HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-03-04 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 4 , 1986
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, March 4 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
New York, at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans,
Carolyn Grigorov, James Baker, David Klein, John C. Barney
(Town Attorney) , Lawrence P. Fabbroni (Town Engineer) , Peter
M. Lovi (Town Planner) , Lewis D. Cartee (Town Building
Inspector) Susan C. Beeners (Town Landscape Architect) ,
Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) .
ALSO PRESENT: Scot Raynor, Henry Aron, Eveline Aron, Gust Freeman,
Victor Lazar, Elaine Lazar, George Dengler, Bruce Rich,
Edward Austen, Charles Kehler, Noel Desch, Ivar R.
Jonson, William F. Albern, Robert Russler Jr. , Joseph
Multari, Charles Dalkert, Stephen Baker, Amanda Ufford,
Douglas Armstrong, Ralph Button, Roger Perkins, Merritt
E. Hartz , Sabra Peterson, Eric Dicke, Bonnie Majestic,
Geofrey Wetzler, William Wendt, Muhammad Razzaq,
Attorney Laura H. Holmberg, Craig Pease, Ralph Button,
Roger Perkins.
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p.m. and
accepted for the record the Clerk' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on February 24 , 1986 and February 27, 1986 ,
respectively, together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the
properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the
Town of Ulysses, upon the Clerk of the Town of Danby, upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon each of the
applicants and/or agent, as appropriate, on February 26 , 1986 .
Chairman May read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled,
as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire
Prevention and Control.
Chairman May announced that the meeting will be adjourned at
10 :00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A 20-LOT
SUBDIVISION OF LAND ON WOOLF LANE AND GROVE ROAD, TAX PARCEL
#23-1-11 . 112. TIMOTHY CIASCHI AND KEN AUTIO - OWNERS/DEVELOPERS.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 7: 32 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
C,) Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Scot
rRaynor was present on behalf of Messrs. Ciaschi and Autio.
Planning Board 2 March 4, 1986
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Copy of Long Environmental Assessment Form as completed, signed,
and submitted by Timothy Ciaschi (Co-Owner) , under date of
February 25 , 1986 [Part 1, 7 pages] , and as reviewed by the Town
Planner, Peter M. Lovi, [Part 2 , 6 pages; Appendix B, Visual EAF
Addendum, 2 pages; Part 3 -- Type i Action, 3 pages) , under date
of February 25 , 1986 .
2 . Reduced Copy of "Site Plan" , entitled "Site Plan, Timothy Ciaschi
& Ken Autio Residential Subdivision, Ithaca & Ulysses, New York" ,
dated 2/21/86 , prepared by Scott Raynor, A.S .L.A. , [Sheet 3 of
41 .
3 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to SEQR and a
recommendation of a negative determination, prepared by the Town
Planner, Peter Lovi, under date of February 26, 1986 , reading as
follows:
"DRAFT RESOLUTION: Ciaschi and Autio Subdivision, SEOR
WHEREAS:
1. This project is a 20-lot subdivision of lands at Woolf Lane and Grove
Road. 15 lots are in the Town of Ithaca; 5 lots are in the Town of
Ulysses. This project is a Type I action for which a Lang Environmental
Assessment Form, parts 1, 2, and 3 has been completed and reviewed at a
Public Hearing on March 4, 1986.
2. A recamendatien of a negative determination has been made by the Town
Planner.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency for this
environmental review and the Town of Ulysses and the Tompkins County
Health Department are affected agencies which should be notified of this
determination.
2. That the following mitigation measures are hereby incorporated as part of
this subdivision review:
a. The developer provide a revised drainage plan to the satisfaction of
the Town Engineer.
b. The developer provide a vegetation removal plan and a revegetation
plan to the satisfaction of the Town Landscape Architect.
C. That the developer show an open space parcel with minimum dimensions
of 200 feet and at least 200 feet of frontage on a public street or
right-of-way. This parcel should incorporate at least 10% of the
total acreage in the southeast corner of the subdivision.
d. That the developer reserve a 60' right-of--way to border on the open
space parcel extending from the Woolf Lane Extension to the lands of
Frank Page.
Planning Board 3 March 4 , 1986
3. That on the basis of the mitigation measures to be incorporated as part of
this subdivision plan, this project is determined to have no significant
impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental
significance shall be and hereby is made."
4 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to subdivision disapproval,
prepared by the Town Planner, Peter Lovi, under date of February
26 , 1986, reading as follows :
"DRAFT RESOLUTION: Ciaschi and Autio, Subdivision Approval
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the subdivision of a 24.07 acre parcel, #6-23-1-11.112, at
Grave Road and Woolf Lane into 15 parcels and the subdivision of a 6 acre
parcel in the Tann of Ulysses into 5 parcels.
2. The Planning Board is the Lead Agency for the environmental review but
will not review any subdivision of lands in the Town of Ulysses.
3. The Planning Board has reviewed a Long Environmental Assessment Fbrm for
this proposed subdivision and has made a negative declaration of
environmental significance.
4. The Planning Board has reviewed a preliminary subdivision plan at a Public
Hearing on March 4, 1986.
5. The Planning Board and its staff have identified matters which require
further information and study.
FORE IT IS RESC7LVED:
1. That the Planning Board disapprove and hereby does disapprove the
subdivision, as presented, for the following reasons:
a. That the drainage plan presented does not contain sufficient
information for the Board to properly evaluate the impact on the
Freeman and Marion properties.
b. That the open space plan does not provide for a single parcel of at
least two acres in dimension with 200 feet of road frontage and no
other dimension less than 200 feet.
C. That no road access has been provided for the convenient development
of the lands of Frank Page.
d. Additional information is needed describing when and how public
utilities will be provided to the site.
e. A phasing plan describing the way in which R30 lots will be
developed and how any potential rezoning to R15 will affect the
resubdivision of these properties.
f. Additional information is needed on the capacity of this property to
support this number of dwelling units in the absence of public
utilities.
2. That the Planning Board will review any revised plan for the subdivision
of this property without prejudice."
Planning Board 4 March 4, 1986
5 . Copy of the following Memorandum from Town of Ithaca Supervisor
Noel Desch to "The Property Owners in Woolf Lane, Trumansburg
Road and DuBois Road Areas and the West Shore" , dated March 3 ,
1986 , reading as follows:
"SUBJECT: Public Water and Sewer
The Town of Ithaca has set in place an objective for 1986 to begin the design
of water and sanitary sewer facilities for additional areas of West Hill. If
the lengthy process moves forward steadily, the project could be bid in Fall of
1987 and construction substantially completed in Fall of 1988 if acceptable
bids are received.
It is perhaps worthwhile to outline the steps in the process. It involves
substantially more than engineering design.
(1) It is recommended that property owners petition the Town Board for
these services. Although we are aware that there is general
interest, it helps us get State approval to take on the additional
debt. Perhaps of more significance, a petition which shows virtually
100% interest in these services may decrease the likelihood of a
referendum which may be called by property owners who have water or
sewer in any other area of the Town. The West Hill property owners
on West Haven, Bundy and Elm Street carried petitions and had
virtually 100% of the property owners sign in favor of these
utilities.
(2) The engineering report is presented to the Town Board and a judgement
is made that the estimated cost of the project can be afforded. It
is our hope that the reduction in existing debt and the addition of
units served will be sufficient to enable the Town to approve the
project. It is likely that the benefit charge for all property
owners who have water and/or sewer will increase. The judgement we
have to make is how much will Townspeople accept in the way of an
increase to meet this critical need in the face of other pressures
such as expanded fixe service, paying for the new sewage treatment
plant and normal budgetary pressures.
(3) If the project is approved, an application is made to the State
Comptroller who will review it to make sure the Town can repay the
debt without placing an unreasonable burden on the taxpayers. This
review normally takes 3-6 months. There is little doubt, in our
case, that it will be approved.
(4) If the project is approved, the Town action is subject to permissive
referendum. If a referendum is called for it may be very difficult
to get the votes necessary to move the project forward. In any
event, it will take a tremendous amount of work and assuredly delay
the project six month to one year. Hence, the petition by West Hill
property owners is needed to show an established level of interest.
(5) During the project development we may find it desirable to see if
Planning Board 5 March 4, 1986
there is a way to assist Ulysses in dealing with their water
problems. There is also the need to coordinate the design with
subdivisions that are being proposed. Such proposals can
substantially reduce the cost of the utilities to the Town but
coordination of timing is often difficult.
(6) The Town will also need assistance in getting easements for these
utilities. Property owners can be of considerable assistance in this
regard.
This is a general overview of the process. I have enclosed several copies of
pertinent petitions and encourage you to return these to the Town as quickly as
may be appropriate. If additional copies of this memorandum or the petitions
are needed, contact Town Clerk Jean Swartwood at 273-1721.
cc: Lawrence Fabbrcni
Town Board Members
Town Planning Board Members"
6 . Set of 4 Large Drawings, as follows :
1 . "Vicinity Map & Index" Sheet No. 1 of 4 -- Timothy Ciaschi &
Ken Autio Residential Subdivision, dated 2/3/86 , revised
2/21/86 , prepared by Scot Raynor, A.S.L.A.
2 . "Site Inventory & Analysis" Sheet No. 2 of 4 -- Timothy
Ciaschi & Ken Autio Residential Subdivision, dated 2/21 /86 ,
prepared by Scot Raynor, A.S.L.A.
3 . "Site Plan" Sheet No. 3 of 4 -- Timothy Ciaschi & Ken Autio
Residential Subdivision, dated 2/21/86 , prepared by Scot
Raynor, A.S.L.A.
4 . "Grading & Drainage Plan" Sheet No. 4 of 4 --- Timothy
Ciaschi & Ken Autio Residential Subdivision, dated 2/21/86 ,
prepared by Scot Raynor, A.S.L.A.
Mr. Raynor appeared before the Board and appended three very
large drawings to the bulletin board and, indicating thereon, stated
that the site is located "here" along Route 96 off Woolf Lane and
Grove Road. Mr. Raynor stated that the site is comprised of two
parcels of land -- one in the Town of Ulysses and one in the Town of
Ithaca, with the Town of Ithaca parcel containing 24 .07 acres and the
Town of Ulysses parcel containing 6 acres -- for a total of 30 .07
acres of land. Mr. Raynor stated that the site itself is undeveloped,
adding that there are no man-made structures on the site except for a
utility line -- an existing overhead power transmission line along the
western boundary. Mr. Raynor stated that the land itself is
reasonably flat with a steady topography of about 5%, wooded in the
northern section, that section being in the Town of Ulysses. Mr.
Raynor indicated on the drawing the Town line between Ithaca and
Ulysses. Mr. Raynor also pointed out on the drawing that there is
also a wooded area on the southern portion of the land down toward
Woolf Lane, commenting that about half of the site is wooded, or
Planning Board 6 March 4, 1986
perhaps, more like one-third. Again indicating on the drawing, Mr.
Raynor pointed out that there are some trees "here" , commenting that
he would not say it is a major stand of trees, however, there are some
scattered around "this" area. Mr. Raynor stated that the plan affords
lots of opportunity to preserve the trees, adding that there is the
opportunity to work within the trees to create interesting natural
views.
Mr. Raynor stated that the purpose of this proposal is to divide
the land into one-family residential home sites. Turning to the
proposed site plan, Mr. Raynor noted that this plan shows how the
property is proposed for subdivision. Mr. Raynor pointed out the 20
proposed lots on the 30 acres, and described how they come off a new
road system extended from Grove Road and Woolf Lane, pointing out a
new road "here" to make a connection to the subdivision which, he
stated, also serves "this" neighborhood as well as the existing
residential neighborhood. Mr. Raynor pointed out the location of a
pond "back here" [located on the Freeman property] and also pointed
out a stream and ravine along the northern end of the property. Mr.
Raynor stated that it is their intention to maintain the drainage
without disturbing it and to keep the pond undisturbed and the ravine.
Referring again to the trees, Mr. Raynor pointed out that there
are trees in "here" and stated that it is their intention to keep as
many of the trees as possible, however, they would like to open "this"
area up [indicating] where there is secondary growth, brush , etc. Mr.
Raynor stated that this portion used to be farmed and it has now
started to become grassy and brushy. Mr. Raynor stated that they
would open that up in order to get the views down the slope to the
Lake, adding that there are great possibilities there with that
approach.
Mr. Raynor pointed out on the site plan the area marked in beige,
and stated that they propose to keep this area unbuildable, adding
that, although it is owned by the subdividers, it would remain as open
space and provide a buffer for "these" people "here" [indicating] , and
further adding that, also, most of the major trees , that is , deciduous
trees, are "here" , so that will remain always as it is.
Turning to the next drawing, Mr. Raynor stated that this plan
shows the road system and drainage system which would accompany that
site plan. Mr. Raynor pointed out road ditches and back yard swales,
some of which is what is there today. Mr. Raynor stated that they
will maintain the system to insure drainage into the existing system
in order not to impact the existing neighbors ' land.
Mr. Raynor stated that the property would have to be built over a
phased period of time and turned back to the site plan. Mr. Raynor
stated that they will start off doing "these" four parcels, noting
that they are closest to the existing road system. Mr. Raynor stated
that, by extending the roadway, they would be able to build "these"
four parcels. Mr. Raynor stated that, from there, they would work
their way into the site through phasing and, eventually, "this road"
back "here" [indicating] would be put in.
Planning Board 7 March 4 , 1986
Chairman May thanked Mr. Raynor for his presentation. Chairman
May declared the Public Hearing open for public comment at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Henry Aron, 106 Woolf Lane, spoke from the floor and stated
that he was familiar with the topography of the land as Mr. Raynor has
mentioned. Mr. Aron stated that he would start first with the matter
of water supply. Mr. Aron stated that Mr. Raynor had said there are
to be 20 parcels created and out of the 20 parcels six will be in the
Town of Ulysses . Mr. Raynor stated that there are to be five parcels
in the Town of Ulysses. Mr. Aron stated that, therefore, we are
dealing, in the Town of Ithaca, with 15 parcels. Mr. Aron stated that
those 15 parcels are all one acre or more in size. Mr. Raynor stated
that two of them are a little under one acre. Mr. Aron asked Mr.
Raynor if he intended to have wells -- water wells -- in the Town of
Ithaca. Mr. Raynor stated that the existing water system up there is
a well system, adding that there is no public water there at this
time. Noting that there will be wells for 15 to 20 lots , Mr. Aron
stated that most of the veins are coming from Route 96 down to the
Lake. Mr. Aron stated that, by tapping into those veins, with all
those people up there, there is the possibility of tapping out the
water veins. Mr. Aron stated that he is an engineer and that this is
a problem. Mr. Aron stated that he, personally, does not object as to
development as long at it is done in a proper manner. Mr. Aron stated
that water is number one and asked Mr. Raynor what his intentions
were.
Mr. Raynor stated that he would think that the water, as well as
the sewage, systems are problably the major concerns. Mr. Aron,
commenting if it is Mr. Raynor's concern, asked if he intended to keep
on drilling 15 to 20 wells. Mr. Raynor stated that they would like to
see some sort of water system up in that area other than wells. Mr.
Aron noted the Environmental Assessment Form as it pertains to water
and asked Mr. Raynor how he expected to get water, adding that the EAF
indicates that the residents have requested water. Mr. Raynor stated
that Mr. Aron had seen the EAF so he was aware that the owners had
requested water. Mr. Aron requested that the Chair read the EAF.
Chairman May pointed out to Mr. Raynor that anything requested in the
EAF does not constitute a formal request to the Town.
Mr. Gust Freeman, 258 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he was "the pond. " Mr. Freeman stated that he was
concerned about that, and also, as with Mr. Aron, was concerned about
water. Mr. Freeman stated that Mr. Aron may lose his drinking water
as well may others. Mr. Freeman stated that that pond is one of the
only means of fire fighting up there. Mr. Freeman stated that if that
were to dry up there would be 17 houses up there without water
completely.
Mr. Victor Lazar, 108 Woolf Lane, spoke from the floor and stated
that Woolf Lane deadends immediately to the east of him. Mr. Lazar
stated that Mr. Raynor will have to do a fair amount of clearing in
order to get his building lots ready for construction. Mr. Lazar
asked Mr. Raynor what he will do with the material that he removes .
Planning Board 8 March 4 , 1986
Mr. Raynor stated that the plant material will be removed on a
selected basis, saving the trees. Mrs. Langhans offered that Mr.
Raynor missed the question and stated that the question had to do with
what is planned to be done with the material that is removed. Mr.
Raynor stated that some will be used for fill, some for firewood,
adding that the material will be used in an ecologically sound way,
with the rest going to the dump. Mrs . Langhans noted that the
residual will be hauled away.
Mr. George Dengler, 250 DuBois Road, spoke from the floor and,
pointing out a "beige" square, asked about drainage, pointing out that
when they built Woolf Lane they just ended it. Mr. Dengler stated
that there has been muddy water through his property for a long time,
adding that he suspected it came from Woolf Lane. Mr. Dengler stated
that Mr. Lazar put in dye and it came across his property, and yet, he
could not get anybody to do anything about it. Mr. Dengler described
how he built a ditch and a dam and stated that the water goes down
"that proposed road." Mr. Dengler asked Mr. Raynor if, when he
changes again the drainage, are they going to have a drainage problem?
Mr. Raynor stated that the idea is the use of a check dam. Mr. Raynor
stated that, as it is, there are constraints on the site because of
the drainage, adding that, as it is, there are other things impacting
Mr. Dengler which, by fixing, he could be disturbed and other things
created. Mr. Raynor stated that it is their intention to foresee
those things and check out the site, adding that they do not want to
make things worse for Mr. Dengler -- or anyone.
Mr. Dengler stated that the Health Department could do nothing,
adding that he got it dyed because he told them that he suspected
there was sewage in it. Mr. Dengler stated that the other thing he
wanted to say was that there are wild turkey in there, and deer -- a
lot of deer. Mr. Dengler stated that they have their fawns in a
brushy area back of Mr. Ball's lot which is next to his.
Chairman May asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak.
Mr. Bruce Rich, 253 DuBois Road, spoke from the floor and stated
that he lives across the DuBois Road east of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Rich stated that his concern is driveway access on DuBois Road,
adding that he has children and they want no more traffic than there
is on DuBois Road. Mr. Rich asked Mr. Raynor how sure he was that he
is going to be able to sell these properties, adding that with the
other two development areas up there -- Orchard Hill and Hinging Post
-- there has been no movement and, although electricity is in and the
roads are macadam, nobody is buying.
Mr. Charles Kehler, 106 Grove Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that he had three concerns ---- (1) the water supply and the
effect of 20 additional wells on the supply; (2) it is very wet land
there and the question of solving all the drainage problems; (3) the
beige areas -- park lands -- do not comply with the Town ordinance.
Chairman May asked if Mr. Kehler could amplify on his concern about
the park land, with Mr. Kehler responding, according to size.
Planning Board 9 Manch 4, 1986
Mr. Edward Austen, 255 DuBois Road, spoke from the floor and
asked if Mr. Raynor will have a detailed plan on where most of the
drainage would go, adding that he owns land where that would go, and
further adding that he was very much concerned about how much drainage
would go down through there. Mr. Austen commented that he was losing
a lot of land now.
Mr. Freeman stated that the buffer area is super for half the
people here, but not for the two people who use their backyards the
most -- Sherwood and Freeman. Mr. Freeman stated that the pond is the
watering hole for most of the kids in the neighborhood and there is no
buffer there. Mr. Freeman stated that, right now, they have control
of the pond, however, with a housing project in the back, they would
lose control of the pond. Mr. Freeman asked Mr. Raynor if he were
going to fence it off for him. Mr. Raynor stated that he thought they
will certainly take that into consideration.
Mr. Lazar stated that the area immediately to the east of Woolf
Lane is quite wet and much below the level of Woolf Lane , and, in
order to make his extension meet the level, Mr. Raynor will have to
put in a lot of fill. Mr. Raynor stated that those studies have not
been made yet. Mr. Lazar asked Mr. Raynor how he would bring the fill
into the area. Mr. Raynor responded, if Mr. Lazar were asking by what
route, that there are only two ways -- extending Grove Road from Grove
Road and extending Woolf Lane from Woolf Lane.
Mr. Rich submitted the following letters to the Board for the
record.
1. "RE: Ciaschi Development Proposal For Woolf Land (sic. ] And
Grove Rd Area.
We, Bruce and Lingayen Rich, live and own property at 253 Dubois
Rd directly below (east) of the Woolf land which is under
consideration for a proposed 20 unit housing development. For
reasons listed below, we protest and oppose any change for this
neighboring area.
1 - Major effects on the water table.
2 - Major drainage effects on this areas poorly drained soils.
3 - Pollution of household water supply wells.
4 - More noise pollution of a quiet congenial neighborhood.
5 - Loss of more rural undeveloped land which had attracted us to
this area when we were looking to purchase our home.
6 - Once a development starts , where does it stop?
7 - Loss of privacy.
8 - Increase of vehicular traffic if there is an access from the
Dubois Rd.
9 - There already are two development areas off the Dubois Rd now
(Orchard Hill Rd and Hinging Post Rd) neither of which have any
appreciable construction.
We bought our home in 1973 and have thoroughly enjoyed living in
this area. We do not want to see any change whatsoever.
Signed, (sgd. ) Bruce H. Rich; (sgd. ) Lingayen S. Rich"
Planning Board 10 March 4 , 1986
2 . RE: Ciaschi Development between Wolf Land [sic. ] and Grove Rd
We, Art and Jane Sherwood, live on and own property directly
below and adjacent to Wolf Lane and area proposed for a 20 house
development and are very concerned about the effect of this
impending development.
We, therefore, would like to register opposition and protest for
the following reasons:
1. The major effect will be on water table and on drainage onto
our property.
2. Pollution of well and water supply
3 . Pollution of farm pond directly below area affecting use by
us and present wildlife.
4. Noise pollution in otherwise quiet, rural area (we've had
experience in finding that noise drifts and flows very readily
down onto our property from Wolf [sic. ] Lane and T'Burg Rd) (the
existing hedgerow does not stop it)
5. Will probably have trespassing problems to contend with
beause of pond and hedgerow.
Signed,
(sgd. ) Jane Sherwood
(sgd. ) Art Sherwood
254 Duboice Rd. - 272-1879"
Mr. Freeman stated that he did not get a letter of notification
of the meeting. The Secretary stated that Mr. Freeman was mailed a
Notice of Public Hearings . A lady stated that she did not receive
notification either. It was determined that her home was a
considerable distance away.
Mr. Aron stated, as a question to Mr. Raynor, he would say that
he [Raynor] has heard great concern as to water, drinking water, also
great concern as to swales and drainages and so forth, adding that he
was sure Mr. Raynor has not worked on that as to what he might do,
however, the major concern is water. Mr. Aron stated that the second
concern is ---- do you intend to sell those properties as lots or homes?
Mr. Aron asked if Mr. Raynor could give this group an idea of what the
resale value of homes would be, adding that he [Aron] could tell him
what the existing homes are. Mr. Raynor stated that he thought, along
with everything he has said, the intention is to try to keep the
character of the neighborhood, not alter it, nor alter the income
level. Mr. Raynor stated that the market price of existing houses
will be determined by factors which he could not foresee, adding that
the market goes up and down. Mr. Aron noted that Mr. Raynor could not
answer his question and, commenting that he was not a real estate
person, stated that Mr. Raynor could put a $26,000 . 00 home there. Mx.
Raynor replied that he thought Mr. Aron did not hear what he said.
Mr. Lovi pointed out that, in their completed EAF, the developers had
indicated that the focus for this residential project is the high
income segment and families. Mr. Lovi noted that these are the only
boxes checked on the EAF. Mr. Lovi stated that it was , indeed,
difficult to forecast the prices of homes , particuarly for those to be
built in the future, however, it has been pretty clear that things
rise in cost. Mr. Lovi noted that the homes are proposed to be for
Planning Board 11 March 4, 1986
the high income group. Mr. Lazar asked Mr. Lovi if he would give them
an idea of what that might be. Mr. Lovi offered the guess that the
homes could run in the $125 ,000 . 00 to $150,000.00 group, adding that
he based that on a standard of a median cost for housing in 1980 of
$62 ,500. 00 , and, that the high income segment cost would be about
twice that. Mr. Raynor, noting that the question was asked also
whether their intention was to build homes or sell lots, stated that
it is their intention to build homes and sell them.
Mrs. Elaine Lazar, 108 Woolf Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that Mr. Raynor had mentioned different phases. Mrs. Lazar
asked Mr. Raynor, when he completed the first phase, when he planned
to start the next phase, with Mr. Raynor responding, before this year
is out. Mr. Raynor stated that they plan on doing four in the first
phase, adding that construction would begin this year, providing that
the weather is good, and continue through the winter until the homes
are sold.
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 :58 p.m. and asked for
Board comment. Chairman May stated that he would suggest that, before
there is any further action is taken, the Board members go up and walk
the property. Chairman May stated that there have been enough
questions raised that it would seem to be appropriate to do so. Mrs.
Langhans stated that the Board should have some sort of report on
drainage.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that we have made a number of comments which
are in the Draft Resolution -- one is in regard to park and/or open
space land. Mr. Fabbroni stated that we have wanted a park in this
area and the best spot is where the Board sees it located. Mr.
Fabbroni pointed out, also, because of the long depth of the Frank
Page property to the south, we should have some land reserved. With
respect to drainage, Mr. Fabbroni stated that, in a concept way, he
will look to this as an area broken into four different areas -- two
will be as Mr. Dengler has talked about, the third will be with
respect to Mr. Freeman 's pond, and the fourth will be that into the
Town of Ulysses. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he expects to see that kind
of detail worked up as things go along. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if
the proposed subdivision proceeds on private systems, the wells and
septic should be located so that he can speak to that. Mr. Fabbroni
pointed out that the subject of whether or not a draw-down of wells
occurs is a very difficult subject to speak to, adding that there are
any number of factors which fall into play -- depth of well , soil , and
so on. Mr. Fabbroni reiterated that this is a very difficult matter
to find any answers to. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if anybody has
problems, he should be made aware of them, adding that he would be
happy to speak with anyone about that. Noting again that this is a
very complex issue, Mr. Fabbroni offered that a broad statement as to
20 lots depleting wells is somewhat unfair, but, on the other hand, we
expect information as to wells if the systems remain private. Mr.
Fabbroni stated that the whole public situation is spelled out in
Supervisor Desch' s letter which the people have seen. Mr. Fabbroni
pointed out that in his letter Supervisor Desch speaks of public
utilities in 1988 and stated that we are proceeding toward that end,
Planning Board 12 March 4, 1986
however, if some of the procedures become troubles it could take much
longer. Mr. Fabbroni stated that one option talked about with the
developer concerned the question of how to begin development and look
to the day that public utilities would be available and, at the same
time, get a mile closer to Woolf Lane and Grove Road with developer
investment.
Chairman May stated that the Board had not seen Supervisor
Desch's Letter until this meeting, but he thought it was probably fine
because there is a need for the Board to familiarize itself more with
the project and the site.
MOTION by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mrs. Barbara
Schultz :
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the matter
of consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for the proposed
Ciaschi/Autio Subdivision off Woolf Lane and Grove Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-23-1-11 . 112 , be and hereby is adjourned to
Tuesday, April 1 , 1986 , at 7:30 p.m. for further consideration and to
provide the members of the Planning Board an opportunity to walk the
land.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed Ciaschi/Autio
subdivision duly adjourned at 8 :06 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF 803
CODDINGTON ROAD, TAX PARCEL #46-1-15 .2. JANET AND NOEL DESCH, ELEANOR
AND MONTGOMERY MAY, OWNERS; NOEL DESCH, TREASURER FOR THE OWNERS.
Chairman May asked the Secretary to send the Town Board a letter
stating that he was abstaining from all participation in this matter
because of conflict of interest as required by law in matters
pertaining to such conflict. Town Attorney Barney stated that that
was not necessary so long as such is reflected in the Minutes of the
meeting. Chairman May left the Meeting Room and Vice Chairman
Grigorov took over the Chair.
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :12 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Desch was present.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed, signed, and
submitted by Noel Desch, Treasurer for the Owners, [Part I] ,
Planning Board 13 March 4, 1986
under date of February 17, 1986 , setting forth the Applicant as
N. & J. Desch; M. & E. May; the Project Name as "None"; the
Project Location as "Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County" ; the Action
as "New"; the Project described as "Subdivision of Tax Parcel
46-1-15 .2 of 135.6 acres into two parcels for purpose of selling
one. " ; the Precise Location as "South Hill, Coddington & E. King
Roads" ; the amount of land affected as 135 .6 acres; the proposed
action as complying with existing zoning; the present land use as
residential; the action not involving a permit/approval, or
funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency;
no aspect of the action having a currently valid permit or
approval; the proposed action will not result in an existing
permit/approval requiring modification. The SEAF was reviewed by
the Town Planner, Peter M. Lovi [Parts II and III] , under date of
February 21 , 1986 , as follows:
[Part II] --
A. Box checked, "No. " "Any development will require a
site-specific review. "
B. Box checked, "No. " "Subsequent development reviews should
be coordinated. "
Cl. "No adverse environmental effects anticipated as a result of
subdivision. Future developments will require a
site--specific review in order to provide a complete
assessment. "
C2. "Same as Cl above. "
C3 . "Same as Cl above. "
C4 . "Same as Cl above. "
C5 . "Same as Cl above. "
C6 . "None. When an actual development plan is presented for the
property to be subdivided, this question will be answered in
greater detail. "
C7 . "Same as C6 above. "
[Part III] --
Box checked which states, "Check this box if you have determined,
based on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and
on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this
determination. "
1 . "No actual development is associated with the action of the
subdivision. "
2. "Subsequent plans for the development of this property must
be reviewed carefully and, if necessary, a Long
Environmental Assessment Form should be completed. "
"On the basis of the above findings, I recommend a determination
of negative environmental significance for this Unlisted action.
The Planning Board is the appropriate Lead Agency and there are
no other agencies involved at this time. "
2 . Large map entitled, "Map of Survey, Property of Noel & Janet G.
Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York" , dated October 10 , 1984 , signed and sealed by
R. L. MacDowell, surveyed and mapped under direction of R. L.
MacDowell, scale 1" = 200 ' , with additional notations in pencil
Planning Board 14 March 4 , 1986
showing two road accesses and "new property line" .
3 . Draft Resolution with respect to SEQR determination of negative
environmental significance, prepared by Peter Lovi, Town Planner,
under date of February 25 , 1986.
4 . Draft Resolution with respect to Subdivision Approval, prepared
by Peter Lovi, Town Planner, under date of February 25 , 1986 .
Mr. Desch appeared before the Board and stated that, basically,
he did not know if there is too much to add. Mr. Desch stated that,
as far as the SEAF is concerned, what is happening here is that there
is a parcel of land that fronts on both East King Road and Coddington
Road, with the major portion of frontage being on East King Road. Mr.
Desch stated that the size of the parcel is 135 acres and they desire
to sell roughly 50 acres -- that portion of the land which is bounded
by East King Road and a stream which comes down the hill in a natural
gully. Mr. Desch reiterated that the proposed property line will
roughly follow that stream. Mr. Desch stated that, on the plan that
the Board members have in front of them, he has shown that the
remaining roughly 85 acres , which the owners would retain, has two
locations where roads could be located and which shows that the
remaining land would not be landlocked. Commenting that it was
difficult to appreciate the topography, Mr. Desch stated that,
generally speaking, the parcel that they are selling generally follows
the grade to East King Road at about a 10% grade and is relatively
flat. Mr. Desch stated that the remaining 85 acres, on the other
hand, the lower portion under the power line is roughly flat, but from
the power line down to the bottom of the page [indicating) is a very
steep hill -- actually a small mountain with a 300 to 400 foot rise.
Mr. Desch stated that that was about it.
Mr. Desch stated that insofar as future development goes, there
is no conflict with the zoning ordinance, etc . , and, as far as
utilities are concerned, the Town system reaches the lower elevations
of the existing parcel, however, it is not sufficient to serve the
entire parcel. Mr. Desch stated that if there were a line to
Ridgecrest it would have pressure.
Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that the part Mr. Desch is selling
does not have public water. Mr. Desch stated that it had water just
at the edge of it, but very little, however, some fire protection is
available.
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone from the public
who wished to speak to the matter of the Desch/May subdivision
request. No one spoke. Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public
Hearing at 8 :17 p.m.
Mr. Klein, noting that Mr. Desch 's road access off Updike Road is
listed as a 50-foot right of way, stated that he thought it has to be
60 feet. Mr. Desch stated that that right of way is existing, adding
that the did not know when it was created, and further adding that it
is from a separate parcel which his wife and he own. Mr. Desch stated
Planning Board 15 March 4, 1986
that, if this big parcel were to be developed, the Town might say that
a 60-foot wide right of way is necessary. Mr. Desch stated that they
are not touching that under this consideration, commenting that that
is a "given" to them as a property owner. Mr. Klein commented that
the 50-foot right of way is as it is now.
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other questions or
comments.
Mr. Fabbroni asked Mr. Desch if he planned on providing a survey
map for the subdivision. Mr. Desch, commenting that he meant to
mention that, stated that a metes and bounds survey will be provided
for that portion. Mr. Fabbroni wondered if there were any particular
reason why the proposed new property line does not run right down the
middle of the creek. Mr. Desch stated that the particular buyer wants
a picnic area in there, adding that it is a beautiful walk with a
steep ravine which easily drops 100 feet. Mr. Desch described coming
out of a hill into a picnic area and down to the buyer's line.
Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that, usually, when the Board has a
subdivision request, the lots are laid out. Mr. Lovi pointed out that
there are only two lots involved here, adding that what was done is
similar to Mr. Razzaq's proposed subdivision in that the line is being
shown and, if acceptable, then the subdivider would supply a suitable
survey.
Mr. Desch stated that, presumably, the part remaining, if they
would choose to develop it, they would have to come in with plans .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1 . This project is a 2-lot subdivision of lands in an R30 district
at 803 Coddington Road. This is an Unlisted action for which a
Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and
reviewed at a Public Hearing on March 4 , 1986 .
2. Any further development of this land for Unlisted or Type I
actions will be the subject of further environmental review.
3 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the
Town Planner.
4 . There are no affected agencies which should be notified of this
determination.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this project.
2. That this project is determined to have no significant impact on
the environment and a negative declaration of environmental
Planning Board i6 March 4, 1986
significance shall be and hereby is made.
There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay _ None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Referring to the Draft Resolution with respect to Subdivision
Approval, Mrs. Schultz stated that she would question paragraph #4 on
page 2 which states that "This subdivision approval shall be effective
for ninety days. " Mr. Lovi stated that this is State law which puts
the subdivider on notice that approval is effective for ninety days
unless a map is filed. Town Attorney Barney commented that the
resolution should say that and added that he was still concerned with
framing the resolution in terms of waiving final subdivision approval.
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked how the wording should be changed. Mr.
Fabbroni pointed out that the survey was done by Dick MacDowell, not
Ken Baker. Town Attorney Barney offered that approval probably should
be conditioned on the survey. Mr. Fabbroni stated that we will have
another map on this which will be the map that is filed with the
County Clerk, adding that it is no big deal, however, we should have
an updated survey map that reflects the subdivision.
MOTION by Mr. James Baker, seconded by Mr. David Klein:
WHEREAS:
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination
of negative environmental significance .
2 . The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at a Public
Hearing on March 4 , 1986.
3 . This action is the subdivision of a 135 .60 acre parcel,
#46-1-15.2 , at 803 Coddington Road into two parcels of 50± acres
and 85± acres , respectively.
4 . A survey map dated October 10 , 1984 prepared by R. L. MaCDowell
has been submitted to the Planning Board. Upon this map the new
property line has been sketched by Mr. Desch.
5 . A property survey fully describing the parcel to be subdivided
shall be made by a licensed surveyor prior to any endorsement of
the subdivision plat by the Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the following
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined that such waiver will result in neither a
Planning Board 17 March 4, 1986
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor
the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board:
a) four dark-line prints of the proposed plat.
b) Contour intervals, to USGS datum.
c) Cultural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision.
d) Direction of flow of all water courses entering or abutting
the subdivision.
e) Location and description of all section line corners and
government survey monuments.
f) Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision.
g) Vicinity map.
h) Border lines bounding the sheet, one inch from the left edge
and one half from each of the other edges.
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval for this subdivision as presented
and described on a survey map prepared October 10 , 1984 by
Richard L. MacDowell and amended February 24 , 1985 by Noel Desch,
subject to the following conditions :
a. There be presented a revised, properly certified map
prepared by a licensed surveyor.
b. Such map shall be provided, signed, and recorded in the
Tompkins County Clerk' s Office within ninety days.
3 . That the Vice Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized
to endorse a plat suitable for filing in the Office of the County
Clerk.
4. That no building permit shall be issued for new construction on
this property until a copy of the above-referenced survey map has
been filed in the Office of the County Clerk.
5 . That a copy of this resolution shall be immediately delivered to
the Town Clerk for distribution to the Town Board.
There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Schultz, Langhans , Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Desch/May
two-lot subdivision duly closed at 8 :30 p.m.
Mr. Lovi went upstairs to retrieve Chairman May.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATON OF FINAL SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR AN 85-UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION AT 131 HONNESS LANE, TAX
Planning Board 18 March 4 , 1986
PARCEL 58-2-39 .2 . IVAR JONSON, DEVELOPER.
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing (from February
4 , 1986) in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :31 p .m. and read
aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and
as noted above. Messrs. Jonson, Albern, and Russler were present.
The following documents were before the Board :
1 . Four-Page Set of Drawings, as follows :
a. "Final Plat, Grandview Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, Buyer Developer Ivar Jonson, 934 E. Shore
Dr. , Ithaca, N.Y. " , dated January 24 , 1986, revised 2/16/86 ,
revised 2/21/86 , survey by R.L. MacDowell Jr. , drawn by R.S .
Russler Jr.
b. "Road Profiles, Grandview Subdivision" , dated Jan. 24, 1986 .
C. "Water & Sewer Plans & Details, Revised, Grandview
Subdivision, Ivar Jonson" , Sheet 1 of 2 , dated 1/24/86 ,
revised 2T2-/86 , revised 2/16/86 , William F. Albern, L.P.E.
d. "Sewer Profiles, Grandview Subdivision, Ivar Jonson", Sheet
2 of 2 , dated 1/24/86 , revised 2/2/86 , revised 2/16/86 (no
change) , William F. Albern, L.P.E.
2 . Draft Resolution in re Final Subdivision Approval, prepared by
Peter Lovi, Town Planner, under date of February 26 , 1986 [5
pages] .
3 . Draft Resolution (Addition) in re Final Subdivision Approval,
prepared by Peter Lovi, Town Planner, under date of March 3 ,
1986 , [1 page] with attachments, as follows:
a. Appendix B -- Planting Buffer [Drawing] in re Multari
property, dated "proposed 2/14/86" .
b. Letter to Ivar Jonson from Susan Beeners dated February 14 ,
1986, in re planting buffer.
C. Agreement [Proposed] between Ivar Jonson and Joseph Multari
in re planting buffer.
4 . Draft Resolution in re Recommendation of Restrictive Covenants ,
prepared by Peter Lovi., Town Planner, under date of February 27 ,
1986 [2 pages] .
Mr. Jonson appeared before the Board and introduced himself,
stating that he was here for final approval. Mr. Jonson recalled that
there were two points to be attended to -- elevations and property
lines. Mr. Jonson stated that he would like to open one more point
and that is the drainage and address that.
Planning Board 19 March 4 , 1986
Mr. Albern stated that "a" and "b" lines are now shown as
requested by the Town Attorney at the last meeting.
Mr. Jonson stated that, also, at the last meeting it was
mentioned that his elevations all looked the same. Mr. Jonson
proceeded to draw on the chalkboard a typical lot which will contain
the two attached single family dwellings and explained how there will
never be a difference in lot size for an owner of more than 10% . Mr.
Jonson also drew on the chalkboard how that same lot would look if you
just drew a line down the middle and explained how, if you did it that
way, it would be very boring.
Mr. Lovi stated that what the developer is getting at is that,
when the staff sat down with the engineers and Mr. Albern as to how to
establish the "a" and "b" lots, one of the concerns was still being
able to preserve his opportunity to take advantage of the local
topography to site a building. Mr. Lovi stated that if "a" and "b"
are just drawn to exactly bisect a lot and the attached single family
house would have to be on that lot line, it would unreasonably
restrict the property and be less attractive, and, so, the subdivision
is shown with a line that bisects, however, the intention is that when
actually built, an "as-built" survey will be filed. Mr. Lovi stated
that that is the recommendation of staff as to how we should proceed,
in other words, the lines are shown bisecting the lots but with the
understanding that when built there will be supplied an "as-built"
survey.
Chairman May wondered what the 10% thing was. Mr. Jonson
explained that it means that no person would have less than 10% of
another person.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that this approach addressed a lot of
different problems, adding that if the Board were to insist on
splitting the lot, however, it would require a very sophisticated
survey, and further adding that it would be very unwieldy and not what
the developer intended.
Town Attorney Barney stated that it made sense, adding that it
also made sense that no certificate of occupancy may be issued until
an "as-built" survey is filed.
Mr. Jonson stated that the way they do it, he will give him
[Carteel a plot plan and when we get the basement in, a professional
surveyor will do the survey.
Town Attorney Barney offered that there are two points which
could be involved in the survey matter -- one could be at the time of
application for building permit which would be unreasonable then, but,
when built and the people move in and a certificate of occupancy is
needed, it would be sufficient then to have the survey. Mr. Jonson
commented that the Town would have it in their file. Town Attorney
Barney added that it would also be in the Tompkins County Clerk' s
Office.
Planning Board 20 March 4, 1986
Mr. Janson stated that he was asked to bring in plans of three
elevations and take pictures of houses around Town. Mr. Jonson
admitted that he did not do that, however, he did bring in large,
framed, colored photographs of three homes which he had built. Mr.
Jonson displayed these three photographs, passed them around to each
Board member, and stated that these are on Blackstone Avenue and
behind the Catholic Church. Mr. Jonson pointed out that these three
houses are identically the same floor plan, adding that by putting a
porch on one side, or a deck here or there, and different siding, they
all look very different. Mr. Jonson stated that he built these
houses. Next, Mr. Jonson displayed a picture from a book and stated
that this is what he did not want to do -- all the garages in the
front and so on. Mr. Jonson stated that he wanted these houses for
this subdvision to all look different. Mr. Jonson stated that he has
looked in thousands of books and everyone of them got the garages
right out front. Mr. Jonson proceeded to display lots of big
photographs and little photographs. Mr. Jonson stated -- now, the
designs that are going to be put up -- and took from a large bag at
least 15 large drawings which he passed, individually, down the table.
Chairman May asked if these were all an identical floor plan, to
which Mr. Jonson replied, yes, adding, just a different look. Mr.
Jonson noted a two-storey, a "Cape" , a modern one. Mrs . Grigorov
asked if the siding was wood, with Mr. Jonson responding, yes. As the
numerous drawings were travelling down the Board table, Mr. Jonson
commented that here is one to show how if you look at the front
straight on you do not really get the effect. Mr. Jonson described
different treatments, mentioning garage doors, front doors, windows,
etc. The Board members indicated that they were impressed by the
collection.
Mr. Jonson stated that the next thing he would like to talk about
was riprap in the drainage ditches, commenting that there are a lot of
things on the plans and riprap is shown where it should go in,
however, he would like to work with the Town Engineer to get his input
as they go and do the subdivision.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that what Mr. Jonson is talking about is a
part of an alternative of paving the ditches in places as opposed to
riprapping the ditches. Mr. Fabbroni noted that riprapping the
ditches is quite expensive and Mr. Jonson discussed with him paving
the ditches in certain places where it would be sufficient and
riprapping in certain places which he [Fabbroni] would require. Mr.
Jonson commented that a lot of homeowners like to mow their lawn right
down to the ditches, but on steep places, riprap is needed.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that, essentially, slopes above seven per
cent need stabilization, adding that, within that it is acceptable to
him to have a paved ditch as opposed to riprap. Mr. Fabbroni stated
that, however, he would insist on riprap at major corners -- within
100 feet -- together with the paved for cutting down the velocity of
flow. Mr. Fabbroni stressed that he has to have a stabilized ditch.
Mr. Joseph Multari, 1430 Slaterville Road, spoke from the floor
Planning Board 21 March 4 , 1986
and, noting that Mr. Fabbroni had said paved ditches, asked him what
that would be, with Mr. Fabbroni responding, asphaltic concrete.
Chairman May opened the Public Hearing at 8 :50 p.m.
Mr. Charles Dalkert, 105 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that, since we are effectively turning Honness Lane and Pine
Tree Road into rental property, we are going to effectively change the
value of property there. Mr. Dalkert asked the Board if it were
prepared to help the present residents of that area get their
assessments changed and their taxes lowered. Continuing, Mr. Dalkert
stated that he also has a very serious question, as a jogger, for the
Board. Mr. Dalkert asked, as a jogger and as a person who had a
daughter hit this weekend, what the plans are for improving Honness
Lane. Mr. Dalkert stated that he was bike riding the other day and
this time of year there is no place to ride a bike. Commenting, to
put it another way, Mr. Dalkert asked if there were any plan to
improve the situation on Route 79 , adding, let us face it, most people
are coming up and turning left into this subdivision and it will be a
real mess especially when the other entrance sinks into the pond.
Chairman May stated that, first of all, it is not this Board ' s
intention, nor does it envision, turning that area into a rental area.
Chairman May stated that, secondly, with the weather being the way it
has been -- snow and ice ---- the shoulders are pretty tough for anyone
to be on. Chairman May pointed out that there is a bikeway on Honness
Lane, as the residents know, which has a nice shoulder when not snow
covered. Chairman May noted, also, that when Route 79 is concluded,
there will be further shoulder. Chairman May stated that, in any
case, it is not the Planning Board to take such a matter before,
adding that Mr. Dalkert should talk to the Town Board.
Mr. Jonson, noting that Mr. Dalkert had asked about property
value, stated that he just built a house on Honness Lane which costs
$132,000 .00 and it has been sold. Mr. Jonson commented that, if that
is devaluing Mr. Dalkert' s property, he did not know how it could,
adding that he thought it would increase his property' s value.
Mr. Stephen T. Baker spoke from the floor and stated that he was
present representing the City of Ithaca, Water and Sewer Division, and
also the Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee. Mr. Baker stated that
"we" talk about drainage on site and speeding up existing water from
the site. Mr. Baker stated that he was concerned about that water
once it leaves that site and enters into City of Ithaca property. Mr.
Baker stated that he would like to read into the record the following
statement. Mr. Baker read aloud from the following document.
"City of Ithaca
Engineering and Utilities Division
510 First Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Water and Sewer
N O T I C E
Planning Board 22 March 4, 1986
TO: Ithaca Town Planning Board
FROM: Chief Operator, City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant
DATE : March 4 , 1986
RE: Stormwater Retention at Ivar Johnson [sic. ] /Honness Lane
Housing Development
It is my considered opinion that the Ivar Johnson [sic. ] housing
development on Honness Lane in the Town of Ithaca will, in the absence
of adequate stormwater management, result in accelerated runoff of
stormwaters, increasing peak flows and velocities and contributing to
erosion and sedimentation on City property downstream.
Siltation resulting from the project, both during and after
construction, would be expected to have an adverse effect on both the
Thirty-foot Reservoir and down-stream areas which comprise the
emergency raw water supply of the City. In addition, some concern
should be focussed on how accelerated bank erosion will effect [sic. ]
the sensitive areas through which our raw water transmission main
traverses.
In light of these concerns, ie, [sic. ] to prevent degradation of
property, to prevent needless public expenditure for repair or
replacement of public facilities damaged or lost as a result of
induced flow peaks, to prevent degradation of the creek and reservoir
caused by excessive sedimentation, and to prevent accelerated bank
erosion by controlling the rate and velocity of runoff, I believe it
is necessary that some method of stormwater retention/detention be
provided for in this development plan before it can be approved.
Respectfully submitted,
(sgd. ) Stephen T. Baker
Stephen T. Baker,
Chief Operator, City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant
Representative, Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee
cc: P.D. Novelli , City Engineer
C. Peterson, Chair, Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee"
Upon concluding the reading of the Notice, Mr. Baker stated that
he would add that, also, some mitigating effort be made to keep the
runoff off the site at the level at which it currently exists.
Mr. Fabbroni asked Mr. Baker if he were correct in saying that he
[Baker] had said that this Notice is an official statement from the
City of Ithaca. Mr. Baker responded, yes , adding that he and Peter
Novelli had conferred on the Notice. Chairman May verified that this
was discussed, too, with the City.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that the whole drainage scheme for the
subdvision is to fulfill that which we have tried to follow in all of
these larger subdivisions, which is to direct paths of water to as
many alternate points as possible. Mr. Fabbroni stated that one path
leads to no good and to very extensive, and expensive, techniques
later on. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that, if the plans are studied,
you will find that this drainage is almost overdone and proceeded to
Planning Board 23 March 4, 1986
outline the swales and the diversion techniques used to keep from
pinpointing flow.
Mr. Baker stated that this area is subject to landslides.
Mr. Fabbroni disagreed and stated that this area has never been
subject to landslides. Mr. Fabbroni stated that just east of the
30-foot dam is where this enters Six Mile Creek which is north of
where you have had problems with the bank . Mr. Fabbroni stated that
in no way can it approach that area where you have had trouble. Mr.
Fabbroni stated that the waterway which has had the least erosion over
the years shows no evidence of cutting. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it
seems this water heads west and as it cuts down into the area parallel
and east of your access road goes north and east of that washout area.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that the drainageway runs parallel to the ravine
then drops to the Six Mile Creek in a stream which is more gentle than
most.
Mr. Baker stated that the flow will be increased, adding that
there is no attempt to divert it.
Mr. Fabbroni offered that Mr. Baker did not listen to him and
proceeded to once again describe several techniques employed. Mr.
Fabbroni also spoke of riprapping at points of intersection in order
to do two things -- prevent jumping by and arresting velocity.
Speaking to Mr. Baker, Mr. Fabbroni stated that, maybe, his [Baker ' s]
own answer is a retention pond, but there are other acceptable
techniques to deal with stormwater flow.
Mr. Baker stated that he was asking that they be looked at and
spoke of multitudinous situations being created. Mr. Fabbroni
countered that that could be, but when you have a fallow field
saturated as present, it is like water running off a parking lot.
Mrs. Amanda Ufford, 147 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
asked Mr. Jonson what road he expected to be built on and how long the
whole development would take, and would it be house by house in one
particular area or dotted around. Mr. Jonson stated that the first
section is the road from Honness Lane to Route 79 with the traffic in
two direction -- Honness Lane to Route 79 . Mr. Jonson stated that if
everything works out the way he thinks it will go -- three years,
adding that if it is two years he will be very happy. Mr. Jonson
stated that he could also add, if Mrs. Ufford was not at the other
meeting, about the trees which for certain houses will not be over 25
feet in 20 years so they do not block the views of the neighbors
around. Mr. Jonson stated that this was a big concern and they have
put that in their plans.
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9:01 p.m. and asked for
Board discussion.
Mr. Klein stated that he was just asking Mr. Fabbroni about the
drainage question in October and he said that that was supplied. Mr.
Klein stated that the Board did look for a typical landscaping plan,
however, he did not see that for a duplex. Mr. Lovi stated that he
Planning Board 24 March 4, 1986
did not recall that a typical was required. Mr. Klein stated that he
was referring to the wording in Mr. Lovi ' s report. Mr. Lovi recalled
a plan for a typical lot and stated that what has also been determined
for Mr. Multari is a planting buffer -- a planting plan for the west
side of Towerview Drive has been developed and included as part of the
plan.
Mr. Klein pointed out that at the October 29th meeting as part of
the EAF which was approved it was indicated that "building designs,
locations and landscaping will need to be reviewed when the final
plans are developed. A landscaping plan should indicate planting
size, species, and location for the project as a whole and a detail
sheet for a representative lot. " [Minutes of Planning Board Meeting
of October 29, 1985, Page 473 . Mr. Klein pointed out that many, many
things were discussed most of which have been done.
Mr. Jonson stated that he is the builder and he will do some
planting, adding that most are supplied by the homeowner and he cannot
control what people put on their property. Mr. Jonson noted that one
thing they agreed to in the covenants was that owners of lots in the
subdivision cannot plant trees which will be more than 25 feet high in
20 years. Mr. Janson stated that if Mr. Klein wants to make it part
of the subdivision approval, landscaping, he can tell the Board what
it is he will do and that is he will seed the property, adding that it
is in his interest to get it to look good on the outside. Mr. Jonson
stated that he would not go in and plant $3 ,000 worth of trees on each
property -- maybe a few plants around $200 to $300 . Mr. Jonson stated
that seeding will be done so that there will be no erosion later on
and that is a very important point. Mr. Jonson suggested that, if you
want to, enter that the builder will do seeding. Mrs. Grigorov noted
that that was in there in the draft resolution.
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments from the
Board. There were none.
Town Attorney Barney stated that he had a couple of comments on
the proposed resolution. Mrs. Grigorov asked Mr. Fabbroni if the
builder' s drainage plan was acceptable, with Mr. Fabbroni responding,
yes.
Town Attorney Barney suggested adding the following sentence to
the second paragraph of item #7 on page 2 -- "On such lots attached
buildings consisting of no more than two dwelling units one on each
side of the dividing line between each Lot A and B shall be the only
form of construction. " Town Attorney Barney also suggested a change
in the proposed "Resolved" section of the draft resolution [page 41
such that item #2 be expanded to include the conditions of approval,
so, item #3 would become #2a, item #4 would become #2b, and there
would be added c, d, and e, and so on. Town Attorney Barney suggested
that #2c would deal with the boundary line between lots A and B; #2d
would deal with certificates of occupancy upon receipt of an
"as-built" survey; #2e would deal with compliance by the developer
with the conditions. The Board members indicated their agreement with
Town Attorney Barney's suggestions.
Planning Board 25 March 4, 1986
Mr. Klein inquired about the Notes on the site plan, noting that
that is the map that will be filed. Mr. Fabbroni read aloud the 14
Notes printed on the Final Plat before the Board, explaining their
meaning as he did so.
Mr. Cartee commented that somewhere he had seen something to the
effect that there would be no wood stoves permitted and asked if that
were still the case. Chairman May stated that that was correct,
noting that the proposed restrictive covenants state that no
wood-burning stoves shall be permitted in any attached dwelling unit.
Mr. Cartee wondered about fireplaces and chimneys and, also, coal and
fireplaces with inserts. Mr. Cartee asked what the difference is
between a chimney with a fireplace and a fireplace with an insert.
Mr. Lovi stated that the intent is not to necessarily restrict someone
who may fire up the fireplace a couple of times a winter, but that
houses which are in fairly close proximity -- and there have been
comments made which we have heard in earlier public hearings about
people with a sensitivity to wood-burning stoves -- the intent would
be to rule out people who would use wood as the primary heating source
-- fireplace, yes; wood-burning stove, no.
Mr. Fabbroni asked that the Board put itself in the shoes of the
Building Inspector and wondered how one deals with what is supposed to
be a fireplace and he sees a heatilator. Mr. Jonson stated that the
fireplaces that they are using are not masonary fireplaces -- they are
pre-made. Mr. Jonson stated that you cannot put a wood-burning insert
in these units; they are not big enough. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out
that a heatilator could be put in, however. Mr. Jonson stated that
that could be done, however, he was not going to make a masonary
fireplace. Mr. Jonson stated that he would not worry about it. Town
Attorney Barney asked if the fireplaces were to be in the wall --
built in, with Mr. Jonson replying, yes, in the wall, and adding that
it is more for cozy than heating and like you sit around and be cozy.
Mr. Jonson stated that he has a fireplace in his house and he burns it
three times a year at best.
Town Attorney Barney suggested broadening out the section on wood
stoves to, say, no wood-burning or coal-burning or freestanding.
Chairman May asked Mr. Fabbroni if no woodburning or freestanding or
coal stoves would be better for the Building Inspector. Mr. Fabbroni
allowed as how that would help.
Mr. Cartee stated that he would tell the Board again that it is
imposing a hardship to our department, adding that we do not have the
time and the staff, and further adding that he thought it was an
imposition. Mr. Jonson offered as an answer for Mr. Cartee that a
number of neighbors would be the best to police this.
Mrs. Grigorov stated that maybe the Board should take it out.
Town Attorney Barney suggested leaving it in there. Chairman May
pointed out that right now, as proposed, no one can come and put one
in. Mr. Cartee pointed out that we are allowing a fireplace in there.
With respect to the draft resolution, Mr. Klein wondered if the
Planning Board 26 March 4, 1986
Town Attorney had included the thing about riprap or paved ditches and
that that would be up to the Town Engineer. Mr. Fabbroni commented
that it was okay to leave it that broad with the understanding that
riprap will be required within 100 feet of intersections and in
excessively steep areas, adding that brick could be used.
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Montgomery May:
WHEREAS, in the matter of an 85-unit clustered subdivision off
both Honness Lane and Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No.
6-58-2--39 . 2 (portion) , 6-58-2-39 .14, 6-58-2-39 . 15 , 6-58-2-39 . 16 ,
6-58-2-39 . 17, 6-58-2-39 . 18 , approximately 30 acres, proposed by Ivar
R. Jonson:
1 . The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the sketch
plans, site plans, engineering drawings and details, landscaping
plans, utility arrangements and all other necessary documents,
and the matters of the development which may require examination
and determination by the Board, all as required and set forth in
the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and
the provisions of Article 16 of the Town Law including the
provisions of Sections 274-a, 276, 277 , and 281.
2 . The Planning Board has made a declaration, on October 29, 1985 ,
that this project would not have a significant impact on the
environment provided the applicant complied with all mitigation
measures and all other requirements contained in the
Environmental Assessment Form Parts II and III adopted as part of
such declaration.
3 . The Planning Board has discussed this project at two sketch plan
reviews (September 3 and September 17, 1985) and actively
solicited public comment and held three public hearings (October
29 , 1985 , February 4 , 1986 and March 4 , 1986) at which time all
material aspects of the project were thoroughly discussed,
investigated, and examined.
4 . The developer has complied with the letter and spirit of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in an
effort to build attractive, affordable housing in the Town of
Ithaca, and the Planning Board finds that there is an existing
public need for housing of this design and type within the Town.
5 . Clustered housing permits the efficient development of
residential land within the Town and reduces the cost of roads,
utilities and other public improvements within a subdivision, and
the Planning Board is satisfied that the latest revised plans ,
dated February 21 , 1986 , satisfy the requirements and intent of
the Town of Ithaca Cluster Regulations.
6 . The developer, in order to control the density of occupancy of
the project, has agreed to terms required by the Planning Board
under which any dwelling unit in the project may be occupied,
leased or assigned. These conditions are set forth in Appendix
Planning Board 27 March 4 , 1986
"All of this Resolution and will be entered into the deeds to all
attached dwellings in the subdivision, and such occupancy
restrictions will be included as a part of any Certificate of
Occupancy.
1 . The developer has agreed to place in the deeds to lots numbered
1 , 3 , 4 , 5 ► 6 , 7 , 8 , 9, 26 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 38 , 39 , and 40 a
restrictive covenant stating that only one-"family dwellings will
be built on said Lots and that no accessory apartments may be
placed therein, and that none of the 85 units in the subdivision
may be later changed to create a second dwelling unit, and that
site plan review by the Planning Board will be required for any
change to the exterior of any dwelling unit.
The developer has added a Note to the subdivision plat stating
that all dwelling units must be constructed in conformance with
the approved site plan and under no circumstances may detached
dwelling units be constructed on an individual lot "A" or "B"
designated for attached dwelling units. On such lots attached
buildings consisting of no more than two dwelling units one on
each side of the dividing line between each Lot "A" and "B" shall
be the only form of construction.
Accessory structures are permitted on all attached building lots
subject to the yard requirements of the R15 district and with the
permission of all owners within 204 feet of said building lot.
All single--family detached dwelling units are permitted accessory
structures subject to the regular requirements of the R15
district.
8. In order to preserve the aesthetic qualities of unobstructed
front yards and to maintain a continuity of scale with the
facades of existing homes in the neighborhood, the developer has
agreed to place restrictive covenants in the deeds to all
attached dwelling units which prohibit the construction,
establishment, or planting of any permanent barrier, fence,
hedgerow, or shrubbery which serves to distinguish ,
differentiate, or divide the front yards of the attached dwelling
units .
9 . In order to maintain scenic views to the south and west presently
enjoyed by property owners on Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road,
the developer has agreed to place a restrictive covenant in the
deeds to all properties in the subdivision which prohibits the
planting of any tree, bush, or shrub whose height will exceed 25
feet within 20 years from the date of this subdivision approval.
10 . All attached dwelling units will provide in the deeds that the
builder will establish colors which may not be changed by any
owner without written permission of owners of lands in said
subdivision which are within 200 feet of said owner' s dwelling
unit.
11 . All attached dwelling units will provide in the deeds that
Planning Board 2B March 4, 1986
wood-burning, coal-burning, or freestanding stoves are
prohibited.
12. The developer has agreed to comply with the mitigative measures
described in Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form,
approved by the Planning Board October 29 , 1985 , and on file in
the Office of the Town Engineer.
13 . In order to prevent erosion in this project, the developer has
agreed to line all drainage ditches along Westview Lane,
Sunnyview Lane, Towerview Drive, and the drainageway across the
required open space with riprap or pavement as the location or
the Town Engineer requires. In addition, the project will be
reseeded and no lands will be left bare or exposed at the end of
any planting season.
14 . No building permits shall be issued until the design for the
entrance of the project on State Route 79 has been approved by
the Regional Engineer of the New York State Department of
Transportation.
15 . No building permits shall be issued until all subdivision fees
have been paid and a subdivision map, prepared by a licensed
surveyor, in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer, showing such
details as the Planning Board has required by this Approval,
approved by the Tompkins County Health Department, signed by the
Planning Board Chairman, and all restrictive covenants in a form
acceptable to the Town Attorney and approved by the Town Board,
has been filed, within the time prescribed by Town Law, in the
Office of the Tompkins County Clerk.
16 . The developer will provide in the deed to each attached dwelling
unit that each owner of any unit having a common wall shall have
the right to enter upon the premises of the other for the purpose
of maintaining, repairing, constructing, and/or reconstructing,
improvements on his own premises, including landscaping,
gardening, and drainage of surface water.
17. The construction, operation and maintenance of the project shall
be in accordance with all applicable laws , codes, ordinances,
rules and regulations. Without limiting the foregoing, the
developer will comply with those provisions of the Town Law
governing the manner in which public improvements will be
accepted prior to each cluster being occupied, including the
offering and acceptance of adequate security and agreements
toward completion of improvements as the Town Board may require.
18 . This Approval shall be subject to approval of all restrictive
covenants by the Town Board and Town Attorney, and no building
permits shall be issued until such approval has been obtained.
19 . The developer agrees that no restrictive covenant or other rule
or regulation shall at any time be less restrictive than the
requirements of this Approval or any other applicable law,
Planning Board 29 March 4, 1985
statute, ordinance, rule or regulation of the Town or any of its
Boards.
20 . Along with other requirements of State Law, the restrictive
covenants shall be referred to in the deeds conveying title to
the units, and shall be furnished to all buyers prior to said
conveyance.
21 . All of the above requirements relate to and are added to the
plans and specifications contained in the project drawings last
revised and submitted to the Planning Board March 4 , 1986.
22 . The developer agrees to relocate the centerline of Towerview Road
six feet to the east as shown on a map dated February 14, 1986,
attached, and hereinafter referred to as Appendix "B" .
23 . The developer agrees to provide a planting buffer within the
Towerview Road right-of-way as shown in Appendix "B". This
landscaping is to be planted as early in the process of road
earthwork and grading as feasible.
24 . The developer has agreed to install a corrugated metal pipe , to
be furnished by Mr. Joseph Multari, to permit drainage under a
driveway which may be constructed by Mr. Multari to provide
access to the northeast corner of the Multari property. In order
to permit the installation of this pipe and the construction of
this driveway, the planting buffer may be revised to the
satisfaction of the Town Landscape Architect.
25 . The developer has also agreed to provide and install a 20-foot
length of corrugated metal pipe to permit drainage under a
driveway which may be constructed by Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong to
provide access to the barn in the rear of their property.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
THAT:
1 . The provisions set forth above shall be deemed to be the
conditions, findings, and agreements to which the developer has
agreed.
2. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, subject to the above
requirements, conditions, and agreements, grant and hereby does
grant Final Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval for the
85-unit clustered residential subdivision on approximately 30
acres, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-58-2-39 . 2 (portion) ,
6-58-2-39. 14 , 6-58-2-39. 15 , 6-58-2-39. 16 , 6-58-2-39 . 17 ,
6-58-2-39 .18 , otherwise known as Grandview Subdivision, and the
Final Subdivision Map shall be signed by the Chairman of the
Planning Board. This grant is subject to the following
additional conditions:
a. The provisions of this Resolution and Approval are binding
upon the developer and his successors and assigns in the
Planning Board 30 March 4, 1986
ownership of the above land, or in any portion thereof or
interest therein.
b. No building permit for any building in this subdivision
shall be issued for new construction on this property until
a copy of the above-referenced subdivision plan has been
signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board and filed in
the Office of the County Clerk and the $25.00 preliminary
subdivision fee and $110 .00 final subdivision fee has been
paid to the Building Inspector.
C. The boundary line between lots A and B on those lots bearing
those letters (the dotted line shown on the above-mentioned
subdivision plan) may be varied provided that the total
square footage between each Lot A shall not vary by more
than 10% of the area of the related Lot B.
d. No certificate of occupancy for any new building shall be
issued until the Town' s Zoning Enforcement Officer has
received an "as built" survey prepared and certified by a
licensed surveyor showing the precise location of each
building on the lot and, in the case of lots A and B, the
precise location of the boundary line between such lots
along the common wall.
e. The developer, his successors and assigns shall comply with
all conditions set forth as Notes on the above-mentioned
subdivision plan.
3. That a copy of this Resolution shall be immediately delivered to
the Town Clerk for distribution to the Town Board.
APPENDIX "A"
In order to limit the number of persons who may be legally
permitted to inhabit this clustered subdivision, no dwelling unit in
the Grandview Subdivision may be occupied by more than one "family" .
For the purposes of this regulation, a "family" is defined as follows:
1. Two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or legal
adoption.
2. No more than three individuals unrelated by blood, marriage, or
legal adoption.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Jonson stated that he would like to take a second to thank
A PPEN 0 a �
$1L$ GOY1M��.Jr
l� b�NrTG prrJ -Prnll,f5 57y-0�S y-_rJ �lue�gz. /S �pAGING
I Z Yew - TAX41S G14ypIDgTIi 9
7Axu5 cu5pt�s -5_�• -Uhrsrt�r za_
IZ� �
4- ` ivtdn�,hei
G4-QI
b t
t
�YLCi �fLll ,1jt i �
f OCeVfaS � _ 7
+ t 15WNITE i
PINE Y 1
� I
t � I
t � 3
+* =I YEW
I
I (
' 3 WN17E
+ *5YEYj
---------------------
t e I 1
b- �s
f
i'
��d �Ilyla�
5l-AT BVI SLE 2D. �rE:r� p�.A1� I 6L
o•-- IO zo
Planning Board 31 March 4 , 1986
the Planning Board for a nice job and for making a good project even
better and to invite everybody to an open house on Saturday and Sunday
on Honness Lane.
Chairman May asked the Board to turn now to consideration of a
recommendation to the Town Board on the proposed restrictive
covenants .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he had no particular problem
with the proposed restrictive covenants except that he would like to
add language with respect to paragraph #2 in the Resolved section as
part of the first sentence -- "and that attached buildings, each
containing two dwelling units, be constructed on all the other lots
(i.e. , lots numbered 2 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ,
21 , 22 , 23, 24 , 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 41 , 42, 43 , 44,
45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , and 50) with the buildings to be located so that
one dwelling unit only exists on each side of the division line
between Lots A and B as shown on the map as such line may be finally
located. " The Board members indicated their concurrence.
MOTION by Mr. James Baker, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov:
WHEREAS, in the matter of an 85-unit clustered subdivision off
both Honness Lane and Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No.
6-58-2-39 .2 (portion) , 6-58-2-39 .14 , 6-58-2-39 .15 , 6-58-2-39 . 16,
6-58-2-39 . 17, 6-58-2-39. 18 , approximately 30 acres, proposed by Ivar
R. Jonson,
1 . A final subdivision plan has been prepared which conforms to all
requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Town of
Ithaca Subdivision Regulations.
2 . A public hearing was held on March 4 , 1986 for the purpose of
reviewing this final plan.
3 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Subdivision
Approval and Site Plan Approval for the 85-unit clustered
subdivision, otherwise known as Grandview Subdivision, located
off both Honness Lane and Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels No. 6-58-2-39 .2 (portion) , 6-58-2-39 . 14 , 6-58-2-39 . 15 ,
6-58-2-39. 16 , 6-58-2-39 .17, 6-58-2-39 .18 , approximately 30 acres,
on March 4 , 1986.
4 . This project is a clustered subdivision for which restrictive
covenants have been prepared to insure the harmonious development
of this project.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Town Board
approval of the following Restrictive Covenants which are to be placed
in the deeds of the affected properties and, where required,
summarized with any Certificate of Occupancy:
1 . OCCUPANCY: In order to limit the number of persons who may be
Planning Board 32 March 4, 1986
legally permitted to inhabit this clustered subdivision, no
dwelling unit in the Grandview Subdivision may be occupied by
more than one "family" . For the purposes of this regulation, a
"family" is defined as follows:
a. Two or more persons related by blood, marriage , or legal
adoption.
b. No more than three individuals unrelated by blood, marriage,
or legal adoption.
2. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: In order to limit the number of
persons who may be legally permitted to inhabit this subdivision,
no more than one dwelling unit may be constructed on each of the
lots numbered 1 , 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 38 , 39 , and
40 , and that attached buildings, each containing two dwelling
units, be constructed on all the other lots (i.e. , lots numbered
2 , 10 , 11 , 12, 13, 14 , 15 , 16, 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22, 23 , 24 ,
25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45, 46 , 47,
48 , 49 , and 50) with the buildings to be located so that one
dwelling unit only exists on each side of the division line
between Lots A and B as shown on the map as such line may be
finally located. In addition, none of the 85 dwelling units
constructed in this subdivision may be later partitioned or
enlarged, or remodeled to create a second dwelling unit therein
or appurtenant thereto. Site plan review by the Planning Board
shall be required for construction involving an exterior change
to any dwelling unit. Accessory structures are permitted on all
attached building lots subject to the yard requirements of the
R15 district and with the permission of all owners within 200
feet of said building lot. All single-family detached dwelling
units are permitted accessory structures subject to the regular
requirements of the R15 district.
3. FENCES OR BARRIERS IN FRONT YARDS: In order to preserve the
aesthetic qualities of unobstructed front yards and to maintain a
continuity of scale with the facades of existing homes in the
neighborhood, no owner or owners of attached dwelling units may
construct, place, or plant any permanent barrier, fence,
hedgerow, or shrubbery which serves to distinguish,
differentiate, or divide the front yards of the attached dwelling
units. This restriction in no way limits owners of attached
dwelling units from landscaping or detailing their properties in
a suitable manner.
4. TREES: In order to maintain scenic views to the south and west,
owners of properties in the subdivision may not plant any tree,
bush, or shrub whose height will exceed 25 feet within 20 years
from the date of this subdivision Approval.
5 . HOUSE COLOR: The builder will establish colors which may not be
changed by any owner without written permission of owners of
lands in said subdivision which are within 200 feet of said
owner' s dwelling unit.
Planning Board 33 March 4, 1986
6 . MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND RECONSTRUCTION: Each owner of any unit
having a common wall shall have the right to enter upon the
premises of the other for the purpose of maintaining, repairing,
constructing, and/or reconstructing, improvements on his own
premises, including landscaping, gardening, and drainage of
surface water.
7. WOOD BURNING STOVES : It shall be provided for in the deeds
conveying all attached dwelling units that no wood burning, or
coal burning, or freestanding stoves shall be permitted.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of Final Subdivision and Site
Plan Approval for the Grandview Subdivision, duly closed at 9 :30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A FABRIC FILTER BUILDING TO BE
ADDED TO THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY HEATING PLANT. CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
OWNER/DEVELOPER.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 31 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr.
Merritt E. Hartz and Ms. Sabra Peterson of Cornell University were
present.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Drawing No. 853800-MPR-004 -- Exhibit No. 11 -- entitled "General
Arrangement Site Plan, One 6 Module Unit, Boilers No. 1 and No.
2, Central Heating Plant Boiler No. 1 Fabric Filter Retrofit" ,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, dated 12-19-85 , released
and approved by T.J.F. 1/29/86 .
2. Drawing No. 853800-MRP-006 -- Exhibit No. 13 -- entitled "General
Arrangement Elevation Looking North, one 6 Module Unit, Boilers
No. 1 and No. 211 , Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, dated
12-19-85 , released and approved by T.J.F. 1/29/86.
3 . Draft Resolution with respect to Site Plan Approval, prepared by
Peter Lovi, Town Planner, under date of February 27 , 1986.
Ms. Peterson appeared before the Board and appended two very
large drawings to the bulletin board, one showing the Central Heating
Plant itself in a conceptual, colored drawing, and the other being a
site location plan. Ms. Peterson stated that Cornell University has
been working with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation on air quality and soot problems, adding that this
proposal is their solution to the air quality matter. Ms. Peterson
Planning Board 34 March 4 , 1985
stated that the solution is known as a full fabric filter, or
sometimes, a bag house, and it is shown on the conceptual drawing in
brown. Ms. Peterson suggested that the Board members think of the
fabric filter as a vacuum cleaner. Ms. Peterson briefly explained how
the fabric filter works to contain the particulate matter. Ms.
Peterson stated that the other pertinent factor is -- dimensions. Ms.
Peterson referred to the two drawings which were sent to the Board
[Exhibits No. 11 and 131 and noted that the filter dimension from
grade to the top would be approximately 50 feet. Ms. Peterson turned
the large site location drawing over to show the two drawings which
had been given to the Board members. Referring back to the conceptual
drawing, Ms. Peterson pointed out a retaining wall and related that to
the detail drawing (Exhibit No. 13) . Ms. Peterson explained the
routing of the flue gas utilizing the same detail drawing. Ms.
Peterson stated that if there were any questions she would be happy to
answer them.
There appearing to be none from the Board members at the moment,
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present from the public who
wished to comment or ask questions. No one spoke. Chairman May
closed the Public Hearing at 9:36 p.m.
Mrs . Schultz asked how they are cleaned, with Ms. Peterson
responding that they shake them, and adding that they are actually
physically shaken.
Mr. Fabbroni wondered about the extent of what remains after
going up the filter. Ms. Peterson, indicating on the detail sheet
[Exhibit No. 131 , stated that, of the total in "this" duct when it
leaves "this" boiler, there is probably about 4% left in the stack
after it leaves the fabric filter. Town Attorney Barney wondered what
per cent goes up the stack now, to which Ms. Peterson responded, about
20%. Ms. Peterson noted that, at present, there are two mechanical
filters, adding that one is pulling out.
Chairman May asked if there were to be an EAF review on this,
with Mr. Lovi responding that the environmental review has all been
done as part of the New York State Dormitory Authority program.
Mr. Cartee pointed out that the project is greater than 30 feet
in height and suggested that, if the Board were to give final site
plan approval, it should be with the condition that they go to the
Board of Appeals for a height variance. Mrs. Grigorov expressed her
agreement.
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mr. David Klein :
WHEREAS:
1 . This project is the construction of a fabric filter structure as
part of the Cornell University Heating Plant.
2. The environmental review for the action has been completed by the
State University of New York Dormitory Authority.
Planning Board 35 March 4, 1986
3 .. Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with Drawing
No. 853800-MPR-004 -- Exhibit No. 11 -- entitled "General
Arrangement Site Plan, One 6 Module Unit, Boilers No. 1 and No.
2, Central Heating Plant Boiler No. 1 Fabric Filter Retrofit" ,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, dated 12-19-85 , released
and approved by T.J.F. 1/29/86 , describing the location of this
structure.
4 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with Drawing
No. 853800-MRP-006 -- Exhibit No. 13 -- entitled "General
Arrangement Elevation Looking North , One 6 Module Unit, Boilers
No. 1 and No. 2" , Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, dated
12-19-85 , released and approved by T.J.F. 1/29/86 , describing the
components of this structure and their arrangement.
5 . This structure is necessary for Cornell University to meet the
terms of an agreement with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation for the reduction of smokestack
emissions.
6 . This site plan was reviewed at Public Hearing on March 4, 1986 ,
at which time the following changes in the requirements for site
plan approval were made:
a. The requirements that property lines, including metes and
bounds, be shown on the site plan was waived on the grounds
that no subdivision of the Cornell lands was proposed and
the affected property is unambiguously identified.
b. The requirement that topography for the site be shown was
waived on the grounds that there will be no significant
change in the overall topography or drainage as a result of
this construction.
C. The requirement that the area and location of parking,
off-street loading and access drives , lighting and
landscaping be shown was waived on the grounds that the
proposed construction would not require any change to the
existing uses or traffic circulation on the site and that no
additional lighting or landscaping was required.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the construction of
the fabric filter structure as shown on the above-referenced
documents, said grant of Site Plan Approval being conditioned on the
granting by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance
from the 30-foot height requirement set forth in the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
Planning Board 36 March 4, 1986
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of site plan approval for the
full fabric filter for the Cornell University Heating Plant duly
closed at 9 :41 p.m.
Ms. Peterson and Mr. Hartz thanked the Board for its time and
consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EQUITATION
FACILITY ON HANSHAW ROAD, TAX PARCEL #69-1-1 . CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
OWNER/DEVELOPER.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 9 :42 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Eric
Dicke, Ms. Bonnie Majestic, and Mr. William Wendt, all of Cornell
University, and Mr. Geofrey Wetzler of Fred H. Thomas Associates PC,
were present.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Long Environmental Assessment Form as completed and submitted
[unsigned] by the Project Manager under date of January 27, 1986
[Part 1, 7 pages] , indicating that the proposed action is to
"Construct an Equitation Center consisting of riding arenas,
stables, and paddocks, and, the activities and types of operation
resulting as "Equitation program which is relocated from Oxley
Arena, Small Classes (approximately 10 people) for Phys.
Education and occasional indoor Polo matches. " -- together with
Part 2 as completed by the Town Planner, Peter Lovi, under date
of February 27, 1986 , 6 pages, with Box A checked which states:
"The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is
one which may not cause significant damage to the environment.
Prepare a negative declaration. " -- together with Appendix B,
Visual EAF Addendum, 2 pages, prepared by Mr. Lovi.
2 . Site Plan entitled "Cornell Equitation Facility, Phase 1 Planting
Plan" , dated February 21 , 1986 , sealed by Fred H. Thomas ,
Registered Architect.
3 . Drawing entitled "Cornell Equitation Facility, Plant List" , dated
February 21 , 1986 , sealed by Fred H. Thomas, Registered
Architect.
4 . Set of seven (7) Drawings each entitled Cornell Equitation
Facility, each dated February 26 , 1986, as follows:
a. Drawing No. 1 -- Site Pian, showing Bluegrass Lane , Hanshaw
Road, Access Road, Hay Fields, Existing Paddocks , Existing
Woodlot, Outdoor Polo Field, Outdoor Equitation Arena,
Spectator Parking (47 Spaces) , Indoor Equitation Arena,
Covered Link, Indoor Polo Arena, Covered Link,
Polo/Equitation Barn, Run-In Field, Grain Silos, Boarder
Planning Board 37 March 4, 1986
Barn, Paddocks with Feed Sheds, Hay Barn, Hay/Equipment
Barn, Service Yard, Overflow Parking (20 Spaces) , Trailer
Parking (18 Spaces) , Staff Parking.
b . Drawing No. 2 -- Floor Plan, Polo/Equitation Arena; North
Elevation; South Elevation; West Elevation; Section.
C . Drawing No. 3 -- Polo/Equitation Barn (61 Horses) ; South
Elevation -- Polo/Equitation Barn; South Elevation -- Hay
Barn, Equitation Arena (Future) , Boarders Barn, Polo Arena;
East Elevation -- Paddocks with Run in Sheds, Boarders Barn,
Link, Polo/Equitation Barn, Link, Polo/Equitation Arena.
d. Drawing No. 4 -- Planting Plan for Hay Field, Access Road,
Bluegrass Lane, Hay/Equipment Barn, Trailer Parking (8
Spaces) , Grain Silos, Run-in Field, Covered Link, Indoor
Polo Arena, Spectator Parking (47 Spaces) .
e. Drawing No. 5 -- North Elevation -- Conceptual.
f. Drawing No. 6 -- Conceptual -- Barn, Polo Arena, Parking
Lot; East Site Section showing Barn, Polo Arena, Parking
Lot, Hay Field, Hanshaw Road.
g. Drawing No. 7 -- Plant List -- Deciduous Trees and Shrubs,
Evergreen Trees and Shrubs.
5 . Draft Resolution with respect to SEQR, prepared by Peter Lovi,
under date of February 27, 1986 .
6 . Draft Resolution with respect to Report to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, prepared by Peter Lovi, under date of February 27, 1986 .
Mr. Dicke appeared before the Board and stated that he was an
Architect/Planner with Cornell University Architectural Services. Mr.
Dicke appended a very large site plan drawing to the bulletin board
and stated that what they are presenting tonight is a new equitation
center basically replacing Oxley Arena. Mr. Dicke stated that, in
terms of size and landscaping, the proposed arena will be about the
same as the present building, however, the move is important because
of the availability of land and the proximity to the Equine Research
Park. Mr. Dicke stated that the Board should be aware that the
project is a phased project. Mr. Dicke commented that the arena is
essentially exactly the same as Oxley but with several items attached
to it [indicating on the plan] . Mr. Dicke spoke of the outdoor
program, noting that that aspect is not being looked at now, however,
it is interesting no note that you do not use an indoor pony on an
outdoor field. Mr. Dicke described the staff, trailer, spectator
parking. Mr. Dicke noted the importance of the quality of Bluegrass
Lane and stated that it will be built to Town standards, with the
on-site development being to Cornell standards. Mr. Dicke stated that
if those are any different, they can be put to Town standards as well.
Mr. Dicke stated that what does not show is that they have a rather
substantial landscaping budget in the first phase for this project
which exceeds $25 ,000.00 . Mr. Dicke spoke of the front border of the
building and referred to an elevation view which he put on the
bulletin board. Mr. Dicke described the profile from Hanshaw Road,
appending a third drawing to the bulletin board. Mr. Dicke located
the woodlot utilizing the drawings . Referring to all three drawings ,
Mr. Dicke stated that these are about as far as they have taken the
Planning Board 38 March 4, 1986
plan so far. Speaking to the arena itself, Mr. Dicke stated that it
will be very similar to Oxley now, with offices and rest rooms as
required. Mr. Dicke reiterated that the Equitation Center is seen as
a phased project, and what the Board is seeing is the entire project.
Mr. Dicke stated that Cornell is excited about it, adding that it
gives them the room they need. Mr. Dicke commented that the
University is trying to clean up some of the traffic problems it has
on Route 366 now where there is no room for horse trailers, etc. Mr.
Dicke stated that from a programmatic point of view, it allows them to
share programs with Equine Research, although it is important to
understand that some separation is needed so that, if there are
diseases, they are not shared. Mr. Dicke stated that it is a
low-intensity program -- a physical education program. Mr. Dicke
stated that they have, maybe, ten to twelve polo matches a year. Mr.
Dicke noted that the indoor equitation program is a physical education
program. Mr. Dicke stated that they will be running a bus to and from
the facility, noting that Mr. William E. Wendt, Cornell University
Director of Transportation, was present and would be happy to answer
any questions on that aspect. Mr. Dicke stated that they have a small
van out to Langmuir Lab every 15 minutes which will be adjusted so
that the students can get back to class. Mr. Dicke noted that the
project is a teaching facility.
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the proposed Cornell University Equitation Facility.
Town Supervisor Desch spoke from the floor and asked about
bleacher capacity. Mr. Dicke stated that that was a budget issue and
spoke of a capacity of around 200 , adding that the bleachers from
Oxley will be used. Mr. Dicke mused that there may be a capacity of
400 , commenting that they have never had anywhere near that.
Town Supervisor Desch asked if there would be connection to
public sewer and water, with Mr. Dicke responding, yes, adding that
they will be getting natural gas from NYSEG. Mr. Dicke noted that
they had filled out the EAF.
Mr. Douglas Armstrong, 121 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor
and, noting that Mr. Dicke had stated that the project is a teaching
facility, asked what per cent of the students at Cornell University
would participate. Mr. Dicke, commenting that there are 17 ,000
students at Cornell, 12 ,000 undergrads, stated that there are about
five classes a day with five to ten students, no more because of
novice riders, so the percentage is very low. Mr. Armstrong wondered
what this project figures for cost for this small percentage of
students, with Mr. Dicke responding, about one and a half million
dollars. Mr. Dicke pointed out that part of this operates as an
enterprise and, thus, is not a drain on the athletic economy.
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 :55 p.m. and asked the
Board to turn to the matter of the EAF.
Mrs. Langhans wondered what the height variance required was.
Mr. Dicke stated that the building will be just about 40 feet, that
Planning Board 39 March 4, 1986
is, ten feet over the 30-foot limitation. Mr. Geof rey Wetzler of Fred
H. Thomas Associates PC, pointed out that the indoor arena is the
building needing a height variance and, of the total complex, is the
first building.
MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov:
WHEREAS:
1 . This action is the review of a master plan for the relocation of
the Cornell University Equitation Facility and the approval of a
site plan for "Phase I" construction.
2 . This action is a Type I action as defined by SEQRA for which a
Long Environmental Assessment Form, Parts l and 2 , has been
completed.
3 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency for
the environmental review and the Planning Board is an involved
agency.
4 . A negative declaration of environmental significance has been
recommended by the Town Planner.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board:
1 . That the Planting Plan and Species List proposed for the north,
east, and west edges of the parking lot be revised to the
satisfaction of the Town Landscape Architect .
2. That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a declaration of negative
environmental significance for the above--referenced action be
made.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay -- None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Lovi stated that the second draft resolution takes the form
of a report to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Lovi pointed out that
the property is in Residence District R30 and, under Article V,
Section 18 , paragraph 4 , of the Zoning Ordinance, a report is to be
submitted to the Board of Appeals by the Planning Board. Mr. Lovi
commented that this, basically, is just informing the Board of Appeals
that the Planning Board has reviewed it and has made findings, etc.
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mr. David Klein:
WHEREAS:
Planning Board 40 March 4 , 1986
1 _ This action is the preparation of a master plan for the
relocation of the Cornell University Equitation Facility and the
approval of a "Phase I" site plan.
2 _ This project is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of
Appeals is the Lead Agency.
3 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a "Master
Plan" dated 12/11/85 describing the location of all structures
and facilities.
4 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a "Site
Plan" , dated February 26, 1986 , describing the components of the
Master Plan to be constructed as Phase I.
5 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a "Phase
I Planting Plan" , dated 2/26/86 , describing the species and
location of all required landscaping.
6. The Planning Board finds that there is a need for the proposed
use in this location on the grounds that:
a. The existing equitation facility is in need of substantial
renovation and is too small to accommodate the existing and
projected future demand.
b. The proposed equitation facility consolidates equine
boarding, training, and uses in a location convenient to
existing facilities on Bluegrass Lane.
C. The land proposed to be used is presently a hayfield and the
proposed facility is similar to a farm permitted in R30
districts.
d. Agriculturally zoned lands for which the establishment of a
"riding academy" is a permitted use are only available on
West Hill and are too distant for the convenient use and
development of this facility.
7 . The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable future
character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on
the grounds that:
a. Cornell will use the best available practice to insure that
potentially offensive odors from horse manure will be
contained within the facility and will not be detectable to
adjacent residential properties.
b. The open field between the proposed facility and Hanshaw
Road will continue to be used as a hayfield and that no
structure in the new equitation facility will be closer than
300 feet from Hanshaw Road.
8 . The Planning Board finds that the proposed change is in
Planning Board 41 March 4, 1986
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town
on the grounds that:
a. Existing equine facilities are located in the immediate
vicinity.
b. The site is more convenient for use by Cornell physical
education classes and polo teams than the existing
facilities on Route 366 .
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1 . That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the
Equitation Facility Master Plan and Phase I Site Plan as
presented in the above-referenced documents.
2 . That a site plan review and recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals shall be required for all construction not described in
the Phase I plan.
3 . That minor site changes, such as rotation of planned buildings,
which do not increase the scope, scale or extent of the facility
will not require further site plan review.
4 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that,
pursuant to Article V, Section 18 , paragraph 4 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals grant
Special Approval for the above-referenced facility as presented,
and also grant a variance from the 30-foot height requirement set
forth in Article V, Section 18 , paragraph 16 , of said Ordinance.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans , Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of site plan review of the
Cornell Equitation Facility duly closed at 10 :00 p.m.
Mr. Dicke and his colleagues thanked the Board for its time and
consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION OF 119 HONNESS LANE,
TAX PARCEL #58-2-39. 12 , INTO TWO LOTS AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 280-a
OF TOWN LAW TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT NOT FRONTING ON A PUBLIC
STREET. MUHAMMAD AND KHURSHID RAZZAQ, OWNERS.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 10 :01 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr.
Razzaq was present, as was his attorney, Laura H. Holmberg.
Planning Board 42 March 4 , 1986
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Letter dated February 21 , 1986 from Muhammad A. Razzaq to the
Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, reading as follows:
"To Members of the Planning Board:
My wife and I are renewing our appeal to the Planning Board
of the Town of Ithaca to permit subdivision of a 1. 68 acre parcel
of land owned by us on Honness Lane into three lots, two of which
would front on Honness Lane and the third on an existing
right-of-way 20 feet wide running from Honness Lane to the rear
of the Gospel Tabernacle of the Christian and Missionary
Alliance. This parcel was on the Blatchley subdivision map as
two lots fronting on Honness Lane. By using a portion of each of
said lots the third lot will have more than 30,000 square feet,
more than twice the minimum lot size required. One of the two
lots fronting on Honness Lane will have approximately 16 ,500
square feet (excluding the portion within Honness Lane) and the
other approximately 26,000 square feet (excluding Honness Lane)
again substantially larger than the minimum requirements.
The attached plan shows the proposed dimensions of the
parcels and the location of the existing house on the smaller of
the three lots. Our proposal is to build two additional homes ,
one on each of the proposed additional lots, each with an
apartment.
This plan will fit in well with the neighborhood. The
topography lends itself to the subdivision and the lots are
larger than many of the neighboring lots fronting on Honness Lane
and Slaterville Road.
We understand that any approval will be contingent upon our
receiving from the Board of Zoning Appeals a variance from the
provisions of Town Law 280-A. The revision of our original plan
from subdividing one of the original lots into two lots, one
having less than 150 feet depth , to the present plan is
advantageous not only in making two of the lots more equal in
size and considerably larger than minimum requirements but
shortens the distance for access to the lot from Honness Lane.
The existing roadway is more than adequate for use by emergency
or other vehicles and is presently used by autos and buses from
the Gospel Tabernacle.
Water and sewer are available. The area is residential with
single family homes , duplexes, cluster housing (Eastwood Commons)
and as indicated, the lots proposed are larger than many of the
lots in the area. Our proposal seems in line with projected
developments in the area by Mr. Jonson and with the earlier
Blatchley Subdivision. "
Attachment -- "Subdivision Plan for Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq" ,
measurements from map showing lands of Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq
Planning Board 43 March 4, 1986
made by Milton A. Greene, dated August 13, 1985 , showing how the
two existing lots are proposed for subdivision into three lots .
2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed, signed, and
submitted by Muhammad A. Razzaq [Part I] under date of February
21 , 1985 , indicating the Applicant/Sponsor as Muhammad & Khurshid
Razzaq; the Project as "Subdivide 2 lots into 3"; the Proposed
Action as "Modification/Alteration" ; the Project described as
"Lots 1 and 2 as shown on Subdivision Map of Gladys Blatchley
dated May 27 1983 comprise together 1 .68 acres. The proposal is
to add one additional lot by taking a portion of the other two
lots. All of the lots will exceed area requirments, each being
in excess of 15000 square feet. The lots vary in shape and one
will not front on a town road. " ; the Precise Location as "The
property fronts on Honness Lane in Town of Ithaca, being a part
of premises shown on Blatchley Subdivision Map. A copy of Survey
for applicants by Milton A. Greene dated August 13 , 1985 is
attached. " ; the proposed will not comply with existing zoning or
other existing land use restrictions because "One lot (being in
rear) will have access to Honness Lane over an existing 20 foot
gravel drive now serving primarily Gospel Tabernacle on
Slaterville Rd. Variance from Sec. 280a of Town Law will be
required. "; the Present Land Use in the vicinity as Residential ,
"Residential use - single family, cluster housing (Eastwood
Commons) two-family and two churches. " ; the Action does involve a
permit/approval from another governmental agency -- "Variance to
permit construction on lot which does not have required frontage
on Town road or street. " ; the Action does not have a currently
valid permit or approval. " The SEAF was reviewed by the Town
Planner, Peter M. Lovi, under date of February 27, 1986 [Parts II
and III] , as follows:
PART II:
A. Box Checked "No" . [Action does not exceed any Type I
threshhold. ]
B. Box Checked "No" . [Action will not receive coordinated
review. ]
Cl. "Access to lot #3 would be over a 20 ' gravelled driveway.
This right-of-way is wide enough to permit the use of fire trucks
and other emergency vehicles. No other adverse environmental
impacts are expected. "
C2. "All three building lots are in excess of the 15 ,000 ft. 2
required for an R15 district. Property would be the only lot in
neighborhood not fronting on a public street. No other adverse
environmental impacts expected. "
C3 . "No adverse environmental impacts expected. "
C4 . "Project could set a precedent for similarly situated lots
in Town. In the Northeast, for example, there are 9 lots with at
least 120 feet of frontage and at least 300 feet of depth which
could be resubdivided in a similar manner. No other adverse
impacts are expected. "
C5 . "None. "
C6. "There might be a resubdivision of any of the similarly
situated lots . The cumulative effect is a more efficient
utilization of the existing utility system and suitably zoned
Planning Board 44 March 4, 1986
land in the community."
C7 . "None. "
PART III:
Box Checked which indicates that the reviewer, Mr. Lovi, has
determined, based on the information and analysis above and any
supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT
result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND the
provision of the reasons supporting this determination:-
"1 . All three lots to be subdivided are in excess of the yard
[sic. ] area required for an R15 lot.
2 . The purposes of subdivision regulation, in providing for the
efficient use of land in the community, are preserved.
3 . Access of fire or emergency vehicles to the rear lot can be
improved by requiring the subdivider to regrade and pave the
driveway to a standard acceptable to the City Fire Chief and
Town Engineer. "
Attachment - "Map Showing Lands of Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq,
dated 8/13/85, signed by Milton A. Greene, P.L.S. #42000 ,
Cortland, N.Y.
3 . Survey Map, entitled "Survey Map Showing Proposed Subdivision of
Lands of�Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq, Honness Lane, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" , dated February 28, 1986 ,
signed and sealed by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.L.S. , also signed by
Thomas G. Miller, T.G. Miller Associates P.C. , Engineers &
Surveyors, Ithaca, N.Y. , showing three proposed lots, Lot 1 --
0. 382 acres net to Rd. R/W, Lot 2 -- 0 .489 acres net to Rd. R/W,
Lot 3 -- 0. 656 acres.
Attorney Holmberg appeared before the Board and stated that she
was representing Dr. and Mrs. Razzaq. Attorney Holmberg displayed the
Survey Map dated February 28 , 1986 and stated that the three proposed
lots conform to all of the zoning regulations in all respects, adding
that they are of more than ample size. Attorney Holmberg stated that
the one problem, only, is that proposed Lot 3 is not fronting on a
Town street, however, there has been a roadway serving the Gospel
Tabernacle of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church there in
existence, she believed, since 1957. Attorney Holmberg stated that
there is adequate access to the lot, commenting that it is a lot
shorter than driveways most of us have. Attorney Holmberg stated that
the proposed subdivision will not affect density adversely in the
neighborhood, particularly in view of the Jonson Subdivision just
approved, nor will it adversely affect emergency vehicles.
Attorney Holmberg, commenting that she had noted in the SEAF
review by Mr. Lovi that he had indicated that this proposal might set
an example for other lots of 100 feet by 300 feet, pointed out that
the two lots proposed to be three have a total of 284 feet of frontage
at the right of way and together are over an acre and a half and, in
addition, there is an access road which, she believed, the normal lot
would not have and, so, the proposal is hardly comparable. Attorney
Holmberg noted that these lots exceed in area many of the lots along
Slaterville Road and along Honness Lane, adding that she did inspect
the tax maps on this aspect.
Planning Board 45 March 4, 1986
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter.
Mr. Ralph Button, 457 Hayts Road, spoke from the floor and stated
that he was a member of the Church that is there. Mr. Button stated
that the right of way to that Church has been maintained by the
Church, adding that they plow it and keep it going. Mr. Button stated
that if there is to be additional traffic that road should be wider
and also have more repair done on it. Mr. Button stated that the
sluice way needs work also.
Attorney Holmberg responded that, of course , that is going to be
done, adding that it is only going to serve one house. Attorney
Holmberg commented that it seemed to her to be up to the others using
it, however, the Razzaqs will certainly provide proper drainage.
Attorney Holmberg pointed out that the access drive is 20 feet wide.
Mr. Roger Perkins, 220 Stone Quarry Road, spoke from the floor,
stated that he was also associated with the Hillside Alliance Church,
and expressed his concern for the continuing ability of the Church to
access its property and with the various deeds and surveys in
existence.
Mr. Charles Dalkert, 105 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that he was concerned about the creating of a precedent for
anyone with a reasonably large lot in the neighborhood doing the same
thing.
Mr. Lovi pointed out that there is , in the SERF, a statement
where that matter of whether this is a precedent is spoken to. Mr.
Lovi stated that, in the specifics of this case, the Ponchalek
property which does front on this right of way would possibly be deep
enough for such an opportunity, adding, however, that he had not seen
the actual siting of the house on the lot and, so, by the time you
take out for setbacks, etc. , and with a building on that lot, unless
he saw a survey he could not tell you if that lot is big enough.
Mr. Dalkert, noting that the zoning ordinance says that no more
than three unrelated persons can live in a house, asked if there were
any rule that says one of those has to be the owner. Chairman May
stated that the Town Ordinance does not require that a house be
owner-occupied.
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments. There being
none, Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 :08 p.m.
Mr. Fabbroni asked, if the Board were to consider this
subdivision as something it would recommend, if there were some reason
that lot #3 could not recognize the Church ' s right of way, perhaps , in
fee simple. Mr. Fabbroni, noting that Dr. Razzaq is proposing a right
of way back to lot #3, again asked if there were any reason they could
not have the fee simple back to their property. Attorney Holmberg
responded that she had not thought about that, adding that she did not
know where the house would be. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that it would
Planning Board 46 March 4, 1986
not be on the gravel road, for sure. Attorney Holmberg stated that
Dr. Razzaq is not planning to sell, adding that he would be the owner.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that it was just a suggestion that he would like
to make. Attorney Holmberg stated that she did not know what
difference it would make, with Mr. Fabbroni responding that it would
make a difference only that they would have an unimpeded access to
that land. Attorney Holmberg pointed out that if they have a
right-of--way they have an unimpeded right. Commenting, neighbors
being neighbors, Mr. Fabbroni offered that it would be cleaner if they
had fee simple right.
Mrs . Langhans stated that she went up and looked at this
property, adding that she was not sure how far lot #3 goes back, and
further adding that she noticed a road back to a barn and there is a
drive. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Langhans and Mr. Douglas
Armstrong, 121 Honness Lane, with respect to what Mrs. Langhans had
seen, with Mr. Armstrong indicating that Mrs. Langhans was talking
about the wrong drive because he has maintained the road which she had
seen to his barn. Attorney Holmberg stated that Mrs. Armstrong had
called her today and she [Holmberg] had gone to the Clerk' s Office and
looked this up and found that Mr. Armstrong has his own right of way.
Mr. Armstrong pointed out that that is the other barn.
Chairman May stated that he had trouble with this proposal,
adding that when the Board did the subdivision for Blatchley these
lots were looked at very carefully. Attorney Holmberg stated that
there is plenty of room, with Chairman May responding that it is not a
question of size.
Attorney Holmberg stated that when Dr. Razzaq looked for property
he looked at these lots and asked whether there was room for three
houses on it and one of the selling points was that there would be.
Chairman May pointed out that the Planning Board is not bound by what
a realtor might say. Attorney Holmberg stated that she understood
that, however, she wanted to point out that Dr. Razzaq was not looking
at that property as two lots. Attorney Holmberg stated that she could
assure the Board that Dr. Razzaq is fully cognizant of the powers of
this Board. Attorney Holmberg stated that they feel, in relation to
other lots, the size is certainly adequate, and with the other
controls which the Planning Board could and can put there, it is,
therefore, suitable for building. Attorney Holmberg noted again that
the proposed lots are considerably larger than the requirements for a
building lot.
Mrs . Grigorov asked if 20 feet is adequate for a driveway, to
which Chairman May responded, yes, adding, however, it requires going
into the Church ' s property.
Mr. Lovi, noting that in the SEAF the point is made that if this
lot were to be subdivided the right of way is wide enough to permit
the use of fire trucks and other emergency vehicles, stated that the
issue could be settled by that driveway being widened and otherwise
improved. Mr. Lovi reiterated that there is adequate room to provide
for emergency vehicles and to provide access to the Church properties.
Planning Board 47 March 4, 1986
Mrs. Langhans commented that the Board did open up this precedent
when it opened up the Hertel subdivision with a lot that was not on a
road. Mr. Klein stated that that was part of a 14--lot subdivision.
Mr. Lovi stated that, as to other developed parcels in the Town, he
went through parcels in the Northeast that would be big enough -- 120
feet by 300 feet, more that type -- and he found not that many --
maybe nine.
Chairman May asked the Board to turn to the matter of the SEAF
and noted the recommendation of the Town Planner for a negative
declaration.
There appearing to be no one who wished to make a motion on the
SEAF, Mrs. Grigorov stated that, if no one wants to move the SERF, she
would suggest adjourning the matter.
Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that there are, at least, four new items
already at this point, that the Board would be considering at its
April 1st meeting.
MOTION by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mrs . Barbara
Schultz :
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the matter
of consideration of the Razzaq subdivision request be and hereby is
adjourned until March 18 , 1986, at 7:30 p.m.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Grigorov, Baker, Klein.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of consideration of the proposed
Razzaq subdivision duly adjourned at 10 :18 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF A RESOLUTION IN RE QUICK PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEDICATION.
Chairman May stated that discussion of the Quick right of way
matter would also be deferred until the March 18th meeting. Mr.
Fabbroni offered that he had hoped it could be considered at this
meeting. Chairman May stated that it would be a priority item for the
March 18th meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman May declared the March 4 , 1986 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.