Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-10-16FILE DATE 0 2yrLIZ REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Rod Howe, Larry Thayer, Kevin Talty and Susan Riha. Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer (7:05p.m.); Christine Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS James Henry, 201 East Cortland Street, Groton Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road Celest Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Road Bonnie Mathers, 909 Taughannock Blvd. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 10, 2007 and October 11, 2007 together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and/or agents, as appropriate, on October 11, 2007, Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox announces the first agenda item at 7 :06p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:07p.m. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 2 SEOR DETERMINATION: HENRY 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION, 1020 HANSHAW ROAD Chairperson Wilcox — Before he gets going..] am reading the materials and I realize that the husband is representing the wife, who is the owner, and I'm going, wait a minute ...if he screws up, he's sleeping on the couch tonight. (Laughter)... James Henry, 201 East Cortland St., Groton, NY, PO Box 95 We are here, again, this is an action that was started in 2003...you have some materials there and I don't know whether or not everyone on the Board got through them, but at that time, we were approached in 2003 by someone who wanted to purchase this lot that we own on Hanshaw Road, we allowed the individual to do the applications at that time, he, at that time, his name was Mr. Flatt, and he obtained this conditional sub- division approval for an existing lot. This lot has existed in its present configuration for 40 years and how that happened is unclear. The property was divided into three parcels, the Underwood Family owned it. In 1961, a map was filed with the Town of Ithaca, but there's apparently no record of a subdivision approval being given at that time, although, also in 1961, there was a building permit granted for one of the three lots, which would seem to have indicated that they had considered the subdivision issue, but there was, at that time, the existing house, 1022 Hanshaw Road, had been built about 1936. That was the Underwood home, and this, the map was done dividing the three parcels and the building permit was obtained for 1024 Hanshaw which is what the Underwoods moved into.. It was a single story, the 1022 was a 2 story and the Underwoods were getting older and, that residence was built in 1967, the flag lot, the lot we're talking about, was sold actually in 1961. The 1022 Hanshaw was sold and then later, I think it was 1974...Mrs. Underwood sold 1024 Hanshaw. So the parcel had been divided out into three lots by deed as of 1067 and has been in the present lots for that 40 year period. What we're asking for and which was what was asked for in 2003, was, is, authorization, validation, approval, of the existing lot, of the flag lot. The Town of Ithaca does not have a flag lot ordinance like some municipalities do, but this is a lot that has a 20 ... well, the older map said 27 feet, the newer map, which, has everybody got the newer map? The surveyor just finished it yesterday, and we picked it up ... has it as 26.85 feet. The...and it's a large lot. The tax map has it as 1.7 acres. The surveyor says it's actually only 1.525, which means that all the owners have been paying taxes on a larger parcel than what actually exists, so the Town has been getting some extra tax revenue on this...(laughter )...In 2006, this Board approved it, conditionally...The major condition being that variances be obtained from the ZBA for frontage, for the street frontage and frontage at 50 feet back. Mr. Flatt, the prospective buyer at that time, went to the ZBA, there was a hearing, however, he applied not only for the area variances, the two frontage variances, but he also applied for a use variance to build a 50150 duplex that was not, and is not, allowed in that district. At that hearing no vote was taken, I think there wasn't a quorum, but there was opposition from the neighbors to the duplex idea, putting the duplex back there, and as a result, a few days after that hearing, Mr. Flatt withdrew his application for the variances. He withdrew from the contract, and frankly, we should have picked up and taken over his application or something, at that time, and cleaned it up at that time but we didn't. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 3 We now have a contract conditioned on getting the necessary approvals, for a family that wants to build a single - family residence, you know, fully in compliance with the zoning, but we need approval from the two Boards. The same ,approval, basically, as 2003 from this Board, and there's been some confusion about whether this should be an application for an extension or re- application...for that reason, we submitted everything, you know, made it a complete application in case that's what's necessary. The one thing that 1 would actually mention with regard to a change, or rather, one of the conditions that was put in the resolution in 2003 was that there be an easement for a sewer line that runs from 1022 Hanshaw across this parcel, to the public sewer that runs across this parcel. That actually is in place, and I have here, if you'd like, a copy of the sections of the deeds of the two deeds, of the deed for 1022 Hanshaw that grants the easement across and the section from the deed for 1020 Hanshaw, this lot, that makes it subject to it, and the easement as contained in the deeds is actually pretty specific about the location and the right to have the sewer line run across that to the public sewer, and so, if you want... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Susan, do you want to attempt to look at it now, or... Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, okay ... we'd like a copy. One will be enough. I have to ask the question...are you aware of any environmental impacts? Mr. Henry — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Would someone like to move the SEAR motion? Board Member Thayer — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer... seconded by? ... seconded by George Conneman. We are referencing the revised resolutions that were on the table in front of you when you cam in, which essentially revised the, which referenced the revised map that we also had in front of us. Yes, Eva, Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that there is not a problem with the fact that in this new survey map that we got tonight, the driveway, that appears to be the driveway that belongs with the lot at 1020 Hanshaw Road, is partially in the right -of -way for the Lot C that you are wanting this approval for and yet, in both the SEQR...oh, maybe it's not in the SEQR, it's in the other one, there is a condition that that line has to be moved to the left, which means even more.... Chairperson Wilcox -- I'm sorry, where did you see that, because I don't remember seeing that... Board Member Hoffmann — It must have been taken out ... it was in the old one... PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 4 Chairperson Wilcox — No, it wasn't there ... I don't think it was there previously... Ms. Brock — It's on the second page of the original preliminary and final subdivision approval. A...letter A... Chairperson Wilcox — NO, no, no...that's this line right here ... by moving that line 4.6 feet, we don't have a side yard issue with the cottage on Parcel B. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, I thought it was the line along here, and that's what concerned me. Chairperson Wilcox — Never the less, the question remains that the driveway to your neighbor to the west is on this parcel. Mr. Henry — What there is, this parcel, the flag pole of this parcel, the 25 foot wide strip there that's 26.85 on the angle, is part of a 50 foot wide right -of -way. That 50 foot right - of -way is for, it was actually originally laid out in case there would be a public highway going back there. Underwoods actually owned these parcels and the parcels going to the north and the east and Sienna, the development back there where Sienna Drive was, developed in a different way. You have the drive go and make the circle around for Sienna Drive instead of putting a public road up through here, but there was this 50 foot wide right -of -way, 25 feet on the Underwood parcels, which is this lot now, this flag lot, and 25 feet on the parcels to the west and that provides for putting driveways in. And so the driveway that straddles there is intended to straddle it, it is intended to have the driveway go up in the 50 foot wide right -of -way and service the lot to the west and this lot as well as it could service the Hutchins lot to the north. Mr. Hutchins has, his driveway is over to the west and his house is up there, but he has that L- shaped parcel that goes up around there ... But that is why, but the driveway is a joint driveway and that is provided ... you know, the 50 foot wide right -of -way is provided for in all of the deeds. Chairperson Wilcox — I am looking at the Attorney for the Town...Do we care? Ms. Brock — The owner of the flag lot might care that the neighbor is, without some sort of an agreement , the neighbor is running their car on the property... Mr. Henry — But there is an agreement... Chairperson Wilcox — There is a written... Mr. Henry — It's written in the deeds that there's this 5 -0 foot right -of -way with 25 on each of these parcels that is for a right -of -way. It is for each parcel... Chairperson Wilcox — And that is part of the deed in the appropriate parcels... Mr. Henry — Yes. PB 10116Y2007 Pg. 5 Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so the owner of 1020...excuse me, let me make sure,, So the owner to the west has the legal right to use that 50 foot right -of -way? Mr. Henry — Oh yes ... They have a right to use all of the 50 foot width. As does this parcel has the right to use the whole 50 foot wide right, as does Bernie Hutchins, also has a right to use that... Chairperson Wilcox — Even though he has his own driveway down the road... Mr. Henry —That's right... Chairperson Wilcox — All right ... in regard to environmental review ... I have a motion and a second ... any further discussion? ... there being none ... all those in favor please signal by saying aye...anybody opposed? ... no one is opposed...the motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 108 SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Henry 2 -Lot Subdivision 1020 Hanshaw Road Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board October 16, 2007 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner /Applicant; James R Henry, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on October 16, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map — Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson Henry Located on Hanshaw Road", dated 9/26/2007, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., and other application materials, and PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 6 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 for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Conneman, Howe, Talty & Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:20p.m. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for the 1.7 +1- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner /Applicant; James R Henry, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed? Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure why that paragraph A in the first proposed resolution is gone now? Chairperson Wilcox — Because the revised map reflects that change. Alternate Member Erb — Is there any problem with the fact that the paragraphs are reading, are talking about 1.7 acres and it's not? Mr. Kanter — That's why we say plus or minus. Alternate Member Erb — That covers that much of a difference? Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to hear the Attorney for the Town say something, rather than the "Assistant Attorney for the Town ". PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 7 Ms. Brock — It's okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. My feeling is it was the correct number based upon the 1961 survey and the information available to us at the time. There are no questions? Ms. Brock — I have a question. Why is this being processed as a 2 -lot subdivision and not a 3 -lot subdivision? Chairperson Wilcox — We are separating C from A, I believe. Ms. Brock — Has there been anything in the past to separate B? Mr. Smith — We really didn't have any good information what number (inaudible). The only reason I used 2 lots is because there was a 66.1, and this was 66.2, there was no place that there's a 66.3, so I just called it 2 lot because those are the 2 that appear to have the same number, that were split at some point. Chairperson Wilcox — Parcel B is a separate tax parcel? Mr. Smith — Right. It has a separate number. Ms. Brock — But has it been subdivided from Parcel A? Mr. Smith -- Don't know. Mr. Henry — It is unclear. I think it goes back to 2003 and we didn't actually make the application at that time. I actually posed this in my filing papers and said it seems to me it should be a 1 or a 3 and they said well, it can't be a 1, you can't subdivide 1 lot, and I mean, we're trying to get approval of 1 lot, and I think it was just, well, it was called a 2 back in 2003, so we'll call it a 2. 1 don't know, maybe, if you want to put in the record that this approves all 3 lots... Ms. Brock — Well, we really can't because we've advertised it as a 2 -lot subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct and also, we don't have the owner of what's labeled Parcel B here. Ms. Brock — So tonight we are subdividing Parcel C out from Parcel A ... That's... Mr. Smith — We are verifying the lines around Parcel C.... Mr. Walker — We are basically ratifying a subdivision that was illegally performed 30, 40 years ago. Ms. Brock —And so at the end of tonight, we are going to have how many lots? PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 8 Mr. Smith -- The same number we started with.... Mr. Walker — You are approving lots, you are basically approving Lot C or Parcel C as an acceptable lot. Chairperson Wilcox — As a legal lot. Ms. Brock — Alright... Mr. Walker — A semi -legal lot because it's been legally non - conforming... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah they need to go to the ZBA for the variances. Ms. Brock — Okay, so I guess if something come up in the future with Parcel B, now at least we have on the record that this Board is not saying tonight that there is actually 3 lots being approved in the subdivision. It. has yet to be determined whether Parcel B is in fact subdivided off or not, that that's a determination that can be made at ... has already been subdivided off ... that's a determination that we'll have to make at a future time... Chairperson Wilcox — Should the owner of Parcel B want to sell and a title search or whatever or some other search might indicate that there might be a deficiency. Which is what I assume happened here a few years ago when you went to sell... Mr. Henry — Yes, it comes up when you want to build on the lot and the thing was, they granted the building permit on B back in 1961, without, that's what the mystery to me is. Is how the Town has a map on file with a number to it and a building permit and yet there's no record that it was actually approved as a subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — It has happened before, and it has happened before where people will subdivide their land and submit it to the County and never get our approval and the County accepts it. Stuff happens as they say. All right. Any other questions? If not I will ask you to take a seat and I will give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the Board on this particular item, we invite you to the microphone, we ask that you give us your name and address. Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road So my interest here is mainly in the back portion of this. That line that's marked 247 on the new survey map. I've got to object to the way that they did this survey. In fact, only got this survey, thanks to Mike, at 12:00 today, so I haven't had a lot of time to study it, but, I looked at it and I see that there's something wrong there. I spoke with Ian, I don't know his last name, but his email address is -- ... . He's the guy that did the survey and we spoke in detail about the various thorn bushes and culverts and things PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 9 that he could trip over down there, so he is the one that did the survey down in the, what would be the northwest corner here. So it's the upper left part. There are, as I mentioned in 2003, there are three different pins down there. Three different survey pins. What he did, apparently, was for that whole line, beginning at the pipe in Ptak's driveway here, that shoots down through there. Now Mike has a copy of my survey, and I know you can't see it, but here's the same point and there's one, two, three pipes, all in a row. And if you look at the new survey, you see the starting point there, the same one, in the driveway, where it says Hanshaw Road, gravel drive, and he moved the line over. He twisted it by about 1 degree and you can see that if you look at the different variants here. So that he misses that first pin by 3.75 feet. Now, it's no surprise that by the time you get down to the far end there, that it's more like 8 feet. And there's no pin there. So he missed the last 2 pins as well. There is also the third pin there where it says pin found. That was one of the three that was there originally. And then there is the other 2 which he missed. He knew that one was there but he disregarded it and he didn't see the third one. And then he indicates there a pin that he set, just to confuse things even more, since there are only three, he put in a fourth one. Except, he didn't put in the fourth one, I spoke to him today and he said they haven't gotten around to doing that yet. So that pin isn't really there. So it's very difficult for me to say exactly what's going on here. 1 ask him, why did you move that line over and he said that they looked at the east side of that right -of -way and decided that there were two pins there that could locate very well and they reasoned that that should have been parallel, therefore, instead of putting it down through the existing pins, he swung it around by 1 degree and in the process, I believe is given to this Henry parcel, not the whole thing. Neither is he giving it to us, as far as I can see, because our deed anybody, depending on your size, can get up there in no -man's land. I don't understand why they did that. The other question I have is, given this right -of -way, this 25 foot right -of -way, does the setback, the required setback, start at the edge of the right =of -way? Or does it start at the property line? In other words, supposing the set back is 15 feet, does that mean they have to stay 25 plus 15 feet away from the right -of -way or does it mean that they only, since they are already 25 feet away from the right -of -way that that's far enough? I just don't know the answer to that, so it must be an easy answer. Chairperson Wilcox — If I understand the question correctly, the side yard requirement here is 15 feet and they would own half the, half that right -of -way, the eastern side of the right -of -way, the eastern 25 feet, would be part of the property, and therefore would constitute... Mr. Hutchinson — I was referring to, if they want to build a house, how close to the property line can they put it? Twenty -five feet or 25 feet plus 15? Mr. Walker — The property line is 25 feet, the easement line is 25 feet wide, I -am assuming that the language of the easement precludes any structures in the... PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 10 Chairperson Wilcox — Would presumably... Ms. Brock — No, no, we can't assume ... All we can do is talk about what our zoning setback requirements are. It would be 15 feet from the property line but if there was language in the deed that prevented any structure from being in that 25 feet, they couldn't build within 15 feet because they'd have to use the language of the easement. Mr. Hutchinson — So the setback from the property line would be 40 feet? Mr. Walker — No. Chairperson Wilcox — The legal setback is 15 feet, on the side yard. Mr. Walker -0- So they could build within 15 feet of the side yard unless there was something in the easement that said they could not build.... Mr. Hutchinson — Well it would be hard to drive down there... Mr. Walker — Right, well, that's what I am saying. We don't have those documents in front of us so we can't say that. But normally, you don't build a house in the road. Mr. Hutchinson — okay. Those are my main questions, I think. I would like to know what the consequences are of opening up this 8 -foot slice here that doesn't belong to anybody or if maybe the map should be... Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask if you are a licensed surveyor? Mr. Hutchinson — I am not. Chairperson Wilcox - That's my only question. Anybody else. Mr. Hutchinson — Could I request that I get an answer at some point to my question. Chairperson Wilcox — You will probably get an answer through this Board's discussion of the questions that you've raised, yes. Anybody else? Celeste Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Road I would be the owner that would share the driveway and I am not sure if this is the right meeting or if it's the Planning Meeting that I need to ask this question, but, I am not really exactly sure of how it works if they want to build on this property, with the whole rule of sharing that 50 feet property, because they would have to travel along our property to build, and there's trees along that line, which would, probably when they are going to... Chairperson Wilcox — When you say your property, what do you mean? PH 10!16/2007 Pg. 11 Ms. Ptak -- So, 1018, so I'd be the property to the right. So we own half the driveway? Chairperson Wilcox — You own half of the ... as represented by the applicant, you own half the 25 foot, excuse me, you own half the 50 feet which is your 25 feet, but the applicant has represented that there are right -of -ways with the deeds that grant you the right to use his 25 feet and which grant the owner of the parcel to be legally subdivided the right to use your 25 feet. Ms. Ptak — Right, so the question is ... along the driveway, there are quite a few trees, and if they were to build back there, several of the trees would have to be cut down, or trimmed significantly... Chairperson Wilcox — Which property are those trees on? Ms. Ptak —some of them are on ours and some of them are on theirs, and, you know... Chairperson Wilcox — My response is, they can't touch your trees. Ptak — Okay... Ms. Brock — We don't know actually. We don't know what the right -of -way says. It may say that it has to be maintained open. Ms. Ptak — Because our trees hang into their property.... Chairperson Wilcox — You're right, without knowing what that deed, what that right -of- way says, we don't know. Mr. Kanter -- And we should know. Board Member Hoffmann — I seem to remember from the last time this came up, that there was a row of evergreens there. Ms. Ptak —So the trees are probably right in the middle I was just, our trees hang because nobody has been concern, like, what happen 1022, like shift it over... probably or of that, so, into their back there s, because i the 25 feet that would be our property, they are probably about 12 feet in from the property line. property. Right now it hasn't been a problem and it's all overgrown. So that was my biggest it's not like they can move into the property of Mr. Walker — Well, just a comment from an engineering standpoint, 25 feet in that topography is probably adequate to build a driveway totally on their property. Say, it looks like the gravel guard that exists straddles the property line till about 2/3 of the way back in the property and it looks like it's probably possible that they could maintain the driveway from that point on their own property. This is one of those ticklish little things PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 12 when you have deeds granting 2 properties access to each other where the neighbors really have to get together and work things out. Ms. Ptak — So they can't, if they have right -of -way they can't build... Mr. Walker — I don't have the deeds to the property so I can't say what their rights are. Chairperson Wilcox — You should have a copy of the agreement governing that right -of- way. Mr. Walker — It may be kind of nebulous because if it was originally granted as a potential road right -of -way, but, the best thing for us to do would be to have copies of the deeds for all the properties, or three of the properties, at least, Parcel C and then the 2 properties to the west because those are the ones affected... Chairperson Wilcox — You're including Mr. Hutchinson's property as well. Susan, does that make sense? Do you want to review all of them? If you could find the abstract of your property, it should be in there, which is the nice thick book of the detailed history of the ownership of your property over time, you would have a copy of any agreement that should be in there. Anybody else? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:37p.m. Let's deal with Mr. Hutchins first. I have been in this situation once before where we had competing surveys and the determination this Board made at that time was, there was no reason to not believe the survey that was in front of us as it had been prepared by a licensed surveyor who has to, had their own industry standards that they have to adhere to. So that's my comment and that's why I asked Mr. Hutchins if he was a licensed surveyor. He may indeed have a survey that differs, and I am not surprised. mean, the previous survey on this property was 1961 and the survey maps have changed, I don't know why there was a change, but Lee Dresser who has signed this, and his seal is attached, as a licensed surveyor, has certified that this is a correct survey and I have no reason to doubt that it's not a correct survey. Mr. Walker — Can I make a comment, and I'm not a licensed surveyor either, but, I've dealt with a lot of surveys and I believe generally, when there are disputes, the surveyor, when he's doing a boundary survey, is obligated to check the deeds of all the parcels surrounding the lines that may be in question and very often, they're ... you can have two totally legal surveys done by two very competent surveyors with the lines crossing each other having a conflict and usually the, I believe State Law says they have to work it out between the two plan owners to come to. a mutual agreement and then set the property line at that point. Chairperson Wilcox —This happened, the one time we saw this as a 'Board was off of Troy Road. The vacant land off of Troy Road. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 13 Mr. Walker — Now, the evidence shown here where they had two pins located on the Parcel A with a bearing on it and then assuming that it was a straight line is a good assumption to start off with a line. I always get nervous when one of the boundaries is along the center line of a brook, because brooks don't always flow in the same place, especially over many, many years. So that distance may be, you know, if the brook shifted a little ways, it could have shifted it and then the fact that there is a pin found in approximately the center line of the brook raises a question but of course that pin found then the pin found in the middle and then the pin found in the center line by the road, you can't draw a straight line through them but the original surveyor apparently showed a straight line between them. So there's a conundrum, sort to speak. So I think really that if Mr. Hutchins and Mr. Henry can come to an agreement about where the property line should be, that would really make this... Alternate Member Erb — Well just a comment, the 1961 survey that we have doesn't have the middle pin ... that's the one that is offset on this map, it doesn't show it at all. Chairperson Wilcox — We actually have two survey maps in front of us. One was '61 and then that one was labeled at the bottom, it says "'61" and then it says updated or revised '86. Alternate Member Erb — And it doesn't show the middle pin at all and completely avoids the issue. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Hutchins, that's your answer, I think. I'm not sure you're going to like the answer but that's it. Mr. Hutchins — I would like to point out that that pin down at the end is not (inaudible) They didn't use any one of my three pins (inaudible). Chairperson Wilcox — I understand. Board Member Conneman — You're assuming that the later one is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — I am not assuming that one is better than the other. I am, simply, have no reason to doubt that this is not an accurate survey. Board Member Riha — And Fred, you're saying that if there is a dispute in this case where you have two surveys that are licensed, the property owners have to work it our amongst themselves. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, yeah, we have no direct evidence that the survey is wrong. In fact, it is signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor in the State of New York. And am sure Mr. Hutchings has a valid survey done by a licensed surveyor in the State of New York and this happens some times and when these pieces of land between them have no ownership or they overlap you get what I think you call °GORES "...I have a PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 14 surveying interest but it's quite different and they do crop up, especially when you have, you know, start at the elm tree and you know ... some old plots are done that way. Did you want to say something? Mr. Henry — Just a couple of comments. One, if you took, if you ran from the existing, the old pipe in the driveway and used the pin, the middle pin, and ran that, a straight line there, Mr. Hutchins' property would be smaller than it is. This is ... if you are arguing that this should go over, that's to his disadvantage, not to his advantage and so, I mean, if you were using that other one, saying that pin found should be the right pin and that the middle pin is even farther off the line than it was indicated there, that would be a different argument but that would not line up with the distances...You know, so,... Chairperson Wilcox -- I'm not sure Mr. Hutchins is arguing bigger or smaller lot, I think he's just arguing is this survey correct and this survey differs from his and that's a reasonable concern. Mr. Henry — Right, but that's not the Planning Board, this is something that... discrepancies between adjoining owners should be something that is worked out with surveys and... Chairperson Wilcox — Are you a lawyer sir? Mr. Henry — I am. I should disclose that. I am.... Chairperson Wilcox — You don't have to. Board Member Conneman � Well, what has the Town Attorney written? Ms. Brock — I was drafting language to address the 50 foot issue, not that issue ... having heard nothing from the Board that you wanted anything drafted on this issue. Chairperson Wilcox — I think George was asking, are you, do you have any concerns with regard to the fact that we have, apparently, 2 surveys which in some ways contradict each other? Ms. Brock — Well, it never makes one happy to hear that, but, I think the Planning Board could act on the application tonight and if, in fact, 'the survey is incorrect and the property owners can reach agreement as to where the line properly should be, they can come back to us, and I believe, don't you Dan, have the right to make very minor adjustments? There are certain standards in the code for that so that it actually doesn't have to come back here for a full blown processing again as long as the modifications fall within the criteria that are in the code and then Dan reports it to the Board and tells you what he's done. So I think that would be the process that we would follow. Dan does about one or two of those a year. We don't significant environmental that many of them. Mr. Walker — That's really what the.. the western boundary of this subjec being separated, which is what the shifting even 10 feet one way or the a non - conforming lot because it's a size required for that zone. .because if you are taking property and the subdivi original subdivision was, other does not affect the flag lot, but it's still going PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 15 that road as the basis for sion is really A, B and C, we, there's no, that line legality of the lot. It's still to have the minimum lot Board Member Riha —1 guess what I was more concerned about, Susan, is whether you need to see the deeds to see that there's the correct easements because there's no sense in approving this if there's no right -of -way. Mr. Walker — Well I would say that we need the deeds to show exactly where the property line is to make sure that any house located on there is appropriately located. Board Member Riha — And also, we need to make sure that there is a right -of -way, right, or you know that already? Ms. Brock — Well no, except that they have 25 feet of their own property that they could use for a driveway so they would have adequate egress and ingress from the Hanshaw Road on that 25 feet. They're not relying, they're not solely relying on the fact that they have a right -of -way over other properties. Board Member Riha — So they own Parcel A? Ms. Brock — They, no, they, well, Parcel C that is going to be created is a flag lot, right, and the, there's a 50 -foot strip... Chairperson Wilcox —Wait a minute, step back. Susan, is it clear that this lot includes the flagpole, to you? . Let's just make sure. That this lot includes the flag pole all the way down. Board Member Riha — Oh, .okay... Ms. Brock — And so, when, initially, a while back, Fred said, do we really care about this and I said well, no because there is adequate access on Parcel C itself without having to rely on the other 25 feet on the other 2 parcels. But now we have this issue that's been raised about trees that have grown up and some questions and so, we'll probably be dealing with that too now. Mr. Walker — the main advantage of that right -of -way so they can share a driveway is to minimize having 40 feet of driveway when 25 feet might work as long as the neighbors can work together. Chairperson Wilcox —So they have 25 feet, roughly, of road frontage. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 16 Mr. Walker — And they can put a drive... Chairperson Wilcox — It would be a whole 'nother problem if it was a landlocked... Mr. Walker — If it was landlocked... Board Member Howe — I'll move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox —So moved by Rod Howe... seconded by Susan Riha. We have a change... Ms. Brock — Okay. So let me ... I've written some language but let me make sure understand your concern at this point. You want to make sure that there are agreements in place for the 50 -foot right -of -way for what purpose do you want to see those? Or for what purpose do you want me to be reviewing them? Board Member Riha - Now I get it. Now we don't need to do that, in my mind, because this would be large enough for them to enter or exit their property, right, this 25 feet? Or is that something, Dan, is there some minimum size that you need to... Mr. Walker — I think it's of much more interest to the two individual property owners because their deeds may be giving rights to their adjoining neighbor that they may or may not be satisfied with. I don't believe that the Town has any right on that right -of- way at this point. We don't desire to maintain that as a road. Chairperson Wilcox — And therefore the Town has no interest. Mr. Kanter — But generally when the Town is approving a new lot, or an old lot, in this case, we want to know what the lot is subject to, any easements, and that's actually one of the things that's in our list of Planning Board conditions, just in the general... Chairperson Wilcox — One easement that hadn't already been referenced was the sewer service which comes from C across A. What you're saying is now there's some interest in the part of the Town for at least having information about the easements with regard to access along that 50 foot. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. Ms. Brock - Except they don't need to use the easement to get the access. I mean, the sewer easement is different because the owners of Lot A need access to Lot C so they can service the sewer line that runs across Lot C to their house. . So you need the easement to get on somebody else's property to do something... Chairperson Wilcox — Does the Town have an interest in the fact that the residents at 1018 can and are using, have their access across the land that would be part of 1020 or Parcel C? Does the Town have an interest in that? Clearly the residents in that area PB ]0/]6/2007 Pg. ] 7 have and interest, but does the Town have an interest in knowing what that language is which allows them to share that 50 -foot right -of -way? Jon, you've indicated, "possibly." Mr. Kanter — Well I would say that the Town's interest would be in making sure that whatever the provisions of this 50 -foot right -of -way strip is for, if that could be documented, does not preclude construction or other activities required to build the rest of the driveway to Parcel C for adequate access. I mean, if for some reason there are restrictions in that 50foot right -of -way that say something about how the access is to be built or restricting it in some way, we would want to know about that. So even thought they have their 25 -foot wide strip, if it's subject to some rights of others or some restrictions, we'd want to know that. Chairperson Wilcox — We'd want to know, and might as well know now and have that information because it could impact, certainly it might have an impact on issuing a building permit down the line or something. Mr. Kanter — Well normally with something like this, unless it's something the Board is really interested in seeing, we could condition... Chairperson Wilcox — Similar to the sanitary sewer. Mr. Kanter — And have it subject to review by the Attorney for the Town prior to... Ms.: Brock — So I have that language, actually, I wasn't sure what, if anything, you want to do about the fact that the trees are there. Board Member Hoffmann — This is something that I wanted to comment on actually. It sounds like, based upon what the resident at 1018 said, as if the trees are located in the westernmost 25 foot strip, about 10 feet in perhaps, on the average from the center line there in the 50 foot strip, but that's where they are planted so that means they spread out on both sides, especially if they are evergreens, they do it at the bottom, and so they might encroach on that easternmost boundary strip. But, I would hate to see those trees destroyed or maimed-or taken out because I really think that even a 20 foot wide strip is enough for most traffic to go. I have a driveway that I share with a neighbor, the paved area is probably 12 feet wide, 10 -12 feet wide and I haven't seen a truck that can't come up, on a steep hill even. So I don't think you need a lot of width in a driveway, residential driveway. Ms. Ptak — my concern is more with... Chairperson Wilcox — I got to get you to speak with a nice, because I don't have you at the microphone, you have to speak with a nice full voice. Ms. Ptak — My concern Was more with bringing in trucks for building a house, rather than just a little car or an SUV. It would be more.bringing in building equipment and that type of thing. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 18 Board Member Hoffmann — yes I hear you say that but what I am saying is I have had trucks coming to my house on a very narrow driveway up a steep hill and down a steep hill again, turning around at the top and it's been just fine. Board Member Riha — Isn't this something that we have to let the neighbors work out. Chairperson Wilcox — And also, it might be a concern when the building permit, should a building permit ever be issued... Mr. Walker — Well, they have to have adequate access, but again, I think the 25 feet should be a pretty good access. Would there ever be any trimming of the limbs should they expand... Chairperson Wilcox — Let's hope the neighbors work together. Alternate Member Erb — Could I ask something of perhaps Dan. If you were to .put a straight edge along the line from the street edge pin that was found, back to the pin that was found that is the more easterly of the pins ... in other words, the line that would actually put the GORE with Mr. Hutchin's property. Is that still sufficiently wide driveway for your comfort in getting to this property? Mr. Walker — It looks like it may narrow that at the point of the property....if it shifted it wouldn't be ... the line would come over ... 8 feet at that point, at that point it might make it only a 22 foot wide parcel... Alternate Member Erb —That would be plenty still, right? Mr. Walker — That would be plenty for a driveway to get in and out. Ms. Brock — Well, plus if the easement is 50 feet, it just shifts the 50 feet over but you'd still have 50 feet, if in fact it's still a 50 foot easement. Let me read the language condition D) Submission of approval of the Attorney Hutchinson and Ptak parce of these parcels, to assure C. that I have and maybe this will address it,so, we'll. add a right -of -way agreement(s) or deed restrictions, subject to the for the Town, among the owners of Parcel C and the Is, for the 50 -foot right -of -way along the property boundaries adequate access exists between Hanshaw Road and Parcel Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Henry also mentioned that he was hoping that we would eliminate Condition C, but we are going to leave Condition C. You provided us the language but we will leave that condition as is. Okay. I wonder how long this took us 4 years ago...l have a motion and a second, any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying Aye, anybody opposed...no one is opposed,. are there any abstentions...there are none...the motion is passed. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 19 Mr. Henry, before you leave, I want to thank you for doing what was necessary to get us a real survey map. 1 had some real concerns about those older maps and approving a subdivision based on those older maps, so I appreciate that. Mr. Hutchins, before you leave, are you still having a golf ball problem? No ... good. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 109 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Henry 2 -Lot Subdivision 1020 Hanshaw Road Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board October 16, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner /Applicant; .James R Henry, Agent, 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 October 16, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after. having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on October 16, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map — Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson Henry Located on Hanshaw Road", dated 9/26/2007, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision 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 PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 20 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, as shown on the map titled "Survey Map — Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson Henry Located on Hanshaw Road", dated 9/26/2007, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b, granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and C, delivery of a permanent easement from the owner of Lot C to the owner of Lot A granting the right to maintain the sewer line, subject to approval of the Town Attorney, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, do submission of right -of -way agreement(s) or deed restrictions, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, among the owners of Parcel C and the Hutchinson and Ptak parcels, for the 50 -foot right -of -way along the property boundaries of these parcels, to assure adequate access exists from Hanshaw Road to Parcel C. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Conneman, Howe, Talty & Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies. ,at our last meeting, we spent an hour on a dock... Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:00p.m. SEAR DETERMINATION Mathers / Patterson Pilings, 909 Taughannock Boulevard. Bonnie Mathers, 909 Taughannock Boulevard Chairperson Wilcox — Brief overview of what's being proposed. Ms. Mathers -= One, two, pilings, south side of my dock, 12 feet away, that's it. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 21 Chairperson Wilcox — The purpose of the pilings. Ms. Mathers — Mooring a boat. Chairperson Wilcox — Now there's a structure there right now? Ms. Mathers — Hmmm. Chairperson Wilcox — Sitting in the water. Ms. Mathers — Thank god that was approved in '03 by the Army Corp. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Now does this ... don't make it difficult please. What's, how does the pilings fit with the existing structure that's there right now? They going to replace it? supplement it? I'm not sure how... Ms. Mathers — Supplement it. Chairperson Wilcox -- ...okay ... boy, she's not going to give me anything other than a one word answer is she... Board Member Hoffmann — Would you just clarify. You said 12 feet away from what, is where the pilings will be. Ms. Mathers — My original dock. Board Member Hoffmann— From the original wood surface of the dock. So you're not talking about 12 feet from the metal boat thing. Ms. Mathers — No, no. Board Member Hoffmann— Because there are no measurements on the drawings that we got, so it made it a little hard to do the guess work. Ms. Mathers — I had them on the map I turned in Board Member Hoffmann — Where? Board Member Thayer — The neighbor has no objection? Ms. Mathers — Absolutely none. Anything he can do for me he says, with these dock regulations... Chairperson Wilcox — I have only one other question. Is the, to the scale of this map, we have in yellow the proposed location, of the two pilings, is that map, as far as you know, accurate and fairly represents where those pilings would be? PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 22 Ms. Mathers — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. The reason I ask is I visited your property today, as I am allowed to do, and decided not to walk all the way down to the dock, but to stand in the parking lot and look out over, and I noticed that there have been changes to the property since this survey was done. I think I noticed the carport, for example, at the end of the gravel driveway, so I just want to make sure that this is a reasonable representation of the property. Question to the Attorney for the Town, do we care, does this Board care about the encroachments of their house onto both their neighbors to the north and south? Do we care? Given that we are being asked to look at two pilings? If their house, if you look at it, the house, the house goes over the property line both on the north and the south. Do we care? Ms. Brock — I didn't notice that. Ms. Mathers — There... Chairperson Wilcox — Ma'am, I need to get you up near the microphone so that we can record you, thank you. Ms. Mathers — There are agreements on both sides of those houses. In the deed area. Board Member Hoffmann — Can you repeat.... Alternate Member Erb — She said there are agreements on both sides. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Yes. There's a 2 '/2 foot to the south and there's 2 feet to the north. Tight lot. Ms. Mathers — Can I ask a question? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Ms. Mathers — What does my house have to do with two pilings in the water? Chairperson Wilcox — That's why I asked the Attorney. That's why I asked the Attorney if it matters to this Board that your house in not conforming. No, go ahead, please... Ms. Mathers — It appears we applied for a permit and we are opening ourselves up for every little critique. Chairperson Wilcox — No, don't think of it as a critique. Think of it as, think of it as me asking is that something we should consider, can consider, should consider. That's all. P B 10/16/2007 Pg. 23 Just trying to make sure that we do this absolutely correct and that's why we spent an hour on a simple 2 -lot subdivision. We're your friends, be careful, we're your friends. Board Member Riha — I have a question. I mean, I thought we had, given our discussion at the last meeting, regulations about how far docks had to be from neighboring property lines, including those lines as they extend into the water. Ms. Brock — Well if they existed before those regulations were put into place, they'd be grandfathered in as non - conforming structures. Board Member Riha — Right but those pilings would be closer to the lines than those... Ms. Brock — But the question is are these pilings a dock... Board Member Thayer — They're not a dock. Board Member Riha — Yeah but why would they perform a function different than a dock, in the sense that you're going to moor boats next to them and they are going to be right next to your neighbor's property. Alternate Member Erb — They certainly would interfere with bringing a boat through that area. They certainly would, there would be impact of a boat swinging on its tether chain... Ms. Brock — You need to separate out what you're doing from what the ZBA will be asked to do. The ZBA would be the proper entity to decide whether or not these are subject to the side lot line restrictions and if they are too close, whether there should be an area variance granted or not. What you're looking at is a site plan and special permit approval. So you need to look at those criteria and that's the ... those are the types of things that you should look at. And let me get there quickly, because I can tell you what some of those criteria are... Board Member Riha —So the things that we were looking at last time, those were just recommendations to the Zoning Board? Ms. Brock — No, let me get to the special permit criteria... Mr. Kanter — Although while she's looking for that, you will notice in the resolution that it does have the condition of the granting -of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board because we don't know at this point if it will need them or not. Board Member Riha — So when we voted 2 weeks ago, because it seemed like we were saying, we were saying they had to move the pilings because they were... Chairperson Wilcox — We had previously approved a site plan and what they built was different. So they came back and said please approve... PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 24 Board Member Riha — Oh, I see, and so then, because we approved a site plan... Chairperson Wilcox — Right, "please give us approval for what we did wrong" was what we dealt with 2 weeks ago. Ms. Brock - -So this is different because this is an application for something that doesn't exist yet. You're starting at the beginning with them. So, among other things, the Code has Section 270 -200, Considerations for Approval, which are for special permits, among other things, and one of the things you can look at is "whether the proposed use will be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character, or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants." So that's the type of thing you need to look at to determine whether you think it will be appropriate to grant the special permit. Board Member Riha — So the only thing I'm wondering abut here, back to kind of what Hollis said, if it's within 8 feet of the neighboring dock and, what, you're going to moor a boat that's less than 8 feet long there? Or, how does that not then impact the neighboring dock? Ms. Brock — That's a question that the Board can ask them. Ms. Mathers — It impacts my dock more than it impacts his dock. His dock, if you look at the picture, is on a crooked slant into my right -of -way. He has absolutely no use to his left side of his dock, if you are looking at this picture, because that's all my right -of -way. Board Member Conneman — So.. Board Member Thayer — That's your right -of -way? Ms. Mathers — That is my right -of -way. Board Member Thayer — Up to his dock? Ms. Mathers — If you see his dock right here, this is all my right -of -way. He has no right to put his boat there or anything and it's never been a dispute because his boat, a 35 foot, is parked at the end of his dock. His dock is grandfathered. It's grandfathered in, live with that, alright. These two pilings will serve a purpose because I can't park a boat. So when I come in here, straight on, with north wind, on Cayuga Lake, I get blown into his dock constantly and I boat a bigger boat so now, if my boat gets blown like this way, I go sideways in and I destroy my boat. So these pilings will protect my boat when I can get into it and if I don't get tied off or it's rough water, then I go right up...it's just like a crib, I can pull right in and I can go this way and this way and it's protected. And it actually protects his boat a little bit because when I come in, I'm in and there's been times when I have drifted so fast with the lighter boat that I had, that I've almost gone right into the front of his boat and I've had to push off in whitecaps. Right now, I pull my boat in, I don't even drive it in now. I drop it down and I walk it to the back of the dock PB ]0/]6/2007 Pg. 25 and I pull it around front and I pull it all the way to the end of the dock because you're right -of -way, he's on and over my line ... and then I pull away. I thought about putting the pilings in front, asking for permission there, but, because we all have dysfunctional lots over there...a new word I've taught Christie, she's been great with us, you can't see any view of the lake that's clear so we'd like to keep the front of our dock clear so that when we sit there we don't have to look through the boats, especially ours. I don't have a right -of -way into .my property, so I have to come in from the left side constantly. If I come in from the right -of -way, from the straight on, it's extremely difficult in bad weather so I will drive up and crash into the dock and hang on tight. And that's how I've parked since 1990. These pilings will help us with not destroying our boat or anything. But as far as a right -of -way, that's all us right there. He has never attempted to park anything over there, he knows. His property is 60 feet to this way. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you. Appreciate it. Ms. Mathers — Not a problem. Can't drive a boat. Chairperson Wilcox — Candor is always appreciated. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to clarify something. Looking at the survey map, it looks like your neighbor to the south has a dock which starts a little bit south of the property line, it's not exactly on the property line, the extension of it, as you say... Ms. Mathers — You mean his dock starts a little bit to the north which would be my south? Is that what you're saying? Board Member Hoffmann — No. His dock is slightly ... the northern edge of his dock is slightly south of the extension of the property lines between his lot and yours. Ms. Mathers — Are you saying what I just said? He encroaches me. My dock is like this and his dock is like this. Board Member Talty — What we're saying is his utmost pin that shows his property line, it looks like there's, I don't know what the key is, but it looks like his dock is offset back onto his property to the south. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, so it contradicts a little bit what you said and I'm confused. Mr. Kanter — I think what she was saying is the setback area or the so- called right -of- way as she was referring to it, encroaches on her waterway. She's talking about the surface water, the use of the surface water, not the property line, because actually there is no property line that extends out into the lake. Mr. Walker — It also appears that the dock on this other property kind of heads north as it goes out into the lake if you look at the angle there, so, I don't think. the dock line PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 26 drawn on the survey map is actually the line of the dock as it is. So at the end of the dock... Board Member Talty — I do have a ... I understand the grandfathered items, I do have a concern about these boat lifts that are an appendage to the docks and decks going forward. I just wanted that to be clear because I hadn't really seen something like that before. So, going forward, I hope that everybody reminds themselves that maybe appendages need to be written in, boatlifts, this of that sort, because otherwise, where's the end. You'd be, the Board would be approving something based upon square footage of the dock and deck and then you'd have an appendage that goes off into the waterway. Ms. Brock — Right, the draft changes to the law do deal with these types of issue. Boatlifts, and now we're thinking we need to add pilings and other things... Board Member Talty —Whatever, Ms. Brock — We're learning as we go, but that's still in draft form but yes, that is definitely something that we are well aware of because we've seen enough of these now to know the types of issues that hadn't been foreseen before. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion environmental impacts? Got to bring us back t SEQR motion ... so moved by Rod Howe, do Riha. There being no further discussion, all Aye...anybody opposed? ... are there any unanimously. Stay right there please.... with regard to environmental, potential o that. Would someone like to move the I have a second... seconded by Susan those in favor please signal by saying abstentions? ... the motion is passed ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 110 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Mathers /Patterson Dock Pilings 909 Taughannock Boulevard Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 25 -2 -9 Planning Board, October 16, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit for the proposed installation of two new pilings on.the south side of the existing boatlift located at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -9, Lakefront Residential Zone, Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson, Owners /Applicants, and PB 10/16/2007 . Pg. 27 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan & Special Permit, and 30 The Planning Board, on October adequate a Short Environmental applicant, and Part II prepared by Map, No. 909 Taughannock Boule York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C, other application materials, and 16, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the Town Planning staff, a plan entitled, "Survey yard, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New most recently amended March 14, 2003, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan & Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Conneman, Howe, Talty & Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:15p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed installation of two new pilings on the south side of the existing boat lift at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -9, Lakefront Residential Zone. Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson, Owners/ Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes Ma'am, you wanted to say something. Ms. Mathers — You just read the whole thing again, are we starting over? Chairperson Wilcox — No, No, Let me tell you the process. We have to take 2 votes. The first vote is, "is there significant environmental impact by what's being proposed." This Board has now determined that there is not a significant environmental impact. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 28 That was the first vote. Now we move on to actual consideration of the pilings, I give the public a chance to speak, and we vote on whether to approve what you've requested. It's entirely possible that we could say there's no environmental impact, but not approve what you're requesting, as we did two weeks ago with a dock. Not to scare you though. I think this Board is feeling pretty comfortable right now. Questions for the applicant with regard to site plan that we didn't ask under the environmental review. Eva.. Board Member Hoffmann — The drawing, the survey map I should say, this one, and the photos don't really show if there is any dock to the north of your dock. It shows the one to the south. Is there a dock to the north? Ms. Mathers — Yes there is and it just got 2 pilings approved for a permit. Mr. Kanter is it... Board Member Hoffmann — How close is.... Mr. Kanter — I didn't grant anything. I don't do those, that didn't come to this Board is because those were approximately in the location of the previous pilings. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva has a question. but I knew about it and the reason replacements in kind. Exactly or Board Member Hoffmann — How close is that dock to your dock? Ms. Mathers — I'm not good at measurements but... Board Member Hoffmann — I mean approximately, is it the same situation that you have on the south? Ms. Mathers — No, it's twice the distance away. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So my question then is, looking at the photo and hearing you describe how hard it is to pull your boat in on the south side of your dock, why don't you want to pull your boat in on the north side of your dock, aside from having to look at your boat? Ms. Mathers — She won't let me. (laughter) It blocks her view. Board Member Thayer — Plus the lift is there already. Ms. Mathers — It blocks her view. We have boat s over the place and I tend to have to agree with her. can actually sit and look out and not see. this stuff boatlifts either. They're a requirement on the lake and docks, like I stated earlier, all That's one of the few spots that we and I'm not against boats, docks or and I have strong feelings for them, PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 29 okay, even though I have to live with things that are grandfathered in, that's just the way it is. Could I go back to the other dock and the two pilings? We're talking on variances and stuff. Those pilings were given to that dock, which I don't have a problem with, okay, I have problems with why I am sitting here, through this process of a permit of $25, $1001.1 Chairperson Wilcox — I can tell you have a problem.... Ms. Mathers — Oh ... trust me ... I'm refrained....$100 for this Planning Board, hopefully not $100 for the Zoning Board on this variance thing, which is my question. You're allowing those pilings to go in, which I have no problem with, but, they don't have a variance to that dock to their neighbor. Mr. Kanter — It's grandfathered, existing condition. Ms. Mathers — So hypothetically, down the road, if this person to the south of me, which they're nice people, we're losing our neighbors because of tax assessments and costs of things, hypothetically if a new owner comes in there someday and wants to add pilings to that dock, is he just going to get it for $25 and I'm not going to be informed? Chairperson Wilcox — I can't answer that question. Ms. Mathers — Hypothetically. This is just what I see that happened. ..and I set here and the next thing I know, they're putting in a new dock, my new neighbors are, and it still encroaches me, my right of way, the 20 foot,, ,everything, Because you just gave this guy, under grandfather, two pilings for his dock and that encroaches the 20 foot non -line in the water. Chairperson Wilcox — You want to proceed on with the business in front of us? Ms. Mathers — Oh boy, you're tough. I said I could express myself here I thought. Chairperson Wilcox — And I'm actually glad you did. It's far better than the one word answers of before and that's better. I want to do one thing for the record. You referred to the woman next to you. I assume that you are Marilyn Patterson. Good. Okay. Thank you very much. Stay right there please. For the record, this is a public hearing, open the public hearing, I will ask the audience, if anybody else wishes to address the Planning Board, there is no one here, in fact, for the record, the neighbors were out there previously talking about the previous subdivision, ..so I will close the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Any further discussion? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the resolution. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 30 Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry, do I have a second, can the Chair second ... there we go ... seconded by the Chair. Changes Susan? Ms. Brock — None. Chairperson Wilcox - All right, I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. I have a problem with this just as well as I had last time because they're, what we are getting into is a situation where the envelope is being pushed and we are ending up thinking of approving something which, does not have the proper distances and so on and there's already a problem because these docks that exist have already been built without the proper distances and I don't think the way to remedy this problem is to encroach more on that narrow space between the two docks. I think the way to remedy would be to move the place to dock the boat to another place, and if it interferes with the view from near the water, well, that's not our problem, I think that's something that can be remedied maybe by the applicant by maybe building or creating a space on their house where they can look out over the view or something like that, but, that's not for us to decide or worry about. But I'm really concerned about us approving things where we are getting more and more into approving things which do not conform with the guidelines we have set up and we have set the guidelines up for reasons. Board Member Riha — But that's what I asked earlier and I wanted clarification from Susan, but we're not, it's the Zoning Board that would rule on whether or not to give a variance... Chairperson Wilcox — Should one be necessary... Ms. Brock — Right. On the variance issue... Board Member Riha — They would say oh well, this is not meeting the requirements. Board Member Hoffmann — But I think it also doesn't meet, what did you call it Susan, the criteria, one of the criteria... Ms. Brock — The special- permit criteria. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that this proposed use would be to the detriment of the neighborhood and the neighbor to the south and I think it would be better to try to do something on the north side where there is more room. Ms. Balestra — Eva, if I can just say, if they were to put pilings on the north side of their dock, they would be over their property line. I just wanted to note that. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 31 Board Member Hoffmann — No, I'm not talking about the northern most end of this L shape, I'm talking about that space along the longer part of the dock, where it looks to me as there would be as much room as on the side that they are proposing right now. Board Member Thayer — Very little water there. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, the problem is you also have depth of water at that point and access... Board Member Hoffmann— Not here, but here... Chairperson Wilcox — But you run into, the water's too shallow... (a lot of talking over each other) ... Here's the issue for me Ladies and Gentlemen. This lot is 35 feet wide, really, that's the issue, and I think that what is being proposed here is sensitive both to their lot and to their neighbors lot to the south. Their neighbor is not here, which is good, we don't have a letter from the neighbor, they said that the neighbor has no problem, there's nothing to indicate that he or she does and frankly, they are doing what they can to squeeze this in to 35 feet of width. I mean, I hate the fact that the lot's 35 feet wide, but it is... Ms. Mathers — And many others are as well... Chairperson Wilcox — So I have no issue. Anybody else. Ms. Mathers — Oh yeah. Eva. North winds. Right where you're pointing at, I can get 10 -foot waves crashing on that side. It would beat the heck out of anything I put over there, and I like to keep my stuff nice. So, I don't put anything over there. Number one, northwinds. Two, somebody mentioned it already, shallow. Three, three, which you guys have all got to start taking into consideration here, is cost to the homeowner. I've got two pilings on the end down there that will fit this. I'm up to $1,500 with the pilings, $225 here, it's getting ridiculous. You guys put these codes in and I know from my neighbors and everything, they've stopped. They can't afford it. They can't afford the hassle and the cost. What you ask for sometimes in changing things ... it's tough. But that's the reason they're with that. I would love to put it in on that side, I have more space to park and stuff, but those three things, it would be out of the question. Mr. Kanter — So as Susan mentioned, the Codes and Ordinances Committee and some of the Planning Board members are on that, are reviewing and revising the current Lakefront Residential Zone regulations. I would strongly suggest when those come up over the Town Board, you appear before them and make your preferences known because the Town Board is the one's that deal with legal laws, and they're the ones that adopted these, not the Planning Board. The Planning Board is supposed to implement the regulations the Town Board adopts. Chairperson Wilcox — And abide by them. PB ]0/]6/2007 Pg. 32 Mr. Kanter — the Town Board is the one that needs to hear your comments. Ms. Mathers — You're absolutely right but the problem of it is, is I'm up at 4:00am tomorrow morning. My job, everyday, trust me, there's been a million things I would have loved to come down here on lately, but ... I have such a stressful job during the day, I don't want to be stressed out at night. I wouldn't be here now if it wasn't for this. There's a million things anymore ... the garbage trucks, the duck hunters, when I first bought... Chairperson Wilcox — You can get home sooner if you stop... Ms. Mathers — You got me here, can I finish ... I may never come back again and you'll probably be lucky... Chairperson Wilcox — We'd love to have you back...) have a motion and a second... anything else you'd like to say? ... I have a motion and a second ... any further discussion... Changes Susan Brock ... we're all set ... very good: There being no further discussion... all those in favor please raise your hand, just to make sure...all right...) have 5....all those opposed ... I have Eva opposed ... Mr. Conneman... Board Member Conneman -- I'm going to abstain ... I won't make my speech so this young lady can get to bed... Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, so we have 5 in favor, 1 against, 1 abstain...wait a minute... stop... thank you very much ... George has abstained... because George has abstained, we now go down to our Alternate Member, pardon me, we have to go to our Alternate Member here.. How do you vote Hollis? Alternate Member Erb — I... Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't change anything, except what you're on the record for... Alternate Member Erb — Man...(laughter),... Chairperson Wilcox — The ladies have 5 votes... they're all set. Alternate Member Erb — I know they have 5 votes. My conscience would have voted no. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you voting no. Alternate Member Erb — I am voting no. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you very much. Board Member Conneman — Thank you, Hollis. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 33 Chairperson Wilcox — We have 5 in favor, 2 against, the motion passes. It passes easily. Actually you only need 4, so you are off to the Zoning Board if necessary and that's to be determined. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 111 Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Mathers /Patterson Dock Pilings 909 Taughannock Boulevard Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 25 -2 -9 Planning Board, October 16, 2007 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit for the proposed installation of two new pilings on the south side of the existing boatlift located at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -9, Lakefront Residential Zone. Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan & Special Permit, has, on October 16, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 16, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and a survey entitled "Survey Map, No, 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C, most recently amended March 141 2003, and other materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed dock pilings, as shown on the survey entitled, "Survey Map, No. 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 34 County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C, most recently amended March 14, 2003, subject to the following condition: a. Granting of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1.. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the two dock pilings, as provided for in the Town of Ithaca General Code §270 -45 ( "Accessory structures and uses authorized by special permit only," Lakefront Residential Zone), subject to the condition(s) of Final Site Plan Approval, finding that the standards of §270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, Talty & Riha NAYS: Hoffman, Erb ABSTENTIONS: Conneman The motion was passed 5 -2 -1. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, we'll just quickly describe the process. The next step would be to file for your building permit. If the Code Officer who are supposed to issue building permits indicate questions as to whether this needs to meet the setbacks or not, then they will kick it over to the Zoning Board. We can't say at this point whether that will happen or not. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. It's Code Enforcement and those guys who will deal with it. Mr. Kanter — It very well may be that that will have to be kicked over to the Zoning Board for an interpretation of whether the pilings qualify as part of the dock and let's say that's likely, but I can't make that judgment. Board Member Talty — I have a question. How many companies are on the lake that do pilings? Ms. Mathers — I have no idea. Board Member Talty — Well, have you, I mean, you've certainly contacted one, is that correct? Ms. Mathers — Yes. Ms. Balestra — I know of three, but the most popular appears to be Knewstub. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 35 Mr. Walker — Hey, put a railing on it, call it a fence, it doesn't need the variance ...(laughter)... Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies, you are free to go. Board Member Conneman — I would like to make my speech though. Chairperson Wilcox — Please make your speech, go ahead. Board Member Conneman — If I bought a Hummer and couldn't fit it in my driveway, Fred Noteboom would not let me build in the Town right -of -way or across the road. What we have with these docks is, they are encroaching on the lake in various ways and we have to put a stop to that because I can't expand my property by building in the Town right -of -way. I've thought about it. I've asked Fred if I could build something over the road because I could have a better extension of my patio in the back. I mean that's what's happening with these docks. That's why I abstained... Chairperson Wilcox — Are we done... can we move on... Board Member Hoffmann -- Might also add... Chairperson Wilcox —We're not done... Ms. Brock — The water actually belongs to the State, Fred, and the State has allowed this to happen, as long as there's no impediment to navigation. That's my understanding, and, the Corp of Engineers has certain standards too, so if the structures in the water trigger any of those thresholds, then the Corp needs to give permission. Board Member Conneman — But we have rules that supersede that? Mr. Walker — No. Ms. Brock — We have the ability to regulate what goes in, to some extent... Board Member Conneman — We have rules that regulate how far they are allowed to go... Chairperson Wilcox — Can we go on, please... Ms. Mathers — Can I ask a question? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may. Ms. Mathers — Why does this involve the Town anyway? PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 36 Chairperson Wilcox — Talk to the Town Board.. Ms. Brock — This is a waterfront structure. Why did you have to come here? Ms. Mathers — No. Why did the Town get involved with dock (inaudible). Ms. Brock — That's a Town Board question. They're the ones that passed the law. This Board only "implements" it, they don't write the law, they don't approve the law, they get the law and are told, implement it. Mr. Kanter — Although a couple of these people are... Chairperson Wilcox — We're involved in the drafting, but, again, we didn't draft it without some guidance from the elected officials... Ms. Brock — For the new regulations that are coming along, the West Shore Homeowner's Association was contacted and in fact, I think they sent out a survey to every homeowner on the lake, you probably got it, and tomorrow night, the Codes and Ordinances Committee is looking at all that information. It starts at 7:30p.m. (inaudible) Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I would like to add that I am sure that among the Staff and those of us on the Board, we also have stressful situations and have very similar requirements on our time as you do, so, you're not the only one. Ms. Mathers — I didn't say I was. Board Member Hoffmann — Just wanted you to know that. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you for coming. Ms. Mathers — You're tough, Eva. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, she makes me look like a pusscat. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item. MINUTES Chairperson Wilcox — We only have one set of minutes to approve, so I will move approval of the minutes of September 18th..,.do I have a second... seconded by Rod ... you almost faked me out there ... any discussion. ..Eva, your minutes and your comments are already.... Board Member Hoffmann — Right but I'm abstaining because I didn't read them completely. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 37 Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor, please raise your hand...) have ... you don't count. .oh yes you do... Alternate Member Erb — She abstained... pay attention... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I gotta do this in order here...all favor... opposed... abstentions... Eva abstains ... all right... Alternate Member Erb — In favor. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so it's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 112 Minutes of September 18, 2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board October 16, 2007 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Susan Rihal those in WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from September 18, 2007, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on September 18, 2007. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Conneman, Howe, Talty, Riha & Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Hoffmann The Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Training Chairperson Wilcox — Let's do the training first. You have the lead. Alternate Member Erb — Well, I just wanted to point out that this sounds like a nice opportunity for some of us to get some more credit and it's right here in Ithaca, which makes it very attractive, but it's a night where it's the 3rd Tuesday of the month and would ordinarily be a Town Planning Board meeting.. And so, my question is, would it PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 38 be possible, with a long time available to give adequate public notice, to shift the Town Planning Board meeting? Chairperson Wilcox — That's right ... Let me just add to that. You will note that the two training sessions in total are 4 hours. I am sure that was picked for a reason. If you don't have your 4 hours in this year, here's a cost effective way to get it. If you do have your 4 hours in this year, I believe the state law allows you to carry over up to 4 hours to next year. So you could actually fulfill next years training requirement this year. So if you have 4 then this could get you up to 8 and allow you to take care of the training requirement for next year. Mr. Kanter —And this also happens to have professional continuing education certification credits. Chairperson Wilcox — Who's that help? Mr. Kanter— Herb, me, Mr. Smith... Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, similar to at the NY Planning Federation there are both Code Enforcement Officer credits and there are CLE's for our legal eagles. That's right. And I don't know about you AICP guys. The question is, do you have any idea, at this point, about the November 20th meeting, whether it can be, cancelled, which would be the first thing that we would want to do, probably.... Alternate Member Erb — May I point out that that is Thanksgiving week. Mr. Kanter — You know, we are going to be having some pretty tricky agendas coming up and you may want to do this first to see if it might make sense to try to reschedule that meeting. The November 6th meeting is potentially quite full, including at least 4 items that are pretty much confirmed and there are a couple of others that may or may not be, and if those aren't then we are going to need, definitely, the next meeting, at some point. We will be having the, coming up soon, the Cornell TGEIS and the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center EIS could be as soon as one of the November meetings to begin looking at those. So specifically, on November 6th we've got: Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Center for final approval, we have Cornell coming back for an additional presentation and discussion on the TGEIS with information on their internal Cornell meetings they've been holding. We've got East Hill conversion of the former Rite Aid space and we've got Ithaca College Emergency Alarm System installation of poles. Those are the confirmed ones. We've got some additional ones that may or may not be on that one. And so for the November 20th meeting, we could have several of those that haven't been confirmed yet from November 6 th soon with the Briarwood 50 -lot subdivision which has been, the revised materials, for final approvals even though the moratorium allows for the submission of final plan material; SEQR issues necessary and to pursue final approval up approval and that may need to be coming in in November. second meeting definitely. The question is, can we shift it. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 39 We also may have to deal actually, submitted for, with moratorium is in effect, the to the Board to revisit any to, but not including, final So we are going to need a Chairperson Wilcox — Let me offer the following: Most times we have 2 weeks between meetings, and a few times, what, probably 4 times a year we have 3 weeks between meetings from the end of one month to the next. We have 3 weeks between this, tonight's meeting and the next meeting, which is the 6th. So I don't feel like I would be imposing too much on Staff if we tried to move the meeting of the 201h to the 13th because you still have 4 weeks, even though we would have meetings 2 weeks in a row, if that would be possible, Riven the ability for people to attend, it would still be 3 weeks to the meeting on the 6' and 4 weeks to the meeting on the 14th, which is not that unusual. So I don't think I would be placing too great a burden. Mr. Smith — Except some of the projects that would have been aiming for the 20th for the 30 day time frame... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, you know what, I'm sorry, you know... Mr. Kanter —Well, but... Chairperson Wilcox — I know ... I know... Mr. Kanter —that screws us up too. Chairperson Wilcox —Does it? Mr. Kanter — It's not the applicants so much as trying to balance these all out so that Staff can actually review them and get them to the Board in a timely way. So... Chairperson Wilcox — Would you rather move it to the next week? Board Member Thayer — The next week. Alternate Member Erb — If it's the subsequent week, you're going to lose half of the previous week with the Thanksgiving holiday, anyway. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, but it allows for the adequate submission time by the applicant to make that calendar...it also sort of ives a little bit of leeway if there is some borderline between what would then be the 27t versus going to the December 4 th meeting, we can balance them out that way. So it might make sense to do... PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 40 Chairperson Wilcox —We also would probably have better attendance on the 27th than the 20th Mr. Kanter — Yeah it's totally after Thanksgiving is over. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. The 20th is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving and it might be a real problem with getting a.... potentially could be a quorum problem. Alternate Member Erb — I would just be happy having the meeting shifted, in either direction, so that we could still attend this. That's all. Chairperson Wilcox — So the 27th works better for Planning and Engineering? Mr. Smith — I don't think at the 13th we have projects in in time because they would have had to have been submitted yesterday. Chairperson Wilcox — That's the whole reason for moving it to the 13th, come on guys ... (laughter)... Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, do you... Ms. Brock — Yes, the 27th is fine... Chairperson Wilcox — You're okay on that.... Ms. Brock — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have a problem with this room? Mr. Kanter — There shouldn't be because it's a Tuesday and it's the last... Chairperson Wilcox — It is the 4th Tuesday though so... Alternate Member Erb — I think Paulette is checking. Chairperson Wilcox — While she's doing that, let me move a motion that we move our regularly scheduled meeting of November 20th to November 27th so that 1) Planning Board members have the opportunity to attend training that's being provided in the City of Ithaca, and 2) in order to better hope ... bad English... better... in order to better ensure, better ensure that we have a quorum on the 27th ..so moved. Seconded... seconded by Eva ... a... in favor...none opposed ...you'll.get it off the tape and it's not crucial...Yeah..,she would have punched me if the room wasn't available. P$ 10/16/2007 Pg. 41 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 113 Move Meeting Dates November 20, 2007 to November 27, 2007 Planning Board, October 16, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. Motion to move the regularly scheduled meeting of November 20, 2007 to November 27, 2007 so that, One; Planning Board Members have the opportunity to attend training that is being provided in the City of Ithaca and Two; in order to ensure that we have a quorum on the 27tH A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Conneman, Howe, Talty, Riha & Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion passed unanimously. Board Member Conneman — Can we go to half of it? Because I went to the other half... Chairperson Wilcox —Sure you can go to half and get 2 hours credit. Mr. Kanter — One thing I wanted to mention is, you know, for anyone who hasn't met your credits for this year, this is the great opportunity to do it because it's free and it's local. I think there are a couple of you who have not met your credits, so, if you don't do this one, you may not have another chance. For others of you who have already met your credits, yeah, you could go to one of the other of these, and again, you can carry over credits beyond the 4 from this year to the next. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I should point out that both of these sessions were held, or sessions with the same name and description were held in Saratoga Springs and George attended one and I believe I attended both. Alternate Member Erb — Well there was a case update at the one where we took two cars up in Hamilton and I was just inquiring if we know whether this will be a different update or not. Mr. Kanter — I don't really know enough about these sessions although I think they are being given by the same people, the Department of State. Board Member Conneman — Hollis, the update in Saratoga was different than what we did. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 42 Alternate Member Erb — Okay, so it has the potential for being different. Board Member Conneman — He had a few cases that he threw in there... Alternate Member Erb — And this, although it is four hours, it didn't actually say that ZBA and Planning Board members would get 4 hours credit. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah I know, but, my understanding of the Town of Ithaca's actions are, or lack of action, is that these would be acceptable training. Ms. Brock — The Town has yet, the Town Board has yet to pass a resolution but we will be drafting the resolution, so I think it's quite certain that... Mr. Kanter — It will be tailored to meet... Board Member Talty — How long do you get to perform your 4 hours? Like say, for example, one of us doesn't have all of our credits right now, what's the safety factor for next year? Is there any? You know, does it roll over from year to year. Ms. Brock — The Town Board can waive the requirement on a case -by -case basis, but I don't think there is a grace period into the next year to get the training. Mr. Kanter — Not unless, the Town Board could in the resolution, approve a grace period but we haven't talked about one... Chairperson Wilcox — No we haven't. Therefore, if the Town does. not supersede State Law, which they can do, under Home Rule, then I believe a Planning Board or Zoning Board member who does not receive the .required amount of training, can not be re- appointed. Ms. Brock — No, the Town can waive it... Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, no, I said, if the Town does not supersede State Law... Ms. Brock — No, the State Law says the Town may, the Town Board may waive the requirements. Chairperson Wilcox — May. Ms. Brock — hmmm. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but my point is, maybe I'm not speaking clearly, if the Town takes no action, passes no resolution, then State Law, then what... PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 43 Alternate Member Erb — May I ask, while she's looking that up, for Dr. Riha, who was muttering, if this would be at personal cost or whether the Town would be likely to cover the cost for us? Mr. Kanter —There is no cost. Mr. Kanter — This is a freebie, you should each sign up for it yourself, don't go through us because we have enough stuff to do. Chairperson Wilcox — There's a cost for attorneys to cover the costs of getting... Alternate Member Erb — So we should just mail it ourselves... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, and hopefully the sponsoring group will have some king of certificate or something. If not, we, I think most training sessions will have that in the future. If not, we will have an alternate form that says I attended this on such and such a date. Ms. Brock — The law says To be eligible for re- appointment to the Planning Board, such members shall have completed the training promoted by the Town " ... shall complete the training, and then "the training required by the subdivision may be waived or modified by resolution of the Town Board, when, in the judgment of the Town Board it is in the best interest of the Town to do so." Chairperson Wilcox — So if ... so I was right. Ms. Brock — And then it says "No decision of a Planning Board shall be voided or declared invalid because of a failure to comply with this subdivision." Chairperson Wilcox— So I was right. She doesn't want to admit it.... Ms. Brock — I will never admit that Fred.... Board Member Conneman — You were right Fred... Chairperson Wilcox — Did we do next meetings agenda? In a roundabout way ... The floor is open Ladies and Gentlemen. Board Member Conneman — Well I wanted to.. wonder if we wanted to discuss ... what we do about the Cornell Master Plan. I don't know how many of you have been to these Master Plan meetings, but they have been extensive and there are some really big plans, I think, that Cornell has for what they call East Village, which we would consider to be the old health care...the old Health Center and everything on the Rite Aid side of that property... Board Member Hoffmann — I thought they included East Hill Plaza too. PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 44 Board Member Conneman — Yes and they also, if I heard correctly, they are talking about more athletic fields, the question is does that mean the horse pastures... does that mean the agriculture land that hasn't already been taken up by that and so forth. My proposition to Jonathan is that we ought to invite Cornell to tell us about the whole plan rather than piecemeal. Otherwise, what they will do is present it piece by piece by piece and it will not look planned and it will be according to their plan, not according to what might be best for the Town. Nothing against Cornell except that you guys know hat that's what they've done in the past. They tell you they want to build an office on East Hill but they don't want to build anything else ... they won't even tell you that they own the health facility and the Rite Aid... Chairperson Wilcox — And they are trying to acquire the Rite Aid... Board Member Conneman — Right, so I think we should invite them and this coming weekend, I believe this plan is going to be presented to the Trustees, I believe they are here, and I assume the Trustees will approve it or something, and why not invite them and ask them to tell us what's going on. Board Member Talty — It's reasonable. Board. Member Conneman — It's reasonable in my opinion. Board Member Howe — Well, and George, it's connected to this article. Board Member Conneman — Yes, and there's another article that says Cornell plans to invest $20 million in the community over 10 years. I don't know what that means, I read it twice. ..it depends whether they invest it in what we think is right or what they think is right... Board Member Howe — They are very interested in affordable housing. They may actually be building some affordable housing. Board Member Talty — But without getting into much detail, I've heard that more than a majority of that money is already spoken for. Board Member Conneman — I suspect that is correct. That's the usual operating procedure... Board Member Talty — And it has nothing to do with affordable housing. Chairperson Wilcox — It would be nice if the consultants who have worked on the master plan, the next time they are in Ithaca, would happen to be here on Tuesday so they could spend some time with us, that would be nice. Board Member Conneman — And the other thing is, I don't think that we should get into the situation that the City of Ithaca did in having approved two projects in which there PB 14/16/2007 Pg. 45 were tax - exempt things given to developers and not put one affordable housing unit in either the Gateway Plaza or into Cayuga Green. There isn't one that's affordable housing, that's outrageous. Chairperson Wilcox — Be careful, we haven't talked about affordable housing in Briarwood. Board Member Conneman — I haven't mentioned Briarwood... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I don't know what the definition of affordable is... Board Member Conneman — Mr. Chairman, you mentioned Briarwood, I did not mention Briarwood...You can be wrong ... Well, that's my ... I think that's what we should do because that would say that the Town is interested in planning. Chairperson Wilcox — As I said to Jon, it would be nice if the consultants who have worked on the Master Plan could be in town on a Tuesday night when we meet. Board Member Conneman — That would be great because, actually, they are a Canadian firm, as you know they really have some ideas. They really do, I give them a lot of credit. Most of the consultants Cornell hires don't have as many ideas as these guys. Board Member Talty — What you need is the Cornell decision - makers. They never, ever, send the decision makers here. Board Member Riha — I agree with you Kevin. Because we have gone and heard the planners talk and that's interesting, but I'd like to get... Board Member Howe — It's Steve Golding, you want Steve Golding... Chairperson Wilcox — What can he tell us at this point? Board Member Conneman — If the Trustees pass this. Chairperson Wilcox — Then what do we want? A presentation of the Master Plan, which we've all had an opportunity to go to. Board Member Conneman — We want a presentation on what they really intend to do in the Town before they do it piecemeal, otherwise, if we get a proposal... Chairperson Wilcox — Do you really think Cornell's going to come and tell us what they intend to do? PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 46 Board Member Conneman — Well, then what we say is if they present us with one little piece of that, we, the Director of Planning should say no, the Planning the Zoning and the rest are looking at the bigger picture. Mr. Kanter — The Director of Planning doesn't have that authority to do that. Board Member Conneman — Well, whoever has the authority. The Town... Ms. Brock — Well, under SEQR, they can't segment if they know of other projects in the general area, it might be appropriate to consider them together. So you actually have the power to get, elicit that information about what it planned and then possible consider it. Chairperson Wilcox — Here's the concern... Board Member Talty — If memory serves me correct, every time that this Board has asked for that, they have never provided that information as far as I know. They always come with their documentation of what they want to have approved, and then, every time one of the Board members asks, what about this parcel, what about this parcel, what about this parcel, that is directly either parallel or adjacent to that property, "we haven't decided" or "there are no particular plans at this moment ". I could revisit the minutes... Ms. Brock — Well they do have 5 -year capital plans...l think you have the right to see that plan and see what's in it. I mean, that's a reasonable horizon. And you can look at it for yourselves whether they have plans for those specific parcels. Board Member Riha — So is that a legitimate thing when they are coming with the Animal Health Diagnostic Center, I guess ... I mean, we haven't looked at...there's Gutterman, they could be redoing that, A Lot, B Lot there. .'what are they planning for ... Chairperson Wilcox — I would assume there has to be some connection. Neighboring property ... B Lot would be interesting because it provides parking not only to the Veterinary campus but other... Board Member Riha — Right across the street, there's some buildings they are leaving.. Chairperson Wilcox — The other question is, you know, we can always ask, but what personally want is information that helps me make a decision about that application. If, let's go to the East Hill Plaza. If Cornell wants to build affordable housing where the fitness center was and let's say they eventually acquire the land to the west of the Rite Aid, and they go and build affordable housing...do I want to ask them about athletic fields out by Game Farm Road. I don't know, to me, that might be too far enough away to say I really don't care about Game Farm Road at this point, but maybe I am concerned about the horse fields across the street, for example. You know...it's close PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 47 enough that there could be an impact and it would be nice to know, even though it's a separate parcel. Ms. Brock — Well I think there are considerations, such as traffic generation, there might be pieces of impacts from other projects that would be appropriate to be considered all together. Chairperson Wilcox — And you've made the point that if it's in there 5 -year capital plan, then they're planning for it. Ms. Brock — Right, and if it's not, it's not. You know it's not on the horizon for 5 years. Board Member Riha — If it is in your plan, at least when we are doing the SEQR considerations, we should be thinking... Chairperson Wilcox — We should be able to get that information. Ms. Brock — Now the generic EIS for the transportation issues will, I think, to some extent, decrease the amount of work that you are going to have to do in the future because you are getting a lot of that up front, where they are looking at projected growth. It's not getting real site specific for you know, a particular building placed here on campus may have certain circulation issues that still need to be looked at but overall traffic generated on the campus, that's going to be covered under the GEIS. Mr. Kanter — So anyway, I think George's idea of inviting Cornell and if the consultants are available at an appropriate time to come in because that hasn't happened yet for the Master Plan and it would feel good, it would look good, it would be the right thing to do, for them to come in and actually address this Board for the first time on the overall plan. It's not going to be, just like the TGEIS, its not going to be real site specific, but I think there are a lot of elements of something like the East Village concept that really will affect the Town's future planning and since we are going to be starting our Comprehensive Plan Update next year, you know, that's going to be the ideal opportunity for the Town Board, this Board and other Town residents, residents in East Hill to really get together and say well, what do we want to see, not just what does Cornell say they want to do. You know, how's it going to affect that whole area, not to mention how's it going to affect downtown Ithaca, I mean, that's a big question that hasn't been answered yet, in terms of, it's going to be a major thing if it actually happens so I think we want to find out more about it. Board Member Hoffmann — And it's also what happens on campus in that whole area of Route 366 and Cascadilla Creek. The word that comes to my mind when I think of (inaudible) ... they have a vision about what they want to do about that whole area. They want to keep these green areas open and develop in- between and really concentrate development.. on campus and I'm not sure that I have been able to go to all the presentations they have had but, I feel that I would like to have a little bit more information about what are they thinking of doing as far as parking, for instance, on P$ 10/16/2007 Pg. 48 campus and off. But I'd like to share that vision a little more. It's exciting, I think it's exciting what they are doing. Chairperson Wilcox — They are going to put a skyscraper up and block your view... Board Member Hoffmann — Skyscrapers are sometimes better than. little one -story sheds. Mr. Kanter — Also, the last official thing we knew was that Cornell was planning 4,000,000 square feet of research and laboratory development in the orchard area and we did a special new zone for that which we spent 7 years on or so and spent huge amounts of money ... and now they're saying, well, no, we actually don't want to do that because that orchard is valuable for research and we could never re- create that anywhere. So now it's like a whole change and the last 7 years that we did all that work on, now they are telling us that probably isn't what they want to do. Board Member Conneman — There is a place to re- create that, it's called Geneva. Board Member Riha — Just to keep that look and feel.... Mr. Kanter — Whether it's right or wrong, we had a whole planning process before they came to that conclusion and that's like totally out the window now. Board Member Talty — I think the reason they are resistant often to come in front is they don't want to get painted in a corner. You know ... you said this 2 years ago... Board Member Conneman — But then they paint us in a corner. Board Member Talty — I'm not saying 2 wrongs make a right but ... but I'm just saying, often, to utilize Ithaca College... they've changed their minds, they've altered plans...but I think that they're generally more upfront, more times than not, and I think that Cornell needs to read those minutes. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else this evening that we want to discuss, .other than Mr. Howe and Mr. Conneman were in Saratoga Springs with me... Board Member Howe — No, and I understand that you are going to be President of the New York Planning Federation Board in the future? Chairperson Wilcox — Eventually. Board Member Howe— Congratulations... Board Member Talty — Were you kicking and screaming or did you raise your hand? PB 10/16/2007 Pg. 49 Chairperson Wilcox — I was appointed 2nd Vice President of the Planning Federation. The way it works is, if I stick around, in 2 years I would be 1s' Vice President and 2 years after that, I would be President. David Kay, of the City Planning Board, stepped down as President, his 2 years were done, he remains on the Executive Board.., Alternate Member Erb — I know where you can get some CE on how to run a meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — You be careful, I may be sitting there next year. Anything else? Do I have a motion to adjourn ?. So moved. Meeting Adjourned at 9:01 p.m. RespectfAly Submitted by, Paulette Neilsen Deputy town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. October 16. 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Henry 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1020 Hanshaw Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner /Applicant; ,lames R Henry, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Mathers / Patterson Pilings, 909 Taughannock Boulevard. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed installation of two new pilings on the south side of the existing boat lift at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -9, Lakefront Residential Zone. Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson, Owners /Applicants. 6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 7. Approval of Minutes: September 18, 2007 and October 2, 2007. 8. Other Business: 9. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD 1S 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 PLAT TMNG BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, October 16. 2007 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, October 16, 2007, 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 (re- application) for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner /Applicant; James R Henry, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed installation of two new pilings on the south side of the existing boat lift at 909 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -9, Lakefront Residential Zone. Bonnie Mathers and Marilyn Patterson, Owners /Applicants. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter 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 hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Friday, October 5, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 Wednesday, 0aober 10,:2007$1 THE I�THACA JOURNAL. Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street October 16, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Lhris *Ce(est c P+c vk l c: l 6::� 1 Address nSka. TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION 1, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that l am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York: that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,. The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning, Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York. on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication October 5, 2007 October 10, 2007 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this l 01h day of October 2007. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No, 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20