Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-04-15 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Date APRIL 15 , 1986 Clcri< The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 15 , 1966 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, David Klein, James Baker , Barbara Schultz, Virginia Langhans, Edward Mazza, Lawrence P. Fabbroni (Town Engineer) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner) , Lewis D. Cartee (Town Building Inspector) , John C. Barney (Town Attorney) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger, Keijo Autio, Scot Raynor, Attorney Laura H. Holmberg, Muhammad A. Razzaq, Craig Pease, Helen Pease, Ralph Button, Charles Dalkert. 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 April 7, 1986 and April 10 , 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 Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the applicants and/or agents on April 10 , 1986 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- February 4 , 1986 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. David Klein: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 4, 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Klein, Baker, Langhans, Mazza. Nay - None. Abstain - Schultz. The MOTION was declared to be carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 4, 1986 MOTION by Mr. James Baker, seconded by Mr. David Klein: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March 4 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board 2 April 15 , 1986 Aye - May, Klein, Baker, Schultz , Langhans. Nay - None. Abstain - Mazza. The MOTION was declared to be carried. ENGINEER'S REPORT - Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E. Mr. Fabbroni reported that right now we have water and sewer specifications out for bid with respect to the Pine Tree Road Tank and the Hungerford Tank repainting. Mr. Fabbroni noted that these are the last two tanks which we have not painted in the first cycle of his experience as Town Engineer. Mr. Fabbroni stated that, as part of this project, cathodic protection will be a part of the work at both tanks plus cathodic protection has been requested for bid for the Ridgecrest Road tank. Mr. Fabbroni commented that a total of nine tanks will have been fully painted, with cathodic protection. Mr. Fabbroni hoped for a little lower level of painting in the future now that we have gone through all the tanks and repaired pitting, adding that, even though it has been twenty years, they are in amazingly good shape, probably because of better design in the old days. With respect to highways, Mr. Fabbroni reported that Burns Road is pretty much completed as to sub-base placement and, pending drier weather, we can get in and really finish off the roadway in a hurry. Mr. Fabbroni offered that there has been a lot of progress over the winter. Mr. Fabbroni stated that a lot of fill has been utilized which, through Cornelius , has proved to be very inexpensive -- 50 cents a yard1p aced -- a pretty good bargain. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the landscaping will occur in May under Ms. Beeners' direction -- all at once. Chairman May wondered when the road would be opened and Mr. Fabbroni responded that he was looking toward July, adding that it would not hurt to let it get in the gravel and let heavy trucks go over it for a while, and further adding that we have had a couple of freeze-thaw cycles. Mr. Fabbroni commented that there has been good natural compaction because of the kind of winter it was. Referring to the Hospital access road, Mr. Fabbroni reported that he is reviewing some designs and recalled for the Board the monies held out by the Planning Board with respect to that road and in connection with the Professional Building and the Medical Office Building. Mr. Fabbroni noted that it does need to be surveyed, however, the three parts are coming together, adding that our part would be mainly design and coordination and the two private entities would build the road. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the County would continue on and complete the connection into the old upper driveway and then the Town would wind up with a Town road from Route 96 to Indian Creek Road which we would maintain. Mr. Fabbroni stated that this whole matter is evidence of a nice partnership. With respect to Forest Home Drive, Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is kind of dug up at the moment, adding that it does not really resemble Planning Board 3 April 15, 1986 a road. Mr. Fabbroni stated that with some drier weather things should move along, commenting that there is poor soil under the pavement. Mr. Fabbroni reported that the pavement has been milled off and stockpiled for the new road, explaining that they are taking off about 2'h to 3 feet of the worst clay in the world, the old road being like full depth asphalt put on clay. Mr. Fabbroni commented that there was not too much heavy traffic after it ceased to be a State highway. In regard to Park Lane Extension, Mr. Fabbroni reported that there has been some activity, last month particularly, to better establish drainage. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he is continuing to work with the Town Board and NYSEG on the cost of moving the gas line there. Insofar as Judd Falls Road was concerned, Mr. Fabbroni reported that the design is being worked up and will be discussed with the homeowners. Mr. Fabbroni noted that the work will involve Judd Falls Road being narrowed down and the scope of the one-way as very limited one block. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he will talk to the neighbors house-by-house about the concept. Mr. Klein wondered where this reconstruction on Judd Falls Road was proposed to occur, with Mr. Fabbroni responding, where Judd Falls Road hits into Forest Home Drive to the Jug Handle. Mr. Fabbroni commented that the proposal has all the advantages of pedestrian and bicycle accommodation and little of the disadvantages of the former one-way systems. Mrs . Langhans wondered which way the one-way would go, with Mr. Fabbroni responding, toward the Campus. Mrs. Langhans asked Mr. Fabbroni if he had talked to the people, with Mr. Fabbroni responding that he had not yet done so, adding that Mr. Flumerfelt was working it up. Mr. Fabbroni offered that the proposal does have a lot of advantages and, thus, his reasoning for the one-on-one contact. Mr. Fabbroni commented that there is really only one person who would be forced to go round about. With respect to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, Mr. Fabbroni reported that it is moving right along, noting that the Lake work is complete and the Outfall is about done. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he anticipated Segment 1 completion in July with Segment 2 having about 8 to 12 months to go before the total plant is completed. Chairman May thanked Mr. Fabbroni for his report and stated that he was glad to have him back, adding that he was missed on some occasions. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he was glad to be back, but he was pleased that Mr. Lovi had obtained such a nice position down-State. BUILDING INSPECTOR'S REPORT - Lewis D. Cartee Mr. Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of February 1986 indicated that 6 permits were issued for $195 ,000 . 00 in improvements, as compared with February of 1985 when 6 permits were issued for $84 ,063.13 in improvements. Mr. Cartee' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of March 1986 indicated that 11 permits were issued for $473,751 .00 in improvements, as compared with March of 1985 when 13 permits were issued for $175 ,100.00 in Planning Board 4 April 15, 1986 improvements. Mr. Cartee, noting that the Board members each had received a copy of his Reports, stated that he had a couple of things he would like to mention. Mr. Cartee stated that Town Attorney Barney had advised him that Park Enterprises has not appealed the case on the billboards, and so, sixty days from March 31st they are scheduled to come down. Mr. Cartee reported that Town Attorney Nelson Roth has filed papers with the Court relative to taking down the remains of the old Knight' s Meat Market. Mr. Cartee reported that the new Physicians ' office Building construction is going well with occupancy probably by late summer. Mr. Cartee reported that Attorney Walter Wiggin ' s Bed and Breakfast on Danby Road -- La Tourelle --- is coming along and is very luxurious. Mr. Cartee reported that there is some controversy relative to Cayuga Vista where there seems to be a change in the footprint approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Cartee reported that he issued an occupancy permit for the new Ithaca College Bookstore portion of the expanded Egbert Union for use as office space for less than 100 staff persons. Mr. Cartee stated that it was a temporary certificate not to go past January 1 , 1987. Mr. Cartee stated that the structure is partially completed, adding that he has been consulting with Gene Dymek who has been very cooperative and helpful. Mr. Cartee reported that the subdivision on Honness Lane being developed by Ivar Janson -- Grandview -- has started with work being done on the interior road. Mr. Cartee reported that one building permit for a duplex has been issued. Mr. Cartee reported that we will soon have the addition to Dr. Purdy' s Dental Offices on Ellis Hollow Road which was approved on April 1st by the Planning Board. Mr. Cartee reported that he has issued seven building permits and five occupancy certificates for Rocco Lucente's Sapsucker Woods Road properties. Both Mrs. Langhans and Chairman May wondered how many had been sold, with Mr. Cartee responding, four, and adding that the record-keeping for these properties is very difficult. Mrs. Langhans asked Mr. Cartee if the house that Mr. Jonson built on Honness Lane is a "model" , with Mr. Cartee responding that it has been sold and the person who bought it lives on Pine Tree Road. Chairman May thanked Mr. Cartee for his Reports and information. REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING Planning Board 5 April 15, 1986 BOARD - Carolyn Gri orov. Chairman May, noting that Mrs. Grigorov was not present this evening, asked if there were any questions on the County Planning Board Minutes for February 12, 1986 , and March 12 , 1986 , copies of which were mailed to the Board members by Mrs. Fuller. There were none. PLANNER'S REPORT - Susan C. Beeners Ms . Beeners, commenting that we were now into our busy season, stated that the month of May is booked ahead, as is the first meeting in June -- already -- with development projects and also with some of the special projects that we are currently into or are about to embark on, for example, the Five Mile Drive rezoning discussions. Ms. Beeners reported that the SEQR revisions should be in effect in July, so, our reviews could be much more thorough since there is a lot more required of the applicant as to the provision of information. Ms. Beeners commented that this will be somewhat of an encumbrance for a while to get used to. Ms. Beeners reported that in mid-May the Cornell Tradition people will arrive on the scene and, in addition to having two working with Parks under Richard Schoch' s supervision, there will also be a natural resources department student who will be spending a lot of time compiling maps related to natural resource inventories. Ms. Beeners stated that she also hoped to arrange to have that person work at Cornell utilizing the ZOOM STEREOSCOPE (TM) . Ms . Beeners stated that she hoped by the end of August -- this student' s term -- that the inventory would be complete for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Beeners offered that, in the meantime, as the Board sees fit and as that information is compiled, it might be that certain studies, such as the industrial sites, certain demographic housing and occupancy studies, and other individual studies, might be considered. Ms. Beeners commented that this will not happen all at once, but a few could appear as compiled. Ms. Beeners reported that, in Parks, Richard Schoch is currently systematizing the Park Management Program. Ms. Beeners reported that the Burns Road plantings will be going in in May and June, commenting jokingly that we are not having the summer workers at the right time. Ms. Beeners reported that work will be done on the Hungerford Heights Park, for example, a play structure and a small trail. Ms. Beeners reported that into the Fall, there will be landscaping done along Forest Home Drive, with the trails being restored as part of the project as well as the gabion work. Ms. Beeners reported that we are continuing working with the State and the City on the Cayuga Trail which the City is building from Planning Board 6 April 15, 1986 Cass Park to Buttermilk, adding the hope that easements and funding will permit it to continue to South Aurora Street below Morse Chain and on to Burns Road on the old railroad right of way. Chairman May asked if there were any questions or comments with respect to Ms. Beeners' report; there were none. Chairman May thanked Ms . Beeners for her report. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR TROY-KING HEIGHTS, SECTION 2, BEING A 7-LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS ON TROY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-44-1-4 . 32 . PAUL B. ERDMAN, OWNER. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Erdman was not present. The following documents were before the Board. 1 . Drawing [reduced] entitled "Subdivision Plan, Troy-King Heights, Section 2, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. , Drawing No. 1 , Sheet No. 1 of 1" , prepared by Erdman, Anthony, Associates, P.C. , Consulting Engineers & Planners, Rochester, N.Y. , for Paul B. Erdman, P.E. , L.S. , P.O. Box 46, Arkport, N.Y. 14807 , signed, sealed and dated March 17 , 1986, by Paul B. Erdman, Registered Engineer, amended to show a drainage swale which is to be dug prior to lot sales , and a 15-foot easement leading to the "green area"; 2 . Dra_ wing entitled "Supplemental Map" , undated, showing the continuation of the 15-foot easement to a "green area" and the "green area" . 3 . Attachment to Supplemental Map setting forth a metes and bounds description of the "green area" . 4 . Resolution adopted by the Planning Board at its April 1, 1986 meeting with respect to Troy-King Heights, Section 2 , granting Preliminary Subdivision Approval. 5 . Draft Resolution with respect to Final Subdivision Approval. Ms. Beeners appended to the bulletin board a full-sized version of the Subdivision Plan which the Planning Board members each had received in a reduced size. Ms. Beeners also appended to the bulletin board a small map showing the total property owned by Mr. Erdman and showing the location of the green area. Ms. Beeners stated that the items that the Board had required for final subdivision approval have been provided by Mr. Erdman -- one of them being the swale, a two-foot swale, on the mother parcel rather than on the smaller lots proposed for subdivision, and, that that be dug prior to lot sales. Ms. Beeners pointed this out on the map and noted that it runs behind the lots and on out to Troy Road. Ms. Beeners also pointed out the 10-foot-wide easement to the "green Planning Board ? April 15 , 1986 area" , as the Board requested, and which runs along the north and west property lines to the "green area" which is shown as two acres. Ms. Beeners noted that one-half acre of that "green area" is what is going with this current subdivision, there being one and a half acres from another previous one. Ms. Beeners pointed out that this area will serve as a buffer for the South Hill Swamp. Ms. Beeners noted that Mr. Erdman had also provided a metes and bounds description of the rrgreen area" . Ms. Beeners pointed out that, in the draft resolution before the Board, on the second page, item #2 was offered since the feeling at the last meeting was that the easement could be subject to change as long as it did provide access to a public road. Chairman May wondered how we can reasonably monitor, or police, the matter of the two-foot swale to be sure that that swale is done before the first sale of the lots . Mr. Mazza offered that a building permit could be withheld until that is done, adding that the map is going to be filed and pointing out that it says that right on the map before the Board. Mr. Fabbroni agreed, adding that it should show up in any search. Mr. Mazza noted that it would show up but someone has to go look for that map. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would feel more hesitant if it were not right on the map, adding that the map has to be filed and he has to get the Health Department to sign off on the rear property and, also, file the map because it is five lots. Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if there were anyone who wished to speak. No one spoke. Mr. Mazza asked if anyone checked the description attached, with Ms. Beeners responding that it appears to be okay. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 01 p.m. MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans: WHEREAS: 1 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed Erdman subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance. 2. The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at a Public Hearing on April 1 , 1986 , at which time Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted with the condition that certain amendments be made to the Final Subdivision maps. 3 . This action is the subdivision of a 122.98 acre parcel , tax map # 6-44-1-4.32 , fronting on Troy Road, County Road 123 , into 7 parcels consisting of 3 proposed residential lots of .57 acres each, 2 proposed residential lots of . 6 acres each, a .5 acre "green area" , and a remaining 119.57± acre parcel. Planning Board B April 15 , 1986 4 . The .5 acre "green area" is proposed to adjoin a 1.5 acre "green area" which was set aside as part of a subdivision by the same owner of adjacent lands as an undeveloped open space buffer to the "South Hill Swamp" , for a total of 2 acres of "green area. " 5 . The Planning Board has reviewed the amended Final Subdivision maps which consist of the following: a.) A survey map entitled "Troy--King Heights, Section 211 , prepared by Erdman, Anthony, Associates, P.C. , (no date) , which has been amended as required to show a drainage swale which is to be dug prior to lot sales, and a 15 foot easement leading to the "green area"; b. ) A supplemental map showing the continuation of the 15 foot easement to a "green area; and a metes and bounds description of the "green area" . 6 . A 60 ' right of way has been reserved for drainageways , utilities , and future access to the interior acreage, for which a second 60 ' right of way currently exists. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval for this subdivision as presented and described on the amended maps and in the "green area" metes and bounds description. 2 . That the 15 foot easement from Troy Road to the "green area" be subject to change at the request of the developer and as would be arranged with the Town of Ithaca, the objective being to ensure access to the "green area" from a public road. Prior to there being a second to Mrs. Langhans' Motion, Town Attorney Barney stated, with respect to paragraph #2 under "Resolved" , that it seemed to him rather than "arrange" it ought to be subject to approval of the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Mazza countered that he was not sure that that was the way we left it with Mr. Erdman. Town Attorney Barney mused that if access is along a relatively traversable road and he chooses the side of a cliff, it could be a problem, adding that maybe it should be something like roughly equivalent in terms of traversability. Mr. Mazza stated that that was the intent. Chairman May suggested indicating that it be subject to the approval of the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Mazza pointed out that that means someone in the Town could say "NO" . Mr. Klein read paragraph #2 out loud, as follows: 112. That the 15 foot easement from Troy Road to the 'green area' be subject to change at the request of the developer and as would be arranged with the Town of Ithaca, the objective being to ensure access to the ' green area' from a public road. " Mr. Mazza noted that he could put it wherever he wants as long as we have access, adding that with this big parcel we tie him up but have no more control than what we already do. Mr. Mazza pointed out that, with further subdivision, he has to come back to us -- obviously. Planning Board 9 April 15 , 1986 Town Attorney Barney wondered if this easement were traversable now. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the purpose of this open space is to buffer a unique area, noted approval if we have an easement, and commented that we really do not want people travelling through the area. Mr. Fabbroni stated that what is needed is to satisfy the intent of being able to get to the green area. Town Attorney Barney commented that the contour lines are pretty wiggly particularly on the western end of it , and wondered if maybe we would have to build a bridge now. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he thought it can be traversed. Town Attorney Barney stated that he just raised it as a question, adding that it seemed to him it should be roughly equivalent. Mr. Mazza stated that he had no problem with that, but, he did not want it subject to the Town approval. Mr. Mazza pointed out that, for all intents and purposes, if he subdivides it he has to come back to the Planning Board. Mr. Mazza suggested adding "roughly equivalent traversability" or whatever you want to call it. Town Attorney Barney suggested -- "subject to change to another location substantially equivalent in traversability" . Mrs . Langhans withdrew her Motion which had not been seconded. MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed Paul B. Erdman subdivision, known as Troy-King Heights, Section 2, being a 7-lot subdivision of lands on Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-44-1-4. 32 , and has made a determination of negative environmental significance. 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at Public Hearing on April 1 , 1986, at which time Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted with the condition that certain amendments be made to the Final Subdivision maps. 3 . This action is the subdivision of a 122.98 acre parcel, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-44-1--4 .32, fronting on Troy Road (County Road 123) , into seven parcels consisting of three proposed residential lots of .57 acres each, two proposed residential lots of . 6 acres each, a .5 acre "green area" , and a remaining 119 . 57± acre parcel. 4 . The .5 acre "green area" is proposed to adjoin a 1.5 acre "green area" which was set aside as part of a subdivision by the same owner of adjacent lands as an undeveloped open space buffer to the "South Hill Swamp" , for a total of two acres of "green area. " S . The Planning Board has reviewed the amended Final Subdivision maps which consist of the following: a. ) A survey map entitled "Subdivision Plan, Troy-King Heights, Section 2, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. , Drawing No. 1, Sheet No. 1 of 1", prepared by Erdman, Anthony, Planning Board 14 April 15 , 1986 Associates, P.C. , Consulting Engineers & Planners, Rochester, N.Y. , for Paul B. Erdman, P .E. , L.S. , P.O. Box 46 , Arkport, N.Y. 14807 , signed, sealed and dated March 17 , 1986 , by Paul B. Erdman, Registered Engineer, which has been amended as required to show a drainage swale which is to be dug prior to lot sales , and a 15-foot easement leading to the "green area"; b. ) A supplemental map, undated, showing the continuation of the 15-foot easement to a "green area" with a metes and bounds description of the "green area" attached thereto. 6 . A 60-foot right of way has been reserved for drainageways, utilities, and future access to the interior acreage, for which a second 60-foot right of way currently exists. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval for the Paul B. Erdman subdivision, known as Troy-King Heights, Section 2, being a 7-lot subdivision of lands on Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-44-1-4.32 , as presented and as described on the aforementioned survey map and supplemental map and in the "green area" metes and bounds description. 2. That the 15-foot easement from Troy Road to the "green area" shown on the aforementioned supplemental map be subject to change to another location substantially equivalent in traversability at the request of the developer and as would be arranged with the Town of Ithaca, the objective being to insure access to the "green area" from a public road. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Klein, Baker, Schultz, Langhans, Mazza. Nay -- None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of Final Subdivision Approval for Troy-King Heights, Section 2 , Paul B. Erdman, Owner, duly closed at 8:08 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A REVISION OF USES IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AT 615 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-31-2-30 . TIMOTHY CIASCHI , TERRY CIASCHI , AND KEN (KEIJO) AUTIO, OWNERS. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 : 09 p.m. Mr. Autio and his Architect, Scot Raynor, were present. The following documents were before the Board: Planning Board 11 April 15 , 1986 1 . Drawing entitled "Site Plan, 615 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York" , dated April 4 , 1986 , prepared by Scot A. Raynor, A.S.L.A. , Sheet No. 1 of 1. 2. Short Environmental Assessment Form, as completed, signed, and submitted by Keijo Autio under date of April 9 , 1986 [Part I] , and as reviewed by Susan C. Beeners, Town Planner, under date of April 10, 1986 [Parts II and III] , as follows: "A. Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12? -- NO. B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 7? -- YES. C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or arising from the following: Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? --- No significant adverse impact expected. The property is not located in the official special flood hazard area. C2 . Historic, archeological, visual or aesthetic, or other natural or cultural resources; agricultural districts; or community or neighborhood character? -- (see attached) . C3. Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? -- No significant adverse impact expected. C4. A community' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? -- Action is consistent with existing zoning regulations. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? -- No significant adverse impact expected, if current usage level is maintained. C6. Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C6? -- No significant adverse impact expected. C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy? -- No significant adverse impact expected. " Box checked which sets forth that it has been 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. Attachment -- ADDENDUM TO SEQR S/EAF: "The property under concern is located in an area for which a zoning study is currently being conducted. Under the existing Light Industrial zoning of the site, the property meets all existing zoning requirements, with the exception of a front yard setback, which requirement was waived in an earlier site plan approval for the property. If the property were to be rezoned to R-30 , low Planning Board 12 April 15, 1986 density residential zone, as is currently proposed, the property would be one of several nonconforming (Light industrial/commercial) uses in the proposed residential zone. As a nonconforming use, any expansion of the site use would be subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Because of the significant buffering effect of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Flood Control easements on the property and adjacent to it, and the isolation of the site from buildable residential areas, it is determined that the property and its use do not and will not have a significant adverse effect on neighborhood character. " 3 . Letter, dated March 27 , 1986 , from Floral Avenue Properties, Timothy Ciaschi, Kenneth Autio, and Terry Ciaschi, Partners, 615 Five Mile Drive, to Susan Beeners, as follows: "In response to your letter here are the following items you asked for: A. 3800 square foot warehouse 1 . Ithaca Ice Company with one employee and one major (large) truck. They use approximately 1400 square feet. 2. Larry Thayer of Thayer Appliance is using the remaining 2400 square feet for storage of his appliance line. No trucks and no employees except for occasional pack ups. B. 1600 square foot office building 1 . Globe Securities has approximately 800 square feet and employs one person and one car. 2 . Matco Electric has 800 square feet and also employs one person and one car. C. The road that leads to these businesses is a 22 foot right of way. " 4 . Minutes, Planning Board, August 5, 1975, pages 2 and 3 , 5 and 6 , in re Madison Electric. 5. Minutes, Town Board, August 11, 1975, page 4 , in re Madison Electric. 6. Draft Resolution in re Ciaschi/Autio Revised Site Plan Approval, SEAR. 7. Draft Resolution in re Ciaschi/Autio Revised Site Plan Approval. Mr. Raynor appended a large colored version of the proposed site plan to the bulletin board and noted that the site was outlined in red. Mr. Raynor stated that this was a very complicated site and drew the Board ' s attention to various existing easements, levees, power lines, etc. Mr. Raynor oriented the Board and the public to the site, noting that 615 Five Mile Drive is in the Town of Ithaca right near the Inlet and Coy Glen Creek [indicating same on the drawing] . Mr. Raynor pointed out [indicating on the drawing] the access drive from Planning Board 13 April 15, 1986 Five Mile Drive, and noted that it is twenty-two feet wide and gravelled, and which, he commented, was in somewhat poor condition. Mr. Raynor [indicating] stated that the building on the "far left" is a shed used for storage, and the building in the "middle" is split in half and is the one occupied by Globe Securities and Matco Electric. Mr. Raynor [indicating] stated that the "larger" building is used as an ice warehouse by the Ithaca Ice Company and as storage by Thayer Appliance. Mr. Raynor pointed out five parking spaces, indicating their location. Mr. Raynor noted the location of two doors into the warehouse and pointed out employee or owner parking spaces , as well as a gravelled area which also allows for turn-around and parking for occasional visitors. Mr. Raynor stated that there are only four trees on the site and indicated an area "here" which is grass. Mr. Raynor pointed out that the shaded blue area [indicating] is the Flood Control Easement, commenting that with that flood control protection the project ended when it went in. Mr. Raynor stated that there is a 15-foot setback from the RipRap Collector Basin [indicating on the drawing] and also noted the 15-foot setback from the toe of the levee. Mr. Raynor indicated on the drawing that there is also a levee over "here" which finally goes over to the Basin. Mr. Raynor indicated on the drawing the location of two public easement lines, and stated that there really should not be any building in that, however, "this" building was there before that easement so it is grandfathered in and, therefore, is no problem. Mr. Raynor stated that there are sanitary facilities for "this building here" [indicating] , that is, two toilets. Mr. Raynor stated that there was a septic tank in place and the water comes from a well from the land of Dierk Teriouw, there being an easement to use that water. Mr. Raynor pointed out on the drawing the location of a gas pump with a 1,000 gallon underground tank. Mr. Raynor stated that he would be happy to answer any questions . Chairman May asked if there were any questions from the Board; there were none at this point. Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if there were any questions from the public; there were none. Ms. Beeners asked about the number of trips per day that those agencies named are making. Mr. Raynor responded that the only people making daily trips are Ithaca Ice and Thayer Appliance and, at that, no more than two trips a day. Mr. Raynor commented that they try to limit the trips because it is too costly for them otherwise. Mrs. Langhans wondered what it was that was being asked of the Board if this is already existing. Ms. Beeners stated that the matter before the Board is a change in the site plan that was brought in by the owners. Ms. Beeners noted the Minutes with respect to this property in connection with Madison Electric's Site Plan Approval of an office building -- Planning Board August 5 , 1975 and Town Board August 11 , 1975 -- which were included in the Board's materials to provide background information. Ms. Beeners stated that Globe Securities is in that building now, as is Matco Electric. Ms. Beeners stated that, according to those 1975 Minutes, there was some problem with and discussion about frontage -- whether there was really a front Planning Board 14 April 15, 1986 yard or not, setbacks, sideyards, and the like. Ms. Beeners noted that the Planning Board and the Town Board approved the site plan which was presented at the time. Ms. Beeners noted that there was also some discussion at that time as to the number of employees which Mr. Madison had which, she believed, were three, with one man in a truck most of the day. Ms. Beeners stated that that was about all we have as to prior usage. Ms. Beeners offered that it was for the Board to decide if this is a substantial change in that use and if it would approve the site plan as it stands. Mrs . Langhans inquired of Ms . Beeners how this might affect the proposed future rezoning of the Five Mile Drive area. Ms. Beeners stated that if it were to be rezoned as proposed tonight and if this area south of Coy Glen Creek were to be changed from Light Industrial to R30 , this property would remain as a legal non-conforming use. Chairman May wondered if, since the Department of Environmental Conservation is a possible affected agency, the Board needed to give them an opportunity to reply before it does anything. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would think not, adding that we are not changing anything physically there, and further adding that you do not get into the DEC easement except for this small area "here" [indicating on the site plan] . Mr. Fabbroni explained that this other easement was taken by the Army Corps of Engineers when they built the drop structures on Coy Glen Creek, commenting that he did not know why they took such a big easement -- the drop structures being the only explanation. Chairman May wondered what the possibility might be of creek contamination occurring and noted that there is an underground tank there. Mr. Fabbroni commented that they would be under the same constraints as anybody in the State. Chairman May, noting the tank size as not over a 1,000 gallons, asked again if DEC needed to be given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Raynor stated that, in 1980, DEC gave a permit to Madison Electric and the tank was there. Mr. Raynor stated that they did not have enough room because the Flood Control took so much land so they were given a permit and this situation is what came of all that. Mr. Raynor pointed out that nothing has been changed on-site, only the tenants have changed which resulted in a slight change in use. Mr. Klein, noting that the "middle building" is offices, asked what the little one was again. Mr. Raynor stated that it was a storage shed. Mr. Klein asked if the buildings are identical to earlier ones, with Mr. Raynor responding, yes. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Madison Electric used to be on the whole site. Mr. Klein, reiterating that the three buildings were Madison' s, offered that the only change is interior use. Mr. Klein asked if the uses were different, with Mr. Cartee responding, yes, and stating that the manufacturing of ice is different from storage. Mr. Klein offered that that would be the primary difference. Mr. Cartee stated that that is why the matter is before the Board. Mrs . Langhans wondered how this made it a Planning Board matter. Mr. Cartee stated that the building is full of equipment with the other use being Thayer Planning Board 15 April 15, 1986 Appliance storage. Mr. Cartee stated that the Health Department is investigating the water for the manufacture of ice as to whether or not "this flowing well" [indicating] meets standards. Mr. Cartee stated that in addition to that, he did not believe there is a bathroom facility in that building for the employees. Mrs . Langhans noted that the water is actually coming from a well, with Mr. Fabbroni concurring and adding that it is a deep well, and, one that the Town drilled when it was exploring water sources. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the well is some three hundred to four hundred feet deep. Mr. Cartee stated that he had strong reservations about the electric equipment in the building relative to electric power for the coolers inside, particularly with two different occupancies. Mr. Cartee stated that he did not know what has been done to the building about codes. Chairman May wondered what the power in the building is. Mr. Klein commented as to whether the change in use was just done, with Mr. Cartee responding that he just happened to find it. Mrs. Schultz wondered what kind of permit DEC would have issued and if it should not have come through the Town, wondering, further, if the permit would be for the use, with Mr. Fabbroni replying, no, and adding that such permit would be for access and the building and goes with the building and any owner. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he did not see where any change in the use would require any other approval, adding that the Board is dealing with a change in use whereas the building code requirements apply to code regulations for a given use. Chairman May stated that he accepted that, adding that Mr. Cartee, however, has some very good concerns. Chairman May stated that he was not sure that the Board should be addressing site plan until code violations have been addressed. Mr. Fabbroni offered that it was a bit of the cart before the horse in that Mr. Cartee cannot enforce the Code if the use is not okay. Mr. Klein asked Mr. Fabbroni if the uses were legal, with Mr. Fabbroni responding, yes, and adding that they are allowed light industrial uses. There being no further discussion, Chairman May asked if there were anyone present from the public who wished to speak; no one spoke. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m. , and asked the Board to turn to the matter of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Chairman May noted that there was a recommendation from the Town Planner, Ms. Beeners, for a negative declaration. MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: WHEREAS: 1. This action consists of a change in site plan and building use of an office and warehouse facility located in a Light Industrial Zone at 615 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31--2-30 . This is an unlisted action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at Public Hearing on April 15, 1986. 2. Any further development of this property for unlisted or Type I actions will be the subject of further environmental review. Planning Board 16 April 15 , 1986 3 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner. 4 . The Department of Environmental Conservation, which holds a flood protection easement on portions of the site, may be an affected agency and will be notified of this determination. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1 . That the Town of Ithaca 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 by said Planning Board to have no significant adverse impact on the environment, and, that a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May, Klein, Baker, Schultz, Langhans, Mazza. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May then asked the Board to turn to the matter of consideration of site plan approval. Chairman May noted that, in the draft resolution presented by Ms. Beeners, proposed paragraph #3, [ "Existing site activity consists of the use of a warehouse and an office building by 3 agencies, each with one employee, on a daily basis, and by a fourth agency for appliance storage and pickup on an occasional basis. "] in the "whereas" portion, does not reference the fact there there is an ice manufacturing use in place, and suggested that that needs to be picked up somewhere. Ms. Beeners stated that that would be fine if the Board desired that. Mr. Klein agreed that such a reference should be in there. Chairman May noted again that it was a significant use which needed to be recognized. Mrs . Langhans suggested that it should be mentioned in paragraph #3 as Chairman May had indicated. Mr. Klein, pointing out that the office building is subdivided for two tenants and the warehouse has two tenants, one for storage and one for manufacturing, stated that it is not quite stated that way in the draft resolution. Ms. Beeners offered that the way it reads is okay in that it is grammatically correct and factually accurate with the exception of the ice manufacturing aspect. Town Attorney Barney agreed. Chairman May agreed. Discussion followed as to wording with Mr. Fabbroni and Mrs. Langhans suggesting the inclusion of words such as "used for ice manufacturing and warehousing" . Chairman May, noting that it was a warehouse for appliances as well as ice manufacturing, stated that, the big thing was the equipment. Mr. Fabbroni wondered if "warehouse for manufacturing ice" would work, and Town Attorney Barney thought that the insertion of the words "one of which is an ice manufacturing concern" in paragraph #3 would do the trick. Planning Board 17 April 15 , 1986 Mrs. Langhans stated that she dial not particularly agree with proposed paragraph #4 ["The Planning Board has determined that the current site use does not represent a significant increase in development or activity from the previous site use. "] , it appearing to her that it was significant to go from one use to four. Chairman May stated that, from a business standpoint, he agreed. Mr. Mazza countered that if you had three accountants running three separate businesses or one business with three accountants what would be the difference? Mr. Mazza stated that it is the activity of the use that is the significant issue. Town Attorney Barney suggested using the words "significant increase in traffic" , or, "intensity of use" . Mr. Fabbroni commented that when it was Madison Electric there were transformers and wire spools all over the place, adding that you could hardly work your way through the yard. Mr. Fabbroni stated that, now, there is no outside storage to speak of. Mr. Klein commented that he was sure Mr. Madison had a significant amount of traffic in there. Mrs. Langhans indicated that she was satisfied with "development" being changed to "traffic" . Town Attorney Barney suggested changing "current" to "requested" . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: WHEREAS: 1 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for a change in site plan and building use of an office and warehouse facility located in a Light Industrial Zone at 615 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-30 , and has made a determination of negative environmental significance. 2. A site plan for one business with three employees was approved by the Planning Board on August 5 , 1975 and by the Town Board on August 11 , 1975. 3 . Existing site activity consists of the use of a warehouse and an office building by three agencies, one of which is an ice manufacturing concern, each with one employee, on a daily basis, and by a fourth agency for appliance storage and pickup on an occasional basis. 4 . The Planning Board has determined that the requested site use does not represent a significant increase in traffic or activity from the previous site use. 5 . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Flood Control Easement on portions of the subject property and on adjacent properties creates a substantial buffer zone between the subject property and adjacent existing and future residential areas. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED : 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does Planning Board IB April 15 , 1986 grant approval to the revised site plan for property known as 615 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-30, presently owned by Timothy Ciaschi, Terry Ciaschi, and Keijo Autio, as presented at Public Hearing, April 15, 1986 , entitled "Site Plan, 615 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York" , Sheet 1 of 1, dated April 4 , 1986 , prepared by Scot Raynor, A.S.L.A. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Klein, Baker, Schultz, Langhans, Mazza. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of Site Plan Approval for the Ciaschi/Autio property at 615 Five Mile Drive duly closed at 8:44 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE RE-SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-58-2-39.11 AND 6-58-2-39 .12 , LOCATED AT 119 HONNESS LANE, INTO THREE LOTS, AND, CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT, UNDER SECTION 280-a OF THE TOWN LAW, A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED LOT #3 NOT FRONTING ON A PUBLIC STREET. MUHAMMAD AND KHURSHID RAZZAQ, OWNERS/DEVELOPERS. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :45 p.m. Attorney Holmberg, Dr. Razzaq, and Contractor Pease were all present. The following documents were before the Board. 1 . Survey Mat entitled "Survey Map Showing Proposed Subdivision of Lands of Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq, [Lots #1 , 2, and 3] , [Tax Map Parcels 58-2-39 . 11 , 39. 121 , Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" , dated February 28 , 1986 , prepared by T.G. Miller Associates P.C. , signed and sealed by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.L.S. Attachment to Survey map entitled "Proposed Plot Plan for Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq -- Lot #3 , undated. 2. Minutes -- Planning Board, February 4 , 1986. 3 . Minutes --- Planning Board, March 4 , 1986. 4. Minutes - Zoning Board of Appeals, March 19 , 1986. 5 . Letter from George R. Pfann, Jr. to Attorney Laura Holmberg, dated April 15, 1986 , as follows: "Re: Razzaq Subdivision on Honness Lane A;_ youknow, I represent Gladys Blatchley who is selling the property adjoining the Razzaq parcel to Ivar Jonson. As you also Planning Board 19 April 15 , 1986 know, there is a title problem relating to the location of the Church property. I have talked to Jim Miller who represents the Church. I have been working constantly with the surveyors for the past month. It is my understanding that the Church will accept as their boundary lines, the boundary lines as outlined in the deed from Blatchley to Razzaq and as shown on the survey Razzaq had prepared by Tom Miller's office. I have explained the entire situation to Larry Fabbroni and given him the same scenario. " Attorney Holmberg appeared before the Board and stated that this meeting constituted their third appearance before the Planning Board. Attorney Holmberg, noting that the Board members had before them a copy of the proposed subdivision map showing the three lots, pointed out that the sizes proposed are larger than the requirements for the zone. Attorney Holmberg stated that there was adequate access over the existing roadway for proposed Lot #3 . Attorney Holmberg stated that she believed that the questions which were asked last time had to do with problems arising from errors in the deed to the Hillside Alliance Church, and whether, in fact, the Razzaq boundary lines are as shown or would be affected by a new survey for property to be conveyed to the Church. Attorney Holmberg stated that Attorney George Pfann has talked to Town Engineer Fabbroni and she had presented a letter from him [Pfann] which indicates that the boundaries have been accepted as the boundaries for the Church property. Attorney Holmberg stated that they also met with Mr. Perkins and the Attorney for the Church to discuss the use and maintenance of the roadway. Attorney Holmberg stated that it was her understanding that the only other person who uses it is Mr. Ponchalek. Attorney Holmberg stated that both Mr. Ponchalek and Mr. Dalkert were invited to that meeting, however, Mr. Dalkert did not come, nor did Mr. Ponchalek. Attorney Holmberg stated that they have agreed that number one is the approval they are seeking, adding that the Church cannot do anything until they have title. Attorney Holmberg stated that they have written agreement, which will be recorded, to share the maintenance and the upkeep of the roadway, adding that it goes as far as to agree with the Church that if they do not use it in the winter they would have no responsibility for any plowing. Attorney Holmberg also noted how this connects with the title clearing. Mr. Ralph Button, representing the Church, spoke from the floor and stated that what Attorney Holmberg had outlined was correct. Continuing, Attorney Holmberg stated that construction has begun on "this" lot which fronts on Honness Lane [Lot #21 . Attorney Holmberg, recalling that there had been a question on drainage, stated that there will be a drainage ditch along the east side of the driveway, adding that the drainage flows in two directions, and mentioning Mr. Perkin 's thoughts on the eave draining on the Church property also. Attorney Holmberg commented that Dr. Razzaq and Mr. Perkins went out to look at how this entry will be graded to get adequate access. Chairman May thanked Attorney Holmberg and, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if there were anyone who wished to speak. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger spoke from the floor and asked Planning Board 20 April 15, 1985 how many feet from Honness Lane the proposed third house would be. Attorney Holmberg responded that to the edge of the lot it is 159 feet. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger wondered about the placement of the house, approximately, noting the twenty-foot driveway, and adding that she had read how far somewhere. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she was concerned about life safety. Attorney Holmberg pointed out that it would be some 160 feet to the lot line from where the house would be and added that she, herself, has a driveway one-tenth of a mile long. Chairman May offered that he would say 169 feet plus 25 feet, judging from the sketch. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had a question as to the Planning Board' s consideration of a subdivision, that is, the approval of a lot which is not yet legal -- in other words, there is no legal lot until the Zoning Board of Appeals permits a variance. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger offered that the Zoning Board of Appeals acts within very narrow legal limits and for the Planning Board to act in advance of that is prejudicial. Mr. Klein pointed out that the Planning Board has been doing this, adding that the Zoning Ordinance requires it. Town Attorney Barney offered that it seemed to him that the logical route is for the Planning Board to look at it, adding that there is no point to getting a lot unless a variance is granted and, also, it is fruitless for the Zoning Board of Appeals to look at it if there is no subdivision. Attorney Holmberg stated that the two approvals are also mutually dependent in that lot 3 is not much good without access. Town Attorney Barney noted that sub-section 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law talks about, or contemplates that, other requirements have been met and, without subdivision, those other requirements could not be met. Mr. Klein recalled comments made at other meetings about access by, he thought, Mr. Armstrong, who has a barn and a path. Attorney Holmberg stated that there is no right of way involving Mr. Armstrong, adding that he does have a path and a barn, however, they are not related. Mrs . Langhans stated that she did ask about that at an earlier meeting and he [Armstrong] said he had no legal right of way but he has used it. Referring to the Sketch of proposed Lot 3 , attached to the proposed Subdivision Plan [Survey Map] , Mr. Klein noted that the proposed house had been sketched in at a spot next to the drive. Mr. Klein wondered how one would consider the setbacks for front yard and side yard and pointed out that the boundary with the Church is only 120 feet deep. Mr. Klein offered that if you set the house back 40 feet, or a 50-foot set back, you take out the backyard. Planning Board 21 April 15 , 1986 Mr. Craig Pease, Dr . Razzaq' s Contractor, spoke from the floor and stated that he had drawn a proposed plot plan for that particular lot and asked if the Board would like to see it. Attorney Holmberg noted that the driveway will be moved west to make a better access into the Church, commenting that this sometime use sort of grew up over the years when it was nice and empty open space. Referring to the Sketch, Attorney Holmberg pointed out where the Church parking lot is, were it shown on the plan. Mr. Pease showed the Board the plan he had, whereupon it was noted that the Board members had that plan before them. Discussion followed around the table among the Board members and Mr. Pease as they perused the drawing. Chairman May indicated that there appeared to be confusion over land being deeded to the Church. Mr. Fabbroni clarified that situation by pointing out on the drawing what was going to happen. Town Attorney Barney wondered where the setback would be and 39 feet was discussed. Mr. Fabbroni commented that the Church parking lot is on what they thought was their land, which it apparently is not, but which will become their land. Discussion ensued with respect to a pin set in the road as well as other pins. Mr. Pease showed Mrs. Langhans individually what was what. Dr. Razzaq talked about bushes and explained that he had visited the site with a gentleman from the Church and the Attorney where there was agreement to take out two bushes and widen the road. Mr. Charles Dalkert, 105 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and stated that, in re plans to leave the road the same on Honness Lane, he wondered if "we" are only talking about the Church end. Dr. Razzaq responded that they are definitely going to improve the roadway. Dr. Razzaq described how they went on a rainy day, spoke of gravel on the road, and stated that he wanted it to be absolutely clear about there going to be small ditches and proper drainage as soon as they finish building the new house at 117 Honness Lane [Lot 2] . Mr. Dalkert cautioned that before you go pushing everything around and changing the location of the fence, everyone should be aware that the fence became the boundary lines, adding that those fences have been there for ten years. Dr. Razzaq reiterated his description of the discussions with respect to the road and the bushes and the bend in the roadway, adding that there are just bushes there, no fence, and further adding that the Church people agreed. Mr. Dalkert pointed out that those bushes are hedge fences. Mr. Fabbroni commented that the two bushes are on the Church land. Mr. Ralph Button, of the Hillside Alliance Church, asked how long it was there, commenting that the area used to be the Blatchley Farm back then. Attorney Holmberg agreed, adding that the roadway was a farm lane then. Attorney Holmberg described how the land became divided between two members of the family at that spot, adding that the lane has been in existence for a long while. Chairman May stated that the Town Attorney had just spoken to him and raised a question with respect to the Survey and the depth of proposed Lot 3 which seems to be 147 feet, not 150 feet. Town Attorney Barney indicated that the depth was not ascertainable. Attorney Holmberg indicated on the map and stated that she thought Town Attorney Barney will find there to be 100 feet "here" and 150 feet "here" , with the total acreage involved being over half an acre. Planning Board 22 April 15, 1986 Town Attorney Barney pointed out that there need be 150 feet from the right of way line. Discussion followed having to do with not knowing exactly what the situation was since the map was a photocopy. Attorney Holmberg showed on the map where the line would go and noted over 200 feet of land. Mr. Fabbroni wondered if a scale would be of help to Town Attorney Barney, with Town Attorney Barney responding that he would like a professional surveyor to tell him what the distances were. Attorney Holmberg stated that she did not know how one can compute it when one does not have a rectangular lot, and suggested that the Board could, perhaps, resolve that dilemma by conditioning approval on that 150 feet being there. Mr. Fabbroni asked if "this" road were to be relocated to try to be within "this" new boundary line, whereupon a discussion followed with respect to the 150 feet question and whether it is measured from the edge of the right of way. Mr. Pease offered that even if you took off ten feet, he scaled 200 feet. Town Attorney Barney, Attorney Holmberg, Chairman May, and Mr. Pease spent considerable time pouring over the map. Mr. Dalkert spoke from the floor and pointed out that during the discussion, earlier, it had been said that there was going to be a change in the road surface. Dr. Razzaq responded that that was correct, adding that it will be gravel. Mr. Dalkert wondered about a ditch on the west side. Attorney Holmberg stated that the drainage was on the east side of the roadway. Mr. Fabbroni wondered if Mr. Dalkert were questioning the wisdom of the drainage ditch on the upper side of the road. Mr. Dalkert replied that he was, and added that he did not want it in his backyard or in his basement. Mr. Button offered that they think that is the best place. Chairman May commented that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency, whereupon further discussion ensued, with Town Attorney Barney offering that the Planning Board had chosen lead agency as this was a subdivision. Mrs . Langhans noted that there seemed to be two things for the Board to speak to -- the resubdivision and a recommendation on 280-a. MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the re-subdivision of two lots, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-58-2-39 .11 and 6-58-2-39 . 12 , located at 119 Hon ness Lane, into three lots, as shown on Survey Map entitled "Survey Map Showing Proposed Subdivision of Lands of Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq, [Lots #1 , 2 , and 3] , [Tax Map Parcels 58-2-39. 11 , 39. 12] , Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" , dated February 28 , 1986, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates P.C. , signed and sealed by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.L.S. , and on Attachment to Survey Map entitled "Proposed Plot Pian for Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq -- Lot #3 , undated, both before this Board at Public Hearing this date, April 15, 1986 , and FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that a Planning Board 23 April 15, 1986 variance from Section 280-a of the Town Law, be granted to permit development of proposed Lot #3 not fronting on a public street. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Langhans. Nay - May, Klein, Baker, Schultz . Abstain - Mazza. Chairman May stated that the MOTION had failed. At 9 :20 p.m. , Chairman May informed Dr. Razzaq and Attorney Holmberg that it would appear that the matter of the Razzaq request for re-subdivision had been denied by the Planning Board. Attorney Holmberg thanked the Board for its time and stated that she would have to consider whether or not withdrawing the request which is to be before the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night, whereupon she and her clients departed. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would like to ask a question of the Chair and, having been granted permission to do so, noted that the Board had taken a negative vote resulting in the subdivision request being turned down, and asked the Chairman if he would consider taking an affirmative vote denying the proposal with some findings. Chairman May stated that he agreed with that. Chairman May stated that, first, he did not see a need for the subdivision. Mrs. Langhans commented that the Board had put through the Loehr house off Crest Lane with no road frontage, although it was a part of a larger area, and so, in keeping with that train of thought, if it meets all the legal requirements -- size and so on -- she felt the Board should at least okay it. Town Attorney Barney suggested that the Board might be willing to consider findings such as -- (1) the access roadway, or driveway, will not provide adequate access for emergency vehicles; (2) the way the lot is laid out is not readily susceptible to the building of a house that would meet normal side yards and setbacks; (3) the siting of a third house between a barn and a Church is undue and unnecessary density; (4) from an aesthetic standpoint, it does not seem to fit in with the character of the neighborhood; (5) an inappropriate precedent might occur which could affect other R15 lots in the Town with depths more than the minimum; (6) the two lots requested for resubdivision into three lots were part of the Blatchley Subdivision recently reviewed by the Planning Board. MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. James Baker: RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the request of Muhammad and Khurshid Razzaq for the re-subdivision of two lots , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-58-39. 11 and 6-58-2-39. 12 , located at 119 Honness Lane, into three lots, as shown on Survey Map entitled "Survey Map Showing Proposed Subdivision of Lands of Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq, [Lots #1 , 2, and 3] , [Tax Map Parcels 58-2-39 . 11 , 39.121 , Honness Lane, Town of Planning Board 24 April 15, 1986 Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" , dated February 28, 1986 , prepared by T.G. Miller Associates P.C. , signed and sealed by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.L.S. , and on Attachment to Survey Map entitled "Proposed Plot Plan for Muhammad & Khurshid Razzaq -- Lot #3 , undated, both before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at Public Hearing this date, April 15 , 1986 , said Planning Board find and hereby does find: 1 . that the access roadway, or driveway, will not provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, 2. that the way the lot is laid out is not readily susceptible to the building of a house that would meet normal side yards and setbacks, 3 . that the siting of a third house between a barn and a Church will cause undue and unnecessary density, 4. that, from an aesthetic standpoint, it does not seem to fit with the character of the neighborhood, 5 . that an inappropriate precedent might occur which could affect other R15 lots in the Town having lot depths in excess of the minimum, 6 . that there is no need for such resubdivision, it being that the two lots requested for resubdivision into three lots were part of the Blatchley Subdivision recently reviewed and approved by the Planning Board; AND, FURTHER RESOLVED, that, based on the foregoing Findings, said Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the Razzaq resubdivision request. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Klein, Baker, Schultz. Nay - Langhans. Abstain - Mazza. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the Razzaq subdivision duly closed at 9:30 p.m. DISCUSSION OF FIVE MILE DRIVE ZONING STUDY The Board members each had before him/her a copy of the "Preliminary Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Rezoning of Lands in the Area of Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, New York" , dated April 11, 1986 , as prepared by Susan C. Beeners, Town Planner, comprised of 16 pages of text, Appendices A, B, and C, and 5 maps. Ms. Beeners reported that the Town Board is proposing to amend Planning Board 25 April 15, 1986 the Zoning Ordinance by rezoning some 160 acres of land lying within 1 ,500 feet of Five Mile Drive, the project area being shown on Map #1 , and the full description of the land being considered being shown on Maps #2 and #3. Ms. Beeners stated that the land is presently zoned for a variety of purposes -- multiple residence, R9 high density residential, R15 medium density residential, R30 low density residential, light industrial, and heavy industrial. Ms. Beeners commented that the rezoning will substantially change the possible future character of this area by eliminating all light and heavy industrial zoning and most of the R9 zoning, however, it is proposed to expand the existing multiple residence district to include one adjacent property which contains a multi-unit dwelling. Ms. Beeners explained that on the east side of Five Mile Drive north of Coy Glen Creek, all property which can be served by existing public utilities is proposed to be zoned R15 , but, all property on the west side of Five Mile Drive north of the Coy Clen intersection currently zoned R9 and served by public utilities will remain R9 . Ms. Beeners stated that all remaining property with the exception of the multiple residence district, as expanded, is proposed for rezoning at R30 . Ms. Beeners pointed out that all presently legal land uses will be permitted to continue although the rezoning might make them non-conforming. Ms. Beeners commented that there were a few corrections to the maps in the GEIS before the Board and a few things that did not get in there that she wanted to mention. Ms. Beeners affixed four maps to the bulletin board and referred to them as she spoke. Ms. Beeners spoke of and pointed out the R9 parcels that can be served by public utilities, adding that these R9 designations are proposed for elimination and are shown in orange. Ms. Beeners also pointed out the proposal for the elimination of a good amount of light industrial and industrial with those areas proposed as R30 low density. Ms. Beeners reiterated that around 160 acres of land is affected. Ms. Beeners pointed out the one exception mentioned which is the slight expansion of the existing multiple residence zone to include a parcel right across the street from that existing multiple residence zone where there is a five-unit building and also to expand the zone south of Fidler Road -- south , to make some corrections as to what was originally established and to include some residences on the south side, in other words, to consolidate and correct some areas and uses . Ms. Beeners spoke of the Land Use portion of the Statement, commenting that she had done a "windshield survey" and had utilized information given to her by the Building Inspector, Mr. Cartee, also. Ms. Beeners noted that the land in the project area is used for residential, industrial, commercial, open space and public purposes, and agricultural -- as shown on Map #5. Ms. Beeners stated that at this time, single-family, low-density development is the predominant land use with 20 dwelling units in the project area, adding that several of the single family parcels contain pastures or croplands. Ms. Beeners commented that outside of the multiple residence district where there are three three-family dwellings and one single-family dwelling, there are three two-family and one five-unit dwellings. Ms. Beeners stated that, as she had mentioned, since the five-unit Planning Board 26 April 15, 1986 dwelling is located directly across from the existing multiple residence district, it is proposed that this district be expanded to incorporate this dwelling. Ms. Beeners also noted that a considerable amount of land is public use/tax exempt; most of the land zoned light industrial is vacant; the land in the industrial district is vacant -- except for an active agricultural field east of Cayuga Inlet near Buttermilk Falls Road. At this juncture, Mr. Fabbroni commented that "those three-families" [indicating on the map] should only be two families, adding that if they are for more than two-families , they are not in compliance. Ms. Beeners offered that she had assumed they were three-families because there were three front doors. Mr. Fabbroni stated that when he inspected them, they were two-families. Ms. Beeners suggested that the one five-unit dwelling across the street looks like it should definitely be included in the proposed multiple residence district, if we want consolidation there. Referring to the land use map, Ms. Beeners noted that the orange circles indicate three light industrial uses only that are active. Ms. Beeners noted the Mancini land on Route 13 and stated that it is out of the scope of this project. Ms. Beeners suggested that, if the Boards were to go with this kind of rezoning where industrial land is eliminated, it should be considered having the staff study other sites for industrial use. Speaking to Page 13 of the Statement, Ms. Beeners commented that, if one looks at the industrial uses permitted under the zoning ordinance, and which would be the ones eliminated, one could consider them somewhat less than modern, adding that this aspect had been spoken to in VII, Mitigation Measures, on Page 15. Ms. Beeners stated that, as she had stated at the beginning, there are some things which should be in the statement, one of which is traffic volumes , and another is a topo map which, although listed in the contents, is not there. Ms. Beeners stated that she also wanted to see what the existing vegetation is. Ms. Beeners stated that she had done studies there for the Parks and Open Space Plan Update in 1984 which was approved by the Town Board in concept and which identified a potential park site adjacent to the proposed Cayuga Trail. Ms. Beeners spoke briefly about easements for that proposed recreational trail which would be developed jointly with the Town and the City and also about the alienation proceedings with the City with respect to that proposed park site, proposed for acquisition by the City as part of a parkland substitution proposal. Mrs. Langhans inquired if the Town gets many inquiries as to light industrial proposals . Mr. Fabbroni responded that we get a few, however, the price of land is so high, it never blossoms. Mr. Fabbroni suggested that if this much industrial land were to be removed from the zoning map, the Town ought to take a look at where it might zone other lands, adding that it could very well be in that same area -- along Route 13 . Planning Board 27 April 15 , 1986 Ms. Beeners displayed the presently existing Zoning Map for the Town, pointing out the industrial zones including Therm and NCR. Chairman May suggested that not only should we be doing a locations study, we should also reconsider our definition of light industry and heavy industry. Town Attorney Barney inquired of Ms. Beeners what her timing on this proposal might be, with Ms. Beeners responding that she was trying to observe all of the SEQR timeframes and mesh those with the Town Board schedule. Ms. Beeners commented that what you see here is fairly complete and, so, the final draft could be ready for the May 6th Planning Board meeting at which time, considering our discussions tonight, it would be appropriate to have a public hearing on it and then consider a recommendation on the rezoning to the Town Board, and also, recommend that the Town Board be the lead agency on it. Ms. Beeners spoke briefly about the involved agencies with respect to this rezoning, mentioning, among others, the County Planning Department and the City of Ithaca, as a courtesy, adding that there will be a number who will have a 30-day comment period. Ms. Beeners stated that by May 12th she could see the Town Board reviewing the draft and setting the date for a public hearing -- June 9th, when, she believed, we would have had our 30-day lead agency comment period. Ms. Beeners allowed as how, then, she has questions about a negative declaration determination -- possibly, July 7th. Chairman May stated to Ms. Beeners that she had done a very nice job on this project, adding that the Statement was very well done. The Board members concurred. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman May declared the April 15, 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. To: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board XA/W`��. From: The undersigned residents of 178 Seven Mile Drive and vicinity W. . Re: Opposition to the proposed Rezoning of the lands of Paul A. Jacobs from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-5 (Mobile Home Park District), located at 136-146 Seven 'Wile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 6-33-2-2 and a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-2-1. Paul A. Jacobs, owner/developer. AND FURTHER, condiseration of Subdivision Approval for a two-lot Subdivision of the lands of Paul A. Jacobs, 146 Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6--33-2-1, Paul A. Jacobs, owner/subdivider. Date: Presented at the Public Hearings held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on "play 6, 1986. It is the understanding of the undersigned that the proposed change will have the effect of adding between thirty (30) and forty (40) new mobile homes to College View Park. This (at an average of 2.5 people per mobile home) will add between 75 and 100 additional people, in a high density situation, to the street. Further, given the absence of public transportation, this could add as many as sixty (60) to eighty (80) additional cars, regularly using the street, as well as many additional cars driven by visitors. The undersigned strenuously oppose the aforementioned Rezoning on the following grounds: 1. Seven Mile Drive was not built to handle this kind of auto traffic. If the Park is approached from the Bostwick side, drivers experience a sharp and dangerous curve which has already been the site of numerous accidents. If approached from Rt. 13, the entry onto that road is hindered by the absence of a traffic light, making entry both difficult and time consuming. Further, Seven Mile Drive lacks the appropriate "shoulders" in many places along the road necessary to handle increased traffic. 2. Seven Mile Drive is a rural street. Heavy farm equipment routinely uses it. Horseback riders routinely use it. Parents have not, to date, had any undue concerns regarding the safety of their children on it. Given the inappropriate nature of the road to handle significantly increased traffic, safety concerns would arise for all of the aforementioned current users. 3. People who bought homes on Seven Mile Drive and made (or are making) improvements to those homes, did so on the clear understanding that they were in an R-30 District, with the value that such a District has. A change to an R-5 District would result in an immediate, minimum drop in value of between ten percent (106) to fifteen (156) and possibly more, as based on real estate industry averages, thereby adversly effecting the investment of "working people", unable to absorb such a loss. 4. This area is not served by public water. Many residents experience water problems, particularly in the form of slow flowing wells. A sudden increase in population density could adversely affect the water tables and exacerbate an already problematic water situation. . 5111 EXHIBIT 20 SA/7 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven [4Iile Drive (cont'd.) 5. Because of the lack of public water, many residents already have concerns regarding fire protection. An increase in population, particularly in a high density enviroment, would further add to this problem. S. Regarding the current status of College View Park: A. This Park is "grandfathered" under current Zoning. It fails to meet Zoning regulations even under current R-5 standards, yet alone R-30 standards. The undersigned question the adviseability of granting a right to expand such a "non-conforming" property. B. This Park has already had significant water, sewer and drainage problems. Residents were advised by the Health Department to boil their water in 1984 and again in 1985. Once again, expansion of this Park can only increase these already well established and serious problems. 7. The undersigned question whether in granting the variance for College View Park, the Board can reasonably fail to grant such a variance for other such development. The large amount of open farm land on the street opens the way to what would amount to a total redefinition of the area. The Board is now faced with the problem of the deciding whether to retain the basic single family home orientation of the street, or turn it into a series of mobile home parks. In conclusion: 1. Given the greater awareness today of the delicate ecological balance maintained by nature and the obvious threats posed to this area by the increased water consumption and traffic congestion caused by a sudden increase in population density, it is demanded by the undersigned that if the Planning Board is inclined to grant this variance, it should do so only after a full EPA environmental impact study is performed. 2. The undersigned further demand that the Town Board express its willingness, formally and in writing, to provide Seven Mile Drive with public water and sewers, in the event that the requested variance is granted and anticipated problems ensue. The Board should further indicate its committment to improving the road to accomodate the increased traffic problems following the approval of the requested variance. EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (cont'd.) 1. ..F�C LfL�_J Signature Address -------------------- Print Print Name Date 2. Signature Address ------------- Print Name Date 3. Signature Address ------------------- Print Name J Date 4. -f ---------y �----- -- - - -�--------- -----'----------------- ------------- 'Signature ------------- Signature Address --------F--- --- -------- 5 -- - - ------------ Prirr Name Date EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (eont'd.) 6. Jla' Signature Address v 4.:.,--------------------- Print Name Date 7. --------- 4 _---------- Signature Address ------------- ---__---�/-�� `�----------------- r Print Name Date All7 _ �------------------------ Signature Address Vinti Name Date 9. Signature Address V----cillif ------- ---- -1- - ----------------------- P4t Name Date EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (cont'd.) 10. 7 f /� - -±------------- ---------- Signature Address � d S------------ �- = l ---------------------- Print Name Date I1. Signature Address { � r_ �& ------------------------------------� r cf- - �'+- -==�----�----'------------------- Print Name Date 12. - �. -- --------------- Signature Address -------------- Print Name Date 13. JL---J-, --------------------- Signature Address 1 ------ -------- --- ----------------- Print Name - Date EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (cont'd.) 14. � _ r Signature Address �L-(--------------------- Print Name Date 15. -------------- r1 i J) )Y'\C7 Signature Address ., kc—————————— __ ----------/,��------------------------- Print Name Date 16. Signature Address Print Name Date 17. ----Y C A. �/ of --------------- << �I -__-1 Signature Address --------t------------------------------ ------------------------------------ Print Name Date EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (cont'd.) d4 Signature Address -- =------=---- ------------(-i------`-' ------------- 1--1 - ------------ Print Name Date mac. z � ._------- ----------------- -_-_--- ---_-_----------� Signature Address ----------------------------- Print Name Date Signa we Address =-'------------ -----��y----_ �1 •t- --�,_/ - �,ly 4, Print Name Date eZ ISD LC Ic 511- EXHIBIT 2 /��� 4� �� kz 16 7 I IA 17 Kf Le jp .17 I f oj EXHIBIT 2 II 1 L f -71 Ceak I Lr lf� AL Au k , P. ._ EXHIBIT 2 0 r Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (eont'd.) -- --------------------_ ------------ ------ / Signature Address -- yllA ------`--6,-: ----------- ------------ ���� ---- ------ - ------------ Print Name Date 2-A ------------- Signature Address 1 - ---- - ------------- ------=�f a�------------------- Print Name - Date 3. Signature Address ---------------- ------------ -------------------- Print Name Date 4. ----- Jlstll- YJ_�✓_�+r------------ ----I-� Signature Address ---1------- ---------- _ -------------- Print Name Date EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (cont'd.) 6. --------------- Signature - Address ---- ------------------------------ Print Name Date -- 7. --------------- Si ure Address _��• , a ern . ��a,� s—------ ---- 3 -� ----------- Print Name Date 8. Signature Address Print Name ---------------- Date 9. Signa ure Address Jf4- ------------------ Print Name Date EXHIBIT 2 Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Seven Mile Drive (cont'd.) 12 ------------ �w _�r_-`--- --------- -� 5ignature Address ---------------------------------- -6-1- k6------------------- Print Name Date lI. Signature Address ---: b4?---- O YYI-l ; rt S Oki ----------------- IJ-��� Print Name Date 12. -�__---- --------- - ------- Signature Address ---_--- ---------------- Print Name Date 13. ----- ------------------------- -------------- Signa ture Address ------------ ------------------------------------ Print Name Date EXHIBIT 2 College View Mobile Home Park was purchased in December 1980 at a tax sale held by the County. At the time of purchase the Mobile Home Park had been condemned for five (5) years . Since the pur- chase the following imnrovments have been made: 1981 Steel septic tanks (500 gallons) in lots #19, 20, 2.3 , and 24 were replaced with concrete tanks (1000 qallons) . Complete replacement of all electrical wireinq in lots# 1 through 16 . 1982 Removed 4X4 posts at each lot and installed all tele- phone lines underground. 1983 Complete replacement of all electrical wirein.v in lots# 19 ,20, and 22. Removed all mail boxes from Seven Mile Drive and instal- led new mail box system in the park area. 1984 Complete replacement of all electrical wireinq in lots# 9 and 10. Steel septic tanks (500 gallons) in lots #9 and 10 were replaced with concrete tanks (1000 gallons) . 1985 Installation of a new water pump and chlorinator in the original well. 1986 Installation of back-up water system (new pump and water pressure tank) . Replace College View Park sign on Seven Mile Drive. Replace night-lights with centrally located mercury vapor lights . General up keep and replacement of several older homes with newer ones. EXHIBIT 3