HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-06-17 FUM
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date6
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Cie
JUNE 17 1986
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, June 17 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
New York, at 7 :00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans,
David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, James Baker, John C. Barney,
Esq. (Town Attorney) , Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E. (Town
Engineer) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner) , Nancy M. Fuller
(Secretary) .
ALSO PRESENT: Suzanne Fullagar, Johann W. Gebauer, Holly Freund, Jean
Brockway, Joseph Jeraci, Vincent Franciamone, Claudia
Weisburd, Jerold M. Weisburd, James K. Hilker, William
D. Hilker, William F. Albern, Paul A. Jacobs, Linda
Jacobs, Jonathan 0. Albanese, Esq . , John W. Yarky (?) ,
Alan Wood, Joan Reuning, Sanford Reuning, Eleanor
Sturgeon, Mark Tomlinson, David Dubin, Millard Brink,
Lucille Brink, Nancy Phillips, Larry Phillips, Peter
Loomis, Linda Loomis, William Seldin, Esq. , Sandra
Knewstub, Ronald C. Knewstub, Linda Tompkins, Joyce C.
Maki, Nansen Josselyn, Donald K. Josselyn, Tracie
Evans, George Sheldrake, Larry Jensen, Jeff Coleman,
Esq. , Corrine Bruno, William J. Petrillose Jr. , Anthony
Ingraham, Glenn Snyder, Barbara Bartholomew, Frank W.
Young, Helen Murison.
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 12 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 June 9 , 1986 and July 12 , 1986, respectively,
together with the Town Planner' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of the Cascioli property, upon the
applicant and agent, and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning on June 12, 1986.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 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 , AND
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT,
UNDER SECTION 280—a OF THE TOWN LAW, A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT NOT FRONTING ON A PUBLIC ROAD. GRACE CASCIOLI,
OWNER; VINCENT FRANCIAMONE, AGENT.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 7 :13 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr.
Franciamone was present.
The following documents were before the Board:
Planning Board 2 June 17 , 1986
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form [Part I] as completed,
signed, and submitted by Grace Cascioli, under date of May 19 ,
1986 , with attachment, and, as reviewed and recommended upon by
the Town Planner, Susan C. Beeners, [Parts II and III] , under
date of June 12, 1986 , [Revised from May 30 , 1986 , after Sketch
Plan Review on June 3 , 1986 , and, after receipt of revised plan
on June 10 , 19861 , as follows:
PART I --
111 . Applicant/Sponsor -- Grace Cascioli.
2 . Project Name -- N/A.
3 . Project Location: Municipality -- Town of Ithaca.
County -- Tompkins .
4 . Is proposed action: [X] New.
5 . Describe project briefly -- One Lot Sub.
6 . Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks,
etc. or provide map) -- Ridgecrest & East King.
7. Amount of land affected: 15000 , sq.ft. of 16. 74 acres.
B . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other
existing land use restrictions? -- [X] Yes.
9 . What is present land use in vicinity of project? -- [X]
Residential.
10 . Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or
ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal,
state or local) ? -- [X] No.
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit
or approval? --- [X] No.
12 . As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval
require modification? -- [X] No. "
Attachment:
11623 W. Buffalo St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
May 19, 1986
Town of Ithaca
126 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Town Planner, Susan Beaner [sic. ]
Dear Susan,
Enclosed are ten copies of a sketch plan, with a short
Environmental Assessment Form that I would like reviewed and
presented to the planning board for an informal review, as soon
as possible.
I have added some comments for your consideration as
follows,
The lot will be 15,000 square feet as required in R15 Zone .
A precedent has been set by the Town Planning Board in
approving similiar [sic. ] lots, subdivided within one mile of my
proposed subdivision, i.e.
Newhart residence, 171 E. King Rd.
Howard residence, 307 E. King Rd.
Lydia [sic. ] (Hillman) residence, 370 Stone Quarry Rd.
I had my attorney research the Town Law 280-A.
The access provision of Section 280-A must be reasonably
construed. J.L. Henessy Associates, Inc. V. Griffin, 155 N.Y.S.
2d 378. It does not mean exclusive access. McGlosson Builders,
Planning Board 3 June 17 , 1986
Inc . V. Tom kins, 203 N.Y.S . 2d 633 . It means physical access to
the building. Annadale, Inc. V. Brienza, 1 A.D. 2d 785 , 148
N.Y.S. 2d 17; Turner V. Gali, 13 Misc. 2d 1012, 176 N.Y.S . 2d
680 . It means that the plot on which the structure is to be
erected abuts on the highway and has sufficient frontage to allow
ingress and egress of emergency vehicles.
I have also added a second sketch showing that there will
not be any cumulative effect or inefficient configuration of any
future resubdivisions of the remaining parcel.
I will also provide any other information the Planning Board
request, to comply with subdivision regulations, zoning
regulations, governed under Town Law.
Thank you.
(sgd. ) Grace Cascioli"
PART II --
"A. Does action exceed any Type I threshold?
NO
B. Will action received coordinated review. . . ?
YES
C. Review: [Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to,
or arising from the following: ]
C1. [Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality
or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or disposal, potential for
erosion, drainage or flooding problems?]
Provision of a 60 ' right of way from East King Road by the
Town has not been established. The revised plan submitted
for preliminary subdivision consideration indicates there is
adequate room for a 15 ' access drive on 45-1-3 . Provision
of such an access easement on 45-1-3 to serve the proposed
back lot would reduce the frontage of 45-1-3 from the
minimum 100 ' required in an R15 zoning district to 851 .
Such reduction may require consideration of an area variance
for 45-1-3.
C2. [Aesthetic, agricultural , archeological, historic , or
other natural or cultural resources; or community or
neighborhood character?]
Development of a lot not fronting on a public road, with no
established provision for adequate access for potential
future resubdivision of the mother parcel would be
,inconsistent with the character of orderly development in
the surrounding neighborhood.
C3. [Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife
species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species?]
No significant adverse impact expected.
C4. [A community's existing plans or goals as officially
adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land
or other natural resources?]
Project as proposed does not meet the requirements of
Section 280-a of Town Law, regarding lots without frontage
on a public road. The provision by the Town of a 60 ' right
of way from East King Road has not been established.
C5 . [Growth, subsequent development, or related activiites
Planning Board 4 June 17 , 1986
likely to be induced by the proposed action?)
Proposed subdivision would be contrary to a process of
orderly development, and could set a precedent in regard to
the development of similar lots without frontage.
C6. [Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified
in C1-C6?]
The orientation of the proposed back lot apparently shows
its frontage on the proposed 15 ' access drive. The northern
property line of 45-1-3 is not shown. If the ' future
possible highway r.o.w. ' from East King Road is to be
provided, the proposed back lot should front on such,
otherwise there may be an inefficient configuration of
future resubdivision of the mother parcel.
C7. IA change in use of either quantity or type of energy?]
No significant adverse impact expected. "
PART III --
[Box checked which indicates a conditional determination, based
on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts -- with reasons, as
follows. ]
"Project as proposed does not meet requirements of Town Law
Section 280-a. The provision of a 60 ' right of way from East
King Road by the Town, as noted on the plan under consideration,
has not been determined. The orientation of the lot in regard to
potential frontage on this potential right of way is
insufficient. The provision of a 15 ' access drive on 45-1-3
reduces the frontage of this lot to below the minimum required in
an R-15 zoning district.
A conditional negative determination of environmental
significance based on the plan submitted for preliminary
subdivision consideration could be made, if based on the
following conditions;
1. Provision of a 60 ' right of way from East King Road.
2 . Reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front on
such right of way.
3. Granting of an area variance of Article IV, Section 16,
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance in regard to the
potential frontage reduction of tax parcel 45-1-3 from
100 feet to 85 feet. "
2. Drawing entitled "Lands of Grace Cascioli, Ridgecrest Rd. , Town
of Ithaca, For Base Map P/L Survey Refer to Map By K.A. Baker
Dated 8/27/8311, undated, showing proposed lot, 15 ,000 SF Min. ,
Parcel 45-1--2 .6, 16 .74 Ac . , Parcels 45-1-9 , 45-1-8 , 45-1-6 ,7;
45-1-5.1 , 45-1-5.2 , 45-1-4 , 45-1-3, Min. Access, Ridgecrest Road,
King Road.
3 . Drawing, no title, undated, showing "Future Possible Highway
R.O.W. 60 ' " in dotted lines, Parcels 45-1-2 . 6 , 45-1-5. 1 ,
45-1-5 .2 , 45-1-3, King Road, Ridgecrest Road.
4 . Drawing, as in #3 above, marked "Cascioli" , "Ree d. 6/10/8611 ,
with added Note, "Town to provide R.O.W. ", showing 100 ' by 150 '
Planning Board 5 June 17 , 1986
parcel proposed for subdivision from Parcel 45-1-2.6 , 500 ' marked
on King Road as the distance from Ridgecrest Road to "Future
Possible Highway R.O.W. " , "Property Line" shown for Parcel
45-1-3 , 100 ' shown as frontage on Ridgecrest Road for Parcel
45-1-3, rectangle marked "Ex Bld" shown on Parcel 45-1-3 abutting
proposed 151+ access to parcel proposed for subdivision.
5. Draft Resolution, "Cascioli, Grace, Preliminary Subdivision
Consideration, SEQR" .
6. Draft Resolution, "Cascioli, Grace, Preliminary Subdivison
Consideration" .
Mr. Franciamone spoke from the floor and stated that at the last
meeting, the informational meeting, we left it that the Board wanted
to know about the 15-foot access. Mr. Franciamone stated that, in the
letter, recommended by Ms. Beeners, it has been established that there
is enough room for access. Mr. Franciamone stated that "we" could
start right on the review. Mr. Franciamone stated that he would like
output from this Board if it really thinks the 15--foot access takes
away from the lot size.
Chairman May noted that, according to the drawing received June
10th, the access is shown right up by the building, with Mr.
Franciamone responding, no. Chairman May stated that he was having
trouble because the drawing before him shows the 15 feet right up to
the building, with Mr. Franciamone again responding, no. Mr.
Franciamone stated that what it shows is "15 ' +" , so, the actual
distance between the building and the lot line is probably 22 to 23
feet.
Mr. Franciamone asked again if the Board really feels that the
15-foot access takes away from the 100-foot frontage, with Chairman
May and Mrs. Schultz responding, yes. Chairman May added that he did
not see how else you could say it and Mrs. Schultz added, yes, that
access is part of it.
Mr. Franciamone stated that he would draw the Board ' s attention
to Section 20 , "Terms. " , of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr.
Franciamone read aloud as follows : "Driveway -- A portion of a lot or
a right-of-way less than 20 feet wide providing access to buildings or
other structures on one or more lots. " , and also, "Easement -- A grant
by the property owner to the public, a corporation, or a certain
person or persons, of the use of a strip of land for a specific
purpose . " Mr. Franciamone stated that there is an implication there,
by those same words, it implies that it does not take away.
Referring to the "June 10th" drawing, Mrs. Schultz wondered if
she were correct in assuming that the line marked "property line" is
actually the property line of "this first lot" [45-1-3] and, so, there
is 37 feet between that lot line and the building. Mr. Franciamone
responded, no, and stated that he marked 15 ' +, but there is actually
22 to 23 feet. Mr. Franciamone stated that at the time of final
approval he can get specific numbers. Mrs. Schultz noted that the
Planning Board 6 June 17 , 1986
building is actually about 22 feet from the lot line, with Mr.
Franciamone responding, yes, approximately.
Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if
there were anyone from the public who wished to speak.
Mrs. Holly Freund, 110 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that she and the other neighbors present were a little confused
because the letter [Notice of Public Hearings] said nothing about a
driveway; it simply said about a variance to permit subdivision of the
lot with development of the lot without road frontage. Mrs. Freund
stated that she had talked to Ms . Beeners and she said that this was
where the driveway was being proposed, but, as far as the letter went,
the only thing going to be discussed is a variance as far as
developing that lot.
Both Mrs. Schultz and Chairman May stated that the requested
variance is part of it and added that you have to have access to the
lot.
Mr. Joseph Jeraci, 112 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor and,
noting the discussion about two lots, asked if there are two lots or
access for one lot.
Chairman May stated that right now there is an existing lot with
a building on it and they want to subdivide one piece off. Mr.
Franciamone corrected Chairman May, stating that the acreage is 16 .7
acres and one lot is being subdivided from that 16 acres. Chairman
May offered that there is one building on that acreage, with Mr.
Franciamone responding, no, there are two parcels --- 45-1-3 and
45-1--2 . 6 .
Mr. Fabbroni stated that, for some reason, on neither this
revised drawing nor his original submission, the back lot line of
45-1-3 is not shown. Mr. Fabbroni stated that that line should run
right along the same as for the adjoining parcels .
Chairman May indicated that that clarified things , and offered
that nothing is being done with 45-1-3 except the access to 45-1-2. 6 .
Mr. Franciamone agreed.
Mr. Franciamone, noting that Ms. Beeners said there would not be
access , stated that they could make modification and spoke of a lot
150 ' by 1001 .
Ms . Beeners stated that she felt that the orientation of that
back lot, as proposed, was not workable with the "future possible
highway R.O.W. " , and, that the 100-foot dimension should really be on
that right of way, if this were to be a lot, adjacent to that right of
way rather than to the right of it.
Mrs . Langhans inquired if Ms. Beeners were suggesting bringing
"this 100 feet" down to meet that other property line, with Ms.
Beeners responding, yes. Mrs. Langhans noted that, then, if you did
Planning Board 7 June 17 , 1986
that, that right of way would deadend at the back lot line so it could
be used for nothing else, with Ms. Beeners, responding, no, and adding
that it would have to stop right there.
Mr. Franciamone stated that, on the reduction, since everybody on
the Board feels that it is going to take away from the 100 feet, that
is, 100 feet minus 15 feet equals 85 feet, he understood that R15 and
R30 are all the same except for the dependability of water and sewer.
Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that the densities are not the same, and
stated that only if you have both water and sewer does R9 allow a
9,000 square foot lot; with water and sewer and an R15 zone
designation a 15 ,000 square foot lot is the minimum, and, with R30
zoning it still means 30,000 square feet. Mr. Fabbroni noted that
there is a very different density in each of the different zones and,
also, there are some subtle differences in allowable uses.
Mr. Franciamone stated that he thought the implications are the
same. Mrs. Langhans asked Mr. Franciamone what he was leading up to.
Mrs. Schultz read aloud from Article III, Section 9 , paragraph 3 ,
[Size of Lot, R9] , Article IV, Section 16 , paragraph 1 [Size of Lot,
R151 , and Article V, Section 23 , paragraphs 1 and 2, [Size of Lot,
R30] , of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Franciamone asked about the size
of an R9 lot with water and sewer, with Mrs. Schultz responding , 60 '
by 1501 . Mr. Franciamone stated that he believed the intent when the
Zoning Ordinance was made up was that they are all the same. Several
of the Board members offered that, if that were the case, what would
be the need for the different zones as designated in the Ordinance?
Town Attorney Barney noted, as had the Town Engineer, that there are
different densities particular to the different residential areas.
Mr. Franciamone stated that the acreage where they are proposing
the subdivision is not served with water and sewer. Mr. Franciamone
stated that in order to get water and sewer, he would still have to
take that 15 feet to get the water and sewer. Mr. Franciamone asked
if, in that case, the 15 feet takes away from the frontage. Mr.
Fabbroni pointed out that there are underground easements for
utilities which do not take away from the enjoyment of the land, but a
driveway is an above-ground improvement. Mr. Franciamone wondered why
and Chairman May responded that that driveway would be no help to
parcel 45-1-3, and added that an easement for water and sewer is very
different from a driveway.
Mr. Jeraci spoke from the floor and stated that if the road went
up and Mr. Franciamone enlarged the lot and the driveway were allowed,
could he not access any other part of the lot. Mr. Jeraci stated that
he would like the "deadend" clarified. Mrs. Langhans stated that, no,
he would not be able to, adding that the driveway would just go to
that particular property, with the remainder being landlocked, unless
he got access from East King Road.
Mr. Franciamone showed the Board members the map which he had
submitted, copies of which each member had before him or her, and
pointed out the 60-foot right of way from East King Road, noting that
it opens up the land in the back for development .
Planning Board B June 17 , 1986
Mr. Johann W. Gebauer, 117 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor
and stated that he would like to remind the Board of Lagrand Chase ' s
proposal some years back for the backland along Ridgecrest Road. Mr.
Gebauer suggested that the Board might recall how the people were all
against it, but, at least he had a plan. Mr. Gebauer noted that the
people suggested a 60-foot access to East King Road at that time. Mr.
Gebauer stated that Mr. Franciamone has no plan, adding that he would
like to hear what he has in mind because, perhaps, it might be a
development for students. Chairman May pointed out that what Mrs.
Cascioli has applied for is one lot out of this large parcel. Mr.
Gebauer stated that the people are worried about too many students.
Mrs . Freund spoke from the floor and stated that the neighbors do
not care about the driveway, adding that it is what the driveway is
for that is the concern. Mrs. Freund stated that she had a Petition
with her signed by 75% of the residents of the street who are all
against any more development and, whether there is a driveway or not,
they do not want any more building.
Mrs . Langhans pointed out that she did not think the Board knows
what is going to be built. Speaking to Mr. Franciamone, Mr. Fabbroni
stated that he has a right to subdivide lands it he meets the
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and if the Board approves
of the subdivision as being developed logically. Speaking to the
Board, Mr. Fabbroni stated that, if he owns 16 acres and has access,
Mr. Franciamone has certain rights and it is that which is the
question before the Board. Mr. Fabbroni offered that Mr. Franciamone,
for his own reasons, still insists on developing something through his
own lot.
Mrs . Jean Brockway, 166 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor and
asked what would stop him, if he got access, from developing the 16
acres, because he could then build back there. Mrs. Langhans stated
that he could not do that, adding that he is asking for a 15-foot
easement, probably, to access one lot. Chairman May pointed out that
Mr. Franciamone would still have to come back to the Planning Board
for any further development of the parcel, adding that this proposal
is for one lot.
Mr. Jeraci spoke from the floor and, commenting that he
understood that the main discussion is for one lot, asked what kind of
structure was planned. Mr. Fabbroni responded -- a one- or two-family
house could be built -- and added, as a question to Town Attorney
Barney, since it involves a variance of some sort, the Board of
Appeals could impose any reasonable restrictions. Town Attorney
Barney stated that that sounded about right, reiterating reasonable
restrictions.
A lady spoke from the floor and stated that she understood the
ordinance limited occupancy to three unrelated people. Mr. Fabbroni
offered that there are many complexities to the occupancy regulations
and suggested that if she needed more information she should call the
Zoning Officer.
Planning Board 9 June 17 , 1986
Mrs. Brockway spoke from the floor and pointed out that 108
Ridgecrest Road has an apartment in back and a house in front. Mr.
Fabbroni stated that Mrs. Brockway was referring to a property about
which there is a standing court order and, basically, if someone is
living in that back dwelling they are in contempt of court. Town
Attorney Barney, commenting that the particular piece of property has
been the subject of considerable court action, briefly described its
history. Speaking to Town Attorney Barney, Mr. Fabbroni stated that,
as far as we know, it is not occupied. Town Attorney Barney stated
that we cannot camp out there to verify its occupany but the neighbors
can, and, if they know something and it can be proved, they should let
us know.
Mrs . Brockway wondered how the Board could entertain this
subdivision proposal when he is in violation. Town Attorney Barney
stated that we have difficulty with not reviewing something coming in
that may be appropriate because something has been done, perhaps,
incorrectly in the past; we have to look at each proposal on its
merits. Mrs. Freund spoke from the floor and stated that the merits
are what they are concerned about. Mr. Fabbroni briefly described the
circumstances under which, generally, development can occur, referring
to the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations , the SEQR
regulations and other applicable regulations.
Mrs . Freund presented a Petition, for the record, signed by 24
families residing on Ridgecrest Road from #109 through #171 , reading
as follows: "We are opposed to the two-lot subdivision of the backlot
of 104 Ridgecrest Road. A driveway to the back and the possibility of
two new structures would only mean more traffic and the probability of
rental units. As it is now, there is already one rental unit in
violation of the Zoning Law, which has caused disturbances and has
reduced the value of all properties on Ridgecrest Road. Also, the
past 'track record' of Grace Cascioli and Vincent Franciamone has not
been good. When they owned the two buildings at 108 Ridgecrest Road,
the law was violated in several ways. The front building was rented
to several more than three students-the maximum allowed-and the back
building was rented although the permit to build that was granted not
as a rental unit but as a laundry or a garage. Also, the house at 104
Ridgecrest Road, since Vince and Grace have owned it, has been rented
to students and it has seemed many times that there were quite a few
more than three students there. The noise level has been very high,
especially at night, the garbage lines the street after their frequent
parties and there are cars lining the street many times presenting a
potentially dangerous situation. We feel that we did not move into a
student housing neighborhood and had hoped that the Zoning Law in this
area would prevent this from happening. "
Chairman May asked if there were any further comments from the
public; there were none. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at
7 :45 p.m. Chairman May noted that the Board had before it draft
resolutions with respect to both consideration of the SEQR form and
consideration of preliminary subdivision approval.
Chairman May stated that he, personally, had a lot of trouble
Planning Board 10 June 17 , 1986
with the drawing before the Board showing the 15 feet. Mr.
Franciamone stated that at the hearing for final approval he would be
perfectly happy to have a surveyor' s map. Chairman May stated that
what he was looking at shows a lot line 15 feet from the building and,
therefore, there would be zero feet from the building. Mr.
Franciamone asked if he could suggest that the Board could do this on
contingency of that survey.
Chairman May wondered if it were the case that the Planning Board
wished to act as lead agency on this, noted that it would be turned
over to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and stated that he was not sure
they should not be the lead agency. It was the Board 's consensus that
the Planning Board was the lead agency in matters of subdivision
consideration.
Speaking to Ms. Beeners, Mr. Klein wondered if the Board were to
make an approval subject to access from East King Road, would the
easement matter not be moot. Ms. Beeners responded that it would
depend on the immediacy of access. Mr. Klein stated that he would say
that he could have the driveway within the 60-foot right of way, with
Ms. Beeners commenting, either/or. Continuing, Ms. Beeners suggested,
perhaps, a modification of the proposed words for the recommendation
on the granting of the variance, if necessary. Mr. Klein suggested
formulatingit as "a" and "b" " " .
, , or, c Speaking to Ms. Beeners, Mr.
Fabbroni suggested that, if, from her knowledge, the variance relates
not only to the 100 feet being reduced to the 85 feet, it would also
relate to the lot being off a public highway, so, maybe to clarify it,
a fourth point should be a reference to the need for a variance from
Section 280-a of the Town Law. Discussion followed between Town
Attorney Barney and Mr. Fabbroni as they reviewed the sketch.
MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. David Klein:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board declare and
hereby does declare itself as lead agency for the environmental review
of the Grace Cascioli subdivision, as proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Klein referred back to Ms. Beeners ' review of the Short EAF
and noted that if any assessments in question C are adverse, Part III
says that a positive declaration may be made. Discussion followed
with Town Attorney Barney describing certain environmental concerns.
Ms. Beeners requested that point #3 in Part III of her recommendation
["Granting of an area variance of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance in regard to the potential frontage
reduction of tax parcel 45-1--3 from 100 feet to 85 feet. " ] be deleted,
and replaced by, "3. Deletion of the 15 ' r.o.w. to the backlot. "
Planning Board 11 June 17 , 1986
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 located backlot of 104 Ridgecrest Road.
This is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental
Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public
Hearing on June 17 , 1986 , and for which the Planning Board has
declared itself Lead Agency.
2 . A recommendation of a conditional negative determination has been
made by the Town Planner, with the following mitigating
conditions :
a. the provision of a 60-foot right of way from East King
Road, and
b. the reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front
on such right of way.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1 . That this project is conditionally determined to have no
significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration
of environmental significance shall be and here is made,
conditioned upon the following mitigating measures:
a. the provision by the applicant of a 60-foot right of
way from East King Road, and
b. the reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front
on such right of way, and
C. the deletion of the 15-foot access, shown on the Sketch
Plan before the Planning Board at said Public Hearing,
from Ridgecrest Road to the proposed lot.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Form for this proposed subdivision on June 17, 1986 and made a
conditional determination of negative environmental significance
subject to certain mitigating conditions.
Planning Board 12 June 17 , 1986
2 . The Planning Board has reviewed this preliminary subdivision
proposal at a Public Hearing on June 17, 1986 .
3 . This action is the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-45-1--2 .6 , containing 16 .74 acres , into two parcels
containing 16 .4 and .34 acres, respectively.
4 . The proposed subdivision does not meet the requirements of Town
Law Section 280-a regarding lots without frontage on a public
road.
5 . The provision for access along a "future possible highway r. o.w. "
has not been established.
6. The provision for access on a 15-foot access drive on Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-45-1-3 would reduce the frontage of this
parcel from the minimum 100 feet required in an R15 residential
district to 85 feet, and, thus, would require the consideration
by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the granting of an area
variance of Article IV, Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance for said Parcel No. 6-45-1-3.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby does deny
the proposed preliminary subdivision of the lands of Grace Cascioli,
and recommends that the applicant fulfill the following conditions
prior to resubmission of any subdivision proposals for the subject
lands:
1 . Provision of a 60-foot right of way from East King Road.
2 . Reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front on such right
of way.
3 . Deletion of the 15-foot access from Ridgecrest Road to the back
lot.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay w None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of the Grace Cascioli two-lot
subdivision as proposed duly closed at 8 :09 p.m.
Mr. Franciamone stated that the Board would be hearing from him
again on this matter.
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM JUNE 3 , 1986) : 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.
Planning Board 13 June 17 , 1986
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above-noted matter duly opened at 8:10 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Messrs. James K. and William D. Hilker were present.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Planner' s Comments with respect to the proposed Hilker
subdivision, as prepared by Ms. Beeners, and reading as follows:
"All materials are enclosed, but lack provision of a certified
survey of the remaining frontage on the parent parcel, and
provision of a 60' future road right of way from Burns Road.
Preliminary Subdivision Approval with conditions is recommended. "
2. Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed, signed, and
submitted by Willis S. Hilker [Part I] , under date of June 3,
1986 , as follows:
"1 . Applicant/Sponsor -- Willis S. Hilker.
2 . Project Name -- Blank.
3 . Project Location: Municipality -- Town of Ithaca.
County -- Tompkins.
4 . Is proposed action: [X] New.
5. Describe project briefly: Subdivision of original 33 . 61
acre lot to one lot of 2.54 acres, a lot of 1.8 acres,
leaving parent lot of 29 .27± acres. To transfer lots to
sons.
6. Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks,
etc. or provide map) -- 255 & 277 Burns Rd.
7. Amount of land affected : Initially -- 33 .61 acres.
Ultimately -- 33. 61 acres.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other
existing land use restrictions? -- [X] Yes.
9 . What is present land use in vicinity of project? -- [X]
Residential; [X] Agriculture.
10 . Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or
ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal,
state or local) ? ---- [X] Yes; Bldg. Permit.
11 . Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit
or approval? -- [X] Yes ; Health Dept.
12 . As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval
require modification? -- [X] No. "
The SEAF was reviewed by the Town Planner, Susan C. Beeners,
[Parts II and III] , under date of June 12, 1986 , as follows:
Part II
"1 . Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part
617. 12? -- [X] No.
2. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for
Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 7? -- [X] Yes.
C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or
arising from the following:
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or
quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or disposal, potential for
erosion, drainage or flooding problems? -- No
Planning Board 14 June 17 , 1986
significant adverse impact expected, if adequate
frontage is certified to be shown to be retained on the
parent parcel, and if a 60 foot future right of way is
provided near the north boundary of the 1.8 acre
proposed lot, to provide access for future
resubdivision of the parent parcel.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or
other natural or cultural resources; or community or
neighborhood character? -- No significant adverse
impact expected.
C3 . Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife
species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species? -- No significant adverse impact
expected.
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially
adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land
or other natural resources? -- No significant adverse
impact expected, as long as conditions described in C-1
are met.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action? -- Not
likely if adequate frontage and access as described in
Cl are provided.
C6 . Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified
in C1-C6? -- See C5 .
C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy?
-- Not expected. "
Part III
"XX A conditional determination of negative environmental
significance is recommended provided that adequate frontage is
certified to be shown to be retained on the parent parcel, and if
a 60 foot future road right of way is provided as described in Cl
above. "
3 . Drawing entitled "Sketch Map Showing Lands Now Or Formerly Of
Willis Hilker, Traced From Assessor ' s Map 48, Town of Ithaca" ,
undated, signed and sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, F.E. , L.S. ,
showing Burns Road, Parcel 48-1-14 .311 , Part of Parcel
48-1-14 .312 , Remainder of Parcel 48-1-14 .312, Parcel 48-1-14 .32,
Parcel 48-1--13, a creek, City of Ithaca Watershed, and
measurements along Burns Road of 250 feet, 300 feet, 155 feet ± .
4 . Survey Map entitled "Survey Map of Part of Lands on Burns Road,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins Co. , New York" , dated May 29, 1986,
signed and sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, showing a 300 ' by 315 '
[average] lot front on Burns Road labeled "Part of Lands of
Willis S. & Shirley S. Hilker, 48-1-14 .312.
5. Survey Map entitled "Survey Map of Lands on Burns Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins Co. , New York" , dated July 26 , 1983 , signed and
sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, showing 3.0-acre parcel fronting
on Burns Road labeled "Part of Lands of Willis S. & Shirley S.
Hilker, 48-1-14 .31 .
Planning Board 15 June 17 , 1986
6 . Draft Resolution with respect to consideration of SEQR.
7 . Draft Resolution with respect to Preliminary Subdivision Approval
consideration.
Mr. James Hilker stated to the Board that the purpose of the
subdivision was for two building lots to go from father to sons.
Utilizing Tax Map No. 48 which he appended to the bulletin board, Mr.
Hilker described the proposal.
Chairman May asked what the lots marked "Part of 48-1-14 .312" and
"Remainder of 48-1-14.312" were, with Mr. Fabbroni indicating that it
was an already subdivided lot.
The Board reviewed the Sketch Map and noted the 155--foot
"opening" from Burns Road to the area marked "Remainder 48-1-14 . 312" .
Mrs. Langhans wondered how much acreage was left in that "Remainder"
area. It was determined that that area contained approximately 29. 27
acres.
Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 :12 p.m.
Ms. Beeners, noting that she had referred to a couple of matters
in her recommendation on the SEAF, stated that she had requested that
a certified map be prepared that would show the tape distance between
the two smaller lots that would be subdivided under this proposal , in
other words, just how much of the parent parcel remains with frontage
on Burns Road. Ms. Beeners stated that there is no indication on the
sketch map that what is shown is a taped distance, therefore, it was
her recommendation that a certification be prepared. Ms. Beeners
stated that the other question had to do with what access would be
available to the backland were it to be subdivided in the future, and,
whether a right of way needs to be provided off Burns Road, and,
whether such should be located near the north boundary of the southern
small lot. Mr. Fabbroni commented that the intent of the developer is
to, hopefully, develop that right of way along the NYSEG line,
however, there is no assurance of that, so this is suggested,
positively, through that center area. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if it
turned out that that were provided, that is fine, but, at least, you
would have provided the possibility of getting the right of way out of
that 300-foot lot. Mr. Fabbroni offered that, since it is not a
likely area for water and sewer, we are likely looking at the 150-foot
frontage requirements of R-30 . Mr. Fabbroni commented that this would
be a positive statement as to no more lots on Burns Road.
Mr. Klein noted that Mr. Fabbroni was saying that a 60-foot right
of way should come out of the 300 ' by 330 ' lot shown on the sketch.
Mr. Fabbroni concurred, adding that he and Ms. Beeners were saying
that the Hilkers should provide a sixty-foot strip if and when they
desire to subdivide further to serve the rest of the property.
Chairman May pointed out that the Board has two surveys before it
Planning Board 16 June 17 , 1986
now, wondering if there were any reason for not having that 155-foot
distance checked. Mr. James Hilker stated that he could not answer
that question. Discussion followed as to where to put the 60-foot
right of way with it being indicated that the 60 feet could come off
the 155 feet if and when the parcel should be opened up in back. Town
Attorney Barney suggested leaving it as 155 ' of open frontage such
that paragraph "b" of the draft resolution be deleted.
Town Attorney Barney wondered about all the survey "maps" ,
questioning whether three maps could be filed at the Tompkins County
Clerk' s Office and the lack of a survey on the parent lot or for one
subdivision. Mr. Fabbroni explained that his reasoning was based on
the subdivision being shown based on the Tax Assessor's Map tracing.
MOTION by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mrs . Barbara
Schultz :
WHEREAS :
1 . This project is a three-lot subdivision of lands in an R30
residential district at 225 and 277 Burns Road. This is an
Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency, and for which a
Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and
reviewed at a Public Hearing on June 17, 1986.
2. A recommendation of a negative determination based on certain
conditions has been made by the Town Planner.
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 conditional negative declaration of
environmental significance be and hereby is made for the
preliminary subdivision proposal, based on the condition that a
certified survey show the metes and bounds of the frontage to
remain as part of the parent parcel.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. David Klein:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the subdivision of an original 33.6 acre lot, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-48-1-14.312, located at 277 Burns
Planning Board 17 June 17 , 1986
Road, owned by Shirley S. and Willis S. Hilker, with a portion
owned by James and Elizabeth Hilker, into one lot of 2.54± acres
(also known as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-48-1-14.311 , 255
Burns Road) , one lot of 1. 8± acres, and one lot of 29 .27± acres,
respectively, also known as 277 Burns Road.
2_ The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Form for this proposed subdivision and made a conditional
determination of negative environmental significance on June 17,
1986 , based on the condition that a certified survey show the
metes and bounds of the frontage to remain as part of the parent
parcel.
3 . The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at a Public
Hearing on June 17 , 1986.
4 . The following maps have been presented in regard to this
proposal:
a. "Sketch Map Showing Lands Now or Formerly of Willis Hilker,
Traced from Assessor ' s Map 48 , Town of Ithaca" , undated,
signed and sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E. , L.S.
b. "Survey Map of Part of Lands on Burns Road, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York" , dated May 29 , 1986 , signed and
sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E. , L.S .
C. "Survey Map of Lands on Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York" , dated July 26 , 1983 , signed and sealed by
Howard R. Schlieder, P.E. , L.S.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary 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
Subdivision Approval for the proposed Hilker subdivision as shown
on :
a. "Sketch Map Showing Lands Now or Formerly of Willis Hilker,
Traced from Assessor' s Map 48 , Town of Ithaca" , undated,
signed and sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E. , L.S. ,
b. "Survey Map of Part of Lands on Burns Road, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York" , dated May 29 , 1986 , signed and
sealed by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E. , L.S. ,
C. "Survey Map of Lands on Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York" , dated July 26 , 1983 , signed and sealed by
Planning Board 1B June 17 , 1986
Howard R. Schlieder, P.E. , L.S. ,
WITH consideration of Final Subdivision Approval to be based on
the condition that a certified survey show the metes and bounds of the
frontage to remain as part of the parent parcel.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the Hilker three-lot Subdivision duly closed at 8:30 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.
Mr. Weisburd appeared before the Board and stated that he wished
to say that both he and his wife, Claudia, were stricken by the news
about the death of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector, Lewis D.
Cartee, adding that he thought we have all suffered a great loss. The
Board members and the staff members indicated their appreciation of
Mr. Weisburd' s thoughts.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Planner' s Comments with respect to the proposed modifications to
the Final Subdivision Plan of Commonland Community, as prepared
by Ms. Beeners, and reading as follows: "Please refer to maps
for Westfield modifications which were included in the June 3
meeting packets. The proposal is to be amended at the meeting,
per a phone call from Mr. Weisburd, to include a carport addition
east of the Round Rock building cluster. It is recommended that
the proposal, so amended, be approved. "
2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed, signed, and
submitted by Jerold M. Weisburd, President, House Craft Builders
[Part I] , under date of May 29 , 1986 , as follows:
"1 . Applicant/Sponsor -- House Craft Builders, Inc .
2 . Project Name -- Commonland Community.
3. Project Location: Municipality -- Town of Ithaca.
County -- Tompkins.
4. Is proposed action: [X] Modification/alteration.
5 . Describe project briefly: Move unit #97 from the five-plex
to the 2-plex, creating a 4--plex and a 3-plex. Split the
carport into 2 , one 3-bay and one 4-bay. Change a 7--bay
into a 4-bay and 4-bay (as per letter to Town Engineer) .
6 . Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks,
etc. or provide map) -- Westfield (Cluster G) Commonland
Community, Penny Lane, Ithaca .
7. Amount of land affected: none different than approved.
Planning Board 19 June 17 , 1986
8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other
existing sand use restrictions? -- Yes , as approved.
9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? --- [X]
Residential. Part modification of ongoing housing project.
10 . Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or
ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal,
state or local) ? -- [X] No.
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit
or approval? -- [X] Yes. Building sites already approved,
as project.
12 . As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval
require modification? -- [X] Yes. "
The SERF was reviewed by the Town Planner, Susan C. Beeners,
[Parts II and III] , under dates of May 30 and. June 12, 1986 , as
follows:
Part II
"1 . Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part
617. 12? -- [X] No.
2. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for
Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 7? -- [X] Yes.
C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or
arising from the following:
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or
quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or disposal, potential for
erosion, drainage or flooding problems? -- No
significant adverse impact expected.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or
other natural or cultural resources; or community or
neighborhood character? -- Not expected.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife
species, significant habitats, or threatened or
endangered species? -- Not expected.
C4. A community' s existing plans or goals as officially
adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land
or other natural resources? -- Not expected.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action? -- Not
expected.
C6. Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified
in C1-C6? -- Not expected.
C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy?
-- Not expected. "
Part III
Box checked which indicates that the proposed action will not
result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, with the
reasons supporting this determination being stated as: "Action
consists of minor modifications to an approved plan; such
modifications do not increase the scope or size of this plan. "
3 . Plan entitled "Site Plan, Phase IV, Commonland Community, Cluster
' G' , Westfield" , House Craft Builders, 1459 Salterville Road,
dated May 7 , 1986 , signed and sealed by Jerold M. Weisburd,
Registered Architect.
Planning Board 20 June 17 , 1986
4 . Additional Drawing entitled Commonland Community, Phase iv,
Cluster 'G' , Westfield - 14 units, dated October 16 , 1985 , drawn
by Jerold Weisburd .
5 . Letter signed by Jerold Weisburd, President, House Craft
Builders, Inc. , to Larry Fabbroni, Town of Ithaca Engineer, dated
May 8 , 1986 , as follows: "As per our conversation on May 6 ,
1986 , I am enclosing a copy of our revised site plan for cluster
'G' Westfield, Drawing 6-R-1 . This is to replace drawing number
6-R which has been approved by the Town Planning board. IlThe
slight modifications we made in this plan are: (1 ) Unit 96 is
attached to 98 and 99 instead of 96-93. This is to accommodate
the existing City R.O.W. which they have so far been reluctant to
have moved. (2) The carports and parking for all buildings have
been put into four separate areas instead of two areas. (3 ) One
extra carport bay has been added for unit #92. The buyer of
which desires two bays. Kindly let us know as soon as possible
if you have any problems with these modifications. "
6. Draft Resolution with respect to SEQR as to modifications to
Westfield (Cluster G) , and to Round Rock.
7. Draft Resolution with respect to approval of modifications to
Westfield (Cluster G) , and to Round Rock.
Mr. Weisburd appended a full site plan for Commonland to the
bulletin board as well as the drawing before the Board. Mr. Weisburd
stated that there is an additional change which should be in any
resolution because one of the people who already owns a house has
requested an additional carport, adding that there is already a
three-plex carport there and he has asked for one more, so it would be
a four-plex. Indicating on the full site plan, Mr. Weisburd showed
for whom this would be and where in "Round Rock" , Cluster "D" .
Continuing, Mr. Weisburd stated that the other matter is with
regard to the "Westfield" Cluster, and, referring to a colored copy of
a map of "Westfield" and showed what had been approved -- four groups
of houses (14 units, grouped as three, four, five, and two) and two
carports (14 bays) . Mr. Weisburd then showed what is being requested
-- four groups of houses (14 units, grouped as three, four, four, and
three) and three carports (15 bays) . Mr. Weisburd explained his
reasons for the requested changes, being, among others, having the
parking and carports closer to the house, adding that this had been
discussed with Mr. Fabbroni, and further adding, that it tends to
break up the mass of things. Mr. Weisburd also spoke about the
existing City of Ithaca right of way and how this affected the unit
placement.
Mr. Klein wondered, if the City does not move the right of way,
how close it might be to the house, noting that we have to have at
least 30 feet. Chairman May asked if the SEAF included the carport
change. Ms. Beeners responded that it did not, adding that the SEAF
has to be amended at this meeting. Mrs . Langhans wondered if there
were any comments from the public. Chairman May, noting that this was
Planning Board 21 June 17 , 1986
not really a public hearing, asked if there were anyone who wished to
comment. No one spoke. Mrs. Langhans stated that she thought the
arrangement was more pleasing with respect to the carports since, in
these, we get away from all that compacted flagstone. Chairman May
stated that he had a little concern about adding anything up in "Round
Rock", adding that, in his opinion, it is crowded. Mr. Weisburd
stated that they had provided room up "here" in "Spring Hill"
[indicating] , adding that they do have a bit of a crunch, and further
describing certain things that were added on at the request of Mr.
Terrell. Mrs. Langhans inquired of Mr. Weisburd if he would not have
other people in the future wanting carports. Mr. Weisburd responded
that he would think that that would be up to them, adding that they
are not really the owners. Mrs. Claudia Weisburd pointed out that all
those under new construction have carports .
Ms. Beeners asked if the Board and Mr. Weisburd would accept the
amendment of Part I of the SEAF by adding, "Addition of one carport
east of Round Rock cluster. " , and, the amendment of Part III of the
SEAF by adding the word "significantly" , such that the recommendation
would read, "Action consists of minor modifications to an approved
plan; such modifications do not significantly increase the scope or
size of this plan. " The Board members and Mr. Weisburd indicated
their acceptance of the amendments.
MOTION by Mrs. Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1. This project is a proposal for the rearrangement of clustered
units and of carports at Westfield, the addition of one carport
at Westfield, and the addition of one carport at Round Rock, in
Commonland Community, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58.1 .
2. This is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental
Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed on June 17, 1986 .
The Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as
Lead Agency for this project.
3. A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the
Town Planner.
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.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
Planning Board 2.2 June 17 , 1986
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mrs . Barbara
Schultz :
WHEREAS :
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Farm for this proposed revision to the existing subdivision and
made a determination of negative environmental significance on
June 17, 1986 .
2. This project is a proposal for the rearrangement of clustered
units and of carports at Westfield, the addition of one carport
at Westfield, and the addition of one carport east of the Round
Rock building cluster, in Commonland Community, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6-58 . 1 .
3 . The Planning Board has reviewed "Commonland Community Phase IV
Site Plan, Drawing No. G-R-111 , House Craft Builders, dated May 7 ,
1986 , which shows the proposed modifications to Westfield, and
additional material presented on June 17 , 1986, describing the
proposed carport addition to Round Rock.
4 . Such modifications to an approved cluster subdivision plan have
been determined not to represent a significant change to the size
or scope of the plan.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does
approve the proposed modifications to Westfield and to Round Rock,
i.e. , the rearrangement of clustered units and of carports at
Westfield, the addition of one carport at Westfield, and the addition
of one carport east of the Round Rock building cluster, as reviewed on
June 17 , 1986.
Aye - May, Schultz, Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of the consideration of
modifications to the Final Subdivision Plan for Commonland Community
duly closed at 8 :49 p.m.
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM APRIL 1 , MAY 6 , MAY 20 , AND JUNE 3,
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,
Planning Board 23 June 17 , 1986
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 8:50 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.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Planner's Comments, as follows: "All materials for the proposed
rezoning are enclosed. The receipt of comments from the Tompkins
County Health Department as to the feasibility of the design is
due for presentation at the meeting. The Planning Board might
consider whether such comments could be incorporated into an
approval with modifications, as is permitted for site plan
approval/recommendations to the Town Board in re rezonings.
JDraft resolutions for the proposed Jacobs subdivision are
enclosed. The map pertaining to such was presented in an earlier
meeting package, and will be available at the meeting. "
2. Letter, dated June 13, 1986 , from John M. Andersson, P.E. ,
Director of Environmental Health, Tompkins County Department of
Health, to Mr. William Albern, P.E. , copy to Susan C. Beeners,
reading as follows:
"We have reviewed the latest (June 10 , 1986) plans for the
Collegeview expansion, and the following comments result:
Sewage System
1. The overall size of the sewage systems seems to be
acceptable, however, deep holes and percolation tests need
to be done in the upper area. Holes dug above the field
show acceptable soils for the fields; those below do not.
We have already spoken to Mr. Jacobs about this.
2 . The large fields would be better if they were spread out
along the contours more; that is, instead of a 100 x 100
tile field, it would be better to have it 50 x 200. This
would more evenly distribute the sewage effluent along the
path of groundwater flow and provide for more
cross-sectional area of soil to treat the sewage.
3 . The header system needs to be detailed to ensure even flow
into each distributor.
4 . For each field, state the number and length of lines, and
distance center to center.
5. How will lots 25 , 27, and 28 be served by sewer?
6 . No home should be closer than 20 feet to a sewage system;
see lots 26, 27, and 47 .
7. More details on the septic tanks are needed. They must be
at least equal in size to the average daily flow.
8 . The lines should be equal length from each header (see the
lower replacement one) .
9. The lines must be installed parallel to the contours. The
upper field would be better twisted clockwise a little; as
Planning Board 24 June 17 , 1986
it is, the north ends of the lines will be about one foot
deeper than the south end. This may be acceptable but could
be improved. The lower field drops four feet along its
western boundary, and the replacement area drops six to
eight feet. This is excessive, and the lines must be shown
parallel to the contours even if it means losing a few lots.
10 . The ends of the lines must be capped.
11 . The Trench Detail must show a slope of only 1/32" per foot
in the pipe, and three feet from trench bottom to
groundwater (four feet to impervious soil) .
12 . The 36" manhole is acceptable only if it is six feet deep or
less. Forty-two inches is required if deeper.
13 . Show the sewer inverts at the manholes, slopes, and lengths
between manholes.
14 . A manhole is needed on the sewer bend near lot 41 .
15 . The sewers must be leakage tested; describe the method to be
used and the limit.
16 . The dosing pumps should be designed at 200 percent of
maximum, not average flow. The dose should be 75 percent of
the volume of lines, or 450 gallons. If the pumping rate is
too slow, the dose will be higher than calculated because
more sewage will enter the chamber.
17 . The sewer lines, as shown, goes through the lower sewage
system.
Water System
1 . The new well must be tested for bacteria and inorganic
chemicals as listed in Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary
Code, before it can be used.
2 . Show how lots 25 , 26 , and 27 will be served water.
3 . Note a blow-off on the upper end of the line.
4 . The details on the chlorinator, storage tank, and pump house
must be made clearer. Is the 12,000 gallon tank existing?
Our information is that the tank is only 500-1 ,000 gallons.
What will the new tank be made of? Show a vent, access
hole, overflow, etc. Show pressure gauges, meter, building
dimensions, etc.
5. Separate lines from each well to the storage tank should be
provided, each with a chlorinator. The chlorinator of the
second well could be a backup of the first.
6 . The bypass around the storage tank is good, but the chlorine
should be applied before the bypass.
7 . Describe the wells: depth, diameter, pump elevation, water
elevation, well seals or caps , capacity of well pumps, etc.
What is the existing well' s yield? Will the average demand
be met with the largest well out of service?
8 . The pressure tank, according to standards, must be 10 times
the pump capacity; for 30 g.p.m. this is 300 gallons. This
is usable capacity required; gross size then must be 800 to
1,000 gallons.
9. The system pumps, also according to standards, should be 10
times the average daily consumption rate, which is 8 g.p.m. ,
resulting in pump design of 80 g.p.m. , not 30 g.p.m.
10 . Describe system operation. Can the distribution pumps
operate together? There must be a low level alarm in the
Planning Board 25 June 17 , 1986
storage tank.
11. Note an AWWA or other spec for the water pipe.
12 . Describe the pressure test and limit for the water lines.
Provide a copy of AWWA C601-68 for the contractor.
13 . Is Paul Jacobs a certified Grade C operator? One is needed
to operate the water supply system.
14 . Please show on the schematic the connecting water line for
the existing park. Are any improvements needed there, such
as blow-offs in ends of lines?
Other
1 . Drainage around the north end of the lower replacement
sewage system must be shown to avoid flooding the area in a
rainstorm.
2. We have discussed leaving the area north of the existing
mobile home park as reserve area for replacement sewage
systems for the existing park. This must be noted on the
plans.
3 . The Town of Ithaca desires to be the Lead Agency for
Environmental Review and they will determine whether or not
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Please call me to discuss any aspect of this review. "
3 . Statement, dated June 15 , 1986, prepared by William F. Albern,
P.E. , reading as follows:
"Collegeview Mobile Home Park to Planning Board 6/17/86
At last appearance, Board requested---
Less crowding
Homes to follow land contours
Reduction of the 11% slope of the main drive
Better turn arounds for vehicles
An additional garbage pick-up location.
Those aims proved to be very mutually compatible.
Reworking the road, now to 9 . 8%, created less crowding.
Turn arounds also helped and offered a spot for garbage.
In order to make-up some time, we have also begun the process of
obtaining Health Department approval prior to Planning Board
approval. And, this has led to some complications, earlier in
the process than is customary.
First, we found that we were required to have separation between
the tile septic field and the stream. A 100 ' separation from a
stream downslope from the field and 50' elsewhere is required.
Those separations are indicated on the drawing you have.
Secondly, and subsequent to your drawings , we have received a
formal review by the Health Department. Although the letter is 3
pages long, there is only one item of major consequence and that
is the lower tile field is not acceptable as indicated on your
drawings. The field must have lines of equal lengths and they
must follow the contour. That objection can be overcome by
reworking the field as indicated on this sketch, Sketch A dated
June 14 , 1986 . This will have to be worked out with the Health
Department.
Mr . Chairman, we will appreciate approval of the drawings dated
June 10 , 1986 subject to the approval of the Health Department as
Planning Board 26 June 17 , 1986
is your custom.
Attachment
Drawing, entitled "Sketch A, Collegeview Park Tile Field" , dated
6/14/86.
4 . Two Drawings, numbered 111" and "2" , as follows:
1 . "Site Plan, Addition to Collegeview Mobile Home Park, Paul
Jacobs , Not For Construction, For Approvals Only" , dated
6/10/86.
2 . "Details, Addition to Collegeview Mobile Home Park, Paul
Jacobs, Not For Construction" , dated 6/10/86.
5 . Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part I , dated May 24 , 1986 ,
Revised June 9 , 1986 , [8 pages] , signed by Paul Jacobs under date
of June 10 , 1986 .
The LEAF was reviewed by the Town Planner, Parts II and III , on
May 28 , 1986 , revised June 12, 1986 -- Type I Action; the Town of
Ithaca Town Board to be the Lead Agency. The Part II review [6
pages] sets forth a "conditional recommendation of negative
declaration. " , is signed by Susan C. Beeners, and is dated May
28 , 1986 , revised per revised site plan review 6/12/86 . "Visual
EAF Addendum" [2 pages] , prepared by the Town Planner, is
attached to the Part II review. The Part III review [4 pages] ,
prepared by the Town Planner, reads as follows:
"TOWN OF ITHACA - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III,
PROPOSED COLLEGEVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK EXPANSION
Revised June 12, 1986 .
Question #1 : Will the proposed action result in a physical
change to the project site?
Analysis: Approximately one quarter of the area to be developed
in the phase presently proposed has slopes in excess of 10
percent. The current site plan shows an acceptable road grade
which has a maximum 9. 8 percent gradient, and an orientation of
lots to permit satisfactory terracing and regrading.
Rough site work is proposed for immediate implementation,
with all site work to be completed in two years. If areas are
reseeded as they are completed, and if temporary erosion control
measures are conducted during the construction period, any
significant adverse impact on land would be mitigated.
Question #4 : Will proposed action affect any non-protected
existing or new body of water?
Analysis: Regrading associated with road construction may
require minor bank retention adjacent to an existing small
agricultural pond. No significant adverse impact is expected.
Question #5 : Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater
quality?
Analysis: Subsurface conditions in the general area of the
proposed zone are highly variable, resulting in the experiencing
of water supply problems by some residents, while adjacent
properties have ample water supply. The Howard gravelly loam
found on the site of the proposed zone has a moderate to rapid
permeability which is considered suitable for the proposed sewage
disposal systems.
Schematic plans for water and sewer systems and other
Planning Board 27 June 17 , 1986
supporting information indicate that such systems will be
adequate for the proposed use in regard to water supply, fire
protection, and sewage disposal. A preliminary analysis of
feasibility has been requested from the Tompkins County Health
Department. Final plans for these utilities would be subject to
their approval.
Question #6 : Will proposed action alter drainage flow, patterns
or surface water runoff?
Analysis: Appropriate erosion control measures conducted during
construction as described above would mitigate any significant
adverse impact. The routing of new drainageways into existing
drainageways is considered satisfactory and of no significant
adverse impact.
Question #11 : Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources,
or the character of the neighborhood or community?
Analysis: The proposed expansion of the existing mobile home
park in a form consistent with pertinent zoning regulations is
not considered to be an introduction of land uses or components
that are incompatible with the character of the neighborhood.
The existing ridge near the north boundary of the property,
and the narrow frontage presented by the proposed mobile home
park zone on Seven Mile Drive, are considered to be advantageous
in screening the site. A 30 foot buffer along Seven Mile Drive
in the existing mobile home park is to be provided upon the
removal of existing mobile homes fronting on this road. In
addition to providing the buffer required along the perimeter of
the zone, 3.2 acres of recreation and conservation open space
have been reserved.
Existing vegetation is to be conserved in the buffer zone
and on lots as they are developed on the fringes of wooded areas.
Additional landscaping, primarily evergreens, is proposed to
screen views of the park from neighboring property and from
N.Y.S. Route 13, which was identified in the Visual EAF Addendum
as being the only major public road where there might be a
negative visual impact. If additional evergreens are planted to
supplement an existing hedgerow on the south side of the property
near an adjacent house, and along the north edges of lots 35 , 36 ,
and 37, and 48 through 52, screening would be considered adequate
in the mitigation of any significant impacts to views.
Question #14 : Will there be an effect to existing transportation
systems?
Analysis: The addition of approximately 100 vehicle trips per
day is expected to be dispersed on several routes, namely, on
Seven Mile Drive to Route 13, and on Seven Mile Drive, to
Bostwick Road, Five Mile Drive, to West State Street. No
significant adverse impact is expected.
Question #18 : Will proposed action affect the character of the
existing community?
Analysis: Expansion of the existing mobile home park is
considered to fill a community need for affordable housing. it
is considered desirable to consolidate such a housing type in one
area if site conditions and design permit. The siting and site
design as proposed are considered to mitigate any potential
adverse visual or environmental impact.
Planning Board 2B June 17 , 1986
Question #19: Is there public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
There has been public concern by members of the community
related to the questions which are discussed above. The proposal
meets all pertinent zoning requirements, and the siting and site
design are considered to result in no major environmental
impacts, contingent upon the following:
a. The planting of additional evergreens to supplement an
existing hedgerow on the south side of the property near an
adjacent house, and along the north edges of lots 35 , 36,
37, and 48 through 52;
b. A preliminary determination of approval by the Tompkins
County Health Department of the design of proposed water and
sewer systems.
6. Draft Resolution: Jacobs Proposed Rezoning, SEQR
Drafted: Susan C. Beeners, Town Planner
"WHEREAS: Presented: June 17, 1986 , Planning Board
1 . This project is a proposal for rezoning of 181 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 56 units, and to 54 units within three years,
such 54 units to include 5 doublewide 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 reviewed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at a Public
Hearing on June 17 , 1986 (adjourned from June 3 , 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 conditional negative determination has
been made by the Town Planner to the Planning Board, conditional
upon:
a. The planting of additional evergreens to supplement an
existing hedgerow on the south side of the property near an
adjacent house, and along the north edges of lots 35 , 36, 37 , and
48 through 52;
b. A preliminary determination of approval by the Tompkins
County Health Department of the design of proposed water and
sewer systems.
5. The Tompkins County Health Department, and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, which are
involved agencies, are 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, and conditional upon the
items described in Paragraph 4 (a) and (b) above, the Town Board
make a negative declaration of environmental significance. "
7 . Draft Resolution: Recommendation to the Town Board of the
Rezoning of Jacobs property from R-30 to R-5
Drafted: Susan C. Beeners, Town Planner
Presented: June 17, 1986 , Planning Board
Planning Board 29 June 17 , 1986
"RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and
hereby does approve the site plan and details presented as
Drawings 1 and 2 of "Addition to Collegeview Mobile Home Park -
Paul Jacobs" by William F. Albern, P.E. , dated June 10 , 1986 and
recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that an 18±
acre portion of lands of Paul and Linda Jacobs , fronting on Seven
Mile Drive, said acreage consisting of all of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-33-2-2 containing 2.9 acres and being the site of
the College View Mobile Home Park, and also consisting of a 15 .1±
acre portion of Tax Parcel No. 6-33-2-1 , be rezoned from
Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-5 (Mobile Home
Park District) as requested by Paul and Linda Jacobs, and as
specifically set forth in the aforementioned drawings, with said
drawings having been reviewed by the Planning Board at a public
hearing on June 17 , 1986 (adjourned from June 3, 1986) , AND with
the following conditions imposed on such approval:
a. The planting of additional evergreens to supplement an
existing hedgerow on the south side of the property near an
adjacent house, and along the north edges of lots 35 , 36, 37 , and
48 through 52;
b. A preliminary determination of approval by the Tompkins
County Health Department of the design of proposed water and
sewer systems.
AND with the Planning Board having found that:
1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location. At present, there is one mobile home park in the Town,
such park being a legal nonconforming use, and being located on
the Jacobs lands within the area for which rezoning is requested.
This park is filled to capacity, and the owner has had
indications from demand, that an expansion of the park would fill
a need for affordable family housing;
2 . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be
adversely affected. Mobile home parks in low lying, primarily
agricultural areas are a typical housing form in the Cayuga Inlet
Valley from the flats of the City of Ithaca southward to
Newfield. The property is in an R--30 Residential Zone where
large amounts of land are currently agricultural , and can be
expected to remain so, and where land is not expected to be
intensively developed with conventional R9 or R15 housing sates
due to the lack of demand for and the expenses of developing
public utilities in this area;
3. The location of the site and the design of the project are
suitable for the proposed use. Located in the southern portion
of the Cayuga Inlet Valley, the site of the proposed mobile home
park zone is sufficiently concealed from existing and future
residential view areas on the hills of the Town. Site
topography, existing evergreens and other wooded areas located in
the perimeter buffer of the proposed zone, and proposed
landscaping, as to be amended per the conditions described in (a)
above, will assist in screening the proposed use from adjacent
areas. The design of utilities as described in (b) above is to
have a preliminary determination of approval by the Tompkins
County Health Department.
Planning Board 30 June 17 , 1986
4 . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town. Amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish a Mobile Home Park District has been
enacted in order to provide a means for sound development of this
form of affordable housing. The proposed zone was identified as
a suitable location for a mobile home park in a 1985
comprehensive plan staff study on mobile home park site
location. "
Chairman May pointed out that the Board does have some new
information and noted the letter from the engineer, William F. Albern,
which everyone had a copy of.
Mr. Albern appeared before the Board and appended a large copy of
the proposed site pian to the bulletin board. Mr. Albern recalled
that, at the last meeting they attended, the Board was unhappy with
the slope of the road, with turnarounds, with garbage areas, with
crowding, and with the placement of the mobile homes on the lots in
relation to the contours. Mr. Albern stated that they found these
matters to be mutually compatible. Indicating on the site plan, Mr.
Albern pointed out that the road around the site has been reduced in
slope from 11% to 9/8% and, in that process of reworking of the road,
the result was also less crowding. Mr. Albern described the location
of turnarounds "in here" and "up in here" -- indicating on the site
plan, and noted, in connection with these cul de sacs, the reduction
in the number of proposed lot sites from 58 to 56 . Mr. Albern pointed
out on the site plan the location of a second garbage area "here"
[indicating] , noting that it was in addition to the one that was "down
below" [indicating] , adding that the turnarounds also helped in
offering that spot for garbage. Mr. Albern stated that he thought
that this meets the desires of the Planning Board as expressed at the
last meeting. Mr. Albern stated that they are requesting approval
subject to the customary approval of the Health Department.
Chairman May thanked Mr. Albern for his presentation and declared
the Adjourned Public Hearing opened to the public at 8 :55 p.m.
Attorney William S . Seldin, 405 North Tioga Street, spoke from
the floor and stated that he presumed to speak for 31 people, adding
that he could read their names , or, submit the list of names and
addresses for the record. Chairman May suggested that submission of
the list would be sufficient. For the record, the submission is
herein set forth.
"Client List -- John F. Bargher, 716 Elmira Road; Eleanor
Sturgeon, 718 Elmira Road; Glenn Snyder, 126 Seven Mile Drive; Lisa M.
Snyder, 126 Seven Mile Drive; Elsie Sheldrake, Earlyb ird Farm, 806
Elmira Road; Heather Scrip, 806 Elmira Road; Gregory R. Sheldrake, 806
Elmira Road; Nancy O. Phillips , 167 Calkins Road; Millard Brink, 706
Elmira Road; Lucille Brink, 706 Elmira Road; Catherine Bargher, 716
Elmira Road; George Sheldrake, 124 Seven Mile Drive; Patricia Dubin,
178 Seven Mile Drive; David M. Dubin, 178 Seven Mile Drive; Donald K.
Josselyn, 152 Seven Mile Drive; Nansen P. Josselyn, 152 Seven Mile
Drive; Jeanne Tomlinson, 224 Bostwick Road; Mark Tomlinson, 224
Planning Board 31 June 17 , 1986
Bostwick Road; Ken and Karen Cranker, 152 Seven Mile Drive; Barbara
Bartholomew, 171 Calkins Road; Dale Bartholomew, 171 Calkins Road;
Sybil Phillips, 167 Calkins Road; Larry Phillips, 167 Calkins Road;
Dorothy Canfield, 180 Calkins Road; Thomas Canfield, 180 Calkins Road;
Sanford Reuning, 167-3 Calkins Road; Raymond Sheldrake, 806 Elmira
Road; David Enfeldt, 175 Calkins Road; Teri L. Enfeldt, 175 Calkins
Road; Linda Loomis, 167 Calkins Road, Lot 8 ; Peter B. Loomis III , 167
Calkins Road, Lot 8."
Attorney Seldin stated that, since the last meeting, they are
careful to note that a June 9 , 1986 , new, Environmental Assessment
Form, that is quite substantial has been prepared, and also, a
three-page letter from the Health Department has been received.
Attorney Seldin stated that he was here to express concerns on behalf
of the community that surrounds the development, and, to give the
Board some sense of the objections.
Referring to a map which he had with him, Attorney Seldin noted
that the "areas in pink" represent those residents surrounding the
Jacobs property that strenuously oppose the site plan and the
rezoning. Attorney Seldin stated that the difficulty here is that, in
looking over the EAF forms, interjecting that they have the luxury of
having two, and the comprehensive plans, there are a number of
variants that they cannot agree with. Attorney Seldin stated that the
most obvious of these is that portion of the report of June 9, 1986 ,
where Ms. Beeners indicates that the exposure of this expansion will
be subject to the view of some 200 ,000 people on a per annum basis.
Attorney Seldin stated that this becomes important when you look at
the comprehensive plan. Attorney Seldin stated that we cannot have
spot zoning, adding that this is not illegal, ear se, but unless under
a plan that makes sense, it may be. Attorney Seldin stated that, in
their perspective, the comprehensive plan sets out that there should
not be exposure to vistas and roadways, that is, the property should
not be visible from scenic views. Attorney Seldin spoke of the DOT
estimates with respect to Route 13 which indicate that there are
13 ,800 people (A.A.D.T. ) utilizing that road on a per day basis.
Attorney Seldin noted that, if those criteria are met, instead of the
200 ,000 figure shown in the Visual EAF Addendum [No. 6 , Page 21 , we
would have more like 500 ,000 .
Continuing, Attorney Seldin displayed an 8" x 10" black and white
glossy photograph which through the use of a telephoto lens showed the
exposure of the park as viewed from Route 13. Attorney Seldin stated
that although there are evergreen trees in place they do not serve to
obscure the public's view of the existing trailer park, let alone an
additional 32 units. Attorney Seldin stated that there was no way, as
Ms. Beeners suggests in her notation at the bottom of Page 2 of the
Visual EAF Addendum, that trees would screen the park from view.
Stating that the report is a subjective analysis and commenting that
beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, Attorney Seldin noted the
"description of the existing visual environment" as analyzed by Ms.
Beeners in the Visual EAF addendum [Page 21 .
Attorney Seldin stated that on an item by item basis they object
Planning Board 32 June 17 , 1986
to Ms. Beeners' analyses in Part III. With respect to Question #4
[LEAF, Part II, page numbered 71 , -- "Will proposed action affect any
non-protected existing or new body of water?" -- and Ms. Beeners'
analysis [Part III, page 11 , Attorney Seldin displayed two more 8" x
10" black and white glossy photographs , one of which he stated showed
"junk in the stream bed" , and the other which showed "the septic
field/supposed to be the projected play area. " Attorney Seldin also
distributed among the Board members eight 311" x 4h" colored
photographs and pointed out that they show "sheet metal for erosion
control -- trailer over bank next to Glenn Snyders ' property" , "shed
on Glenn ' s land falling in stream" , "Glenn's house -- see trailers" ,
"an area dug up in the winter and remaining dug up on June 1st" ,
"garbage both in and around a dumpster" , "an area where there is a
large square concrete cover" , and two pictures of "garbage in the
stream" . Attorney Seldin commented that there is more pollution that
DEC would be interested in.
Attorney Seldin referred to Question #5 [LEAF, Part II, page
numbered 71 -- "Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater
quality?" -- and Ms. Beeners' analysis where "subject to Health
Department approval" is referred to. Attorney Seldin stated that this
is a theme that runs throughout this report as if to say, "Well, this
is kind of up to the Health Department. " Attorney Seldin cited
another area where that "approval" is mentioned -- Question #19 [LEAF,
Part II, page numbered 11] -- "Is there public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?" , with Ms. Beeners ' analysis
referring to Health Department approval of the design of the proposed
water and sewer systems. Attorney Seldin stated that he would now
turn to the three-page letter from Mr. Andersson of the Health
Department, and to Mr. Albern's response. Attorney Seldin read aloud
the last sentence on page 3 of Mr. Andersson 's letter, as follows:
"3 . The Town of Ithaca desires to be the Lead Agency for Environmental
Review and they will determine whether or not a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement is required. " Indicating his clients, Attorney
Seldin stated that these people see the EAF leading to the Health
Department and the Health Department leading to the EAF.
Attorney Seldin stated that they see that it is "okay to have
trailer parks but not in highly developed areas . " Attorney Seldin
spoke of there being a "specific reference to trailer parks but not in
areas where property values are significant" . Attorney Seldin stated
that there are people here with property who are concerned with that,
adding, when they came in there was just the existing trailer park and
now some pretty significant changes are going to be made, and further
adding that the reason they bought in that area is going to be
changed.
Attorney Seldin stated that there is a problem with traffic and
noted that the latest LEAF shows 100 cars a day [Part I , page 21 ,
adding that this is on a country road with no shoulders. Attorney
Seldin stated that the report goes on to say [LEAF Part II, page
numbered 10] that this traffic will filter out this road and filter
out that road, however, hard working people go out to Route 13.
Attorney Seldin stated that with 32 new units each having two
Planning Board 33 June 17 , 1986
vehicles, shopping, and so on, it would be more like 150 to 200 cars a
day, again, on a country road -- with no look-see as to the impact of
what the real traffic will be.
Attorney Seldin stated that the report goes on to say, on page
numbered 8 [LEAF, Part II] that "the proposed action is likely to
cause substantial erosion with ' small to moderate impact' which 'can
be mitigated by project change ' . Attorney Seldin stated that they
object to that. Attorney Seldin noted that on page numbered 9 [LEAF,
Part II] with respect to Question #11 -- "Impact on Aesthetic
Resources or Community Character" -- Will proposed action affect
aesthetic resources, or the character of the neighborhood or
community?" -- Ms. Beeners had marked "Yes", indicated a "small to
moderate impact" which "can be mitigated by project change" , and
written, "See Part III - Landscaping mitigation. " Attorney Seldin
stated that this refers to evergreens which will some day grow up
thirty feet high and will shield the neighbors. Attorney Seldin
stated that he would suggest that that is not totally realistic, for
one reason already mentioned, it is on the side of a slope. Attorney
Seldin noted, also, the neighbor, Mr. Snyder here, and referred to the
photographs again of his house, commenting on the trailers abutting.
Attorney Seldin pointed out, on page numbered 10 of the LEAF,
Part II, where Ms. Beeners had checked "No" to Question #16 -- "Will
there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical
disturbance as a result of the proposed action?" Attorney Seldin
stated that, again, this is a subjective analysis to which they take
issue for obvious reasons -- the expansion of the trailer by sixty to
seventy people -- and further, with that much garbage, the "No" is
objected to.
Attorney Seldin pointed out, on page numbered 10 of the LEAF,
Part II, that Ms. Beeners had checked "No" to Question #17 -- "Will
proposed action affect public health and safety?" Attorney Seldin
stated his objection. Attorney Seldin stated that the water supply is
inadequate and spoke of drainage from the septic system polluting the
stream and contaminating other bodies of water. Attorney Seldin
stated that they have gone to the Health Department and there are
somewhere in the range of forty reports of complaints filed, back to
1948, with respect to this problem, adding the comment that it does
not go just to the owner and management of the park. Attorney Seldin
spoke again of sufficiency of water and recalled a time of need for
the boiling of water. Attorney Seldin spoke of sewage problems and
drainage problems and stated that this particular area is frought with
problems of that nature. Attorney Seldin stated that, in addition,
there are concerns about traffic, some of which he has talked about,
and noted the locations of the Town Barn, the Tompkins County Highway
Department, and the School District Barns. Attorney Seldin stated
that this area is also inundated with traffic of a different type.
Attorney Seldin stated that they noted on page numbered 11 of
Part II of the LEAF, in paragraph #18, at the very top of the page,
where Ms . Beeners had checked "No" to "Impact on Growth and Character
of Community or Neighborhood -- Will proposed action affect the
Planning Board 34 June 17 , 1986
character of the existing community?" [Analysis , Part III, page 2 --
"Expansion of the existing mobile home park is considered to fill a
community need for affordable housing. It is considered desirable to
consolidate such a housing type in one area if site conditions and
design permit. The siting and site design as proposed are considered
to mitigate any potential adverse visual or environmental impact. "]
Attorney Seldin stated that this is an agricultural/residential
community with most of the lot sizes well above the sizes that occur,
and noted the proposal to double the size of a trailer park in that
same community. Attorney Seldin stated that he had to believe that
the name of the game is containment. Attorney Seldin stated that he
was going to say something very candid -- the problem is the State
which wants Towns to provide affordable housing -- and people say, I
guess that is okay, but not in my neighborhood. Attorney Seldin
pointed out that they have it here and these people say this is no
place to put it. Noting that he has looked at the comprehensive plan,
Attorney Seldin stated that for 16 or 17 years this has been a visual
problem; there has been a water problem, a septic problem, and this is
not the kind of place envisioned by the comprehensive plan even though
to some extent it could be coming pretty close, but these folks have
had to live with this problem. Attorney Seldin pointed out that they
see the Health Department report coming in on Friday and the engineer
says -- so we changed the drawing. Attorney Seldin stated that they
take issue with the assessment that says there is no impact on the
character of the community. Attorney Seldin stated that if there were
not an impact, they would not be here, interjecting that he would not
be here certainly, not in these numbers. Attorney Seldin stated they
agree with Ms. Beeners' checking "Yes" to Question #19 [LEAF, Part II,
page numbered 111 ---- "Is there public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?"
Attorney Seldin asked the question -- "What is the bottom line
here?" Attorney Seldin stated that a strict interpretation of the
comprehensive plan would make this general area appropriate -- but,
not this particular location -- in this spot. Attorney Seldin stated
that there are other places that it could be done in. Attorney Seldin
stated that we do not have to have 60 units -- we could have approval
of 30. Attorney Seldin stated that he was not here to talk about
other spots; he was here to talk about why this spot is not it.
Attorney Seldin asked that the Board members see Question #18 in
the LEAF, Part II, which sets forth the Town Planner ' s position,
commenting that there is a NO-YES, and there is a NO-NO. Attorney
Seldin read aloud Ms. Beeners ' analysis with respect to Question #18,
"Will proposed action affect the character of the existing
community?" , as follows: "Expansion of the existing mobile home park
is considered to fill a community need for affordable housing. It is
considered desirable to consolidate such a housing type in one area if
site conditions and design permit. The siting and site design as
proposed are considered to mitigate any potential adverse visual or
environmental impact. " Attorney Seldin asked -- "Why consolidate?" ,
adding that these people see an act of containment and also they say
that "they are dumping on us" , further adding that this is conveyed in
the sentence. Attorney Seldin stated that they are here to talk about
Planning Board 35 June 17 , 1986
reality and the reality is the "recreational area dug up after winter"
and after George Sheldrake brought his camera out. Attorney Seldin
offered more pictures.
Attorney Seldin stated that the last point is the site plan.
Attorney Seldin stated that he did not believe that the site plan
conforms to the requirements of an R-5 district in that on page 8 of
the Town Zoning Ordinance, [Article II-A, Residence Districts R5,
Section 3E - Special Requirements] , Paragraph 5 , "Access Drives and
Walkways: Access drives shall be paved with blacktop, concrete, or
other solid material. Driveways and walkways shall provide safe
access, egress, and traffic circulation within the site. The
placement, size, and arrangement of access to public ways shall be
subject to the approval of the appropriate highway authority. Where
the density of population or school bus routes make it necessary,
sidewalks and bus shelters may be required . " Attorney Seldin
commented -- "But, we can always change the site plan, can't we?" ,
adding, but these people do not believe that in the last analysis it
will be what it should be.
Chairman May thanked Attorney Seldin for his presentation.
Attorney Jeff Coleman, 178 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that he was curious as to why a new Environmental Assessment
Form was drawn up. Mr. Fabbroni responded, because an entirely new
site plan was presented. Attorney Coleman wondered if that meant that
with each change there is a new EAF. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he
would suggest that the changes were enough to require a new form and
proceeded to list many changes. Attorney Coleman stated that it
seemed to him that, from what Attorney Seldin has just said, there are
a lot of questions from the Health Department which have not been
answered. Attorney Coleman stated that he would like to see that the
Board knows the answers -- not just that the Health Department will
take care of it. Attorney Coleman stated that the Board has the
opportunity to make sure that is known.
Mr. Millard Brink, 706 Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and
asked how many new trailers are being talked about on the second plan.
Chairman May responded, 32. Mr. Brink asked how many are in the old
park. Chairman May responded, 24. Mr. Brink asked how many now,
total. Chairman May responded, 56 .
Mr. Jerold Weisburd, 167-1 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and
asked if it were up to the Planning Board as to rezoning. Chairman
May responded that the Town Board has that discretion.
Mr. Sanford Reuning, 167-3 Calkins Road, spoke from the floor and
spoke of the idiosyncrasies of the water supply in the Valley. Mr.
Reuning stated that some sites have entirely different water supplies
-- some have no water supply. Mr. Reuning wondered, even if adequate
water were found, how would it affect the residents in the area,
adding that they are already in a fairly precarious situation. Mr.
Reuning stated that people in the business agree that it is a peculiar
area for water.
Planning Board 36 June 17 , 1986
Chairman May closed the Adjourned Public Hearing at 9:25 p.m. ,
and asked Mr. Albern to respond to the letter from the Health
Department.
Mr. Albern stated that there are items in there such as, what
could be termed, "show-mels" , for example --- show me the number and
length of lines and distance center to center; show me the sewer
inverts at the manholes, slopes, and lengths between manholes, etc.
Mr. Albern noted that the capacity of the old well is stated; the new
well design is based on 8 g.p.m. Mr. Albern stated that the big
question raised is the configuration of the septic system in "this"
area [indicating] . Mr. Albern stated that this is not shown on "this"
drawing and referred to drawing #2. Mr. Albern indicated that the
septic area is shown across the contours and he has reworked it as
shown on "Sketch A" . Chairman May wondered about item #6 in Mr.
Andersson' s letter with respect to the sewage system ["No home should
be closer than 20 feet to a sewage system; see lots 26, 27 , and 47 . "] .
Discussion followed with Mr. Albern referring back and forth to the
drawings and the letter.
Mr. Albern, noting that there are details on the well that Mr.
Andersson wanted taken care of, stated that he has started the detail.
Mr. Klein suggested that Mr. Albern go by the numbers. Mr. Albern did
so, as follows:
"Water System"
"1. The new well must be tested for bacteria and inorganic chemicals
as listed in Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code, before
it can be used. "
Mr. Albern stated that that will be done.
112 . Show how lots 25, 26 , and 27 will be served water. "
Mr. Albern stated that that has been answered.
"3 . Note a blow-off on the upper end of the line. "
Mr. Albern stated that that is shown on the present plan.
114 . The details on the chlorinator, storage tank, and pump house must
be made clearer. is the 12,000 gallon tank existing? Our
information is that the tank is only 500--1,000 gallons. What
will the new tank be made of? Show a vent, access hole,
overflow, etc. Show pressure gauges, meter, building dimensions,
etc. "
Mr. Albern stated that the 12 ,000 gallon tank is new. Mr. Albern
stated that work is needed yet on those remaining details.
5. Separate lines from each well to the storage tank should be
provided, each with a chlorinator. The chlorinator of the second
well could be a backup of the first. "
Mr. Albern stated that he was dealing with an old Code because
they had not updated him, and added that he agreed.
6 . The bypass around the storage tank is good, but the chlorine
should be applied before the bypass. "
Mr. Albern stated that this is understood.
7. Describe the wells: depth, diameter, pump elevation, water
elevation, well seals or caps, capacity of well pumps, etc. What
is the existing well ' s yield? Will the average demand be met
with the largest well out of service?"
Planning Board 37 June 17 , 1986
Mr. Albern stated that he got that information tonight before the
meeting.
"8 . The pressure tank, according to standards, must be 10 times the
pump capacity; for 30 g.p.m. this is 300 gallons. This is usable
capacity required; gross size then must be 800 to 1,000 gallons. "
Mr. Albern stated that he believed this has been dealt with and
he will argue this one with Mr. Andersson.
"9. The system pumps, also according to standards, should be 10 times
the average daily consumption rate, which is 8 g.p.m. , resulting
in pump design of 80 g.p.m. , not 30 g.p.m. "
Mr. Albern stated that he had 60 and that is excessive; he will
also argue this one.
"10. Describe system operation. Can the distribution pumps operate
together? Thre must be a low level alarm in the storage tank. "
Mr. Albern stated that that is intended, adding that the pumps
come on and there are lights and a bell.
"11 . Note an AWWA or other spec for the water pipe. "
Mr. Albern stated that the spec will be noted.
12. Describe the pressure test and limit for the water lines.
Provide a copy of AWWA C601-68 for the contractor. "
Mr. Albern stated that the same as #11 will occur.
" 13. Is Paul Jacobs a certified Grade C operator? One is needed to
operate the water supply system."
Mr. Albern stated that that is correct, adding that he has to be
-- or his wife.
14 . Please show on the schematic the connecting water line for the
existing park. Are any improvements needed there, such as
blow-offs in ends of lines?"
Mr. Albern indicated that such was in order and talked about
where a new well could go if needed.
"Other"
"1 . Drainage around the north end of the lower replacement sewage
system must be shown to avoid flooding the area in a rain storm. "
Mr. Albern indicated that that was in order.
2. We have discussed leaving the area north of the existing mobile
home park as reserve area for replacement sewage systems for the
existing park. This must be noted on the plans. "
Mr. Albern stated that this has been discussed and was up to Mr.
Jacobs.
Chairman May asked if the stream has been cleaned up. The creek
was shown by Mr. Albern on the plan, with Mr. Albern stating that he
has walked it and it is clean.
Mr. George Sheldrake, 124 Seven Mile Drive, spoke from the floor
and stated that what Mr. Albern referred to is not where they are
talking about. Mr. Sheldrake stated that there has been garbage and
debris talked about in the stream for years and years before Mr.
Jacobs bought the park. Mr. Sheldrake stated that Mr. Jacobs is not a
good manager, adding that it has not improved.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would like to speak on two items, the
first being that the Board has the option based upon what staff has
presented and what you have heard tonight to ask for an EIS on the
Planning Board 3B June 17 , 1986
project, and the second being where the coordination with the Health
Department is concerned, he would at least offer our opinion that the
whole universe of impacts that are associated here are more in the
purview of the Planning Board than the Health Department although,
certainly, some areas of welfare are more within the expertise of the
Health Department, but land uses environment are within the global
charge of the Town. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would still recommend
that the Town be the lead agent in that process whatever the Board' s
final wishes on the project are.
Chairman May asked Mr. Fabbroni to speak to the matter of
traffic, noting the 100+ a day mentioned in the EAF. Mr. Fabbroni
stated that from his own perspective, it really should be 200,
commenting that, so there is no misunderstanding, on a two-way basis
it is usual to consider six trips per day, thus, 200 is the more
appropriate number. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there are no capacity
problems involved here whether there are shoulders or not, adding that
what it boils down to may be normal human impatience with waiting for
five cars, and commenting that this is a very difficult question to
answer and it is as real--life as he could put it. Mr. Fabbroni stated
that the road does not have a visibility or capacity problem; it is
generally an appropriate roadway. Mr. Fabbroni commented that he
would ask Mr. Seldin if half of that 13 ,000 was "cricking their neck
back to take a look at the area" .
Mr. Brink asked how many trucks are owned by the Town, to which
Mr. Fabbroni responded -- major trucks, 7; counting pick-ups, 10 . Mr.
Brink, musing about how many trips that might mean, stated that there
are probably 75 to 100 trucks a day from the Town of Ithaca alone, and
then you take the County barns because they use Seven Mile Drive too,
and so, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of Town and County
trucks going by their houses.
Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the Public Hearing had been
closed.
Mrs. Grigorov, commenting that she was not at the other meeting,
stated, however, she was concerned about what the Board has heard
about water problems. Chairman May pointed out that, however, we also
have to rely on the Health Department. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the
applicant can supply more information, adding that, to date, we have
required verification of 16 g.p.m. Mr. Fabbroni stated that, if a
second new well is required, he would doubt that the spring area would
be appropriate, adding that probably a new deep well would be best,
but that is another question which he would have, technically, if the
existing well does not meet 8 g.p.m. or it cannot be mitigated by
additional storage capacity.
Mr. Klein offered that the object is to get a dose filter supply.
Town Attorney Barney offered that it was his understanding that the
technical requirements are provided by the Health Department. Mr.
Fabbroni stated that that was correct, adding that what you see is
coming from the Health Departments rules and regulations like the
Grade C operator.
Planning Board 39 June 17 , 1986
Mr. Klein asked if there has been any discussion about phasing.
Mr. Albern stated that Mr. Jacobs has expressed the desire to build
over a three-year period. Mrs . Grigorov noted that the area he wants
to be rezoned has been reduced. Mr. Klein wondered about there being
trailers on the replacement tile field. Mr. Albern explained, if it
got soggy, how it could be done by moving two trailers out, adding
that, probably, both fields would not fill at the same time, adding,
if pumped frequently, there is a long life, and further adding, that
if there is a sand filter there will be an effluent filter dose in.
Mr. Klein inquired about a force main, with Mr. Albern responding,
pumped, yes, and adding that you want to dose it because this is not
like a normal household system -- in this case it goes into the septic
and accumulates. Mr. Albern noted page 2 of Mr. Andersson's letter
where there is reference to dosing pumps ["16. The dosing pumps should
be designed at 200 percent of maximum, not average flow. The dose
should be 75 percent of the volume of lines, or 45 gallons. If the
pumping rate is too slow, the dose will be higher than calculated
because more sewage will enter the chamber. "]
Mrs . Grigorov asked where the plantings were and Mr. Albern
indicated the plantings on the plan and also the existing plantings,
as well as existing 50-foot high white oak. Ms. Beeners stated that
she also recommended some additional plantings be put in, as described
in Part III of the LEAF ["Question #11, Analysis: . . .Existing
vegetation is to be conserved in the buffer zone and on lots as they
are developed on the fringes of wooded areas. Additional landscaping,
primarily evergreens, is proposed to screen views of the park from
neighboring property and from N.Y.S. Route 13, which was identified in
the Visual EAF Addendum as being the only major public road where
there might be a negative visual impact. If additonal evergreens are
planted to supplement an existing hedegrow on the south side of the
property near an adjacent house, and along the north edges of lots 35 ,
36 , and 37 , and 48 through 52 , screening would be considered adequate
in the mitigation of any significant impacts to views. "] Ms. Beeners,
recalling that some 13 ,000 viewers has been talked about, stated that
she had considered the possible visible frontage from Route 13,
pointing out that it is not a scenic highway nor any part of a scenic
system.
Chairman May commented that there are really no changes in the
existing park. Mr. Albern stated that there were changes to the
existing park, pointing out that the density is reduced to 22 trailers
from 24 within three years, plus painting, plus buffer zone
development, and pavement to match.
Mr. Klein commented that major mitigating measures would be to
try to make some dramatic changes to the existing trailer park as an
unusual requirement and not wait three years -- meet immediately the
30-foot buffer requirement as well as paving the driveway and, perhaps
also, improving the image of the park right along Seven Mile Drive
with some meaningful landscape work -- and do it right away. Mr.
Klein stated that this could be kind of important, if this were to go
ahead, for the future sequences of any expansion and to provide a
better atmosphere for the trailer park as it exists. Mr. Klein stated
Planning Board 40 June 17 , 1985
that, obviously, there have been a lot of negative statements, adding
that he was not comfortable in talking about expansion.
Mr. Albern, indicating on the drawing, stated that the road work
up "to here including this" will be one of the first things effected,
adding that you cannot get in otherwise, and beyond that he would
expect that, if you included that "these two units" at the front be
moved sooner, the owner would go along with that, and further adding
that he has agreed to move them. Mr. Albern commented that plantings
in there would help a bit.
Mrs . Langhans offered that Mr. Albern made it sound as if the
improvements on the existing park will not even be started unless
there is an approval, with Mr. Albern responding that he thought we
have two separate questions here.
Mrs . Grigorov, commenting that the new zoning ordinance on
trailer parks had all these good ideas, stated that, however,
enforcement is often a problem, and added that everything sounds fine
and then there are all those things that do not happen. Mrs. Grigorov
wondered if enforcement would be more severe with this than the usual
subdivision. Chairman May pointed out that there is a re-inspection
process.
Mrs . Schultz asked if there were anything about specific phases
so the Board would have an opportunity to not create problems in
perpetuity and not solve those already there, adding that nothing has
been said about phasing the whole thing.
Chairman May stated that he thought the only way would be to
limit the size of the zone or have site plan limitaiton. Town
Attorney Barney stated that he might have trouble with that.
Chairman May asked Mr. Fabbroni how comfortable he was with the
numerous things in Mr. Andersson ' s letter, quite a number of which are
not indicated on this plan. Mr. Fabbroni stated that in any project
of this magnitude there is considerable expense involved. Mr.
Fabbroni stated that the design process would not follow unless there
was some indication of where the Board stands. Mr. Fabbroni stated
that if we accept the perc tests, the one question remaining is the
well and, from the details , nothing is unfeasible.
Town Attorney Barney, referring to garbage, read from the R-5
regulations [Article II-A, Residence District R5 , Section 3E. Special
Requirements, paragraph 81 -- "Screening of Waste and Refuse: One or
more common areas shall be provided for the disposal of waste and
refuse. These areas shall contain secure garbage bins of a suitable
size. These areas shall be screened from public view by shrubbery or
a fence. " Town Attorney Barney stated that he would think that
probably in approving a site plan, if you so desire, you approve the
installation and that there be uses involved. Referring to paragraph
10 of Section 3E [Article II-A, Residence District R5 , Special
Requirements] , Town Attorney Barney noted that there is an on-going
operational permit reviewed every year and inspections at periodic
Planning Board 41 June 17 , 1986
intervals, and added that this is a condition of granting approval and
might be a mechanism for policing it. Mrs. Langhans wondered why you
would add it when it is already in the zoning ordinance. Town
Attorney Barney suggested that it was one step beyond what is in any
requirement for installations, adding that you should require
installations and use.
Chairman May stated that at this point he would suggest
adjourning for the drafting of two resolutions.
MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr. David Klein:
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the matter
of consideration of site plan approval and recommendation to the Town
Board with respect to the proposed expanded mobile home park be and
hereby is adjourned until Tuesday, July 1 , 1986 , at 8 : 40 p.m. for
presentation of the motions for both SEQR and the site plan.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the Jacobs matter duly adjourned at 10 : 10
p.m.
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM JUNE 3, 1986) : 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
1513 SLATERVILLE ROAD INTO TWO PARCELS OF 7 . 1 ND 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; HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS, DEVELOER.
Chairman May stated that, since it was now after 10 :00 p.m. , he
would declare the above-noted matter adjourned to Tuesday, June 24,
1986 , at 7: 15 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD VACANCY
Noting the importance of having the Planning Board vacancy
filled, Chairman May expressed his strong support for the appointment
of Mr. Robert Kenerson to the Planning Board to fill the vacancy
created when Mr. Stanton retired in May of 1985 .
MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mr. Robert Kenerson,
1465 Mecklenburg Road, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to fill
the unexpired term of Mr. Bernard Stanton, through December 31, 1990 .
Planning Board 42 June 17 , 1985
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye -- May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman May declared the June 17 , 1986 , meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10: 15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.