Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-05-20 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MAY 20 , 1986 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 20 , 1986, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Virginia Langhans, Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov, James Baker, David Klein, John C. Barney (Town Attorney) , Lawrence P. Fabbroni (Town Engineer) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner) , Laura A. Predmore (Temporary Recording Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Town Supervisor Noel Desch, Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger, Town Councilwoman Gloria C. Howell, Town Attorney Richard Ruswick, Dierk Terlouw, Constance E. Cook, Anna H. Riederer, Isabella Spencer, Betty Turco, Adolph Turco, Norbert Schickel, Esq. , Lawrence Hull, Daniel Aneshansky, David Gries, Robert Kenerson, Virginia Iacovelli , Paul Iacovelli , Mr. & Mrs. George Benjamin, Kathy Eastman, Dirk Galbraith, Esq. , Al Becker, Wesley E. McDermott, Esq. , Philip Proujansky, Fenwick T. Faulkner, Paul Hartman, Mark Tomlinson, John E. Majeroni, Lucia Armstrong, Marie Mello, Douglas Armstrong, Stewart D. Knowlton, James N. Cahill, Franklin F. Butler, Ralph Bacon, Cameron Hosmer, Larry Apgar, Gary Thurston. Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 21 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 May 12, 1986 and May 15 , 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 each of the applicants and/or agent, as appropriate, and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, on May 13 , 1986. Chairman May read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairman May announced that the meeting would be adjourned at 9 :30 p.m. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM MAY 6 , 1986) : 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) . Planning Board 2 May 20 , 1986 Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7: 21 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. The following document was before the Board: "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 , revised April 18 and May 12, 1986 . Ms. Susan Beeners, Town Planner, appeared before the Board and appended four maps from the preliminary draft generic environmental impact statement to the bulletin board and indicated that the purpose of this Public Hearing was for the public to be heard and for the Planning Board to make a recommendation as to the environmental significance of this proposed rezoning, and then for them to make a recommendation on the rezoning to the Town Board. The Town Board would then hold hearings for further consideration and would then consider the final proposal. The existing zoning map shows what existing zones are in the 160+ acres that we are proposing to rezone. It is probably fairly clear from the back of the room, that there is Industrial land which actually happens to be in portions of the flood plain (indicating where located on "Proposed Rezoning Map" ) . There is Light Industrial land backlots of the lands zoned R9 which parallel Five Mile Drive. There are also some lands zoned R15 and some zoned Multiple Residence in this area. What is being proposed, is that the lands north of Coy Glen Creek to the center of Cayuga Inlet be rezoned to R15 , with the exception of a small piece of property to the North of the Creek and to the east of the Inlet which would be retained as a Light Industrial District (as per a comment from the City) . Most of the other lands in the area would be zoned R30 with the exception of a small parcel which would be rezoned to multiple residence. In preparing the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impace Statement for this proposal, one of the things that was done was a survey of the area's natural features , such as wetlands and the 100-year flood plain, which are shown (indicating on the Natural Features Map) . There are a lot of wetlands in the southern portion of the area. A windshield survey was conducted to identify what the predominant land uses were, mainly single family and two-family dwellings, and a lot of vacant land (as shaded) . There are few commercial and light industrial uses which do exist in this area, in contrast with the large amount of industrially-zoned land. By rezoning the lands as shown, things would be brought more into a realistic perspective as to just what the capabilities for extending water and sewer really are. That is why the R15 zone corresponds to the area where extension of public sewer and water is most feasible. South of the Coy Glen Creek line, it is not seen as being a financially or physically feasible area to extend sewer and water. However, if it did come up that it seemed to be a reasonable thing to do --- to extend water and sewer either south along Five Mile Drive or, perhaps, to bring some kind of water service from the Buttermilk Falls area north along Five Mile Drive, then additional lands might be considered for R15 rezoning. Ms. Beeners asked if there were any questions . Planning Board 3 May 20 , 1986 Mrs . Langhans asked, why does the City want us to keep part of the Light Industrial zone? Ms. Beeners replied, because there really is no access to it from any place in the Town, as it is on the east side of Cayuga Inlet. A large portion of it is owned by Conrail and a good portion of it is encumbered by DEC' s easement for flood control. However, it was the feeling of the City that, since it does adjoin industrially-zoned land in the City, it would be appropriate to keep it as such. It really would not be feasible for residential development and there may be some kind of industrial use that could be made of it. Mrs . Langhans commented, but they have it down as a heavy industrial rather than a light industrial.. Ms . Beeners replied, that is a correction that I should make from heavy to light industrial. Town Supervisor Noel Desch, in the audience, asked, how many acres are light industrial? Ms. Beeners replied, about 20 at the most. Town Supervisor Desch asked, including the easement land? Ms. Beeners replied, yes. Chairman May asked, does anyone from the public have any questions or comments? Mr. Norbert Schickel, 494 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and asked where the industrial land was that was referred to -- on the Town's side or on the City' s side? Mr. Fabbroni replied, it is east of the Inlet and north of the flood control structure. It is a little piece of land bordered by the Inlet, the railroad track, the City of Ithaca line and the flood control structure. Mr. Schickel clarified, so it is essentially on the Town' s side. Chairman May stated, it is in the Town but next to City lands on the other side of the Inlet. Ms. Beeners explained, it is hard to read and it is probably actually more like six acres. it would be the land that is east of the Flood Control Channel to the east boundary of the railroad right-of-way. It is a little piece that I assume was severed off at the point when the flood control provisions were made. Mr. Schickel commented, basically, I am in agreement with the proposed rezoning. I have one area which I am not sure what the language means, and if I could get clarification, I may be in total agreement. Referring to page 16 , Appendix A of the Preliminary Draft Planning Board 4 May 20, 1985 Generic Environmental Impact Statement, there is an asterisk next to the description of the land that is owned by Mr. Hull, and it has a paragraph at the bottom, if somebody could give me an interpretation of that. ["* While it is currently under discussion as to whether the actual zoning of the eastern portion of this property is R15 or Light Industrial, the existing commercial/light industrial use of the property would be a nonconforming use under the proposed rezoning. All presently legal land uses would be permitted to continue should the proposed rezoning render them non-conforming. " ] Mr. Fabbroni stated, I would like the Town Attorney to speak to that. Town Attorney Barney, explained, there is a piece of property, as you know, that is presently being operated as something other than residential use. If this were rezoned to residential use, the existing use of it probably would not be permitted, because it would be a non-conforming use. Mr. Schickel asked, what does the "probably" depend on? Town Attorney Barney replied, I think we are getting into an area which depends on what the Court opts to do here. The probabilities are that an argument would be made that would be successful, and if the determination is made that it would be unlikely to be successful then it would be probable that the use would be permitted to continue as is present. Mr. Schickel commented, going through that paragraph, one question is, it says it is currently under discussion. I think it would be more accurate to say "currently under litigation" because there is, in fact, a lawsuit over that particular parcel and, in fact, a temporary restraining order. I think "discussion" does not accurately reflect the status of it. Another question relates to the "eastern portion" -- does that imply that it is not the entire area of the property and, if so, what portion is it? Town Attorney Barney stated, this property was purportedly rezoned to R15 a number of years ago, but not the entire property. We are talking about the portion that was purportedly rezoned. But you are right, we are going into litigation. A claim is being made that the rezoning was not done procedurally correctly. If that claim is sustained, it would revert back to what it was originally. Mr. Fabbroni added, that which is clearly the portion of the property that is bordered by the R9 presently and the flood channel. Mr. Schickel stated, the point that I would make is that in the resolution in 1975 , when that was rezoned, it says that it was the portion to the west of the channel. I think there is no question that it is the entire portion. Mr. Fabbroni clarified, east of the R9 zone and west of the flood channel. We will clarify that. Planning Board 5 May 20, 1986 Mr. Schickel stated, the last sentence has, "All presently legal land uses" . Is what you are saying that the question of "legal" is in litigation? Town Attorney Barney replied, yes. Mr. Schickel stated, there is no implication at present that it is legal independent of the Court, because on the surface, it is illegal. Town Attorney Barney stated, given that it is in Court, there is no indication that it is legal or not legal. Mr. Schickel stated, I have a few other points concerning this. As far as I can see, I think the whole area should be rezoned as you have proposed. I think that this Board should not be taking into account the issue of the lawsuit. I think that this rezoning issue is something independent of that. The worst that could happen in the lawsuit would be if we get what is somewhat nebulous right here. The concern that I have is that there be some settlement of the lawsuit without it actually being decided by the Court. I am totally opposed to there being a settlement because the worst settlement we could get in Court is that it continue in its present form. I do not want to see that happen. In terms of the litigation, there are a number of points. They mention that the rezoning was invalid because it was not properly advertised. Town Attorney Barney interjected, I really feel that this is not the time and place where these matters should be addressed. The Planning Board has nothing to do with the litigation. Mr. Schickel stated, the reason why I am raising the question is that Connie Cook spoke with some people in the Planning Department. She got the impression and conveyed it to me that, basically, there was an agreement worked out already that it would be settled. Chairman May commented, if there has been such an assumption, it is news to me. Mr. Schickel stated , I am in agreement with that. If this paragraph is interpreted the way Mr. Barney has stated, then I am in agreement. Mrs. Constance E. Cook, 209 Coy Glen Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she had received a Notice of the hearing because her property was part of the area affected. Most of the neighbors had not received notices. My concern, as it always has been, is in the proper development of the entire west end. It is coming along so beautifully and I hope it continues as it has been coming. I very much support and I applaud all of the effort that has gone into this rezoning proposal. I think it is the right direction to go and I hope it happens. In the footnote, I pointed out, when I telephoned, an ambiguity. Some of the owners in our area are concerned over the legality of some of their own uses. It is clear in the footnote that Planning Board 6 May 20, 1986 if it was legal, it stays legal. The preceding sentence contains the ambiguity. The word non-conforming, in my opinion, may legalize an illegal use. I see no reason why any board should preempt what the court is trying to determine. I do support this rezoning, if this wording is changed. Town Attorney Barney stated, everyone can see that it is a non-conforming use. Mrs . Cook asked, what if it said, existing lemic al non--conforming uses? Town Attorney Barney stated, if it would make you happier. You really have to look to the draftsperson of this document to change that. Mrs . Cook stated, we want to make sure that the Board does not intend to convert an illegal use into a legal use. Town Attorney Barney commented, all this Board is trying to determine is whether to recommend to the Town Board that a negative declaration of environmental significance can be made, and whether to recommend that the land be rezoned. Chairman May asked Ms. Beeners if she wished to alter this. Ms. Beeners stated that the intention was to remain as neutral and uninvolved as possible with the court case. The language that is shown is a result of a telephone consultation with the Town Attorney. Town Attorney Barney suggested adding legal or non-legal use. Mr. Schickel suggested that the term "discussion" should be changed to litigation. Chairman May commented that, to this Board, it is "discussion" . Ms. Beeners agreed to adding under discussion "and litigation" . Mr. Fabbroni stated, we should say after "eastern portion" -- "between the current R9 zone and the Flood Control Channel of this property" . Mr. Dierk Terlouw, 603 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that he hoped that the Board would not only listen to but would be influenced by the homeowners. The original zoning of this area had a purpose. How many changes should we allow? I am against this change; I am not exactly sure how it would affect my own personal uses. I think we could control the zoning just as well if we would enforce what was written. If you do make this change, I have lived on my property for 24 years, I have maintained up to ten horses on my property, I will continue to do that. Therefore, I will be a non-conforming user. Planning Board 7 May 20, 1986 Mrs. Anna Riederer, 496 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that she sympathized with Mr. Terlouw, but that there is an area that is being operated illegally and nothing is being done about it. Chairman May stated, I do not believe that statement is true. Mrs. Riederer continued, I like this proposal; I am 100% for it; I think it can only improve the area. Mr. Ralph Bacon, 704 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and asked, what is the reason for the R number change? Ms. Beeners explained, the R9 generally means a 9 ,000 sq. ft. lot, and the R30 means a 30 ,000 sq. ft. lot. It means a change from the highest density R9 to the lowest density R30 . Mr. Bacon continued, there are a couple of things that bother me. Not in the light industrial in the back but in the changing of lot sizes. I ask that it be changed to all residential. Most people own back to the old railroad right-of-way and have their homes in the front, they certainly do not want a factory behind them. In the changing of the R rating, I could not split my lot. I think the R range should stay as it is. Chairman May commented, with the R30 , out of 30 acres you could still have a number of lots to subdivide. Mr. Fabbroni stated, if you had public utilities, it would be a minor matter to get R15 zoning at that point. In all honesty, R9 zoning has outlived its purpose. It provides a higher density, but in these areas where there are no public utilities available, all of the public health regulations have really done it in. Attorney Dirk Galbraith, Counsel for Lawrence Hull, spoke from the floor and stated, Mr. Hull is the owner of the piece of property currently under litigation. Frankly, whatever is in the footnote is not seen as an admission of the Town. Mr. Hull has a couple of concerns with the rezoning. The larger property owners are the ones most affected by the rezoning. Mr. Hull feels that R15 zoning would deny him the use of his property. R15 zoning would require residential development of the property which is back from the road. Although there is public sewer along the road, it would be a problem to bring it to the back of the property. The same would be true of public water. Secondly, although Mr. Hull ' s property is not in a flood plain, it is very close to one. I suspect a developer would be reluctant to subdivide in that area. I am afraid that, if you rezone the area to R15 , you are telling Mr. Hull, you cannot use your property for anything. I do not think that is fair to Mr. Hull. I would suggest that for Mr. Hull ' s property, the zoning classification be left as it is. There will be filed with the Town Board a petition signed by 10 owners of this area, whose combined ownership is about 58 acres of land or 1/3 of the total. A good number of people in this area do not feel that this re-zoning is necessary or desirable. Planning Board 8 May 20, 1986 Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 :00 p.m. Mr. Fabbroni stated, that based on Mr. Galbraith ' s statements, the lands of Mr. Hull to be rezoned have no access to the road. They are completely closed off by Coy Glen Creek and the Flood Channel. No part of the land is in the flood plain. There would be relatively little problem in serving that property with water and sewer. Many, many properties would be more extensively rezoned than the properties that Dierk mentioned. Chairman May stated that we have been through this a number of times with relatively minor changes at this point from the last time it was looked at. Susan, do you intend to make the changes as requested by the City? Ms. Beeners replied, yes, and also the changes agreed upon tonight. MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the proposed rezoning of lands along Five Mile Drive from the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca line to the Elmira Road (NYS Route 13/34/96) , from Residence District R9, Light Industrial District, and Industrial District, to Residence Districts R15 , R30 , and Multiple, at a Public Hearing held on May 20 , 1986, (as adjourned from May 6, 1986) , and as presented and described in "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 , revised April 18 , May 12 , and May 20, 1986, prepared by the Town Engineering and Planning Department. 2 . The Town Planner has recommended that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made for the proposed rezoning. 3 . The Town of Ithaca Town Board is to be the Lead Agency in matters of rezoning pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 3 , 1980 . 4 . The Planning Board has determined the following: a. ) There is a need for the proposed rezoning, in order to provide for orderly development which is in keeping with existing residential neighborhoods and floodplain and wetland areas. b. ) The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. c. ) The proposed rezoning is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development in the Town, providing that the identification of land elsewhere in the Town which is suitable for modern industrial use and which might be Planning Board 9 May 20, 1986 rezoned for such use remain a priority objective of comprehensive planning efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that the Town Board make a negative declaration of environmental significance for the proposed rezoning, based on the aforementioned Preliminary Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and all other pertinent information. 2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the rezoning of lands as described in the aforementioned Preliminary Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement be effected. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Langhans , Mazza, Grigorov, Baker, Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed rezoning duly adjourned at 8 :12 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATELY ONE AND ONE--HALF GROSS ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, LOCATED AT 327 CODDINGTON ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-53-1-16 , INTO TWO PARCELS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18 ,800 NET SQUARE FEET AND 38,500 NET SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY. PAUL AND VIRGINIA IACOVELLI, OWNERS; ATTORNEY WESLEY E. McDERMOTT, AGENT. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :14 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published as noted above. Attorney Wesley McDermott appended a subdivision map to the bulletin board and explained that it was a map of the Iacovelli property which was to be subdivided. He also explained that the map was incorrect the very first time they were before the Board, however, it had since been revised. The legal non-conforming property presently contains two structures, one with three dwelling units, the other with one. They had appeared twice before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the six-foot width variance had been approved on April 16th, with this being the fourth appearance before the Planning Board. They were now asking for the Board' s consideration of the subdivision in accordance with the resolution of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Frank Butler, 332 Coddington Road, spoke from the floor and stated that his concern was that there had been several accidents in the area proposed for subdivision. And, by allowing another structure, this would allow for an increase in the potential danger Planning Board 10 May 20, 1986 already apparent. The road, going both north and south has poor visibility. Mr. Tim Faulkner, 334 Coddington Road, spoke from the floor and stated that the area is being populated more and more by families with children. The bus stop is right in front of the Iacovelli property, and that is a concern. Mrs . Kathy Eastman, 158 Nelson Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she brings her children to the Benjamin's house, on this property, to get the bus. She felt that this bus stop was safer than most. Mr. Philip Proujansky, 333 Coddington Road, spoke from the floor and stated that, as he understood it, the Board of Appeals recommended approval of this subdivision to the Planning Board with certain conditions which should be in the deed -- one of them being that the entrance should be as close to the northerly line of the property as possible. I also believe these restrictions are to be approved by Mr. Barney. What is the method for the Building Inspector to become aware of those restrictions? Mr. Fabbroni replied, there is no reason why the deed restrictions could not be put on the present property and just follow along with the abstract of title. Town Attorney Barney stated, I assume the mechanism would be included in the deed now. Attorney McDermott stated, that was an explicit condition of the Zoning Board. Mr. Proujansky asked, how would the Building Inspector address that prior to issuing a permit? Mr. Fabbroni explained, the County, in this case , would be responsible for the driveway permit. Our inspector would know immediately, any action this Board would take. It would be handled the same way Certificates of Compliance are, by an index. Mr. Proujansky stated, upon granting the subdivision, it is immediately implied that the subdivided lot has a right to access to the roadway, is that correct? Mr. Fabbroni replied, pretty much. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 :30 p.m. and stated that it would be brought back to the Board for further discussion. Ms. Beeners stated that on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, she would like to enter a correction on Part I, Question #10 . Rather than "no" , "yes" , it does require Tompkins County Driveways and Culverts permit as well as a reply from the Tompkins County Highway Department and the Tompkins County Planning Department. Those are Planning Board 11 May 20, 1986 corrections that I ask be made and accepted on the SEAF. Chairman May asked if Mr. Iacovelli accepted these modifications. Mr. Iacovelli agreed. Chairman May stated, let us take a look at the SEAF and any recommendations you may have. Mrs . Langhans asked, is there any possibility of limiting the house on the lot to a single family or to a two-family home? Chairman May stated sure, we can do that in the resolution. Mrs. Langhans stated, that would cut down on the driveway usage and the number of cars, in addressing the safety of the children at the school bus stop. Chairman May stated, it could be a mitigating action. Mr. Klein stated, on Part II of the assessment form, the answer on C2 may not be as stated, based on the comment. Based on some of the public comment, there may be an adverse affect on the neighborhood based on the use of the lot. Chairman May asked, what would you like to put in C2? I support the possibility of limiting the use of the second lot as a mitigating factor to reach the "no adverse impact" . Town Attorney Barney suggested, you might take the draft resolution and add, "conditional upon limiting the occupancy to a single family house. " Mr. Klein suggested, what about mentioning the mitigating measures? Town Attorney Barney replied, you have to indicate the nature of your concern. MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS: 1 . This project is a 2-lot subdivision of lands in an R15 residential district at 327 Coddington Road. This is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on May 20 , 1986. 2 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner. 3 . The Tompkins County Planning Department and the Tompkins County Highway Department are involved agencies pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law, Sections 239-k and 239-m, who have Planning Board 12 May 20 , 1986 been notified as to this recommendation. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project. 2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made, conditioned upon the approval of the aforementioned involved agencies, and conditional upon adopting measures to mitigate the increased density that would be inherent in the subdivision of the lots. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Langhans, Mazza, Grigorov, Baker, Klein. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Edward Mazza, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov. WHEREAS: 1. The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and made a determination of negative environmental significance on May 20 , 1986 , subject to certain conditions. 2 . The Zoning Board of Appeals, by Resolution at an Adjourned Public Hearing on April 16 , 1986 , (adjourned from March 19 , 1986) approved and granted an area variance of six feet from the 100-foot lot width requirement of Section 16 of Article IV of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the southerly portion of the subject property to be a subdivided lot, with conditions. 3 _ The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at Public Hearings on October 29, 1985 , November 19 , 1985 , February 4 , 1986 , and May 20, 1986. 4 . This action is the subdivision of an approximately one and one-half gross acre parcel of land, located at 327 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-53-1-16 , owned by Paul and Virginia Iacovelli, into two parcels containing approximately 18 ,800 net square feet and 38 ,500 net square feet, respectively. 5 . A survey map has been presented entitled "Survey Map, No. 327 Coddington Road, Showing Proposed Division 0 .5± Acre Total Lot, Lot 97 , Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, dated August 27 , 1985, revised December 9 , 1985, signed and sealed by Clarence W. Brashear, L.L.S. #38194. 6 . The Tompkins County Planning Department and the Tompkins County Planning Board 13 May 20, 1986 Highway Department have been notified as to this proposal pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law, Sections 238-k and 239-m. 7 . The 38 ,500 square foot lot presently has a three-family building unit, which is a nonconforming use, occupied by nine unrelated persons and an additional one-family building on it, making a total of four units and two buildings, also in nonconformance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements . B . Without limitations on use and occupancy of the 18 ,800 square foot lot, the intensity of use would cause an adverse effect on the environment. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED : 1. That the Planning Board would 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 the Paul and Virginia Iacovelli two-lot subdivision as shown on "Survey Map, No. 327 Coddington Road, Showing Proposed Division 0 .5± Acre Total Lot, Lot 97, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" , dated August 27 , 1985, revised December 9, 1985, signed and sealed by Clarence W. Brashear, L.L.S. #38194, upon the following conditions: 1. The approval of the Tompkins County Planning Department and the Tompkins County Highway Department pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law, Sections 238-k and 239-m. 2. That the driveway into the vacant lot be located as near to the north property line as is feasible, and that off--street parking for all vehicles be provided, with no parking space being located closer than 30 feet from the easterly edge of the highway pavement. 3. That the only building to be constructed and maintained on the 18 ,800 square foot lot be a single family dwelling with no more than one dwelling unit. 4 . That the Owners promptly prepare and execute a subdivision deed separately describing the resulting vacant building lot by metes and bounds according to the aforementioned Survey Map, with such deed to recite or refer therein to the conditions imposed by this Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals for this Subdivision, such deed to be submitted to the Town Attorney for his approval as to conformity with these requirements; and that such a deed be then recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk' s Office by the Town Attorney, at Planning Board 14 May 20, 1986 the expense of the Owners -- a copy of the recorded deed, with Liber and Page of recording noted thereon, to be filed in the Town Clerk' s Office in the file of this action. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Langhans, Mazza, Grigorov, Baker, Klein. Nay None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed Iacovelli subdivision duly closed at 9 :00 p.m. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR A PROPOSED TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS LOCATED BACKLOT OF 104 RIDGECREST ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-45-1-2 . 6 . GRACE CASCIOLI, OWNER: VINCENT FRANCIAMONE, AGENT. Chairman May stated that the request for the consideration of a Sketch Plan for a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Grace Cascioli had been withdrawn and rescheduled for consideration on June 3, 1986. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM APRIL 1 AND MAY 6 , 1986) -- CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED EXPANDED MOBILE HOME PARK (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. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THIS MATTER WILL NOT BE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AT THIS TIME. THE ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE FURTHER ADJOURNED TO TUESDAY JUNE 3 1986 . The following document was before the Board. "To: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: The undersigned residents of 178 Seven Mile Drive and vicinity Re: Opposition to the proposed Rezoning of the lands of Paul A. Jacobs from Residence District R30 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. Planning Board 15 May 20 , 1986 Date: Presented at the Public Hearings held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on May 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. It the Park is approached from the Bostwick side, drivers experience a sharp and dangerous curve which has already been the site of numerous accident. 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 (10%) to fifteen (15%) 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. 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 environment, would further add to this problem. 6. Regarding the current status of College View Park: A. This park is 'grandfathered' under current Zoning. It fails Planning Board 16 May 20, 1986 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. " [Note: The document before the Board had no attachments with respect to signatures. ] PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED SEVENTY-UNIT MOTEL TO BE LOCATED AT EAST HILL PLAZA, 1020 ELLIS HOLLOW RAOD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-62-2-13.2 . CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; SOUTHERN TIER MANAGEMENT, INC. , DEVELOPER; STEWART D. KNOWLTON, AGENT. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 9 : 06 p.m. Mr. Stewart Knowlton appended drawings and maps to the bulletin board, and introduced James N. Cahill, one of the two owners-operators of the proposed facility, Larry Apgar, who is the Architect from RSA Associates in Syracuse, and Gary Thurston, President of Haynar-Hoyt, General Contractors from Syracuse. Planning Board 17 May 20, 1986 Mr. Knowlton said, there are only 1.91 acres of the original Barnes ' farm (49 acres) now uncommitted. We are talking about a four-acre tract with, initially, the development of three acres. The owners of this land want to maintain as much of the open grass area as possible. According to the zoning requirement, we are required to have seventy parking spaces; we have planned for eighty. We have tried to address, in developing the project, all the zoning requirements. We have tried to work this project around both the existing and the ultimate entrance to the facilities. If you had 100% occupancy, you would possibly have seventy cars, which does not seem to be a potential problem. Mr. Cahill and a Mr. Cosentino own and operate the Hotel DeVille in Binghamton, New York, the Best Western University Inn in Canton, New York, and the former Holiday Inn in Scranton, Pennsylvania. This would be their fourth facility. I ask you to look favorably at this proposal. We have tried to create signage that would be acceptable. From Judd Falls Road to the Motel is approximately 900 feet. From Ellis Hollow Road to the Motel is approximately 350 feet. The way the building faces , north and south, it is very hard to position signage to be visible. We have cut a roof pocket to embed the sign. The sign is 6 ' high by 16' long, atop the underpass. The crest, for the traveler, is visible -- the wording is not. Mr. Apgar indicated on the site plan, and pointed out where the new motel structure would be. He indicated that the main entrance to the lobby would be beneath the covered canopy. We are planning on several plantings in the remaining "green grass areas". The lighting of the site would be by thirty-foot pole lamps with double heads. There would be four of these lamps, which would provide ample lighting in the parking areas. There are connecting walkways. There is a service entrance to the lobby and a possible snack bar area in the lower level of the main structure. The drainage would be taken care of as the motel would be constructed on a plateau and the parking lots would be pitched. The drainage pipes would be connected to the existing drain system. Mr. Knowlton pointed out, there is a stop sign and a speed bump on either side of the canopy where the main entrance passage is. Mr. Apgar continued, we have incorporated a retaining wall to maintain the grade. Mr. Fabbroni asked, do you have a plan to show site utilities, such as existing water and sewer mains? Mr. Knowlton replied, we have water, sewer, and gas. Anyone concerned with these utilities feels that the service is more than adequate to accommodate this proposed structure. Mr. Apgar, indicating the "Floor Plan" , explained the major interior of the motel structure. There are 30-foot long units and 26-foot long units, and every ten units, the plan is reversed to create a jog in the corridor. All the walls are block walls; in Planning Board 18 May 20, 1986 between the units are 8" concrete block walls. There will be seventy units. There will be brick and cedar on the exterior of the structure. We pocketed the roof sign so that the top of the sign would be no higher than the roof of the building. The roof slopes and earth-tone colors of the exterior would be comparable to the surrounding structures. Mrs . Raffensperger, 139 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and asked, what is the capacity of the Snack Bar? Mr. Knowlton replied, the Snack Bar would cover an area of 1, 400 square feet, so I would guess a twenty to twenty-two person occupancy. Mrs . Raffensperger asked, is there parking adjacent to it? Mr. Knowlton replied, no, the parking is incorporated into the original eighty spaces. Mr. Raffensperger asked, would the Snack Bar and the Exercise Room be open to the general public? Mr. Knowlton replied, the Snack Bar would be; the Exercise Room would probably be restricted to the motel guests. Mr. Mazza remarked, on one of these plans, it is noted, University Inn Expansion, what is that? Mr. Knowlton replied, we are now discussing what we call Phase I, but at a later date, you could possibly expand and add a 10-12 unit complex with added parking areas. Mr. Fabbroni stated, you have taken away the third major access to the Plaza. Is there anything you will offer in return for frustrating the access plan? Mr. Knowlton replied, we are concerned for the elderly in the housing project, and their safety. We have talked about placing a controlled crossing light near that access point. The need for this is only when Summerhill Lane is completed and opened. The owners have agreed, at that time, to contribute to the cost of that crossing light in the amount of $15 ,000 . The owners are not happy about giving that away, but are favorable to the idea to protect the elderly. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 :00 p.m. and read aloud for the record a letter which included a petition signed by sixteen people. "May 20 , 1986 To the Planning Board, Town of Ithaca: We are unable to attend the Public Hearing tonight, but request that this letter be read into the minutes as part of the public hearing about the construction of a motel in the vicinity of East Hill Planning Board 19 May 20, 1986 Plaza. In addition, we have enclosed a petition which we circulated around our immediate neighborhood. We are concerned about this project for several reasons: First, we question the necessity of another motel in Ithaca. Except for Homecoming, Graduation, and Parents' Weekends, we doubt that there is much demand for additional motel space in this area. Second, we question the appropriateness of a motel in a small neighborhood shopping center, as opposed to in a more developed area which would have more restaurants and other businesses available to serve the motel ' s population. The businesses in East Hill Plaza serve residents of the surrounding neighborhoods; a motel would not. Third, we are especially concerned that a motel would have an adverse impact on the growth and character of the surrounding community. We are afraid that the existence of a motel will be used as a justification for further commercial development, even commercial rezoning, of the land in this area. In addition, we see the construction of a motel being used as justification for completing Summerhill Road through to Rte. 366 and for construction of the Pine Tree Road extension, a matter about which there is a great deal of public opposition. Fourth, we believe that the traffic generated by such development would have a negative impact on the existing transportation system and a significant impact on public health and safety. Summerhill Road would apparently be the main access road for the motel. Increasing traffic on this road (and particularly out-of-town traffic) poses a considerable hazard to the elderly residents of the Ellis Hollow Road Apartments across the street. Finally, we believe that there has been insufficient information available to the public. As of mid--afternoon on Friday, May 16 , the Environmental Assessment Form had not been filed. There were no details available in Town Hall about exact location of the building and parking lot, signage, or other important details necessary for the public to respond to the proposal. We urge the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca to carefully consider these points in the discussion of the plan. In particular, due to the lack of sufficient information available to the public, we urge that no final approval be made at this time. Sincerely, (Sgd. ) Pamela J. Rosenberg (Sgd. ) Lawrence A. Rosenberg" PETITION attached, signed by 16 persons. "The undersigned residents of the Town of Ithaca, New York, are opposed to the construction of a motel in the vicinity of East Hill Planning Board 20 May 20 , 1986 Plaza. East Hill Plaza is a small shopping center which serves residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The existence of a motel in this location would not be beneficial to residents of the surrounding community. We believe that a motel would have an adverse impact on the growth and character of the surrounding community. In addition, we believe that the traffic generated by such development would have a negative impact on the existing transportation system and a significant impact on public health and safety. We urge the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca to deny Site Plan Approval for this construction. " MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans: RESOLVED, that the matter of consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed seventy-unit motel to be located at East Hill Plaza, be and hereby is adjourned to 8 :00 p.m. on June 3, 1986 . There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye -- May, Langhans, Mazza, Grigorov, Baker, Klein. Nay - None. Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed Site Plan Approval in the above-noted matter duly adjourned at 10:12 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF "SCHEMBRI-HOLLISTER ESTATES" , STAGE I -- THREE BUILDING LOTS, OPEN SPACE, AND REMAINING LANDS -- AT 118 COMPTON ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-26-2-4.2. ROBERT G. AND THERESA L. BERGGREN, OWNERS. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 10 :14 p.m. and announced that there was not enough time to hear this matter tonight. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov: RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing in the matter of consideration of Final Subdivision Approval of Stage I of "Schembri-Hollister Estates" be and hereby is adjourned to May 22, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. . There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Langhans, Mazza, Grigorov, Baker, Klein. Nay -- None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly adjourned to 7:00 p.m. , on Thursday, May 22 , 1986. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman May declared the May 20 , 1986 meeting of Planning Board 21 May 20, 1986 the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura A. Predmore, Temporary Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board.