Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-05-06 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk MAY 6, 1986 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 6 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Edward Mazza, James Baker, Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans, David Klein, John C. Barney, Esq. (Town Attorney) , Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E. (Town Engineer) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Town Councilman Robert Bartholf, Sandra Knewstub, Ronald B. Knewstub, George P. Dickman, Barbara Dickman, Millard Brink, Lucille Brink, Lawrence Hull, Nancy Phillips, Eleanor L. Sturgeon, George Sheldrake, Donald K. Josselyn, Nansen P. Josselyn, Patricia Dubin, David Dubin, Alan Wood, Jeff Coleman, Sabra M. Peterson, Robert R. Bland, Ralph E. Bacon, Peter Nickles, Paul A. Jacobs, Linda Jacobs, William F. Albern, Jonathan Albanese, Esq. , Corrine Bruno, Merritt E. "Ed" Hartz, Mark Tomlinson, Linda Loomis, Andrew D. Young, Carolyn M. Howden, Kathleen M. Naegeley, Charles E. Smith, Gladys Blatchley, Glenn Snyder, Dale Bartholomew, Barbara Bar'-holomew, Gertrude Armbruster, Heinz P. Riederer, Constance E. Cook, Philip M. White Jr. , William J. Mobbs , George R. Pfann Jr. , Esq. , John E. Majeroni, Thomas Niederkorn, Norbert Schickel, Daniel Aneshansky, Donna Mandell (WTKO News) , Ken Hughes (WHCU News) , Fred Yahn (The Ithaca Journal) . 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 28, 1986 and May 1 , 1986 , respectively, together with the Secretary' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the New York State Secretary of State, upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Administrator, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca, upon the Director of the Finger Lakes State Parks Commission, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the applicants and/or agents, as appropriate, on May 1 , 1986. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD IN RE THE McMINN COMMITTEE Chairman May stated that the Town Supervisor had requested that two Planning Board members serve on the ad hoc committee with Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger and Town Councilman Henry McPeak, two persons from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and with staff members John Barney, Lew Cartee, and Susan Beeners, to advise the Town Board Planning Board -2- May 6 , 1986 of any necessary zoning ordinance modifications which may be considered as a result of the recent "McMinn Decision" . Mrs. Langhans expressed her willingness to serve, as did Mr. Baker provided the meetings were scheduled so as not to conflict with his farming activities. Chairman May directed the Secretary to so advise the Supervisor. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM APRIL 1 , 1986) : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED EXPANDED MOBILE HOME PARR (COLLEGE VIEW PARK) AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT 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 MILE 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, CONSIDERATION 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. Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7:32 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Both Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs were present, as was their Consulting Engineer, William F. Albern, and their Attorney, Jonathan Albanese. Mr. Albern appeared before the Board and appended several large colored drawings to the bulletin board. Utilizing the drawings , Mr. Albern oriented the Board, and the Public, as to the location of the existing mobile home park, and described the proposed expansion to the west from 24 units to 58 units. Mr. Albern described the topography of the site, the location of streams, the existing drainage, and the wooded areas. Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the public. Mrs. Nancy Phillips, 167 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and noted that the proposal involved lots sizes of approximately 60 ' x 90 ' in an area where there are very large open spaces. Mrs. Phillips expressed her concern about an increase in traffic and speeding in an area where there is no public transportation and with vehicles speeding through the area. Mrs . Phillips urged the Board to deny the Jacob rezoning request. [Mrs. Phillips ' statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .] Mr. George Sheldrake, 174 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and presented a Petition in opposition to the proposed rezoning bearing the names of 48 persons. Mr. Sheldrake stated that the zoning presently in place should be maintained. [The Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 .1 Mr. David Dubin, 178 Seven Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that he was opposed to the rezoning, adding that there was no Planning Board ,3- May 6, 1986 hardship involved which is why the rezoning was being requested. Mr. Donald K. Josselyn, 152 Seven Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and asked if the Soil Conservation Service had been involved with the percolation tests. Chairman May observed that the Soil Conservation Service is not involved, however, the proposal is subject to Health Department approval. Mr. Albern stated that percolation tests were done and were positive in those areas that he indicated on the map. Mr. Albern also indicated a large area which is going to be tested for percolation. Mr. Sheldrake pointed out two streams coming together on a downhill slope and described the lowest point on the entire development area where, he stated, the sewer would leach out into those streams. Mr. Albern described the design of the sewerage system proposed for the development, noting that it is not a sandfilter system. Mr. Millard Brink, 706 Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and expressed his concern with respect to the Health Department' s consideration of approval of the proposal that did not have two acres of land for each house trailer. Mr. Brink stated that he could not comprehend there being 40 or 60 trailers without a sewage system. Chairman May asked Mr. Jacobs about some of the changes he had made at the Park. Mr. Jacobs described the replacement of several septic tanks with 1,000 gallon concrete tanks, the installation of a new water pump and chlorinator in the original well, and the installation of a new pump and water pressure tank as a back-up water system. Mr. Jacobs stated that he believed if one were to go up to the Health Department, no problem would be found. Mr. Brink noted that the property in question had changed hands four times since he has lived in the Valley, adding that it was also closed down, and also was once owned by the County. Mr. Brink stated that there is something wrong with this present location. Mr. Dubin spoke again and wanted the Board to get it straight that no one in the entire area is in favor of the Jacobs ' proposal. Mr. Dubin stated that the people are vociferously opposed, adding that the project cannot be done. Ms . Beeners stated that it should also be noted that some thirteen letters from residents in the existing park were received at the Town office supporting the development. Ms . Beeners noted that Mr. Jacobs also submitted a copy of the lease agreeement used, a history of the improvements to the Park since his purchase in December of 1980 , and a list of rules and regulations for the Park residents. Chairman May asked Mr. Albern to read aloud the "History of Recent Improvements" at the College View Mobile Home Park since 19Bl [attached hereto as Exhibit 31 . Mrs . Patricia Dubin, 178 Seven Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that improvements are all well and good but do not address the population increase resulting from the development proposed and the change from a quiet country area. Mrs. Dubin stated that before she bought her house seven years ago she called the Town and was Planning Board -4, May 6, 1986 assured that the park, although grandfathered, was prohibited from expanding and that was why she decided to move there. Mr. Sheldrake spoke again and stated that the improvements listed all come under the heading of maintenance rather than improvements. Mrs . Eleanor L. Sturgeon, 718 Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she has lived in the neighborhood almost as long as Mr. Brink. Mrs. Sturgeon expressed her deep concern with changing the beautiful green valley area with its beautiful gorges into a trailer park, with the safety of the children in the area, and with the additional traffic flying by headed for the Elmira Road. Mrs . Sturgeon stated that she wanted to see Mr. Sheldrake's kids enjoy the same kind of life that her children did and that he did. Mr. Jeff Coleman, 178 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he had just moved to Calkins Road last week. Mr. Coleman stated that, in buying his property, it was very evident that there is a water problem in the area, adding that his house has two wells. Mr. Coleman asked what steps had been taken to assure adequate water for the development and to assure that that water supply will not take away from the existing water table. Mr. Albern described a new well and 16,000 gallon tank as well as another existing well with a 12, 000 gallon tank. Mr. Albern stated that the well at 230 feet depth should not affect the present source. Mr. Dubin questioned how Mr. Albern knew this, with Mr. Albern responding that the system was tested by a well driller for 24 hours yielding 24,000 gallons. Mr. Dubin wondered when this was done, with Mr. Albern responding, around December 31st. Mr. Coleman wondered if it might be responsible to check it again in the summer when the water table is low. Mr. Fabbroni wondered what made Mr. Coleman feel that the water table would be affected. Mr. Coleman stated that he was not saying that it will; he was asking why it will not. Mr. Dubin stated that everyone in this area has water trouble. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that the water is coming from the original Lake valley bottom. Mr. Brink stated that he had to go 424 feet deep just last week. Mr. Fabbroni offered that it is quite common to have to go deep, however, it is quite uncommon to have a yield problem, and also, in this area it is quite common to have hard water. Mr. Sheldrake asked what there is to say that the water table will not be destroyed, adding that they have trouble and they abide by the current zoning as to lot size and also they are spread out. Mr. Fabbroni described the veins of water and how the valley is a gravel-filled valley, stating that it should be pretty uniform. Mr. Fabbroni stated that this is the first time that he, as Town Engineer, has heard about sporadic supply, adding that the supply is of concern to the Town too, and further adding that Mr. Jacobs ' engineer has stated that there were 24 ,000 gallons over 24 hours, which is a large amount of water. Mrs . Sturgeon spoke again and referred to a Health Department study and urged the Board to go to Supervisor Noel Desch who is aware of it, adding that the Health Department recommendation was that City water and sewer should be extended to this area, and further adding Planning Board ,5- May 6 , 1986 that it is obviously the opinion of the Health Department that they have a problem. Mr. Coleman stated that he did not think the Planning Board would want to give its role of planning to another body, adding that it is the Board' s responsibility to look into these things. Mr. Brink spoke again and asked why Mr. Jacobs himself does not want to live next to the Park and why he wants to sell out and move out. Mr. Brink expressed complaints he had with Mr. Jacobs ' children. Mr. Jacobs stated that he was not moving out. Mrs. Barbara Bartholomew, 171 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and pointed out that everybody feels that they will lose in this issue and only one person will benefit. Mrs. Bartholomew asked why the Planning Board did not simply say "No" , because everyone is against it. Chairman May commented that one of the things in this country is that property owners have a right to use their property, adding that the Jacobs have made a proposal and they have a right to a hearing. Mrs. Bartholomew stated that, of course , they have a right to a hearing, and asked why the opposition does not carry any weight. Mrs. Schultz stated that the people who live there and the people who may be going to live there have to be considered too. Mrs. Bartholomew thought that other people could live there in the future too if it were not a trailer park. Mr. Jacobs expressed his concern about people who find housing in a mobile home park. Mrs . Bartholomew pointed out that there are several other mobile home parks around. Mr. Jacobs noted that they are not in the Town of Ithaca. Mrs. Bartholomew stated that this is a low density area and the Board could look ahead and plan a very nice development, adding that there is an opportunity to make the land in question a very nice development rather than letting it deteriorate into a mobile home park. Chairman May stated that he did not think a mobile home park means deterioration. Mrs. Bartholomew stated that there would be one across the road, with Chairman May indicating that that was not likely. Mr. Sheldrake wondered what could stop it, with Chairman May describing another rezoning consideration process. Mrs. Bartholomew stated that all the people who live there and put all their efforts into maintaining their homes should have some voice in any changes. Mr. Sheldrake stated that anybody living in Mr. Jacobs ' park would send the letters in fear of his running them out. Town Attorney Barney asked Mr. Sheldrake if they signed one for him, with Mr. Sheldrake responding, no, and adding that they were afraid to. Town Attorney Barney stated that there is a zoning ordinance in the Town of Ithaca in which a mobile home park is not specifically provided for anywhere. Town Attorney Barney likened a proposal for a mobile home park to a landfill -- put it anywhere -- put it in Danby, Newfield, Enfield, anywhere -- but not in my neighborhood. Town Attorney Barney stated that the problem with that is -- it is illegal. Town Attorney Barney stated that we have to have the mechanism for providing a mobile home park, adding that one could be provided in another area, or one could be provided in this area where there is one. Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the neighbors do not own the land; Planning Board -E- May 6 , 1986 Mr. Jacobs owns it, adding that the Planning Board has to look at all aspects -- not just what Mr. Sheldrake, for example, wants and not just what Mr. Jacobs wants -- but what makes sense around the Town. Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the neighbors have another crack at it, were the proposal to be recommended by the Planning Board, at the Town Board level. Mr. Dubin spoke again and asked why he was not told about changes in zoning when he bought there. Town Attorney Barney offered that zoning does not change that quickly under any circumstances, and pointed out that no zoning ordinance is cast in concrete, adding that he did not believe anyone in planning said that would never change. Town Attorney Barney stated that the courts have said certain things with respect to exclusionary zoning which, essentially, is that you cannot exclude out any form of housing. Mr. Sheldrake spoke again and asked how this came out, adding that they were not notified. Town Attorney Barney, noting that several people had come, stated that that particular notice was not directed to Mr. Jacobs, being notice of an amendment that would allow an R-5 zone, adding that the Town is not in the business of mailing out notices to every citizen of the Town. Mr. Fabbroni, commenting that a number of questions have come up with regard to the sufficiency of the water system, asked if Mr. Albern could describe how it was being planned to deliver water to both the existing as well as the proposed park -- for example, what would be done in the case of a fire -- what amount of open space and amenities are being provided for with respect to the expansion that is proposed as well as the existing park -- what the extent of the total number of units will be and how does that relate to the R-5 zoning that is now in effect. Mr. Albern, utilizing the drawings on the bulletin board, stated that the present R-5 zoning requires ten per cent of the space to be recreational space, and noted that they have expanded the amount of recreational space so that the total area of open space, including the existing park which is more dense than the present zoning, now meets the new R-5 zoning. Indicating on the map, Mr. Albern stated that the open space is "up here" in "this glen" , with two additional recreation areas of approximately 100 feet by 200 feet "here" and "here" , and, for the time being "over here also" . Mr. Albern indicated on the map areas where there are dense trees. Again utilizing the map, Mr. Albern stated that water is planned from "this well" and a complete two-inch circulating line "from here" to "this area" , adding that the Health Department requires one-day storage -- 10 ,000 gallons. Mr. Albern pointed out an "extra" line running from a particular location and also the location of a fire hydrant. Mr. Albern commented that 10 ,000 gallons is not particularly good for a fire, but 10 ,000 is sure a lot better than none, and added that this was very unusual in that it is not normally done in an area where you do not have municipal water. Mr. Brink spoke from the floor and asked if Mr. Jacobs were going Planning Board --7- May 6 , 1986 to have motorbike trails so that Mr. Jacobs ' son will keep out of his yard. Mr. Mark Tomlinson, 224 Bostwick Road, spoke from the floor and stated that there is a major influx of four-wheelers and three-wheelers coming from the park in connection with moto-cross racing which they can trace the source to that place, adding that there will be more of this kind of thing. Mr. Tomlinson stated that it takes a lot of his time telling people not to bring their vehicles through there. Chairman May offered that that was really a law enforcement matter. Mr. Brink stated that he had the Sheriff out the day before yesterday regarding one of Mr. Jacobs ' two sons because he was riding through his [Brink's] alfalfa which stands about four feet high and cost him $200 . 00 , adding that Mr. Jacobs ' son does not go anywhere near his own trailer park, and further adding that the Sheriff said he could not do anything with children and he could not arrest the father for that. Chairman May reiterated that the Planning Board could not do anything with this law enforcement issue. Mr. Dubin spoke again and stated that he wished to make a point of order on what the Planning Board can and cannot do with respect to the increased density and all sorts of problems increased because of the density over which the Planning Board does have control. Mrs. Sturgeon spoke again and noted that the lot sizes are 60 feet by 90 feet and wondered how these people can have any benefit to living there because they are not big enough for a bike let alone riding a motor bike. Chairman May offered that a lot of people have survived on 60-foot by 90-foot lots. Mrs. Sturgeon stated that 60 feet by 90 feet is not going to give them space, adding that she really did not see what position the Board has and how it can, in all honesty, permit a change in zoning. Mrs . Sturgeon stated that the Board has to respect the voices of the people who are here and who are established as long-term residents, who have helped build up the neighborhood, and who put the Board in office. Mrs. Sturgeon asked again how the Board in good conscience could permit a change like this. Mr. Coleman spoke again and expressed his concern about possible future expansion, noting that Mr. Fabbroni had mentioned last time about breaking up the rezoning such that the upper part is not rezoned. Mr. Coleman stated that his concern was with the upper part which goes up to the next road which is Calkins Road. Mr. Albern stated that they are requesting rezoning to R-5 only from "this point" [indicating on the drawing] 120 feet to the west, with the final 1 , 135 feet to Calkins Road to remain R-30. Mr. Coleman pointed out that the Planning Board has some powers to put on restrictions. Mr. Fabbroni, commenting that anybody can ask for any rezoning, noted that with this presentation, or some other in another park, based on some decision of others, they have reached some separation. Mr. Coleman wondered why "this" , asking if it were a real distinction to say that only this part is being rezoned. Mr. Fabbroni replied that he thought so, and added that his concern last time was, if they got it all rezoned, they would only need site plan approval for any future expansion and not Planning Board -8-- May 6, 1986 have to go through a rezoning in addition. There appearing to be no further comments , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 29 p.m. and turned the matter over to the Board for discussion. Mr. Klein referred to the design for the septic systems, asking if there were so many gallons per day per square foot of trench, and if that were based on percolation tests that were taken or on County standards. Mr. Albern responded -- yes; yes; yes, adding that they were taken last year. Mr. Klein wondered if they were within a sand filter, with Mr. Albern responding, no, underground. Mr. Klein noted that on sites 31 , 41-43 , there appears to be an eight-foot drop, particularly on 41 , adding that the plan indicates placement at right angles to the contours, and asking if that were not a little difficult. Mr. Albern stated that there have to be some that way and asked that the Board refer to Sheet No . 2 . Mr. Klein, referring to the main road, asked what the slope is on the main entrance drive. Mr. Albern stated that it is 11 per cent. Mr. Klein wondered if that were not rather steep, with Mr. Albern responding, yes, under normal circumstances. Mr. Klein wondered if Mr. Albern could contour that, with Mr. Albern responding that it was practically impossible. Mr. Klein wondered if the road were to be hardbase. Mr. Albern offered that he would like to remind the Board that this is not to be a Town road; it will have bumps and speed limits of ten mph or even five mph. Mr. Klein stated that he would also note that the trailers are fairly close and referred to 26 and 28-31 which are potentially susceptible to a car skidding which would not have to go too far off the drive to demolish a trailer. Chairman May stated that one of the Board's concerns is getting a fire truck in there. Mr. Albern noted that this has been discussed with the Town, agreeing that the turnaround is not too great, and adding, however, it is a private road with limited speeds and bumps. Mr. Klein wondered if a fire truck had to get to a fire in the area of lots 57 , 58 , 65 , 55 , would that truck virtually have to back down that curve -- the entire 10 per cent slope. Mr. Albern stated that he did not think so and showed several turnarounds and pointed out a dogleg in "each of these" . Mr. Klein wondered if that were adequate, with Mr. Albern responding, adequate -- barely, adding that "he" is not going to make a U-turn. Town Attorney Barney wondered what the size was, with Mr. Albern responding, about 20 feet by 30 feet and some about 15 feet by 30 feet. Chairman May wondered if there were sufficient roads at numbers 35 and 47 or 32 and 33 to get Pumper No. 2 around "that corner" . Mr. Albern replied, "Oh, yes." Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would also think so. Mr. Klein wondered about units 26-35 , with Mr. Albern .indicating an existing stream and existing wood. Mr. Klein wondered how heavy the wood was, with Mr. Albern responding, quite heavy, adding that it is quite heavy in "here" [indicating] . Mr. Albern asked if the Board would notice also that units 34 , 35, 44, are not on the edge of the 30-foot buffer line --- they are north of the 30-foot buffer line because there is a swale and quite dense and there is also an old tree about 50 feet high. Referring to units 26 , 38, 30 , and 31 , Mr. Klein asked about the Planning Board --9- May 6 , 1986 plantings for these, with Mr. Albern responding that there will be less in there. Mr. Klein noted that the map indicates "scrub" , and asked if it could be landscaped. Mr. Albern stated that it could take grass. Mr. Klein wondered about a planting screen, with Mr. Albern asking if he meant a buffer from "this area" [indicating] , and replying that it would take additional landscaping. Mr. Albern stated that they are adding six to eight new maples and in "this area" [indicating] new evergreens, adding that if the Board would accept it, some additional plantings "in here" would be okay. Mr. Albern pointed out on the drawing that "this area" is not void of trees, adding that a few are 30 and 40 feet high, and indicating an area where it is dense. Mr. Klein referred to two of the four indicated recreation areas and commented on one marked "unbuildable area -- added to recreational area" , which he assumed was unbuildable because it is so steep. Mr. Klein stated that the plan does not really indicate the type of recreation areas that are proposed. Mr. Klein stated that he shared the concern that with additional trailers some sort of plan should be indicated. Mr. Albern offered that if the Board wanted a ball diamond in there, it is not on a hill. Mr. Klein wondered how good a baseball field is for a recreational area, with Mr. Albern responding, okay. Mr. Klein noted that at all times there are two-foot wide trenches, adding that three-foot wide are permissible, and further adding that there is more underground pipe that way, but you have better distribution. Chairman May asked Mr. Fabbroni if he were comfortable that a fire truck could get around there. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the radius of the road does not correspond to the radius of the vehicle, adding that he would assume that the maximum vehicle is one that can travers no less than a 75-foot radius. Mr. Fabbroni stated that you could inscribe a 75-foot radius in that area, adding that if he understood Mr. Albern correctly, in order to turn around it would take several manoeuvres, not just a one K-turn or U-turn. Chairman May stated that he would not want him to have to make a couple of passes to get up. Mr. Klein asked where the disposal areas are located, with Mr. Albern indicating one garbage area in the southwest corner. Mrs. Schultz wondered if each lot owner had his own contract or did the Park have a contract. Mr. Albern stated that the garbage people pick it up "here" [indicating] and the tenants being it to "here", noting again that they do not have a Town road, and adding that the garbage truck will not go into the Park. Mrs. Schultz wondered if he will not or he has not been asked to. Mr. Albern reiterated that it is not a Town road and is not built to the standards of a Town road. Mr. Klein suggested that, in order to promote sanitary conditions and not have trash cans sitting all over the place, the Park should have more than one area. Mrs. Langhans asked how frequently the garbage truck comes, with Mr. Albern responding, every other day, and adding that that is why they have a central pickup, and further adding that it makes it much neater. Mr. Albern indicated on the drawing the location of a new 6-foot high woven wood enclosure at the garbage area. Mr. Fabbroni asked what the configuration of the sewer system is Planning Board -10- May 6 , 1986 before it gets physically to the leach fields, and further asked Mr. Albern to describe for those present how that happens. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he also had a question on how Mr. Jacobs planned to create the buffer along Seven Mile Drive in the Old Park, asking if there was some thought to getting those trailers farther back from the road. Mr. Albern pointed out the note on the map which reads -- "Buffer to be created as homes are moved. " Mr. Albern commented that an old one has been moved and a brand new one going in tomorrow. It was noted that the trailer referred to was not "removed" but "moved" . Continuing, Mr. Albern indicated that the sewer is collected "right here" [indicating] , adding that, should municipal sewer ever come, it would be simple to hook up "here" . Mr. Albern pointed out that they are not using small septic systems "up here" which would make it difficult to get to muncipal sewer. Mr. Mazza stated that he would like to comment. Mr. Mazza stated that, generally, he guessed, as he looked at this, he was not necessarily opposed or in favor of a development there, but he was concerned about problems of the slope and the turnarounds that are created by this particular plan. Mr. Mazza stated that he thought it comes by trying to pack as many in in this area as possible. Mr. Mazza stated that it seemed to him in the interests of those who will be living there and any neighbors, making it less dense would alleviate some of the problems -- making better turnarounds -- less dense -- no home eight feet higher on one end than the other. Mr. Mazza stated that his concern was not with the mobile home park but with less than proposed. Mr. Albern pointed out that they have proposed less than the number permitted. Mr. Mazza agreed, adding, however, we have a lot that has problems. Mr. Mazza, commenting that if it were a flat piece of land with a different configuration, there could be a different density, stated that for this particular parcel of land the proposal packing too much in created some of the problem. Mr. Mazza suggested a redesign at lower density, commenting that that may be less attractive to Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Mazza stated that he thought Mr. Jacobs has been doing a good job with the existing Park, however, he could alleviate a lot of the problems with a different design of the area to eliminate some of the problems that have been discussed tonight. Mr. Albern stated that he would like to point out, first, that the unit would not be eight feet higher on one end than the other. Mr. Mazza stated that he, then, must be looking at a different plan, and indicated on the drawing a trailer four feet higher on one end. Mr. Albern offered that it could be considered, because it is not flat, that it has interest. Mr. Klein wondered if it would not be easier to put "this trailer" , obviously less in that particular area, at right angles and make it parallel. Mr. Albern stated that there would be a difficult grading situation if parallel. Mr. Klein offered that, taking what Mr. Mazza said a step farther, somehow it looks like maybe we should see some other options in terms of how this thing could be laid out more sympathetic to the land contours, maybe, as he looks at these trailers packed together with the green space being what is left over, at a slightly lower density and a layout that offers some amenities for the people that are going to live there. Planning Board -11- May 6 , 1986 Mr. Albern offered that the area per unit is quite large in this plan either to the Town zoning or surrounding mobile home parks, adding that he has worked on four of them. Chairman May suggested that the Board turn to the matter of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, noting that the Planning Board is making a recommendation to the Town Board which will act as the lead agency. Mrs. Schultz noted that there are no concrete pads indicated, with Mr. Jacobs responding, no, adding that there are access problems. Mrs. Schultz wondered what the Ordinance says about that, with Mrs. Langhans noting that the Ordinance does not say anything about that -- it talks about tie downs , anchors, skirting. Chairman May, noting that everybody has read the reviewer's recommendations, asked if there were any comments on any of those. No one spoke. Chairman May asked if Town Attorney Barney had anything he wished to say, with Town Attorney Barney responding, no. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz: WHEREAS: 1. This project is a proposal for rezoning of 18± acres from Residence District R-30 to Mobile Home Park District R-5, and for expansion within this acreage of an existing 2 . 9 acre mobile home park from 24 to 58 units. 2. Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 3-1980, this is a Type I action for which a Long Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at a Public Hearing on May 6 , 1986 . 3 . Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 3-1980 , the Town of Ithaca Town Board is the lead agency in the environmental review of matters of rezoning. 4 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner. 5 . There are no affected agencies which should be notified of this determination. The Tompkins County Health Department, which is an involved agency, is to be notified of this determination. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that, based on the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information, the Town Board make a negative declaration of environmental significance. By way of discussion, Mr. Klein asked, if the Town Planner has made a recommendation that we move some of the trailers in the existing park, would that make it 22. Ms. Beeners stated that she suggested that a 30-foot buffer be provided, as homes were moved, Planning Board -12- May 6 , 1986 along Seven Male Drive, but as far as a reduction of the existing number, she did not make any recommendations. Chairman May, commenting that as tight as it is, wondered if you took some out on the front, would it not change that. Chairman May offered that that was a good question in light of the Planner's recommendation #2 . Ms. Beeners stated that there was no timeframe on the moving of the trailers in that buffer, adding that, perhaps, that could be considered by the Board in any reduction or possible lowering of the number. Mr. Klein stated that in the Planner' s review, the other concern is for, obviously, this is a project that has an impact, and many times we have talked about mitigating features to offset some of the negatives. Mr. Klein stated that he was sort of unhappy with the site plan he was looking at and he was uncomfortable voting for a negative declaration when we are tied to a site plan. Mr. Klein stated that that is a reservation he had and he also thought, in terms of what could be a positive improvement, if we tried to tie some upgrade of the existing park to the expansion which would be of benefit to the people in the area. Mr. Klein stated that there was no way you could use the existing drives in the condition that they are to serve the expansion -- they are in such terrible shape. Mr. Albern stated that they will be repaved when the new road is put in. Mr. Klein noted that there is no indication that that will take place. Mr. Albern stated that that had been discussed and it had been omitted. Chairman May noted that it was not on the site plan. Mr. Albern indicated that there would be upgrading subject to the Board' s approval. Mr. Klein stated that with the two so closely linked he had reservations about what was before him. Mr. Albern stated that Mr. Jacobs will be developing the first part this year and when he builds "this" , "this" [indicating] will be upgraded. Mr. Jacobs stated that that was correct. Mr. Albern apologized for missing that. There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Schultz, May. Nay - Mazza, Baker, Langhans, Klein. The MOTION was declared to have been defeated. Mr. Mazza asked if it were necessary that there be a recommendation made to the Town Board on that issue, and wondered if the Town Board can move on the SEAR under this circumstance. Town Attorney Barney stated that they may. Chairman May noted that the Board has not made a positive or a negative declaration recommendation. Town Attorney Barney stated that that was correct. Chairman May asked what the appropriateness might be of asking the Planning Board for its site plan recommendation, or did the defeated resolution stop it. Town Attorney Barney responded, no, and added that the matter goes to the Town Board regardless, however, the Planning Board should give the Town Board the benefit of its recommendation or its failing to make a recommendation. Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the matter is really not site plan approval, it is a recommendation on rezoning. Mr. Fabbroni noted that the matter presently before the Board is only the first step of a long Planning Board May 6 , 1986 review of the project. Town Attorney Barney read aloud from the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 46 , Paragraph 2, as follows : " . . .The Planning Board shall then adopt a resolution recommending either approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the proposed plan. . . " Mr. Mazza stated that he was in favor of some modification, however, he did not know if he would be prepared to say what those modifications should be, it being somewhat out of his expertise, but he would like to see some based on the concerns raised. Mr. Mazza stated that he would like to see that some kind of new drawing be made unless those ideas could flow right now from the developer. Mr. Mazza stated that he was not opposed to the trailer park; he was opposed to this particular configuration and would be uncomfortable in recommending any rezoning based on it, but could be less uncomfortable with some reconfiguration. Speaking to Mr. Albern, Chairman May asked him what his feelings would be about taking this and looking at some different plans. Mr. Albern asked if the Board had any ideas and stated that he did not know, as he sat there, exactly what to do. Mr. Klein offered that something should be done with the 11% slope and the situation of the trailers. Mr. Albern noted the location of the 11% slope. Both Mr. Mazza and Mr. Klein pointed out that the developer is talking about 34 homes on that. Mr. Klein stated that the vehicle access for the fire trucks did concern him in that the extra units are that far away. Mr. Klein stated that he also thought that the central location for the trash was a problem, although it could be said that it may minimize garbage cans throughout the development, but he would suggest a specific box outside the door, covered because of racoons. Mr. Klein stated that he felt there have to be other locations. Mr. Klein stated that the roads have to be adequate to get the garbage trucks up into the site. Mr. Klein wondered whether the developer could rearrange the plan in such a way and make recreational areas more of a focus of the community rather than what is left over from the disposal field. Mr. Klein stated that that kind of bothered him. Mr. Jacobs stated that this was the seventh set of plans he has had, adding that he did not know what else he can do with it. Mrs . Schultz commented to Mr. Jacobs that he had bought a pretty ratty old trailer park --- like all of the old ones -- and the Town now has an opportunity to use its new trailer park ordinance to allow for "homes" -- "mobile homes" -- not just "trailers" . Mrs. Schultz stated that that was different in a lot of ways -- different in the way people look at "trailer parks" . Mrs. Schultz stated that the opportunity is there to make it less dense with more open space. Mrs. Schultz stated that she did not know what the financial constraints were for Mr. Jacobs, but she understood that every change costs dollars. Mr. Klein stated that he would like to see also some specific intent of what will be upgraded in the existing park. Mr. Klein stated that he went there five or six years ago and it was incredibly awful, but the recent park is different like night and day. Mr. Klein stated that there is a long way to go but there really has been improvement. Mr. Klein stated that in order for the expansion to go, Planning Board -14- May 6 , 1986 not only in an economic sense, the old park entrance to the new park unless upgraded in a meaningful way, the expansion will not matter. Mr. Klein suggested moving a couple of trailers along Seven Mile Drive as Ms. Beeners has indicated, fixing up the storage sheds, paving that area, as having to be all part of the site plan review. Chairman May commented that he had heard all very good points . Mr. Jacobs stated that he would do whatever it takes within reason, adding that he planted it and he upgrades that park all the time. Chairman May stated that there is no question that Mr. Jacobs has done an awful lot of work, adding that there is now a good opportunity to do more. Chairman May stated that he would like to suggest to Mr. Jacobs that he redraw the plan. Town Attorney Barney noted that, absent a request by Mr. Jacobs, the Board has to act within thirty days. Mr. Fabbroni suggested that it can be mutually agreed to present more information. Mr. Jacobs stated that he would like to make a request to add addtional information. Chairman May stated that he could grant that, adding that the Board can establish a new date as soon as Mr. Jacobs has that available. Mr. Mazza stated that he just felt somewhat bad, commenting that he has seen Mr. Jacobs more than any Town resident this past year and he felt bad about that. Mr. Mazza asked Mr. Albern how long it will take him to get that information, adding that he did not want to put Mr. Jacobs off any longer than necessary, if allowed. Mr. Albern stated that, as he understood it, the issues were the 11% slope, turnarounds, density. Mr. Albern stated that the 11% issue is practically impossible, as far as he knew, to handle, adding that he did not think that is too steep a drive. Mr. Mazza, commenting that he was not an engineer, asked if he had to go from up the hill, with Mr. Albern responding, parallel. Mr. Mazza commented on using the land to the maximum density and stated that the plan is trying to cram in everything. Mr. Mazza suggested alleviating that problem and playing around with the site to something less than maximum density. Mr. Albern stated, again, that this plan was not maximum and even less is being requested. Chairman May commented that he felt the issue is that there could be less because some sites are having problems, not just less to have less. Mr. Albern offered that by "turning" two sites could be lost, however, that would not solve the 11% grade problem. Mr. Mazza stated that that is why he suggested playing with it. Mr. Albern responded that he has played with it and proceeded to show how directly on the drawing. Mr. Fabbroni also showed an opportunity to take some of that [grade] off. Noting that there appeared to be no further discussion forthcoming, Chairman May asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that, upon the request of the applicant, the matter of the College View Park site plan approval and recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the rezoning thereof, together with the matter of the proposed two-lot subdivision, be and hereby are adjourned to 8 :00 p.m. , Tuesday, May 20, 1986 . There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board -15 May 6 , 1986 Aye - May Mazza, Baker, Schultz , Langhans, Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared discussion of the College View Park duly adjourned at 9 :30 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FIVE MILE DRIVE REZONING MATTER Chairman May announced that the Public Hearing scheduled for this meeting with respect to the Five Mile Drive rezoning will not take place tonight. Mr. Fabbroni noted that, with the adjournment that just occurred, there will be six items for the May 20th meeting, adding that also there are already four items for the June 3rd meeting. Chairman May suggested that the Board might consider a special meeting. Discussion followed. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the Public Hearing in the matter of the consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the rezoning of lands along Five Mile Drive from the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca line to the Elmira Road (NYS Route 34) , from Residence District R9 , Light Industrial District, and Industrial District, to Residence Districts R15 , R30 , and Multiple (Parcel No. 6-31-2-20) , be and hereby is adjourned until 7:00 p.m. , Tuesday, May 20, 1986 . There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May Mazza, Baker, Schultz, Langhans , Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT NO. III, LOCATED IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, ON DRYDEN ROAD, NYS ROUTE 366, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-63-1-8 .2, AND, CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE NECESSARY TO SUCH EXPANSION AS PROPOSED. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER/DEVELOPER, MS. SABRA PETERSON, AS AGENT. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 9 :30 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Ms. Sabra Peterson, the Project Manager, was present, as were Messrs. Bland and Hartz. Ms . Peterson appeared before the Board and stated that the Cornell University representatives were present to speak to the proposed expansion of Chilled Water Plant No . III. Ms. Peterson oriented the Board members as to the location of the plant, noting Planning Board -16- May 6 , 1986 that it is near Oxley Polo Arena on NYS Route 366 , nestled in a bank. Ms. Peterson appended a large map to the bulletin board, commenting that they did not have a topography map here. Ms. Peterson, utilizing the map, described the proposed expansion, noting the 60-foot expansions in two directions. Ms. Peterson stated that Cornell uses a central chilled water system and has three plants, of which this is one. Ms. Peterson described a growing need due to some new buildings and more high-tek and computer usage, and stated that they are now using peak load and this summer they will be on overload, so, they hope by next summer to be on line. Ms . Peterson distributed photographs of the area for the Board to review, noting the view from Route 366 , sliding east, and Plant No. III with its existing cooling tower. Ms. Peterson referred to the architect' s rendering and pointed out that existing cooling tower on the drawing, and indicated also the direction of the proposed expansion. Referring back to the photographs, Ms. Peterson pointed out that the oil tank can be seen in the background, from a different angle. Ms. Peterson indicated on the rendering that the "brick" shows the difference between the existing plant and the expansion.. Ms. Peterson described the building as steel-framed construction and noted that the new part will be steel-faced to match the existing structure. Ms . Peterson pointed out that there will be an addition of cooling tower units on the existing building. Ms. Peterson stated that she was open to any questions about the area or the proposed schedule. Ms. Peterson stated that the height of the building is not marked on the rendering, however, the above-grade elevation is 28 feet from grade and 60 feet from the top of the cooling towers to grade. Mrs. Langhans noted that there is one existing cooling tower, with Ms. Peterson agreeing, and stating that four are to be added. Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if anyone had any questions or comments. No one spoke. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9: 38 p.m. Mr. Klein, referring to the photographs, noted that looking from the west, a particular building does not show on this drawing. Ms. Peterson stated that the view as depicted in the rendering was not really a realistic view in that the building shown on the photo was in the way. Ms. Peterson stated that the view for the public from Route 366 would be as shown in another photograph. Ms. Peterson stated that there is not much of a view, adding that, with the trees, it is pretty secluded. Mrs . Schultz stated that the present building does not have those coolers shown, with Ms. Peterson replying that it has one. Chairman May commented that it is to be expanded with four, with Ms. Peterson responding, no, with one big chiller of 4 ,000 Tons, and adding that the one in there now is 1 ,500 Tons . Chairman May noted that the environmental review was done by the New York State Dormitory Authority, and stated that he assumed that is on file. Ms. Beeners stated that that was correct. Chairman May Planning Board -17- May 61 1986 asked if there were any further questions. There appearing to be none, Chairman May asked if anyone wished to offer a motion. MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: WHEREAS: 1. This project is the proposed expansion of the existing Cornell University Chilled Water Plant No. III in a Light Industrial District on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-63-1-8.2 . 2. The environmental review for this action has been completed by the State University of New York Dormitory Authority. 3 . Cornell University has provided the Planning Board with a "Key Plan" and with a conceptual elevation, "Proposed Expansion, Chilled Water Plant III, April, 1986" , describing the location and elevation of this structure. 4 . This structure is necessary for Cornell University to meet growing Campus needs for space cooling. 5 . Due to existing topography, vegetation, and adjacent structures, the proposed expansion will not adversely affect the existing and potential future character of the neighborhood. 6 . This project has been reviewed at a Planning Board Public Hearing on May 6, 1986. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the expansion of the Chilled Water Plant No. III 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, Mazza, Baker, Schultz, Langhans, Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the Cornell, University Chilled Water Plant No. III duly closed at 9:44 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE RE-SUBDIVISION OF LANDS, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS 131 HONNESS LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-39 .2 , SUCH SUBDIVISION BEING THE TRANSFER OF A SMALL PORTION OF SAID LOT TO TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-39 .1, KNOWN AS 137 HONNESS LANE. Planning Board -is- May 6 , 1986 GLADYS BLATCHLEY, OWNER/TRANSFEROR, GEORGE NICKLES , OWNER/TRANSFEREE; ATTORNEY GEORGE PFANN, AS AGENT FOR MRS . BLATCHLEY. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 9 :45 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mrs. Blatchley was present, as was her Attorney, George R. Pfann Jr. Attorney Pfann appeared before the Board and stated that Mrs. Blatchley lives on Honness Lane, her property having about 300 feet of frontage on Honness Lane, and to the immediate east of her lives Mr. George Nickles. Attorney Pfann stated that Mrs . Blatchley would like to convey to Mr. Nickles about 50 feet of that frontage to better lining up with some spruce trees . Mrs. Langhans wondered if she were correct in her understanding that the conveyance was just to line it up with the spruce trees, with Attorney Pfann responding, yes, that simple, adding that the area would be simply graded and seeded. Town Attorney Barney wondered how much frontage that would make for the Nickles ' property, with Attorney Pfann responding, 157. 44 feet, adding that they have 100 feet now. Mr. Fabbroni noted that the diagonal piece shown on the survey also sort of follows the old railroad right of way instead of half and half. Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if anyone wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 :48 p.m. and asked the Board to turn to the matter of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Chairman May noted that the Town Planner had recommended a negative declaration and described the proposal as "a minor subdivision conformant to all applicable Town regulations" . MOTION by Mr. Edward Mazza, seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans: WHEREAS: 1 . This project is a subdivision of lands in order to transfer a 0. 14 acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2. 39 .2, 131 Honness Lane, to Tax Parcel No. 6-58--2-39 .1 , 137 Honness Lane. This is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on May 6, 1986. 2 . A recommendation of a negative determination of environmental significance has been made by the Town Planner. 3 . There are no affected agencies which should be notified of this determination. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1 . That the Planning Board 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 Planning Board -19- May 6 , 1986 the environment and that a negative declaration of environmental significance be and hereby is made. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye -- May, Mazza, Baker, Schultz, Langhans, Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Edward Mazza, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS: 1. The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed Blatchley to Nickles subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance. 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at a Public Hearing on May 6, 1986. 3. A survey map dated April 2, 1986 , prepared by Richard L. MacDowell Jr. , L.S. , and additional certification of ownership have been submitted to the Planning Board. 4 . This action is the re-subdivision of a 30. 54 acre parcel, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-39 .2, presently known as 131 Honness Lane, in order to transfer a 0.14 acre portion of said parcel to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-39 .1 , known as 137 Honness Lane. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for this subdivision as presented and described on the aforementioned survey map and other documentation. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May, Mazza, Baker, Schultz, Langhans , Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the Blatchley/Nickles subdivision/transfer duly closed at 9 :50 p.m. Planning Board -20- May 6 , 1986 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 5-LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS LOCATED AT 1251-1253 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-24-3-3 .2 (FORMERLY THE ODD FELLOWS ' HOME, ALSO KNOWN AS CORNELL UNIVERSITY STATLER WEST) . CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; THOMAS NIEDERKORN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. Chairman May declared discussion of the above-noted matter duly opened at 9:51 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as posted and as noted above. Mr. Thomas Niederkorn was present, as was Mr. John Majeroni of the Cornell University Real Estate Department. Mr. Niederkorn appeared before the Board and appended a large map to the bulletin board showing the proposed five lots. Mr. Niederkorn stated that they are interested in the Board's comments and suggestions with respect to the proposed subdivision of about 118 acres known as "Statler West" , formerly the Odd Fellows' Home property, which stretches from Route 96 , the Trumansburg Road, on the west down to Route 89 , Taughannock Boulevard, through the NYSEG right of way with a small portion on Route 89 going over to the Lake with frontage on the Lake. Mr. Niederkorn pointed out on the map, the "new" Route 96, as it is being considered now, and which will take an alignment something like that depicted, running through proposed Parcel 4 . Mr. Niederkorn stated that the intent is to subdivide the land into five parcels, the major parcel, #4 , being approximately 104 acres, and which would contain the right of way of the new highway. Mr. Niederkorn pointed out on the map that there will be three parcels along Route 96 , Trumansburg Road -- a 10 .8 acre plot containing the major buildings; a 1. 8 acre parcel containing the old infirmary; and a 1 .5 acre parcel which is vacant. Mr. Niederkorn noted that Cornell is establishing a 60-foot right of way easement to provide access, adding that there is no intention of a road but the easement would be established and dedicated. Mr. Niederkorn stated that in order to use the driveways that are there at the present time, there will be a temporary easement for access across proposed Parcel 2 which would give access to the main building and to Parcel 2. Mr. Niederkorn pointed out that there is a discrepancy in the sketch plan and somewhere between the tax assessor or the survey, and the difference is with respect to proposed Parcel 5 on Route 89 which is shown as 9/10 of an acre split, or 1.1 acres and all on the east side of the road. Mr. Fabbroni commented that he understood Mr. Niederkown was talking as far as the Health Department is concerned, with Mr. Niederkorn responding, yes, and adding that he was also talking about frontage, noting that the zoning is split across the parcel. Mr. Niederkorn indicated on the map the R-30 area and the R-15 area to the south, and pointed out the proposed parcels complying with R-30 . Chairman May, commenting that it all looks fairly natural, stated that his only concern would be with the fire lane on the backlands with that one road. Chairman May asked Mr. Niederkorn if he expected Route 96 to be limited access, with Mr. Niederkorn responding, yes. Chairman May suggested that, therefore, there should be two accesses. Mr. Klein stated that that was right -- you could not get off Route 96. Mr. Fabbroni, commenting that it is such a big parcel, stated Planning Board -21- May 6 , 1986 that he wondered how they should speculate at this point in time. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that there is no easy access from Route 89 , adding that, somehow, just speculating, the Town felt the State was going to have to solve its problem. Chairman May was concerned about the backlands. Mr. Fabbroni reiterated that the State would have to deal with that somehow. Town Attorney Barney offered that we have that problem anyway. Continuing, Mr. Fabbroni stated, take Parcel 4 , if the State comes through and cuts it off, they will have to compensate or swale it up. Chairman May wanted to talk about access back up to Route 96. Town Councilman Robert Bartholf commented to Mr. Majeroni that Cornell was going to have an auction on this property, and asked if that had any bearing on what they are going to do. Mr. Majeroni responded that it has a hundred per cent bearing. Mr. Majeroni stated that it has been on the market for a year and a half and the auction is going to be a week from now. Mrs . Langhans inquired about the width of the space between Mr. Leo Davis ' property and the Church as an access. Mr. Majeroni indicated that it was not wade enough. Town Attorney Barney offered that it could be marginal. Town Attorney Barney mused that insofar as compliance with zoning in terms of setbacks, the plan probably does comply, but in terms of those buildings, he suggested that we do not know what we will have as they are empty now. Mr. Majeroni stated that there is about 99% compliance, but they could get back to the Town for a rezoning -- buy a bigger piece, say, for a nursing home, which is what it is set up for. Ms. Beeners pointed out the requirements for going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for such uses as nursing homes, club house, lodge, or medical clinic, adding that such may not necessarily be a rezoning. Councilman Bartholf wondered, with Route 96 there, if one could get in there. Mr. Niederkorn noted the limited access aspect and stated that you could come up from Route 89 . Mr. Fabbroni stated that, along those lines, why would Cornell keep that little piece of Parcel 5 above the highway. Mr. Niederkorn responded, only because of its size. Mr. Fabbroni suggested that, if it were for a size requirement, it would behoove Cornell to get a reading from the Zoning Board of Appeals, adding that they would not be interested in land above the highway but based on size of lots . Discussion followed with respect to who owns what -- NYSEG, Cornell. Town Attorney Barney reiterated the landlocked issue. Mr. Fabbroni indicated that that would be an issue only until the Route 96 taking, noting that the State would have to deal with that. Mr. Fabbroni stated that his main thrust, as staff looked at this, is that it is just so big in terms of access and his only comment is that Parcel 5 just ought to be on the east side of Route 89 and keep that little strip for the possibility of developing Parcel 4 some day. Mr. Niederkorn stated that they would like to come back in June Planning Board -22- May 6 , 1986 for preliminary and final approval. Mr. Niederkorn asked if he were hearing that the Board agreed that "this little part" should go to Parcel 4 . Chairman May suggested that it be made best for whoever wants to buy it. It was noted that Parcel 5 is in R-15. Messrs. Niederkorn and Majeroni thanked the Board for its time and consideration. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion., Chairman May declared the May 6 , 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 :10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. To: Members of Town of Ithaca Planning Board May 6, 1986 Theproposed development will put people on 60 x 90 lots in the middle of a neighborhood where everyone else has acres of open space. The rest of us can garden, farm, keep horses and livestock, ride RVs and so on. In fact, we came here to do these things on our own land. Our neighbors in the proposed development will be unable to do any of these things. Like the proposed development, we are off public transportation, public water and sewer, away from shopping and entertainment centers; we do not have easy access to our government offices or medical assistance, and the response of fire and policehelp is much slower than in an urban setting. We accept these disadvantggess as the price we pay for the rural setting we have chosen. The residents of the pnposed development, however, will have all these disadvantages, but they will have none of the compensating open spaces we enjoy. In short, the proposed development will create a mini-urban environment in a rural area. This miai.ng of radically different I densities, with the radically different needs that do with them, will lead to lthe kind of problem we try to avoid through the use of zoning and planning boards, Higher density,tor example, leads to more incidents of trespaas, but the neighborhood,being rural, is less able to cope with trespassing. Vulnrability to trespassing s is a rural characterLstic which is usually tolerable because everyone is equally vulnerable. Putting people in a crowded development next to other people's open Lands creates an obvious and human temptation to trespass--again, the kind of obvious, built-in conflict that we want planning boards to foresee and avoid. Higher density, for another example, leads to more litter, but country neightbor- hoods don't have street cleaners, nor do they have the XP population to support special groups to protect local stseams. and amenities. High-density developments need high-density service. These don't exist here now, and we don't wnat them. But the 2=mimtbt location of one such development here, whether mobile homes, duplexes, or single-family homes, with 60 x 90 lots, will create a need and pressure for these servcies and amenities and will I will result in a demand for more high-density development. Finally, The owners of the land in question can profitably develop it in accordance with R-30 zoning requirements; For all these reasons, we urge the Planning Board to turn this proposed development down. J EXHIBIT 1