Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-01-21TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. January 21. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Schultz 2-Lot Subdiyision, 1132 Danby Road. 7;00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision approyal for the proposed two-lot subdiyision of 1132 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37-1-20.11, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyoWes subdiyiding the 43,581 +/- square foot lot into two lots, a 27,083 +/- square foot lot (Lot A) which contains the existing residence and a 16,498 +/- square foot lot (Lot B). Rasmus & Vanessa Schultz, Owners/Applicants. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: lacoyelli Properties Lot Line Modifications, 147 & 153 Kendall Ayenue. 7;15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision approyal for the proposed modifications of the lot lines associated with 147 and 153 Kendall Ayenue and an adjacent yacant lot. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 54-4-30, 54-4-29, and 54-4-28, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes subdiyiding a 720 +/- square foot strip along the western boundary of 153 Kendall Ayenue which will be consolidated with 149 Kendall Ayenue. The project also inyolyes shifting the existing lot line located between 153 Kendall Ayenue and the yacant lot to the east to create a 9,696 +/- square foot lot containing the existing residence at 153 Kendall Ayenue and a 9,120 +/- square foot lot containing an existing shed. Orlando and Helen lacoyelli, Owners/Applicants. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Heritage Park Townhouses Lot Line Modification, 335 & 337 Coddington Road. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision approyal for the proposed modification of the lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 53-1-15.1 and 53-1-15.3, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes shifting the existing lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road to the north to create a 28,152 +/- square foot lot (Lot 2) which contains the existing residence at 337 Coddington Road and a 19,163 +/- square foot yacant lot (Lot 1). Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner/Applicant. 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Heritage Park Townhouses 2-Lot Subdiyision, 249 Coddington Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision approyal for the proposed two-lot subdiyision located at 249 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-40, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes subdiyiding the 24,634 +/- square foot lot into a 13,583 +/- square foot lot (Lot 1 - new house under construction) and an 11,051 +/- square foot lot (Lot 2 - containing exiting bam and shed). Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner/Applicant. 9. Persons to be heard 10. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2014. 11. Approyal of Minutes: December 17, 2013. 12. Other Business 13. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday,January 21, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli(Alternate),John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR: Schultz 2-Lot Subdivision, 1132 Danby Road Mr. Schultz stated that they want to subdivide the property because it is too large for them to manage. They have someone mow the whole north part right now, so they want to get rid of it. Mr.Wilcox asked what the drainage issues are. Ms. Balestra said she is aware of complaints about drainage from some of the neighbors. There is some drainage and sheet flow that runs from the top of Danby Road over onto the neighboring prop- erty to the west. This general area has been wet since before there were houses; it's the nature of the soils.There have been complaints that the drainage has gotten worse as development occurred. Some of the neighbors are concerned that adding houses will exacerbate the existing drainage situation, especially for the property behind the Schultzes near the corner of Sesame and Alison. Mr.Thaete explained that there are generally four types of soils:A being more like sand and D being more like clay; these are C soils. The Town had some complaints in the past, and Town crews have ditched Sesame Street as a way to resolve those issues.That's the extent of what Public Works staff know about the drainage in that area. Ms. Erb said she was curious as to what kinds of conditions the Planning Board could put on a lot that is about to be severed from another lot and sold to someone else when there is no building plan in front of the Board. She asked whether stormwater runoff is taken into consideration at the time a home is built as part of the building permit process. Mr. Bates responded that they would have to control water on their property that is generated on their property. If they build a home, they will have to properly grade the lot. They cannot make it worse than it is right now. Mr.Thaete said that the threshold is 10,000 feet of impervious surface, so if the new owner doesn't meet 10,000 feet of impervious, they're not required to do mitigation. That's the loophole. Mr. Schultz pointed out that the buildable area is not that big. Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 2 of 20 Mr. Thaete said that right now, our laws don't cover something that small. Mr. Wilcox said that five or ten years ago, there was a subdivision on the east side of Honness Lane about which the Board had similar concerns. The Planning Board added a provision to the subdivi- sion to properly mitigate stormwater issues because they had been reported in that area. This was a landowner coming in for a 2 4ot subdivision, so there's a precedent. Ms. Brock said that the Board has a right to look at issues like drainage when they consider a subdivi- sion. So they can have a generic requirement as a condition of approval that would require any future development to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff. Ms. Balestra said the condition would be triggered when a future owner goes to develop the parcel and applies for a building permit for construction. The condition would go with the land. Ms. Erb was in favor of crafting language such that any new impervious surface on the new parcel should not result in any new increase in runoff. Mr.Thaete thinks that meeting predevelopment conditions is a good idea, rather than meeting a peak number. Mr. Wilcox agreed that that will leave the actual solution dependent upon what is actually proposed and will also take advantage of best practices at some future time. Ms.Wedemeyer brought up the dragonfly species mentioned in the packet. Ms. Balestra responded that the habitat required for the dragonfly species is not adequate in this spe- cific area. If you look at the Nature Explorer report, that area is miles wide, and that dragonfly is somewhere within those many miles. PB Resolution No. 2014-001: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Schultz 2-Lot Subdivision, 1132 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 37.4-20.11 Moved by John Beach, seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision of 1132 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37.4-20.11, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 43,581+/-square foot lot into two lots, a 27,083+/-square foot lot(Lot A) that contains the existing residence, and a 16,498+/-square foot lot (Lot B). Rasmus &Vanessa Schultz, Owners/Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor- dinated review with respect to Subdivision Approval; and Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 3 of 20 3. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on October 21, 2013, granted area variances for both lots; the variances were required because the proposed lots did not meet the required mini- mum lot depth from the highway(150 4eet required, 130+/-feet and 135+/-feet approved); and 4. The Planning Board on January 21, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, 1132 Danby Road NYS Route 96B," prepared by Lawrence Peter Fabbroni, dated 11-05-2008 and revised 1143-2013, and other application materials; and 5. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed two- lot subdivision of 1132 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37-1-20.11, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 43,581 +/-square foot lot into two lots, a 27,083 +/-square foot lot(Lot A)which contains the existing residence and a 16,498 +/-square foot lot(Lot B). Rasmus &Vanessa Schultz, Owners/Applicants Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Don Gregg, 107 Alison Drive, lives adjacent to the Schultzes. He said the property has no way to drain except to the north. If anyone were to put a house on the property, the foundation would have to be completely out of the ground in order for it to drain in any other direction, in which case, you'd be directing it towards another neighbor. Mr. Gregg put several thousand dollars in drainage along the border between the properties all the way to Alison to mitigate standing water, and it still hasn't accomplished what it was meant to.The ditching the Town did on Alison didn't accomplish anything either because the ditch doesn't flow the way it's supposed to. The drainage on Mr. Gregg's property adds water to Alison.A house put on the Schultz property would have to drain onto his property un- less a massive well were put in to catch the water. Larry Fabbroni, licensed engineer, is the author of the original subdivision map. He received the packet because he is representing the next two people on the agenda. Mr. Fabbroni said the Schultz property is the high point of the subdivision. He thinks with a little care, some diversion ditches or Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 4 of 20 gravel drains along the northern boundary directed toward the ditch on Danby Road would protect the Gregg property. He handed out a snippet of the subdivision map he drew in 1986 that is on file in the Town. He's not sure the lot line swales were put in between Lots 9 and 10. If there was a cutoff ditch in the back of Lot 12 heading toward Sesame Street, it would take care of some of the problems Mr. Gregg described. He suggested there be a condition of approval to put in additional protection along the northern boundary to direct the flow out to the ditch. There seems to be a five-to-seven foot drop from the elevation of this property to where the pipe exits coming under Danby Road. The stream is not on the land being subdivided; it flows under Danby Road and around onto another property to the north of the subdivision. Mr. Fabbroni said he designed the subdivision, but doesn't know which diversion ditches were actually built.The elevation drop is sufficient to make it work from this lot to the ditch on Danby Road. Mr.Thaete concurred. He said that the bigger issue with this subdivision is that it has been morphed a few times, and the drainage has not been put in properly. It is a high point in the area and there are ways to mitigate the drainage, but he would rather leave it up to the engineer that is designing it when they come in with plans. Mr. Greg said the map is not correct. The lot lines between Lots 9 and 10 no longer exist. The prop- erty does begin in the creek. The state put rock in there last year to stop the erosion on the west side. He wondered how one puts in an eight-foot foundation when there's a seven-foot drop. That's his concern.They'd have to go the other way, to the back of the lot, which has an 11-foot drop. Mr.Wilcox said his dilemma is that he understands that there are drainage problems right now. But the Town engineer says that any additional stormwater issues that might be caused by putting another building there can be properly mitigated. The person who buys the lot and builds on it would be re- sponsible for mitigating any additional stormwater runoff that would come about by building the house. Public Works determines whether it's sufficient. Mr. Bosak commented that the neighbor believes that if you build a house, the runoff can't be miti- gated,while Mr. Thaete and Mr. Fabbroni, engineers, believe it can be mitigated. If the Board makes it a condition that it must be mitigated, it doesn't make any difference. This sort of issue makes it clear why the Planning Board talks about subdivisions.All that future stuff is implicit in our approval. Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2014-002: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Schultz 2-Lot Subdivision, 1132 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 37.-1-20.11 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision of 1132 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37.4-20.11, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 43,581+/-square foot lot into two lots, a 27,083+/-square foot lot(Lot A) that contains the existing residence, and a 16,498+/-square foot lot (Lot B). Rasmus &Vanessa Schultz, Owners/Applicants; and Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 5 of 20 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on January 21, 2014, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff., and 3. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on October 21, 2013, granted area variances for both lots; the variances were required because the proposed lots did not meet the required mini- mum lot depth from the highway(150-feet required, 130+/-feet and 135+/-feet approved); and 4. The Planning Board on January 21, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, 1132 Danby Road NYS Route 96B," prepared by Lawrence Peter Fabbroni, dated 11-05-2008 and revised 1I- 13-2013, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the pro- posed 2-lot subdivision located at 1132 Danby Road, as shown on the survey map entitled "Sub- division Plat, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, 1132 Danby Road NYS Route 96B," subject to the following conditions: a. submission of a revised final subdivision plat to include a note that prior to issuance of any building permits or any structures on Lot B, the Lot B owner must submit a stormwater miti- gation plan, approved by the Town Engineer, that prevents the post-construction stormwater runoff rate for stormwater generated on site from exceeding the pre-construction stormwater runoff rate; and b. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the revised final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins Coun- ty Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning De- partment. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM SEAR: Iacovelli Properties Lot Line Modifications, 149 & 153 Kendall Avenue Mr. Bosak said that in 2005, one of Mr. Ronsvalle's companies did some work for him, but it will not affect his ability to properly render a decision. Mr. Fabbroni said there are two existing lots on Kendall Avenue; they intend to create equal side lots and build new houses on each of them.The small lot is being made larger; the large lot is being made smaller. This subdivision was done in 1897; the lots were 50 by 120. Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 6 of 20 Ms. Fogarty said that in back of some of the Heritage buildings, there is a stream; the Board previous- ly determined that it was a stream of some significance. Mr. Fabbroni responded that it's not behind this subdivision; it's roughly 400 feet to the west. Ms. Erb brought up the shed. If it is not taken down, a variance will be needed. Mr. Iacovelli said he wanted to leave it up to store his tools when he is rebuilding the house he de- molishes. The shed is 10 by 10. Mr. Bates said it's over the required size for a non-permit structure. The building was placed there without a permit. It's actually on a different parcel, and therefore it should never have been put up because it's not a principal structure. Mr. Fabbroni asked whether it would remedy the issue if,when they apply for a building permit for the home, they were also to apply to move the shed to the lot with the house and apply for the shed to be an accessory structure to the home. Mr. Bates said it would, but that the shed is currently illegal, and even when the lot is subdivided, the shed will still be illegal until the applicant gets a variance or a permit is issued to make it an accessory building. Ms. Erb said the point is that the ZBA might be involved if they plan to leave the shed where it is. Mr. Bates said that if they move it to the other property, once they demolish the house, the shed will be in violation because you can't have an accessory structure without a primary structure. Until there is a commitment to the construction of the home, it is in violation of the code. Mr. Iacovelli said that his brother owns the properties to the left and the right. They both have struc- tures on them. If he applies to have that shed moved to either of those properties, would it be con- forming? Mr. Bates responded that if they apply to have it added to their property and it conforms to Town code, it will most likely be allowed. Mr. Wilcox suggested approving the subdivision with a condition that they right the wrong. PB Resolution No. 2014-003: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Iacovelli Subdivision, 149 & 153 Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel No.'s 54-4-30, 54-4.29, and 54-4-28 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed modifica- tions of the lot lines associated with 149 and 153 Kendall Avenue and an adjacent vacant lot, Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 7 of 20 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 544-30, 54-4-29, and 54-4-28, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 720 +/-square foot strip along the western boundary of 153 Kendall Avenue which will be consolidated with 149 Kendall Avenue. The project also involves shifting the existing lot line located between 153 Kendall Avenue and the vacant lot to the east to create a 9,696 +/-square foot lot containing the existing residence at 153 Kendall Avenue and a 9,120 +/-square foot lot containing an existing shed. Orlando and Helen Iacovelli, Own- ers/Applicants, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, 3. The Planning Board on January 21, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat - Iacovelli Properties Kendall Avenue", prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, LLS, dated 12-11-13, and other application materi- als, 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed mod- ifications of the lot lines associated with 149 and 153 Kendall Avenue and an adjacent vacant lot, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 54-4-30, 54-4-29, and 54-4-28, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 720 +/-square foot strip along the western boundary of 153 Kendall Avenue which will be consolidated with 149 Kendall Avenue. The project also involves shifting the existing lot line located between 153 Kendall Avenue and the vacant lot to the east to create a 9,696 +/-square foot lot containing the existing residence at 153 Kendall Avenue and a 9,120 +/-square foot lot containing an existing shed. Orlando and Helen Iacovelli, Owners/Applicants Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Ms. Erb said she would like protection during construction of the large evergreens. Mr. Thaete asked about the intent regarding the drainage swale that traverses the property. Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 8 of 20 Mr. Fabbroni responded that it will stay as is. Mr.Thaete said that they've had issues in the past with the Iacovellis filling in drainage swales on their properties in the area; he wanted to make it a condition that it be left as an open swale, not piped. The owner has a right to maintain it, but should not modify it. PB Resolution No. 2014-004: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Iacovelli Subdivision, 149 & 153 Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel No.'s 54.4.30, 54.4.29, and 544.28 Moved by Paula Wedemeyer; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed modifica- tions of the lot lines associated with 149 and 153 Kendall Avenue and an adjacent vacant lot, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 544-30, 544-29, and 54-4-28, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 720 +/-square foot strip along the western boundary of 153 Kendall Avenue which will be consolidated with 149 Kendall Avenue. The project also involves shifting the existing lot line located between 153 Kendall Avenue and the vacant lot to the east to create a 9,696 +/-square foot lot containing the existing residence at 153 Kendall Avenue and a 9,120 +/-square foot lot containing an existing shed. Orlando and Helen Iacovelli, Own- ers/Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on January 21, 2014, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on January 21, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat - Iacovelli Properties Kendall Avenue", prepared by Lawrence P. Fab- broni, LLS, dated 12-11-13, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, haw ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the pro- posed subdivision located at 149 and 153 Kendall Avenue, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat - lacovelli Properties Kendall Avenue", prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, LLS, dated 12-11-13, subject to the following conditions: Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 9 of 20 a. demolition (with permit from Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Office) of the existing resi- dence at 153 Kendall Avenue, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Plan- ning Board, b. demolition or removal of the existing shed on the vacant lot(Tax Parcel No. 54-4-28), or granting of a variance by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the shed to remain(with permit from Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Office), prior to signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, c. submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of documentation showing that the owners of 149 Kendall Avenue agree to consolidate Lot 1 with the 149 Kendall Avenue parcel prior to signing of the plat by the chairperson of the Planning Board, d. revision of the final subdivision plat to include notes stating that i. Lot 1 will be consolidated with 149 Kendall Avenue parcel within six months of subdivi- sion approval, ii. the open drainage swale on Tax Parcel No. 54.-4-28 shall not be modified without approv- al of the Town Engineer, iii. the mature evergreen trees located on the western boundary of 153 Kendall Avenue shall be protected during construction, e. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the revised final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins Coun- ty Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning De- partment, f. within six months of this approval, consolidation of Lot 1 (720 +/-square foot strip)with Tax Parcel No. 54-4-30, and submission of a copy of the consolidation request to the Town of Ith- aca Planning Department. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM SEQR: Heritage Park Townhouses Lot Line Modification, 335 &337 Coddington Road Mr. Fabbroni said that this is still two tax parcels. The original house was built crossing a lot line. They're adjusting the lot line to reinstitute two lots. They would like to save the garage. The existing two-car garage would remain as is. The lot line would run right down the middle of the garage. The larger part is an existing two-car garage and the smaller part is a storage area that they want to make into a garage.They're trying to save the structure. Mr. Bates said he did some research that afternoon. There is a lot of discrepancy regarding this parcel due to the previous owner. There's a garage on one parcel and an addition to the garage on the other parcel. He came across the lot line modification that was done 7/13/2012. Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Fabbroni said that it is possible when the closing occurred and the paperwork filed that the GIS people discovered that there's a structure straddling two tax parcels. Mr. Bates said he found a note on the building permit from 1973 when the garage was first built that said that there was a condition that no house be built on the lot per the phone conversation with "DWE" unless the garage is removed - referring to Lot 1. The plot plan shows two lots side by side owned by Mrs. Cutia. The note said the position of the proposed garage would preclude any other structure being built on the lot without the garage being torn down. Mr. Bates reviewed the zoning in 1973 and found that it was illegal to have a garage in the front yard and illegal to be across the prop- erty line. The code enforcement officer allowed it with certain conditions.The permit was never closed out with a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Wilcox said that these were conditions attached to a building permit, not to a parcel. Mr. Fabbroni said that the issue can be remedied by what they're proposing, in terms of the ordi- nance as it exists today, by suggesting the shared garage along the new property line.Whatever has to be done for the building code will be done for the party wall. Ms. Erb asked whether the new garage would have a setback. Ms. Brock said the code allows a garage to straddle the line; there is no setback required where it serves both lots. She doesn't think an agreement is needed; this is not like a shared driveway where they have no access to their property except through the shared driveway. It's just a driveway that straddles the line, which our code contemplates.As long as they provide the agreement that shows they're meeting the code when they apply for the building permit, that will be sufficient. Ms.Wedemeyer pointed out that if this is approved, we will create a new non-conforming building. Mr. Bates said that once this is completed, there will be a non-compliant, non-conforming structure. At the point they go to modify it, they'll need to apply for a permit because they're making the non- conformity greater. However, if they were to do everything simultaneously- file the building permit for the structure and for the alterations to make the garage legal - they will then be complying; there is no violation because they will have a building permit for both the home and the garage.They have to finish the building permit for the home before they finish the modifications for the garage because he can't issue the C of O for the garage for an accessory structure until a primary structure is there. Mr.Wilcox asked how this was different from the shed in the previous agenda item. Mr. Bates responded that the shed was illegal, whereas this was permitted. PB Resolution No. 2014-005: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Heritage Park Townhouses Lot Line Modification, 337-335 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 53.4-15.1 and 53.-1-15.3 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 11 of 20 WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed modifica- tion of the lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 53: 1-15.1 and 53.4-15.3, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves shifting the ex- isting lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road to the north to create a 28,152+/-square foot lot(Lot 2),which contains the existing residence at 337 Coddington Road, and a 19,163+/- square foot vacant lot(Lot 1). Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner/Applicant; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval; and 3. The Planning Board on January 21, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, 337 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence Peter Fabbroni, dated 12-16-13, and other application materials; and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed modification of the lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 534-15.1 and 53-1-15.3, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves shifting the exist- ing lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road to the north to create a 28,152 +/-square foot lot(Lot 2)which contains the existing residence at 337 Coddington Road and a 19,163 +/-square foot vacant lot(Lot 1). Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner/Applicant Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Rich DePaolo, Ithaca Town Board member, stated that he lives near the proposed subdivision and is concerned about the spread of student housing, not because they're students, but because of what typically comes with student housing. He thinks that we have to decide as a town what we want to do with student housing and how we want to deal with these areas of the town where lots are being Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 12 of 20 picked off one by one, duplexes are going up, and occupancy limits aren't being adhered to. He takes responsibility as much as anyone, being on the policy side. He thinks we have an opportunity as a town with the new zoning modifications that will hopefully occur in the next couple of years and that may or may not include architectural standards. He thinks we're on a slippery slope. The entire meet- ing agenda has to do with moving slivers and lines and figuring out how we can squeeze another house into an area that wouldn't otherwise qualify to accept a new house.The meeting is about creat- ing a situation where the Planning Board, maybe for lack of authority, is saying,We're going to do this and see what the ZBA does. By passing the buck to the ZBA, the ZBA will say, The Planning Board is okay with this as long as we give a variance. The ZBA historically approves variances, not for any justified reason, but because they have in the past.As a community,we have to decide how we want to deal with the fact that we are a college town. We accept that and we benefit from that, but at the same time, long-established neighborhoods are suffering ill consequences because of poor plan- ning. He hopes he can be part of the solution to that. And he hopes that the Planning Board doesn't see it as their default setting to approve something and wait to see what somebody else does with it. They don't have to create subdivisions that create substandard lots.While we're deciding how to deal with the issue on a larger scale from a policy perspective, he would urge the Planning Board not to continue along this path - to have a set of regulations that are routinely being manipulated or some- how ignored. He understands that nobody wants conflict and nobody wants to upset certain devel- opment interests. He hopes the Board considers that they also have a responsibility to look at the law as it reads and not how it can be altered to suit a particular project. Molly McElroy-Israel stated that she lives directly across from the property, at 334 Coddington Road. Her husband and she chose their home because it was an established community with families where they could raise their family.They both work at a college.When the property across the street was purchased, it turned into a rental property.They have had to call the police. As both a mother and the director of communications at Ithaca College, the worst part of her job is having to communicate accidents involving students. She is concerned about pedestrians on the road where they gather; the speed limit in front of her home is 45 mph. Squeezing in another home will increase the traffic and possibly the gathering. She is concerned about the effect on the values of the homes. Her sister,who is a planner in Amherst, Massachusetts, said there has been a decrease in property values in that area because of an influx of student rental properties in traditionally residential, family-owned neighbor- hoods. Ms. McElroy4srael hopes the Board takes into account Mr. DePaolo's comments. Phil Proujansky owns the property at 333 Coddington Road, which is immediately adjacent and con- tiguous to this property to the north.They've lived there since 1973. He said he echoes some of what was said by the previous two residents. There's a reason why this is being approached as a subdivision. Right now, the lot line goes through existing structures; this is a problem. This is medium-density zone.These single-family homes are being converted into student housing.That's not something he's opposed to in living in an academic town.What he feels this Board is agreeing to and pushing to the ZBA is a de facto rezoning of parcels from medium density to high density.Very artfully the lots have been redefined. He's not sure whether the side yard setbacks are right for separating subdivided par- cels.That points to the simple fact that there's a pinch point on this site in order to create the side yard setbacks. There are also requirements, as far as the front yard location and the location of the garage, and essentially you're perpetrating a continuance of the non-conforming use of the garage by relocating it across another property line, and it looks to him like it may require a variance at some point in time.The location of the structure on that lot is going to push it back towards the pinch point because of the average frontages of the homes in the area immediately adjacent. Without look Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 13 of 20 ing at that, it's beyond him how they Board can consider doing a subdivision without really under- standing where the structure should go.There are ways to do it, but it will ultimately require a vari- ance, in his view. Regarding site drainage issues, there is over a 25-foot falloff from the street to the bottom of the yard. It plugs every year along the property line. Once you add impervious surface to that, it's quite obvious it's going to continue down to the bottom of the hill into the general proper- ties,whose yards flood every year.That all has to be taken into consideration. Doing the subdivision implies there is going to be additional impervious surfaces. How it cannot become a requirement un- til building permit time is beyond him. But it seems to him that this Board has to take responsibility for that. Mr.Wilcox closed the pubic hearing at 9.26 p.m. Mr. Bosak said he heard from Mr. DePaolo that the Board's default should be to deny things. That would be contrary to the constitution of the U.S. If a person has an otherwise legal right to build something, the Planning Board is in no position to prevent that. What he is hearing are a lot of really good reasons for the Town Board to change the zoning in this area. This is not an actual subdivision - splitting one lot into two lots.There are already two lots. The fact that approving this would allow for construction to take place means that we are helping the owner get around a technicality that would have prevented him from doing what he is perfectly legally entitled to do with his property. We're being asked to use a technicality to perform a function the Town Board has failed to do by zoning correctly. What we're asking the ZBA to do involves a technicality; the decision before us isn't to create a situation contrary to zoning. Ms. Erb agreed completely with Mr. Bosak's comments. There was nothing she was told that said that the dimensions of the newly created Lot 1 would be non-compliant.The only way the ZBA came into play is because of the garage that currently straddles the lot line and would continue to straddle the lot line. She would make the suggestion that, to the extent that we are concerned about parking and parking pads out next to Coddington Road, we are actually attempting to regularize the garage to provide some parking that wouldn't be sitting out at a parking pad on Coddington Road. She was told earlier to leave the drainage issue for the building permit process and has been previously told that she can't anticipate bad acts of others in trying to make a decision. There is an alternative argu- ment, that much of what we have done tonight is infill development potential,which is anti-sprawl. In no way does she believe that she has been splintering pieces off, but instead making pieces more regular so we can get better structures infilled into appropriate areas. She is not supposed to say that because it will necessarily be student housing that necessarily there will have to be illegality problems for the neighborhood. She is not trying to disregard the members of the audience who spoke. The only way the ZBA will be brought into play is because of the garage, and in fact, she could argue that making the garage better helps control the parking issue on the property. Mr. Haefeli added that it could be argued that a well-built home there could be stronger for the community. Mr. Bosak said he is perfectly willing to take all the objections at full value and agree that maybe there is something going on here that shouldn't happen. Maybe somebody should do something about this. But it's strange because in the last few months, we've had several groups come to us earnestly asking us to do something that is not for us, but for the Town Board. It's strange to have a Town Board member come and do that. Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 14 of 20 Ms.Wedemeyer said that the gentleman mentioned medium density. The Board did go through and verify that all the lot sizes meet the requirements for medium density. So the Planning Board is not mandated with the authority to change it; that would be something that would need to be changed in the law. Mr.Wilcox added that using its net size, the lot is 27% larger than required. Ms.Wedemeyer suggested that residents go to a different entity within the government to try to get the requirement for medium density changed. She said the speakers made good points, but the issues with the property, such as the placement of the garage, aren't things the Planning Board can address. We don't have the ability to ignore the law as it is written now. Mr. Bates wants to be able to verify that any remnants of the pool are removed because they never had a permit for a pool. He can't go onto the property because there is no building permit on this side of the property. Mr. Ronsvalle said he would have his engineer submit a letter saying the pool is no longer there. Ms. Fogarty said that what she was hearing from the community is important.They are concerned about the applicant's intentions for the property.They are concerned about their lifestyle. She hopes Mr. Fabbroni and Mr. Ronsvalle take that into account before they build something on it.As a mem- ber of the Planning Board, she doesn't have the power to stop them. She is only able to look at the change in the property line, but she hears what the community is saying and it's disturbing. She has seen what's going on in that neighborhood, and if she were living there, she would be very concerned. She hopes the applicant will have some conscience in what he does, and that he will get together with the neighbors and have a conversation about what will work for him and for them. Mr. Bosak agreed with what Ms. Fogarty said in the sense that he really is concerned about the issues raised by the residents, and he hopes that since the Planning Board's role is simply to make sure pro- posals follow the law that the Town Board has promulgated, he hopes the Town Board will promul- gate a law that allows the Planning Board to deal with things. PB Resolution No. 2014-006: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Heritage Park Townhouses Lot Line Modification, 337-335 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 53.4-15.1 and 53.-1-15.3 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed modifica- tion of the lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 53: 1-15.1 and 53.4-15.3, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves shifting the ex- isting lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road to the north to create a 28,152+/-square foot lot(Lot 2),which contains the existing residence at 337 Coddington Road, and a 19,163+/- square foot vacant lot(Lot 1). Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner/Applicant; and Planning Board Minutes 01.21-2014 Page 15 of 20 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on January 21, 2014, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff., and 3. The Planning Board on January 21, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, 337 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence Peter Fabbroni, dated 12-16-13, and other application materi- als; 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, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the pro- posed modification of the lot line between 337 and 335 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 51-1,15.1 and 51-1,15.3, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, 337 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York," subject to the fol- lowing conditions: a. Granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any necessary variances associated with the pro- posal, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and b. Revision of the final subdivision plat to add notes stating that the owners of Lots 1 and 2 shall submit to the Town's Director of Code Enforcement proof that(1) the swimming pool(in- cluding all remnants thereof) shall be removed from Lots 1 and 2 prior to issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 or 2, (2) the garage straddling the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 complies with the zoning chapter's requirements for such garages prior to issuance of any building permits for a house on Lot 1, and (3) prior to issuance of any building permits or any structures on Lot 1, the Lot 1 owner must submit a stormwater mitigation plan, approved by the Town Engineer, that prevents the post-construction stormwater runoff rate for storm- water generated on site from exceeding the pre-construction stormwater runoff rate; and c. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the revised final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins Coun- ty Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning De- partment. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 16 of 20 AGENDA ITEM SEAR: Heritage Park Townhouses 2-Lot Subdivision, 249 Coddington Road Mr. Wilcox said that considering the time,we would start this agenda item so the people in the audi- ence who have waited so long will have a chance to speak. Mr. Fabbroni said they are proposing to split what was four of the old 1897 lots into two lots that are well in excess of the 9000-square-foot requirement. The reason they want to front them onto Cod- dington is for the privacy of the house on 253,which is down the old Pennsylvania Avenue lane.Al- so, the Town came through with the sewer line in the 1960s and destroyed two of the old 50-foot lots. Regarding the letter from the County, which was handed to him at the meeting, the stone parking area for Lot 2 existed before the house burned down over 10 years ago. That parking area can be ex- panded to farther off the road so that if any sidewalk or bike lane gets developed along the road, it's not in conflict with it. Regarding the issue of the barn as an accessory building, he suggested that they could simultaneously apply for a house on Lot 2 and the barn as an accessory building.They would like to keep the barn because Mr. Ronsvalle has a long history of saving barns. If they have to apply for a variance to keep the barn, they will do so to preserve a piece of history in the neighborhood that's worth saving. The home on Lot 1 is like the homes that are assessed for $250,000 on Kendall Avenue.The lots are in the high-density zone and are surrounded by other homes that are rented. The property is almost across from the back entrance to Ithaca College. From his history as a Town engineer from 1974 to 1986, that neighborhood was a bunch of decrepit little cottages 40 years ago, and what a lot of these people have done is resurrect that neighborhood. What hasn't been dealt with is what was talked about earlier. That's something Town Board after Town Board has ignored. Ms. Brock did research into the unopened Pennsylvania Avenue. The road was mapped on the origi- nal plat from the 1800s. There's no record that the Town accepted a dedication of the road.At this point, the Town doesn't own the road; it has never been opened for public use. The Town does not maintain the road. It is not considered a road that can be used by the public. The Town has no rights or obligations regarding its maintenance. It is not on the official map.We don't know who owns it. It has no tax parcel number associated with it. The question came to her regarding whether the owner of Lot 1 would have the right to access their lot from this unclaimed portion of Pennsylvania Avenue. There's a deed in the chain of title that says the previous owner of the entire parcel quit claimed any right and title in the unopened part of Pennsylvania Avenue to the new owner. Guy Krogh said that regardless of whether there are any rights to use it by deed, because of the filing of the subdivision plat that shows the road, there's an implied easement that springs up by operation of law that any owners of lots abutting the road shown on the plat have the right to use the road. It's not clear whether, if the subdivision is approved, the rights flow down to the owner of Lot 2 to use the road if you were to agree with the County that we don't want access to Lot 2 from Coddington Road - we want the owners to access it from Pennsylvania Avenue - you'd have to require the Lot 1 owner to have an easement to cross their property to get to Lot 2. It's mucky right now.There are reasons we might not want to require that because there are some other ramifications that flow from that regard- ing Pennsylvania Avenue. But at least in terms of if you don't consider the subdivision and just con- sider the new home that's under construction, they do have the right to use Pennsylvania Avenue. It's not a right we're giving them, but they probably have that right.We may or may not need more in- formation, based partly on what the Planning Board decides should happen. If you decide Lot 2 should get access and egress off Coddington Road, then we don't care about Pennsylvania Avenue vis- a-vis Lot 2. Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 17 of 20 Mr. Bates pointed out that this is all one large parcel now and that the house being built is a duplex. Ms. Erb said she was having trouble seeing how to fit a home on Lot 2 with the alternate solution, given the location of overhead utilities, the sewer easement, and the barn they want to preserve. Mr.Wilcox added that the alternate solution is more consistent with the County's preference. Mr. Fabbroni said it's not their preference because it doesn't afford as much privacy to #253. Ms. Erb said the alternate solution meets the dimensional requirements because right now there are two skinny lots that need ZBA approval. The house on Lot 2 would be positioned where the shed is shown on the map and there would be a long back yard, otherwise on the alternate solution, the posi- tion of the house encroaches into where the barn is. Mr. Bates said that the alternate doesn't address the 280-a issue.We have not looked at that issue because we figured they would go with the preferred solution. Mr.Wilcox invited the public to speak. Mr. Hank Roberts made comments regarding the project and spoke from a prepared statement. He provided his comments in an email, which is quoted verbatim below: "Written below is the letter that I wrote and mostly read from at the Town Planning Board meeting on January 21St, 2014. I also spoke in the moment about how sometimes developers work with their lawyers, `get their ducks in a row' and then move quickly into action before those affected by con- struction have a chance to intelligently and thoughtfully respond. This situation is an example of that, as we found out 4 or 5 days ahead of the meeting, and scrambled to put together a thorough response while I was trying to prepare for an important concert out-of-town which I left for on the day after the January 21St meeting. In cases like this one it feels as if the developers are trying to quickly`sneak' changes through before anyone has an opportunity to comment, and before the board has chance to see a more informed picture with contributions fro the neighbors. Heritage Homes never once con- tacted us about the changes that they were working towards, or asked us how they changes might af- fect a family that has lived in this location for almost 20 years.This has felt very disrespectful and unfair. I assume that they thought that we might have a different point of view. In reference to our elder status in this neighborhood and our care for it, I also mentioned how I worked diligently to help the EPA over a period of 3 days to locate the source of a fuel oil spill that was affecting the creek(and probably our town water source) south of our property. I also mentioned how we've helped the local students out from time to time. (I'm not exactly sure what the wording was for these comments, as they were not written down.) My name is Hank Roberts. I live at 253 Coddington Rd, the house directly below 249 Coddington Rd. My wife,Jane, and I and our family, including our 4 children, have owned our home since 1994, almost 20 years now. Over the years through our own financial resources and with the tremendous assistance of our neighbors, friends and the community we've put our hearts and souls into repairing and upgrading the house into the beautiful home that it is today.When assessing big changes to our environment I hope that there will be some understanding and consideration for how we've lived our Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 18 of 20 lives there over 20 years, and that you'll have some sympathy for the big effect that this variance could have on our future. Through your intervention and consultation I'm hoping that outside forces,who don't understand their effect on us, can be tempered from damaging our way of life. These properties are located in an environmentally delicate transition area between city and wood- lands, and by respecting that and adhering to the established and reasonable code guidelines we can keep our neighborhood beautiful, our way of life intact, and our property values healthy. The Town codes that apply to these important ideals have been intelligently created over the years to protect the environment and the people and families that have a long-term commitment to living here. Consider- ing our family's close proximately and the potential impact upon us, this variance proposal seems to be connected not to those wise parameters, but instead solely to increasing profit margin for Heritage Homes at the expense of decreasing the neighbors standard of living.When Heritage Homes bought the property they knew that the width dimensions were not appropriate for two homes. If there's a hardship connected to this for the applicant, then it's something that they have created for them- selves. We have no qualms about Heritage Homes plugging into the existing framework of the site, but what they are proposing now will have an unfair impact on the environment and upon our quali- ty of life. We request that the codes be enforced so that we can be protected from people who will degrade the livability and value of our homes and environment only for the sake of their own profits. We need and ask for your help to protect us from the changes that will clearly affect us adversely. One proposal connected with this project is the idea of granting use of our driveway to the residents of 249 Coddington Rd, and building a parking lot between that house and ours. This is very disturb- ing. We have been the sole users of this driveway for almost 20 years since we've lived here, and we have been responsible for its upkeep during that time.We intimately know the dynamics of it.We see how important it is to us for so many practical and safety concerns that it be kept as is solely for our use, and not be put in the hands of a larger population, particularly a student one. Unlike any of the neighbors who border the driveway, including those at 249 Coddington, it is absolutely our only exit to the street. It is also the only route for emergency vehicles to come down to our home. Actually this very issue of bordering land owners using our driveway was brought before the Town in a public meeting in 1997 when a developer wanted to utilize our driveway for his tenants. It was voted upon and The Town Board officially ruled that for safety, security and other very essential reasons, 253 Coddington Rd should have sole use and propriety with the driveway, since we are in the unique position of having it as our only way in and out to our home. This was a clear decision voted upon by the board after adequate discussion. There have been many instances where vehicles have been parked there overnight and the owners were nowhere to be found; of cars getting stuck and sliding off of the driveway in winter weather; about damage done to our vehicles; trees; and our lawn when vehicles have come down the driveway to turn around in the vicinity of the small parking area next to our house.There are young children from our family who frequent in the yard. One very important aspect to reflect upon is the fact that around some of these incidents there has been evidence of alcohol consumption, as you would expect from college students.This increased traffic burden is unsafe and unreasonable to thrust upon our family. It would be a nightmare for us. Perhaps most important to consider is the possibility of emer- gency vehicles getting stuck at the top of our steep driveway because of vehicles parked there.As I have already mentioned it's important to note that the Town Board has previously given its opinion Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 19 of 20 on this issue. If only one house is built at 249 Coddington, then there is adequate parking with a simple small expansion of the pre-existing parking lot on the street. The approval of this code variance may seem like just allowing one more house, but it opens up a `Pandora's Box' greatly increasing the impact on my family, our home down the hill, and the envi- ronment. Again that's one of the simple reasons that these codes have been developed. It means more parking space (thus the precarious down hill parking lot), more noise, more heat reflection due to loss of soil and grass, less water absorption into the ground creating a situation of more drainage and runoff overload coming down the hill to our home, (we are already getting lots of this on both the north and south areas of our property), more parties and noise, less privacy, more exhaust fumes and car alarm horns created due to parking close to our home, and the loss of natural phenomena habitat, which is proven to have a big effect on the whole eco system and psychology of those who live nearby. Since we found out about this last Thursday we've scrambled to collect info and put together an ap- propriate response. It's been very upsetting.We feel that the sanctity of our home and our lives is on the line here. What a big challenge for us as long-time permanent residents of this neighborhood. We hope that you can help to protect us from `against code' changes that will clearly affect us so ad- versely." Mr. Bates said he has a copy of the letter Mr. Roberts wrote in 1997, and that the Town Clerk was looking for further information today, but ran out of time. He has the information in the file in which the builder was claiming rights to use the road. He has information from the Town engineer saying that the damage that was done was restored and the only right the person had was to use it for emergency egress.This is documented on an official permit.The Town Clerk didn't find any action by the Town Board, but time was short. Mr. Wilcox moved that the SEQR discussion be postponed to the meeting of Feb. 4. or Feb. 18. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2014 PB Resolution No. 2014-007:Nomination and Election, Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2014 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Fred Wilcox RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Hollis Erb as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2014. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. A vote on the motion was as follows: Planning Board Minutes 01-21-2014 Page 20 of 20 Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak Abstentions: Erb AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes PB Resolution No. 2014-008: Minutes of December 17, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on December 17; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on December 17. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDAITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Debra DeAugistui£,^Deputy Town Clbrk