Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-09-07TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMER 7, 2004 FILE �� DATE �l2�loti The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 7, 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; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Nicole Tedesco, Planning Intern: EXCUSED: Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS: George R Wlliams, Williams & Edsall Land Surveyors; Barbara Lefler, 344 Saranac Way; Aldona Norkus, 357 Saranac Way; Stanley Burun, 119 W Green St; Michele Draiss, 34 Whitetail Dr; Ellie and Forrest Kroft, 72 Whitetail Dr; Tiffany Sanders, Sapsucker Woods Rd; Brian Heltsley, 309 Saranac Way; Lori A Mike, 308 Saranac Way; Tom Niederkorn, 25 Whitetail Dr; Rene Sylvester, 138 E King Rd; Andrea Gerding, 146 Whitetail Dr; Torin Finven, 140 E King Rd; Mark Gugino, Gugino Law Offices Mark Mecenas, 188 West Haven Rd; Barbara Guttridge, 239 Coy Glen Rd; Helen Gibson, 108 West Haven Rd; Don & Terry. Henry, 138 West Haven Rd; Robert Champron, 210 Rachel Carson Way; Paul Ballard, Interlaken NY. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 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 August 30, 2004 and September 1, 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 September 1, 20040 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 7:07 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7 :08. p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Deer Run Homeowners Association 2 -Lot Subdivision, Saranac Way PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Michele Draiss, 34 Whitetail Dr I'm the President of the Deer Run Home Owner's Association, Chairperson Wilcox — Would you provide us and the people behind you with a brief explanation of what is being proposed this evening? Ms. Draiss — I'll do my best. As I understand it, I'm getting up to speed with what is going on, but as I understand it there are a couple of lots located on Saranac Way in the Deer Run home residential area that we as an association want to establish as lots so that we can sell them. I believe the sensitivity is that they sit right up against homeowners that are concerned about the sale of those lots. Chairperson Wilcox — What do you know of the history of these lots? Ms. Draiss — Not much myself, but there might be somebody here who does have more history. Tom Niederkorn, 25 Whitetail Dr am the treasurer, of the Home Owner's Association and its good to see you and be here. With this particular case, we went back to look at the original subdivision of the land that was established back in the late 1980s to create Deer Run, first of all, and then the subdivision that followed, the Deer Run Condominium group. The reason that the change occurred was because the market for selling condominiums /townhouses disappeared and the developer, Ed Hallberg, decided and he. was able to convince the Planning Board at the time that instead of trying to build more townhouses, he would subdivide the remainder of his land which resulted to be developed as a planned unit development. He would subdivide that into single - family housing lots instead of condominiums. No more houses were to be built and wouldn't have been permitted otherwise, but they would be single - family houses rather than townhouses. In that subdivision, these two lots which are part of the Deer Run Home Owner's Association land, occurred and we didn't get involved in their disposition until two -three years ago when we decided that we needed to dispose of those two particular lots. We have been paying taxes on them for a number of years. We couldn't find, however, that they were registered in the courthouses in the assessors department. So that is how the whole thing started. Our intention is to sell these two lots to anybody who might want to build a single family house on them and to keep the rest of the associations land intact the way it is now. Chairperson Wilcox — There is something in the materials that we were given about this being originally two lots and then somehow it became one lot. Mr. Niederkorn — Well, the tax maps show it as two separate lots. It's drawn as two separate lots and then they end up with a connecting line, which goes across Saranac Rd connecting the two. So we don't know if it is two lots in fact or whether it is one lot. I 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED think probably that!was one of our requests when we originally contacted Jon Kanter, was to find out to determine whether or not the Planning Board thought that theses were two separate lots or whether they were one lot with a street going between them, which could conceivably be subdivided into two. Chairperson Wilcox - We have since determined that, at least by checking with the County, that it is one tax parcel at this point. Mr. Kanter - It has one parcel number assigned to it. Chairperson Wilcox - Either one of you, environmental concerns, environmental issues related to this subdivision? Are you aware of any environmental issues related to this subdivision? Mr. Niederkorn - No. Chairperson Wilcox - The materials also represent that we have been given that this would essentially put these two lots back to the way they were originally intended. Mr. Niederkorn - Yes. Board Member Mitrano - Who owns the vacant land adjoining...or what does that vacant land? It looks like chromosomes. Mr. Niederkorn - Are you talking about the vacant lands north of the two lots in question? Board Member Mitrano - Gee, Tom, they don't look north to me, but they look a little southeast. Well, there is one that is southeast that's the yy and the xx one is across the road. So what's this area here? 4 Board Member Thayer - Its vacant. ' Board Member Mitrano - But that's vacant. Board Member Thayer - The lots are vacant also. Board Member Mitrano - Up here. Refresh my memory. What's here? Board Member Con", neman - Where it says 1.25 acres? Board Member Mitrano - Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann - At the moment it looks like open land. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Tedesco — That's the open space of the Home Owner's Association. It was created when they first made the townhouses way back in the late 1980s.. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have anything to add? I'm sorry, Nicole. Ms. Tedesco — No, not particularly. We were never able to figure out how all this happened. There was a revision of the plat when they switched from townhouses to single family homes. Somehow, this parcel resulted. It is one parcel; it's split in the middle by Saranac Way. Board Member Hoffmann — I would guess that the reason it is one parcel is for tax purposes. That's most often what happens. People combine two parcels. Ms. Tedesco — Probably. We weren't able to find out when it was consolidated or if it was just originally made as one parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Questions on the environmental review? I get the sense, ladies and gentlemen; many of you are itching to speak. We will give you that chance. What we,, are doing now is simply the environmental review. What we are being asked to consider is a 2 -lot subdivision. The fact that we will most likely make the determination that there is no significant environmental impact of the 2 -lot subdivision does not in any way prejudge how we are going to vote on the actual subdivision itself. You will get your chance to speak. Trust me. Some of you are itching out there. I can tell. Any other questions with regard to environmental review? Would someone like to move the SEAR motion? Board Member Conneman moved the SEAR motion. The motion was seconded by Board Member Thayer, PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -086: SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Saranad Way — Deer Run 2 -Lot Subdivision, Lot 168, Saranac Way, Tax Parcel 44 -1 -168 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a +/- 0.764 acre parcel into two lots areas 0.309 and 0.455 acres. The parcel is located on Saranac Way, Lot 168 of the Deer Run Subdivision, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 44 -1 -168, in a medium density residential (MDR) zone. Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Owner, Janet Gillespie, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board previously approved this parent parcel as part of the Deer Run Phase IIIB and Marcy Court Subdivision, pursuant to the cluster provisions 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED of the Subdivision Regulations (Article V. Sections 31 -35 of the Town of Ithaca Code as established at that time), and 30 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 4. The Planning Board, on September 7, 2004, adequate a Short Environmental Assessment applicant, and a Part 11, prepared by Town "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Deer Run prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated Mar materials, and has reviewed and accepted as Form Part 1, submitted by the Planning Staff, a plat entitled, Homeowners' Association, Inc," ch 3, 2004, and other application 5. 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. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Saranac Way (immediately north of 308 and 309 Saranac Way), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 =1 -168, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.764 +/= acre parcel into two lots of areas 0.309 +/= acres and 0.455 +/= acres which would be divided by Saranac Way. Deer Run Homeowners Association, Owner /Applicants Janet Gillespie, President, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7 :18 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything either one of you would like to add at this time? 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Draiss - No. Mr. Niederkorn - I don't think so. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions with regard to the subdivision specifically? Would you take a seat then? Thank you very much. Thank you, Tom. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and invited members of the public to address the board. Andrea Gerding, 146 Whitetail Dr Hi. I'm Andrea Gerding. I live at 146 Whitetail Dr. When we got this notice we were really surprised because we bought our house a year ago and we were told we were part of Deer Run and that there was no more building allowed in Deer Run and we said good because the back of our house looks out to this amazing view and the lots that they are talking about. If there were buildings built there our view would be hindered and we just bought our house and we are all excited about our view. And I never heard...l'm a little upset as well because I'm a member of the public information advisory board and ,I never heard of this stuff. Chairperson Wilcox - What stuff? Ms. Gerding - That'"there is an association and I don't know if there are two parts to it. I live in a separate house and now I hear there are people who pay a monthly amount of money for this association and they are making all these decisions when a lot of us are buying houses and being told this is forever wild, there's no more building allowed. So people are buying their houses under the impression that that is the case and it's apparently not the case. So I'm concerned about that and I don't know exactly what you can do about that at this time and I understand that it has kind of gone in a whole direction here. We do not want to have our view hindered and that's why I'm here because we just bought this wonderful house and my first house and it's going to be changed. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Board Member Hoffmann - Can I ask a question? Board Member Thayer - Can we ask her where her house is? The board and Ms. Gerding located 146 Whitetail Dr on the subdivision map. Her house was determined to be located between lot numbers 162 and 164. Board Member Hoffmann - I'm very puzzle d association and being a member or not, bu some people who live up at Deer Run are and some are not. Is that right? by what you said about the neighborhood t I'm guessing what you are saying is that members of the neighborhood association [: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Gerding — I guess so. Board Member Hoffmann — And you are not a member of this association? Ms. Gerding — Apparently. I have no idea how it functions. I haven't heard of it. I've been there a year. Board Member Talty — Was the previous owner part of the association? Ms. Gerding — I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you know if you pay an association fee? Ms. Gerding - Not to my knowledge. ,Ms. Ritter — Having lived in a condominium myself, I am aware that it is likely that the townhouses belong to the homeowners association. Those are the people who get their grass mowed and things taken care of for them. Where the single - family homes do not have those sorts of services. Chairperson Wilcox — Makes sense. Ms. Ritter — So they would not need to be part of the homeowners association, but I'm not sure about that. Chairperson Wilcox — Who would like to speak? Sir? Brian Heltsley, 309 Saranac Way & Lori Mike, 308 Saranac Way Mr. Heltsley - My name is Brian Heltsley. I live with my wife Ann Hoffman and my two children at 309 Saranac Way, one of the two parcels adjacent on Saranac Way to this property. Ms. Mike - I am Lori Mike and I live at 308 Saranac Way with my dog Mutley and I am across the street from Brian and l am adjacent to the property. Chairperson Wilcox - They should be 88 and 108, 1 believe. Yes. Lot number 88 and 108. Mr. Heltsley - Okay.. Unlike some of the people here, I can tell you the history at least back to 1990 at least as I have experienced it. You are being asked to consider subdivision of this property. We own the neighboring lots and we urge you not to approve this subdivision. This lot has a checkered history. This history has led to a dispute over its status between us, Lori and I and my wife and the Deer Run. Home Owners Association. We have been attempting to resolve our dispute for several years. The Association has been unwilling to negotiate in good faith. Legal proceedings are 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED beginning to seem inevitable at this point and we would request that the Town Planning Board not take sides and give the Association any leverage prior to the resolution of our assertion of easements. The Association has no substantial monetary investment in this lot. It came into their hands as a windfall and a series of missteps. Some history. In 1990 Ed Hallberg ceased building townhouses for the reasons you heard earlier and began building single - family homes. We were among the first buyers. We purchased our homes with Ed's explicit assurances that the land to the northwest, this lot in question, was not buildable and would remain as open space. It was under this assumption that we purchased our homes at a premium, remained in these homes and made large capital improvements. We have also maintained strips of this property, 44. -1 -168, adjacent to our properties putting substantial manual labor and capital improvements into the landscaping. The Association in contrast has performed no maintenance upon this property. At some point the Association became aware that it had been paying taxes erroneously as it turns out on the parcel and that although it straddles Saranac Way, it was zoned for one single family house. Up until that point the Association thought, as we did, that the builder had transferred ownership of the lot along with a number of various other pieces of land. around the area that had been accumulating and were kind of miscellaneous pieces, that had been transferred to the Association and it had been integrated into the Association common areas. I mean not as a separate building lot. In 2002, we, Lori and I, were contacted by the Association to inform of us their intent to sell the property. Telling us at that point verbally that we would get the right of first refusal. Subsequently, our attorney Richard Stumbar, not theirs, discovered in fact lot 41. -1 -168. was still owned at that point in time, 2002, by Ed Hallberg's Deer Run Investors, who should have been paying the taxes. By 2003, the Association had located Ed and he signed a quick claim deed. However, we still wonder whether. the Association yet holds clear title. Our attorney Richard Stumbar has advised us that because we maintain these large strips of this parcel for more than 10 years prior to the Association reportedly acquiring the property and because our footer drains cross into this parcel and because of the various verbal assurances and promises we were given by Mr. Hallberg, that we have the right to various easements some of which are included on the attached letter that you should all have from our attorney to the Association. This means,'according to our attorney, that we, Lori and I, and any future owners of our lots would have the right to continue to use these strips the way we have been in perpetuity and in addition that no owner of 41. -1 -168 present or future can disturb the drainage on that parcel from our lots. We have been seeking to formally establish these easements prior to consideration of purchasing the property, but without success. The lot shape and numbering on the survey maps are strong indicators that this parcel was meant to be a buffer lot. This is what Ed Hallberg told us. One of the things PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED that you can see from the map is that to the northwest of this lot, but before the existing townhouses that there is a space. That space is my understanding is still zoned for one additional group of three or four townhouses on each side of Saranac Way. That is still possible that that could be built if someone chose to do so. That is my understanding. What we were told by Mr. Hallberg at the time was that this lot, this area of land in between which we were not aware was a separate lot was meant to be a buffer between the townhouses and the later built single - family houses. Why else would it remain a single parcel straddling the street? Why would the developer walk away from profit? When was the last time you had a developer give away two single- family lots in a prime neighborhood? Its existence is a glitch that was never meant to be. For the Association, subdivision and sale of these building lots would come as a windfall, probably a substantial windfall. They did not pay for these properties. For us, the status of these' lots is much more important. It directly affects our property values and more significantly our ability to enjoy living in our homes of nearly 15 years. There is no parity here. We stand to lose a lot more in dollar value and enjoyment of our homes if these properties are divided sold and built upon. The Association gains without investment and directly at our expense. We do not believe a non - profit home owners association should be in the business of selling real estate for profit especially when such a sale has a direct negative impact on its neighbors. At most reply to the Deer Run attorney, we offered to divide the property among the three parties, Lori, myself and my wife, and the Association for a modest price. This price was and is negotiable. We have had no reply to our offer. Please also consider that we were notified of this Planning Board meeting in Friday in my case and Saturday in Lori's case giving us little time to prepare. I will also add, Lori just reminded me, that when we purchased our houses the landscaping into this section of 411-1 -168 was in place when we purchased the property, substantially beyond our property line between 25 and 50 feet depending upon where you exactly would measure it. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox Did you want to make a separate statement? Ms. Mike - No. I agree with everything Brian has said. Well, maybe I was a gullible first time home buyer and listening to the developer, but yes he actually promised to deed us the portions of the property that we have been maintaining because he said it was unusable, unbuildable because of the size and because basically it was left over property from what he had zoned for the townhouses. I purchased my home in February of 1991 and from that point on I have been maintaining this property and I am talking mowing, fertilizing, and keeping it nice for the neighborhood. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Board Member Hoffmann - I guess I want to clarify directly from Ed Hallberg? Mr. Heltsley - Yes. Did both of you buy your houses PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann - So he was the one who had done the landscaping over onto these lots. Mr. Heltsley - Yes. It was part of the purchase price of the house was that it came seeded. Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Anybody else? Ellie & Forrest Sanders, 72 Whitetail Dr (Mrs. Sanders) We live at 72 Whitetail Drive. I think it is called lot 72 on your map, is it not? Chairperson Wilcox - I'm going to guess it is between 30 and 33. Mrs. Sanders - Here we are. Basically our backyard faces that property that is up for division. We are on Whitetail, but our backyard faces Saranac, faces that opening. Mr. Sanders - 72 Whitetail Dr is one of the townhouses that's, part of the homeowners association. For the record, I would like to state that I am against these lots being divided. My understanding is that the space directly behind our unit, that whole area, was to be left as open land for use by the association people and the rest of the neighborhood. Mrs. Sanders - We have owned this property for 16 years, since 1988. We brought it directly from Ed Hallberg, again like some of the other home owners who have spoken and we were told at the time that this was forever to remain free and open space and that was part of the deal this feeling of open space, of community, of being surrounded by nature and that is one of the pluses for the neighborhood, frankly. And to have lived there for 16 years and then all of sudden to have this intrusion in on something, I mean this is home to us. It seems quite a shock and something that we hadn't bargained for so we are against anything encroaching in on bad view at this point and we want that duly noted. Chairperson Wilcox - So noted. We have recorded you. Board Member Talty - Do you belong to the homeowners association? Mrs. Sanders - Yes. We do. Board Member Talty - Okay. Has there been a vote on this within the homeowners association? Mr. Sanders - We don't know. We don't know who is making the decisions. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mrs. Sanders - I had gone to some of them, not necessarily all of them because of my work schedule. I was under the impression and this may be my mistake and I'm willing to admit that. I thought it was the property on the other side facing the woods. I was not aware that it was on this one. It was only until I got the recent notice that I was aghast that it was on the east side. So that's why I thought it imperative to come down. Mr. Sanders - We are not getting information from the homeowners association. Mrs. Sanders - Or I misinterpreted to be honest. Board Member Thayer - So they don't have like a monthly meeting? Board Member Talty - Or a flyer? Mrs. Sanders - They do have a flyer, but to be honest maybe it wasn't made clear. Maybe it was our mistake, but I'm not so sure it was only I that misinterpreted it. Mr. Sanders - (Comments not audible.) Steven Litterst, 65 Whitetail Dr I live at 65 Whitetail Dr, which if you look at your maps is lot number 28, catty corner across the street from the folks that just spoke. I'm going to work backwards through my notes dealing with what was just mentioned. I am Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Deer Run Home Owners Association, So I have been present at all of the meetings since my election, which was March, of this topic. Our intention is right now to do everything that we can to prepare these lots for sale before putting it to a vote of the entire membership just in terms of... We have one yearly business meeting of the entire voting membership and so in order that this does not become a five year process, we want to do everything we can in preparation for our next meeting.so that at our next meeting we can say these lots have been subdivided we can sell them or not. We didn't want to have a meeting next March. Have a year to work on it and then have another meeting where we" could vote on it, which would draw the process out unnecessarily: So that is where that comes from and why some of the members are not fully aware of what is going on, have live in my house for 3 years and in those 3 years I have heard so many stories about what Ed Hallberg told home owners when they bought their houses I don't know what to believe. I have heard that these were meant to be houses. I have heard it was supposed to be forever green space. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything written down anywhere about it. I have talked to people who have lived there. My next -door neighbor is an original owner. I have talked to our association manager who has all of the records of the association since the association was founded and I have not done exhaustive research I will acknowledge, but I haven't been able to find anywhere that definitively says what this land was to be for. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Regarding the concept of the association reaping a windfall from this and how a non - profit organization should not profit from something like this. As I'm sure you all know, a non - profit organization does not mean that we cannot actually get anything. It just means that we as the board of directors as member of the association cannot pocket that money.. The money that would come from these sales is to be applied right back into improvements of existing facilities of the association and of the neighborhood. So this is not going to be a windfall for anyone with the exception of the people who want their houses to look better. Personally, I can't really argue with that. As far as the maintaining of that strip of land, the association through our attorney has twice in 1994 and 1999 notified the home owners of 308 and 309, but did notify them that that land does not belong to them and that they should not continue to improvement. I spoke with Stan Brown who is our current association manager and he says copies of that correspondence have been given to John Barney, the Town Attorney, I don't know if that is true or not I just know what I'm told. We do have documents that we have asked them not to maintain that land because it is not theirs. Basically, as you can see I am in favor of doing this. I like this neighborhood. I want to make the necessary improvements that we can to our facilities, but as you know the economy is such that it gets hard to do it without forcing all of the members to dig. deeper into their own pockets and we would not like to force them to do that in order to make what we think are necessary changes to their facilities. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? There are none. Thank you, Sir. Someone else? Anybody else like to address the board? With no other persons wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Monkemeyer, I see you out there. We are going to be a little while so if you'll bear with us then we'll get to you. Board Member Talty - I have a question to the staff. Are there current plans on file for an additional condominium in this particular development? Was there actually land set aside or plans that are on file that show the potential for another condominium right on Saranac Way? Ms. Tedesco - I haven't seen anything actually in any of the plats. If you look at the original plat, you have it. It's not the one that was just created. This is dated 1990. The land directly to the north of these two parcels labeled xx and yy, the chromosome map, you can see that is labeled Deer Run Phase II and this map is actually for Deer Run Phase III. So this is a more recent map than the townhouses, does that make sense? And this doesn't show any other townhouses being created. That is the best answer that I have. Jon? Mr. Kanter - In further answering it, we don't have the Phase II Deer Run plans up here 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED because during our review that was not really relevant to what we were looking at. If the question comes up, then that is something that we will have to do. Chairperson Wilcox - These are shown as separate parcels on this map labeled Deer Run Subdivision, Town of Ithaca Final Plat, Phase III B dated April 3, 19900 Ms. Tedesco - There is also a footnote that I would like to note on there. If you look on the lower right hand corner, it says lots xx and yy to be transferred to Deer Run Home Owners Association. I don't know if it actually were...that's where the quick claim deed comes in. Attorney Barney None of the minutes indicated anything or any discussions about that as to the reason it should be transferred to the homeowners association? Ms. Tedesco - A reason? No. Mr. Kanter - I'll just add that staff, a number of us, spent hours of research at the request really of both parties, the association and the individual home owners that are here and we could find nothing in any of the records on Deer Run that indicated any kind of restrictions "or intentions for these two lots xx and yy, what their purpose was, whether there should or shouldn't be any restrictions. There were no deed restrictions on file anywhere to indicate that they should be restricted for any specific purpose so there may have been intent. Whether if we went back and looked at every single Deer Run meeting minutes with the Planning Board whether you would find anything more detailed I can't tell; you, but the fact is in any written requirements, resolutions, filed maps, deed restrictions, there is nothing with kind of commentary on those two lots. Board Member Mitrano - But Jonathan, they always were separate from the area that was designated to be open space? Mr. Kanter - As far as we can tell, I can't say that with 100 percent certainty but I think if you went back and looked through our records you would probably find that to be the case. Board Member Conneman - There's an old saying in the real estate business and the real estate appraisal business if you have a lot with a view you better buy the view. Is it true that some people have offered to buy the view? There is a statement here that we offered to divide the property among three parties for a modest price. The price is negotionable. Has that ever been followed up? Male voice - not audible. Board Member Conneman - The attorney is not here to... Board Member Mitrano - I'm just going to extrapolate from what the Vice President said that they haven't put it up for...but as .I understand the chronology of the developments, 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED they are preparing this for sale so maybe they are talking about sale. That is what I gather from it a anything more about it to correct me. That's what I'm evening. got in a position at this time to be id I welcome anyone who knows gathering from the chronology this. Mr. Kanter - There is additional correspondence that was sent over from the Deer Run Association that has some of the follow up correspondence back and forth between the two parties. Chairperson Wilcox - For the record, let me just note that we do have a copy of the written statement from Brian Heltsley, Ann Hoffman along with Lori Mike and a copy of a letter from Richard Stumbar to Anna Holmberg. We should also point out that we were given various correspondence from the home owners association letter from Anna Holmberg to Stanley Burin, another letter from Stumbar to Holmberg, Holmberg assume to Stumbar and then finally we were given copies of minutes of the Board of Directors from December 8, 1999, which does mention these properties in question and also July 14, 1999 as well. Board Member Howe - Maybe for a question for John. I'm hesitant to move forward when there seems to be lack of clear information and direction. John, what would you say to us in this kind of situation? Attorney Barney - I guess in looking at, my question is Jon says that the records are either not relatively available or not too clear as to looking at Deer Run Phase 11, which I assume is when the home owners association acquired the property immediately adjacent to it. Whether the boundary line is the line that is shown here, the northwest line of these two properties. If it is, then it seems to me that these two properties are subject to whatever rights anybody that owned them would have. If the boundary line to that Phase was the southerly line or the southwestern line of these properties then a different or a different view of that. Tom, have you looked at it? Do you know if when Phase II is described or was it... - Mr. Niederkorn - I can't remember, John. (Comments.not audible). Attorney Barney - Yeah, its Phase II because Phase II obviously I would assume preceded Phase 111. Mr. Niederkorn Phase II was the area north and east of the two lots that we are talking about. Attorney Barney - North and west actually. You are looking at III B. Mr. Niederkorn - (Not audible) Attorney Barney - Right. That's what we have in front of us, but the question is whether that III B encompassed a couple of lots that were already taken up or dedicated under Phase 11, 1 suspect that it did not. because I don't think this board would have approved 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED them as separate lots at the time if they hadn't. Having said that, I think you are caught between two people, or two groups or parties that have relevant interest and I'm not sure if it is up to the Town to determine what those relevant interests are. That is what the courts of law are for if its gets that far if they can't negotiate it. What you are bound to do is to take a look at if these lots meet the subdivision requirements. If they do, then you are basically obligated to grant the subdivision. If they don't you can decline. If there is some reason other than in our applicable subdivision regulations that may govern whether they can or cannot be sold or if they are sold free and clear of easements I suppose you might get into that a little bit. My sense of it is that the easement issue is somewhat vague and unclear as well. So the granting of the subdivision or the denial, but more particularly granting the subdivision doesn't necessarily make the title any better and it doesn't remove or preclude anybody from raising an issue as to whether there is an ability to sell the property or not. Chairperson Wilcox - Or what someone's interest might be in that property or part of that property. Attorney Barney — .I guess if I were involved in it, I guess I would probably take a little bit of issue with the gentleman who spoke as Vice President. I think I probably would have gone to my membership first and said do you want to sell these and then if you do ,we go through the process, if don't then...it would make all of these issues kind of moot, but that's a different story. Somebody mentioned that I received some letter. I will sit here and say I may have received some letters, but I receive about 50 letters a day and I can't quite frankly recall whether I did or did not. Even if I did, without having this in front of me and knowing what the issues were I probably would have assumed whoever they were addressed to was gonna take care of it, not whoever is getting copies. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — One person who might remember some of the history of this would be Carolyn Grigorov, who is on the Town Board because she was on the Planning Board from 1978 until she got on the Town Board. So she went through this whole history. I remember bits and pieces of it, I can't remember from where, but know that this was one of the earlier cluster subdivisions that the Town. What I'm wondering is whether there was at the time conscious effort to set aside open space and if so, which are the pieces of the Deer Run land, that was set aside as open space. If there is a way of finding that it might include these lots or some history of those lots. Board Member Mitrano — That is what I was trying to say in the beginning that this is the open space up here.for these. Board Member Hoffmann — Lets see. You are looking at a different map now. Board Member Mitrano — Isn't that what the open space is here? Board Member Hoffmann — That looks like open space, whether it is an open space set 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED aside is another matter. If you look at this map here, which covers all the land there's along Troy Road here some land called other land of Deer Run, which doesn't look like its built on. Maybe it can't be because it's too close to the NYSEG right of way. There is a Town recreation area here. There's other...this is probably the land that has the smaller units, the townhouses on them. But at present, I'm saying this is unbuilt on land, but who owns it and for what purpose its still unbuilt on I have no idea. Board Member Mitrano — I guess I thought this was the set aside. This right here. There is a pretty good... Board Member Hoffmann — There are houses here. Board Member Mitrano — I don't know. I guess that's what I thought that that was set - aside but that is a good question. Mr. Kanter — May I comment? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Mr. Kanter — Well, the answer to the first part of your question is very easy. The answer is yes, there was open space set aside exactly where that is, is hard to tell because in one of the lessons' that I would strongly urge this Planning Board to consider is not to approve a subdivision like this one was in the future. Because it was done in so many pieces, there are so many parts of the files on it. They are not put together... there was not an accumulative subdivision that said now that we've done this here's where we're going. They were all separate pieces. It is almost impossible to go back and really try to figure out what happened and documentation of where things are supposed to be happening and that's part of the whole problem with these parcels. We have gone through, a number of us, I can't say that Nicole has specifically in regard to these two parcels, but a number of us have looked through the files and we could find nothing that would explicitly or implicitly indicate that these two parcels have restrictions like that. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I can just imagine the scenario happening where originally the proposal had been to build townhouses over the whole area and then Ed Hallberg changed his mind and he came back and wanted to build single family homes and as part of allowing that to happen the Planning Board and other boards may have said, okay we'll let you do that but in return we need some more open space set aside and maybe that's how these two lots and maybe the land that looks like open space next to them came about and why they haven't been built on, but that's just guessing. Mr. Kanter — If that is the case then this 1990 map of Phase III B should have very clearly stated that and it should have been in the resolution, which there is none of that. Chairperson Wilcox —And you wonder why if this lot or two lots.. its two pieces. Its one tax parcel, but its almost two pieces of land because it is separated by Saranac Way. I'm sitting here wondering if it indeed was supposed to be part of the generic unbuilt 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED upon space of Deer Run, why were they shown as separate parcels. Attorney Barney — The answer to that is maybe that is what they were intended because they were saying, they were conveying to the homeowners. If they were to be unrestricted why were they to be conveyed to the homeowners association at all. You can derive all kinds of conjectures from either way on it. Board Member Mitrano — Well I would like to move the motion recognizing once again everything that John Barney said. We don't know the answer to the multitude of legal questions that have been posed here tonight, but we are not in the position to adjudicate them or, hear them or speak to those. So I move the motion fully recognizing that all of you individuals have various rights that you may want to assert in the courts of law or do anything else. But it seems to me that the criteria by which we have to review this is we should maybe vote and I move the motion. Board Member Talty — I was just going to interject before you did that. There is the question of drainage on this property, if I'm not mistaken, which doe s our,. 'whether or not we could ... I mean if there is a drainage issue...) don't way the drain goes. Away from your house or towards your house? Mr. Heltsley — Away from our properties. Chairperson Wilcox — On to these properties. enter into know which Board Member Talty — Okay. I mean that would be something that would come under our review, correct? Attorney Barney - Correct.. Board Member Mitrano — Is that an environmental issue? Chairperson Wilcox — I think the ,issue is an encroachment issue as I understand it that one or both of the home owners have built drainage structures which lead off of their property on to these two lots, this one tax parcel. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry. There's something not quite right in what you are saying. The homeowners... the current homeowners didn't build that, I don't think. It must have been Mr. Hallberg, Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. They own the homes, which drain onto the lots. Board Member Hoffmann — It must have been Mr. Hallberg who built them. Mr. Heltsley — And the neighbors uphill of us drain onto our property. Board Member Talty — Right. Cascading. iVA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — Would that indicate that Mr. Hallberg intended it not to be separate lots and part of the open space. Chairperson Wilcox — Not necessarily. Board Member Talty — And John, is there anything likes squatter's rights for this or something? Where they've maintained it over a certain period of time and kind of like a squatter on a piece of property. Attorney Barney — There are a whole bunch of rights that go along with usage over a period of time. The one that immediately comes to mind here is what we call prescriptive rights. If you have an open, notorious use for an easement type purpose and you've been doing it for ten years or more, you may acquire some rights. I don't think you acquire title rights, but you may acquire rights to retain and have your drainage pipe remain. Again, I went to law school for 3 years and practiced for a zillion years and I still don't know if there is a clear -cut answer one way or another. Every time you get into it you go back and read the cases and come out with a different view. So, but generally speaking I would think there would probably be some prescriptive rights here for the benefit of these other lot owners and any conveyance of these lots and it would probably have to be subject to those rights. Now the next question you might ask is where does the drainage pipes go and do they go in such a way that they would preclude any meaningful construction on either of these lots. From reading the materials that these folks provided it was a little unclear to me how that drainage system was constructed. Mr. Kanter — In fact I think that question of location was raised in some of the Deer Run correspondence asking if the drainage lines could be shown on the survey map and so that was an unresolved question. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion. I do not have a second. Would someone like to second it? Would you like to withdraw your motion? Board Member Mitrano — I guess if I have no choice I will, but not really. I would like to know why. What are other people thinking? Board Member Conneman — I think reasonable people ought to go back and negotiate and figure out what they want to do. What you present us with is a case of saying one side is right the other side is wrong. The homeowner's association hasn't made a decision if I understand Steven correctly. They could have a meeting and talk about this and there is apparently some proposal from the people who would like to have the view to buy the property. That might be a solution. Board Member Thayer — Obviously, they don't own it so I certainly would go out and buy it if I were them. ig PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — Absolutely. I think that...(not audible)... taking the negotiating rights away. It seems to me that there are so many issues here that this is not up to this Planning Board to preside. Board Member Thayer — I feel like the judge and the jury. here and we can't... Board Member Conneman — I think that's right. Board Member Talty — I would also like to say that this could cause a very large schism within the association itself. And that should be also viewed upon where people on one side of the association don't want it and the other side of the association it doesn't matter because they already have neighbors to the back of them. So although the best intentions were to get your act together before you went in and approached the whole association, the cat is out of the bag and maybe there should be a quick meeting to make sure that you really want to go forward in.. .a certain rights ... as a group. Board Member Mitrano — Well, if the applicant, Kevin, wants to come forward and say we will do that then I would immediately withdraw my motion. But as a matter of procedure, we have an application before us. What are we doing, nullification here or something? I don't understand. Board Member Hoffmann — No, but my problem with this, Tracy, is that it's even unclear who owns these lots. Board Member Mitrano — It is not up tows to adjudicate it. Board Member Hoffmann — No, but I don't want to make a decision about whether it can be subdivided or not if I don't even know who owns it. Mr. Kanter — Well there is a record of a quick claim deed that was filed on this property from Ed Hallberg to the Deer Run Home Owner's Association. So if you believe that a quick claim deed as a sufficient proof of ownership, they have that. A quick claim deed only basically tells you that the person who reputedly had some rights to the property is transferring whatever rights they had to the recipient and he is not guaranteeing any of it. Board Member Mitrano — If John Barney had stated at the outset that he felt uncomfortable about ownership, then it would ... but I haven't heard that. Attorney Barney — Jon is .absolutely right. We don't ... but whenever this board...we don't do full -scale title searches when somebody comes in and represents that they own. the property. They produce a deed or they produce some documentation that they own it and we accept that at face value. I think you have 62 days from the date the application is received to make a decision. You can either deny or grant and in either way you have to have reasons for whatever it is you are doing. I am not telling you 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED which way to go and it is clearly your folks decisions, but I don't think you can simply advocate and say I don't feel like granting it now because it is in dispute. You may want to suggest that people come back a month from now and hold it up for a month, that's perfectly within your rights to do that, but your 62 -day clock is running. And you need to make a decision within that time period. Mr. Kanter — Actually if you don't, then by default _the subdivision is approved. Chairperson Wilcox — Is your motion still on the floor? Board Member Mitrano — Yes, sir. Chairperson Wilcox — I will second your motion. The issues here are no different than the ones that we have dealt with before. Board Member Thayer — Simple two lot subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — Simple two lot subdivision. Thank you very much. We dealt with, for example, recently in the last couple of years along Troy Road subdivision where there was some dispute about the property lines about whether the survey map that we were provided was accurate or not and we had a gentleman who on the neighboring property clearly asserted that they were wrong. It wasn't our job to get in the middle of that. We had a survey map, a licensed surveyor, signed sealed and we made a determination. I see no difference here. We have the owners asserting that they have ownership. We have disputes over the land and I assume that the home owners association, the land owners and any other parties will try to get together and resolving and the people who worry about their view as Mr. Conneman said, buy the land to protect your view. But in terms of what is in front of me tonight, which is a two -lot subdivision, which I truly believe, is to put this one tax parcel back to the two lots that were originally there. I am comfortable with proceeding and approving it and God bless the litigants and I think you can work it out. Board Member Mitrano — It also maybe getting to the next step so that they can work it out. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets see what's going to happen here. Board Member Hoffmann — I would certainly urge everybody involved, very strongly, to do what we try to do and that is we try to get the public involved in decisions as early as possible. We don't try to make decisions here and then the public comes in at the last minute because that always creates problems. So I would urge the neighborhood association people, the people on the board, to get everyone involved . as early as possible and to include the other home owners up at Deer. Run even they are not members in the neighborhood association because it will serve everybody better in the end. 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox —Well said. Anybody else like to...? Board Member Talty — So what are we voting on exactly? Chairperson Wilcox — We are voting on the drafted resolution that was provided to us, which was to approve the subdivision. Any further discussion? I don't know where we are going to get here, but we will just have to wait and see. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please raise your hand. I have one, two, three in favor. All those opposed. I have four opposed the motion does not pass. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -087: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Saranac Way — Deer Run 2 -Lot Subdivision, Lot 168, Saranac Way, Tax Parcel 44410 1 =168 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS. 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a +/- 0.764 acre parcel into two lots of areas 0.309 and 0.455 acres. The parcel is located on Saranac Way, Lot 168 of the Deer Run Subdivision, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 444468, in a medium density residential (MDR) zone. Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Owner, Janet Gillespie, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board previously approved this parent parcel as part of the Deer Run Phase IIIB and Marcy Court Subdivision, pursuant to the cluster provisions of the Subdivision Regulations (Article V, Sections 31 -35 of the Town of Ithaca Code as established at that time), and 30 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 September 7, 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 4. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 7, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Inc," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated March 3, 2004, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, .2004 - APPROVED 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 subdivision of the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 44 -1 -168 ( +/- 0.764 acre) located at 342 Saranac Way, Lot 1.68 of the Deer Run Subdivision, into two lots of areas 0.309 and 0.455 acres, as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Inc," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated March 3, 2004, pursuant to Sections 234 -31 through 234 -35 of Article V of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of final subdivision plat to include a note stating, "Thirty foot minimum distance between structures to be maintained," and b. 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. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. The motion was declared to be defeated. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney —,I think you probably want to put together some findings as to the reasons you are not voting for it. Chairperson Wilcox For those of you who have voted against it. ..Kevin? Board Member Talty — Well first, I don't believe that I had enough information to pass this resolution based upon the drainage situation that was presented to me tonight. I don't know if you can actually subdivide this lot and build upon this lot without disturbing the drainage. I have no information in front of me with regards to that; hence I cannot vote to make this... Board Member Mitrano — This isn't a site plan review, Kevin. Board Member Talty — I understand but I'm not going to vote on something I don't have information in front of me. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — But is it relevant to this specific matter in front of us I ask Mr. Barney. Is drainage relevant to the question before us? Attorney Barney Well, drainage is one of the elements that you consider in your subdivision approvals. Whether pipes from somebody's house next door come within that ambient of that is a little bit of a stretch, but I suppose you could make it. Board Member Talty — We had four inches of rain last week. My particular viewpoint is that it is. So that is my personal opinion and that's where I'm going to stand on. Chairperson Wilcox — What would you like to see? Board Member Talty.— More information. Chairperson Wilcox — Specifically? Board Member Talty — Specifically if we go to subdivide these lots from one lot to two on both sides of the street, will it have an impact. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to see where the existing underground drainage is from the neighboring properties onto these... Board Member Talty — That would be a start, sure. Mr. Kanter — So is:' drainage an environmental issue that should have been considered during SEQR review. If so, do you want to rescind the SEQR determination? Board Member Mitrano — We passed SEQR already. Mr. Kanter — Do you want to rescind the SEQR determination. Chairperson Wilcox — Rod? Board Member Howe — It's just a general uncomfortableness with some lack of clarity and I'd be curious if I had more information about squatter's rights. I understand that it's not clear, but I would be curious to find out more information about squatters rights in general. Board Member Mitrano — My good friend, Mr. Barney, may I ask again what relevance do these very important legal questions have on a subdivision of a Town Planning Board? I'm not denying that they are not important to the potential litigants, but is this something that we are supposed to review? Attorney Barney Squatters rights is a little bit of a.. what you are basically saying, Rod, is that you are challenging the applicant's assertion that they own the property. You are saying that somebody else has rights with respect to it. Obviously a certificate 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED of ownership that we need to see or we rely on when we make these decision, but just because somebody asserts that they have thrown water on the property for a period of time I'm not sure if that creates a squatters right. It may create prescriptive rights to be able to continue to do that. It doesn't give them the ownership of the property. The adverse possession, which is the other area that people talk about when have it, usually when somebody has worked the land as I think here it has been and they have actually handled the mowing of the yard or the. landscaping and that sort of thing for a period of years. That has to be tied to some kind of a colorful claim to title. In other words, you can't just simply walk onto somebody's property next door and start mowing the lawn and expect in ten years you are going to own it. You have to go back and look and see if there is a deed or a document that somehow gives me at least a colorable claim to title. I haven't heard that that existed here. I mean in 1990, we clearly have subdivision lots reviewed and approved by your predecessors on this board. Whether and I haven't' heard these folks say that they have a deed or something from Mr. Hallberg or from anybody else that gives them the right to exercise the maintenance responsibility that they have chosen to undertake on the adjoining parcel. I think squatters rights or adverse possession is something that would really be applicable here. I think you clearly have as much of an issue as to the vitality of the continuation of drainage flows across the property. Board Member Hoffmann — But John, what about as in the case of the two land owners adjacent to these two parcels where they bought their house and land with some of the landscaping being done onto these lots in question tonight already when they bought them, making it look as if that landscaping belonged to their lots and their houses. Attorney Barney You are asking me to decide a legal question between two people with conflicting viewpoints and what I have to kind of come back and say is I can give you my ideas of what is and what is not...but realistically the ultimate determinate of that is not going to be the attorney for the Planning Board nor is it going to be the Planning Board. That is an issue that needs to be raised and dealt with in a court of law, if they are unable to agree on at some other mode voluntarily and whatever that court of law says is the answer will be the answer. So I come back to your roles as Planning Board folks is you have requirements to approve a subdivision. Do these lots meet those requirements? If they do, you are subject to a lawsuit yourselves if you choose not to approve it. By the same token, if you feel that they don't meet the subdivision requirements, and then you are duty bound to decline with reasons and with findings. And I would do my very best to uphold that decision if it gets challenged by the applicant of the subdivision. So I am a little uncomfortable, ..on the various things that might happen here legally because really it is just an educated guess and the ultimate determination would be based on maybe facts that we don't know here tonight or other pieces of information that come out during negotiations or discussions. Chairperson Wilcox — There hasn't been any evidence as to why these two parcels of land are not consistent with the zoning ordinances. m PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — They are consistent. Chairperson Wilcox — They are consistent. They are legal lots. We have heard nothing to the contrary. Board Member Mitrano — Nothing against the criteria that we are required to review. Board Member Hoffmann — But I thought there was something in the papers about the fact that either one `or both of these houses adjacent to these two lots were too close to the lot line. They or have...or maybe its not...no that's right. There had to be 30 feet between the houses and the... Chairperson Wilcox — These are legal lots according to our subdivision regulations. Board Member Hoffmann — But on the drawings... Mr. Kanter— Cluster... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. Thank you very much. According to the cluster subdivision approval. Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — On the drawings it certainly looks like they are closer to the lot line than most of the other single - family houses that are indicated here. There are a few other ones that are pretty close too, I guess. There are so many uncertainties of that sort that's why J voted against it to because I feel uncomfortable. Board Member Mitrano — Do you feel that they are uncertainties that we have an obligation to obtain more evidence about and resolve? Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I feel personally that I'd like to have more clarity on those things. And the other thing is that we have no assurance that these two lots were not set aside as open space and that is why they are consolidated into one lot because it is one parcel of open space which is one on one side of the road and one on the other to serve the people who live around there and are located very nicely in the center of the development good for play space for small children. I mean if.l had been involved, and I don't remember if I was or not, I would have said that those would be perfect places for little playgrounds and things like that. Board Member Mitrano — And I bet I would have agreed with you if we were voting on the original development. Mr. Kanter — And if there had been a record that that was the case then that would be very clear. Board Member Hoffmann — But there is also no record that it wasn't the case. 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - Well, I am telling you as staff and I'm testifying under oath if I have to that we have looked at it and could find nothing that would restrict those parcels the way you are saying that they may be. And if you wanted to as a Planning Board member go through the files I guarantee you, you won't find anything either. And so, if that is the issue that you personally don't have a comfort zone with what we're telling you and you would like to look, through the files, you are certainly welcome to do that and I encourage you to do, but I can guarantee you, you are not going to find anything different from what we are telling you. Board Member Mitrano — I may personally be curious about many of the issues that came up here, and if I were a supreme court judge and in this jurisdiction then I would have a chance maybe to participate in adjudication of them, but I don't feel like those issues are under or purview and in fact we have a different obligation and we may be holding up the progress of the resolution however it comes out in a court of law, in someone's kitchen over a cup of coffee, or whatever it is by now creating a whole other big legal issue. We are leaving ourselves open to the possibility of litigation against the applicant and this community will hardly ever resolve it. I couldn't have agreed with you more, Eva, but I hope that the community can resolve it. And I feel that acting in a responsible way of voting on this application is a contribution towards that not a distraction from it because it gets them to the next step of where they need to go. I just don't see how we could give them what we are supposed to do in our obligations and not vote on it. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, we have voted. Board Member Mitrano Yes, I know. Mr. Kanter — The question was what are the findings that would back that vote up and I guess some of us are still waiting. Board Member Conneman — I would agree with Kevin on the fact that the drainage concerns me and some of the other information I don't think I have. I would rather let the parties, perhaps be big about this and sit down and see if they could resolve it and let the clock tick for 62 days or 60 days or 30 days. We let it tick for 30 days and see what they come back with. That is what I would like to see. As you know, I know there are things that are legally correct but there are also things that are ethically correct and think sometimes we have to look at that and I think the drainage problems among other things are puzzling to me and I think we if we were to give the parties a chance to resolve it outside of the courts and come back to us with something else. Board Member Mitrano — Then why wasn't this drainage would have been most appropriate, the we now subject to the litigation of the homeowner.c this application, but if you want to do that we now on the environmental review and say that we don't and that we want more information. addressed in the vote in which the environmental review? Not only are because, we have declined to accept have to go back and rescind the vote know the answers to those questions 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member. Hoffmann — We are not perfect so maybe we did the wrong thing. Attorney Barney — Well, lets keep in mind what the environmental determination is what you are making. If. you go back and rescind that vote, you are basically saying there is a significant environmental impact possible, major environmental impact of this proposal, which therefore requires the creation of the conduct of an environmental impact statement. I know we've seen some pretty big projects come through here with some pretty big issues that this board has not found to be sufficient merit that required an environmental impact statement and I'm a little bit uncomfortable trying to stand up before some judge somewhere and justify why it is required on a two lot subdivision when it hasn't been required by this board on Overlook at West Hills for example. Mr. Kanter — If I could just address that? I think that beyond what John said the board could certainly rescind the neg dec, go back and revisit the drainage issue as one of potential significance for which you don't have sufficient information at this point to make the determination. So you wouldn't necessarily have to go from rescinding to a positive declaration. You could use that as a mechanism to obtain the further information. What John is say though, which is exactly true, is that once you do that for a two lot subdivision, unless there is some critical environmental area or other major concern that we haven't hear at all about, the likelihood of a pos dec is not very high for something like this. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that is a good suggestion. But I also don't' see why it would be such a big problem if we let the vote stand as it is that we voted down this approval at this time. The applicants can still go back and talk about this all between themselves and work it out and then come back again. And maybe when they come back the next time they'll have something that we can all approve that we all feel more comfortable about. Board Member Mitrano — I just don't think that it's our business to interject ourselves in the discussion in that way. Attorney Barney - I don't want to get too. much further into this without going into executive session, but the applicant would conceivably have another recourse and that would be to hand me on your behalf or hand the chair I should say to be more proper and summon complaint that you have abused your discretion by not granting it because you haven't proved any reasons why it shouldn't be granted. I'm not trying to persuade you one way or another. If you are going to turn it down fine, but we need to articulate the rationale now for turning it down. I hear what Kevin is saying and maybe, but that doesn't sound terribly persuasive to me again if I stand up in front of a judge and use that as the argument as to why the board refused a hearing on it. Board Member Howe. — If members have persuaded me in a different way, what does a revote look like? 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — A revote on... Board Member Howe — Once you voted on this, can you call it again? Attorney Barney — I think you could do two things. You could vote to reconsider or you could vote to table is for 30 days. I would urge somewhere might be now... Board Member Howe — I'm willing to reconsider because I think that... Attorney Barney — And if its likely that you are going to consider voting it down, actually, might like a little time to plan so I can write up something that might be acceptable to you. Board Member Howe — I think probably are heading in an area that is moving away from the legal so I would be willing to reconsider my vote if we were able to call in question again. Board Member Talty — Jonathan, maybe you could remind me. What did we do for the folks that subdivided their lot over on Honness when all those folks in the back yard with all that water problem came in and...? What's your recollection of that particular? Mr. Kanter — Sue, you were there and I wasn't. Do you recall? Board Member Talty — Because that is pretty close to what we are talking about here where there is a piece of property and they want to subdivide it and then ultimately if you build a property on there it is going to change the drainage one way or the other and they already had drainage issues back there to start with and I can't recollect exactly what we did. Ms. Ritter — I think Dan had recommended that they get an individual, engineer to help them with their backyards and try to drain that water away from... Chairperson Wilcox — We required a drainage plan as part... Mr. Kanter — For the building permit. Chairperson Wilcox — For the building permit because of the drainage problems of water on top of the land, which was valid given that particular parcel of land. Here it is a little bit different at least in my opinion because what we have is underground drainage structures, which funnel the water away from your house and empty out onto this neighboring parcel. The structures are in place. Everybody has had drainage problems this summer. Board Member Talty — But if they were to build and they were to potentially elevate their property, which you could do, that could reverse the drainage on how it is already. q :l Chairperson the people v running and resolve it. I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Wilcox — If they were to build, there is going to be a legal problem between rho own this piece of property and the neighbors that have their drainage ;rneath. They will have to resolve themselves or the courts will have to agree. I agree that there is a legal structure onto another parcel and whether it i; legal or whether some sort of easement can I work it out. or illegal encroachment of their drainage illegal or not or whether it can be made e given, I don't know. I trust that they'll Mr. Hebdon — We do have places in particular, I think on Pennsylvania Ave with some of the lacovelli stuff where we have drainage from one set of basements drain onto the parcel next to it and we end up putting in when they build they come in with a building permit a lot of those building permits come in with engineering and .zoning getting together and taking a look at it and we talk to the builder. We say that you have this drainage that is coming you have to funnel it somewhere. You have to take care of it as it's coming in and in the future they may need to put a little drainage swale in between the lots and stuff. A lot of those issues are taken care of when the building permit comes in and its not part of a subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — Rod, where are you right now? Board Member Howe — I will vote for it. Chairperson Wilcox - I want you to remove the motion. Attorney Barney — Wait. You have to first move to reconsider and that has to be a motion brought by somebody who voted against the initial motion. Board Member Howe — I'd like to move to reconsider. I. Chairperson Wilcox — Its needs to be seconded? Attorney Barney — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. Now we need to vote to reconsider. We are voting to reconsider which by implication rescinds our previous vote. All of those in favor of reconsidering the Rod; I have Larry; I have Tracy; against reconsidering. motion please raise your hand. I have Kevin; I have gave Eva; and I have myself, so I have six. All those Board Member Conneman — I'm going to abstain. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. George Conneman abstains reconsidering. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -088: Reconsideration of Motion for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Saranac Way — Deer Run 2 -Lot Subdivision, Lot 168, Saranac Wav, Tax Parcel 44 =1 -168 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca reconsiders the Motion for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Saranac Way — Deer Run 2 -Lot Subdivision, Lot 168, Saranac Way, Tax Parcel No. 44. -1 -168, and be it further RESOLVED, that PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -087 is hereby rescinded. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Conneman. The vote was declared to be carried. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Tracy, would you move the motion again? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved for preliminary and final subdivision approval. I will second it again. Any further discussion? Attorney Barney I would suggest that you might want to add one provision to the motion that says that in making this motion and in making this determination, no opinion is expressed with respect of the validity of the drainage issues that have been raised or the title issues that have been raised by this board. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that acceptable? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable to me please raise your hands. I have Fred; five in favor. All those opposed. I hav motion is passed five to two. Okay. He will write it again. All those in favor have George; I have Tracy; I have Rod. I have Kevin and Eva. No one has abstained. The PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -089: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Saranac Way — Deer Run 2 -Lot Subdivision, Lot 168, Saranac Way, Tax Parcel 44= 1 =168 MOTION made by, Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Fred Wilcox. 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a +/- 0.764 acre parcel into two lots of areas 0.309 and 0.455 acres. The parcel is located on Saranac Way, Lot 168 of the Deer Run Subdivision, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 44 -1 -168, in a medium density residential (MDR) zone. Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Owner; Janet Gillespie, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board previously approved this parent parcel as part of the Deer Run Phase IIIB and Marcy Court Subdivision, pursuant to the cluster provisions of the Subdivision Regulations (Article V, Sections 31 -35 of the Town of Ithaca Code as established at that time), and 3. 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 September 7, 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 4. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 7, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Inc," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L. S., dated March 3, 2004, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: i. 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 subdivision of the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 44 -1 -168 ( +/- 0.764 acre) located at 342 Saranac Way, Lot 168 of the Deer Run Subdivision, into two lots of areas 0.309 and 0.455 acres, as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Deer Run Homeowners' Association, Inc," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated March 3, 2004, pursuant to Sections 234 -31 through 234 -35 of Article V of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Ithaca, subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of final subdivision plat to include a note stating, "Thirty foot minimum distance between structures to be maintained," and 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED b. 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. 3. By approving this motion the Board is not taking any position on the right of adjacent owner to maintain drainage structures on the subdivided lot, nor any position on the validity of title issue raised by persons opposed to the application. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: Conneman, Tally. The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Ithaca Estates Phase III Subdivision, East King Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:35 p.m. George Williams, Edsal & Williams Land Surveyors My name is George Williams. I'm a land surveyor from Owego, New York and I am representing Evan Monkemeyer in Phase III of Ithaca Estates. Chairperson Wilcox — Who is going to make the presentation and give us an overview of what is being proposed? Evan Monkemeyer, 107 Kings Way My name is Evan` Monkemeyer. My residence is 107 Kings Way. This Phase III subdivision is the consequence of two subdivisions that have occurred in the past along East King Road. One being the subdivision that was approved in 1979 and Phase II that was approved in 1988 or around that time period. That was the road frontage that existed to the north side of East King Road. The current proposal is to go now into the back land through :'the access between lots 134 and 132 King Road East. There is a 100 -foot road frontage piece of ground that gives access to the back land. And what we have decided here, well, this is actually a resurrected subdivision that has come. back up since 1997. It was first proposed in 1997 and then withdrawn for a number of reasons and now I am resurrecting it. It is partially in response to the up- zoning that occurred last year and the conservation zoning of some of my properties. I feel that this is a reasonable use to move forward with this property. There is only a 50 -foot section of it along the east line that is affected by the conservation zoning, however, I don't 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED know how that will affect or impact the lots. The lots are roughly 30,000 square feet in size at it's smallest and the larger ones go up to 5 acres in size. There is one parcel that has a retention /detention pond on it and it will be made one of the premier lots of the subdivision. It will be made to hold some water as well as control water runoff on the site; water from the eastern portion of the property, from Ithaca College and from Cornell's land that drains onto this property. We have a very nice landscape plan that shows the leading entryway to the property with signage, a mix of ornamental grasses, potentilla and from my experience those are the kinds of landscape features that the deer don't eat. So it is something that I s an easy maintenance item and we show it here with wood chips and sorghum intermixed with the sign, which show the property, name Ithaca Estates with the ornamental grasses sort of placed around them. We have also taken each cul -de -sac, which we have proposed two cul -de -sacs and landscaped them in a similar way. We have a couple of tree plantings on here which would be essentially recycled trees from the site where if you are placing a building instead of just cutting them down we would transplant two or three of them in the center portion of each cukde -sac and infill the rest of it with more ornamental grasses. Each one of the street names is also ... I would like to appropriately call this the subdivision of the flowers. We have the subdivision of cigarettes in the northeast as some of you maybe familiar with the street names named after cigarette brands, thought it would be appropriate because of its location near the Cornell swamp and so on to have a nice environmental name for each street, which you can see we've shown the picture of what the name is in terms of the flower and Latin name alone. think that pretty much sums up, but we also have.. .there is a walkway planned from East King Road on the west side leading all the way up to the end of the 11 -lot subdivision so that we may continue it on and my hope was that that would continue on as well as the future collector roads and maybe tie into the Ithaca College campus in some way. I think that it would make a lot of sense to. have a walking trail that would connect between ... and the college. By the way, I did propose that back in 1970 and the college felt that it was premature so it never happened. I think that I can rest with this. Chairperson Wilcox — Dive right in? The first issue is land for recreational purposes. Would you or one of your applicants want to explain what you would like to do with regard to recreational land on the site? Mr. Monkemeyer = I think that I would like to have the board entertain...you give an option in your regulation of wanting to pay for dollars in lieu of per lot or you provide land which is 10% of the development site. I would propose that in this situation that would like to provide dollars in lieu of rather than to provide parkland simply because 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED there was such a great amount of taking in the up= zoning and the conservation rezoning that occurred last year. I lost about 20 or 30 potential lots in the up- zoning. There was no trade off. Those 20 or 30 lots were never offered to me, although I did appeal in writing twice to the board in increasing density somewhere else. So my first proposal would say I would like to have the board consider the payment in dollars in lieu of. Chairperson Wilcox - That is why you have not shown any set aside on...? Mr. Monkemeyer — I do have an alternate set aside on another plan. We haven't submitted it, but if that becomes a requirement of the Planning Board then we have a plan to show a location. Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, in your memo, you are the lead staff person on this one. You have outlined ... I am not sure whether it is Mr. Kanter's memo or one of Mr. Barney's written correspondence, the rules or requirements under which this board can consider a monetary contribution instead of the reservation of land, it essentially if I may summarize, the board would have to make a determination that there is not suitable land on this parcel or potentially other parcels owned or controlled by the applicant that would be suitable for whatever the appropriate recreation purpose is, and therefore under those circumstances the board could move to accept the payment in lieu of set aside. Mr. Kanter — Right. Although before that the board has to make the finding in the need in the first place for the set aside. Chairperson Wilcox — And having made that finding then making the determination that there is no suitable land. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — In this particular case we have, I'm sorry, I was having a hard time finding lot 13, Evan. Is there no lot 13 or is that one of the larger lots, the remaining lands that you either own or control to the north? Mr. Monkemeyer — Well, it is an 11 dot subdivision. The only other piece is a small strip of gore of land on the east side of lot 140 and that is a little piece that would be created by this subdivision. I am negotiating with the owner to sell it to them. It is almost a done deal. I don't have a written contract so... Chairperson Wilcox — So there is no lot number 13 for other reasons. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Twelve and 13 are the remainders of the two tax parcels from which all of these lots are being taken out of. Mr. Monkemeyer _ Yes. This subdivision has a military lot line 85/86 that runs north and south from King Road to the north and that is right about in the center or it would be 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED on the west side of Rock CresC Road. That is a separate tax parcel below and a separate tax parcel above. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So what is being proposed is two, four, six, eight, ten, eleven residential lots? Mr. Monkemeyer —Yes. Board Member Conneman — You would not feel that parkland would increase the value on a per lot basis and make up the difference? It seems to me if you have an upscale subdivision here and plan to add on to it then having a park in the neighborhood would be one of the things you would want because that would, I think, make the lots sell for even higher prices. No? Mr. Monkemeyer — Well, first of all there are parks in the neighborhood. There's Buttermilk Falls State Park, which is about 1500 feet from the property, which is thousands of acres. Whatever park I could put or donate to the Town would actually, maybe becomes a nuisance. I have gotten calls that live right along East King Road and they said that they are glad that the major park or the regional style park that was proposed back in 1997 is not occurring now. Their one concern was traffic; dust, people bringing their animals there, people roaming free, all those kinds of issues that a park creates. I mean a park is a wonderful thing in the right place, but why should we build more parks when you have thousands of acres of parks within 1500 feet. Board Member Mitrano — Well, there are parks and there are parks. I mean I am one of your neighbors and I would love to see a park there. Mr. Monkemeyer — Dave Auble sold New York State a piece of land that is 40 or 50 acres in size. The Town could maybe join venture with the State of New York and build a wonderful regional park right there. Maybe the dollars in lieu of are needed more to get these parks started in other areas than the land itself. That's my opinion. Board Member Mitrano - I don't know. I appreciate your question, George. I would have liked to have seen a park in this area. 96B, as you know, is a major highway and I am no more inclined to be sending my children unescorted by me across 96B to go to Buttermilk until they are 16 and can drive themselves. So to have something that is right down the road from where they are would have been very appealing. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you believe there should be a park there given that there will be 11 residential lots developed that it could potentially be. ..zoning allows two units per lot. I'm not sure if Mr. Monkemeyer intends to put duplexes up, but potentially.., we are talking 11 single - family residences here at least on what is being proposed here. Does that generate the need for some sort of recreational park set aside? Board Member Mitrano — Well, I would have to say yes. I'd also have to yes in the context of the developments in the entire area. We are desperately in need of a park. I 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED would love to know what is going on up further on King Road unless the Town owns that area and that park is going to have to be developed and my kids will be in college, I think, before I ever see a basketball court or a hoop or a tennis court, but okay. My point being is that I think it would be a great idea. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing is the parks that the Town is thinking of developing in residential neighborhoods are different parks from parks like Buttermilk Falls State Park and others. They are for a certain kind of recreational use, which is consistent with protecting the wildlife in those parks and the ones that we are proposing for residential neighborhoods have the kind of recreational uses presumably that would serve the people who live near them and the young people and the children who live near them in a different way. So I would also say that there are parks and there are parks and in some parks you can do certain things and in others you can do other things. And one needs to have parks that are meant for children, especially for young children very close to where their families live so they can be supervised properly. So that is why I have always felt that there has been great need for set aside of parklands on your properties as they develop.and I have not changed my mind about that. Board Member Thayer — Other than the 10% rule of thumb there for set aside parkland, is there any criteria for the number of lots that dictates whether we should have a park?. Did we ever come to that conclusion? Attorney Barney — The test is does the development of the proposed subdivision create a need in and of itself for park. I can see, I suppose in some circumstances requiring a need for a park and then a 30 -lot subdivision that is immediately adjacent to a park that may not require it. I think it is a little bit dependent on, ..but I think, ..(not audible)... Board Member Thayer — We have 12 lots with 10 houses in my subdivision and no park: There is property set aside for a park, but that's including another area and another 12 lots or something. So I'm wondering... Mr. Kanter — Oh, yeah. You are talking about the Tot lot that was set aside, which is a pretty small area. It is probably about an acre or so. Board Member Hoffmann — But wasn't there also some land set aside, lets see, south of your area down towards the creek? Board Member Thayer — There is, but that's including the other subdivision that hasn't been built yet. There's none in our subdivision for 10 houses, 12 lots. Mr. Kanter — That was a different Planning Board at a different time. Board Member Thayer — Right. I'm just wondering what the need is. We don't seem to miss it, but we're all old folks. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I think you mentioned, Fred, that there could be two units in each house and even if Mr. Monkemeyer or his agent doesn't build two family homes, the new owners can transform a one family house into a two family house. They can legally do that. I think that we have to figure that there could very well be two units in each home. So it could be 22 dwelling units as Jonathan pointed out. Board Member Conneman — The other point there is a huge amount of property, of which I this, which I assume is going to be developed of lots irrelevant in this discussion. that I would make is that I went up and assume is Mr. Monkemeyer's in back of into houses and that makes the number Board Member Thayer — Well, we would like to see the overall plan like Jonathan said to begin with. Board Member Conneman — I agree 100 %9 Mr. Kanter — And like we did in 1999 when we last talked about the earlier proposal. Chairperson Wilcox — Evan, you were going to say something? Mr. Monkemeyer — I would just wanted to interject about the number of units. There would be a deed restriction that these are single - family residences only. So there won't be 22 families; there will be 11 families. Board Member Hoffmann — That is for this phase. What about future phases on the other land that you own? Mr. Monkemeyer — There will be varying land uses. There will be some cluster; there will be some larger lot subdivision. You have a zone called the Conservation Zone that requires 8 -acre lots. I mean it will be a mix of different types of housing occurring on the entire site. Board Member Hoffmann - But the parts of your land that have conservation zoning are not that large, are they? It is a fairly small proportion. And I believe that you have some land that has been zoned for more dense development, too. Mr. Monkemeyer — I believe there is about 20 to 22, 23 acres of conservation zoning on my property so that is where I came up with the three lots. Board Member Hoffmann — And how many acres do you still have in land that can be developed more densely. Mr. Monkemeyer - I think in those three parcels there is just about 125 acres, including this 11 -lot subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — Those are lots that you own or control? 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Monkemeyer —Yes, I bought... Chairperson Wilcox — Because I think the last time you were here... Mr. Monkemeyer — I bought a piece from my sister. Chairperson Wilcox — It wasn't clear whether you owned or controlled them at that point given the family situation and I think the death of your father. Mr. Monkemeyer — Right. Board Member Conneman — This development also is backed up to a Unique Natural Area. I see there is a 50 -foot buffer. Is that enough? I mean I'm not an expert on that... Board Member Hoffmann — The Conservation Board recommended 100 foot buffer. Mr. Monkemeyer — That is what was just passed by the Planning Board in the rezoning, based upon the recommendation from the Conservation Board, Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. The Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation Board has recommended and strongly urged or encouraged a 100 -foot buffer between this development and the Unique Natural Area of the Ithaca College property, which would be on lots 8 and 9 only. Those are also very big lots. I noticed one was 51,000 square foot and the other is 52 almost 53. So even with a substantial buffer, whether it is 50 or 75 or 100 feet, there still should be sufficient room to be able to locate a proper structure on.... Mr. Kanter — And actually the plat as submitted doesn't show a notice or a buffer, it is simply showing the required rear yard setback area and then it labels where the Conservation Zone and low density residential zone line is. Chairperson Wilcox — Evan, what's the status on the flag parcel, which was supposed to be deeded to the Town as part of the previous subdivision? Where does that stand right now? Mr.' Monkemeyer — A deed was given to the my attorney here, delivered the deed to the The deed has been passed. Town in the winter months. George Winter, Town by mail and I guess the Town owns it. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, before I give you a chance, when was that subdivision approved that created that parcel, pre -my time? Mr. Monkemeyer — 19888 Chairperson .Wilcox — Okay, so 14 or 15 years later you delivered the deed. 1406 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Monkemeyer —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney — The deed came, but not the titled papers that would back it up, which are what we normally get for a park. But leaving that aside, I think the Town Board now based on some additional information has in terms of what the land consists of is not too happy about taking it as a park anyway. So we have a different issue that we need to address. Chairperson Wilcox — Alrighty. Other environmental issues at this point worth raising right now? Then I can kind of tell you where I am thinking about going and try to get the sense of the board. What am I thinking? I think Jon Kanter has laid out the reasons why, and I agree with his reasons why, I can be comfortable with a finding that we need to have a recreational set aside on this land and he spells them out and he articulates them and I agree with them. In terms of is there an appropriate place on this parcel for recreational land that was proven by all the work that was done last century. Board Member Mitrano — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — So I would like to see a parkland set aside. As we often do with subdivisions, which only concentrate on a small part of the land that is owner, controlled and I'm thinking of, for example, Linderman Creek for example. Thinking about Ithacare. You want some idea of what is going on or what is planned. You are not going to hold the applicant to it, but you want some idea of what is going to be proposed on the rest of the parcel. Does this plan tie into that? Does it make sense? Is it reasonable, not that we are going to approve it, but it assures us that it is being thought of. If we are just going to look at just these 11 residential lots, we need to look at it in the context of the entire parcel. I think it is reasonable to look at parkland set aside on the entire parcel, because what I don't want and I will look right at you, Evan, what don't want is five subdivisions Phase ll, III, IV, V, VI and then we get two acres here and three acres here and four acres there. That doesn't make sense. That doesn't give us the best potential use of the parkland. I'd like to see that. As for the 1.8 acres that Mr. Monkemeyer should have deeded to the Town back many years ago, I'm almost glad that he didn't because subsequent information shows that it is not the best for parkland and we should thank Mr. Monkemeyer for holding onto that land so that new information became available and we can possibly send the deed back to Mr. Monkemeyer, right ?. Or his attorney. So Mr. Monkemeyer owns us, in my opinion, 1.8 acres of set aside from his previous subdivision. I think that again in correspondence in Mr. Kanter's memo, we have new information as to why that original. 1.8 acres would not make suitable at least not.. it might have been suitable then, but its not suitable now given the park and open space plan that the Town staff put together and has been approved by the Town Board and is part of one of the documents that we rely upon to do the job that we do. 07 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED So given all that, and by the way, maybe we talked about the small cul -de -sac, which the Town Engineer, Creig is filling in this evening as the Assistant Town Engineer. The Town Engineer has recommended that the small cul -de -sac on the west side, he would recommend to the Town Board that the Town not accept that as a Town road. Creig any comments as to why ?. Mr. Hebdon — Well, I had a discussion with both Dan and Fred and they were both really against having basically just a little.. .that would be .basically somebody's driveway that they are going to be plowing and maintaining. They feel that you need to do a three - shared driveway or something else other than giving us another piece of road to maintain. Chairperson Wilcox — When you say Fred, you mean Fred Noteboom the Highway Superintendent? Mr. Hebdon —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, just want to make sure for the record. So he is also, based upon your conversation, opposed to accepting that. Okay. I should mention there are some things I like about this. The lots are big. Board Member Thayer — The walkway is nice. Chairperson Wilcox — Sidewalks. I mean we are looking at these ... is it the Southwoods Subdivision? Has anybody gone over to the Southwoods Subdivision and seen the houses that they are building over there? Unbelievable. Everybody is building their $400,000 McMansion. Board Member Mitrano — What is going on ... maybe Mr. Monkemeyer can tell us ... when you are going up King Road off to the right there. Is that a big house in there? What is going on? Mr. Kanter - Oh, way back. I think that is probably one of the lots that Ira Goldstein subdivided off. Board Member Mitrano - Because that is a mammoth. Mr. Monkemeyer — May I interject that it is a subdivision that has no park? It is to the right, it is a four or five lot subdivision and it has been dormant now, but the developer never contributed an acre of land for a park. Board Member Mitrano — How much total property did the developer have? Mr. Monkemeyer — I have no idea. Board Member Mitrano — How does it compare to yours? all PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Monkemeyer - About the same size, about 80 acres. Board Member Mitrano So his goes all the way up into the back? Chairperson Wilcox — I mean there are some other issues that can be worked out with this. As Evan mentioned, we have that small strip of land in the southeast corner that needs to be dealt with and I think there was a question from staff about the area labeled easement that 40 foot wide, but we've got the colored. pictures of the nice amenity that would be put there in that area. So there are some nice things, but nonetheless, the staff, both the Highway Superintendent and the Engineer is recommending that the cul- de -sac goes at least the one to the west. We haven't seen anything with regard to how this fits in with what might be done with the rest of it. The applicant is staunchly against parkland set aside and I really think that the justification is there to do it. We know that it is possible given the work that was done by staff before. So I'm kind of coming to the conclusion that, you know, I don't have something quite close enough to what I would really want to see in order to proceed with the environmental review. I would kind of like to see some of those issues dealt with. When we do the environmental review, we try to have information in front of us that is reasonably close to what is being proposed. We make changes and the applicant makes changes, but there are just too many issues right here in my mind. I will hear opposing points. Board Member Conneman — Would that include expanding that buffer to 100? 1 don't know what way you are going but,... Chairperson Wilcox — Where I am personally going, where I am comfortable right now is to give the applicant feedback as to what we think is missing from this plan, what pieces of information are missing to help us make both the environmental determination and ask that the applicant provide that information in revised plans or new plans so that we have sufficient information to consider environmental review and as part of that, we can look at the no build zone on lots 8 and 9. We can look at all other environmental issues. I don't know. I'm concerned. I mean, alternatively we could,make a determination...we can make all of these changes, get rid of the cul -de -sac, show us where you are going to put the park, show us how it fits in, potentially make a determination of no significant environmental impact and then we see the final drawings and we go uh oh, this isn't what we wanted or we start changing things and I'm concerned. Board Member Mitrano — I would rather see it up front, like you are suggesting, Fred, than post - scriptively when it may mean more hours for the applicant and place us in a more compromised position to make those kinds of requests. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else feel differently? I mean if someone feels different... Board Member Talty I think I agree with a lot of your points, Fred, but it almost sounded like you were ungrateful that he donated that land and I think you came off a little strong on that. I think it is wonderful when people dedicate property to the Town, 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED State, or County, whatever myself. So I don't know if you want to change your wording or not, but I would just say that it is wonderful when people do that. Now with regards to then and now, that is a whole other set of conversations, but in general, I appreciate it. Chairperson Wilcox — No, that's fine. You're right. I was a little strong, but I feel strongly about it. Anybody else at this point want to express an opinion either proceeds or ask for more information? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I would like to see plans for the rest of the land laid out a little bit more, just like we have before when we have talked about your land. Chairperson Wilcox — The floor is yours, in order. Mr. Williams — May I address two things? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Mr. Williams — One is the Conservation Zone that runs along the east side of the property. That is a fairly elusive line. There are no dimensions on your plans to plot it on the ground solidly. The best that I was able to do of that was a scale off your. drawings, which I did and that are how I drew the line on there. There were no dimensions to lock that in on these lines, specifically state where that is. It's just a line drawn on a piece of paper. The other issue is on Ileum Way, the short cul -de -sac, all right. I can understand the perception of that being inconvenienced to maintain because it is short, but it does comply with regulations and if you were to deny that design, I would like to know based on what regulation would that be denied on other than the fact that it might be inconvenient? It complies with the design standards. Attorney Barney — I guess . I would like to respond to that a little bit and say what regulations compel the Town to take any road? Mr. Williams - What regulations for? Attorney Barney — What regulation are-you talking about? Any road any offer to the Town is an offer only and the Town is not obliged to accept that offer. What they are basically is when you make this offer Illiam Lane as it is presently configured; they're not too interested in taking. And I am not sure that I'm aware and I'd be happy if Mr. Winter can educate me of any regulation requirement that_ says the Town Board must take a road that they don't like the configuration of. Mr. Williams — Okay. The point I'm trying to make is that the Town has regulations for design standards. They have design standards. Attorney Barney — They have subdivision rules. 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Williams — And they include the road design. Attorney Barney — The road and I'm not sure it would include... Mr. Williams The length of the road, for example a cul -de -sac road is not supposed to be longer than 1200 feet. Attorney Barney — 1200 feet. Absolutely right. Mr. Williams — And those kinds of things. So the Town sets forth the standards that they would like to have things designed on and we've complied with that. Attorney Barney — But you are making leap there that says that they have to. You can design anything that you like in accordance with the subdivision requirement. I don't think that the subdivision requirements say that if designed even in accordance with what they have there the Town must accept title to the road. George Winter, 150 Lake Street, Elmira NY My name is George Winter. I'm an attorney at 150 Lake Street firm of Kaiser, Maloney and Winter. I'm delighted to be here. M accurate when he indicates the Town is not required to take any it. However there is an element of fairness and also what they practices with respect to accepting certain roads or that would be in Elmira, NY with the r. Barney is absolutely road .that is offered to have done in the past similarly situated. Attorney Barney — I would .be delighted to see if you could show me where the Town has accepted. a circle. Mr. Winter — I don't know that they have or not. - Attorney Barney — I'm not aware of it ever being done, but my memory is not completely 100% any more if it ever was. I have been sitting here for 20 some odd years and don't recall seeing any... Mr. Winter — I'm sure with regard to the activities in the Town of Ithaca your mind is very, very accurate with regard to your memory. Attorney Barney — Mr. Winter is a true gentleman. Mr. Winter — But we would certainly be prepared to discuss what the Town would be willing to accept with respect to this road. I mean obviously it is a tremendous amenity who live along that cul -de -sac who appreciate the amenity of having that there and not obviously be appreciate of having the requirement to pay for their own snow plowing and the other requirements that other taxpayers similarly situated in the Town are afforded and to that extent that may be an issue that should be explored and we would be glad to explore it in good faith. with regard to seeing whether or not the Town would 43 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED be willing to accept that based upon some further discussions. But we would hope that the door would not be immediately closed in our face here with respect to that based upon these preliminary discussions. Attorney Barney — It depends on .where you want us to be at the end of the meeting today. If the thought is that you want a decision of some sort because there's been effort, I think, to communicate with your professionals about this and this issue of this cul -de -sac is not a new issue being raised as far as I'm concerned tonight. It has been raised a couple of times. Mr. Winter — Well, it was redesigned subsequent to our first meeting with you so that it was met to determine the larger radius and ... Attorney Barney — But I think that the size and the existence of a little blip on the side of a road as being another public road that the Town is going to take on that was raised as an issue and I don't know if this resolves that issue still in the same way. Chairperson Wilcox — You are not going to solve this tonight. Mr. Monkemeyer — Well, I would like to add one thing if the board will listen to me. You have a zone called the Conservation Zone. These are conservation lots on a cukde- sac. Got it? Board Member Mitrano — No, I don't. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't understand it at all. I'll tell you where I am on this thing. It is very clear. We have the Town Engineer and speaking for the Town .Engineering is the Assistant Town Engineer, who has also in a sense represented the Highway Superintendent... Mr. Kanter — Well, the Highway Superintendent has represented for his own self that... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure that we've seen it in writing, though, right? Verbally, but nothing that I've seen, that they would not recommend to the Town Board to accept this small little cukde -sac and as I must do in these cases I rely upon the professionals, usually they are right. Mr. Kanter — If I could, in Dan Walker's engineering memo, he also opposed that big paved area for that road serving three lots on the basis of increasing the impervious surfaces that it would create. Chairperson Wilcox quoted Mr. Walker's memo. Chairperson Wilcox — You are welcome to pursue this with the Town Board since they ultimately will make the determination. Ultimately. But my sense of this board is that if the Town Engineer and the Highway Superintendent don't think it's a good idea and MA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED aren't going to recommend to the Town Board that it be accepted as a road, them I'm hard pressed to think that this board would go along with it or be able to come up with reasons to differ from those opinions. I don't see anybody shaking their head. So where are we? We've, got parkland, overall layout...) shouldn't say layout. What am I looking for in terms of the other lands that own or control... Board Member Thayer —Comprehensive Plan? Chairperson Wilcox — Well I'm sort of looking for some sort of indication... Attorney Barney — An overall plan. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. I don't want to make it seem that we are asking for excruciating detail here. Its not like he has to lay out all the potential lot lines or subdivision, but some idea what is being proposed, take into account the Conservation Zone has 7 -acre lots that requires,. we need to deal with the recreational land problem, issue. I'd like to see a comprehensive solution that takes into account this subdivision and other subdivisions that may occur on this land in the phases. Mr. Kanter — And the 1.8 acre. Chairperson Wilcox — And which takes into account the history of the 1.8 acre piece of land, which was to be deeded to the Town as part of the previous subdivision and which never was. Is that a correct statement? Attorney Barney — Substantially. Chairperson Wilcox — And given that, we would encourage Mr. Monkemeyer and his team to come back when they have all that information so we can do the environmental affirmation. Kevin? Rod? Anybody? Comments? Comfortable? Board Member Talty - I like the whole thing about a comprehensive plan because have said that numerous times in the past few months and specifically I don't see a need for a park right with what I have today. But I do like the idea of a comprehensive plan because if we can fit some kind of negotiated acreage into this whole thing, I'll think that you'll find the board a lot more amicable moving forward because that is what we are looking for in master plans. Because what has happened in the past as you saw earlier, we have these things that keep popping up over a period of time that we get burned on and we don't want to get burned any more. I am very happy to see sidewalks. If you have attended any of the meetings that I've been to, storm sewers and sidewalks are a beautiful thing and I don't know what the lots are going to go for right now, but a lot of the times you can incorporate the price into it. But I like the whole idea of walking on sidewalks, storm sewers. I like most of your plan myself; I'd just like to see a more comprehensive so that we know what we're talking about as we go forward. It doesn't mean you can't change your mind and it doesn't mean that a lot of 45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED money has to be poured in on this. It doesn't have to be written on the back of a cocktail napkin either, but something going forward would really help the board. Mr. Kanter — As always, I'm constantly thinking of new things as they come up. So it wasn't in my memo, but in actuality for a current need we are really talking about the 10 lots that were already built in the Phases I and II of Ithaca Estates for which the 1.8 -acre park was supposed to be related to. So we are really talking about right now with this 11 lots added to those 21 lots now. So I think the board really needs to think about that overall for the current. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. I did have some attitude with regard to the 1.8 acres. When the Phase I and II subdivisions were done, this was the parkland set aside and for whatever reasons that land which was supposed to be deeded to the Town as parkland was never deeded. I'm not going to go into the reasons here. I'm not even sure if I know all the reasons, but the bottom line is that it was never deeded to the Town as it should have been and now some 15 years later all of a sudden there's and interest in suddenly deeding it to the Town as it should have been 15 years ago. I find that interesting. Alright. So you are right. We were thinking about looking at this particular subdivision and potentially the need for recreational land and then adding in the 1.8 acres, but the equavent way of looking at is to look at this subdivision plus the lots that have already been subdivided along the road for which no recreational set aside has every been legally consummated. Mr. Kanter — That is why in my memo I was suggesting without having said it that way somewhere in. the range of 3.5 acres for a current need is really what we should be looking at. Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of the 1.8 plus, 1.6, which would be roughly about 10% give or take. Board Member Mitrano - Jonathan, I would be interested in following up on the questions about what is going on on the other side of the road. Could I come by some time to see who owns those 80 acres on the other side of the road, and who's lands they are and things like that? Mr. Kanter —Absolutely. Board Member Mitrano — Great. Chairperson Wilcox — Comments? Questions? Mr. Monkemeyer — I would like to ask one question to the planning staff. Can you tell me in the last five or six subdivisions, name the parks that have been donated to the Town of Ithaca? Lets start with Southwoods. Where's the parkland? EN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter — That was approved a long time ago and again what a previous Planning Board did I can't speak for. I will only talk about current status. Mr. Monkemeyer — Well, my.... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not going to go there. Don't go there. Do not go there. It serves no purpose. It really serves no purpose. This board believes that you need to show us parkland set aside. What prior boards may have done will make your point, but you are not going to change anybody's opinion. Okay? So I would encourage you not to go there. It doesn't serve you at this point. This board believes that you should show a set aside for recreational land. We also encourage you to show one that takes into account all the land you own or control. Okay? Did I say that properly? Does everybody agree? Questions? Do you need more information? Is there something you need more information from us about? Mr. Winter — If I understand you, I believe that the board is asking for us to submit a proposal not in a detailed, engineering form as to the rest of the property that Mr. Monkemeyer owns adjacent to this proposed subdivision. I think that one thing that has been troubling to Mr. Monkemeyer is the fact that in the ensuing period of time between the prior subdivision and today there has been a change in the zoning of this property, which has made our proposals that we are here to set forth not as economically feasible for development as they were prior to the change in the zoning and to that extent to hold . us to a rigid type of determination as it appears that you are attempting to suggest to us with regard to parkland set aside not taking into account the changes in the zoning and the restrictions on Mr. Monkemeyer9s property that have incurred in the interim to me would seem to be somewhat unreasonable on the part of board. That is not to say that you're not within your power to suggest that we come back with some parkland set asides, but to hold us to the prior proposals given the interim actions of the board and changing the permitted usage of the property would not appear to be reasonable on the part of the Planning Board or on the Town Board. That is not to say that we're not to come back with suggestions with regard to what a global use of the other property would be and make some suggestions as to where there might be some possible set asides. There is also, however, what we haven't heard is what the determination is with respect to the offer for financial contribution in lieu of the set aside as permitted under the Town Law. So to that extent I'm concerned that there is only one way that the board is considering this issue rather than considering at all the provisions of the law that allow for payments in lieu of recreational and or park set asides. That additionally I believe the other issue is we can talk about the cul -de -sac. That really is not the deal breaker here in the discussions. The cukde -sac can certainly be utilized if private owners want to pay for it rather than be dedicated to the Town. The other issue is what kind of Comprehensive Plan are you going to require us to set forth for the provisions of the other lands that Mr. Monkemeyer...the expenditures of significant amounts of dollars just for the sake of an academic exercise would not appear to be something he is interested in. 47 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED And finally, with regard to the issue of the 1.8 acres of the prior set aside, what is going to happen. What is your suggestion with regard to what you are going to do with that deed that has been conveyed? Whether delivery has been accepted is obviously an issue. I obviously accept Mr. Barney's representation that the deed has not been accepted. It has been delivered. Attorney Barney — I would be happy to ship the deed right back to you to eliminate that question. I mean, normally when we take title to something we take title with the title abstract, the tax searches, all the normal things that one sees... Mr. Winter — We can also send you the abstract and the title search. Attorney Barney - But since the issue has come up, the Town, I don't think, is interested in taking that parcel. They don't want a wetland, is. basically what is being offered. And will happily tomorrow make sure that you get the deed back in the mail so that there is no question as to who the ownership of the property is. Mr. Winter = So I guess in conclusion, I guess we would kind of like to get. We've all of a sudden gone back in a circle here as far as what the board is going to require with regard to the or what the consideration of the board is going to be as it relates to the changes that the Town has made in the zoning and how it affects this parcel.. It appears that we are being required to adhere to an offer that was made back a number of years ago before those interim changes and the restrictions on the property were made. Attorney Barney - I don't think I'm hearing this board saying that your client is being asked to adhere to the offer that he made some time ago in which we all spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and looking at. What they are saying and I think I understand it that in their view the number of lots that have been developed and are being proposed for development here warrant a set aside of land for a park and there is reasonable places here where a park can be located. Having said that, the issue of the money for the land doesn't come up because once you make the determination that there is adequate land, you can't even ask for money. Quite frankly we would rather have the land than the money. I think the last step in that sequence has not been met because I don't think there is a real defining here that there couldn't be a park located on one of two of these lots in some fashion.. But I don't think we are sitting here asking for 14 acres or 12 acres or whatever the lot was before. However in considering where a park might be located, that's why we need kind of a broad overview of what possible development may occur in the future. To that hopefully when we locate that park, we can it in a manner that might be permitted to be conjoined with other parcels that might be required at a later time. Board Member Mitrano - I second that. Mr. Kanter - Also, if I could add a word about Conservation Zone area because I think there has been too much emphasis on that. That area is actually in this section of what .- PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED was formally the Lenore Monkemeyer parcel. 1999 sketch plan the Mr. Monkemeyer presented to this board as shown about 14 lots in this area with two, again short cul -de- sacs coming off of the loop road. We have questions about whether all of those 14 lots would be legitimate lots at that point when we re -laid those and I think when we find those in the Planning Board minutes of that meeting. The Conservation Board boundary ended up, it was initially actually the green line here as proposed, but then based on further research and recommendation of the Conservation Board, this changed to where it is now shown on the zoning map, which is this red line which actually if you look at where the road configuration was and the low density residence zone and the conservation zoned area, you'd probably get a reduction from lets assume at maximum we would have accepted 14 lots. a.(inaudible)...you could have probably have gotten even without the cul -de -sacs five lots there even with the Conservation Zone. So, yeah, is it a reduction? - Sure. But is it the big deal that we seem to be hearing? I don't think so. So that's just my observation on the impact of the Conservation Zone on the remaining lands. It's really not that big an impact. Board Member Mitrano — Is anywhere in our criteria is there an obligation of a board to show more favor or somehow compensate a developer when zoning takes places or you know when they make certain business judgments about when to develop. Is there any obligation to... Attorney Barney I'm always willing to be educated, but absolutely nothing. There is nothing unreasonable about the rezoning. We did.quite a bit of research and we looked into the 7 -acre density requirement and came to the conclusion at that at time that there was a number of communities that had even larger lots. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I'm sorry, Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't remember in great detail what happened exactly, but it seems to me when we worked on that corner of Mr. Monkemeyer's property on Route 96 and King Road, which was then permitted to be a nursery center, a commercial area, didn't we also talk about increasing the density on some of the land north of that in return for having some. of the conservation area lots larger? Mr. Kanter — Let me answer by rephrasing your question first because I think we want to be careful how we state that. The sense of what you are saying, I think, I correct. When we looked at that sketch plan in 1999, there actually were some areas in that corner ... this area shown as commercial 10.5 acres, which is residentially zoned now. This area shown as high - density cluster residential, which is low density residential now. And we and I think the board even indicated that and I would not use the words in exchange for anything, but that in looking at a reasonable master plan for developing the property and looking at the infrastructure and the Comprehensive Plan, one might reasonably make some decisions that certain rezonings on that property might be well received by the Town Board and might make sense, but that we would want to see what that was before jumping into something like that. . • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — That's why it is important to see an overall plan for all of the lands that I would like to see it any way like some of the other people have said too. Chairperson Wilcox You have sufficient information? I guess I'm looking to you. Mr. Williams — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. If you find...its difficult for me or members of the board to give you exactly what we are looking for in terms of the rest of the land that Mr. Monkemeyer owns or controls, but certainly staff can give you a good idea or what we've seen before from developers to give us a general idea of what the rest of the parcel could be developed. How this road that is being proposed, which is Rock Crest Road, would tie into the other... reasonable facsimile of road network that might developed up there to serve the parcels. We are not looking for engineering drawings; we are not looking for that sort of detail. This is not an academic exercise, sir. This is good planning is what it is. Mr. Williams — All right. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Very good will see you again at some future point. Anything else? Then you are all set. We Few minutes of miscellaneous discussion amongst board members. Chairperson Wilcox — A couple of things before we move on and it's getting late so please. As Mr. Monkemeyer walked out he handed to Kevin Talty a map of the Town of Ithaca, which, apparently... it says Zoning Map. I can't determine its age, but does say R15 so we know that it is. pre-the current zoning. He also handed him an 8x11 -8x10 glossy colored photograph of 105 Kings Way labeled not a pretty site with garbage and trash or something. I'm not sure why he handed it to you. Do you know why he handed it to you? Board Member Talty — I'm not sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. The information has been provided, but we don't know why. Now, Mr. Barney has urged that we make a ... that we formally have a motion which we vote upon to say... Attorney Barney — At this time based upon the or as reflected in the discussion you just had over a number of issues that there is insufficient information or incomplete at this point such that you are uncomfortable or unable to make a SEQR decision as to whether there is or is not a significant an environmental impact of this proposal. Board Member Thayer — I move that motion. 50 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer. favor? Board — Aye. Seconded by Kevin Talty. All in PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -90: Incomplete Information for SEOR, Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Ithaca Estates Subdivision — Phase III, East King Rd, Tax Parcel No.'s 43. =1 -3.2 and 43. =1 -3.32 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLVED, that at this time, as reflected in the discussion regarding SEAR Determination, there is incomplete information at that point such that the Planning Board is unable to make a SEQR determination as to whether there is or is not a significant environmental impact for the project as proposed. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The vote was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:41 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 33.5 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3.5 +/= and 5.7 +/= acre lots) along Elm Street Extension and three narrow parcel strips which would be consolidated with existing neighboring lots. The proposal also includes a 103 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for open space. Helen DeGraff, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:42 p.m. David Mountin, 247 Gray Rd Jeff is representing West Hill Area Land Trust (WALT). I want.to give you a brief overview of what we are proposing this evening. I'm not a developer. I want to be a homeowner, home builder. A few months back I was driving on Elm Street and I saw this parcel. I saw a sign near it that said 30 acres for sale and my wife and I have been looking for land fora few years to build a house and we thought this would be great, but there is 30 acres so a lot more than we can afford. So in this excitement of doing this, I have found three friends, three partners that are also buying these lots and then also knowing people at EcoVillage there is also a side group of people at EcoVillage and in 51 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED the neighborhood here that have wanted to put this land in perhaps in some land trust or perhaps set it aside for the existing recreation use that it is right now. But let me first back up a little bit and identify this if you don't know where this piece of property is Mr. Martin gave the board an overview of the area map. The proposal is that I and my three partners would develop this 18 acres. into four to five acre parcels, single family homes, septic and well, shared driveway. There is an existing gravel roadbed that I think was developed thirty years ago by the DeGraff's and I think originally from what I have heard the DeGraff family. Helen DeGraff lives here, who owns the property. I guess the trustees of the family own the property now and they want to sell it as one entire lot. Some of you may know more about this than I do, but this was going to be a road entrance, this was going to be a road entrance and this was and apparently this might have been a proposed road entrance to ... so what we had is undeveloped roadbed here that is in good shape. We are proposing to be a single driveway that all four of us would share and have easements to use this road. This section here is 1.7 acres that EcoVillage would own as a buffer. This is all an open field. They would like to have this parcel as non -use parcel. Keep it as woods and not see it developed, so that's a buffer zone for them. This entire area up here is all wooded, 30 — 40 years of trees. Its kind of a new forest developing. Mostly Jack pine, a lot of blow down Jack pine, some hardwoods coming up. We have 420 feet of surveyed road frontage along here, each of these parcels are 105 feet at the road. There is a question that at 50 feet setback three of them are less than 100 feet. This parcel over here, f, has been recommended to us by the Town that EcoVillage, who currently uses this as an easement from Helen DeGraff as an emergency egress for fire trucks to get up to the EcoVillage property. So EcoVillage is currently maintaining and snowplowing this road and keeping it open. The same on this end. This parcel here, you see it as h, we've had some further discussions with the Town and there's discussion that it would be hard to have a piece of land that was a park, not be contiguous to some road access. So what I am going to talk about in terms of how we have rethought this and this whole entire parcel we would donate it to the Town. Currently there are two homeowners that live on this strip here. It is 50 feet wide approximately. Jeff is one of the homeowners with us here right now and they maintain and plow this section of the road as easement right of way from Mrs. DeGraff as well. Over the last 30 -40 years since this road was developed, the neighborhood has been using it as a recreation way and our proposal is to donate it to the Town as a recreation way /trail, perhaps a park, but our original thought was that its existing use has been as a trail, a bike path. It is in great shape. There is already a really solid.. .there. There's a swale on both sides. There's a culvert. So the Town, in our opinion, wouldn't need any major maintenance improvement to use this and keep it.existing for the community. I've made some reference to some of the arrows to give you an idea of what you are looking at if you were to walk on this property. Number one is looking off of West Haven Road, looking straight up towards EcoVillage and as you can see there is one 52 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED homeowner here. Apparently EcoVillage pays to keep it plowed and maintained, but there is one homeowner that has an easement and right -of -way as well. And two is looking from the other direction back down to West Haven. Three is looking right from the corner looking straight south. You can sort of that it is overdeveloped brush and trees coming from outside the swale. There has been some development in that road, but it wouldn't need anything more than some simple clearing to open it up a little bit wider. Four is from' the opposite end. It is almost the middle of the road. I think it is about 1600 feet this entire old roadbed. Number four is right in the middle looking back north. And five is a view, one of the open spot views right from the middle of the parcel as well; views of East Hill, South Hill. Some great views from up on top there. And six would be again looking from this view in the middle of the parcel looking straight south towards Elm St and nine is looking from Elm Street Extension, again up north. As you can see there is existing roadbed and it goes up 400 or 500 feet. Seven is a picture of a very thick portion of the parcel that has very mature white pine, red pine, hardwoods in it. It is very dense. It's on a hillside so it is quite beautiful. It would make it quite a disaster if someone were to go in there and really develop it and knock down a lot of beautiful trees and wooded areas in this parcel. Picture eight here is representative of the entire a, b, c, d parcels with a lot of young red pine, jack pine and some young hardwoods coming up. That's it for what I want to do. Jeff Cowie, 624 Elm St Ext Thanks Dave. When the DeGraff land came up for sale a whole bunch of neighbors began to get together from West Haven, Elm Street, EcoVillage and Longhouse to try to talk about ways to preserve this little thoroughfare. It has been a very popular skating path, walking path, jogging, dog walking, all the rest and our hope was to find someone to try to work with some developer to develop part of the land and to preserve that space because it was right here on the corner of Elm Street and the path /walkway and I just see runners and the rest going by all the time. So it created quite a strong neighborhood group. Our main priority in coming together was to sort of link up with the developer and find a way to preserve the path and we had a couple of different fixes on that that fell apart and now I think we have the strongest sort of combination that we might be able to possibly come up with working with Dave Mountin and his helpful neighbors here. What we would like to do is we've raised a substantial amount of money and working in partnership with Dave Mountin and his friends we're pitching in to the price of the land our hope would be to donate this parcel, g, to the Town and h and have that placed in some sort of permanent recreational use. And I don't know what that rubric would be whether it would be a walkway, bikeway, park, whatever, but that's your job. And the ... I can't stress enough how much energy and commitment there is within the neighborhood to make this happen. Folks from all walks of life and all aspects of the neighborhood have really come together. I haven't heard any opposition, maybe we will here some today, but there seems to have been a great deal of support. As Dave said, the path is in very good shape. It's used all the time. This time of the year it gets a little overgrown. 53 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED But we are also very concerned with the increase in traffic all over West Hill, Linderman Creek and other developments going around West Hill. The roads are more crowded. Recreational use is getting more limited. People are walking up and down West. Haven at night and things like this and West Haven's traffic is increasing. We think this would be a good sort of off set to the level of density that is cropping up in various places around West Hill. I think that is the quick version. If you have any questions I am happy to answer those. Female voice - ...when we met with Jonathan, it was suggested that the Town would probably want EcoVillage to own that because there is upkeep with the permanent conservation easement... (Difficult to hear because she wasn't close to a microphone). Mr. Cowie — Right. There are multiple ways to actually use this walkway and exiting out through West Haven is one, but it also links up onto, ..you can go out the EcoVillage fire road on 79 or a little path out to the farmland as well.. It is an access point for a lot of different forms of recreation, cross - country skiing and the rest. Attorney Barney — Is that presently an open road all the way into EcoVillage? Mr. Cowie — It is open all the way through? Chairperson Wilcox — It does serve landlocked parcels, at least one, the Henry parcel. The point is, there are a lot of small issues like landlocked parcels that have to get access and the legal requirements that that be done appropriately whether that is off of West Have Road or whether that is off Elm Street Extension, we also have landlocked parcels, probably before zoning. We've also ... if you read the small little notes on the survey we were given there are some potential boundary disputes that you may have to deal with. There's also, I forget what these things are called. Gores? Is that when you get these little pieces of land that may or may not have any ownership? There area lot of little notes about.. you may not have to deal with it frankly, but there is this piece of land there who's ownership is disputed. General group discussion regarding the piece of land whose ownership is unclear. Chairperson Wilcox — There are some other ones down along Elm Street Extension, specifically with regard to. ..l was just reading down through here, note 6. So we've got some issues that we have to work out. Having said that the only issue that I have that I would like to see from you folks is more information about why this proposed dedication to the Town ... how it could be tied into other Town parks so that it.. right now it seems more like a wonderful little neighborhood ... the neighborhood would of course would love it. The land is never.going to be built upon. But I would love to know how to tie this into other open space and recreational plans that the Town has. 1 know it is address briefly in the cover memo, but that is important to me to make a recommendation to the Town Board that they accept it. On the other hand, I admire your creativity of putting this together. 54 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Cowie — The open space and recreation report of 1997 does call for a West Hill walkway of some form. It is considerably east of here, but it seems to be a line that has. This could work in some capacity with this line; we'd just be pushing it further west. Chairperson Wilcox — It could jog out and come back. Mr. Cowie — It could be a spur. It could just move the whole line up because the problems will just as complicated up there as they would down low. There is development currently going on at West Haven and the road is actually 50 feet south of the entrance there off of West Haven on the emergency egress about 50 south of the road. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's talk about h. If h is part of the parkland, it also has to serve as access to landlocked parcels, specifically Mr. Luft. Do we have a problem with it being a recreational trail and a driveway at the same time? Attorney Barney — It depends on how you take title. You take title subject to the rights of the folks who use it for easement purposes. We do that all the time with parkland. You take it subject to any existing rights that maybe there like a NYSEG easement or something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Might someone have a concern about the mixed -use cars and pedestrians? Attorney Barney — Well, it depends on what you are taking for and what you are going to use it for. I mean I don't think the thought is to necessarily build and four -lane highway. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Potentially leave it close to what it is now, but understand that it is both part of a park and access for residence. Attorney Barney — You could limit the access to what exactly is needed to get in and out. You are not going to be giving people access to go all the way up through. Male — (comments not audible) Second Male — ...h up to f, the Terwilliger's in particular, beyond that to the corner where my house is it is virtually impassable at this point because it is overgrown. I can get two widths of lawnmower cut in there from time to time. Chairperson Wilcox:— I think you have a big piece of machine in your front yard to get through there. Female — (not audible) Male — Every once in a while someone from EcoVillage drives a tractor through it and cuts it open. 55 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - I think we have a lot of potential here. I'm happy with what you have done so far. Attorney Barney - The issue is with the lawyer is the liability. If we own it, we buy the ability. If somebody else owns it, our liability is somewhat more restricted. So I mean that is an issue that can be worked out at the Town Board level as to how much exposure they want to take. Chairperson Wilcox - Correct. They will make the ultimate decision. We would only make a recommendation. Female - As far as the access, Helen DeGraff made it a real point to put at least in ours and I'm sure she probably did with the others, too, to put the access of the roads in our deeds just in because when we bought it was 17 years ago, actually 18, 19. When we bought it, she was very concerned then if something should happen to her and even if it was in the hands of her kids, if one of them got mad at us we wouldn't get home. So she made very sure that it was in there and I do believe it is in Robert's as well. Chairperson Wilcox - I would hope that all of your deeds have access and I can't imagine a bank giving you a mortgage is suddenly you could be cut off. I get a sense that you guys have talked and this is not the first time you have gotten together, maybe all of you, but you seem to be working through the issues and that is good. Comments from anybody else? Board Member Conneman - Is anybody against this? Mr. Cowie - I was amazed at the original turnout for the meetings we had around this. There's a great deal of support for this. Chairperson Wilcox - Parcel e. Could parcel a serve as some sort of an extension over through Longhouse and then out to connect to something else? Is there anything else out there? It's a buffer for EcoVillage. Male - It's was really there because of them wanting to not see us develop those lots enough that they would lose anymore of15Oot audible) Different male - I grew up in the area, but was that partially or did it or it gives me the appearance of being an undeveloped roadway that may have been planned years ago that was never... A lot of inaudible discussion. Too many talking at once and not near microphones. Same male as above - I think they also had plans to put ... a tree here but it never got to the point of actually doing it. 56 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - We are well past our 10:00 p.m. closing time. Comments from staff or the Planning Board? Board Member Hoffmann - I like it, too. I think it is a wonderful idea. Ms. Ritter - I guess all I'd say is they are looking for a recommendation. They are trying to put this together. They don't have tons of resources so they are trying to figure out how to put this together. I think they want a good idea for what the Planning Board would want to see if they come back for preliminary and if they are supportive of this park idea. There are issues with whether ... at one time when we were talking with them informally we said maybe h was the way then we talked with other people at Town Hall and I think some are saying now f might be the way that the Town should have ownership issues in terms of connectivity with lot g. We have not gotten back with the applicants about this. This is sort of some internal discussions happening. So I think we need to talk some more about how connectivity will happen. Chairperson Wilcox - Is that a discussion between staff and maybe elected officials and the Town Attorney? I mean I guess that would be where that discussion would take place. Get a sense of where the Town Board's preference would be. Attorney Barney - That would be my reaction. It is ultimately a Town Board determination as to what level of exposure they are going to take. Ms. Ritter - So you are suggesting they would go for a sketch plan before the Town Board sometime soon? Attorney Barney - I'm not sure. It would be something that we could talk about internally. I'm not even sure involves a full presentation and everything to the Town Board at this point. Male - Is the decision to try to decide whether or not the Town would want f or h? Ms. Ritter - Yeah. You guys now sound like you are offering h now and that's your preferred? Male - I think you originally suggested EcoVillage would be better off if they owned f. Ms. Ritter - Actually, I think we're just still trying to figure out what would be the best way and I think we were talking off the top of our head at that time. Chairperson Wilcox - And the ultimate decision is the Town Board's decision. We can approve the subdivision, but they must accept the parkland. Ms. Ritter - So it might be good to get the positives and the negatives from both the Town and the applicants as to what the preferred is. 57 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Hebdon — The only comment I have from the Engineering Department is that the building lots are outside both our water and sewer zones. We can't serve them water. We don't have the pressure to get it up there. So they would be doing septic tanks and wells. Attorney Barney — Are they outside the sewer, too? Mr. Hebdon — Yes, I mean you can always get sewer to them, but economically it doesn't make sense at this point to go up hill. Barbara Gutridge, 239 Coy Glen Rd - (Not audible) Chairperson. Wilcox - The Town Board would make the decision whether to accept the parkland. Barbara Gutridge — (not audible) Chairperson Wilcox — We would make a nonbinding recommendation. Barbara Gutridge — (another question) Chairperson Wilcox — The real issue is what to do with f and h. We seem comfortable. Robert ?? — I recently purchased the lot across from the Henrys' about the same size and it's on this side of the road and I'm going before the Zoning Board next week. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you moving out of EcoVillage? Robert — Yes, but I couldn't go too far... considering there is a small house and likely a small house here, it might make sense that the Town, for us ... (not audible) Everyone talked at once. Miscellaneous discussion. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:13 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes — August 17, 2004 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -091: Approval of Minutes — August 17, 2004 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the August 17, 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: me PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - APPROVED AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann, ABSENT: Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Board discussed items for the October 5, 2004 meeting. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the September 7, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, [NJ Carrie Cc tes hitmoreM Deputy Town Clerk M1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 7, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Deer Run Homeowners Association 2 -Lot Subdivision, Saranac Way. 7 :10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Saranac Way (immediately north of 308 and 309 Saranac Way), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -168, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.764 +/- acre parcel into two lots of areas 0.309 +/- acres and 0.455 +/- acres which would be divided by Saranac Way. Deer Run Homeowners Association, Owner /Applicant; Janet Gillespie, President, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca Estates Phase III Subdivision, East King Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 13 -lot subdivision (Ithaca Estates Phase III) located off East King Road (between 132 and 134 East King Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -3.2 and 43 -1 -3.32, Low Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone (easternmost portion). The proposal involves creating 11 residential lots on new roads, with the remaining lands to the north and west of the subdivision reserved for potential future development. A park and recreation set aside will also have to be determined. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant; George R. Williams, Agent, 8:00 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 33.5 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3:5 +/- and 5.7 +/- acre lots) along Elm Street Extension and three narrow parcel strips which would be consolidated with existing neighboring lots. The proposal also includes a 10.3 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for open space. Helen DeGraff, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant. 7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: August 17, 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 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TuesdaySeptember 7, 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, September 7, 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 two -lot subdivision located on Saranac Way (immediately north of 308 and 309 Saranac Way), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -168, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.764 +/- acre parcel into two lots of areas 0.309 +/- acres and 0.455 +/- acres which would be divided by Saranac Way. Deer Run Homeowners Association, Owner /Applicant; Janet Gillespie, President, Agent, 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 13 -lot subdivision (Ithaca Estates Phase III) located off East King Road (between 132 and134 East King Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -3.2 and 43 -1 -3.32, Low Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone (easternmost portion). The proposal involves creating 11 residential lots on new roads, with the remaining lands to the north and west of the subdivision reserved for potential future development. A park and recreation set aside will also have to be determined. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant; George R. Williams, Agent. 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, August 30, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, September 1, 2004 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: September 7, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION •, i C L. I_ i_ All Lv lc� . w� :\ bra-1 L)RPjI .� 17t �y K.L.,n A.Vn)C . .. It I ! 1 . n_ ` 1 n f, % I i . _. .. n la�I �invw✓ lq4 G' KIn , �Y7 ✓� �'., �� �� %s�I z, fJchm Go %sue l o$ west &VOWI%. aA T,4,c, cam. *LOMC N! TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: September 7, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION l Z. 1JJ!< WE MA A W 43 a 1/ 4, t. 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, September 7, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: August 30, 2004 September 1, 2004 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of September 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26,2C z F y i 1 bit u 1111! L o t j 1 J I i I - I x t w = i i r S. t t c I + I 1 • {I f of s L Y eF 1 3 - 7 Y � s t .b I �3