Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-06-03 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JUNE 3 , 1986 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 3 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Carolyn Grigorov, Edward Mazza, Barbara Schultz, James Baker, David Klein, Virginia Langhans, John C. Barney, Esq. (Town Attorney) , Lawrence P. Fabbroni (Town Engineer) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner) , Laura Predmore, (Acting Recording Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Mark Tomlinson, Vincent Franciamone, Lucia Armstrong, George Sheldrake, Tracie Evans, Anthony Ingraham, Jim Knapp, Bill Petrillose , Anne Woodard, Alan Wood, Douglas Armstrong, Nancy Krook, John W. Yary [?] , Bill Hilker, Jim Hilker, Stewart D. Knowlton, Walter J. Wiggins, Esq. , Jerold Weisburd, Claudia Weisburd, Sanford Reuning, Larry Phillips, Joan Reuning, Helen Murison, Joe McConnell, Fred Yahn (Ithaca Journal) , Lillie Wilson (WHCU News) , Jim Gainey (WTKO News) , Debbie Munch (Q104 News) . 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 May 27, 1986 and May 29 , 1986, respectively, together with Susan C. Beeners' Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, and upon each of the applicants and/or agent, as appropriate, on May 28, 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. 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 declared the consideration of the above-noted matter duly opened at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Franciamone was present on behalf of Mrs. Cascioli. Mr. Franciamone appeared before the Board and explained that the sketch plan before the Board covers 15 ,000 square feet, which is a portion of the total 16 .74 acres . There definitely is excess of 15 ' access to this property. I would have to get a surveyor to have proof of that. The Town Planning Board has previously allowed three people in the area to have 15 ' access to the Planning Board -2- June 3 , 1986 back lots of their land. Chairman May commented that that may have been done in other cases, but that does not necessarily mean that it will be granted every time. Mr. Franciamone remarked, the precedent has been set. To require a 60 ' right of way, as stated in the assessment form, would be awfully expensive. In order to adhere to this requirement, Mrs. Cascioli would have to purchase the land, for which the owner is asking $5 ,000 per acre. The amount of land required would be about four acres, which comes to a total of about $20,000. This creates a hardship. Mr. Fabbroni asked, how did you calculate four acres? Mr. Franciamone replied, from the center line of Ridgecrest, westerly, to a point of 5001 , which is around four acres. Mr. Klein remarked, the 16 . 74 acres is the land behind all the frontage. Mr. Franciamone remarked, Larry says the entrance has to be 500 ' from the center line. The County says it has to be 1621 . Mr. Fabbroni remarked, the figure he is referring to that came out of our discussions, had to do with locating a road that would be parallel to Ridgecrest Road, and at a location which would enable the landowner to logically develop lots. In my opinion, with the present road conditions in mind, 500 ' is a good minimum from that point of view. Chairman May commented, 162 ' would not make any sense, that would put it right in the middle of a presently existing lot. Mr. Franciamone remarked, no, it would not. Mr. Fabbroni remarked, it would mean a very contorted route to get back where the road would make more sense. Mr. Franciamone added, it would have to be at an angle instead of going in straight. Mr. Klein asked, is the lot 45-1-3 occupied? Mr. Fabbroni replied, it has a house on it. Beyond making suggestions, we cannot develop the concept for these landowners. Mr. Franciamone remarked, what Mr. Fabbroni is suggesting would cause a hardship in either moving or demolishing the building on the corner. Mr. Fabbroni replied, you have misunderstood. Rather than having the 100 ' of frontage on Ridgecrest Road, a house in the same location would wind up with the frontage on East King Road. Chairman May remarked, the first comment here would seem to be that Planning Board -3- June 3 , 1986 it cannot be determined whether there is sufficient room to provide a 15 ' access drive between the existing driveway and utility pole. That is grounds for us, before we even start, to say that this does not belong before us. Mr. Franciamone remarked, there is about 22 ' there. Mr. Klein asked, if you were to get a variance to establish that lot, what would you do with the rest of the 16 acres? Mr. Franciamone remarked, there is room there for an entrance at 162 ' . Mr. Klein remarked, Mr. Fabbroni 's sketch for long-term development makes more sense. Mrs . Langhans remarked, you will have to have a road that the fire trucks can access. Mr. Franciamone remarked, that would only have to be 151 . Mrs. Langhans added, they would have to turn around someplace . Mr. Franciamone agreed, that would be presented with the proper plans anyway. Chairman May remarked, you will have to address the road in before we give this matter any further consideration. Mr. Fabbroni remarked, Mr. Erdman recognizes the need for access to the rear of his property. On the basis of that, there is some room for discussion between the two parties . They could, together, resolve the obstacles. Chairman May remarked, we would have to have a Survey Map to consider this matter formally. Mr. Klein remarked, in the mitigating measures , I would like to see a 60 ' right of way. Mr. Franciamone asked, just for one lot? Mr. Klein replied, yes. Mr. Baker and Mrs. Schultz agreed. Mr. Barney remarked, it is not conforming now. Mr. Klein remarked, the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant a variance to build two houses on one lot, without subdivision approval. Mr. Barney added, they would have to prove a hardship to have that variance granted. Planning Board -4- June 3 , 1986 Mr. Franciamone asked, you want a building location map in order to present this formally? Mr. Fabbroni remarked, the Board has given you their sentiment. Mr. Klein remarked, my sentiment is that you should have that 60 , right of way. Chairman May declared the matter of the Sketch Plan Review duly adjourned at 7:50 p.m. REVIEW TOWN BOARD MINOR REVISIONS TO GRANDVIEW SUBDIVISION CONTINGENCIES. Chairman May declared that he would not participate in any manner in any discussion of this matter due to possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Grigorov took over the Chair. Acting Chairman Grigorov declared the discussion in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Fabbroni explained that before the Board was the Resolution that was passed by this Board on March 4 , 1986 , which included twenty some stipulations with respect to this subdivision. The Town Board in their review and deliberations on the deed restrictions for this development desired some changes and John Barney and I came up with slight variances to the exact wording that you had. The Town Board wanted us to come back to you for reapproval or disapproval. There is one other item having to do with the issuance of permits as they relate to the State Highway Permit. In the Planning Board Resolution of March 4 , 1986 , under #7 , it says that site plan review by the Planning Board will be required for any change to the exterior of any dwelling. The thought occurred that someone who builds one of these duplexes could want to build a screened porch or something not involved in the original square footage. If you look at #4 , under "Restrictions On Two-Family Lots" , there are two things there. One would absolutely control the addition that would lengthen the building, by saying, "Any change which would increase the width of the building on the lot shall not be constructed unless the site plan is approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. " It goes on to say, "Any change in the exterior of any dwelling unit which would enlarge the square footage of the building on the lot by more than 25% shall not be constructed unless the site plan is approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. " The problem is, does this Board want to see every addition come back here for approval? Mrs. Langhans remarked, 25% is quite a bit. Mr. Barney remarked, we just picked that number, we can use whatever you want. Planning Board -5- June 3 , 1985 Mr. Fabbroni remarked, if the full coverage is 2 ,000 square feet, in a two-story dwelling, what we are saying is that, at 25% , you could add 500 square feet, which really is not that big. Mr. Barney added, these additions would have to be to the front or the back of these structures; you could not add to the length of the structure. The real questions is , at what level does this Board want to be involved on any additional construction there. The 25% could be less. Mr. Mazza remarked, you should clarify the wording to say either building coverage or total square footage. Mr. Fabbroni stated , you could say the footprint or building coverage on the lot. The next paragraph in #7 of the March 4th Planning Board Resolution, has to do with accessory structures being "permitted on all attached building lots subject to the yard requirements of the R15 district and with the permission of all owners within 200 ' of said building lot. All single-family detached dwelling units are permitted accessory structures subject to the regular requirements of the R15 district. " The wording for the two families would allow anyone to have a 200 square foot accessory building in their rear yard, rather than requiring them to go and poll the neighborhood. Did you mean, the land would be completely barren around the building? Mrs. Langhans remarked, they will all have garages. Mr. Fabbroni added, the garages are minimal for storage. They do not have basements. Mr. Klein remarked, a 200 square foot building is big enough for a one-car garage. Mr. Fabbroni remarked, that number is not set, it could be a 100 square foot building limit. Mr. Klein remarked, 200 square feet is too much . Mr. Fabbroni continued, #14 in the March 4th Resolution says that, "No building permits shall be issued until the design for the entrance of the project on State Route 79 has been approved by the Regional Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation. " The interpretation of that is one problem. The Regional Engineer, as I recall when I wrote that, was the local person, on Third Street Extension. It has been interpreted to mean the Syracuse Office. The time difference between Third Street Extension and Syracuse approving it, can be a difference of four or five months. My latest word is that the permit has been issued even in Syracuse. Planning Board -6- June 3 , 1986 I have added the wording, "This may be relaxed, to the satisfaction of the Town Board, to allow permits to be issued at certain improvement milestones of the project. " Rather than come back to you with each and every provision, I have worded it generally. Acting Chairman Grigorov suggested, maybe it should say, at the discretion of the Town Board. Mr. Barney remarked, we should say, this requirement may be modified or waived at the discretion of the Town Board with respect to one or more building permits. #3 on the "Restrictions On Two-Family Lots" and #3 on the "Restrictions On Single-Family Lots" -- "No plantings will be allowed on said premises whose height will exceed 25 feet before March 5, 2006. " Mr. Fabbroni stated, you wanted no trees higher than 25 feet in 20 years. As you can see we changed the restrictions back to read as you specified [#9 , Planning Board Resolution of March 4 , 1986] . The final change under the "Restrictions On Two-Family Lots" , would have to do with the occupancy. In the March 4th Resolution Appendix "A" , strictly speaking, the duplexes would have been allowed at three unrelated people in a unit. We have specified two unrelated people in #10 of the Restrictions. Some would see that as a positive change, some would see it as a negative change. The one-family restrictions would remain as always, three unrelated people. That is the extent of the changes which I wouldd ask you to please endorse, in terms of the Town Board's approval, the covenants and modification of your resolution of approval March 4 , 1986 . Oh, yes, we have changed the allowable size of any accessory building from 200 square feet to 120 square feet [#5 of the two-family lot restrictions] . Mr. Barney added, and deleted the requirement of permission of all owners within 200 feet. Mr. Fabbroni added, on the 25% additional requirement, we will clear up the wording to say ground coverage of the building on the lot. MOTION by Mr. David Klein to amend the adopted resolution, dated March 4 , 1986 as discussed. Seconded by Mr. James Baker. There being no further discussion, the Acting Chair called for a vote. AYE - Grigorov, Mazza , Schultz , Baker, Klein, Langhans. NAY - None. ABSTAIN - May. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Acting Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Grandview Planning Board -7-- June 3 , 1986 Subdivision Restrictions duly closed at 8 :17 p.m. , and returned the Chair to Mr. May. SIGN REVIEW: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED SIGN FOR LA TOURELLE, ITHACA--DANBY ROAD (ROUTE 96B) . WALTER J. AND JOYCE Y. WIGGINS, OWNERS. Mr. Wiggins appeared before the Board and explained, (indicating on the sketch which was handed out) they will be placing two signs -- one to relocate the L'Auberge sign from its present location to place the La Tourelle sign there. The sign will be a free-form sculpture consisting of a stucco wall. The words "La Tourelle - A Country Inn" will appear on both sides of the wall. The size and shape of the sign is comparable to the one located at the Ithaca College entranceway. The difficulty of the sign as restricted by the ordinance, is that the speed limit on that highway is 55 mph and in order to see the sign at a distance which would enable the driver to slow down, safely, and enter the single driveway, would require letters of this magnitude. The letters are about 1 ' high, the overall backdrop is 15-161 . The letters would be brass. The Inn is set back, 500-600 ' from the highway. Chairman May asked Ms. Beeners what the maximum allowable sign dimensions were. Ms. Beeners replied, I have calculated that the total size of this sign is 78 square feet. The total square footage allowed for Residential Districts is 4 square feet; for Multiple Residence Districts, it is 24 square feet; for Business and industrial Districts it is 50 square feet. Considering the kinds of uses in this area, it would be best to consider this a Business District. Chairman May remarked, the Sign Review Board is only permitted the discretion of up to 25%. So, the sign exceeds any action that this Board could take. Ms. Beeners asked Mr. Wiggins if there were any consideration given for a consolidated sign for the two businesses? Mr. Wiggins replied, yes, we can change the sign in any manner appropriate. It is possible to reduce the background. But that would make it look more like a sign, than a piece of sculpture, which was intended. Mrs . Langhans asked, what is the height of this proposed sign? Mr. Wiggins replied, it is 519" . Mr. Fabbroni asked, where does the Board stand, if the whole structure is scaled back to 62.5 square feet? Chairman May remarked, then that would give us legal jurisdiction. Mr. Wiggins remarked, that is perfectly acceptable. Mr. Mazza remarked, your other option is to leave the size as is, Planning Board -B, June 3 , 1986 and go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and seek their approval. Mr. Wiggins agreed to reduce the sign to 62.5 square feet. MOTION by Mr. Edward Mazza to approve the sign, at a size of 62 .5 total square feet. Seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - May, Grigorov, Mazza, Schultz , Baker, Klein, Langhans . NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of Sign Review of the La Tourelle sign duly closed at 8:36 p.m. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM MAY 20, 1986) : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED SEVENTY-UNIT MOTEL TO BE LOCATED AT EAST HILL PLAZA, 1020 ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD, 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 Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :38 p.m. Mr. Knowlton appeared before the Board and explained that he had tried to respond to some of the suggestions that were offered by the Board at the last meeting. The prime thing that we addressed first is the utility connection (being an 8" water main) . As Larry had said , he wanted to see more fire protection on the site. Another question raised had to do with the entrance ending nowhere. We have also offered to contribute $15 ,000 toward the cost of a traffic light, at such time that Summerhill Lane is completed. We have now made a road connection which extends the parking area behind the Plaza and connects to the Plaza parking lot. Secondly, about the water main, we have provided for an 8" ductile iron line and a new hydrant. There is one existing hydrant. The firefighters suggested that one hydrant within a 500 ' radius is acceptable. Chairman May asked, did you give any consideration to provisions for looping the water line? Mr. Fabbroni remarked, we are now within reach of doing that. MOTION by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mrs. Virginia Langhans: WHEREAS: 1. This project is a proposal for the construction of a seventy-unit motel with a snack bar/luncheonette restaurant to be located at East Planning Board -9- June 3 , 1986 Hill Plaza, 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-2-13.2 , in a Business C Zone. 2 . This is a Type I action for which a Long Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on June 3, 1986. 3. The Tompkins County Planning Department and the Tompkins County Health Department are involved agencies to which the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project has been recommended, pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 3 - 1980, and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR 617. 6 (d) . 4 . A recommendation of a negative determination of environmental significance has been made by the Town Planner. NOW, 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, conditional upon the agreement as to this Lead Agency designation by the aforementioned involved agencies pursuant to New York State Environmental Conservation Law 6 NYCRR 617.6 (d) . 2 . That the project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - May, Grigorov, Mazza, Schultz , Baker, Klein, Langhans. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mrs. Barbara Schultz : WHEREAS: 1. This project is a proposal for the construction of a seventy-unit motel with a snack bar/luncheonette restaurant to be located at East Hill Plaza, 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-2--13.2 , in a Business C Zone. 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Long Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed project at a Public Hearing on June 3 , 1986 and has made a determination of negative environmental significance, as conditioned upon the agreement among involved agencies on the Lead Agency designation of the Planning Board for this project, as per New York State Environmental Conservation Law 6 NYCRR 617.6 (d) . 3 . The Planning Board on June 3 , 1986 has also reviewed the following maps: "University Inn, Ithaca, New York" , Robertson, Strong, Apgar, Planning Board -10- June 3 , 1986 Architects, P.C. , Sheet A--1, "Site Plan" dated May 15 , 1986 ; Sheet A-2, "Floor Plan" dated May 16 , 1986; Sheet A-3 , "Elevations" , dated May 30 , 1986 ; Sheet A-4 , "Typical Rooms - Section" , dated May 16, 1986 . 4 . The Tompkins County Planning Department has been notified of this project pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-m. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the aforementioned project, subject to the following terms and conditions : 1. That the Lead Agency designation of the Planning Board for this project be confirmed by all involved agencies, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law 6 NYCRR 617 . 6 (d) . 2 . That the Tompkins County Planning Department recommend approval of the project pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-m. 3 . That the bumper strips and stop signs as proposed for location in the portico are installed immediately upon completion of the proposed facility. 4 . That the developer enter into an agreement satisfactory to the Town Attorney, Town Engineer, and Town Supervisor to provide that the developer will provide two stop signs for installation at the pedestrian crossing of Summerhill Lane, and further provided that, in the event of the potential future extension of Summerhill Lane to N.Y.S. Route 366 , the developer or his assigns contribute up to $15 ,000.00 (in 1986 dollars) to the cost of the installation of a pedestrian-actuated signal or other traffic control device at the intersection of Summerhill Lane with the proposed southern entrance to the proposed motel facility. 5. That the developer or land owner enter into an agreement satisfactory to the Town Attorney, Town Engineer, and Town Supervisor, that the owner or developer provide, upon request of the Town, an easement for extension of the water line from the proposed hydrant at the northeast corner of the project east to Summerhill Lane. 6 . That no action is being taken with respect to, and no rights being granted for, the future expansion of the motel as shown on the site plan. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - May, Grigorov, Schultz , Baker, Klein. NAY - Mazza, Langhans. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Planning Board -11- June 3 , 1986 Chairman May declared the matter of Site Plan Approval for 70 units at the Best Western University Inn duly closed at 9 :22 p.m. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM APRIL 1 , MAY 6 , AND MAY 20, 2986) : 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. Chairman May announced that the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter has been further adjourned to June 17, 1986, at the request of the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF A 14.5 ACRE PARCEL, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-1-32.2 , LOCATED BETWEEN 1503 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 1.513 SLATERVILLE ROAD, INTO TWO PARCELS OF 7.1 and 7.4 ACRES, AND, FURTHER, CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF A TEN-UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION OF THE 7 . 1 ACRE PARCEL. JANICE WOMBLE, OWNER; JEROLD M. WEISBURD, DEVELOPER. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 9 : 25 p.m. Mr. Jerold Weisburd appeared before the Board and explained that the location of the project is at the intersection of Pine Tree and Slaterville Roads. We are presenting two actions to the Board. One is a legal subdivision of the 14 acres, almost in half; the other action being the subdivision of the front acreage. The front acreage extends 400 ' back from Slaterville Road. It slopes approximately 10% pretty evenly across the site. We are proposing a cluster development for several reasons: 1. the land is high and has a nice view. 2. it keeps all the houses with a southern orientation, for maximum solar gain. 3. it makes 100% use of the existing entrance structure. 4 . there are water, gas, and sewer mains which are easily accessible. 5 . it requires no additional upkeep costs from the Town. This plan also leaves the back part of the land open. The City has been interested in the back part of this land. The proposed twelve lots would adjoin to Penny Lane. The subdivision would include an open space easement which would Planning Board -12, June 3 , 1986 mean that all of the property owners would have access to the back land space. We do not envision developing that area in any way. There is one very significant departure that this cluster has, compared to Commonland. The houses envisioned under the conventional plan would be identical under the cluster plan. These houses would be a main house with a smaller basement apartment. We are using the zero lot line concept. The houses will touch at the lot line. At the point of touching, there will be a masonary fire wall. This would involve a party wall agreement. Some of the covenants that could be attached to the deed include: the party wall maintenance would be borne by both parties; additions, no width would be allowed; front or rear expansion will not exceed 25% of the existing building area; all expansions must stay within 5 ' from the property line. The rear open space easement will be included. There will be driveway easements (two owners would share one driveway) . There is also a side maintenance easement. Mr. Alan Wood, 167--7 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and read aloud a statement from "Judith Gabriel, Larry Phillips, Nancy Phillips, Joan Reuning, Linda Loomis , Sanford Reuning, and Alan Wood" , as follows: "We have serious reservations concerning the appropriateness of the Town Planning Board in considering any land development proposals submitted by Mr. Jerold Weisburd at this time. On July 17, 1979 the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted the final subdivision approval for the Inlet Valley Land Cooperative to Mr. Jerold Weisburd subject to a set of strict guidelines. As documented in Town Planning Board minutes, Mr. Weisburd has failed to comply with the development conditions during the intervening 7 years. Until Mr. Weisburd completes his obligations, the property owners at the Inlet Valley Cooperative are faced with many legal and financial problems. As members of this community, we feel that the Town of Ithaca cannot ignore the fact that a developer has ignored Town mandates and wants to continue to do business with the Town as usual. We feel the Town has a responsibility to the community not to ignore such actions and to insure that all developers meet all Town requirements prior to initiating new development agreements. We appreciate the fact that the question we are posing is a new situation. We were informed by your Chairperson that a developer has never come to the Town Planning Board without fulfilling the Board's requirements in a previous development. You are now faced with this question. We ask you, if a developer ignores Board wishes and does not come into compliance within a reasonable time period, does the Town of Ithaca have any recourse . Should it ignore such actions, should it assume business as usual and should the board consider approval for further land development by such a developer? We feel that the Town of Ithaca must have recourse and must take actions when a developer disregards town requirements in a development. We strongly request that before entering into negotiations with the Town of Ithaca on a new Planning Board -23- June 3 , 1986 development, Mr. Weisburd be requested to devote his time and energies to coming into compliance with unfulfilled, Town mandates regarding his development of the Inlet Valley Land Cooperative. We feel that to do less and to continue with business as usual would be in violation of the Board' s obligations as officials of the Town of Ithaca. " Town Attorney Barney remarked, some ordinances have what you might call a linkage provision which says that if a developer is in fault or has failed to comply with requirements imposed by a prior development, that the Planning Board may decline to consider any future development. I am not aware that the Town of Ithaca has that type of provision in any of its ordinances. You can take into account the past record of the developer in the Town regarding Board provisions. Ms. Anne Woodard, 1503 Slaterville Road, spoke from the floor and asked where her house was located on the site plan. Mr. Weisburd pointed out all local properties on site plan. Mr. Joe McConnell, 1 Penny Lane, spoke from the floor and stated that his townhouse is located near the proposed extension of Penny Lane. He is interested in this extension and also asked if this were phase 1 of a 2-phase project. Mr. Weisburd explained, we are not proposing phases at all. We do not have to extend any roads. The City is interested in the back land, to retain it as a permanent buffer. Mrs. Grigorov asked, in the back land, is that the line of the water shed? Mr. Weisburd replied, the rear seven acres goes to an undisclosed line; we think it may be the center of the creek. The property line roughly abuts the line of the water shed. These units will only have direct access onto Slaterville Road. MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the matter of consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval of a 14 .5 acre parcel, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-1-32.2 , located between 1503 and 1513 Slaterville Road into two parcels of 7.1 and 7.4 acres, and, consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval of a ten-unit Clustered Subdivision of the 7.1 acre parcel, be and hereby is adjourned to June 17 , 1986 , at 8 :45 p.m. , for further consideration by the Planning Board. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - May, Grigorov, Mazza, Schultz, Baker, Klein, Langhans . NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the Weisburd development duly Planning Board -14- June 3 , 1986 adjourned at 10:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS LOCATED AT 277 BURNS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-48-1-14 .312, 31 ACRES . SHIRLEY S. HILKER, OWNER. MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. Edward Mazza: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the matter of the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval of a three-lot subdivision of the lands of Shirley S. Hilker, be and hereby is adjourned to June 17, 1986 , at 7 : 30 p.m. , for further consideration by the Planning Board. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - May, Grigorov, Mazza, Schultz, Baker, Klein, Langhans . NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the Hilker three-lot subdivision duly adjourned at 10:04 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR A 124-UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION AT 1459 SLATERVILLE ROAD. TAX MAP NUMBER 6-58 .1. JEROLD M. WEISBURD, OWNER, HOUSECRAFT BUILDERS, INC. MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the matter of consideration of modifications to the Final Subdivision Plan for Commonland Community, be and hereby is adjourned to June 17, 1986 , at 7:45 p.m. , for further consideration by the Planning Board. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote . AYE - May, Grigorov, Mazza, Schultz , Baker, Klein, Langhans . NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of Commonland Community site plan modifications duly adjourned at 10 : 10 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr. David Klein: RESOLVED, that the Planning Board move into Executive Session. ALL AYES. Planning Board -15- June 3 , 1986 OPEN SESSION MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. David Klein : RESOLVED, that the Planning Board move back into Open Session, no action having been taken during Executive Session. ALL AYES. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman May declared the June 3 , 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura A. Predmore, Acting Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board.