Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-11-27REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Susan Riha. Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb. FILE DATE 42 - Rod Howe, Larry Thayer, and STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS: Mina Amundsen and Steve Golding, Cornell University David Herrick, TG Miller, 203 North Aurora Street Orlando Turco, 307 Eastwood Ave Mark Macera, 1 Bella Vista Drive Claire Forest, 330 West King Road Joe Allen, 417 North Cayuga Street Nathaniel Greenspan & Susan Perry CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:03 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 November 19, 2007 and November 21, 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 November 19, 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 7:04p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox — If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, item, topic or concern that is not on the agenda, we ask that you please step to the microphone, give us your name and address, and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. If you are here for one of the public hearings, we will give you an opportunity to speak at that time. Claire, you may want to say something with regard to the environmental PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 2 issues with one of the subdivisions, we'll give you a chance to speak at that time. David, go ahead, you are probably the only one here who wants to speak at this point. David Herrick, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors, 203 N. Aurora Street Thank you. Somewhat unofficial here, at least in my attire ... I have hockey practice to attend very shortly. But, I did want to officially introduce the Board to the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center. We have finally completed the draft document and we look forward in coming months to reviewing the content of that document for adequacy, and we will certainly make available all of the folks who contributed to the entirety of the document. It is not as ominous, I think, as it looks in volume ... The first 100 pages are the real narrative and substance. Supporting that are Appendices which have been completed, in large part, by other consultants. So, we are ready to officially kick -off the process, and again, look forward in the near and coming months in reviewing this with you and sharing all of our latest plans. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else wish to address the Planning Board this evening? On a topic that's not on the agenda? There being no one, we will move on to the next agenda item. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:05 p.m. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN. Mina Amundsen and Steve Golding, Presenters. Mina Amundsen — What I thought I would do tonight... Jonathan had requested that I present to the Planning Board and talk about the Master Plan ... And since we have a half an hour, I felt it was more prudent to really sort of dwell on the key features of the plan and leave time for questions... So, many of you have seen a presentation by the consultants a few months back. We have had several of those and I believe we also had one where we invited Planning Boards, so to give you a sense of how we have progressed on the Plan. So where we are right now is, we have a draft plan which is up on the website. I think everyone should have seen the slides, which Fred reminds me is a humongous document. That's not the document, that's the slide presentation.... Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you ... my head is more than usual plugged up tonight and I have trouble hearing you I..can you bring the mic even closer ... thank you. Ms. Amundsen — So where we are now is really ... if you look at the boards that I have, I brought along just three boards. I think that we can really talk about the most essential elements of the Plan with those. I have with me a board that looks at the existing campus, and if you can ... there is sort of a light green shading, if you can look behind the light blue and dark blue buildings. That really looks at the expanse of the main campus. So that is the main Ithaca campus and you can really see the (inaudible) nature. To the west, really, mostly in the City and then partly in the Town, is the more built up area of campus, which is the core. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 3 And to the east, to the north, to the southeast, are really the open areas, the fields the forested areas, the areas that are largely used by the cows, the College of Ag and Life Sciences and the Vet College, and the Plan recognizes that both the built campus and the open areas, what we call the "country campus" are essential to the academic mission. So I think that one of the big, key aspects of the plan is to conserve all of that open space. And so, that is the green, the big board with the green drawing. So if you look at, what we look out as a future campus, and you know, the 30 -50 year time frame, we have built really, within the existing built footprint, there is very little excursion into the open areas. So, if you will notice, the orchards have been preserved, most of the fields to the east are still intact ... but what we are doing in the middle of the campus is really building up. We are building both taller buildings, we are also moving some of the _athletic functions to the Game Farm Road Complex, really beefing that up, and....So we will have a distribution of the athletic functions off the core campus, but you will have most of the venues, the competitions, where the community comes to watch the hockey games and other events, they remain on the core campus. But none of the practice facilities, the baseball field, for example, will be moving out. And to tie all of these together, what we propose is a campus circulator. So this is a system, it's really simplifying the transit system that is on the campus. We are very well served by TCAT, but when we went out and interviewed people about what they liked and what did not work for them, many people felt that they had just too many routes and too many busses and too many directions. So they would love to take the bus except it would be great if we could simplify it. So what we are proposing, in concert with the TGEIS, is to simplify the system for getting around the campus but then connecting with the TCAT system at transit hubs. So we would have one on the central campus, but one or two at the edges. So you could, for example, if you lived out, really the far end of Dryden, you could drive to a park- and -ride lot, way out, take a bus, a high speed ... what do they call them ... express and then come in to campus and then hop on the circulator, or just walk to wherever you had to go. So, that's the thinking. So we are also reorganizing the parking. So if you notice, there aren't any parking lots, really, any significant parking lots in the plan. What we've done is arrange the parking in a peripheral pattern around the campus and we have put those into structured parking. So again, the intent is to reduce the number of cars on the core, making it a much more pedestrian - friendly environment. And what we have been doing is working very closely with the TGEIS and the TIMS to make sure that what strategies are being recommended by the TGEIS have a compliment in what we are looking at in the transportation planning for the campus. So I think that piece has been very closely coordinated and we'd like to really support each other. Something else that's come up in the TGEIS and that we have also looked at in a larger context, is looking at mixed -use nodes. So development areas, for example, we have East Hill and we see that as not just a commercial center but really an area of opportunity where in addition to the commercial you could add housing, and we already have office uses. But, we look at that as an opportunity for affordable housing for both ... we haven't made any decisions, this is an idea, but, you know, for example, you could have housing apartments, or townhouses kind of housing, both on the existing plaza and further east, for, you know, junior faculty, staff, grad students ... So I think that's one of the ideas that's one of the key elements of the plan, is providing, creating, PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 4 walkable communities, both at the edges of our community, but also how we tie and relate East Hill Plaza to what happens in Collegetown and Downtown, you know, realizing that we have a very diverse population, they have different choices of where they'd like to live and through the process of the Plan and the TGEIS, we have surveyed several of our faculty and staff and students and so we are using the answers we are getting back from those to sort of think of how we offer up the opportunities. And again, I think the housing will be done in a larger context and in consultation. But we are saying that if there are areas that are good for this in the Plan, then we are showing those. So, I think those are some of the key ideas and ... I don't know how much you want me -to-dwell-on .what's.on the-campus,. per se...... Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, I think we are interested in comments having to do with, the presentation, having to do with the extension of the campus to the east, obviously, which is into the Town of Ithaca, and what may go there and what the potential impacts might be. Ms. Amundsen — Okay. We haven't ... we don't have ... this is a long -range plan so this is not something that looks at specific programs. What the Plan shows is if you have to add, for example, we've looked at a number of adding about a million gross square feet a decade, which is what our historic grate of growth has been over the last century. Now, we may grow by that much, we may not, we might grow by less than that. We wanted to see what the carrying capacity of the campus was. So we've tested that and what we can accommodate in the core without really destroying its qualities is between, it's around, I would say, 3 -4 million gross square feet. And that is a result of us redeveloping a lot of sites, also developing our parking lots, so you would build on a parking lot and you would have a single story of parking, you know, depending on the location, below grade, and obviously the subsoil conditions and where it was located would matter. So, I think the pattern really look at the kinds of buildings, the amount of gross square footage you can accommodate in the east as well assuming the redevelopment of the east of campus. So, we recognize that a number of buildings are State buildings and once they reach, we would not be tearing anything down now, but I think once something reaches the end of its useful life and can no longer be adapted to be reused, you could take it down and then we would really maximize the use of that site. So we have both a plan for taking down buildings but also for adaptively reusing a number of buildings. There are buildings that could be really comprehensively renovated and refitted. You know, they might be in good shape. And depending on the program, you don't have to tear the whole thing down. But some buildings, I think, are in really poor shape. So, that's an opportunity. So I think that is the way we are looking at recycling the land that is on campus, in a sense. Chairperson Wilcox — I hesitate to say my concern... clearly something that we will have to deal with in the future is the expansion of the University to the east. Hemmed in on both sides pretty much, and as educational and research buildings continue to be built, we will have non - essential services continue to move off the campus, as they have. I want to say Precinct 7...Precinct 7 or Precinct 9? Precinct 7 ... where book storage has PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 5 gone and other non - essential services and we've seen athletic fields, now, within the Town of Ithaca. The women's softball field, for example, one of the earlier ones, but now, the athletic fields, practice fields out along Game Farm Road. When I looked at one of the computer generated images in here, you see, for example, Hoy Field has disappeared... you know ... where is Hoy Field going to go ... so there's the pressure, to some extent, I mean, it may not be a bad use to put athletic fields in out there, especially if they're not lit. We have the pressure for housing. You talked about possibly affordable housing in that area, I don't think it's any secret that Cornell has purchased the old, the former, Courtside, and I don't think it's no secret that Cornell is interested in purchasing the land behind Rite Aid, which is why that subdivision came to us before. Presumably that would be for housing, maybe, we'll see, as this comes about. But we need to be concerned about what the impacts are. I know that I have been contacted by the Bryant Park Association, they are clearly interested in what Cornell is going to do and what the Town of Ithaca might do and what its impact might be on the Bryant Park neighborhood and probably Belle Sherman as well, since the two are intertwined. Ms. Amundsen — Yeah, a number of the concerns, I think, were about traffic going through the neighborhoods, and I think we had a very good meeting with them last week. We talked about how we are working with the TGEIS and you know, even if we did nothing, if the TGEIS and its recommendations start taking affect, you could actually start to reduce the .number of trips through these neighborhoods. So I think that is something we are very, very conscious of. And the idea of a mixed -use node at East Hill Plaza is really, to have a walkable community, so making the campus much more accessible for pedestrians or by bike and encouraging people not to drive through neighborhoods. Chairperson Wilcox — You open for questions? Board Member Conneman — I want to make a comment, you've heard me make this before but I should make it for everybody. My concern is that Cornell comes up with a Master Plan for what they are going to do and what you call East Village. I don't think it's fair for you to pick off one project at a time and I also don't think it's correct to have to use up all of the green space. For example, we've discussed this before, preserving the horse pasture would be a general idea that I think would be important if you are going to build all of these other buildings. I mean, in the process, you don't want to build everything and intrude into neighborhoods and so forth. But the thing that Cornell has frequently not done in the past, is to have a comprehensive plan of where they are going to build and what comes next, rather than say, "oh, we're not going to do anything." Then next month you come in with another plan. In the seven years I have been on the Board, there's been a lot of that, see, so what you have to do is have some sort of a plan, otherwise, this Board may not feel very warm and fuzzy about it. Ms. Amundsen — Well I think the intent of having this is to say if we really had to build these are the areas that we would build in and I think the horse pasture, if you notice, is not built upon, we have left that as horse pasture. Board Member Conneman — I just use it as an example, but it seems to me that part of this plan ought to be green space. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 6 Ms. Amundsen — Oh it is, it is a very, very important component of the Plan. Both on the campus, and, I think as I said, one of the big ideas of the Plan is the conservation of open space. Board Member Conneman — As I said at the first hearing that you had, that when I was a student here, Alumni Field was going to be preserved forever. It's gone... Laughter ...okay... Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? ._B.oar_d_M.ember_Ho_we -._I think that there are some unique opportunities for the East Hill are but I think it's going to have to be done with lots of coordination because we know that the neighbors already there are interested in certain services, but I think there can be a blending of meeting new needs as well as enhancing neighborhood services already there. So I think there's some (inaudible) and I think it's good to have this sort of blueprint in front of us to that we're not making decisions in a vacuum about individual projects. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, my concern also, or my question at the moment has to do with the East Hill Plaza development and as it changes over time. It has changed already a lot and in the sense that some of the commercial spaces have been taken over by Cornell for office space in the commercial building and we just had, in the last meeting, a proposal that we approved for two businesses to go into the space that Rite Aid vacated when they built the new building, and both of them mainly serve Cornell University. One is a furniture business that is not retail furniture, it's one where people can come in and look at office furniture for Cornell, that's how I interpreted it, anyway. And the other one is a printing press office where they will have some copying service for the general public and printing decals on T -shirts and such for the general public, but, you know, as I see these businesses move and new ones coming in, I prefer to see businesses that serve the local community, and that's not what I am seeing lately. And my question I guess is, is that something that you have talked about? Is it taken into consideration that it ... that this East Ithaca Village, or whatever it's supposed to be called, has to retain the commercial services, not for the whole Town, but at least for the local residents, which would be the new residents, if you built the townhouses, as well as the existing ones. Ms. Amundsen — yup. That is something we will be taking into consideration. Board Member Hoffmann — You are talking about that? I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. My name is Steve Golding, Executive Vice President, Cornell The whole issue of the development of East Hill is directly tied to three separate sets of issues that will have to be discussed fairly broadly, both within the University, but quite frankly, also with the community at large: First, what are the appropriate types of services as the campus expands, that should be moved out to East Hill because that is an appropriate and logical location for those PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 7 services. Because putting them someplace else doesn't make sense. Example of that might be our CIT function which has... Board Member Hoffmann — Could you tell us what that stands for. Mr. Golding — Our IT, our computer services, operations. Which don't need to be on the core campus but need to be in proximity to the campus, as an example. I am not saying anything specific at the moment other than to say that there's a set of conversations that have to go on within the campus about what services over a 30 -40 year period would be logically moved out to that area. Secondly; -as we -move services -out, what are the kinds.,of,_and we build housing on that part of the campus, if that's what is ultimately deemed to be an appropriate thing to do, What are the amenity services that need to be provided for that part of the community that's living there. And thinking logically about what those are. It could be a nice restaurant, it could be ...you know, people want pizza shops up there and things like that. So, I mean, there's a whole list of things that people are saying they would like to see in that location and clearly, if we are thinking about building a community out there, a residential community, we would have to think about the kinds of amenities and services that would be there. And then thirdly, there is the linkage between East Hill and Collegetown and Downtown that have to also be thought very carefully of because the University is very much interested in what the City is trying to do in Collegetown, has a vested interest in making Collegetown work. We also have a vested interest in making the downtown work. So the fact of the matter is, is there is another component here which we are already engaged in conversation with the City about and, quite frankly, to a certain extent, with the County, which is, how do we think logically about the East Hill-Collegetown- Downtown relationship such that what we do in each one of those places actually works and there is synergies between them and that we're not creating competition between the three. So, it's a very complex problem which I can clearly tell by your questioning you understand, and it's one that really is going to require a series of conversations that will have to take place over the next, over the coming months as we think about, logically, what is appropriate for East Hill versus what are we trying to do with the City and Collegetown verses what the City is asking the University to think about in terms of working with them on a Downtown basis. So, there are a number of moving parts here and that's why it is very difficult to say definitively what we would do at this time because they're really ongoing conversations amongst a variety of different constituencies right now. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I would have to tell you that the example of businesses you brought up doesn't make me feel very encouraged, the restaurant, a nice restaurant and a pizza place. I'm was thinking more of everyday kinds of places like we have there already. A supermarket, the wine store, the drycleaner, a laundromat... Mr. Golding — We don't see those leaving. Those are ... at no time do we see those facilities going away. We couldn't think of that as a town center /community based area PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 8 if those services weren't there. So we have no thoughts, no plans, and there's been no discussion of removing any of those. Board Member Hoffmann — Well that makes me feel better, because that wasn't clear, before. Mr. Golding — No, we continue ... I mean ... it might ... if you think about it this way, which is probably where some of the confusion comes, because you see different forms of buildings on the map, but if you think about it the way Cornell would look at it, over 60% of the visitors who come to our campus, drive in on Pine Tree Road. That's what the traffic studies have told us. Our Campus Master Plan research suggested that we could -- actually, —you. -know; think - a bout reprogr -amming- that.a- rea- so_= that.it looks a little bit more attractive, it has a little bit nicer feel to it, over a 30 -year period. Such that you're not coming in to the middle of a strip mall, but you're actually coming into an area that looks a little bit more attractive. So what you're seeing here is the ... is one view... Board Member Hoffmann — I understand that, but I was... Mr. Golding — Of what the campus master planners think it would be. At no time does it eliminate any of the services that are there and in fact, we would hope to enhance them over tine. Board Member Hoffmann — Good. I am glad to hear that. And the other thing that wanted to add is, if you are thinking of coordinating with Collegetown and the City of Ithaca, our Comprehensive Plan has stated for a long time, that the Town considers the City of Ithaca the center of this area, and we fully support them as being the commercial center. But that doesn't mean that it's not good for both the Town and the City to have small commercial centers in the Town. It's not necessarily big competition, for instance, to have P &C where it is, it's not necessarily big competition to Wegman's and TOPS, but it saves the City residents from a lot of traffic of people from the surrounding areas having to go back and forth through the City to do their everyday shopping. That's the kind of thing that I think is important. Mr. Golding — We wouldn't disagree with you. I mean, I think there's obviously, will be opportunity for those types of amenities to be at that area if we plan it appropriately. Chairperson Wilcox —Anybody else? Comments? Last chance... Alternate Member Erb — I am simply looking at, for example, the last page, and the quadrent that is East Hill area, and feeling a little relieved... Chairperson Wilcox — Because? Alternate Member Erb — A little relieved because I see a lot of green space preserved. Obviously the watershed areas, the Thorn Apple grove that we fought to protect. I'm delighted to see the horse pasture removed from the arguments. I understood as soon as the intramural fields went in on Game Farm Road that that wouldn't be the last. It's already been said that there were promises made to the neighborhood just to the east, at that point, about lights and amplified sound, and you're aware of those, but, I PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 9 completely understand the argument for some dense, low- income housing in nice and close to campus. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I think that's a very good idea too. Board Member Riha — Are you going to maintain Dilmun Hill? Ms. Amundsen — Yes. It is. Board Member Riha — And then, in terms of state buildings, tearing them down, replacing versus redoing them, but right now they're going to be (inaudible)... Mr. Golding — Some of those are on the National...the Registry, right... So we don't have a choice. Ms. Amundsen — And then Stocking is not on the Register but it is a historic building, you know, it is part of a certain period in the campus history so, again, we would be renovating that, we wouldn't be tearing that down... Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much, we appreciate you coming ... hold on ... I'm sorry... Mr. Kanter — I guess just a timing and process question just to wrap up... What do you see is the timeframe for completing the Master Plan and what then? Ms. Amundsen — I'll take the first one. We plan to finish this, the Trustees are set to approve the plan in April 2008. So that's the official date of completion. And then probably will look at is what comes next. We are working on the implementation piece in the current draft, so that's something that is still very much in the works. Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, one more comment....We've complained often on the lack of planning on the part of Cornell University...] think now we should compliment them that they are doing something finally. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I have been very pleased with what you've been doing so far, aside from these occasional complaints I've had. I feel that...) think the last time I talked about it here, is I felt the University has a vision which is a good one of how things are going to develop in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — And they put that vision on paper, which is a good thing. Ms. Amundsen — On the web too. Board Member Hoffmann — I have one practical question. I have written in my calendar that there is a meeting about the Cornell Master Plan on Thursday, the 6th of December, in the Belle Sherman gym? PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 10 Chairperson Wilcox — That meeting has been rescheduled to the 17th of January. That's the Bryant Park Civic Association is sponsoring that meeting. They've asked me to be there. I'm not sure whether it is the old part of the new... When we started the meeting, I forgot to point out that Kevin Talty is not here this evening and therefore Hollis Erb, our Alternate, will be filling in for Kevin this evening. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:36 p.m. SEQR Determination Harrick 2 -Lot Subdivision, 340 King Road W. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there someone here representing the Estate of Estelle Harrick? Orlando, step up... Orlando Turco, Agent, 307 Eastwood Ave. I am the agent for the selling party. Chairperson Wilcox — Coach, if you would, what's being proposed this evening. Mr. Turco — Would you repeat that please? would you give us just a brief overview of Chairperson Wilcox — Would you give us a brief over view of what's being proposed this evening. Mr. Turco — Yes. This parcel is an estate and the heirs to the estate need to do something with the property: So we have proposed that the house and two acres would be up for sale and.I am the listing agent for that property. The rest of the property is going to be maintained by one of the heirs of the estate. And, that's just it, that simple. Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan, you and I spike briefly this afternoon... Susan, did you have a question about this? Is this the one you had a question about with regard to the agricultural zone? Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's raise it now as it may be relevant to the environmental review. Ms. Brock — Well our zoning ordinance, the regulations for the agricultural zone have certain requirements and it's not entirely clear when you read the ordinance which requirements apply to which types of lots. Christine's memo had mentioned that the ordinance states that "the Planning Board, as a condition to granting subdivision approval, shall require, unless good cause is shown, permission of same developer to encumber the larger tracts in the non - cluster lots by deed restrictions, conservation or agricultural easements or other mechanism satisfactory to the Planning Board to ensure that such parcels shall remain permanently as open space or agricultural land." That statement follows some requirements that talk about the clustering of lots. Here we PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 11 have one lot that's being broken into two parcels. It's a 15.6 acre total parcel and if the sub division is granted, you will end up with one 2 -acre parcel that contains the existing house and then the second parcel will have the balance of the land which will be 13.6 acres which the owners have indicated they'd like, at some point, possibly, to put a home on. When I looked at these requirements, I said, well, if this condition applies, then can a dwelling unit in fact be put on that second parcel. But in speaking with Jonathan who was around when the changes were made to this ordinance in 2004 and who worked with the COC on the changes, he felt that the intent of the COC and the Town Board at the time, was that this restriction on the larger parcel to remain as agricultural land or open space only applied where in fact you had a subdivision of more than two lots, where you in fact did have these smaller lots being broken off, so the cluster lots, basically, with a larger parcel being retained at the end of the subdivision process and that it didn't make sense to apply that provision in this type of situation where you just have a two -lot subdivision. So, and because the language does make a reference of encumbrance of the larger tracts, and then it says "the non - cluster lots ", I do think you could. One interpretation of this could be this doesn't apply to all subdivisions, including two -lot subdivisions, but in fact applies to where you do end up with more than two lots ... you know, one small lot, plus a larger lot ... cluster lots makes it sound like you would have to have at least two of the smaller lots in addition to the larger ... And I am comfortable going forward with that interpretation. So that was the issue that we ... Jonathan and Christine and Susan Ritter and I all had a pretty long conversation about this afternoon. Chairperson Wilcox — So your question was resolved. Ms. Brock — Yes. Then we've got an issue that shows up in the resolution which we can talk about a little later about well, then, if there isn't this restriction, do we actually have the ability to actually restrict the location of any future home on this parcel. But we .can hold that until we get there. Board Member Howe — I appreciate that clarification, because when I read this, I was thinking, why are we.requiring that on this two -lot subdivision... Ms. Brock — Well, in fact, if that restriction applied, I'm not sure they could in fact have another home, could have a home put on the second lot. Board Member Riha — Does it imply that parcel B could not be subdivided again? Ms. Brock — Well, it can't be because there is another restriction that is outside of this area of ambiguity in a different part of the zoning ordinance that says you take the total acreage of the lot as it existed when this zoning provision came in to effect in 2004, which would be the 16.6 acres, divide it by 7, disregard the remainder, so 16 divided by 7 is 2 and change, disregard the change, and basically, 2, that's the number of lots that they can create out of this. Then there is another requirement that if it's a non -farm lot that is being subdivided off for residential purposes, then it can't be any bigger than 2 acres. So, that's why we end up with ones-acre lot and then the balance is .the larger lot. And they can not be subdivided again, at least as long as this provision is in place.. Because that's it. All they are entitled to are two lots. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 12 Mr. Kanter — I think we will recommend though; that the Board consider 'putting an added condition in the resolution that deals with that further subdivision issue perhaps by a deed restriction, backing that up. Chairperson Wilcox — So that it's more explicit. Ms. Brock — I mean, it's here in the zoning, but we thought, well ... why not do it anyway: Alternate Member Erb — Zoning could change, our intention here tonight is that it just be limited to two ... I mean that's where we are going right... Board Member Thayer — What about the well, I see that the well is on Parcel B for Parcel A and I am wondering how that is going to work. Mr. Turco — I think I can answer that. There is going to be a deed permission for the well, that the owner of the 2 -acre parcel will have control of the well at all times. They will have the right -of -way they can do what ever they need to do to service the well at any time that they choose. That's going to be written right into the deed. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a condition on the draft resolution... Board Member Riha — In the experience of the Attorney and the Town Planner, is that un ... is that usual? Chairperson Wilcox — We've seen it before in areas, I'm thinking west hill right now, the one, I remember one, where we had a subdivision and no public water and you had the rights to use water and the wells on another neighboring property. I've seen it before. We don't ... much of the Town has public water and sewer and therefore, we don't see this as often. Mr. Kanter — But it might raise questions if another house were to be built on Parcel B. Probably would need another well. The parcel is big enough that it shouldn't be an issue. Chairperson Wilcox — Claire, do you still want to speak? If you do, I am going to bring you up to the microphone. Okay. Turco, Coach, could you have a seat ... Claire has indicated that she wanted to address the Board with regard to an environmental concern. Claire Forest, 330 West King Road Read from a prepared statement (Attachment 1) Some changes and additions so it is here verbatim. I am Claire Forest. For the last quarter century I have owned and operated -a family fruit and vegetable .farm at 330 West King Road, next to the proposed subdivision at 340 West King Road. I am also immediate past Chair of the Town Agriculture °Committee, which helped develop the zoning regulations governing the proposed subdivision. The SEQR declaration on this proposed subdivision is not complete. Planning Staff treated this as a Conservation Zone, whereas it should have been treated as the particular form PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 13 of Conservation Zone known as an Agricultural Zone. Since there are only seven farms left in the Town, maintaining one -third of the Town's green space for free, this oversight is. understandable, but I respectfully submit the following corrections in the SEQR Review and the proposed resolution. Town Policy says that agriculture should be protected and promoted because open space benefits all Town residents. It also recommends that all subdivisions affecting farms be sent to the Town Agriculture Committee for comment. This was not yet. I request that the SEQR Review be amended to note the following: 1. There is an active farm next door to the proposed subdivision. This farm is protected by the State's Right to Farm laws and by New York State AG District law. 2. There is a farm pond near the proposed subdivision. On my place. 3. The proposed subdivision contains prime agricultural soil, Howard Gravelly Loam. If given this information, the Planning Board still considers approving this subdivision, I respectfully request that the following restrictions be placed in the new 15 -acre deed as a condition for granting approval: 1. No further subdivision be allowed on this property, except one house, unless a current or future owner of the Harrick property wants to someday join all or part of the subdivided parcels to the adjacent farm, which would then, I hope, not require further Town approval, 2. 1 am requesting a conservation easement be placed on the mature hedgerow of trees toward the north border of the new parcel. This will preserve the rural character of the neighborhood and the farm's fence. 3. Any driveway to the potential new house to be located to the south of this hedgerow of mature trees and this far ... let me say that again ... any driveway to the potential new house, be located to the south of this hedgerow and as far south as possible within the subdivided property so as not to bring noise and dust into the neighboring farm. Perhaps a good location for the potential new house site is where an illegally sited trailer now sites on the Harrick property, left there to Estelle Harrick 's dismay, by the previous owners. This is visible on the planning map as a white rectangle. This would place the potential new house relatively near existing houses to the south while still offering substantial privacy. There is already a right -of -way near this site obtained from Mr. Priori a decade ago by Daniel Tourance to get electricity to his home on Sand Bank Road. Tourance suggested yesterday that this small parcel, too small for a house site, according to Town law, might be purchasable by the Harrick's as part of a driveway to an eventual house site. Now is the time, before the existing Harrick house is sold for such consideration. My dear neighbor Estelle Harrick who moved to the West King Road, her West King Road property, relatively recently from Westchester passed on on June 2 "d. She left her house and land to her three children; Peter Miller, who is a developer from Texas; Lori Miller who is a NYC business owner and apartment dweller who is also the estate PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 14 executrix and the subdivision applicant; Heather Harrick who lives in Ithaca, with her husband, who is here tonight, and children, and shares a substantial family business with her older sister. Heather told me she wants to keep the land next to my farm, she wants to keep this land, so she and Kunga and their children could someday build a house. I am on cordial terms with each of the Harrick children and I'm friends with Heather and Kunga. You might be surprised to hear this Fred, but, I'm not flat -out opposed to this. I like these people. But I would like some conditions placed on it. If Heather's children want to join my children in a small pumpkin enterprise on my farm, they are welcome. When I bought my farm a quarter century ago from the descendent of the original _— farmer_John_Scott,_I was_shown_ the_ hedgerow of mature trees dividing my place and what is now the Harrick place as the boundary. My husband proceeded to build a farm fence there which is the south boundary of one of our orchards. The Scott niece who sold me my farm told me this hedgerow was planted decades ago jointly by brother and sister Jabez Scott who inherited the 55 acres I now own and his sister Florence Scott who married Van Buren and inherited 17 acres and they planted this hedgerow so there would always be harmony between them about the border. This is a traditional farm practice. In August this year, Peter Miller, after checking the original survey, TG Miller, checking with the original surveyor, TG Miller, agreed with me that this is the boundary, but last month he produced a new survey which places the boundary several feet to the north onto our orchard and berry field which I have been farming for a quarter century, understanding all the time that this was mine. This contains, this hedgerow contains our farm fence, which Peter Miller assured me could stay, and this area. is also prime agricultural soil. My husband and I planned to help our sons launch a small pumpkin operation on that particular field next summer to help them start farming and we were planning to cover, to plant a cover crop in this field this fall in preparation for this and we're also moving forward on plans for a farm retreat on our south wood field which is a small enterprise allowed by Town zoning, but the uncertainty raised by the potential subdivision next door slowed us down on both of these intended family -farm initiatives. This is what the American Farm Land Trust calls the "uncertainty factor' which undermines farming. When development threatens, farmers stop investing in cover crops, replanting their fields, repairing fence, building new barns. Good planning, like good fences make good neighbors. It also preserves the Town's ability to grow food locally and preserves rural character and open space. When I began farming here 25 years ago, East King Road was an active farm, now it is a sprawling suburb. One short year ago,*when you were considering the Country Inn and Suites development a mile up the road, I warned that that was the beginning of a domino demise of farming on King Road, on West King Road, which contains the bulk of the Town's farm land. That action nearly drove my farm under, but by the grace of God, we are still here farming. Do you want West King Road to look like East King Road? Please make a wise decision tonight. Respectfully yours, Claire Forest, Buttermilk Farms. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 15 I need a point of clarification from Susan Brock, the Town Attorney... My understanding is that on the total acreage of the Harrick place, two houses can be there. The existing house, plus one new house, and I support that if it's Heather and Kunga and if it is, if the house and driveway are sited skillfully, and if the 3 conditions that I request are included. If you ... do ... I hope I didn't misunderstand you, that there is consideration of yet another house over there... Ms. Brock - No. This land can be divided into two lots. And that's what's being proposed tonight. -Ms:- Forest -= Good..._ -1- helped - write that - ordinance, so we're on the same page. Ms. Brock - Right, the two -acre lot would be carved. off the larger parcel, so there could ... the two -acre lot has the existing house on it and then the remainder would be the larger parcel which could have up to one house on it. Ms. Forest - That's correct. So I'm asking for those ... I'm asking you to ... that if you are considering approving this, I am asking you to place those three conditions that I requested on it. Chairperson Wilcox - Can I ask you to repeat them. Ms. Forest - Yes, and I will give you a copy of it as well... 1. No further subdivision be allowed on this property unless the current or future owner of the Harrick property wants to someday join all or part of the subdivided parcels to my adjacent farm. In other words, if they want to sell it to me, I think that that subdivision, they're subdividing that would be in keeping because it would go into the big farm and it would be in keeping with the big farm... Ms. Brock - It wouldn't be a subdivision, it would be a consolidation of lots... Ms. Forest - That's right. Ms. Brock - Which would be permitted. Ms. Forest - Okay, that's good, and, actually, I just, I checked with Debby Teeter, who is the current Town Agriculture Chair, and she said its actually required by your laws, anyway, this caveat that no further subdivision will be allowed on this property. Ms. Brock - That's correct. Ms. Forest - Okay. 2. 1 am requesting that a conservation easement be placed on the mature hedgerow of trees toward the north border of the new parcel. In other words, which is the border between my place and ... which I always understood, for 25 years, to be the border, now, Peter Miller, one of the Harrick children, told me last PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 16 month that it's not, that he's got a new survey, so that's a consideration too. But I talked with Heather about the easement, Heather Harrick, whose husband Kunga is here tonight, and I want to say again, I like them. We're friends. We've become friends. Estelle Harrick set a very nice tone and that tone has continued throughout this friendship. Chairperson Wilcox — Claire, before you go on, what do you mean by a "conservation easement "? Ms. Forest — I mean that ... ummm ... for example, it could be, a conservation easement means that they could never cut down that hedgerow. Mr. Kanter — That would be a deed restriction. Ms. Forest — Yeah, you would just put it as a deed restriction. Chairperson Wilcox — What can the Planning Board do there... Ms. Forest — You can require it... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on ... I'm sure you have an opinion, but I am looking over here right now. Ms. Brock — Unless, through the environmental review, you were to find that these trees were exceptionally significant and, you know, need protection, I don't believe there is anything in the agricultural zoning or the subdivision regulations that would give the Planning Board the authority... Chairperson Wilcox — Carte blanche authority ... to just impose... Ms. Brock — Right, to impose that type of deed restriction. Board Member Riha — It's not clear from the survey map, that we have, that that's ... the hedgerow is in their property. They show some hedgerows but... Chairperson Wilcox — For those of you who may not know, Claire's land is labeled as Dean on the survey that we are looking at. Alternate Member Erb — The hedgerow that she is referring to is almost hidden by the course of the white line right here. That is the hedgerow she means and it does not show on this as squiggly lines. Board Member Riha — So it's not clear... Mr. Kanter — So it looks like portions of the hedgerow, some portions are on Claire's property and some portions are on Parcel B of this subdivision. PB 11/27/2007. Pg. 17 Ms. Ritter — I would just add that the tax - parcel lines that you see on this map, do not line up. So this isn't a good, it's not good to use the tax - parcel boundaries with the aerial maps. Board Member Riha — So it's not clear. Mr. Kanter — But I'm referring to the survey map that shows ... it does not show the hedgerow, but it shows, basically, some of the trees that appear to be in the hedgerow where the property line basically goes right through the middle of those trees. There's one near King Road and one up to the west, so by filling in the gaps with the actual hedgerow, you can surmise that the boundary goes basically right through the hedgerow in different_parts. Ms. Forest — That's what I was told when I bought the place 25 years ago. Mr. Kanter — It might not be exactly through the center of it, but it certainly goes through the trees. Ms. Forest — Right. Peter Miller told me that, he confirmed that with me, this summer, we walked it together. Then he had another, a new survey done, and he called me back and said "nope, it doesn't go through the middle of that hedgerow, it's over into your, the boundary is over into your field." 1 talked with Heather Harrick about a conservation easement on that. She says that she wants to see those trees remain, that she doesn't think it will be any problem as long as she has it, and I agree. I also, having grown up on a farm, I also know that things can change. Land can get sold, and so I would like it to be put in as a condition. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Understand. make a finding, that that's important, in of the agent representing the land agrees to blanche just to say "that's what we want, I'm sure we will get tot discussing that. We got two choices here. Either we have to -der to put it in; or, if the owner of the land, or it, then we can put it in. We do not have carte therefore put it in." Just so you understand. Ms. Forest — So, it's my understanding that anything that has to .do with agricultural issues is supposed to have gone to the Ag Committee before it comes to you... Chairperson Wilcox — You raised that before, and you specifically said "farm land "... Ms. Forest — Agricultural land... Chairperson Wilcox — No you said "farm land "... Ms. Forest — I did. Chairperson Wilcox -- ...what I want to make sure is the issue whether this needed to go to another Board for review because it's in an agricultural district, because it's zoned agricultural, or, even though it's not actively farmed... Ms. Forest — It is actively farmed. I have an active farm. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 18 Chairperson Wilcox — ...we're talking about this parcel, not yours. Thank you. Mr. Kanter — And Chris, you can correct me if I am wrong, but, I understand that Parcel B, Parcels A & B, are not actually located in a County agricultural district, although they are in the Town's agricultural zone. Ms. Balestra — That's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — They are not in the County's agricultural district, of the two that are in Tompkins County. Okay. Hence, no requirement that... Mr. Kanter — No, the Agriculture Committee is an advisory committee that was set up by the Town Board, many years ago, and what the formal requirements for submitting things to the Agricultural Committee are at this point, I'm not really quite sure, because my understanding is the Agriculture Committee hasn't been meeting, over the past year, really, so that's something I think the Town Board would have to take up. Ms. Forest — Jonathan, just for your information, the Ag Committee meets "as needed" when the Town Board, when the Town Planning Board sends them something that is related. The reason I brought this up, Fred, is because I thought I heard you to say that there would have to be a consideration as to whether that.-:..what did you say about that hedgerow? I.. Chairperson Wilcox — You're talking about the hedgerow... what I said was that in order for this Board to impose upon this owner, the applicant, some sort of an easement, to protect that, we would have to make a finding that that was important, that it was required, that there was good reason to do it. Okay. And by good I also mean sufficient reason to do it. Board Member Conneman — What is sufficient reason? Chairperson Wilcox — That's for us to determine. Board Member Howe — But didn't you also say that if there's... Chairperson Wilcox — Alternatively, if the owner agrees to it,' yes, right, then, if they agree to that condition being imposed, and we think it's a great idea, then we would certainly do it, I think. But we don't have the discretion to simply say "we think it's a good idea so therefore do it." Board Member Hoffmann — But the owners could volunteer to do it. Board Member Conneman — Is that how we solve it? Ms. Brock — It's happened before, actually, that somebody has raised something and the different owners in the audience say "yes, we're fine with that, we'll work that out with you." and the applicant has been satisfied with that verbal promise made at the meeting: Those issues haven't come back to us; so I assume that they worked it out. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 19 So certainly the owner's could all agree via, you know, a deed restriction when the subdivision occurs, to put in provisions about tree preservation. They can do that without us ordering it, obviously. Ms. Forest — I hear two things here. One is that if there's good cause, you can require it as a condition of approval, and perhaps sending this to the Agriculture Committee for their consideration on whether there is good cause, would be appropriate, if necessary. Two, in terms of the owners agreeing, if indeed I own that hedgerow as I, if I own my half of that hedgerow as I was sold it, 25 years ago, and thought I did until Peter Miller told me otherwise, I'm certainly happy for my half of it to be under a conservation easement. You asked for the third. The third is: 3. That any driveway to the potential new house, be located to the south of this hedgerow of mature trees. In other words, not over toward my land, and as far south as possible within the subdivided property so as not to bring noise and dust onto my farm. Chairperson Wilcox — Which makes sense by the way, it takes it away from the curb in the road and brings it closer, it would improve the sightlines. Yeah, for entering and exiting that driveway, absolutely. Board Member Riha —Well, it can't be in the middle of it, it would go over the well... Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct, we also have the well there too. Board Member Riha — so that brings it to the south anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. Ms. Forest — Well, not necessarily... oh yes, excuse me, you're correct. Ms. Brock — I think those are the types of things I think we can look at ... I'd be more comfortable recommending... Chairperson Wilcox — And the County would have the final say, yes, it is a county road, they would have the final say on the curb cut... Mr. Walker — It's a Town road. Chairperson Wilcox — King Road West is a Town road? Ms. Forest — It's a Town road... Mr. Walker —... from Danby Road over to the west. Ms. Forest — No, Fred Noteboom is in charge of that road. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 20 Chairperson Wilcox —Okay, okay, interesting.... Mr. Walker — It doesn't connect to any place. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I was just thinking given the volume of traffic that it carries from one area to another area that it would be a county... that's fine ... okay. So we would grant the curb cut, which is even better. We could, one) recommend that the curb.cut be placed on the southern ... to the far south as practical while at the same time, we would also... Mr. Walker — I think that would be, given that curve, some of the problems on that curve, it's probably the more logical place to put it anyhow. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So the only remaining question is, should this ... I apologize to all of you sitting out there, sometimes we take a while on these, don't we ... the question, should this go to the Ag Committee for review? That's the,. I guess the only question before us, procedurally. Ms. Brock — I just looked through the zoning ordinance, the agricultural zone requirements, and there's nothing in that requiring referral to the Agricultural Committee. Jonathan mentioned to me that it's possible that there was a Town Board resolution at some point, that said certain types of projects should go to the Agricultural Committee for a recommendation. Ms. Forest — Yes, there was. But I don't think it needs to if you can resolve the hedgerow issue right here. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, let's try to do that right now. on ... given the survey map that is in front of us, which we will will assume that the hedgerow is on both properties, at apologize, but it is labeled as Dean on this so I will refer to it north, which is your property, and what is labeled Parcel B, wF of the estate. If the hedgerow is on both properties.... I think the hedgerow is assume is accurate. We this point, and Claire, I as Dean property, to the rich is part of the property Ms. Forest =. Peter Miller says it's now not, but for 25 years it was... Chairperson Wilcox — This is what I have, this is what I have, and I have a survey, produced by TG Miller dated October 11, 2007, excused me, revised on 11/19/2007. Ms. Forest — The revision is where they put it over into my orchard. Chairperson Wilcox — So, given this survey, the hedgerow is in both properties. It would make it difficult for this Board to protect the hedgerow. We can protect... assuming that the hedgerow is on both properties, we can protect half of it ... the second half... Ms. Forest — And I will meet you halfway on that one. PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 21 Chairperson Wilcox — Does this sound like you and the neighbor should get together and draw up a deed restriction to protect it? Since you want to do it and you've indicated, although you are not the agent for this parcel, you've indicated that they would be amenable to it... (Ms. Forrest turns around and talks to a member of the audience) Ms. Forest — He says that the hedgerow is on their property but that he will never cut it. Chairperson Wilcox — Stop ... he said she said ... I have to go by what's in front of me ... which doesn't clearly indicate that it's on both properties but seems to indicate that it's on both. Given the location of some trees that are shown and the fact that the property line to the north bisects those two large trees that are shown. Okay. Alright, Ms. Forest — Can you address the issue of the road siting and the house siting. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I think the Board would probably... yes, everyone is nodding, of putting the driveway as far to the south as reasonable, because it gets it away from the curve and improves the sightlines. Ms. Forest — Danny Tourance, who is the owner of the property to the west, had a good idea. He said that when he bought, when he got the right -of -way from King Road down to his house on Sand Bank Road, he bought that right -of -way from somebody named Priore, and that that person owns a small, unbuildable lot adjacent to Estelle's just to the south of Estelle's house...And Danny Tourance suggests that the Harrick family may wish to purchase, to offer to purchase that little lot, for a potential road, and I'm suggesting that now's the time to do it, before the house gets, before Estelle's house gets sold. Chairperson Wilcox — Now's the time to do what? Ms. Forest — To... Chairperson Wilcox — Make them purchase the property? Ms. Forest — No, I'm not making them. I'm saying that that's a great place for a road. Chairperson Wilcox — It very well might be, but that's owned by Mr. (inaudible) This is owned by Mr. Torrance and Mr. Priori. Ms. Forest — Well, Mr. Torrance said that if the Harrick family were to purchase that little place, which he says is too small for the Town to approve a house lot Chairperson Wilcox — Agreed. Ms. Forest — Then that's a great place for a road. Chairperson Wilcox — Possibly. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 22 Ms. Forest — But that once the house gets sold, there's not room to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — Not room to do what? Put in a driveway? Ms. Forest — Can I come up there and show you? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Ms. Forest shows Chairperson Wilcox a part of the survey and explains it to him. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Driveway we know about. Referral to the Agricultural - Committee -we know about..There -is- nothing in the zoning ordinance-that says we have to. Ms. Brock — Right. We could check the Town Board resolution establishing the Agricultural Committee, it's from 1992 and Paulette would need to go into the basement to grab it. It's not on the computer. Ms. Forest — I have it. Debbie Teeter has it. You folks have it. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, you don't need to see it. I can tell you that the Town Board resolution indicated referring certain items to the Agriculture Committee for informal advisory review. I don't think there is anything like a mandate or ... it's not like a Board like the Conservation Board. Basically it's an informal committee made up of the agricultural community. Most recently, it had a Town Board member as a liaison to is, and as I said before, it probably hasn't met in probably over a year, so....lt was basically meant to be an informal, you know, advisory relationship with the farming community for, between them and the Town Board. Board Member Hoffmann — Wasn't that originally a committee of the Conservation Board? Mr. Kanter — That's how it started long, long ago. Ms. Forest — I'm not suggesting it's necessary, unless there's an issue with the hedgerow question. Board Member Conneman — Is it possible to state in the resolution, whichever one you want, that says the hedgerow, according to the survey map, the hedgerow appears to be on both properties, and then indicate what this gentleman said out here. That he's not going to cut the trees down. I mean, I hate to have a handshake, because that doesn't work. If it's in writing someplace... Ms. Brock — I just don't think we have the authority to regulate that hedgerow, for several reasons. One is, it doesn't show, particularly, on the survey map at all. It shows two trees, it doesn't show a hedgerow, so we really don't know what its location is and who's property it's on and two, unless there's a compelling reason, it's similar to a health and safety issue, which we're dealing with the driveway and the well and the PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 23 curve of the road, unless there's some compelling reason, I don't think you have the authority to say that certain trees can or can not be cut down. Board Member Riha — So even, Susan, if it were referred to the Agricultural Committee and they recommended we preserve the hedgerow, we don't really have the authority to do that? Ms. Brock — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — By the way, we are still doing the environmental review, ladies and gentlemen. Board Member Howe — Are we ready to move forward? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I want to make sure we are all set with Claire. She took the time, she put together a presentation, I want to make sure we have dealt with her questions, not necessarily to her satisfaction, but we've dealt with them in a way that's reasonable. Board Member Conneman — Do you plan to negotiate with the family on this hedgerow thing? Ms. Forest — I'd like them to... Board Member Conneman — Or work with them... Ms. Forest — I would like them, I would like, before you approve this, for that ... (she turns around and talks to the gentleman in the audience)... Chairperson Wilcox — Claire, Claire... you've got to address the Board... Ms. Forest — I hope...I ... Like I say ... I'm friends with these folks. I like them. I happy that if anybody in the world might move next door to me, I'm happy it's Heather and Kunga, and you might be surprised to hear me say that. Ummm ... But, I want that hedgerow issue in the, I would like it in the Planning Board's requirement so that it gets settled. Chairperson Wilcox — We hear you. I'm not sure we're going to do anything about it, but we hear you. Board Member Howe — I'll move the SEQR. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. Any changes to the SEQR form, Part I? Board. Member Riha — The one thing it seemed like we were discussing, I assume it's part of the SEQR, is that there would be... Ms. Neilsen — Susan, can you speak into the mic please. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 24 Board Member Riha — Oh, sorry ... the one thing I thought that we were discussing but I'm not sure that would be part of the SEQR or not, was that there would be no further subdivision of Parcel B. Chairperson Wilcox — I just want to make sure, based upon the issues that Claire raised, that the actual short environmental assessment form is correct and doesn't need modification is all. Ms. Balestra — It is correct. And actually, in Part II in C5, the last line is "no further subdivision or growth is allowed under the agricultural zone regulations. Chairperson Wilcox — Stated as part of the environmental. Ms. Balestra —We stated it in the environmental review. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Motion and a second. Ms. Brock — Ummm ... C3, is the Board comfortable with the statements that are in there about the location of any future home? Ms. Balestra — Oh, that's right. Chairperson Wilcox — The point for that is there is a disturbed area on the parcel, which would be the best place to put a home should a home be placed on that subdivided parcel. Ms. Brock — On the other hand, that might be the best agricultural land since that is what was previously used as agricultural land. So if we are looking at the intent of the agricultural zone ... I don't know. I'm just raising this as an issue for this Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Come on up Claire. I want to hear what you have to say. Ms. Forest — the Howard Gravelly Loam, which is the prime agricultural soil, is up here. Chairperson Wilcox — On the front? Ms. Forest — Back here, is not. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to ask you to speak in a full voice, because you are not in front of a microphone. If you were to locate a house on that property, where would you put it? Ms. Forest — My suggestion is being where that trailer is. Chairperson Wilcox — Point ... we can't see where you just pointed. Ms. Forest —There $ s a little trailer... PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 25 Chairperson Wilcox -You've got to talk to us ... we can't see it. Ms. Forest — The previous owner (inaudible) trailer down there. Chairperson Wilcox — Here's the reason I ask. If this area is disturbed, that might be the best area to put a house, but if this area is the best agricultural land, then maybe the best place to put the house is back here. That's why I want to hear ... so you're opinion is, even thought this may be the better agricultural land, farmland... Mr. Schlosser Forest — the good agricultural land, it's a strip of Howard Gravelly Loam, at least mine is, it only goes, see where the pond is, that's not Howard Gravelly Loam, you can't put a pond in Howard Gravelly Loam. Up here is the Howard Gravelly Loam. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So I will just point out that Claire said near the front of the property is the best. So having the house be in the disturbed portion would be the best place to put it. Not in the very front, and certainly not back here where the woods are. Ms. Forest — Agriculturally, but you would have to ask them where they want it. Board Member Riha — I guess I'm not that comfortable,. I mean, I'm not that comfortable making...if there's only going to be one house, I think it's really up to them where the house goes on the lot. I mean, there's, if you put it further back there's going to be more roads ... I don't know. There's going to be trade off. Board Member Howe — Agriculture can happen in wood areas too. There's different... Board Member Riha —Yeah. I just think we should... Chairperson Wilcox — So do we want to strike part of C3? Is that where we're going here? In terms of... Board Member Howe — How much does this define... Chairperson Wilcox --We're still doing SEQR. We're on the SEQR form. Were on Part II C3. I don't want to make a determination in the environmental review that you should put the house in a certain location, and then not... Board Member Riha — I guess I like the idea of, it said "would likely occur in one of the existing disturbed lawn areas on the site", 1 guess I would put "a future development should " ... like the idea of protect the stream from impacts due to site development, but... Board Member Howe — Yeah, I agree. I don't think we should have that first part of that sentence. Chairperson Wilcox — So you would say "future home developed on Parcel B would likely occur on one of the existing disturbed lawns on the site." and then stop there? Board Member Riha — Or maybe just leave that out. PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 26 Ms. Brock — You could strike everything after the first sentence and just state "only one home can be built on " ... because no further subdivision of this lot is permitted, only one home can be built,-therefore protecting the woods and stream on the lot." Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me though that the land is so large, even if we say that it should be located in the existing open areas, that allows lots of different locations. Board Member Riha — Yeah, but then some people would object that that's the best agricultural land. Board Member Hoffmann — Except we were just told that that isn't, and if one talks about this area here where that one trailer is located, that's the one which doesn't... Board Member Riha — I feel like we don't have enough information to make those kind of micromanagement kind of details. Alternate Member Erb — I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of micromanaging where the house goes. Given that we already know that it's a flag lot at this point and we're dictating, it's essentially going, Parcel B will become a flag lot. Chairperson Wilcox — Legal lot. Alternate Member Erb — Pardon. Oh yeah, legal, but I mean, a flag- shaped lot, let me say it that way. It's a flag- shaped lot and given the well and the curve of the road, we're already, we're pretty much dictating the location of the driveway and disturbance from additional driveway being forced by us because we dictate a particular location to the house, is not a happy thing to me. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm fine. I just want some verbiage for C3 ... (Claire speaking from the audience)..hold on. Ms. Brock — I propose striking everything after the first sentence so that the first sentence would remain and state "because no further subdivision of the lots is permitted, only one house can be constructed on the 13.6 acre lot , which will protect, to a large extent, the woods and stream. Chairperson Wilcox — Comfortable. Alternate Member Erb — I'd have said "may" instead of "can ". Because it's a permission thing. Ms. Brock — Only one house may ... yes, that's a better word. "One house may be constructed. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a seconded. Any other changes to the environmental? PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 27 Ms. Brock — Hold on a minute ... I'm sorry, I'm looking at C4 now ... because it is referencing 3563, that's the section that we said didn't apply, right, that deals with clusters, I believe. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and Gentlemen, another "simple" two -lot subdivision... Laughter ... I assume you are all sitting there just contemplating that you want this chair next year, right. Laughter. (Claire speaks from the audience). Claire, please...please... Ms. Brock — Okay. Proposed:.. - - Chairperson_._. Wilcox- - -- - Hold - -- on, -hold -on ... Claire's - - interrupting... we' re doing environmental review, when we get to that actual subdivision, then we'll put that in, we haven't forgotten you. Yes. Ms. Brock — Change C4 to read "As noted above, the proposed subdivision appears" ...not appears to but "meets the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 6, Agricultural Zones, of the Town Code." And then retain the last sentence, "The applicant proposes to split... Chairperson Wilcox — "the 15.6 + /- acre parcel into one small parcel and one larger parcel, the latter of the two containing contiguous woods and a large stream." Ms. Brock — Right, the word, the first time you said parcel, it reads "lot ". I would just retain this last sentence as is. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Any other changes? Ms. Brock —No, Oh ... again, L. Chairperson Wilcox — You want to change the reference? Ms. Brock — Yes. C2, none anticipated: the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 270, Article 6, Agricultural Zones of the Town Code. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay Mr. Kanter — Can we perhaps take Susan's version of it and have Fred sign that? Ms. Brock — Can we just make another photo copy? Chairperson Wilcox — Sure, but you're right, I do need to sign a copy that has all the changes, I have to sign the amended version, yes. While you are working that out, I have a motion and a second, any further discussion? All those in favor please signal by saying aye, anybody opposed? Any abstentions? Good. We're through the environmental review. PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 28 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 120 SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Harrick 2 -Lot Subdivision 340 West King Road Tax Parcel No. 35 -24 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. _WHEREAS - This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- lot subdivision located at 340 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -2 -4, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a +/ -15.60 acre property into two lots resulting in a +/ -2.0 acre parcel that contains an existing home and +/ -13.6 acre vacant parcel. Estate of Estelle Harrick, Owner; Laurie R. Miller, Applicant, and 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 The Planning Board on November 27, 2007, has 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, a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 340 West King Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, T.G. Miller P.C., dated October 11, 2007, and revised November 19, 2007, and other application materials and 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, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Talty The motion passed unanimously. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 29 Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on Ladies and Gentlemen, Coach, we're not done yet, you've been here before ... at 8:30p.m., the next item is a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- lot subdivision located at 340 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35= 24, Agricultural Zone The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 15.70 acre property into two lots, a +/- 2.0 acre parcel (Parcel A) which contains the existing hnucP anti a +l. 13.7 acre vacant parcel (Parcel B). Estate of Estelle Harrick, Owner; Laurie R. Miller, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion with regard to subdivision. I didn't expect much. Ladies and Gentlemen, Claire, that includes you, this is a public hearing, if you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, you may do so at this time. We ask that you give us your name and address. If you wish to speak again, you may do so. You got to do it up here though. We can't record you when you're back there. Ms. Forest — This is a point of clarification. Is the Board including in their ... are they including the requirement... if the ... are they including in their approval of this, that the road be to the south of the hedgerow? Chairperson Wilcox — That is our plan, yes. Ms. Forest — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — You're welcome. Anybody else? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 8:32p.m. Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. Okay. Susan Brock is not caught up yet. Ms. Brock — Well, do you want to hear the changes on this or do you want to hear the changes on SEQR? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we're already up to consideration of the actual subdivision. Ms. Brock — Right, I have some changes on the resolution. Do you want to hear them now? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes I do. Ms. Brock — First resolved A, "prior to signing the plat by the Planning Board Chair, submission of an easement to allow Parcel A to access" add the words "access, use and maintain" the existing well located on Parcel B, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town. So add the words, after access, put a comma and then add "use and maintain." B ... from the discussion that has been going on, it sounds like B would be deleted, the deed restriction about the location of any future home... PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 30 Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Ms. Brock — C then becomes B, then we have a new C, "no further subdivision of either lot shall be allowed. A new D, I didn't quite finish it, Dan, you might be, or Jon, or somebody on the Board might be able to finish the language ... I have "Any driveway constructed on the 13.6 -acre parcel shall be located as far south as possible to avoid the well and to locate the curb cut onto West King Road" and I wanted to have some statement about the curb at that point, that we want to get it onto the part of the curb where it's starting to straighten out. And so there may be an elegant way or a very succinct way to state that and because I started working on the SEQR form, I didn't __ have time to finish that. So I am hoping our Town Engineer can come up with that language. Mr. Walker — As close to the point of curvature as possible. Board Member Riha — No, the furthest... Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute, wait a minute. Can we just, can we simply say that we want to locate it to the south as possible so as to... Mr. Walker — Minimize problems with sight distance on the curve. Ms. Brock — Okay, so as far south as possible to avoid the well ... did you want to have a reference to that? Chairperson Wilcox — To avoid the well, yes... Ms. Brock —And "to minimize sight distance... Mr. Walker — Problems with sight distance. Ms. Brock — Oh, "minimize problems with sight distance on the West Kind Road.. on the curve on.... "on the curve of West King Road. Okay. So let me try this. So D would read "Any driveway constructed on the 13.6 acre parcel shall be located as far south as possible to avoid the well and to locate the curb cut in a manner that minimizes problems with sight distance on the curve on West King Road." Chairperson Wilcox — Are you happy with that Susan? Ms. Brock — I'm very happy with that. Board Member Riha — Susan, one other question about A, you said "to allow Parcel A to access, use and maintain the existing well." Is that going to be sole access? Ms. Brock — Well, the survey itself has a note that says "Parcel A is to reserve exclusive water rights to a well shown." And by the well, it says "see note 1" 1 mean, that's what the note says, but I'm not sure that that's our concern whether they are actually going to share the water rights or whether one party has exclusive water rights. I think our PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 31 concern is just that to the extent that Parcel A is using that well, that our concern is that they actually can get access to it, they have the right to use the water, and that they have the right to maintain the well, should something happen to it. Board Member Riha — Well, right, but then you also have, there has to always be sufficient water. Can... Chairperson Wilcox — We can't guarantee sufficient water. Mr. Walker — Basically, I think the intent there is that the house, the existing house is supplied from that well, it's probably been adequate, they want to make sure they have _ __a_good water supply. _Lt _do_e.s._not look_I.ike._ they_would have, with the location of the septic tank and the leech fields, they may not have another good place to put a well and have adequate separation from the sanitary waste areas. So, basically, that would have to be put into the deed for both of those parcels, and it's really a simple issue between the two land owners. Board Member Riha — So the other, if people built on B, they would potentially would still have right to access... Mr. Walker — Right, if it's such a good well that it would support two houses, then if A wants to share it with B, then it's up to them. Board Member Riha — Okay. Ms. Brock — Actually, does this show the well for Parcels ... I'm sorry ... never mind ... I was thinking about something else ... So those are my changes. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies, are those changes acceptable? Very good. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please raise your hand. Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. The motion is passed. Thank you all very much. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 121 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Harrick 2 -Lot Subdivision 340 West King Road Tax Parcel No. 35 -2 -4 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 340 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -24, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a +/- 15.60 acre property into two lots resulting in a +/ -2.0 acre parcel that contains an PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 32 existing home and +/ -13.6 acre vacant parcel. Estate of Estelle Harrick, Owner; Laurie R. Miller, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on November 27, 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 November 27, 2007 has reviewed and accepted as __adequate_ -a S.hort_Environmental Assessment- -Form Part I submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 340 West King Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, T.G. Miller P.C., dated October 11, 2007, and revised November 19, 2007, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That.the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 340 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -2 -4, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 340 West King Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, T.G. Miller P.C., dated October 11, 2007, and revised November 19, 2007, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, submission of an easement to allow Parcel A to access, use, and maintain the existing well located on Parcel B, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, and b. Submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a filing receipt when the approved subdivision plat is filed with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and C, No further subdivision of either lot shall be allowed, and d. Any driveway constructed on the 13.6 acre parcel shall be located as far south as possible to avoid the well and to locate the curb cut in a manner that minimizes problems with sight distance on the curve on West King Road. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Talty PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 33 The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:38 p.m. SEQR Southwoods 4 -Lot Subdivision, King Road East and Southwoods Drive Joe Allen, 417 North Cayuga Street Good evening. I am an attorney, I represent applicant. — Chair-per-son– Wilcox -. Brief. -over view if_ you would -of what's being proposed this evening. Mr. Allen – We are proposing that northerly most tips of Lot 40 and Lot 41 of the Southwoods subdivision be consolidated with the septic and detention pond lot set aside in the original subdivision plan in order to increase the size of the lot and to facilitate the County's use and maintenance of that facility. Chairperson Wilcox – Questions with regard to environmental review. All right. Susan, you're still writing over there aren't you? Ms. Brock – Hold on... Chairperson Wilcox – Joe, are you representing the owners of both Lots 39 and 40 as shown on here? Mr. Allen – With regard to this subdivision proposal, yes. Chairperson Wilcox – Okay. Mr. Walker – It's Lots 40 and 41. Chairperson Wilcox – You're right, it's 40 and 41. Thank you very much. It's a bit unusual to have someone representing two separate owners, okay, I just want to make sure of that, both existing owners are represented here... Mr. Walker – three owner's are represented here. Chairperson Wilcox – Well, the Town, I'm not worried about the Town... Mr. Walker – Well, that's the fourth. Chairperson Wilcox – Who else, wait a minute... Mr. Walker – Southwoods Associates owns the detention pond, I believe, still... Mr. Allen – Southwoods owns the detention pond... PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 34 Mr. Walker — So there's three separate owners. There's, technically, part, where we're correcting here is the subdivision that was done without Planning Board approval separating Lot 40, where the detention pond is from the what's called Lot 40a right now. That was, that was done without the Planning Board approval, but now we're trying to correct all these things, and what we're, the subdivision of the two slices off the Lot 40 and 41 will be to facilitate the Town owning all the sanitary facilities and not (inaudible) so that the two property owners on Lot 40, 41 will not have any ... weIve had easements up there before, but the ownership makes it cleaner for everybody. Chairperson Wilcox — And the intent is to do what with Lot 40? Which is where the, which is the storm... Mr. Walker — Lot 40, the intent is that the Town will take ownership of that and maintain, to maintain the stormwater management facility. Alternate Member Erb — Of 40B? Mr. Walker — No ... where's 40B? Alternate Member Erb — 40B is the slice. Mr. Walker — Okay, right, 40, 40B and 41 B would all be deeded over to the Town at the same time. Those would all be consolidated into one lot and they all basically, the sanitary facilities and the stormwater facilities. Chairperson Wilcox — and the sewer lift station. Which is a pump, right. Mr. Walker — A buried pump. Chairperson Wilcox — To pump the sewage up... Mr. Walker — Yes, up to Troy Road, so it can go back down the hill. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Howe — I'll move the SEQR. Chairperson Wilcox — so moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. Ms. Brock — I have no comments on this one. Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor please signal by saying aye ... anybody opposed ... no one is opposed ... the motion is passed. Stay right there please Joe. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 122 SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Southwoods 4 -Lot Subdivision PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 35 King Road East & Southwoods Drive Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1- 15.401, 46 -1- 159402 & 46 -1 -15.41 Town of Ithaca. Planning Board November 27, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1 This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located off King Road East and Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 4671-1.5..401,-46-1-15.402, and 46-1- 15.41, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the northeastern ends of lots 40 ( +/- 0.12 acres) and 41 ( +/- 0.06 acres), which will then be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46=1- 15.401. The new parcel ( +/- 1.13 acres total) will contain the new sewer lift station and the stormwater detention pond and will be transferred to the Town of Ithaca. Southwoods Associates, LLC., Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., and George C. & 'Billie J. Awad, Owners /Applicants; Joseph W. Allen, 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 November 27, 2007, has 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, a survey map entitled "Survey Map of Lands of Southwoods Subdivision," prepared by Michael J. Reagan, Reagan Land Surveying, dated February 2007, amended 7/11/07, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance 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, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Talty The motion passed unanimously. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 36 Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:43p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4W lot subdivision located off King Road East and Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 46 -1- 15.401, 46 -1- 15.402, and 46 -1- 15.41, Low Density Residential Zone The proposal involves subdividing off the northeastern ends of lots 40 ( +l- 0 12 acres) and 41 ( +/= 0.06 acres), which will then be consolidated with Tax Parcel No 46 -1 -15 401 The new parcel ( +/- 1.13 acres total) will contain the new sewer lift station and the stormwater detention pond and will be transferred to the Town of Ithaca Southwoods Associates, LLC., Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., and George C & Billie J Awad, Owners /Applicants; Joseph W. Allen, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the subdivision... there are none ... Mr. Allen if you would have a seat please. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a public hearing, if you wish to address the Board this evening on this particular agenda item, once again, we invite you to come up to the microphone, have a seat, give us your name and address. There being no one, we will close the public hearing at 8:45p.m Would someone like to move the... Mr. Walker — I have one comment. As representing the Town here. If you notice on the Lot 41A and 41B, there's a very tiny little triangle up in the corner and there's a little dash line there, on the map... Chairperson Wilcox — Point ... I don't know where you are. Mr. Walker — Right up there ... we actually have ... there's actually an access driveway that was built by the contractor when they built the pump station and we are using that now. We don't have Mr. Awad present tonight, but I would ask that it might possible be considered if it's alright with Mr. Awad to modify that lot slightly by drawing a line between the two points there, to make that triangle be part of the slice. If not, we can work around that with easements and things like that. It just makes it cleaner for the Town. This is something that my field guy brought up to me yesterday. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a sugg ... Joe, I'm gonna need you to come up here just in case. Well, let's see. We on the ... we as the Planning Board can jump all over you because you want us to approve a subdivision that's different from the one that's in front of us, but we won't do that because we love you. Mr. Walker — But you might see a report next month that I've made a minor correction... Chairperson Wilcox — Well that's what I'm thinking. Here's what we could do, and I want to do what's best for all parties involved... PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 37 Mr. Walker — That's what I would actually like to do, is just talk to the Board ... Do you have a problem with me making that minor change if it's all right with the land owners. Chairperson Wilcox — Joe, here's what we can do, and this has been done in the past. We can approve what's in front of us tonight. To not approve what's in front of us tonight actually creates a problem, because we don't have that actual survey of what's being proposed ... So what we can do is approve what's in front of us. The Town Engineer has the right, under the zoning ordinance, to approve small changes in lot lines and exercise his authority no more than maybe once or twice a year, but this might be a reasonable time when the Engineer, the Town Engineer can work with you, the agent for the owners, to make a small lot -line modification, or, possibly not but certainly work it out. Mr. Allen — I have no problem (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — But for us to approve something different than what's in front of us tonight ... I don't want to go there. I don't want to approve a subdivision without having a licensed, surveyed plat in front of me and I don't think anybody else would want 'to either. So, if you want, if you think it's in the Town's best interests and the current property owners' best interests to make a small change, everybody agrees to it and you figure out who's going to pay for the change, then you can, under the current zoning, make that minor lot -line modification. Okay. Where am I ... do I have a .... Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb. No changes Susan? Ms. Brock — No, no changes. Chairperson Wilcox — Any changes... Daniel... you're comfortable with the language? Mr. Walker — I'm all set. Chairperson Wilcox - Michael, you're comfortable with the language? Mr. Smith — yup. Chairperson Wilcox — There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye, all those opposed ... any abstentions... the motion is passed. Thank you gentlemen and thank you for your patience ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 123 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Southwoods 4 -Lot Subdivision King Road East & Southwoods Drive Tax Parcel No's. 46 -1- 15.401, 46 -1- 15.402 & 46 -1 -15.41 PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 38 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007 Motion made by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located off King Road East and Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1- 15.401, 46 -1- 15.402, and 46 -1- 15.41, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the northeastern ends of lots__40- _( ± /= 0.12acres)_and _41( +/- 0.06 will then be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1- 15.401. The new parcel ( +/- 1.13 acres total) will contain the new sewer lift station and the stormwater detention pond and will be transferred to the Town of Ithaca. Southwoods Associates, LLC., Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., and George C. & Billie J. Awad, Owners /Applicants; Joseph W. Allen, 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 November 27, 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 November 27, 2007, has 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, a survey map entitled "Survey Map of Lands of Southwoods Subdivision," prepared by Michael J. Reagan, Reagan Land Surveying, dated February 2007, amended 7/11/07, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 2. 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 3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located off King Road East and Southwoods Drive, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map of Lands of Southwoods Subdivision," prepared by Michael J. Reagan, Reagan Land Surveying, dated February 2007, amended 7/11/07, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of a copy of the receipt of filing the plat, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 39 b. within six months of this approval, consolidation of Lots "40 B" and "41 B" with Tax Parcel 46 -1- 15.401 (stormwater detention pond parcel), and evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announced the next agenda item at 8:49p.m. SEQR Greenspun, Gizewski & Greenspun 2 -Lot Subdivision, 441 Bostwick Rd. Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome. We really do appreciate your patience. I know you've been here since around 7:00-o'clock. Name and address please and an overview of what's being proposed. Nathanial Greenspun and Susan Perry, 601 North Tioga Street Chairperson Wilcox — Again, if you would, just a brief overview of what's being proposed this evening. Mr. Greenspun — To me it's a very simple goal, it's a large body of land. It's, we're looking for a subdivision so we can build our home in the spring 2008. Chairperson Wilcox — Who owns the land right now, by the way? Mr. Greenspun — It's in common. I do., as well as my brother, Tom Greenspun, my mother Barbara Gizewski. It was signed over by my grandfather who moved there, probably 1959, bought a small farm and been, you know, kept in the family and that's their intention. They intend to build their home in the spring. My brother Tom also lives up there as well and he was, he's also on this deed. My grandfather just recently signed over 58 point ... I don't know the point, the decimal, I don't know if that's important ... he signed over 58 acres to the three of us in common. My older brother and my mother and Susan, my wife and I look forward to building in the spring. Chairperson Wilcox — You're lovely wife. Alright. If I remember correctly, this would bet /3 of that parcel, not exactly a third but very close. Mr. Greenspun — Roughly 19.49 acres I think. PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 40 Chairperson Wilcox — There was some, in the materials provided, Susan Ritter, the Staff, mentioned in some ways this prevents further subdivision of the large parcels remaining. And you are aware of that? Mr. Greenspun — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — okay, because we have had other applicants come in for a subdivision and when we pointed that out, that they were going to box themselves in, creating a large lot to the rear that couldn't further be subdivided, they walked out... Mr. Greenspun — Right there is the issue of landlock, a landlock situation. So that flag, out to the road, is quite narrow, but we figured we could divide that in half and therefore we wouldn't be landlocking the remainder of the land. Chairperson Wilcox — I have to admit, if they came in with the full parcel, all the land that's shown on here and asked us, can we subdivide the parcel like this, I don't think we would ever say yes, but, for historical reasons, we have wound up in this position of rather unusual lotlines. Mr. Greenspun — Yeah, it is a very unique shape. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah ... that's for sure. Okay. Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR motion? So moved by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. We should point out that this is also, this land is also in an agricultural zone, as was the land on East King Road. There being no further discussion... Alternate Member Erb -- Because this is the SEAR, does the fact that it includes a Unique Natural Area come into consideration? Mr. Kanter —Absolutely. Board Member Riha — Yeah, I think we need to say something. Alternate Member Erb — Yeah, I mean, I would not like to see the home built, plunked down in the UNA, for example. Ms. Perry — The Unique Natural Area is on the back, so it would be on the bigger parcel that we wouldn't retain ownership of. We're building up, farther up, much farther up. We don't even, the new parcel won't even contain any of that Unique Natural Area. Mr. Greenspun — Our house will be, you know, in our best interests, not to build a driveway that goes on and on forever. We're going to be within pretty close proximity of the road. Board Member Riha — But we're creating here, Parcel A and Parcel B and there is a chance that a house would go on Parcel B. Right? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 41 Board Member Riha — And I think that's maybe what Hollis is concerned about. There's not a whole lot of room on Parcel B. Ms. Perry — That Unique Natural Area's not, there's really no home sites there, it's kind of at the bottom of a ravine. There's a creek... 14t Board Member Riha — Right, so the way you have Parcel B it would almost be impossible to site a house. Ms. Perry — No one has any intention of building there. We're talking about putting a conservation easement on the back end of the property. Board Member Riha — Right, so that's what we're wanting to discuss right now, because otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to maybe split these up this way, which would basically force, if you were going to allow a house to be in Parcel B, it would... Alternate Member Erb — It would either come into the land that is open land that I think is being farmed, or, it would encroach upon the Unique Natural Area. Board Member Riha — Right. The way you got it, there's almost nothing until you get back into this Unique Natural Area, there's no place to build a house. Alternate Member Erb — So I wanted to raise it Chairperson Wilcox — You think that we need to take any action at this point? Board Member Riha — I'm concerned because otherwise you would divide up these Parcel A and Parcel B differently. If you thought, if you thought you were going to have both of them have houses, you basically put all of the land that you want to retain as a Unique Natural Area in Parcel B. Therefore making it extremely difficult to site a house and so you would split them up differently if you thought we want to put two houses on here but also be sensitive to maintaining the natural area. Unless we agreed right now that Parcel B would not... Mr. Greenspun — Can I just say that I entirely understand your concern, but as a family, we have had several meetings and it is in everybody's interest to entirely preserve this land. So there is no further development. Board Member Riha — So you wouldn't have a problem with us putting in this resolution that Parcel B would not... Mr. Greenspun — Well, I actually would have a problem with it because the development would go right in front of our house. You need a minimum amount of road frontage and then it needs to open up to another minimum requirement, 100 feet back, so where it opens up, into the field there, that's where we want to put our house, so if we were to not take that ... to the east... PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 42 Board Member Riha — I see what you're saying. You're concerned that a house could be put there. Mr. Greenspun — Exactly. Whereas anybody in their right mind wouldn't want to build a house way in the back near the ravine and the cattails, I mean, I walk that... Board Member Riha — But somebody might. Ms. Perry — Well the current owners have houses on adjacent lots already and so they're not interested in building on this land, they live right next door. ---Board Member Riha —.Right, but I._am just saying, .you'd have road frontage and there would be nothing, if somebody bought it, that would restrict them, presumably, at this point. Alternate Member Erb — I'm not even sure that I am looking for a restriction as much as a clear understanding that with the shape going forward the way it is, I see that a lot of the remaining bigger lot would be part of a Unique Natural Area and part of a farm field which we, as a Planning Board, would feel possibly uncomfortable with for house siting. I am trying very hard not to make an affirmative plat declaration. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask, if on this site plan, based on a photo we got, if the green striped area is quite accurate as to where the UNA is? Ms. Ritter — That is fairly accurate, so the Unique Natural Area as shown on here is actually incorporating a lot of agricultural land. So there is a lot of open area. There is some woods and I think they have probably the most important part of the Unique Natural Area is this back area where there's a stream. That is probably, kind of got a riparian area there, is that correct? You guys know the land pretty well. I would assume that that's a pretty nice wooded area towards the very back, and then the back you have those two large fields as well as behind, you know, there's also open, there's a pond if you see, you see a pond off to the east. There's also a disturbed area, another disturbed area that's within that Unique Natural Area, so, a good deal of the Unique Natural Area on this particular property looks like it's been developed for agricultural right now. Mr. Greenspun — It's been ... Alternate Member Erb — We're pro - agricultural also, so... Mr. Greenspun — It's been rented to the farmers in the surrounding areas... Board Member Riha — I guess, the thing, and you guys have more experience than me, I'm just concerned about approving a subdivision as kind of strange as this one... Ms. Ritter — It is definitely odd shaped but... Board Member Riha — Basically, I mean, in theory, you would have the right to put a house on Parcel B and you would.have to put a lot of road to get to a spot. I mean, you PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 43 made it that way. So they couldn't be anywhere in the front where you guys want to be, but that kind of means that you are going to be putting a lot of road and basically placing those people in a UNA. But, maybe that's okay. Ms. Ritter — It also could be that the area continues to be farmed and there is 39 acres and that is a fair amount of land for some sort of farming. I guess it's an unknown, way down the road. Mr. Greenspun — We plan on continuing to rent it out to the neighboring farmers. Ms. Ritter — Right, but sometimes we think beyond you guys, you know, the next _ --generation.-Maybe it'll. be your kids, who knows. Ms. Perry — That's why we are thinking conservation easement so it stands after we're all gone. At least on that Unique Natural Area which is the back end of the property which nobody has any interest in ever developing, among us. Mr. Walker — Is the family going to commonly own that Parcel B then, still? Ms. Perry No. It would pass to the, Tom and Barbara, but, so, we don't have any say whether or not they do that, but we've been talking about it for the past couple of months and we're going to advocate they continue with those plans. Mr. Walker — And probably if, there is a driveway all the way back to that little house on that little spot there, chances are you would have some agreement to utilize that driveway and not build a whole 'nother road back in there. Ms. Perry — Right, well, part of what we're trying to do, I've been in contact with the New York Agriculture Land Trust about putting an agricultural easement on our new parcel, which could affect that shared border. So there could potentially be no road that goes down that narrow strip because it's agricultural land. So, we're just kind of in the stage of figuring out whether it's a acceptable parcel to do an easement on, whether it's open space, scenic value or agricultural character. So that, because we don't want to see a road go down our view either, so. Board Member Hoffmann — If I can finish what I started asking about, I wanted to point out to you that if the area marked in green on this aerial photo is correct, which I hear it is, then, the lots as shown on this survey do, in fact, take in some of that UNA, Unique Natural Area, in contrast to what you indicated you thought. Ms. Perry — Which lot is the smaller lot... the... let's see ... the southern most end of Parcel A is in the Unique Natural Area, I didn't realize that it included it on our parcel. I thought it was on the remaining parcel, I guess because ... this map that I am looking at doesn't have the subdivision drawn on it and I thought it ended kind of around ... if it has it at all it's probably just a corner of it... Board Member Hoffmann — No, (tape changed)... Numerous voices all talking, discussing the maps. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 44 Ms. Ritter —.It might be the southern 100 feet or so, Susan, or maybe 75, when you ... compare Tom's (everyone speaking over each other) ... so it's really just the very bottom southern portion. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but if you also compare it to that smaller parcel which says Pastor, resident owner, which is this one here, this little spot ... that is very close to the UNA and if you look at the survey map, you can see that the UNA would come up quite close to that too. So it's probably further up than you realize. Ms. Perry — Okay. Ms. Ritter — But Eva, much of that UNA area has been developed, as you can see from the aerial. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I just want to be sure that they understand that this UNA map is correct, that it... Chairperson Wilcox — Let's say it's been disturbed as use for farmland. Ms. Ritter — Yeah, I think if you looked up the description of the Unique Natural Area, they wouldn't be describing the farm fields that are there. Mr. Greenspun — As far as I can tell, you know, I've walked the land over the years a lot, I actually hunt up there sometimes, the farmers have made use of all of the land that's, you know, has good drainage. So they may have hayed some of that UNA area but the land that there's kind of a wetland, a cattail area and then there's a ravine. That's been very untouched, it still remains, and that's what we would hope to continue to maintain. Chairperson Wilcox — As much as I don't want to prolong this, what is the Castor property? What is this funny piece? Ms. Perry — It's a neighbor, I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — Do they have a house there? Ms. Perry — Yeah. That's their driveway. Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Who approved that subdivision... laughter... Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to ask you, Sue, are there any restrictions on the farming that goes on in a UNA? Ms. Ritter — Well, UNA's have no restrictions remember, they are just an area identified, for towns to identify areas that are important to the town so they can make some kind of policy decisions, as we have, and a number of them for conservation zones, but there's no.. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 45 Board Member Hoffmann — We have made no restrictions on how to farm in the UNA? Ms Ritter — That might be something to think about, in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion with regard to the environmental review? Are you comfortable with right now? Alternate Member Erb — I wanted to make sure that applicants and we had talked about it because I would foresee potential problems siting a house if it came back to us. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Would you like to move the SEQR moition? Alternate Member Erb — Sure. Board Member Thayer — We did... Chairperson Wilcox — We did, I'm sorry ... how long ago... laughter... okay, Larry and George... okay... any further discussion with regard to the environmental review? All set on this side? Susan and Susan? (yup) All right. There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye, anybody opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions... that's part one, as you found out from sitting here. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 124 SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Greenspun, Gizewski & Greenspun 2 -Lot Subdivision, Bostwick Road Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007, MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located just east of 433 and 439 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 59.5 acre property into two lots, with Parcel A being +/_ 19.8 acres and Parcel B being 39.7 acres. Tom Greenspun, Barbara Gizewski and Nathaniel Greenspun, Owners; Nathaniel Greenspun and Susan Perri, Applicants, 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 November 27, 2007, has adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Forr applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning "Showing Proposed Parcels to be Conveyed by Gizewski & Nathaniel Greenspun" prepared by T. G. and other application materials, and PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 46 reviewed and accepted as n Part I, submitted by the staff, a survey map entitled Tom Greenspun; Barbara Miller P.C., dated 10/15/07 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, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Sub lot subdivision located Oust east of 433 and Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22, Agricultural Zone. the +/- 59.5 acre property into two lots, with Parcel B being +/- 39.7 acres. Tom Greensg Greenspun, Owners /Applicants. division Approval for the proposed 2- 439 Bostwick Road. Town of Ithaca The proposal involves subdividing Parcel A being +/- 19.8 acres and )un. Barbara Gizewski & Nathaniel Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to subdivision? Okay. So I don't have to make you move....Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a public hearing, once again, any member of the audience wish to address the Planning Board at this time? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:07p.m Who wants to move the resolution as drafted? So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Hollis Erb. Susan, Attorney for the Town... Ms. Brock — Just two typographical errors. On the second page, B, the last word should be and with a d on the end. And then C kind of ends midstream with a comma and an and, I assume after the words Planning Department you want a period? PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 47 Ms. Ritter —Yes. Ms. Brock — And nothing after that. Chairperson Wilcox — Are those changes acceptable Rod and Hollis ... yes they are ... any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye ... anybody opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions, the motion is passed. Thank you very much. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 125 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Greenspun Gizewski & Greenspun 42 -Lot Subdivision, Bostwick Road Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located just east of 433 and 439 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 32 -2 -3.22, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 59.5 acre property into two lots, with Parcel A being +/- 19.8 acres and Parcel B being 39.7 acres. Tom Greenspun, Barbara Gizewski and Nathaniel Greenspun, Owners; Nathaniel Greenspun and Susan Perri, Applicants, and 2. The 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 November 27, 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 November 27, 2007, has adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Forr applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning "Showing Proposed Parcels to be Conveyed by Gizewski & Nathaniel Greenspun" prepared by T. G. and other application materials, and reviewed and accepted as n Part I, submitted by the staff, a survey map entitled Tom Greenspun; Barbara Miller P.C., dated 10/15/07 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 PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 48 such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located just east of 433 and 439 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22, as shown on the survey map entitled a survey map entitled "Showing Proposed Parcels to be Conveyed by Tom Greenspun; Barbara Gizewski & Nathaniel Greenspun" prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated 10/15/07 subject to the following conditions: a. granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and b submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and C, submission of a copy of the receipt of filing the plat, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Talty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:10p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Skilled Nursing / Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building with +/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately 11 new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we begin, Mark, you and I are what, third or fourth cousins? Mr. Macera — Somewhere in that order. Chairperson Wilcox — Somewhere around there. Thank you very much. Before we begin, we want to thank you for bringing samples. We love it. We had somebody do it at our last meeting. We thanked them immensely, we thank you as well. We PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 49 appreciate it when people bring these in, it really makes our job that much easier. Having said that, sir, the floor is yours. Mark Macera, Executive Director, Ithaca re /Longview, 101 Bella Vista Drive We made application back in October +/- October 10th, for final site plan approval for our building expansion or addition and to support that application, we responded to the questions that were contained in the approved resolution for preliminary site plan approval, I don't recall the date, and those conditions were addressed and discussed with the Staff. I think we've since provided some additional information in the form of color renderings, I believe, and I have brought a larger board depicting that rendering of the building expansion. I also brought the proposed material selection for the fagade. Those in fact are the items that currently side the Longview facility which is essentially a corrugated vinyl siding along with asphalt shingle. Our architectural design and half bricks, here, but those bricks, as part of the panel and combination of altering vinyl and brick. The more maroon or the brown go around 98% - 99% of the building and that darker brown coal black is an intermittent brick that's found in. the exterior of the building. I think with that, I am prepared to respond to any of the issues that remain, perhaps questions or comments. Chairperson Wilcox — The fire department, in their review, requested an additional fire hydrant. That hydrant has been shown on the revised drawings, correct? Okay. That's my only question at this point. Board Member Hoffmann — Did you say that the colors that you brought the samples of are the same colors that are used in the existing building? Mr. Macera — Yes, they are identical. We planned this ... we contacted the manufacturer to select the exact same colors to the extent that the bricks, in terms of the lot and mixture might be of a slightly different tone, we plan to certainly match that to maintain a certain configuration and design. Perhaps the only detail that we haven't determined, which is pending some final discussions regarding the issue of the price for the construction contract, is exactly how much brick. But as you see in the current building, they are alternating panels. This is basically a ranch -style single -story. There is so much siding, we don't need to break it up as much and perhaps we will minimize the brick on the proposed addition to save on some of the costs. It will not be the same proportion of alternating brick and siding .on.the new building. Board Member Conneman — I'm curious, question, has there been any progress on the licensing, or has New York State just not doing anything on that? Mr. Macera — I think the progress is more of at a snail's pace so it's difficult to measure at this point in time. I can tell you that as recently as the discussion that I had with Assemblywoman Lifton, that the bill that was crafted to propose our licensing facility, arguably on opening day, as a residential healthcare facility or a skilled nursing facility, went to the Governor's desk on, I was told, November 23rd, so under statute that the Governor has so many days to act on that. So that may or may not happen. We're also waiting a decision, based on the State's promulgation of what is the ALR licensure, Assisted Living Residence applications of which we have one in the pipeline, and no PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 50 decision has been made on that pending again, some public feedback on public notice regarding promulgation of the regulations and so forth. We do, have discussed with the State, preliminarily, the licensing also as a simple addition to the current facility as a Adult Care facility. They are the same three options that we discussed previously, that are available to us to license this facility, are still on the table and probably not much more information to say that it's going to be this one, the second or the third, at this point in time. All options are still open to us at this point in time. Chairperson Wilcox — Comment only, that Dan Walker, we have a memo from Dan, having reviewed the construction details of the stormwater management and has determined that they are satisfactory. Stand by that Dan? While you're here...Dan, do you have a_ license, -to practice., ,never mind, that goes back to a Zoning Board meeting I was at ... not here...we don't have to go there here. That was at a Zoning Board meeting. No, I know, I was just shocked when you were asked that at the ZBA meeting, but there's a reason for it. Okay. Mark, have you seen the draft resolution? Mr. Macera — Yes I have. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions or comments about the conditions? Mr. Macera — No, and I agree and I have had some preliminary discussions with the Town Planner, Jon Kanter, with regards to some loose ends that deal with perhaps some dates associated with the site plan on the easement. Issues having to do with, I think, one of the lamps attached to the building and so forth and we plan t6o address, to the Town Staff's satisfaction in those as conditions for approval. Chairperson Wilcox — And one of the conditions had to do with one of the fixtures that you had shown was not fully shielded and was not compliant with Town lighting ordinance. Okay. Alternate Member Erb — Excuse me, I didn't understand what you asked about the hydrant. Is it already in place? Chairperson Wilcox — No, it's shown on the... Alternate Member Erb — Or is the fact that it's shown on the maps given to us adequate that we don't have to condition approval on it? Chairperson Wilcox— Yes. The fact that it's shown there... Alternate Member Erb — Is adequate, okay, I didn't understand, thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, the fire...when the Ithaca City Fire Department reviewed it, they requested, capital R, an additional fire hydrant be located their and those are shown on the map. Mr. Macera = (points to the board),ItIs not on this one, and I don't know where the exact location is, but basically near this cul -de -sac here for the fire and safety equipment 'to PB 11 /27/2007 Pg. 51 gain access to the building and have the resources available for (inaudible)...so this would be a fourth access point for the building. Alternate Member Erb — It's actually shown on this side of the parking lot. Down, down, down, right there. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Hollis. Any further discussion? Once again, Ladies and Gentlemen in the general public, this is a public hearing. Would anybody in the audience like to address the Planning Board this evening? If so I will make Mr. Macera take a seat so you can ... Stay right there, there is no one so we will close the public hearing at 9:19p.m. Jonathan, you're comfortable? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Board Member Howe — I'll move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. Any changes, Attorney for the Town Susan? Ms. Brock — I have no changes. I have one question. David Schlosser submitted, on, received... a letter received by the Town on November 261h that encloses some copies of the exterior. It's marked P1.0 and it's the prospective. Chairperson Wilcox — This is the one that was in front of us when we came in? Ms. Brock — Yes, it was on the desk tonight. His letter says he's enclosing this and that the copies are a duplicate of that previously submitted, no changes. So my question is, does the resolution need to reference this drawing or is that actually already in the packet? Mr. Kanter — Well, it's not one that's in the packet or otherwise we wouldn't have needed it, so we might want to... Ms. Brock — So we should add that to the list of drawings... Chairperson Wilcox — Drawings referenced... Mr. Kanter — Plus I think the description in the letter is helpful in terms of the description of the finished materials, so we could even reference the letter itself. Mr. Macera — And correct me if I am mistaken, I think he did mention of which I was supposed to bring samples to show you this evening and those are those samples. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Absolutely. Again, we thank'you. We love samples. Mr. Kanter — And they go back on the existing building when you go back, right. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 52 Mr. Walker — I think you need to correct the easement for the stormwater, or for the construction. I think they've got you as the grantee giving Ithaca College permission to be on their property. Mr. Macera — I'll look into that Dan. I'm not familiar with that. I've talked, you know, with Jon about a (inaudible) in terms of materials... Mr. Walker — Yeah, there is ... the permanent easement for the grantor is not Longview, grantor should be Ithaca College and ... for Grantee permission to build your slopes onto their property. Mr. Macera — Susan, isn't the Grantor the college and Longview the Grantee? Mr. Walker — Grantor is, should be the College but you're listed as the Grantor in here, SOY Ms. Brock — Well, I think that condition F already covers that. Submission of an easement agreement... Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable to the Attorney for the Town... Ms. Brock — Right, giving Longview the right to do the grading and construction related, so, I think the resolution already covers that issue, as well as... Mr. Kanter — Just make sure the Grantor /Grantee wording is correct. Mr. Macera — Can I just request a procedural issue. Can the Town Attorney, Susan, could you take a look at that, and if there's anything else that needs adjusting, I will try to take care of it in one transaction as opposed to back and forth and back and forth. Jon reminded me that I think typically easements of this kind are reviewed by the Town Attorney. I don't think the Town Attorney's had a chance to review anything that we've prposed, to date, so... Ms. Brock — No, I haven't seen it. Mr. Macera — So could you take a cut at it. Ms. Brock — I saw it today for the first time when I reviewed the packet, and I didn't have time to look at the easement, but I saw the condition was in here saying that I was going to be getting it, so I felt comfortable coming tonight without having actually read it. So, we need to add to paragraph 5, under the whereas clauses, after the reference to the list of drawings, "Longview Special Care Addition, date stamped received October 22, 2007 with individual revision dates specified "...we need to add a document dated November 21, 2007 (date stamped received November 26, 2007) from, I'm sorry, prepared by Schopfer Associates, Architects, I'm sorry, Architects, LLP and drawing P1.0 dated 11/21/07 then put a comma and it can just follow with "other application materials." PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 53 Chairperson Wilcox — Can you repeat that for me Susan. Ms. Brock — Okay. So, add after the phrase 11 with individual revision dates specified", ",a document dated November 21, 2007 (date stamped received November 26, 2007) prepared by Schopfer Architects, LLP and drawing P1.0 dated 11/21/07," And then, wait, wait, and then we have to make the same change on resolved paragraph number one. It would be exactly the same change, after "with individual revision dates specified" right at the end of the first paragraph, just insert the same language there. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else Susan? Ms. Brock — No, that's it. Chairperson Wilcox — Changes acceptable Rod and Susan? Yes they are. 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 no abstentions. The motion is passed. Mr. Macera — Thank you all. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 126 Final Site Plan Approval Longview Addition 1 Bella Vista Drive Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe and seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Skilled Nursing / Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building with +/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately 11 new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent, and 2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval by the Planning Board and enactment of a local law by the Town Board amending Planned Development Zone No. 7, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, for which the Planning PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 54 Board at its March 20, 2007 meeting issued a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at its meeting on March 20, 2007, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval with conditions for the proposal and issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed local law to amend Planned Development Zone No. 7 to permit the proposed addition, and 4. The Town Board, on May 7, 2007, did adopt "A Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts," _Regarding_ Increases in _Numbers_, Height and Uses of Dwelling Units in ithacare's Special Land Use District No. 7 ", and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 27, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a document dated October 8, 20071 prepared by Schopfer Architects, LLP, Final Site Plan maps and drawings as listed on the attached "List Of Drawings, Longview Special Care Addition (date stamped received October 22, 2007) with individual revision dates specified, a document dated November 21, 2007 (date stamped 11126/2007) from Schopfer Architects and drawing P1.0 dated November 21, 2007, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Skilled Nursing / Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7, as shown on the plans and details contained in the above - referenced document dated October 8, 2007, prepared by Schopfer Architects, LLP, Final Site Plan maps and drawings as listed on the attached "List Of Drawings, Longview Special Care Addition (date stamped received October 22, 2007) with individual revision dates specified, a document dated November 21, 2007 (date stamped 11/26/2007) from Schopfer Architects and drawing P1.0 dated November 21, 2007, and other application materials. Subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan materials, prior to issuance of any building permit, and b. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from any county, state, and /or federal agencies with receipt of all necessary permits required before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and c. Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca for review PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 55 and approval of the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, and d. Submission of final site, utility, and stormwater management facility engineering details and construction specifications for review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any building permit, and b. Submission of detailed construction specifications for the material to be stockpiled during construction of the addition, for review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any building permit, and c._ Submission of easement agreement, from Ithaca College, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, giving Longview the right to do grading, construction and related activities, as well as to include permanent improvements such as the stormwater pipe outlet and rip -rap outlet (shown on Sheets C1.2 and C1.4, as revised most recently on 10/8/07) on the adjacent property owned by Ithaca College, and d. All lighting fixtures shall be fully - shielded to reduce glare and off -site spillage of light, and comply with Chapter 173 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Outdoor Lighting, and e. Revision of Lighting Detail L3 shown on Sheet C1.6 Photometrics Plan to substitute the Atlantis Catalogue No. 4321 CH2 (with opal glass) wall - mounted lighting unit with a fixture that is fully shielded and compliant with Chapter 173 of the Town of Ithaca Code as indicated in condition g above, for review and approval of the Director of Planning, prior to issuance of any building permit. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Absent: Tatty The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — What do we have in terms of minutes here? Do we have two? Alright. Okay, yeah, we're gonna reference your memo here. So, tell me Paulette, what do we need to do with regard to minutes. Don't tell me read the memo, tell me. So. we have the minutes distributed that we had three weeks ago which were, which simple need to be corrected in terms of the date. Ms. Neilsen — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — And those have not been approved. Ms. Neilsen — Correct. PB 11127/2007 Pg. 56 Chairperson Wilcox — And then we have the ones in front of us. Ms. Neilsen — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So the first ones that have not been approved are the October 16th ones. So I move approval of the minutes of October 16th, seconded by Larry Thayer. All those in favor...anybody opposed....any abstentions... Eva abstains. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 127 Approval of Minutes of October 16, 2007 Town. of Ithaca _Planning Board November 27, 2007 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from October 16, 2007 and received the corrected cover page from the Clerk, 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 October 16, 2007. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb, NAYS: None Abstentions: Hoffmann Absent: Talty The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox — I hereby move approval of the minutes of November 6tt' ... seconded by Hollis ... all those in favor please signal by saying aye ... anybody opposed ... any abstentions... Eva abstains ... the minutes are approved. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 128 Approval of Minutes of November 6, 2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 27, 2007 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from November 6, 2007 and received the corrected cover page from the Clerk, and PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 57 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 November 6, 2007. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha, Erb. NAYS: None Abstentions: Hoffmann Absent: Talty The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox — There are no person to be heard.... OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, next weeks agenda was emailed to you today ... or yesterday ... so we don't have to discuss it ... alright. You can read about it, since our meeting is a week from today. Better Housing Chairperson Wilcox — I got a letter from Better Housing. I wanted to bring this to your attention. Better Housing is partnering with the Planning Department, meaning the County Planning Department, to organize training for municipal officials this winter. " "Local Planning Board volunteers will be able to fulfill their mandated training requirements while learning about the many benefits of nodal housing development and mixed -use, mixed - income development. Our presentations will give leaders the tools they need to move forward with housing creation." So if you are looking to take care of your 2007, excuse me, 2008 required four hours, or, since I already have 2008 fulfilled, can I do "09? Ms. Brock — I don't think there's any limit on how far you can carry them... Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know, I've got enough training hours in but, I though I would bring that to everybody's attention. Kendall Ave /Pennsylvania Ave Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan and I had a brief discussion about the Kendall Avenue /Pennsylvania Avenue, remember we approved a subdivision which I think to a person we disliked, which was the Orlando lacovelli subdivision and we made a recommendation to the Town Board that they consider rezoning the area. We were going to provide an update. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, basically the Town, we did report that to the Town Board and the Town Board set up a mini -subcommittee consisting of Peter Stein and Pat Leary, and PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 58 so Peter and Pat went out to talk to some of the neighborhood residents who had been to Planning Board and Town Board meetings and had indicated some concerns. Got a pretty good idea of what was going on, and then asked me to meet with Peter and Pat. So I did, I got together with them and we were thinking about potential zoning changes, just as we had started discussing here. You know, what types of zoning changes might help the situation. So we talked about the size of the unit in the basement, which we talked about here. We talked about perhaps and owner occupancy requirement for one unit where you have a two - family unit. And a couple of other things ... And then I volunteered to do sort of an inventory of all. of the high- density residential zone areas. There are about 4 or 5 different areas around the Town including Pennsylvania /Kendall Avenue ... a fairly good strip. along Danby Road, Glenside, actually, out on Five Mile _ Drive,--which-it turns out to be_ almost _ entirely single- family, very few two - family units there, and a couple of other little spots of that zone. So we are putting together an inventory that actually shows the numbers of one- family, two- family, three- family, multiple- family houses in each of the zones so we can get an idea. If we do some kind of change, does it make sense to do it zone -wide in all high density residential zones, or does it make more sense to do it just in the Pennsylvania /Kendall Avenue area. Because the other areas may be different in character and may not have the same issues. And if we do that, maybe it makes sense to actually change the zoning of the Pennsylvania /Kendall Avenue area to something like a subset of high density residential with some specific conditions in it. So we are working on that. Chairperson Wilcox — An area that's experiencing unique pressures. CW Mr. Kanter — Yeah. So we will let you know how that progresses. I guess something eventually would go to Codes & Ordinances to work out in more detail. Chairperson Wilcox -- What else is on my list of Other Business...If you haven't seen the agenda for our meeting next Tuesday. One of the items is a recommendation to the Town Board for a Chair for this group next year. This is a non - binding recommendation to the Town Board. I would ask that each of you ... first make a determination, would you like to be Chair, and second of all, if you weren't the Chair, who would you want as the Chair. And then maybe we could have a nice open discussion next Tuesday. Maybe it will be short and brief, maybe it will be long, maybe we'll make a recommendation and maybe we won't. But that is on the agenda for next Tuesday. That's all on my list. We all set? Mr. Kanter — Yup. ,lust, you have the environmental impact statement there from Ithaca College... Alternate Member Erb — Is that on the agenda? Mr. Kanter — It's not on December 4th, it might be on December 18th for a preliminary discussion but we still have time after that in terms of ... the next step is to consider whether the EIS is complete enough to accept if for public review and comment at which point we would then set a public hearing on it. Board Member Riha - The stormwater in Phase 11 is (inaudible)... PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 59 Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Next week's agenda was, is the three proposed laws dealing with stormwater management and then there was one other item on it... Mr. Kanter — Well there is the Henry subdivision... Chairperson Wilcox — There is the Henry subdivision which comes back, hopefully we don't spend an hour on that, but it's possible ... and Mr. Kanter — A presentation by Debbie Teeter from Cooperative Extension on the 8 -year review of Ag District No. 2. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask about a couple of meetings that are coming up. There's, on the 3rd this Special Town Board meeting on meeting structures and such, to which we were all invited. Can we have some more information about that and whether it's advisable for us all to come? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. What do you mean by "all invited'? Board Member Hoffmann — There was an email that came around addressed to all of us and the public was invited too. You didn't see this? Mr. Kanter — Well, it is a public meeting: It's a working Town Board meeting open to the public, as any Town Board meeting is, but it's got a limited agenda to talk about committee structure and assignments. You know, I guess the Town Board will figure out what they want to do in terms of... Board Member Conneman — What is under the two items that you are supposed to open? I tried everything and I can't....at the bottom it says "image" and then it says "only data "...what is there, is there anything? I tried to open it on my compute and I couldn't do it. Chairperson Wilcox — But it's a Special Town Board meeting to, I believe, 1, by the way, I haven't gotten the email, at least I hadn't gotten it as of this evening, but it's a Special Town Board meeting I think to begin looking at their procedures next year. Their committee structure and their procedures for next year. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but is it something that you would advise us to go to, if we can? There are so many other things going on this time of year that... Chairperson Wilcox — I want to, I believe we all get agendas for every Town Board meeting, so you have received an agenda for this Town Board meeting no different than other, that's all. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I though the topics on it were quite specific and different from the usual. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right, they are, but they are specific to the Town Board and how they operate and their committee structure and their procedures. PB 11/27/2007 Pg. 60 Alternate Member Erb — I bet she's asking whether it has to do with the Planning Committee and the Planning Board. Mr. Kanter — It very well may. Chairperson Wilcox — It very well may have to do with Planning Committee, Mr. Kanter — Among all the other Boards and Committees. Chairperson Wilcox — It very well may come up. Mr. Kanter — I would say that if any of you have any specific ideas on either, you know, make appointments to this Board or a new Planning Committee, if there is one, that you attend and voice your opinion. , Board Member Hoffmann —Well, sometimes one has to make a choice of what to attend, that's the problem and there is also this notice about on December7th, this training on Diversity, yeah, and I can go to part of it but I have something else for part of it, and I guess I will try to go to part of it, because that seems like a useful thing. Mr. Kanter — I think Judy will want to know if you are able to attend it. She does need a head count. Ms. Brock — And she might also be able to tell you whether it makes sense to come to part of it, if you tell her how long you can be there. She might give you an idea of the kinds of things they will cover while you are there, so you can make a decision. Mr. Kanter — I think the morning session is completely separate from the afternoon session, two different subjects, and you might be more interested in one than the other but I couldn't tell you which is which or... Board Member Hoffmann — Well I have no choice. I have to go to just the one I can go to, so. Alright, I just thought, if you had some insight into this, it would be useful to know. Chairperson Wilcox — Any agenda items from this side of the table? I'm done. Meeting adjourned upon motion by Rod Howe at 9:36p.m. Respe Paulette submitted, eilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Attactmlent #1 Statement to Planning Board Re: Subdivision request 340 West King Road November 27, 2007 I am Claire Forest. For the last quarter century I have owned and operated a family fruit and vegetable farm at 330 West King, next to the proposed subdivision at 340 West King Road. I am also immediate past chair of the Town's agriculture Committee, which helped develop the zoning regulations governing the proposed subdivision. The SEQR declaration on this proposed subdivision is not complete. Planning Staff treated this as a Conservation Zone, whereas it should have been treated as the particular force of conservation zone know as an Agricultural zone. Since there are only seven farms left in the Town, maintaining one -third of the Town's green space for free, this oversight is understandable, but I respectfully submit the following corrections in the SEQR Review and the proposed resolution. Town Policy says that Agriculture should be protected and promoted because open space benefits all Town residents. It also recommends that all subdivisions affecting farms be sent to the Town Agriculture Committee for comment. I request that the SEQR Review be amended to note the following. 1, There is an active farm next door to the proposed subdivision. This farm is protected by the Town's Right to Farm Laws, and by NYS Ag District law. 2. There is farm pond near the proposed subdivision. 3. The proposed subdivision contains a prime agricultural soil- Howard Gravelly Loam. If given this information the Planning Board still considers approving this subdivision, I respectfully request that the following restrictions be placed in the new 15 acre deed as a condition to granting approval: Attachment #1 1. No further subdivision will be allowed on this property unless a current or future owner of the Derrick property wants to someday join all or part of the subdivided parcel to the adjacent farm, which will not require further Town approval. 2. A conservation easement be placed on the mature hedgerow of trees toward the north border of the new parcel. This will preserve the rural character of the neighborhood, and the farm's fence. 3. Any driveway to the potential new house be located to the south of this hedgerow of mature trees, and as far south as possible within the subdivided property, so as not to bring noise and dust into the neighboring farm. Perhaps a good location for a potential new house site is where an illegally sited trailer sits on the Herrick property, left there, to Estelle Herrick's dismay, by previous owners. This is visible on the Planning map as a white rectangle. This would place the potential new house relatively near existing houses to the south, while still offering substantial privacy. There is already a right of way near this site, obtained from Mr. Priori a decade ago by Daniel Tourance to get electricity to his home on Sand Bank Road. Tourance suggested that this small parcel, too small for a house site according to Town zooming law, might be purchasable by the Herricks as part of a driveway to an eventual house site. Now is the time, before the existing Herrick house is sold, for such consideration. My dear neighbor Estelle Herrick, who moved to West King Road relatively recently from Westchester, passed on June 2, she left her house and land to her three children: Peter Miller, a developer from Texas 2 • Lori Miller, a NYC business owner and apartment dweller, estate executrix and subdivision applicant • Heather Herrick, who lives in Ithaca with her husband and children, and shares the substantial family business with her older sister. Heather wants to keep the land next to my farm so she and her husband can someday build a house. I am on cordial terms with each of them, and friends with Heather. If Heather's children want to join my children in a small pumpkin enterprise on my farm, they are welcome. When I bought my farm a quarter century ago from a descendent of the original farmer John Scott, I was shown the hedge row of mature trees dividing my place and what is now the Herrick place, as the boundary, my husband proceeded to build a farm fence there, which is the south boundary of one of our orchards. The Scott niece who sold me the farm told me this hedgerow was planted decades ago jointly by brother and sister Jabez Scott, who inherited the 55 acres I now own, and his sister Florence Scott Van Buren, who inherited 17 acres, so there would always be harmony between them about the border. This is a traditional farm practice. In August his year Peter Miller, after checking with the original surveyor TG Miller, agreed with me that this is the boundary. But last month he produced a new survey which places the boundary several feet to the north, onto our orchard and berry field, which 1 have been farming for a quarter century under the understanding that it is mine. This contains our farm fence, which Peter Miller assured me could stay, and is also prime 3 agricultural soil. My husband and I planned to help our sons launch a small pumpkin operation on the field to get them started farming. We were planning to cover crop the field this fall in preparation for this, and also moving forward on plans for a farm retreat on our south rear field ---•a farm enterprise allowed by Town zoning. But the uncertainty raised by a potential subdivision next door slowed us down on both intended family farm initiatives. This is what the American Farm Land Trust calls the "uncertainty factor ", which undermines a farming. When development threatens, farmers stop investing in cover cropping and replanting their fields, repairing fences, building new barns. Good planning, like good fences, makes good neighbors. It also preserves the Town's ability to grow food locally, and preserves rural character and open space. When I began fanning here East King Road was an active farm; now it is a sprawling suburb. One short year ago, when you were considering the Country Inn and Suites development a mule up the road, I warned that was the beginning of domino demise of farming on King Road, which contains the bulk of the Town's farmland. You nearly drove my farm under by that decision, but by the grace of God we are still here, farming. Do you want West King Road to looks like East King Road? Please make a wise decision tonight. Respectfully yours, Claire Forest Buttermilk Farm 330 West King Road Ithaca NY 277-4564 Cc: Debbie Teeter, Chair, Town Agriculture Committee Heather. Herrick TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. November 27. 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Presentation and discussion regarding the Cornell University Master Plan. Mina Amundsen and Steve Golding, Presenters. 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Harrick 2 -Lot Subdivision, 340 King Road W. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 340 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -2 -4, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 15.70 acre property into two lots, a +/- 2.0 acre parcel (Parcel A) which contains the existing house and a +/- 13.7 acre vacant parcel (Parcel B). Estate of Estelle Harrick. Owner; Laurie R. Miller, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Southwoods 4 -Lot Subdivision, King Road E. and Southwoods Dr. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC FEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located off King Road East and Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46-1-15.401, 46-1 - 15.402, and 46 -1- 15.41, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the northeastern ends of lots 40 ( +/- 0.12 acres) and 41 ( +/- 0.06 acres), which will then be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1- 15.401. The new parcel ( +/- 1.13 acres total) will contain the new sewer lift station and the stormwater detention pond and will be transferred to the Town of Ithaca. Southwoods Associates, LLC., Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., and George C. & Billie J. Awad, Owners /Applicants; Joseph W. Allen, Agent. 3:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Greenspun, Gizewski & Greenspun 2 -Lot Subdivision, 441 Bostwick Rd. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located just east of 433 and 439 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 59.5 acre property into two lots, with Parcel A being +/- 19.8 acres and Parcel B being +/- 39.7 acres. Tom Greenspun, Barbara Gizewski & Nathaniel Greenspun, Owners /Applicants. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Skilled Nursing / Adult Care Addition at Longview, an lthacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1- 1 .31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building with +/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately l l new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. lthacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent. 10. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). IL _ Approval of Minutes: October 16, 2007 and November 6, 2007. 12. Other Business: 13. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SAND)' POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four 44) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, November 27, 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, November 27, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 340 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -2-4, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 15.70 acre property into two lots, a +/- 2.0 acre parcel (Parcel A) which contains the existing house and a +/- 13.7 acre vacant parcel (Parcel B). Estate of Estelle Harrick, Owner; Laurie R. Miller, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located off King Road East and Southwoods Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46- 1- 15.401, 46- 1- 15.402, and 46 -1- 15.41, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the northeastern ends of lots 40 ( +/- 0.12 acres) and 41 ( +/- 0.06 acres), which will then be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1- 15.401. The new parcel ( +/- 1.13 acres total) will contain the new sewer lift station and the stormwater detention pond and will be transferred to the Town of Ithaca. Southwoods Associates, LLC., Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., and George C. & Billie J. Awad, Owners /Applicants; Joseph W. Allen, Agent, 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located just east of 433 and 439 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32 -2 -3.22, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 59.5 acre property into two lots, with Parcel A being +/- 19.8 acres and Parcel B being +/- 39.7 acres. Tom Greenspun, Barbara Gizewski & Nathaniel Greenspun, Owners /Applicants. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Skilled Nursing / Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1- Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building with +/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately i 1 new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent. 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: Monday, November 19, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Wednesday, N&erfiW 21 2007 FHE I IiACA °JOURNAL£; { S Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street November 27, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Kugjck Cj�-► -c F�-°.i i Address 20:f7> �>-Q rA 901 G�J,)4,4 07s 12a TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, November 27, 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 November 19, 2007 November 21, 2007 60A. � C?.-� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21" day of November 2007. C4-N'vV'L4 . C Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20