HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-05-03PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2005 DATE
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 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; Rod Howe, Board Member;
Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney,
Attorney for the Town (7:05 p.m.); Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:07 p:m.);
Christine Balestra. Planner.
EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
OTHERS: Thomas Clavel, 215 Utica St; Richard Newhart, 171 E King Rd; Kevin and
Amee Howe, 173 E King Rd; Steve Lucente, 110 Willow Creek Rd; David Tyler,
Attorney; Paul Ballard, Interlaken; Evan Monkemeyer, E King Rd; Robert Drake,
Mecklenburg Rd.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and accepted for
the record Secretary 's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public
Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on April 25, 2005 and April 27, 20051
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- C- ounty- Commissioner -of - Public - Works,, and--upon--the----
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on April 27, 2005,
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.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m., and asked if any
members of the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson
Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Lucente Lot Line Modification, .400 & 402
Warren Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
David Tyler, Attorney
Mr. Tyler gave a brief overview. Microphone was turned off and the recording did not
pick up his comments.
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Any discussion with regard to environmental review? There being
none, would someone like to move the motion?
Board Member Mitrano moved the motion and Board Member Howe seconded the
motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -046: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Lucente Lot Line Modification, 400 & 402 Warren Road, Tax Parcel
No. 71 =1 -39.2 & 71 =1 -3993
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the
proposed subdivision and consolidation of two narrow strips of land 'along, the
boundary line between 400 (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 714-39.2) and 402
(Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -39.3) Warren Road, Medium Density
Residential Zone. The proposal will result in the exchange of small pieces of
land between these two parcels. Stephen P. Lucente, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on May 3, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
- -- Part -ll- prepared by -the Town- Planning- staff , -a- survey -- entitled-- "Final Subdivision--- -
Plat - Lots 2 & 31 400 & 402 Warren Road, Boundary Line Adjustment" revision
date 4- 03 -05, prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni, L. S., and other application
materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes. a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
A vote on the motion resulted as.follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Tally.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval
for the proposed subdivision and consolidation of two narrow strips of land along
the boundary line between 400 (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71- 149.2) and 402
(Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71- 149.3) Warren Road, Medium Density
Residential Zone. The proposal will result in the exchange of small pieces of land
between these two parcels. Stephen P. Lucente, Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions?
Attorney Barney - The width of the lot of the one on the north, the frontage is 101.7, but
that is at an angle. Do we know what the width is at a right angle to the lot line?
Mr. Kanter - I don't think it matters because the frontage requirement is 60.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. and invited members of the
public to address the board. With no persons interesting in speaking, Chairperson
Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Attorney Barney - The width at the other setback line is supposed to be. 100 feet. My
problem is, David, when you look at 402, the lot line along the front is measured at
- -- - -- T01 -7- but -its measured -not at- right- angles -so -that- clearly - the - width - between- -the - -two - -- -
parallel lot lines in less than 101.7, but I can't tell by how much. What I'm concerned
about is when you are doing this lot line adjustment, are taking away from an area
where we need to have ... (not audible).
Mr. Tyler's comments not audible.
Inaudible discussion.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the motion for subdivision?
Board Member Conneman moved the motion and Board Member Talty seconded the
motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -047: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Lucente Lot Line Modifications, 400 & 402 Warren Road, Tax Parcel No. 71 =1 -39.2
& 71 =1 -3993
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the
proposed subdivision and consolidation of two narrow strips of land along the
boundary line between 400 (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -39.2) and 402
(Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 714-39.3) Warren Road, Medium Density
Residential Zone. The proposal will result in the exchange of small pieces of
land between these two parcels. Stephen P. Lucente, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has
on May 3, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board on May 3, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Final Subdivision
Plat - Lots 2 & 3, 400 & 402 Warren Road, Boundary Line Adjustment" revision
date 4- 03 -05, prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni, L.S., and other application
materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
" - - -- — -1: -- - -That -the Town of Ithaca Planning-Board--hereby-waives--certain-requirements-for---- -
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary
Approval for the proposed subdivision and consolidation
land along the boundary between 400 and 402 Warren
survey map entitled "Final Subdivision Plat - Lots 2 &
Road, Boundary Line Adjustment" revision date 4- 03 -05,
Fabbroni, L. S., subject to the following conditions: -
and Final Subdivision
of two narrow strips of
Road, as shown on the
32 400 & 402 Warren
prepared by Lawrence
a. submission of a Surveyor's Certificate statement, as shown on the Final
Subdivision Plat Checklist, and
b, submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined
prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department, and
C. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the two strips of land
with the appropriate properties, as shown on the subdivision plat, and
submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to
the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination:.Clavel Subdivision Buffer Modification, 175
East King Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Thomas Clavel, 215 Utica Street
Mr. Clavel's initial comments were not audible.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Hoffmann - It is an encroachment, but when I was out there looking
today, -it- looked -like there are quite -a- few - shrubs -if- not_ trees,, in- the-- -buffer -zone- that — - -
would protect neighbors on the other side. Maybe with this little intrusion into this area if
some more shrubs or trees were planted where they can be planted, I understand that
they can't be planted over the utility line that might make up for the little intrusion.
Mr. Clavel's comments not audible.
Board Member Hoffmann - It also looked to me as if... by the house of your neighbor to
the west there is an area where the shrubbery along this buffer zone is not as dense. It
looks more open and in part it looks like that may have been created by the neighbor
having a little car turnaround towards the boundary line there. So there are not that
many trees and shrubs on their lot either. I couldn't quite tell from the road and I didn't
want to go into the property, but maybe plants planted on either side of the boundary
might help.
Mr. Clavel's comments not audible.
E
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, where there is an area that seems to .be a little bit
more open if that is a problem for your neighbor to have. We got a letter from one of
your neighbors indicating that they didn't like the idea of it opening up more.
Mr. Clavel's comments not audible.
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know where it was, but it looked to me as if that part
of the opening was actually on your neighbor's land so your neighbor could plant some
trees themselves, but I think you could also do some.
Mr. Clavel's comments not audible.
Board Member Mitrano - It's nice to recognize that without doing this it would have
some adverse affects on presentation as you are coming along. You would have one
house sort of sticking out a little bit more than the rest.
Board Member Hoffmann —. I think the way that he is proposing to do it is much more
agreeable than the way he would have had to do it in order to not have any
encroachment. So I'm not saying that I have anything against the encroachment, I'm
just saying that he should do something to make up for it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Walker, when the Town ... I assume the Town installed the
public sewer line and the manhole on that property.
Mr. Walker — No, actually the developer did and dedicated it to the Town.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that would have been done quite a few years ago.
Mr. Walker — The sewer along King Road was and the existing sewer line was extended
by the developer to the west.
Chairperson Wilcox — One of the things that I noticed was some of the vegetated buffer
had been encroached upon when that sewer line was put in. Tom, I have the various
maps and charts and everything else, how does the proposed siting of the house ... does
the proposed siting of the house in any way take advantage of that part of the
vegetative buffer which has already been. eliminated?
Mr. Clavel I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox — Because I noticed that it is obviously setback to the .south of the
sewer with the manhole cover that is there. It is clearly to the south and to the west
where the portions of the vegetative buffer have already been disturbed or removed or
destroyed; however you want to look at it. The other thing that I thought was interesting
when I was up there and I want to get to the Zoning Board potential issue as well.
Neighbors here this evening? Okay, we will give an opportunity to speak. We have a
letter from the neighbors in the 171, 173 address range, which would be to the west. It
P
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
would appear that the house that would be most affected is the house to the east at 177
as there is no landscaping, there's nothing there to separate this lot.from 177 East King
Road. Therefore, I am somewhat concerned that doing anything that might impact the
side yard buffer on that side. It seems to be more of an issue to me to have a 30 -foot
vegetative buffer; we are discussing the possibility of an 8 -foot encroachment. Now I
understand an 8 foot final encroachment is going to be a larger encroachment during
construction because you need to get vehicles in there and dig it out and: backfill and
everything else and that could be replanted in some way, but you still have 20 feet, lets
say, of vegetative growth. Its kind of pretty ugly back through there. It's not the pretty
stuff, but none - the -less it serves as a visual buffer. There is nothing on the other side of
the buffer.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, we'll see if those people are here tonight and want to
speak to that.
Board Member Hoffmann — There really isn't very much between any of the houses up
there in Chase Farm Development. I drove around it just a bit to look and it wouldn't be
any different from what exists already and people seem to be perfectly happy with it. I
don't see that there is a problem on that side, but I agree with you that it is better to
encroach on the buffer than to have ... (not audible). -
Board Member Mitrano — I agree with everything that Eva has said. I wouldn't be
surprised if there are not a lot of us who aren't kissing that encroachment line.
Chairperson Wilcox — In the rest of the subdivision, do the lots tend to be relatively
narrow?
-- Board - Member Mitrano = Oh, they-are--so-weird. ----------------- -- - - -- -
Chairperson Wilcox — Some of them are just very...
Board Member Mitrano - Mine is a pie for example. They are very,. very strange. If the
house that was built that I live.in now meets all the code restrictions, I'd eat a frog.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well I think I have a challenge. Is there anything else you would
like to say at this point with regard to just the environmental review with what is being
proposed? I am going to do something different here ladies and gentlemen. Normally
we finish the environmental review and then we would go on to the actual review of
what is being asked of this board and we would open the public hearing and give you a
chance to speak. I am going to give you a chance to speak now in case one of you
wants. to address the board with regard to an environmental concern. Sort of like a
second shot. You get a chance to speak now if you want to speak to the environmental
concerns. Assuming that we make the determination that there is no significant
environmental issues and we move onto actually consider what it being proposed, you
will have an opportunity to speak as part of the public hearing. If you want to address
the board now with regard to the environmental issues, we will give you that opportunity.
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Richard Newhart, 171 East King Road
I've lived between 171 and 173 East King Road since 1950. So feel free to ask any
questions: My concern living at 171, which is the house in back of. 173, is that my father
and I reached an agreement with Chase Farm development and one of the agreements
was the establishment of this 30 -foot buffer zone. My father and I thought it very
important to maintain that hedgerow between our property and Chase Farm. Our
property at that time went back 7 acres. I think there are 5 Chase Farm lots that. abut
up against us on the east side. So that is the importance of this buffer zone to me.
Yes, there is a sparse area and that is where the sewer line was put in and to answer
your question and that probably should have been reestablished and I'll take the fall for
that because I'm asking to maintain a hedgerow here and I was negligent in doing that
myself. 1. have. no qualms against Mr.. Clavel building there with the least amount
encroachment on that 30 foot buffer zone that we can have and I would also ask the
Town Planning Board to put in writing that there would be no further encroachments by
any of the other remaining lots at Chase Farm in that buffer zone.
Board Member Hoffmann — Are there, in fact, some lots remaining along the buffer zone
that aren't built on?
Mr. Newhart — Lots? No, but that would prevent somebody from going out right to their
line and building a shed or whatever. I also go along with the replanting proposal. It is
an excellent idea. I have one more thing to say, but I think it will fit in better into the
second park.
Kevin Howe, 173
I'm not exactly st
encroachment on
aesthetic - point -of
like it maintained.
East King Road
are what you mean by environmental impacts, but mainly I feel the
the buffer zone is going to change the nature of my property from an
- view.T -he-sh rubs- there - kind -of- provide -a- natural -- fence - and -I -would
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? When we open the public hearing, assuming we
get to that, we'll give you the legal opportunity to speak. Discussions, questions with
regard to the environmental review? I don't see a significant impact or any impacts that
can't be mitigated. Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Hoffmann — Wasn't there comments from the Conservation Board?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes: There were comments from the Conservation Board. They
had comments about this proposal and another. Would someone like to move the
SEQR motion?
Board Member Howe moved the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconded the motion.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3; 2005
APPROVED
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -048: SEQR, Modification of Vegetative Buffer
Requirement, East King Road — Chase Farm Subdivision, 175 East King Road,
Tax Parcel 45 -1 -23
MOTION made by Rode Howe, seconded by Kevin Tally.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Moc
Vegetative Buffer Requirement for the
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -23,
proposal includes construction of a new
30 -foot vegetative buffer along the
Owner /Applicant, and
lification of the Chase Farm Subdivision
parcel located at 175 East King Road,
Medium Density Residential Zone. The
home located eight feet into the required
west property line. Thomas Clavel,
2, The Planning Board, in the Chase Farm Phase I Preliminary Subdivision
resolution dated September 20, 1988, approved restrictive covenants that stated
"a 30 400t deep buffer zone shall apply around the entire .perimeter of the
subdivision... no trees in excess of 5" diameter or more may be cut or removed
from this zone. No buildings, including accessory buildings are permitted in any
portion of the buffer zone, "and
3. 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 the Modification of the Buffer Requirement, and
4. The Planning Board, on May 3, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
— - - -_ - - -- Short - Environmental Assessment - Form - Part -1,— submitted -by- the- appiicant,— and -a -- -
Part ll, prepared by Town Planning Staff, a plat entitled, "Survey Map, Lands of
Hans C. and Jennifer L, Fuller," prepared by Michael John Reagan, P.L.S., dated
August 29, 2003," and a map showing the location of the house, labeled "Site
Plan- Option B," date stamped April 18, 2005, and other application materials,
and
5. The Town. Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Modification of the Buffer
Requirement;
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.
E
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a modification from the Chase Farm
Subdivision vegetative buffer requirement for the parcel located at 175 East King
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -23, Medium Density Residential Zone.
The proposal includes construction of a new house located 8 feet into the
required 30 -foot vegetative buffer along the west property line. Thomas Clavel,
Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan?
Board Member Mitrano — Is there someway we could codify Eva's suggestion and
concerns about replanting along the buffer zone?
Board Member Hoffmann — As I look at this photographic image here, it looks like there
is a car straddling the property line. So there may be an encroachment of a different
kind there, which needs to be corrected, too. I wanted to ask someone who knows
about this, realistically, how much further does one have to dig out from the house
outline to build a foundation. How much beyond the actual house wall does. one have to
Mr. Walker — I would expect normally if it was a slab on grade it could be done with as
little as two feet, but normally it would be 4 or 5 feet, depending on how the excavated
it. If you were excavating from the outside there would be a lot more room. On this
particular site they can excavate from the building site ... (not audible) ... especially on
that site because it is fairly flat. Now hopefully they will build it up a .little bit. I think
drainage is more of an issue to make sure there is enough drainage around it. You
would want to have at least a 5 -foot clear area where you could...with the slope on the
lawn away from the house., That is the biggest thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Its all -open land up the hill behind that...(not audible)... water
sheeting down.
Mr. Walker — Realistically, I would want to keep vegetation of any real height at least 5
feet away from the building to protect the siding and let it dry out. Tall trees close to the
house you are going to have a lot of building problems. Most people put foundation
plants in that grow 3-4 feet high around the building.
T
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — A follow up question to what I just asked you is do you think
there is enough room actually to dig the foundation without encroaching on the buried
utility line or doing damage to that?
Mr. Walker — Yes. I think there is enough room to build a foundation. I'm assuming that
even though it is a slab on grade there would be a footer underneath it though so that
you are excavating down 5 feet for the bottom of the footing. So in those soils you
could probably have it stand on a 2 -3 cut back to get the form in there. I believe there is
enough room between the sewer line and the foundation wall. We have allowed people
to get within 4 -5 feet of the actual pipe in certain situations. It takes a little bit of care to
do that because that sewer line is basically 6 feet down.
Attorney Barney — Do you know anything about this sewer line? How many houses?
Mr. Walker — I believe there are 3. houses connected to it
Mr. Newhart's comments not audible.
Mr. Walker, Attorney Barney and Mr. Newhart looked at maps to decipher which homes
were connected to the sewer line.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well I am wondering if we need to add something to the
resolution specifying that extra care has to be taken there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, do you have something that we. haven't seen or is it,just,.I
Mr. Walker — I have an easement map of 171 -173 East King Road, which shows the
alignment of the sewer - and - the - easements- that- are -on- that - property. - - -- - - - - - --
Chairperson Wilcox — So that. is something that we haven't seen. Does that point out
any issues as far as you can see?
Mr. Walker — It just shows the location of the sewers and the easement on the adjoining
property and then this drawing shows the existing sewer lines.
Chairperson Wilcox — And it is consistent with...
Mr. Walker — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - In terms of the approximate location of the various utility lines,
which run through the property?
Attorney Barney — (not audible).. there is another one that.bears off from the manhole
at a more westerly angle.
Chairperson Wilcox — It goes right over to 173, which into the west.
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3, 2005
APPROVED
Attorney Barney — Are there legal documents sustaining these easements?
Mr. Walker — There is definitely a line along King Road that has an easement that was
granted by Chase Farm Development. My understanding is we had an easement, I
haven't found an actual recorded document, across the subject parcel. No, I believe
that we have a Town sewer easement all the way across the front of that property in the.
original deed.
Mr. Kanter — Is it a private sewer line that may not have the easements recorded, is that
the issue?
Mr. Walker — The Town has a sanitary sewer easement that goes all the way across this
property on King Road and that would include that lateral that runs in from the other
house I believe.
Mr. Kanter — But the one going back...
Mr. Walker — The one going back up to the Newhart parcel. I don't have a copy of a
recorded easement. My understanding was that when the sewer line was put in we had
permission from the owner then about 10 years ago. This easement date was 1993.
Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, did you see Mr. Clavel's letter to the board dated April 291n?
Could you give that a quick read?
Attorney Barney - Mr. Clavel, you indicate that that easement only applies to 171 and
173 East King Road?
Mr. Clavel — The one that I found applies to the other property.
Attorney Barney —.The surveyor, who is a pretty decent surveyor, shows the easement
going all the way to the manhole on your property.
Mr. Clavel - He drew a line on there, but he didn't find an easement. He didn't tell me
that he found anything.
Mr. Walker - That is a survey of the existing sewer line.
Attorney Barney — It makes reference to a sewer easement Liber 715, page 34.
Mr. Walker — Which is the easement from Chase Farm, I believe.
Attorney Barney — But the surveyor shows that easement running all the way to the
manhole.
Mr. Clavel - I looked at it and it doesn't.
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Attorney Barney - We don't have that easement. Do you have a copy of it?
Mr. Walker- I have the easement right here.
Attorney Barney reads the easement and discusses if with Mr. Walker and Mr. Newhart.
Chairperson Wilcox - You have made application to the Zoning Board. Can you explain
that to me, the reasoning?
Mr. Clavel - I'm applying to the Zoning Board for a side yard variance on the other side
in order to not encroach so far into the buffer to be able to site it closer than 15 feet from
the east property line. So what I am trying to do is reduce the encroachment. I'm
asking them for 5 feet.
Chairperson Wilcox - And for every foot reduction on the .one side that is less of an
encroachment in the buffer on the other side? Essentially, it gives you an opportunity
just to move the house over a little bit.
Mr. Clavel - I'm trying to move the house back the other way. Also, I don't want to have
a surveyor on site while we are laying the footers. I want to have a Tittle leeway on
everything.
Chairperson Wilcox - The reason that we don't meet at the same time is so that the
Zoning Board and Planning Board can make separate, independent decisions.
Mr. Clavel - Sure.
-Chairperson -Wilcox = -Mr Barney, -comm
Attorney Barney - It does appear there is a gap.
Chairperson
Wilcox —
Is that a concern of this
board with regard to what is being asked
of us, which
is to allow
an encroachment into a
buffer?
Attorney Barney - Let me ask, is there a problem with granting that easement for a
continuation of that sewer line?
Mr. Clavel - To whom?
Mr..Walker - Actually my
the west of the Newhart
paperwork filed or not. At
the. west constructed the
whether the Town Board
action confirming that.
understanding is that that is public sewer to that manhole on
property. That was the intention, whether we got all the
the time of the construction of that the homeowners further to
;ewer and constructed it to Town standards as a sewer main,
officially accepted the dedication I don't think there was any
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Attorney Barney, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Newhart discuss the easement, sewer line
location and manhole location.
Attorney Barney - I think what you state in your letter appears to be, at least in the
paperwork here, to be accurate. The next question is can we rectify that situation by
your giving an easement to the Town for the missing link, so to call it, sewer line?
Apparently we serve a couple of other houses off this in addition to notonly 173.
Mr. Clavel - Well, let me just say that it doesn't do me any good to have a sewer line
with no easement and I would like to talk to you about it.
Attorney Barney - I'm not sure I understand.
Mr. Clavel - Its underground, but I want to talk to you about the sewer line in general
over there, but I don't think this is necessarily the place for it.
Attorney Barney - I'm not quite sure what you want to talk about because it may very
well be the place. You are asking for some variances here and sometimes the quit pro
quo to getting the variances is ... (not audible)...we would like to clean up those
issues ... (not audible)...
Mr. Clavel - That is more or less what I wanted to talk to you about.
Mr. Walker - We would normally require a 20 -foot wide permanent easement so that we
would have access to the sewer line. Normally the sewer is centered on that easement
because it makes it easier to work, but in certain special cases we have still asked for a
20 foot easement so that we can still bring equipment, but maybe have sited the
--- easement - maybe -only- 5-- feet -away- from -- the - -- edge -of - the - sewer -line- and -- have -- the - -- - -- -
remainder of the easement to the opposite side, which would then keep the house
construction outside of the easement.
Mr: Clavel — That works for me.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? None.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. and invited.members of the
public to address the board.
Mr. Newhart - I could be wrong with some of the things that I am going to say, so
please correct me, but I just feel that they need to be stated. I feel that all.of this could
have been avoided if at the time the Town Planning Board had looked at this lot when
the sewer lines were placed in, the manhole cover put in, easements were put in, and
said to themselves, boy we have a strange lot here. We've got sewer lines running on
it. We've got power lines running over it. It really cuts down on the useable, buildable
space available to the owner, maybe we ought to dissolve this and make lot 2 of Chase
Farm a larger lot. Again, I don't know if that was something that could have been done.
14
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
I'm just saying as a citizen I feel it is something that should have been looked at, at the
time.
Board Member Mitrano - When was that?
Mr. Newhart - 1992, 1993,
Ms. Balestra - The subdivision was approved in 1988.
Mr. Walker - The subdivision was approved in 1988. and the original sewer along King
Road was built at that time.
Mr. Newhart - Now you take Mr. Clavel, now, he comes along and sees a for sale sign
on a lot. He wants to buy it and build a house. Well, then he starts finding out all these
things here and I feel, I personally feel that the Town has to share some of the burden.
Board Member Conneman - But you always knew it was a lot. You could have bought
the lot or you and your neighbors could have bought it.
Mr. Newhart - I wouldn't have bought it, knowing that, because I know that. I knew
these little pieces.
Attorney Barney - Could I just point out to you that your buffer zone is not a requirement
of the statute of our zoning ordinance? This entire subdivision could have been
approved without any buffer at all, any vegetative buffer at all. The only time that we
generally require a .buffer is when it is a commercial zone backing up on a residential
zone. This is a residential subdivision backed up on a residential property. So you are
- gettin- g- a- benefit- of -a -30= foot - buffer- that - very-few- other - people -in -the - Town- of-Ithaca -- are - - -- -
getting. So to vary that slightly to enable a house to be built on that, I think I would still
be thanking my lucky stars that I got the buffer zone at all because in 1993 because of
the forethought because of the then Planning Board and because of the voluntary
agreement of the development at the time, the buffer zone was put in place. At this
juncture, you are getting something that is not that common in the Town of Ithaca
accept for when you have a mix of commercial and residential zone. The Town took
the responsibility and actually assured that the buffer was going to be there. It is still
there, largely there.
Mr. Newhart - Like I said, I'm not against him building the lot there. I'm just concerned
about the setback. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox - And in hindsight, you maybe right. In hindsight maybe we should
have done something different.
Board Member Hoffmann It was a different board, too.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else.
w
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
With no other persons interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public
hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Board Member Talty - Why is there a gap in the buffer zone?
Mr. Walker - I believe the gap was created when the sewer line was constructed.
Board Member Talty - Okay..
Mr. Walker - A lot of the brush in there isn't just brush and it hasn't regrown itself.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is still quite a deep depression in the ground apparently
from where the sewer line was put and they backfilled and it just settled.
Board Member Talty Is there anything on the books that designates what trees and
things that can't be planted near a sewer line? I mean with the root system and things
like that.
Mr. Walker --We do not want trees planted over a sewer line. Shrubs that have a fairly
shallow root system. and brush are okay. We don't want any water seeking vegetation
like willows or...
Board Member Talty - I know that is what you don't want, of course, but is there
anything that is mandated where it cannot be?
Mr. Walker - I'm not aware of any specific language in there, but I have a crew that kills
anything that seeks water: -We have placed -a lot-of- sewers -in- the - Town - and -we- have- a -- - - --
lot of water seeking, water loving trees growing nearby them that have ended up
causing problems and usually the people who own the trees usually get. the sewers
backed up into their basement once and they say take the trees, please. Then we
either put something back a little further. But normally we keep all of our sewer lines so
we can have access to them. In this particular case, allowing a hedge or a fairly shallow
rooted type shrubs and in.this wet soils, they don't have to go very deep. As long as we
have access from both sides without a problem... (not audible)...
Chairperson Wilcox - Further discussion? Questions? Would someone like to move
the resolution as drafted?
Board Member Hoffmann moved the resolution and Board Member Mitrano seconded
the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox reads the resolution and Attorney Barney reads the additional
conditions (not audible). Changes in the resolution are okay with Board Member
Hoffmann and Board Member Mitrano.
16
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to expand "b" by saying that not only.trees, but
shrubs in the buffer zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — Expand? What do you mean?
Board Member Hoffmann — Just like I talked about when we first started talking about
this so that there is some sort of vegetative buffer. If you plant trees without any shrubs,
you have where the stems are an open area, but you have shrubs in among them you
get more of a dense buffer with the growth shielding and then the upper part of the trees
shielding.
Attorney Barney — I would probably' suggest you limit it to shrubs... (not
audible) ... Attorney Barney reads language changes to "b ".
Mr. Clavel raises the concern of having to replace of vegetation removed on site during
construction (not audible).
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't think you were here when I started talking
about this, but what I intended by what I said initially was that you would replace what
you disturbed by the encroachment of the house. Whatever you had to dig up to build
the house itself and to dig up the foundation and so on, whatever there was in there,
you would replace that. I don't mean that he has to replace shrubbery and trees in the
whole buffer, if that's what you were talking about.
Chairperson Wilcox — It could be limited to anything that is removed in order to build the
house, to accommodate the construction of the house because that is really what we
are going for.
Board Member Hoffmann — That is the only part that we have control over. The rest of
the buffer is controlled by the neighborhood association, I assume. So whatever you do
in the rest of the buffer you have to deal with the neighborhood. association about.
Mr. Clavel's comments not audible.
Attorney Barney - What this would say is that any shrub that you pull out in order to
build a house would be replaced.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think that as good neighbors, both you and your neighbor
to the east should work on making that buffer a little better.
Mr. Clavel's comments not audible.
Attorney Barney reads language changes to "b ". Board Member Hoffmann and Board
Member Mitrano concur with the language changes.
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - What I think I tried to say before, also, is since your
neighbor indicated unhappiness with the trees and the shrubs in the buffer possibly
being removed that you could both be good neighbors to each other by replanting trees
and shrubs on each of your properties where there isn't any.
Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the resolution.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -049: Modification of Vegetative Buffer Requirement,
East King Road - Chase Farm Subdivision, 175 East King Road, Tax Parcel 45 =1-
23
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by. Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of Moc
Vegetative Buffer Requirement for the
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 454-23,
proposal includes construction of a new
30 400t vegetative buffer along the
Owner /Applicant, and
lification of the Chase Farm Subdivision
parcel located at 175 East King Road,
Medium Density Residential Zone. The
home located eight feet into the required
west property line. Thomas Clavel,
21 The Planning Board, in the Chase Farm Phase I Preliminary Subdivision
resolution dated September 20, 1988, approved restrictive covenants that stated
"a 30 400t deep buffer zone shall apply around the entire perimeter of the
subdivision..: no trees in excess of 5" diameter or more may be cut or removed
from this zone. No buildings, including accessory buildings are permitted in any
- portion -of - the- bufferzone,, " -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 Modification of the buffer
requirement, has, on May 3, 2005, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and
4. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on May 3, 2005, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Survey Map, Lands of Hans C. and
Jennifer L. Fuller," prepared by Michael John Reagan, P.L.S., dated August 29,
2003, and a map showing the location of the house, labeled "Site Plan- Option B, "
date stamped April 18, 2005, and other application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3,2005
APPROVED
That the Planning Board hereby grants Approval for the proposed Modification of the
Chase Farm Subdivision Vegetative Buffer Requirement for 175 East King Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -23, to allow the construction of a new home located eight
feet into the required 30 -foot vegetative buffer along the west property line as shown on
the submitted plans and application materials, subject to the following conditions:
a. The proposed.home shall be located no more than eight feet into the vegetative
buffer, and
b. Any trees, 5" diameter or more, and any shrubs two feet or taller removed within
the buffer in conjunction with the construction of the house, shall be replaced, in
another portion of the buffer, with non - invasive species similar in size to those
items being removed, and
C, The applicant will grant to .the Town of Ithaca an easement in the Town's usual
form granting to the Town an easement for a sewer line 20 feet in width to be
located five feet east of the existing sewer line to 15 feet west of the existing
sewer line; said easement to be granted prior to the issuance of any building
permit, and the applicant expressly agrees to the inclusion of this condition.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
-The motion was declared -to be- carried - unanimously. — — — — — = - - -- -- - - --
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed 14 -lot
subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362
Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 15.2, Agricultural Zone.
The proposal includes the construction of a new cul -de -sac road off Mecklenburg
Road for the development of 12 residential lots and one +/- 2 -acre parcel reserved
for open space. Approximately 62 acres of the original +/- 92.43 -acre parcel will
remain available for agriculture. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicants Lawrence P.
Fabbroni, P.E.,. L.S., Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going with questions, is there any presentation you
would like to make ?. Any statement you want to make?
Robert Drake, Mecklenburg Road
This is quite a bit different from what I originally wanted, but I guess I got to live with it.
K
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Before the meeting you came up to me and we were talking about
whether you would proceed with this tonight or not because Larry couldn't make it and
you had some questions about the right -of -way, the access road to the back. Talk
about that.
Mr. Drake — I really wanted to keep it as an access road for the farm equipment
because my equipment is quite large and quite wide and also the last thing that people
like in subdivisions is when you go through with a honey wagon. They really get pretty
upset. I ran into this at my main farm, which is the backside of the subdivision. They
don't like seeing equipment on the weekend or the honey wagon. It does create a little
animosity. Otherwise, I guess it is pretty much as it is going to be. On the parcel on the
end, it is all agriculture. I will be able to build a house and barn on that parcel right
there. It shows a septic system location.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Drake, where are you pointing to or where are you
referencing?
Mr. Drake — You see beyond the cul -de -sac a location for a septic system and the
replacement system on the 62 -acre parcel. Another thing on keeping this right -of -way is
maintaining this diversion ditch that runs on the upper side of the property. I recently
cleaned that back out. It's been a few years. Quite often it grows back with willows and
other stuff. I would like to keep it to maintain that area so that we don't have a problem
with it backing up.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is it intended that access for your equipment be paved?
Mr. Drake— No. It would be a gravel access. Some of the my equipment is steel track
- - --- -and - that -is- the -last- thing- that - you -will- -run- through -a- subdivision. - Here -1- can - unload -it at --
the highway and run it back to the property and another thing they dislike on the main
farm is running the lime trucks through the subdivision in the spring. That caused quite
a bit...
Mr. Kanter — I guess the question would be why can't access for the farm equipment be
on the eastern part of the parcel.
Mr. Drake — You mean on the lower side of the parcel? That is quite undesirable
because it is so much wetter and if I do put a house in myself in here it will be on the
upper side. It will give me kind of a private access to the lot as well as an in and out.
The other way would a long way around.
Mr. Kanter — There is a reserve at the end of the cul -de -sac.
Mr. Drake — I left that so if that parcel ever gets sold, which as long as I'm alive it
probably won't be sold.
Mr. Kanter - I mean that makes sense for like a driveway back there.
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Mr. Drake — I have got on the backside of my main farm, I've rented adjacent parcels
quite often and when I've hauled in the manure from the horse farms and I've gotten a
lot of negative comment on that. Consequently we don't go through there with the farm
equipment any more. The big thing with the kids and the bicycles and they really didn't
like us coming through there with the equipment. That's the reason why this time I
figured I would lay it out in a way that 1 could keep that right away from everything. We
work 7 days a week and Saturday mornings and Sunday mornings they don't like you
going through the subdivision with a big tractor making noise. It doesn't set too well.
Chairperson Wilcox - This is in an agriculture district.
Mr. Kanter — And the County.
Chairperson Wilcox — It does come with right to farm provisions as part of the zoning
and as part of New York State agriculture district as well.
Board Member Conneman — And that will be explained to people who buy a lot?
Mr. Kanter — Yes.
Mr. Drake — Yes. It will be written in the deed. That is what they did on the backside of
my main farm. They are fully aware that they are adjacent to an agricultural operation
and that they can in no way hinder the agricultural operation.
Board Member Conneman — And you plan to farm this and not come back two years
from now and want to build houses on the rest of it?
Mr. Drake — Well, I've farmed it since the 1930s and I have no intention of doing any
different.
Board Member Conneman —Okay. I just want to put that in the record.
Mr. Kanter — Well, there will be more than the record. The zoning requires, well it
basically says that the Planning Board shall require a means to insure that that
remaining parcel is reserved for farming.
Board Member Howe — Does it give a timeframe for that, Jonathan, in the zoning?
Mr. Kanter — Well, it is intended to be for in perpetuity. As we do in our conservation
easements for purchase of development rights, they are written up in perpetuity, but
there is. always a legal mechanism, which I guess has to go through a court proceeding
if for some reason the future circumstances are so different that reserving it for farm
land isn't right any more. I think there is a way to get out of it, but it isn't easy.
Mr. Drake — It is our sole intention to keep farming it in one form or another.
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Tell us about the open space in the middle of the cukde -sac.
Mr. Drake Well, when he first drew that design like all the other cukde -sacs, I don't
care whether it is on Fairway Avenue or wherever it is, it is a little restrictive blacktop
circle that is quite disgusting. It isn't big enough for moving vans to get in around it and
it's hard to plow. If you've every plowed snow for the county or a municipality, they are,
a mean thing to plow and get turned around on. I said well look, it's a lot more practical
to have a set aside for a park, which could be seen by several homes with low shrubs in
that park for the kids to go to. It makes it a nice wide circle for you to get around with
any type of moving van. I just didn't want that little confined circle that I find every place
that is built with a dead end. I just didn't think that that was a neat way to go. It may be
wasting a little land, but I think it's to good use.
Mr. Walker - This is actually larger than what we require now, but our new cul -de -sac
design is basically the type of a thing where you have a 15 -foot wide pavement around
an open vegetated space. The minimum size that we would have is 150 -foot radius.
This is bigger than that and like you say the plow drivers will like it because they will
come in and plow the snow into the middle and then they don't plug up all the
driveways.
Mr. Kanter - There are actually three ways that that open space could be handled. One
is by retaining it under private ownership, in which case there could be some
complications in terms of who will actually own and maintain it. It could be divvied up in
equal shares amongst homeowners or it could be dedicated to the Town as a park,
open space area, if the applicant wishes to do that. I described that in my memo saying
that there is really no rational in our park and open space plan. Another way is to just
incorporate it as part of -the road right- of=way. That, —too, would -put, it -under Town ---- - -- - --
ownership and maintenance means instead of being a park, per se, it could be some
kind of a combined park and road set aside, but still that would become... I'm not too
sure that the Town Public Works Department would like that scenario, but that is
something that the board would consider during its process.
Mr. Walker - I don't think it would be a problem for the Public Works Department or the
Highway Superintendent to accept this as fully a Town road right -of -way with the
understanding that it would probably.. we would mow the edge of it for snow storage
space and the remainder of it would probably just be allowed to revert back to a natural
wooded state. Or we let the neighborhood become good stewards and mow it if they
want to and then they.could use it.
Mr. Kanter - Right.
Mr. Walker - But I wouldn't recommend parking it and making it parkland in the middle
of a highway like that.
Chairperson Wilcox - It would seem odd.
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Mr. Kanter It might make sense to have some kind of a community gardens that is
taken care of by the homeowners. I suppose that could work in some way that the
Town could own it, but that there would be some agreement with the homeowners to do
that. That is another option.
Mr. Drake — That sounds like a real good option. It's something to keep it active.
Mr. Walker — You could plant corn there for the rest of your life.
Mr. Drake — I want to tell you a little something about this farming. It is getting pretty
unprofitable.
Chairperson Wilcox — I want to go. Does anybody have a problem with that sort of
secondary access to the rear of the lot?
Board Member. Hoffmann — No.. I don't really have a problem with it.
Chairperson Wilcox. — Neither do I.
Board Member Hoffmann — I like this idea of the open space in the middle of all the lots.
This .is what I wish, maybe not this big, but something like this I would like to see in
every subdivision for the people would live around there to use, in various ways,
especially with children.
Mr. Drake — I think the people around it would really keep it looking nice.
Mr. Walker — Well, we have one in Chase Farm.__How do they like -it -up -there
Board Member Hoffmann - Oh, is that the one you are talking about?
Mr. Walker — It's a little smaller, but it's our standard configuration.
Board Member Hoffmann — When I drove in there today I couldn't believe it because I
didn't think it fit into the neighborhood. It looks totally unkept. There were these rather
big, nice houses around there, but this grassy circle in the middle is rather ratty looking
grass, too. I'm sorry, but I just thought the two didn't belong together, the yards and the
houses and this thing in the middle. Not a single shrub, not a tree, nothing, just grass,
which was sort of torn up around the edges. I can understand it might be good if there
are small kids riding bikes or running and playing ball across there it might as well not
have any nice shrubs, but...
Mr. Drake — It is ideal for a ball diamond.
Board Member Hoffmann — That is not what I would envision for this and I don't
understand why this looks so terrible there in this rather nice neighborhood.
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Mr. Walker — The Town mows the edge of it. I don't know whether we have mowed the
whole thing. I haven't been up there for a couple of years.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its for snow storage.
Mr. Walker — It is used for snow storage for the first 10 feet of it, the snow gets pushed
in there instead of in people's driveways. So we haven't had any complaints about the
snow up there. We are picking up more and more open space and parks that do need
maintenance. We are increasing the capabilities of the Public Works Staff to maintain
there. We can't mow all the parks we do have with the two lawn mowers that we. This
is something that will probably be addressed in a number of different ways. One is the
open space and the maintenance of it. A lot of these things might become part of our
stormwater management systems, too. We may put a. wetland in the middle of some
these things.
Board Member Mitrano — So that would be nice if you guys came in and did something
with that area because as I was saying to Eva when the children in that area were
younger, it was probably hard to do things in that area. Now that the children are older,
would be surprised if people didn't appreciate it very much.
Mr. Walker — In someone neighborhoods the residents take some pride and actually ask
if they can go in and do something and we say sure. The homeowners association
might want to bring this up.
Mr. Drake — Don't you think that this subdivision would develop enough additional
revenue that that small area could be maintained by the Town?
Mr. Walker — They never do. Residential developments always cost us more than they
bring in.
Mr. Drake — I see.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can we get back to this one? Questions of Mr. Drake? I have a
question of Mr. Kanter. I guess I don't understand the lot size requirement in the current
zoning law or the Town Code, which sets a maximum lot size of 2 acres unless the
County Health Department says you need otherwise.
Mr. Kanter — The maximum of 2 acres was set so that
amount of land remaining for open space and farmland.
2 -acre threshold as a maximum. The lots are supposed
depending on health department reviewing the proposal.
health department prior to final approval. I think the zor
can be larger if the health department so requires, but
guess...
there would be the maximum
That is the reason we set the
to be between 1 and 2 acres
This one will have to go to the
ping does say that the 2 acres
otherwise .it is 2 acres. So I
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — So there is the possibility that some of these lots might have to be
made smaller.
Mr. Drake — I don't think so because the ground topography pretty much dictates the
septic system area. You have got to have a replacement area on top of that. It drops
off pretty fast. I don't think it would work making smaller lots out of it.
Mr. Kanter — I think what we would want to see during the preliminary subdivision review
is details of engineering of those systems as well as probably some soil information.
Mr. Kanter — not to mention some representative well sampling information because that
was an issue that was brought up with the original subdivision, but I think it's still
relevant even though this is a lesser number of lots just to demonstrate that at least
generally there is adequate water.
Mr. Wilcox — I'll be honest, I don't care whether it's 2 acres or 2.1 acres or 2.15 acres,
but if the zoning says maximum 2 unless health department comes along then we as a
Planning Board simply can't ignore the zoning requirement.
Mr. Kanter — Again, I think it could be approved, the preliminary plat could be approved
subject to Health Department approval, but knowing if the Health Department isn't going
to require them to be that large they could be reduced in size.
Mr. Wilcox — And possibly made even bigger, potentially.
Mr. Kanter — They could be made bigger if the Health Department...
Ms.- Hoffmann — Well not if we want to preserve as much agricultural- larvd -as- possible:
Mr. Drake — I think that he's located the septic systems in about the best area as far as
slope wise, as far the under slab in the basement access to the septic system, to get the
septic system in an area where they don't have to have a built up system. That's the
thing that looks pretty raunchy in the subdivision.
Mr. Kanter — Also in a plat like this we .want to see the building envelope showing on the
lots and how that relates to the locations of the septic.
Mr. Barney — I just have a little bit of a question about the number of lots if that open
space isn't dedicated to the Town (inaudible)
Mr. Wilcox — If we make it part of the road right -of -way then it's not a lot.
Mr.. Walker — Well it won't be a lot if it's part of the right -of -way.
Mr. Barney's comment inaudible.
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Kanter — It could be permanently restricted as well. I don't know if that's exactly in
compliance with the zoning but it would certainly be consistent with the intent of the
zoning.
Mr. Walker — I definitely would recommend that a study of water supply is done out
there. Granted there's a lot of water in that part of the hill. There's another subdivision.
on the West Hill that's larger in this one, but we get requests every year put in public
water because there wells are lousy. I would recommend. a fairly detailed, including
probably two test wells at opposite ends of the development area with real yield analysis
and chemical quality analysis because having lived in the West Hill area I know there's
a great deal of variability of the water supply from wells, :from one plot to the. next. In a
matter of 200 feet you can have a good well at 60 feet and another lot that's 200 feet
away needs to drill a 200 -foot well and doesn't get good quality water.
Mr. Drake — We drilled a lot. The last well we drilled was about 2 years ago and if you
look at the plot plan there's two long narrow lots and the well is still just above the ? ? ??
Numbers and that were to 42 feet and it's an artesian well and. it yields 35 gallons a
minute.
Mr. Walker — The two existing wells, the full logs and information on that would be good.
But again, there's a lot of variability. If that was a cased gravel well, was it all gravel
when you drilled that?
Mr. Drake — I think they hit rock at about 23 -24 foot. At 43 foot it was the top of the
casing running over and then they put a, it was flowing much more than that, they put
an inch reducer on to it with a valve into it to restrict it down. That can be seen there
next to the driveway and that flow is full stream year round. It seems kind .of foolish, at
--the top of-the hill- where -you wouldn't- expect -it- -- -- - - - -- - - - -- --
Mr. Walker — There are two houses up there drawing off that now, the next house is a
ways a way, I know. You put 14 more houses in and I know, I mean there's one
subdivision somebody is having problems with their well and they .had it fractured and
created. a little better situation for themselves but problems for a number of other
people. Like I say there's a lot of variability. If there is a good well on that property and
we have good information on that and logs then maybe (inaudible) on the opposite side
of the property.
Mr. Drake — I think the Health Department on that lot they would have all that
information on the water supply and everything and that could be easily checked out.
You could drill another well, you know, pick out a spot put another well in if you want.
Mr. Wilcox — Questions.
Mr. Kanter — I have a question on phasing of selling lots. What was your intent in terms
of how you would sell these lots and when?
26
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Mr. Drake. — I haven't got much of any interest, only just a couple of them. This may go
this year and nothing might happen at all. Depending on what you guys decide I might
go ahead and plant it all this year and then try to get an early start this next spring. I'm
going to plant most of it. Everything below that driveway that comes back into the circle
I'm going to plant anyway this year to get the acreage. So that any lots that would
probably be sold would be above the driveway.
Mr. Kanter — In thinking about how some of these subdivisions get phased and built, this
seems to be one where we would necessarily, I mean this is up to the. Board with the
recommendation of ,Engineering and Highway, but it seems like you could probably
approve say at least the cutting of the front two lots without really any kind of a major
going in there. Maybe temporary driveways on Route 79, which would then be
conditioned by the Board to join up with the new road when it was built. I think we've
done that before.
Mr. Walker — Those two lots would logical to use that road right -of -way as a common
driveway.
Mr. Drake - Would you guys have any objection to me planting on the front side of both
the lowest lots about two to three rows of spruce or something like that to cut down on
the highway noise for those lots. I'm just thinking of trying to make them. more
appealing because when they stand on those lots and. they get all that traffic noise that
doesn't make it too appealing.
Mr. Wilcox — I'm not sure I would object to someone wanting to plant trees.
Ms. Hoffmann — I would have an objection to planting evergreens
Mr. Drake — I'm looking at it as increasing the value of the sale of the lot. If you stand
on the lot next to that highway certain times of the day that is very unappealing even
though it's a_ nice view. But if you planted a double row of trees down through there,
nice blue spruce or something like that, that would make it a lot more appealing. 50 foot
back from the road would make a big difference.
Ms. Hoffmann — I remember proposing planting rows of trees as a sound screen when
somebody was planning a field on Cornell land that would be rather noisy and we were
told by the expert from Cornell that trees do not block sound, even evergreens. I
personally, from having thought about this a lot, have strong objections to planting
evergreens along highways especially in places where there are beautiful views from
the roads. Because what you are doing is you're blocking everybody else from seeing
those beautiful views. So I would have a very strong feeling against that.
Mr. Drake — Oh, okay.
Mr. Barney The law allows you, we cannot prohibit you from planting anything you
wanted to.
PAFA
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Wilcox — It's your land, you can go plant trees if you want.
Mr. Drake — Well I didn't want to, what I didn't want to do is come up with a proposition
that would be offensive to getting done what I want to try to do.
Ms. Hoffmann — But if you go and check with experts on this, I'm only telling you what
heard someone say to us on this Board, but we were told that it would have to be
something like a solid fence or something like that to be able to block sound effectively.
Mr. Drake — Well I want something natural.
Mr. Wilcox — Let's make sure we're clear here. I'm going to hold this up. What Mr.
Drake is thinking about, you correct me if I'm wrong, is some trees here along
Mecklenburg Road and it's to make these two lots more attractive. That's all. Whether
it's a visual barrier to prevent these lots from looking out on the, road, that's all he's
talking about.
Mr. Drake — On the lower side of the second lot there's a heavy grove of maples, but
that doesn't restrict the view not even when they're out in leaf because you've got a
view on both sides of it.
Ms. Hoffmann If you have trees that eventually get trunks so that the crown on the
tree is high enough so you can see through where the trunks are then it doesn't block
the view from the road. But evergreens are different.
Mr. Drake — They're nice.
Ms. Hoffmann — Especially if you plant rows of them next to each other then you really
block out the view totally.
Mr. Wilcox — I want to move along, but if Eva owned the lot she wouldn't plant
evergreens, but you can plant evergreens if you want.
I was reading Jon's memo and I kept going back over the buffer. "Town Code requires
a buffer zone of at least 30feet wide." Why am I thinking don't we have a buffer around
it.
Mr. Kanter — This is a question. If we are considering this truly a cluster subdivision
which according to the zoning it really is and according to our subdivision regulations it
says that a "buffer area at least 30 feet wide shall be established" actually I think it
mentions between residential and agricultural areas. as one of those. So I guess the
question is what will that buffer be. Of course we had a long discussion at Chase Farm
earlier and what it should or shouldn't do. This one is actually a required buffer or one
that the Planning Board can require.
28
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Mr. Barney — inaudible
Mr. Kanter - Well I think if you look at the language of the zoning and the whole density
description it basically mentions that this approach is, if not similar, is a cluster
technique. That's something. l think we're going to need to look at a little more. The
wording of that zoning, this is brand new, this is the first time we're really applying in a
real world situation to the way the intent of the zoning was. Looking at exact words to
me at this point isn't necessarily what we have to do because if it is not doing what we
want it to do then maybe we need to look at the zoning again. I .
Mr. Barney inaudible
Mr. Kanter — Well, I think Fred's question was what would the purpose of the buffer be
here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it seems to be nicely buffered.
Mr. Kanter - To me the answer is not to buffer the agriculture from the residences, but
vice versa because here you are having residential development encroach in an
agricultural area and to avoid the conflicts of that, the idea of the buffer at least, its not a
good thing, but at least it helps to minimize...
Chairperson Wilcox — The buffer would be on the residential lots, presumably where
they border the agricultural use.
Board Member Conneman — Does the zoning say that?
Mr. Kanter — The zoning actually specifically references the ability of -the- Planning- Board -- ---
to require it.
Board Member Conneman - That makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Drake — Would there be a big difference between active agricultural land and land
designated as agricultural land? I mean it seems like there would be a big difference
there.
Mr. Kanter — I think it would depend upon the specific circumstances.
Board Member Conneman — You said earlier that it was going to be active agriculture.
Right?
Mr. Drake — Oh, yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox — It would appear on most, if not all these lots, that an area in the
back of the lots, the border of the active agricultural use, could be designated, as you
can't touch it.
29
Mr. Drake — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - That serves as the buffer zone
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
You can't put anything there.
Mr. Drake — I don't think the health department is going to let anybody put anything in
that area below the septic system pretty much all the way around. So that pretty much
rules anybody doing anything with that area.
Chairperson Wilcox — We could so designate it as a buffer zone and therefore...
Mr. Kanter That is why in the preliminary plat we will need to see all the dimensions of
all these different areas that we are talking about building and below the septic.
Chairperson Wilcox — The primary and secondary septic areas. I actually like the way
this looks. I like the way it looks. .
Board Member Conneman — It is certainly an improvement. from the previous plan.
Mr. Drake — The view is, if you guys haven't been up there, the view is .absolutely
beautiful.
Board Member Conneman — The way that Larry laid it out the first time was incredible.
Mr. Drake — The property had grown up in parts and we put in a lot of drain tile to
replace the old hexagon tile and even the horseshoe tile and laid up stone ditches that
had given out. It is really getting to be quite a productive piece of property. It didn't look
like- that - before- because- there- wasn't-even- any- view - there:- - -- - -- —
Board Member Hoffmann - Could somebody remind me of the plans we saw for the
parcel that is to the east of this? I think some of the agricultural land was going too be
saved to, but was it on the western part or on the eastern part of the property?
Mr. Kanter — That was in the northeast part of the property.
Board Member Hoffmann - So the development would be along the entire road stretch
there. Somehow I thought the agricultural land was going to be on the western side.
Mr. Kanter — Yes. On Mr. Rancich's property that is right.
Board Member Hoffmann — So there would be two pieces of agricultural property
adjacent to each other.
Mr. Drake — Yeah. I'm pretty certain that is what he is planning. Also, I think that there
is that highline that goes through there even though there is quite a wide right -of -way,
30
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
think there is a state restriction on how close you can build to that highline right -of -way.
So that pretty much restricts that upper parcel, that upper strip of land.
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think we gave any approval for that so that may
change.
Mr. Kanter — And we haven't heard from him in quite a while.
Chairperson Wilcox — Other than our need to deal with the designation of this board as
lead agency for environmental review, any other questions, comments with regard to
Mr. Drake's project? One thing you can talk to Larry about is the phased development
where you build part of the road. Then when you sell a lot you can build some more of
the road and phase it in that way. Larry will know how that needs to be done. We all
set from staff's perspective?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — We do have one piece of action, one motion here. Chairperson
Wilcox reads the proposed resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox moves the resolution and Board Member Talty seconds the motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005 -050: Lead Agency Designation, Drake Subdivision,
Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2, Mecklenburg Road
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty.
-- WHEREAS: — - -- —=------ - - - - -- --
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed 144ot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the
east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27445.2,
Agricultural Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a new cul -de -sac
road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 12 residential lots and one +/-
2 -acre parcel reserved for open space. Approximately 62 acres of the original +/-
92.43 -acre parcel will remain available for agriculture. Robert Drake,
Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent, and
2. The proposed subdivision approval by the Planning Board is a Type I action
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and
Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental
Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, because the proposal. involves the
construction of more than ten new residential units not to be connected to
community or publicly -owned utilities (Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
Law, Section V.2. a), and
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
3. A report regarding "Preliminary Planning and Engineering Considerations"
(received April 1, 2005) and a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has
been submitted by the applicant for the above - described action,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That. the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead
agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed subdivision approval for
the proposed Drake Subdivision, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved
agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification
of the involved agencies.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox— Anything else you need, Mr. Drake?
Mr.— Drake = No Another- reason - for - keeping
and the Sheriffs Department loves that area.
both the upper farm access and that access
are in that area and we can get up and down
have been a big savior for us. Before it was p
-that-60-foot-there-is that - the -- State- Police
It has been a terrific help to us. We left
and everybody seems to know that they
that highway without much trouble. They
retty dangerous. I appreciate your time.
Chairperson Wilcox — We will see you back soon, I guess.
Chairperson. Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:53 p.m
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of the April 14, 2005 site visit and potential park sites
related to the proposed Ithaca Estates Subdivision located off East King Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to make a presentation or are you just here to
answer questions? How do you want to proceed this evening?
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 312005
APPROVED
Paul Ballard, Interlaken
I. guess we are really just looking for your follow up based on the site visit.
Chairperson Wilcox — A number of us here participated in the site visit. We should
thank Mr. Monkemeyer for giving Eva a ride around the property. Who wants to start
with comments?
Mr. Kanter — I put some of our staff observations in a memo, so I don't think I need to...
Chairperson Wilcox — No, you don't need to. Your position is laid out.
Mr. Kanter — It. is a composite . of talking with Fred and Rich and some of Dan's
comments.
Board Member Conneman — Well, I'll start. I think it is so far away.from where it needs
to be that it doesn't make any sense. If it is going to serve this subdivision, its way out
there in the middle of no place. Is that okay to start with?
Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely. That works. That works for me.
Mr. Ballard — I guess it is definitely far from East King Road as far as a roadway access.
Its about half a mile or so, but it does have close proximity to College Circle Apartments.
As Ithaca Estates develops, it will certainly be closer to that as well.
Board Member Conneman — The intention of the park is not to serve College Circle. I
think it is to serve the community and houses off of King Road, I thought. No?
-- Evan Monker°neyer; East - King -Road - -- -- - --
It.would be to serve all the citizens of the Town. Students are citizens of the Town.
Board Member Conneman — They are certainly citizens of the Town, but you are putting
it right in their backyard already.
Mr. Monkemeyer — Part of the planning process... (not audible) ... it provides a buffer
between.... (not audible)...
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, as I remember from the original park and open space
plan that was developed by the Town, it was felt that there was a need to have an active
park up in this area to serve the people in the Town who live there and who have small
children and teenagers, for them to have some other place. That is why when we saw
the initial park space plan where the parkland was more in the center of the lands that
you own, it seemed much more attractive because it was fairly flat. Some of it was on a
steeper area, but I think in your presentation you talked about it as a sledding hill.
Anyway, that just seemed to fit much more into the overall concept that the Town had
for parks in this area. I'm a little bit concerned with, the same way that George is, about
having the park being on the edge of your land rather than being in the center. I am
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
concerned about it being close to Ithaca College and their student housing because
there have been some problems, 1 understand, in other parks that have been close to
student populations and they use it in different ways that is perhaps not compatible with
the use of children.
Mr. Monkemeyer — I would like to respond to the first part of your statement and that is
the prior park plan was withdrawn because the Town in essence up -zoned 25 acres of
the 50 acre parcel and I lost certain rights, which made it totally unfeasible to develop.
On one hand you are being asked to develop a million .dollar road that is going to
surround the park and dedicate this land to the Township, which you get no return for
your investment, but on the other side of the road, you have to be able to develop lots
that you can sell. With the up zoning, I am only able to develop 3 lots off the 23 acres;
which makes it totally unfeasible. The second part is the student concern. The
students are here 9 months out of the year... (not audible)...
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I am sure you are aware of some of the abuse.
Mr. Ballard — not audible
Mr. Monkemeyer — Who's to say that the proposed park that I proposed the first time is
maybe within 200, 300 feet of College Circle, they could certainly walk across the land
and get to the other Town Park just as well.
Board Member Hoffmann — They can, but it's probably not quite as tempting
Mr. Monkemeyer — Well I have found them all over the property.
Board- Member- Hoffmann = Well,—we- have- heard -all- kinds -of- horror - stories- about- what - - --
students do to people's residential properties, too, in the area of Ithaca College.
Mr. Monkemeyer - That is one of my points.
College Circle and put residential housing units
that?
Mr. Ballard — It does provide a buffer...
You really can't take this area next to
there. Who would want to live next to
Mr. Monkemeyer — And I don't want to build more student housing.
Board Member Hoffmann — You brought up the point of having had your land up -zoned
as you put it, but you are aware, I think, of the reason for the rezoning of that area to a
conservation zone. It is because there is some very unique land there, which the Town
feels, needs to be protected.
Mr. Monkemeyer — But my parkland was presented before the Town up -zoned and then
after you up- zoned... (not audible)...
34
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - I just wanted to be sure you understand the reason for why
the conservation zoning went in where it did.
Mr. Monkemeyer - The prior plan that was presented is no longer feasible to develop
because of that.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think, Evan, over the years...you have been here numerous
times over the years. We have been kicking this parcel around, which actually was
originally 3 parcels, for a while. I think at one point you indicated that you thought the
homes might, the lots, the houses might be more valuable if the parkland, the recreation
land was not in the middle of it. You thought the people who were buying homes in this
area wouldn't want an active use park near their house. I suspect that you still think
that. That is one of the reasons to move where you would like to see the parkland, to
the very northern part of my parcel. The other purpose, that l think you said tonight, it is
land that is probably less valuable to you because it borders the College Circle
Apartments. Now having said that, its still not the best place for a park. Having walked
the property, one, Eva you said. It borders College Circle. Some of that land is real
close to some of the apartments. Jon and Sue and I drove over after the formal walk.
can't sit here and say that it was 50 feet or 100 feet from the structure to the property
line, but its close. Its relatively flat back there and to be perfectly honest, the most
northern parcel is relatively flat and might take the least amount of grading and
earthmoving to put in some sort of active recreational facilities. On the other hand, the
green one that is outlined in front of us is not appropriate for an active park. I shouldn't
say not appropriate, but it would require a lot of earthmoving. It has a lot more dense
shrubs that would have to be removed. It wouldn't be best for active parkland. If
anything, it would be best for kids creating paths through the shrubs.
- -- Board - Member Conneman = Paul,, why-do-you-think-that-field-is-there?--Because-the-------
only time ... (not audible) ... when you see a stone fence and a piece of barbed wire, you
know that what they did is to left it there for either the cows to pasture in or for woods. It
was wet and shallow and has bedrock. If you don't believe that you can look at the soil
map. That is the problem with the green area. It is not a very good place. It is wet and
shallow.
Mr. Ballard - not audible
Board Member Conneman - Most of the bedrock and the shale.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not going to sit here and say that all of the acreage for
parkland has to be...
Board Member Conneman - I didn't say that either. I'm just saying that when you get
over that... if you want to pick the worst part of the property, that's it and the old timers
figured that out a long time ago.
35
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — The area we walked is probably the worst place to put an active
ball field and probably the hardest place to build a house.
Mr. Ballard - A baseball field could probably go... (not audible)...
Board Member Conneman — It still says that the location is far away from King Road..
You would have to drive through a subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox — One of the previous versions, we actually have a copy of it; the
red line over there is I believe a proposed boundary..
Mr. Ballard — not audible
Chairperson Wilcox — ...and a result of the land in the northeast corner up there, it has
been zoned as one house for every 7 acres. The nice thing about that plan, the layout
of the pieces of land are somewhat odd, but that has something to do also with the fact
that these were three parcels at the time with three separate owners and that's. how we
kind of arrived at that and the sled hill. The nice thing about that is the land is relatively
flat in some areas, which would accommodate an active use. But to me, the nice thing
is that it was more in the middle of the development as at least proposed at that time.
The development, which now shows .low density residential, multi - family, condos,
commercial, a nice mix. It could be a wonderful place with mixed uses from the large
estate lot to condos and commercial use and things like that. I just don't want that open
space stuck way up in the north40 if you will. It doesn't have to be that plan.
necessarily, but something that brings that open space or some of that open space or at
least active open space back into the... more into the middle of the properties. That is
what I would like to see.
Board Member Howe — I'm sorry I wasn't able to be here, but I concur, Fred, with what
you are saying. For as many people who say they don't want active recreation nearby, I
think there are folks who would welcome that nearby.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, did you want to say anything else?
Mr. Kanter — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Evan, I'm sure you want to explain.
Mr. Monkemeyer — I just wanted to add that the access to the site from Ithaca College
Circle could be gained just through College Circle itself. The developer has the right to
get a tax - exempt status on the property. They could provide a right -of -way through the
property to the community ... (not audible) ... there is an option for access. I think one
precedent might have been set, I don't know if in this Town, but I know in Syracuse,
New York, Syracuse University has a park within city limits. It is called... park. It front
essentially right on to campus. The students seem to respect it and it's a very active
park. Its has ball fields, land walking trails and an amphitheater, swimming areas: .I
36
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 31 2005
APPROVED
think it is not going to be detrimental to this park at that location because it is next to
student housing.
Mr. Kanter — not audible
Chairperson Wilcox — Roughly how big is the park?
Mr. Monkemeyer — I don't know. A couple hundred acres.
Board Member Hoffmann Another point one could make quite reasonably is to talk
about where the park space is needed and the students who live on Ithaca College
campus or near it don't really have the need for active playing space and parks because
they have that on campus right near College Circle.
Mr. Ballard — The athletic fields are just north of this property. for Ithaca College. It is an
extension of that. You are saying that maybe they need to be someplace else...
Board Member Hoffmann — I feel there is a greater need for a park for the people who
live not only in the area that you are planning to develop, but on the other side of King
Road and all along King Road between Danby Road and Troy Road. There are lots of
houses that have come up and know that there are children and young people there.
Adults need parks, too. Anyway, I feel that its not just ... one has to look at the need and
where the park is needed. Very often this is one of the basic criteria that we have when
we come up with where to place a park and where to ask for parkland rather than
money in lieu of parkland. We base it on where park space is needed. I feel that park
space is needed and we have felt this for a long time in this area. I think that the Ithaca
College students have a place to do that kind of playing around and relaxing on
Chairperson Wilcox — We are not going to solve anything tonight. Does anybody else
on the board want to make a comment?
Someone speaking could not tell who it was or what they were saying, might be
Attorney Barney.
Mr. Monkemeyer ...the parks that 1 have seen developed in the Town take an
extremely long period of time from the time acquires them to when they actually become
an active park... (not audible)
Attorney Barney not audible.
Mr. Monkemeyer — The other part of my question is does the Town have the money to
develop these parks because I read the article in the paper that came out a couple of
months ago that said that the citizens are not clearly behind the park proposals if there
was not no money, if the Town had to raise money and raise taxes...the paper ... (not
audible)
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3, 2005
APPROVED
Attorney Barney — You may be mixing the City with the Town. I'm not aware... (not
audible)...
Mr. Monkemeyer — I think the proposal says that I would develop a road... (not
audible)...
Attorney Barney — I don't want to argue with you. I think the board has given you their
expression of how they feel about this and I think at this juncture I think the board has
said that it is unacceptable..: (not audible)...
Mr. Monkemeyer — I don't know how far back you want to go on this, but I've already
submitted a couple of deeds to the Town as far as park and subdivisions. Maps have
been filed. Deeds have been passed. Then they have been thrown back at us. What
guarantee do I have? I go and do all this work and then I'm going to get an approval?
Attorney Barney — The deed was forthcoming 15 years after the subdivision. In 15
years a lot of things change. Had you offered the deed at the time you did the
subdivision then the Town would have taken it and recorded it. You. want to do a
subdivision and part of that subdivision requirement is parkland that is acceptable and
usable to the Town. This doesn't meet that requirement... (not audible)...
Chairperson Wilcox — We also have to keep in mind that it is not this board who makes
the ultimate decision. It is the Town Board who makes the ultimate decision. Anything
else tonight?
Mr. Ballard - ...are you saying that this parkland is definitely out of the question at this
- oint or -.— not audible .
Mr. Kanter — Well, from what I was hearing the board didn't even get into that part of it.
I would hate to have you go off and do more studies only to come back and the board is
still not happy with the location. That is the more basic issue.
Chairperson Wilcox — At this point I don't think there is reason to spend money studying
the site because this board had made it clear that they don't like the sites and Mr.
Barney, do you want to speak for the Town Board?
Attorney Barney — I can't speak for the Town Board, but I suspect that they're... (not
audible)...
Chairperson Wilcox — We all set for tonight?
Mr. Monkemeyer — We'll be in touch.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Evan.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: April 12, 2005 and April 19, 2005
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -051: Approval of Minutes: April 12, 2005, April 19,
2005
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the April 12, 2005
and April 19, 2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
for the said meetings as presented with corrections. .
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann.
ABSENT., Mitrano.
The vote on the motion was carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kanter gives the board an overview of the May 17th agenda and the board
discusses upcoming agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
On- motion -by- Board- Member - Hoffmann- the - meeting- was - adjourned -at- 9:33 -p.m.- -.
Respectfully Submitted, ,
Carrie Coates Whitmore
Deputy Town Clerk
kis
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:04 P.M. SEQR Determination: Lucente Lot Line Modification, 400 & 402 Warren Road,
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the
proposed subdivision and consolidation of two narrow strips of land along the boundary line
between 400 (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -39.2) and 402 (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 71 -1 -39.3) Warren Road, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal will result in
the exchange of small pieces of land between these two parcels. Stephen P. Lucente,
Owner /Applicant.
7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Clavel Subdivision Buffer Modification, 175 East King Road,
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a modification from the Chase Farm Subdivision
vegetative buffer requirement for the parcel located at 175 East King Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 45 -1 -23, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
construction of a new house located 8 feet into the required 30 -foot vegetative buffer along
the west property line. Thomas Clavel, Owner /Applicant.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed 14 -lot subdivision located on
Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a
new cul -de -sac road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 12 residential lots and
one +/- 2 -acre parcel reserved for open space_ Approximately 62 acres of the original
92.43 -acre parcel will remain available for agriculture. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant;
Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent.
7:30 P.M.
E61
6
10
11
Discussion of the April 14, 2005 site visit and potential park sites related to the proposed
Ithaca Estates Subdivision located off East King Road.
Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
Approval of Minutes: April 12, 2005 and April 19, 20050
Other Business:
Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
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, May 3, 2005, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed
subdivision and consolidation of two narrow strips of land along the boundary line
between 400 (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -39.2) and 402 (Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 71 -1 -39.3) Warren Road, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
will result in the exchange of small pieces of land between these two parcels. Stephen P.
Lucente, Owner /Applicant,
7:15 P.M. Consideration of a modification from the Chase Farm Subdivision vegetative buffer
requirement for the parcel located at 175 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No,
45 -1 -23, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes construction of a new
house located 8 feet into the required 30 -foot vegetative buffer along the west property
line. Thomas Clavel, Owner /Applicant.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing
impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons
desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Dated: Monday, April 25, 2005
Publish: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
I
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARb
SIGN -IN SHEET
BATE: May 3, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
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 TuesdgL May 3, 2005 commencing at
7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tio ag Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
April 25, 2005
April 27, 2005
5XOXA� CFoIc�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of April 2005,
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New .York
No. 01 CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20