Town of Ithaca under a License Agreement or Lease... something with the Community Center. So it really is a public recreational facility, a Town facility at that. Board Member Mitrano — Do many of the trees exist on that side or are they all in this habitably owned zone. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know. Mr. Kanter — Its probably pretty close up to the border. Chairperson Wilcox — I would guess the tree line is pretty close to the property line. Mr. Smith — You can see from the aerial photograph that is in the packet just where the ball field is with the actual tax parcel lines on it aren't exact to show where the tree line. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY27, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Thayer — There are only a few trees along their boundary. Board Member Hoffmann — If that boundary is put in the correct place. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, with the County's correspondence, we need a super - majority vote. Does that apply to all votes that we take? Attorney Barney — No. Just the approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thanks. It doesn't apply to the SEAR. What is this board sort of feeling? Buffers are great when residential lots are against Unique Natural Areas or other features that have been identified and delineated. In this particular case, I think I'm sort of with Mr. Barney. How much do we want to control this whether 20 or 25 or 30 or 40 -foot buffet area and there is a required setback, obviously, from the lot line in which the house can be build? Yes the residents could clear cut and butcher the... Board Member Thayer — I guess I sort of feel that a homeowner should do his own buffering. If he doesn't want to border a ball field... Chairperson Wilcox — And actually, there is a lot of room given where the diamond is located and the age of the children that play here. It's a good shot to get a baseball or softball into the woods. We really need to nail this down when we get to the actual review of the subdivision that has been proposed. Board Member Hoffmann — I think putting some request in to have that buffer there would be one way of making sure there is some vegetation that will absorb runoff as well. It is a visual barrier as well as a way of preventing too much runoff getting onto the road, which is what the County is worried about. So that to me would be an additional reason to try to get something in there. Board Member Conneman — So you are saying we should handle it not only in the SEAR... Chairperson Wilcox — What I'm saying is if you think the view and actually what we are talking about is the view and whether it is the view of the homeowners at B and D of the community center or it's the community center view of the homes. If you think that is a significant and sufficient environmental concern that hasn't been made yet, then you can continue to discuss it ... and we can either try to mitigate it if we think it is a significant concern or we may determine that it is significant and not mitigate it and move on appropriately. In my personal opinion, it is not a significant environmental issue. Board Member Conneman — (inaudible). Chairperson Wilcox — There could be a homeowner, frankly, who would love to look out and see the kids play. That is entirely possible. Somebody could be very happy to look out and see kids at the community center during the day or the boys and girls playing 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED -JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED softball on the weekends. That's entirely possible. But the trees also provide a buffer from noise, litter potentially, but that's not a big problem out there in my experience, run away baseballs. That sort of stuff. The trees serve a purpose. Board Member Hoffmann — If .the Town maintains the park I would hope there isn't any litter to worry about. Chairperson Wilcox — I mention litter only because when you have lots of people in an area, but in my experience there hasn't been a problem. Board Member Thayer— I'll move the SEAR. Board Member Conneman — I second. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -072: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Young Five -Lot Subdivision, 922 -928 Coddington Rd, Tax Parcel No. 47.44 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1 -4, Low Density Residential zone (former Residence District R -30). The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- are parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and on 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington Road Community Center for their recreational activities. John F. Young, Owner; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on July 20, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part Il prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of John Young" dated 1012012003, by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and plans titled "Erosion and Sediment Control" and "Watershed Map" dated 6118104, Prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. 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, NO W. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED -JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED softball on the weekends. That's entirely possible. But the trees also provide a buffer from noise, litter potentially, but that's not a big problem out there in my experience, run away baseballs. That sort of stuff. The trees serve a purpose. Board Member Hoffmann — If the Town maintains the park I would hope there isn't any litter to worry about. Chairperson Wilcox — I mention litter only because when you have lots of people in an area, but in my experience there hasn't been a problem. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR. Board Member Conneman - I second. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -072: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Young Five -Lot Subdivision, 922 -928 Coddington Rd, Tax Parcel No. 47.44 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1 -4, Low Density Residential zone (former Residence District R -30). The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- are parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and on 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington Road Community Center for their recreational activities. John F. Young, Owner; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on July 20, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by .the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of John Young" dated 1012012003, by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and plans titled "Erosion and Sediment Control" and "Watershed Map" dated 6118104, Prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C. 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: 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 207 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -4, Low Density Residential zone (former Residence District R -30). The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and one 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington Road Community Center for their recreational activities. John F. Young, Owner; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and invited members of the public to speak. . Chairperson Wilcox — Would the Coddington Road Community Center like to make a statement? I will let you go first and then I will give the public a chance to speak. Brian Martinson, 147 Troy Road I'm Brian Martinson, 147 Troy Road. I'm the treasurer for the Coddington Community Center. I would just like to thank the owner and his representative for offering to donate this parcel to our land. Currently we operate a summer camp that uses the woods surrounding the area and this would be a very nice formal piece of land that we could utilize for that program. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any issues with regard to the two NYSEG rights -of- way that exist on the property that are going to restrict your activities in any way? Mr. Martinson — They do kind of cut really close to the property line of where the donation would be. So the parcel we would use would be beyond the NYSEG area and then back up into the hillside behind it. We are currently using part of that land west of the community center. That is a private acreage that they sort of cut across that corner to get back in that area. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — And you are comfortable with the access from your existing land to this land and 25 foot is sufficient? Mr. Martinson - I believe it would be because again there is some work cutting through there at a diagonal now with some trails that are back there so this would be a nice formal 25 -foot pathway. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you. Mr. Martinson — Thank you. Marilyn Rivchin, 950 Coddington Rd My name is Marilyn Rivchin. I live at ... property owner at 950 Coddington Road. It is very helpful to hear the details of the proposals and hear discussion on the environmental impact. I will introduce my question, which is really about other impacts besides the environmental impacts you have discussed and that is traffic impact. It, is near a dangerous intersection. Just yesterday I was driving home in the late afternoon and saw two cars that had crashed at the intersection of Burns Road and Coddington Road. You may or may not know that at the community center, a great number of bicyclist tend to meet or gather at that point and then take off on rides up Coddington Road, which is fine for me that bicyclists use the road. Its part of its charm and I have nothing against bicycling per se except for the danger of many riders who ride two, three and four abreast. Because it is a two lane road and because of the near intersection with Burns Road and then very quickly King, Burns, and Updike Roads, it is already quite a dangerous situation. So my question is about the single driveway serving potentially four private homes with between four and eight cars that would come in and out of a single driveway. And because of the hilly nature of that stretch of road, it seems to me an increase in the impact of potential traffic problems. I just wonder if that is taken into consideration in looking at the subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox —That is something that we definitely have to take into account. My opinion and the applicant can address it if necessary, but my opinion is that one curb cut and a short driveway is far preferable in this area than two curb cuts or. possibly more. Having lived on South Hill and actually traveling Coddington Road once a week, the Burns Road intersection is an awful intersection. It is a down right dangerous intersection. Board Member Mitrano — I travel it twice a day and I couldn't concur more. Chairperson Wilcox — And you have an offset intersection there as well. You have the topography, but none the less, we are talking about the potential of four homes, four to eight cars, which probably translates into 40 or 50 vehicles trips per day with the way that that works and that's a blip I think in terms of the total traffic that exists on Coddington Road that exists there today. Mr. Hebdon — I would also like to point out that the applicant has been in touch with Tompkins County Highway who did go out and look at where they were going to put their 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 203 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED road and looked at the site distance for the 45 mile an hour speed limit and said there was plenty of site distance at the location for that single driveway. If you start moving the driveway and get multiple driveways you might not end up with the significant site distance. Chairperson Wilcox — So you may not agree with my opinion, but that's where I'm coming from. Ms. Rivchin — Well, I don't disagree that one driveway is better than two, three or four. My interest is that it is already a dangerous traffic area and any, additional and not just total amount of cars that go down the road, but they go constantly in and out of an area that has two directions of car traffic and a great deal of bicycle traffic immediately next door to it. Board Member Conneman — Do you believe people drive too fact on the road? Is that your point or is it just that Burns Road is so poorly placed that you have accidents no matter what? Ms. Rivchin — I think speed is just part of the problematic situation. Board Member Conneman — I would agree with you. Ms. Rivchin — As one approached Updike and Burns Road from the south going north, it should be slower I think. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Ms. Rivchin — Thank you. Steve Nicholson, 220 Yaple Road My name is Steven Nicholson and I live at 220 Yaple Road and I'm speaking as a member of the Board of Directors at Coddington Road Community Center. The Board is unanimous in favor of accepting the nine acres of land. It is not everyday that we are given nine acres of land and we have planned uses for it. We are going to build trails through it. We want to make sure the access is wide enough to say get a tractor with a brush hog in and I think it will be at 25 feet. Part of the camp activities this year involved the kids making mountain bike trails and certainly they will be overjoyed to be able to continue that up further along. The primitive pursuits outdoor education group has been using our woods and they will enjoy having much more woods to pursue their primitive pursuits. Now I would just like to speak on a personal basis as an environmentalists and getting back to the buffer zone. This is a community center for the whole Town of Ithaca and anybody can go there and play soccer or baseball. The summer camp uses it. The whole field there all the way to the property line. And its great to think again that both parties want a buffer zone. I would ask you to be a little creative and suggest that continuing that 20 or 25 foot strip all the way to the road and making that a part of 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 203 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Coddington Road Community Center will ensure that for the far into the future that will remain woods. To me, it is going to be a big difference if you're standing on home plate and you can see two or four houses in the outfield rather than what we see .now, which is woods. The Coddington Road Camp enjoys feeling like it is out in the middle of the woods. I know you guys have a vision for what the Town of Ithaca is going to be like, but hope part of the vision includes ensuring that there are woods to look at rather than just houses. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Diane McPherson, 950 Coddington Road My name is Diane McPherson and I also live at 950 Coddington Road. And I thought I heard, this is a question for the developer and also maybe someone else can answer it. I thought I heard the developer say that there was municipal water to that parcel. I was under the impression that there was not. The municipal water went only as far as the community center and no further. So it seems to me that that needs to be clear: I would like to have it clear. And I also would like to say that I do think that it is a very low estimate that two and a half acres of that property would be disturbed because I walked by it this morning myself and it is very heavily wooded with some very old trees. So that I think that a lot would have to be disturbed in order just to get equipment into the place to build houses and dig septic systems and possibly wells if there is no municipal water, but I would like to know from someone if municipal water goes there or not. Board Member Thayer — There is a fire hydrant right in front. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we'll get to that in just a second. Would anybody else like to speak at this point? David, I'll ask you in just a second. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — David, do you want to address the issue, if you would, about water? Or I don't care who does it. Mr. Leahy — All I can tell you is that it is my understanding that the fire hydrant that will run right next to the proposed driveway is active and we've spoken with the Town Engineer's about it and they seem to concur that municipal water is available. Our plan would be to tap that if we needed to bring water to any or all of the properties. Chairperson Wilcox — Creig? Mr. Hebdon — The fire hydrant is the end of the line. Chairperson Wilcox — The fire hydrant is the end of the line. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 202 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Hebdon — The fire hydrant comes off the line and then probably five more feet and there's a plug and that's where the line ends. Right there. So they would be able to tap it right just below. Chairperson Wilcox — The developer or the owners can extend water from that upper hill to their property. So water is available at a reasonable... we should be careful here. If you were 500 feet further down the road on Coddington Road, you could argue that water was available if someone was willing to extend it themselves and pay the expense. Mr. Hebdon — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — But water is much more easily available on these four lots given the current terminious is right there at the property ... at the fire hydrant right there in front. Board Member Mitrano — Would they have to pump it up then, Creig? Mr. Hebdon — No. There is plenty of pressure at that point. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have pressure problems on that part. Discussion? Back to the buffer zone? Board Member Conneman — Lets go back to the buffer zone. Why couldn't we have the 25 -foot all the way? Board Member Thayer — How is that going to protect us? We don't know that the Coddington Road Community Center is not going to cut trees down. Board Member Hoffmann — That's true. Board Member Conneman — That's true. Chairperson Wilcox — Again, one would presume that the Coddington Road Community Center would not do that, but we can't predict the future. Board Member Hoffmann — I think the other possibility is that the Community Center can plant trees on their side of the property line. Board Member Thayer — They have some already. Chairperson Wilcox — We should talk about the issue of the two and a half acres, which asked David Herrick to speculate on some disturbed area. The real issue is, is it under five. Yeah. The total area of the proposed for the four residential lots is five and three - quarter acres. David, correct me if I'm wrong, different DEC regulations apply if less than five acres are disturbed and more than five acres are disturbed. Mr. Herrick —That ) s correct. 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES J LY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY27, 2004 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — So the real issue here is, is it less than five or more than five and given that the total residential lot size is five and three - quarters is it going to be more or less than five, so whether it is two and a half or three or three and a half. I mean heaven for bid it gets up to four or four and a half, but the question is, is it going to be less than five. That's really the threshold here. Mr. Herrick - That is the threshold, yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets go back to the trees. Board Member Conneman — If the Community Center does not want to see the houses, they can plant some trees. It looks like there are some there anyway, which is why I said they could plant a few more. So you cut a few feet off the field. So what. It seems to me if they want to protect their...they are getting nine or so acres for free, they can plant a few trees. Mr. Kanter — Also, it is they, but it is also us because remember it is a Town ball field. So I think we just want to be careful we don't create a situation where our own ball field is going to be over planted with trees because then it is no longer a ball field. It is a pretty small area and it's a small ball field. Board Member Conneman — You put the language together so it doesn't happen. Mr. Kanter — I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm just saying... Board Member Conneman — Yeah, I agree with you, Jon. Attorney Barney — The installation of trees on the ball field is really something between the Coddington Road Community Center and the Town. We have an agreement with Coddington Road Community Center that we renew every year and they count on the rental that we pay for a significant portion of operating expense. So I would suspect that it is unlikely that they are going to take action that would jeopardize the cash portion of their income. I'm not sure it can be so easily dealt with here. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there any other discussion at this point? Board Member Thayer — The setback line should jive with that 25 -foot right -of -way, shouldn't it? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Attorney Barney — Great minds go in the same direction. We just saw that, too. 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 205 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Leahy, are you aware of what we are talking about on parcel B? So, if we get to that point what I assume what we'll do is simply put a condition in the resolution that the line be modified and the final drawings to follow that little piece. All set? Mr. Leahy — Yeah. I don't think we have a problem with that at all. Thank you. Board Member Conneman — The only other question is traffic and I'm on the Town Traffic Committee and I'm going to be glad to bring the arguments and the message of this to that committee to talk about it. I don't think we can do anything about it in this situation. I think it is a dangerous road myself and people do drive to fast. Mr. Leahy — Let me add as agent to the owner, we would be supportive of addressing the speed limit or something of that sort certainly. We think that is in our best interest and the interest of any potential buyer. Chairperson Wilcox — Speed limits are interesting. The Town Board as the elected board, the policy setting board would have to make a recommendation to the State, the DOT asking for a reduction in the speed limit. Mr. Kanter — It is also the County because it is a County road. The Town Board would have to petition the County to petition the State to change the speed limit, which we have done before. Chairperson Wilcox —.I still don't understand why the State controls speed limits on County and Town roads, but be that as it may. That is the process there ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to pursue that. You can go to the Town Board or the County Legislature, Board Member Mitrano — I think it will get a lot of support. Chairperson Wilcox — It might. The one nice thing is the extension of the 45 -mile per hour zone beyond their section of German Cross Road into the Town of Danby. They did extend that six months, a year ago maybe. . I'm trying to think how long ago it was extended out. That has helped because the transition from 55 to 45 is right near... but that has at least pushed that back so people tend to be going a little bit slower through there, they're not still decelerating from 55 down as they go passed the Coddington Road Community Center. It has helped a little bit I think. Any other discussion or issues? All right. Staff, we all set? Mr. Smith — I just want to mention one other thing about Lots D and C, it was mentioned but I didn't mention in my materials or the resolution about requiring those driveways to actually be on the shared driveway. You might want to add a note on the map that those driveways have to be on the shared driveway. Attorney Barney — I was actually going to insert a paragraph in the conditions that there be no curb cuts on Coddington Road except for the one curb cut for the one proposed driveway. fiE:1111 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter — And could we have a note actually on the plat? Chairperson Wilcox — Its funny. This made me think of down Coddington Road, closer to the City is Spruce Way, which is similar in that you have a four lot subdivision, but in that case, Spruce Way became a Town Road of roughly similar length and all the problems inherit with a short piece of road like that. I would hope, again we don't set policy; I would hope that this doesn't become a Town road. I think the short little roads are just... having lived in that area and watching Town vehicles, specifically sanders and other vehicles push snow out of the way, watching them try to maneuver on these tiny little streets and not being able to turn around and back up and its tough and its also dangerous. I have never seen them on Spruce Way, but its got to be difficult. It's nice to have the hammerhead here just in case so that emergency vehicles can get in and out,.but I don't think they want this to be a town road. Mr. Leahy — May I ask a question? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may? Mr. Leahy — Its our impression as well to make certain the driveways are served off of the project drive, not off of Coddington. Would that require us to create some minimum off of Coddington where the first driveway could start? If that makes any sense. You know, 100 feet off the road rather than 50 or I don't know why anyone would want to put one so close to the road having to build it off the private drive. Does it make sense to put a minimum in there? It has to be 50 feet off the road or 80 feet off the road or something like that or is there going to be an assumption that that's what they are going to do? Attorney Barney — There is nothing prohibiting, if you're willing, for us to put in a condition to says that no driveway will be located closer than x number of feet to... Mr. Leahy — I'm personally for putting fewer restrictions in unless we think as a group that it is necessary and if you don't think its necessary than I would rather .not, but if you would think that it would help. Attorney Barney — I think it makes a lot of sense not to have a driveway that is 20 feet from the Coddington Road intersection, but whether it 80 feet or 50 feet, I don't know what might be appropriate. I assume they are going to be facing on the private drive and it would probably be easy to make the driveway or garage or the driveway access further away from Coddington Road. Mr. Leahy — I mean that was a question, not so much a statement or what have you. Board Member Mitrano — The only thing that I want to say is that I would like there to be super majority. 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 207 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — It has to be super majority. You understand that we need five, which is all of us tonight given that two members aren't here. Board Member Mitrano — On that note, I will move the motion. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, you have made some notes over there. Attorney Barney — Yes. I was suggesting a new "d" be inserted between "c" and the current "d" on the second page of the resolution reading something like this, "no curb cut shall be allowed on Coddington Road except for the one curb cut for the proposed drive and that the subdivision map be amended to note this prohibition' . And then what was formally "d" becomes "e" and add at the end of that, "such agreement to include the prohibition against curb cuts onto Coddington Road referred to above ". Then add at the end of it "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" with "1. Within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution a copy of the same be filed with Tompkins County Planning Department, and 2. That the reasons for the Board deciding to override the recommendation of the Tompkins County Planning Department are that a) this board does not believe a post. construction stormwater management plan is required based upon the interpretation of the Town Engineer set forth in his letter dated July 15, 2004 and in particular to the citations for the exemptions applicable to single family residence set forth in letter and also the conclusion that typical residential properties do not have large areas of impervious lands, and b) the issue of curb cuts has been dealt with by inclusion of prohibition of the curb cuts on Coddington Road". You need, the reason for this extra kind of wordy thing is that you are supposed to file this within 30 days if you take action contrary to the recommendation of the County Planning Department together with the reasons that you are choosing to do so. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that acceptable to Tracy and George? Board Member Conneman — Absolutely. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -073: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Young Five -Lot Subdivision, 922 -928 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 47.44 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1 -4, Low Density Residential zone (former Residence . District R -30). The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- acre parcel into four residential buildings lots along Coddington Road and one 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED Road Community Center or their recreational activities. John F. Young, owner; Patrick Leahy, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on July 20, 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 Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 20, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of John Young" dated 1012012003, by Allen T. Fulkerson, L. S., and plans titled "Erosion and Sediment Control" and "Watershed Map" dated 6118104, Prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE /T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at 922 -928 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-4, as shown on the survey entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of John Young" dated 1012012003, 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, including the name and seal of the registered land surveyor, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, such plan to be modified to show the correct setback requirement on Parcel B, and b, within six months of this approval, consolidation of Parcel A with the adjacent Coddington Road Community Center, Inc. property (Tax Parcel No. 47-1- 11,3) to the north, and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation, and 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 207 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED C, granting of the necessary variances for Parcels B and C from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and d. no curb cuts shall be allowed on Coddington Road except for the one curb cut for the proposed common driveway, and the subdivision map be amended to note the prohibition, and e. submission of an easement/maintenance agreement, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, allowing the shared use and maintenance of the drive between Parcels B, C, D, and E, said approval to be issued prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, such agreement to include the prohibition referred to against curb cuts onto Coddington Road referred to above, and f. submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Pollution Prevention Plan for NYSDEC. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. Within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, a copy be filed with the Tompkins County Department of Planning; and 2. The reason this board elected to approve the proposal notwithstanding the recommendation of said Department are: a. this board does not believe a post- construction stormwater management plan is required, based upon the interpretation of the Town Engineer set forth in his letter dated July 15, 2004, and in particular to the citations to the exemptions applicable to single- family residences set forth in the letter, and also the conclusion that typical residential properties do not have large areas of impervious lands; and b. the issue of curb cuts has been dealt with by inclusion of a prohibition of the curb cuts on Coddington Road. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 6, 2004 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 - APPROVED PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -074: Approval of Minutes — July 6,200 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the June 6, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Cancellation of August 3, 2004 Planning Board Meeting Chairperson Wilcox — The reason for scheduling a special meeting is to accommodate the County. My understanding is the timeline is being imposed on them by Ithaca College to complete construction of the new telecommunications tower. I believe Ithaca College has requested that work be done before the students come back and if we cancel the third and don't meet until the 17th, it would make it very difficult for the County to have the necessary approvals. So we have scheduled a special meeting for the 27th. You will also notice that we have a second telecommunications facility on that agenda, which will be a third facility on a given Cornell University water tank. I like co- location. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -075: Cancellation of August 3, 2004 Meeting MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby cancel the August 3, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. A special Planning Board meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 27, 2004 to replace the August 3, 2004 meeting. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 2004 APPROVED - JULY 27, 2004 -APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: TRAINING The board decided to post -pone discussion on Planning Board training sessions until Board Member Howe was present to participate in the discussion since he initiated the discussion. Mr. Kanter provided the board with information on training sessions from the Department of State. AGEND ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Board Member Hoffmann described a water tower in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that blended in with the sky and trees. It was painted the same very pale, bluish -aqua color as the water tower she had seen while traveling from Tennessee earlier this summer. She explained that galvanized steel becomes dark very quickly and the monopoles stand out when they turn dark gray. Board Member Hoffmann would like the County to consider painting the cell tower to blend in with the background. Mr. Kanter informed the board that the County was proposing not to paint the tower for various reasons, partly because the tower would need to be shut down in order to do maintenance painting. He thought there would be further discussion at the July 20th meeting about painting the cell tower. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the July 20, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, r Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk 24 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 20, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Young 5 -Lot Subdivision, Coddington Road. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -4, Low Density Residential zone (former Residence District R -30). The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and one 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington Road Community Center for their . recreational activities. John F. Young, Owner; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. 4. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 5. Approval of Minutes: July 6, 2004. 6. . Other Business: 7. Adjournment. a) Consider cancellation of August 3, 2004 Planning Board meeting. b) Discuss training options for Planning Board members including NYPF Conference (September 19 -22 in Lake Placid); visit by NYPF planner (Kathryn Daniels) as summarized in Rod Howe's email (6/20/04); visit by NYS Dept. of State planner; "retreat" for informal Planning Board discussion, etc. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, July 20, 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, July 20, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -4, Low Density Residential zone (former Residence District R -30). The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and one 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington Road Community Center for their recreational activities. John F. Young, Owner; Patrick Leahy, 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, July 12, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 The Ithaca Journah`��' " ° Wetlnesday, Ju1y�14,u2004 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE$ July 20, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME 1 i � /7r PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION c fi 1 ti ,-05 :P < ci c. i✓ r !�C 17 l� C? C v A G teta c �c 1L Sa`7 a zoco. :P 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, July 20, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: July 12, 2004 July 14, 2004 `bm , (:510-&� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of July 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 ��