HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-04-01 Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, in
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George
Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member;
Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney,
Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Michael Smith,
Environmental Planner; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
EXCUSED: Larry Thayer
ALSO PRESENT: William Goodhew, 674 Coddington Road; Mark Macera, Ithacare;
Doris Siplo, Ithacare; Noel Desch, Ithacare; Dave Herrick, 203 North Aurora Street;
Patricia Alessi, 202 Buttermilk Lane; Bill Pikes, 202 Buttermilk Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:08 p.m., and accepted for
the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public
Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 24, 2003 and March 26, 2003
together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the
City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and/or agents, as appropriate, on March 26, 2003.
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. With no persons
wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:09
p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Alessi 2-Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road.
Chairperson Wilcox — May I ask you to step to the microphone? Good evening. If you
could provide us with and name, address and a brief description of what you are
proposing this evening.
Patti Alessi, 202 Buttermilk Lane — I own 34 plus acres on Route 96B that borders
Schickel Road. I would like to have subdivision approval to break it down into two
parcels, Parcel's A and B with 17 point something in the front and 17 point something in
the back.
1
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox—Are you aware of any environmental issues?
Ms. Alessi — Not really.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the Board? George?
Board Member Conneman — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? We have to go through to approvals here, so we'll
do the first one now and then we'll see what happens when we get to the second one.
Ms. Alessi — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any comments from staff in regard to the Environmental Review?
Would someone like to move the SEQR vote. So moved by George Conneman,
seconded by Kevin Talty. All those in favor, signal by saying "aye". Anybody opposed?
There is no one. Could you have a seat for a second?
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-014: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Alessi Two-Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road, Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.2.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two-lot subdivision located on Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 36-2-3.2, Residence District R-30. The proposal is to subdivide a
34.7 +/- acre parcel into a 17.2 +/- acre parcel and a 17.53 +/- acre parcel.
Patricia Alessi, Owner/Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on April 1, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision
Map — Showing Lands of Patricia Alessi, Located on Danby Road — NYS Route
96B, Town of Danby, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by Lee
Dresser, NYSLS, dated 11812003 and other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
2
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES. Wilcox, Hoffman, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty
NAYS: NONE
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
We've got to wait just a couple minutes here, it's not scheduled until 7:15.
AGENDA ITEM : APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 18, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the approval of the minutes for
March 18?
Board Member Conneman — I gave the secretary my changes.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by the Chair. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kevin
Talty. George has provided Lori with his changes which have to do with instances
where it was marked as inaudible, he filled in the missing text. All those in favor of
moving the minutes of March 18t", please signal by saying "aye". Anybody opposed?
And no abstentions.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-015, Approval of Minutes—March 18, 2003
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the March 18,
2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meetings as presented with corrections.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
3
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed two-lot subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road
and N.Y.S. Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.2,
Residence District R-30. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant 34.7 +/- acre
parcel into two parcels of 17.2 +/- acres and 17.5 +/- acres. Patricia Alessi,
Owner/Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox— Does anybody on the Board have questions for the applicant?
Board Member Hoffmann — I would be interested to know how the applicant envisions
the driveway. There is a sixty foot right of way, which, I assume that might be divided
into 3 twenty foot driveways.
Ms. Alessi — Right.
Board Member Hoffmann — How do you imagine that being laid out?
Ms. Alessi — Basically, I have worked with Lee Dresser, he surveyed the property and
then I did have a meeting with several people from the Planning staff just trying to figure
out the best way to subdivide this so that that could happen. Then I thought, well maybe
with three twenty-foot driveways, which would be three flag lots. I realize that we don't
even have a preliminary plan for it. This is Bill Pike, also of 202 Buttermilk Lane.
Bill Pike, 202 Buttermilk Lane - This is sixty feet across. From here to here is sixty feet
and it goes back sixty foot width to this point before it opens up. We would put our home
here and have a twenty foot driveway down the middle to our home right here. We were
just thinking, in the future, possibly to put another home here, which would be a twenty
foot driveway coming into this section and then another potential home here, which
would be the other 20 foot side of this coming down here.
Board Member Hoffmann — Somehow, from the description, it seemed like the three lots
would be along the eastern boundary and that's why I was puzzled.
Mr. Pike — No. East over here?
Board Member Hoffmann —Yes.
Mr. Pike — No. There would be a lot here, here and over here.
Board Member Hoffmann —And so you would own the biggest part of that parcel?
Mr. Pike — Yes. This piece would only be about two and a half acres and this would
probably be a two and a half acre lot.
4
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted you to know that that would be very long
driveways, three of them right next to each other.
Mr. Pike — Well, in practicality, of course, we'd probably share a driveway, but, legally,
we would have to set aside twenty feet.
Mr. Barney —You could build a road.
Mr. Pike —What?
Mr. Barney —You could build a road.
Mr. Pike —Yes. That is quite an expense there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Does the Town have any policies of how to deal with roads
that are built — I understand that if the Town is going to accept it in the future, it's best to
get a specific plan, but that's just if the Town is involved. But otherwise are there any
general thoughts for driveways?
Mr. Kanter — Actually, that's something I looked at in the subdivision regulations, there
are no standards for driveways and that's something that I think the Town probably is
going to look into in our transportation plan as well as at some point when the Codes
and Ordinances Committee looks at the subdivision regulations. There are a number of
things like that that probably should be addressed. Right now, no, we have no actual
driveway standards, other than, I think when it's reviewed for a building permit, they
would just want to see a suitable base so that emergency vehicles could enter and exit
properly.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else, questions? Would someone like to move the motion
for preliminary and final subdivision approval? So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Seconded
by? George Conneman . Any changes?
Ms. Ritter — I don't think I have any changes. The only thing that I would say is that I
think they were trying to get a little feedback on this notion of the three driveways and
how the Planning Board would feel about that. They're also going before the Zoning
Board, so I think they just wanted to get some —
Chairperson Wilcox— On the frontage issue?
Ms. Ritter — Yes. So, just in terms of feedback and conceptually, if they were to do this
in the future.
Board Member Howe — It seems a little awkward, but workable, I guess.
Chairperson Wilcox — You could make the road a little longer, but that just makes the
driveways shorter and you're still going to have to have, I assume, at some point, you're
5
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
still likely to have separate driveways. You're right, it's awkward, that's a good way to
put it.
Board Member Mitrano — I meant to ask the applicant, can you see the lake from those
properties?
Chairperson Wilcox — The question is, can you see the lake from those properties? And
the answer is no.
Mr. Barney — It should be made clear to the applicant that, in terms of feedback,
whatever this Board decided that at this time, the Board can't commit to future boards
on a future course of action that. While particular members of this Board today might
react favorably, that's no guarantee that a board, differently constituted in the future
might not be so —
Chairperson Wilcox — Or similarly constituted may have different information.
Mr. Barney — Or may change their mind, or there may be changes in Town policy. I can't
speak from a Planning standpoint, but they're not terribly desirable feature to have.
Board Member Mitrano — Can you speak a few more words about that.
Mr. Barney — They're awkward. They create situations which are really contrary to ways
the zoning ordinance really kind of contemplates a frontage of 100 to 150 feet. You're
setting yourself up for a situation where you're asking for 20 feet of frontage. It's a
substantial deviation from the Zoning Ordinance. You get into, when you have three
lots on a driveway, who has the right to do what with respect to the driveway, who's
going to maintain it. So you have multiple party maintenance agreements and then
setting a standard for the level of maintenance.
Ms. Alessi — I just wanted to let you know that we have been wracking our brains for
months, trying to figure out the best way to utilize this property. I've had it since 1993
and somebody was interested in buying some of it and I'm thinking okay, how can I do
this, to utilize the whole thing without, you know, the best way to utilize something I
invested in so long ago. I had numerous meetings with people, and on the phone and
writing letters and researching. I'm very open to, if there's another way to configure or
whatever. We went about this the right way, getting advice from people. So, I'm just
saying that I'm open to suggestions to the best way to configure everything. That's
really the way I came up with that. That seemed to be the best way to cut it in half and
be able to get a couple lots out of it myself. So, that's how I came up with it, I was trying
to stay within the rules, but looking at the piece of land, how Schickle Road ends where
it ends and how expensive it would be to extend it and blahh, blahh, blahh. It just
seemed like that was the most I would expect out of this property. So, I'm aware of what
you're saying, that even if you seem to be favorable about it, the next step may not be.
totally understand that too. A lot of thought has gone into this.
6
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Board Member Conneman — Jonathan, how expensive would this be to make the
driveways, as opposed to a road? Ten times more expensive than a road?
Mr. Kanter — Well, I don't know about ten times. I think if Dan were here, he could
answer that.
Mr. Pike — I've gotten estimates at $150 per foot to do a Town approved road. $150 a
foot and $10 a foot for a driveway. So it's 15 times more expensive for a road. That's a
twelve-foot driveway with the proper sheathing underneath it and six feet of shale on top
and so on.
Mr. Barney — Six inches of shale.
Board Member Conneman — Jonathan made a point about emergency vehicles, that's
why I was curious about it.
Mr. Kanter — And especially if it was going to be used as a common driveway in the
future for three houses it would be even more important, not that one house isn't
important, but the more you have on it. Also addressing the County's letter and the
comment that they had about preserving the future development potential of the site. I
think Sue addressed that in the memo, but this layout does not preclude the possibility
of that sixty foot wide road right-of-way extending further into he property at some point
for either a dead end cul-de-sac or a through road somewhere, so it could be done,
although the current owners don't seem to want to do that, someone else probably
could in the future.
Mr. Barney — Is the road sixty feet wide? Or I shouldn't say the road, but the extension
of the road sixty feet wide all the way to point where it widens out?
Mr. Pike — It's sixty feet wide right in here, yes.
Mr. Barney — That's what I mean. The dimension shows it in one location, but it's not
clear whether it's a perpendicular line or not. The fact that the two lines are parallel, they
could be parallel and closer than sixty feet together. It's a question of the perpendicular
width between the two is really sixty feet.
Mr. Pike —Yeh, I'm pretty sure it is. If you draw to scale, you could measure it.
Chairperson Wilcox— John, you all set?
Mr. Barney —Yeh.
Chairperson Wilcox - If you're not, we'll —
Mr. Barney —Actually, it isn't quite parallel, I mean it's parallel, but it isn't quite-
?
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox— Well, they're parallel, they're not the same length.
Mr. Barney — Well, more to the point, it's not exactly perpendicular because it's south 6
degrees 40 minutes and 0 seconds west, it's not a 90 degree angle with north 82
degrees 15 minutes, it's off by 20 seconds. Right? Could it be re-done, not that we're
going to worry about the dimensions half an inch. The Town Road requirements are
presently sixty feet I think for a new road, so I think you'd want to make sure that what
you do here is clearly reserve the sixty feet.
Chairperson Wilcox—And if we're not sixty feet, we're 59 and a half?
Mr. Barney — Or something slightly less than sixty feet, but not a lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? I have a motion and I have a second.
Would those in favor signal by saying "aye". Anyone opposed? No abstentions, the
motion is passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-016: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Alessi Two-Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road, Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.2.
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two-lot subdivision located on Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 36-2-3.2, Residence District R-30. The proposal is to subdivide the
34.7 +/- acre parcel into a 17.2 +/- acre parcel and a 17.53 +/- acre parcel.
Patricia Alessi, Owner/Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has
on April 1, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 1, 2003, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map — Showing Lands
of Patricia Alessi, Located on Danby Road — NYS Route 96B, Town of Danby,
Tompkins County, State of New York,"prepared by Lee Dresser, NYSLS, dated
11812003 and other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
8
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, 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, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision on Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.2, as shown on a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map —
Showing Lands of Patricia Alessi, Located on Danby Road — NYS Route 96B,
Town of Danby, Tompkins County, State of New York,"prepared by prepared by
Lee Dresser, NYSLS, dated 11812003 subject to the following conditions.
a. Obtaining the necessary lot width variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board
Chair, and
b. Submission of a revised subdivision plat, corrected to read "Town of
Ithaca"in the title, and
c. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or Mylar copy of the plat and three dark-lined prints, prior to filing
with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of
filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by
this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land
reservation.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES. Wilcox, Hoffman, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty
NAYS: NONE
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Goodhew 3-Lot Subdivision, 668 and 674
Coddington Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:29 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening and welcome back.
9
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Bill Goodhew, 674 Coddington Road — To say that this parcel is 668 through 674 is a
little misspoken. My neighbor's property, Steve Preheim, is 668 in actuality and there
are some things that we are doing with lot line re-agreements there between myself and
him. The subdivision into three lots would refer to specifically 674. What I need to do or
would like to do is to divide my twelve acres into three parcels, one on the most
northerly section would become a little over four acres and the center section, which
would include the existing house, would become two acres and then the remaining most
southerly section would be six acres, that includes an existing barn. My hope is to build
a house for myself in proximity to where that barn is located. I'm in the process of a
divorce, which is really requiring this subdivision so that my wife and I can split the
assets. The house and the two acres will become hers and she will retain that for
probably four or five years before she wants to sell that. My hope with the most
northerly section, the four acre parcel, is to sell that and to use some of that asset to
help construct my new home and possibly to sell that as a build package because I am
a builder.
Chairperson Wilcox — We also have the advantage, we're taking care of a couple of the
survey discrepancies.
Mr. Goodhew — Yes. My neighbors house, we discovered sat eight inches inside the lot
line, so I'm making a triangle of space available to him so that we can at least get the lot
line to clear his house. In doing that, we're trading off some of the rear portions of his
property to do that. Visually, Mr. Prehiem's not here this evening to concur this, but if we
go back up in there, what we had seen as pins represented previously, it doesn't really
change much in the visual aspect. There's an old fence rows that tracts along the back
section there and what he will be retaining and trading off to me will not really change
what he has in the memory of his property there. Secondarily, I'm changing the abstract
description with my neighbors that are on the south side, that would be William and
Betty Meldrim. Due to the feature that we discovered when the new survey came
through, that the abstract actually describes a line that goes perpendicular from
Coddington Road all the way to the back edge of my property which would put the
northwest corner pin somewhere out in what has been accepted as the Meldrim's
property, although, again, we get back to visually responding to what has been placed
there because of a previous surveyor's inaccuracies. There are old fence rows and pins
that he put in position with inaccuracy and we're going to resolve this by just agreeing
that all those existing features will remain and we're just going to let that dog lie.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Would someone like to move the SEQR Motion? So
moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by the chair. Would all those in favor signal by saying
"aye". Nobody opposed and there are no abstentions. The motion has passed. Could
you have a seat please.
10
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-017: SEAR, Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval,
Goodhew 3-Lot Subdivision, 668 and 674 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 49-
1-16 and 49-1-17.2.
MOTION made by George Conneman , seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed three-lot subdivision located at 668 and 674 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 49-1-16 and 49-1-17.2, Residence District R-30.
The proposal is to subdivide the 12.2 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49-1-17.2)
into three parcels including a 4.2 +/- acre parcel which involves various boundary
disputes and corrections, a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house,
garage, and carport, and a 6.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing barn
and shed. The proposal also includes three subdivisions and consolidations
between the two tax parcels to correct problems with the property line. William
H. and Lee S. Goodhew and Steve R. Preheim, Owners, William H. Goodhew,
Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 1, 2003, has reviewed a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, a map entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of William
H. and Lee S. Goodhew'; prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated 913012002,
and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES. Wilcox, Hoffman, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty
11
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
NAYS: NONE
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed three-lot subdivision located at 668 and 674 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 49-1-16 and 49-1-17.2, Residence District R-30.
The proposal is to subdivide the 12.2 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49-1-17.2)
into three parcels including a 4.2 +/- acre parcel which involves various boundary
disputes and corrections, a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house,
garage, and carport, and a 6.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing barn and
shed. The proposal also includes three subdivisions and consolidations between
the two tax parcels to correct problems with the property line. William H. and Lee
S. Goodhew and Steve R. Preheim, Owners; William H. Goodhew, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7: 34 p.m With no persons present to
be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox— It's nice to see you smiling because the last time you were here, it
was a little contentious given the discrepancy between the various surveys, but it seems
to be getting worked out, which is good. And questions.
Board Member Hoffmann —You mentioned at the very end that a variance for the height
might be needed.
Mr. Goodhew— Yes, that would be concerning the barn because the barn now stands at
approximately 21 feet in height at the peek of its roof.
Board Member Hoffmann — So that's a typical barn?
Mr. Goodhew—Yeh. It's a story and a half barn.
Mr. Barney — Is the barn accessory to something?
Mr. Walker—Well, it's accessory to the shed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Could we speak a little louder.
Mr. Barney —As I'm glancing at this, I'm noticing that it's a barn. Is this R-30.
Mr. Goodhew— It's R-30.
Mr. Smith — One of the variances he'll need for lot "C", until he builds his house is for not
having a primary structure. Once he has this residence on it, which I believe you're
going to be connecting to the barn or you're talking about it.
12
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Mr. Goodhew — Well, that's an idea. I haven't had the architect out to site location yet,
but my intention, at this point, would be to have more of a portico that would connect
between the house and the barn so that I could have something to drive cars
underneath in a protective situation. I'm going to be wrapping my driveway around the
barn.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the approval? So moved by George
Conneman, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. If there's no further discussion, all those in
favor, please signal by saying "aye". Is anybody opposed? No one is opposed, the
motion is passed. Thank you sir.
Mr. Goodhew— Thank you.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-018: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval,
Goodhew Three-Lot Subdivision, 668 and 674 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s
49-1-16 and 49-1-17.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed three-lot subdivision located at 668 and 674 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 49-1-16 and 49-1-17.2, Residence District R-30.
The proposal is to subdivide the 12.2 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49-1-17.2)
into three parcels including a 4.2 +/- acre parcel which involves various boundary
disputes and corrections, a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house,
garage, and carport, and a 6.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing barn
and shed. The proposal also includes three subdivisions and consolidations
between the two tax parcels to correct problems with the property line. William
H. and Lee S. Goodhew and Steve R. Preheim, Owners, William H. Goodhew,
Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has,
on April 1, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, has held a public hearing on April 1, 2003, and has
reviewed a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of William H. and Lee
S. Goodhew'; prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated 9130102, and other
application materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
13
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklist, 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, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 49-1-
16 and 49-1-17.2, located at 668 and 674 Coddington Road as shown on a map
titled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of William H. and Lee S. Goodhew"
prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., dated 9130102, subject to the following
conditions:
a. granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
prior to the plat being signed by the Chair of the Planning Board, and
b. consolidation of the three small pieces between the Goodhew and
Preheim properties with the appropriate Tax Parcel within six months of
this approval, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department
of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department
for said consolidations.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by
this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land
reservation at this time.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES. Wilcox, Hoffman, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty
NAYS: NONE
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the
addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The
proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from
the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building,
constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a
restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk
extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways.
The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion
14
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002.
Ithacare Center Service Co. Inc. Owner/Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. A
negative declaration of environmental significance was adopted at the March 18,
2003 meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox— Mark, you want to take the microphone, I guess.
Mark Macera, Executive Director of Ithacare Center — I'm pleased to be back here this
evening as a follow-up to the March 18t" meeting. I've also brought additional resources
with me, perhaps to respond to some questions that are related to the detail and
accuracy of the civil engineering that was done. I've got views and pictures that illustrate
the blocked views that I was questioned about at the last meeting, as well as the
president of our Independent Resident Council at Longview to speak to the residents
needs and desires regarding this project. With that, I guess, it's the pleasure of the
Board to pick that spot which you would like to return to.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is anyone going to change their vote? I have to hold the Public
Hearing, but...
Board Member Conneman — I did go back and look at the site a week ago Sunday, I
think I take my responsibility seriously, looking at things and proposed lots of changes
as I see from the notes and I think the idea of the window of opportunity which is listed
as one of the ways to look at it does not take risk assessment into account and I think
that Conrad Istock from the Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation
Board also said that the recent plan was a better plan.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have David Herrick and we have Noel Desch here, is
anybody really interested in what they have to say or are we just glad they showed.
Noel, is there something you want to say.
Noel Desch — No, but I'd be glad to respond to any questions.
Chairperson Wilcox— David, the same with you?
David Herrick— That's correct.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. bringing the matter back to
the Planning Board.
Tracy Mitrano — I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy Mitrano has moved approval of preliminary site plan
approval. Seconded by Kevin Talty.
15
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Mr. Barney — Did you say final?
Chairperson Wilcox — If I didn't, preliminary and final site plan approval. Is there any
further discussion.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to see the information that you mentioned that
you brought, pictures and what else?
Mr. Macera — I have the over flight view and, in basically lay perspective, identified the
relocation of the pavilion relative to it's first location and the grade for the slopes to give
you an illustration relative to the entire site. I also have 35 millimeter slides that I took
from the western perimeter of the building showing the blocked views that this pavilion
would create for those residents who would look north of their living areas. Let me
preface and say if you either recall or you have the grading and/or site plan for this
project, you might be able to determine exactly where we are. I will explain it to you, but
for those of you who need a better reference, you'd have to refer to your schematics to
determine precisely where we are.
We're along the western edge of the "B" wing portion of the Longview building. Looking
from this orientation, to the left would be the edge of the benched site that leads into the
site that we've proposed to add fill to and benched to meet the current grade so that we
could locate that pavilion on it. One of the points that was made is, for those people who
actually live on this edge of the building, when they step out of their living areas, either
on terraces at grade or decks above grade and they turn 90 degrees to their right, this is
exactly what they would see.
With the first or the original proposal, you'll recognize that that pavilion is directly square
in the middle of the backside of that garage or shed, which would create a visual
obstruction for those individuals living at grade, which is exactly where I'm taking this
picture from, right at the terrace closest to that area. From that point, I went to the
second level from the rear of the building or the third level, if you will. I stepped out onto
the deck, again I turned to the right and you will see the obstruction that that pavilion
would create for those people living along that perimeter of the building. I went up to the
third floor, the third level of the backside of the building, again looking immediately to my
right, and took a picture and it would show that the profile of that pavilion would obstruct
the views that those residents would have, contrary to some of the suggestions that
were made before. This is a bit of a telephoto lens just taking a closer look from that
spot.
This is the asphalt trail that was added, following the original site plan approval and with
a site plan modification to extend the trail and connect it to the promenade in the back of
the building, which was another amendment to the site plan and this attaches the
promenade to the actual trails, which are behind me and I am walking basically from
south to north or northeast and I had actually taken those pictures I just showed you
previously from the building there, which is located to the right. You can see along this
traveling area or path that that promenade would actually obstruct the views for
16
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
pedestrian traffic that would use the trails and the walkways. I'm walking along the same
path approaching the garage again and as I move just to the right of that garage, which
is on the immediate left, you can see that that pavilion would be smack in the middle of
everything that people would see as they would walk those trails.
The questions was of the vitality or the significance of the vegetation in the area that we
would be filling. We would be clearing grub and then fill. This gives you an illustration.
This was just taken a week ago with everything melted and thawed out. This is the
vegetation looking from grade along that asphalt walk that we just stepped off of again
to the left. This is another picture, just from another angle of that area that would be
filled. Another picture of the stock that we would be filling. I'm now down onto the trail
that would be covered by the fill and then relocated further to the west, as depicted in
the plan. Now, I'm looking basically from the west to the east or northeast and you can
see, in the center of the picture, that garage that we were looking at from the immediate
south a few moments ago and this is the area that basically would be filled and then this
path, again, relocated so that we wouldn't lose this resource further west of the area
that is being filled.
This is looking back to the south, along that trail and the building in the corner would be
the corner of the building that is closest to the wetland area. So I'm looking, actually,
from the northwest to the southeast. I stepped off the dining room onto the rear deck
underneath the building mansarch to illustrate where that building would be. In the
original proposal, and the documents would support this, would show that pavilion
actually standing over the middle of the promenade, just to the right of that shed and
garage, so that any recreational activity, any walking by individuals or groups would be
required to walk through that pavilion, not an ideal situation. It would involve actually two
different groups, to separate groups interfering with each other's activities. Of course,
this is what we proposed before we learned and had an opportunity made available to
us to acquire soils at no expense to improve upon a plan and make it a more viable plan
for everyone involved.
Chairperson Wilcox—Are you done with the slides?
Mr. Macera — That's it. If I could be given one minute to provide additional visual
illustration, I think would support some of my comments that show the actual re-
positioning of this pavilion.
Chairperson Wilcox — It takes a while for these lights to go back on.
Mr. Barney — Just about the time you're ready to go home, they'll come back on.
Mr. Macera — We'll have to wait for the lights obviously for the next — to illustrate that
better, but just to give you a better idea, this is actually the perimeter of the project site.
When this aerial shot was taken a couple of years ago, prior to the addition of some of
the infrastructure that they have added to Longview, what we don't have illustrated here
is obviously a connection to this sidewalk to the walking path of the promenade that
17
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
actually does this and then connects also to the trail which runs through the woods.
Here, in the original application submitted, I believe in August of last year and with
consideration in October, this is what we received what we had site plan approval for,
that showed the pavilion be located and it would right in the middle of the promenade,
forcing those who are walking the promenade to cut right through that pavilion. Again,
with the resources we had at that time, it made this a requirement. The opportunity to
obtain some soil, allowed us to look at this and also, as a result of the residents
expressing concern that this would block their view. This is where we were looking from.
We were looking from the south, heading north and we want to move this further west
and move it out of this view-shed. The building that is right here, right now, we would
propose to extend and bench out this area and this grade begins that steep incline, if
you will. The relocation of the trail will be between the bottom of that re-sloped area to
the top of that re-sloped area. The wetland area here, the tributary that leads that
wetland runs in this direction, we will tie into the grades outside of the tributary at the
corner of this site, fill in what is basically a little cavity here and tie back into the grade at
this location. So, this is basically 3,000 cubic yards of fill that would be introduced. I
don't know what else I can say about this, but I've given you a perspective, in terms of
the location and movement and the area that is being impacted relative to the entire
project. One of question and comments that dealt with the environmental declaration,
was the impact, the significance. I contacted our site contractor to get a sense of what
we did here that received a negative determination way back when. We moved about
75,000 cubic yards of soil, 25 times what we're proposing to do here. We received a
negative determination back then. In your plans it shows how we're going to re-plant
this area to allow it to be used.
Speaking on some of the other issues regarding programming and resident wishes,
right now we actually have a horseshoe pit there, that isn't shown, which is currently
interfering with the pavilion. We want to open this up, so that this space will be available
for our purposes in addition to opening up that view-shed.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think I'm having trouble determining which is the building
from looking at this photo.
Mr. Macera — Right here.
Chairperson Wilcox— Do you want to go up and just point?
Mr. Macera - This is the "B" wing that starts here. This rectangle is that one western
neighborhood, if you will, running in this direction. Here's where the front of the building
is and here's where it ends. I was standing in one of these living units along this side
approximately one dozen of them. I picked three, one on each level and I looked in this
direction at the back of the shed, which is located here.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that the shed that you referred to that you had to get
around?
18
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Mr. Macera —Yes right there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that staying in the same location.
Mr. Macera —Yes, that is staying there.
Board Member Hoffmann — So that shed...
Mr. Macera- We had actually thought about moving that shed, but it is sitting on a
concrete slurry right now and it would just be problematic and costly to move it. It would
open up the views, but it is just one of those issues where we have to take the cost into
consideration.
Board Member Hoffmann — That was one of my questions, whether the shed would fit.
The other question has to do with, in the original plan, the pavilion would be over the
trail, but it seems to me, since there is going to be work going on for the foundation of
the pavilion there anyway, it wouldn't be such a major matter to shift the trail.
Mr. Macera — Agreed, but it would lead to more infrastructure in that smaller area and
that wouldn't allow us to accomplish our objective and that is to maintain the open
space and actually use space that isn't currently usable for programming purposes like
developing that small portion to the west.
Board Member Hoffmann — I hear what you're saying that you're going to create more
usable space, but part of my problem with this site from the very beginning and you may
remember that, or maybe you Board Members were not aware of this, but when
Ithacare was first proposed I had problems with some of it. It wasn't just a question of
the views, but I wasn't sure that there was sufficient drainage and I voted against it. It
passed, but I voted against it. One of my problems is that this is a very difficult site to
build on because it has a lot of limitations. There are wet areas, there are steep slopes
and all kinds of things like that. Just because you can do something because you get
the land for a low price or fill for little or no cost, it doesn't mean you don't have to pay
attention to other constraints. It's very nice that you can get fill for less money, but you
still have to work within the limitations of the site.
I really don't think that the location of the original location of the pavilion would have
been that detrimental to the . Maybe that could have been helped by the shifting of the
pavilion without having to do that much filling.
Mr. Macera — (inaudible speaking away from microphone) This modification was not
administration's original proposal, it was the resident's proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Mark. I have a motion and a second. Do you want to
say anything else? Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please
raise your hand. One, two, three, four. All those opposed? There are two against, the
motion is passed four to two.
19
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-019: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Approval Pavilion, Fill and Sidewalk Extension — Longview, 1 Bella Vista
Drive, Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.31.
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano , seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at
Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 39-1-1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal
includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College
Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a
2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and
storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a
total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal
has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion being shifted,
since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare
Center Service Co., Inc., Owner/Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and
Special Approval, has, on March 18, 2003, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 1, 2003, has reviewed and
accepted plans entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered
Pavilion," including sheet A-1, "Final Site Plan," and sheet A-3, "Erosion Control
Plan,"prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. and dated 2117103, "Longview — An Ithacare
Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," sheet A-2, "Preliminary Drawings",
prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated 8107102, plans received Feb.
19, 2003 showing location of sidewalks, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the pavilion, approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill, restroom
20
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
and storage addition, and sidewalk extension at Longview, an Ithacare
Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.31, as
shown on plans entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered
Pavilion," including sheet A-1, "Final Site Plan," and sheet A-3, "Erosion Control
Plan,"prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. and dated 2117103, "Longview — An Ithacare
Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," sheet A-2, "Preliminary Drawings",
prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated 8107102, plans received Feb.
19, 2003 showing location of sidewalks, subject to the following conditions to be
met prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a. revision of planting materials on the Final Site Plan to replace the Norway
Maple with a similar, but non-invasive species, and
b. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper,
revised to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or
engineer who prepared the topographic survey, to be retained by the
Town of Ithaca.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Approval, determining the
following:
a. the proposed use and the location, design, size, and general site
compatibility of the pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk are consistent
with the character of the area in which they will be located;
b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use,-
C. the proposed pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk will not be detrimental
to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to
devalue neighboring property;
d. natural surface water drainage ways are not adversely affected and will
not create drainage or erosion problems,
e. the proposed pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk will not impact any
environmental sensitive areas including but not limited to wetlands,
floodplains, woodlands, steep slopes, and watercourses, and on other
open space areas of importance to the neighborhood or community.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES. Wilcox, Mitrano, Howe, Talty
21
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman
The motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM : Continuation of Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town
Board regarding the proposed Town wide comprehensive revisions to the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map. Key changes are proposed in areas such as
Agricultural and Conservation zones, simplified procedures for Special Permit
uses, a new Lakefront Residence zone with special provisions to protect the
character of the Cayuga Lake shoreline, a new Office Park Commercial zone,
clarification of the purposes and revisions in the permitted uses in the Business
zones, and many other updates and clarifications. The Codes and Ordinances
Committee and the Town Board have accepted a revised draft of the Zoning
Ordinance (Jan. 15, 2003) and Map (Nov. 26, 2002), and have referred those to the
Planning Board for a recommendation regarding adoption. The revised draft of
the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions is available for public review,
along with an Executive Summary highlighting the proposed changes. Copies
are available for review at the Town Hall and the Tompkins County Public Library.
All of the documents are also available in downloadable and printable format on
the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.nv.us. A public hearing was held and
closed at the March 18, 2003 meeting.
Board Member Mitrano exits.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright ladies and gentlemen, including our two students, I guess,
who are enjoying themselves and getting a civics lesson.
This Board, two weeks ago, after hearing public comment on the proposed revision to
the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance decided to take two weeks and discuss the
changes and the public comments this evening. I should note, for the record that when
we arrived, we had some written comments, provided by Carl Segrecci of Ithaca
College, Bruce and Doug Brittain of Forest Home. Does anybody want to start? Rod?
Board Member Howe — I'd like to say in the study of the newer lower density transition
zone, I read the material that you had sent us. It was inconclusive so I really applaud
this idea. I guess one question is, is it feasible to put a time frame on when such a study
might be conducted by? I don't know if that's reasonable. The other question is, why not
wait and do the zoning all at once, once we get the study back to see if we want to
change anything. It seems like we're adding work if the zoning gets approved now and
three or four months later, five months, whatever, we're coming back and having to re-
approve some things. So, I'm wondering why it just doesn't all happen as one package.
Mr. Kanter — Well, also there were some other pieces that aren't ready now, like the
additional proposed conservation zones. Coy Glen in particular is one that we have
22
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
been working on for quite some time and that's just not quite ready to go yet. Another
Conservation Zone is off of Taughannock Boulevard at the Lake Slopes UNA. So, I'
mean those are just examples of other items that are going to take some additional
work. I think the feeling of the Town Board and the Codes and Ordinances Committee
was if we hold off until we address the low density residential provision and these other
things, who knows, something else is going to come up. Another year, another two
years and here we are still without the new ordinance that we've been working on for
five or six years now. I think the other reason the Town Board felt okay with moving
ahead with the rest of the zoning was that actually by taking out the three acre density
provision that was originally in the LDR draft, we were actually not changing anything
per se, we're going back to the R-30 Density, basically and so it was felt that that was
actually a better base to work from instead of going to a new different three acre
potential density and changing that again at some future point. That was not seen as a
good idea either. So there was definitely debate about holding off on the whole thing
and finishing up the LDR and it was a mixed opinion, but in our democracy the majority
rules.
Mr. Barney — If I could just add that the Codes and Ordinances Committee, who is kind
of the focal body, has been working on this, I want to say, six years. Every so often an
issue surfaces and we got diverted with issues like adult entertainment uses and
telecommunication towers and more recently, I think, the size of stores. Each of those
required a study and the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance got laid aside for months, it
wasn't just a matter of a week or a couple of meetings, it was set aside for months.
think the thought is that we need to bring closure to this. We're trying to re-codify all of
the legislation in the Town and keep it published as the Code. The hold up presently is
largely getting the zoning ordinance put in there and change it to codify the old one, a
month later you can rip it out of there and put in a new one. If we stop to look at all
these things that surface, we are going to be another year or two years. I think that was
more the rationale, as Jon suggested. Let's bring closure in this. We know this is always
a work in progress and it's never going to be final, I should say. New types of activities
occur that we don't have in our crystal ball right now. There's going to be changes to
this ordinance, let's just get something reasonably well defined and get it into the code
and then go back and make the changes as they come up.
Mr. Kanter — Fred and Eva could probably talk more about the Codes and Ordinance's
perspective on it, but we did, at the last Code's meeting talk about the approach to this
study of the new transition zone. Basically the first point is, it was agreed that we should
really not try to work currently on the new zoning and try to finish the remainer of the
revised Zoning Ordinance because we just don't have the resources to do that. If we
want to adopt a new zoning soon, we really have to really focus our attention on that,
finish the Environmental Review, bring that to the Town Board for conclusion. Then
really work in earnest on this new lower density transition zone. To do that, getting back
to the original question on timing, if we can get the Ordinance re-adopted within the next
few months, and I think that's realistic, then start working on this new lower density zone
starting in the summer and then into the fall, it's likely that by the end of this year we
might be able to have the proposal. But it will take some pretty intensive work, a lot of
23
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
different mapping. Some of the Committee members felt like they want to go out and
actually do some field trips to look at some of the areas that we might initially target on
the map. I don't know if you guys want to add to that discussion.
Chairperson Wilcox — I can't add to that, I missed the last meeting.
Mr. Kanter—That's right, you weren't at the last meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — But I can add to the fact that when the Codes and Ordinance
Committee passed it on to the Town Board it was a split vote. I think the Codes and
Ordinances was five to two, with the four Town Board members splitting two, two. The
Zoning Ordinance is a living being, if you will, that's always changing. I think there's
really a feeling among people that what we've got is good, it's not perfect, it might need
more work. It encompasses a lot of hard work. We brought it to the public, got some
input.
Board Member Howe — That's fine. I think that makes sense, I'm just supportive of the
study. The only other question I have is, I'm sorry I wasn't here two weeks ago, Rod
Lambert's e-mail I had not seen before, was there much discussion on- I like the
language that he's providing here to try to make it more explicit that we're encouraging
cluster zoning, that type of thing, so I don't know if you spent any time talking about
trying to really emphasize that the Town wishes to encourage more.
Chairperson Wilcox —We did not discuss Rod's letter.
Mr. Kanter— Does anyone need a copy of that? I have a couple extras.
Board Member Howe — As you read through the zoning, certainly I know we allow for it,
but it doesn't seem like it's obvious that, in my own words, we like to encourage that
kind of cluster zoning. So, I think the language, that's the point I wanted to make.
Chairperson Wilcox —And very often, it's up to us to decide when cluster is warranted.
Board Member Conneman — I think it makes sense to move ahead. Like John said, it's a
work in progress and always will be.
Board Member Hoffmann — With respect to clustering, that's something that the
Planning Board has had as a concept, a very usable concept for a long time. I would
imagine that when an applicant comes to staff, in the very early stages you point that
out. Then they're all aware of that early on.
Mr. Kanter— Absolutely. I think, really, some of Rod's suggested wording almost comes
out of the new, revised Eco Village SLUD, which, obviously, they're very happy and
proud about their new development and I think they're hoping that aspects of that can
carry over into other developments in the Town. So he was, I think, optimistically,
hoping that something like that could be added more permanently in the zoning. I think
24
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
the fact is that we do have opportunities to do those kinds of things through other
planned development zones and now especially through more and more use of the
clustering, which is going to be able to be required by the Planning Board in Agricultural
Zones and the Conservation Zones. It actually is possible to mandate it now, we do
actually have that in the subdivision regulations book. Some of these other things that
Eco Village is thinking about like the possibility of a village center, which actually isn't in
the SLUD yet, but with the overall idea of mixed use developments and allowing other
types of opportunities and living environments. Those are all good ideas, but it `s kind of
hard to put it down in a set way in the zoning, so I think we've always had a lot of
flexibility in how we address those kinds of things.
Board Member Conneman - Where there is cluster housing, is it true that they do not
have to build a center.
Mr. Kanter— It think the ones here probably don't tend to have community centers, but—
Board Member ? — I think there's a proposal down in the Town of Warwick in Orange
County.
Mr. Kanter — And a lot of other places are doing more of that kind of thing, you know
having mixed use types of opportunities.
Board Member Hoffmann — We also have introduced some mixed use in the new
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kanter—Yes.
Board Member Howe - I just want to make sure that we feel that it's worded enough so
that people see it and think about it when they're planning developments. If others feel
that it's in there sufficiently, then I don't care.
Chairperson Wilcox— Thank you Rod. Anybody else?
Board Member Talty — I'd like to insert something. With regard to the documentation
from Mr. Monkemeyer. I've read it very thoroughly and I think that Mr. Monkemeyer as
well as the other four or five other individuals that were here a couple of weeks ago are
certainly making sure that their interests are covered and I don't have any issue with
that. Number one, with regard to the documentation that Mr. Monkemeyer provided, I
would just like to go on the record and say that indeed the City of Ithaca has realized a
tremendous amount of expansion and me, being a property owner in the Town of Ithaca
and having my assessment go up 41% in one year, I do believe that it is time that the
current Town Comprehensive Plan be updated to include businesses in the Town of
Ithaca, whereby maybe they were centered toward the City. Due to the fact that as more
and more people and less businesses are in the Town, we can't generate the proper
revenue and hence, that's why we're looking at exceedingly high assessments for our
property values. Which I don't believe that my particular house at 24 44 square feet is
25
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
going to be $265,000, 1 think that's a little excessive. So, I would just like to go on the
record saying that Mr. Monkemeyer has a definitive point with regards to re-
emphasizing a steering plan back to the Town of Ithaca and away from the City.
Board Member Conneman —What would you sell your house for, not on the record-
Chairperson Wilcox— We are on the record.
Board Member Tatty — Why, are you in the market George? Just remember that
assessment isn't what you can get for your house, that's not how it's based.
Mr. Barney — Well, it's supposed to be. Basically, what a willing buyer will pay a willing
sell, neither party being under duress to buy or sell. It's market value.
Board Member Conneman — Your taxes are based on how much your representative
approves to spend.
Board Member Talty — That is correct, but also, it all depends...I won't get into how it's
valued, but also the property value. Your assessment is basically deemed as the
improvement to the land, you're supposed to subtract out the land value and then
identify, based upon square footage, a heeded area. I feel as though if you go by that
formula, first everybody should have the first square footage within a relative amount of
building a house and right now those formulas are totally inaccurate in all the
paperwork. I have much documentation to show it, much. So, what I'm basically trying
to say is that if you were to drive more businesses in, that would assist in not raising the
property values or your assessment values. Because basically what they are doing is
they are getting more tax revenue.
Mr. Barney — But that doesn't affect the assessment.
Board Member Tatty— That is correct.
Mr. Barney— The assessment is the vehicle by which you determine what taxes you are
going to pay. It might affect tax rates, you'd get more assessed value.
Board Member Conneman — If you pay a higher tax rate, it is because you have spent
money that you have to get off of the assessment. This is the only county that assesses
county wide. Is that right John?
Mr. Kanter— I think there is one other down state.
Board Member Conneman — That does it county wide? Usually they do it on the basis of
town and this assessment has always been brought up to date every two or three years
and the basis of raising your assessment, I assume was based on some property sales.
Board Member Tatty— I wouldn't assume that.
26
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox— Can I get us back to zoning.
Mr. Kanter— Anyway, Kevin's point on business development, I think is a good one and
that's one reason, I think, that the Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town
Board came up with this new office park zone, which certainly isn't a save-all, but it was
seen as a way to attract lower impacting business into the Town that would have a
lower traffic impacts, lower neighborhood impacts, but still have good results for the tax
base if we could attract that kind of development. So there are a couple of new
opportunities for that in the Town. I also, personally feel, not just personally, but as a
planner, that there are going to be additional opportunities for targeted commercial
growth in the Town. Particularly on the west hill and that is just one are that the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning have been silent on up until now, but there's a
pretty obvious need that is arising as that area developed more for another
neighborhood oriented commercial center anyway, which would at least serve
development that is occurring on the west hill and that would help the traffic situation
along the road network as well, so that people don't have to come all the way down to
Elmira Road to do their shopping.
Board Member Talty — There's no question, because if you don't put together a futuristic
plan that is realistic, what's going to happen is that there's going to be a window of
opportunity and they are going to develop it in other towns, there's no question about it.
Look at Lansing. That may be over developed.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to concentrate on what Even Monkemeyer said, but
frankly I found him self-serving.
Board Member Talty—Well all of them were.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, him more that any others and I'm looking at his written
comments here. "The Town of Ithaca staff, consultants and Town Board members
having knowingly fabricated and made incorrect statements about the conditions
existing on my land."
Board Member Talty— I did stay away from number two.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know. But it goes on, " The Commercial Zone on the
northeastern side of intersection Route 96 B and King Road needs to be increased in
size." That's because he owns the land kitty-corner. I stopped listening to him as a
result.
Board Member Talty — In all sincerity though, he came well armed, well informed and if
you look at everyone else's presentation, they're also self-serving.
Board Member Hoffmann — Now, one thing that maybe not everyone on the Board is
aware of is that that corner parcel that Evan Monkemeyer owns has approval for a
27
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
commercial establishment to be built, a garden center. He has had that approval for
how many years now?
Mr. Kanter— Maybe five, four or five.
Board Member Hoffmann - So, he has a development already planned.
Chairperson Wilcox — He wants more and he doesn't like it zoned Conservation, he
wants R-15 or R-9 .
Mr. Kanter — Again, not focusing on that too much, but if you recall, Mr. Monkemeyer
came into this Board maybe three years ago with this sketch plan for development ideas
to his property and we talked very specifically about how the conservation zone would
or wouldn't affect his potential development and we actually did end up adjusting the
boundary, not only on the Ithaca College property, but somewhat on his property to
move it farther to the east so it still obviously does cover part of his property, but not as
much as it did before. Again, we spoke extensively with him about how his future
subdivisions, even within the conservation zone, could end up with lots around this
perimeter road that would go around the new park area and that's obviously an issue
that he didn't bring up which is one that I think that is actually much more important for
this Board to think about. About how that's going to be accomplished as he comes in for
future development proposals. Anyway, we also talked to him about the possibility that
the Town might be receptive to increasing densities on areas adjacent to this business
zone. Possibly additional business or higher density residential apartment development.
He should come in with a proposal and show it to us and we'd be willing to consider it at
least.
Chairperson Wilcox — That last plan was very creative and had a lot of good aspects.
Single family homes over here and high residential apartments over here and residential
on top of the commercial. From a concept point of view, it had a lot of nice amenities,
besides the park that the Town has continued to try to build and dealing with that parcel
between the Montessori buildings.
Mr. Kanter— There was some debate about whether all these lots could actually be built
because they were showing at probably some reduced number and then perhaps
somewhat lower number of lots up here because this is where some of the sensitive
areas and the wet areas are shown here. And significant wetland area up in this part.
Then the road coming back down to the commercial center, they were actually even
showing commercial as a possibility in this part. So, it's sort of like he was ignoring all of
the other things we talked about with him and just focused on the points that he thought
were important to make. I never like it when people sort of leave out details like that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, did you write this resolution?
Mr. Kanter— I drafted the resolution, yes.
28
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Under the "further resolved", I had a hard time reading this
sentence. I want to take out the word "draft" in the first line, I think that works for me. "
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board would have the opportunity to review the generic
Environmental Impact Statement....Upon it's acceptance as completed by the Town."
So, if we don't review it until it's been accepted, then it's no longer a draft.
Mr. Kanter — No, that's not true. It becomes the formal draft generic Environmental
Statement upon acceptance by the Town Board, that's the SEQR term.
Chairperson Wilcox — And then it stays open for public comment and all of that. You're
absolutely right.
Mr. Kanter — And then from there the Town Board takes public comments and
incorporates that into a final Environmental Impact Statement.
Chairperson Wilcox — The idea of the bed and breakfast in the Conservation Zone
doesn't seem to be an issue, I think everyone is comfortable with that one.
Mr. Kanter — Actually, as I mentioned, Codes and Ordinances talked about that and
specifically endorsed that idea.
Board Member Talty — Is there a bench mark or ordinance with regards to how bed and
breakfasts are supposed to look from the external. If you're going to allow the bed and
breakfast, which I personally don't have an issue with in the Conservation area, I would
think that there should be some major upkeep involved so it doesn't become dilapidated
and therefore...
Mr. Barney — Different than say somebody has a barn in the Conservation Zone and lets
it get run down.
Board Member Talty—Well, I'm not in favor of that either.
Mr. Barney — You tread into an interesting area, which is also ripe with many
opportunities for lawyers when you start legislating aesthetics and that's really what
you're doing. We're trying , I think we're re-defining a little bit what a bed and breakfast
is with I think the number of permitted occupants. The ideas is to keep it at a relatively
small scale and more or less an owner occupied kind of situation which encourages,
usually, to have a greater level of upkeep then if it were just purely a rental. I don't know
that how you might define upkeep and how I might define it and how some third person
might define it could be quite different. Paint it every two years or paint it every four
years.
Mr. Kanter — I think one of the theories about bed and breakfasts is that it may help,
actually, with upkeep and maintenance of buildings. It provides another source of
income for an owner, especially, the comment we heard from the woman who had the
property in the Conservation Zone, it's an old, sort of a big old house, probably bigger
29
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
than they need for their family, so it obviously has extra room. To be able to keep up a
house like that a bed and breakfast is certainly a possibility as an outside source of
income that's, hopefully, fairly low impacting. I think that's something we certainly need
to keep track of is, if we get more and more of these in the Town.
Board Member Conneman — Jon, you're really saying that painting it pink like the
Turbacks was painted was acceptable to some people and others were confused.
Mr. Barney — It was fresh paint.
Chairperson Wilcox— Eva, did you want to say something?
Board Member Hoffmann —Yes, but I've forgotten.
Chairperson Wilcox — While you're thinking, since Gary is sitting out there, since he's
listening, the proposed resolution in front of us also adds the term, phrase " any
institution of higher learning as a principal use authorized in Conservation Zone." I
suspect that that's something that Cornell as well as Ithaca College is interested in.
Mr. Kanter—We actually did get a comment from Cornell about that.
Chairperson Wilcox—And that's in the proposed draft resolution.
Board Member Hoffmann — Just to add something about the bed and breakfast. Very
often they are also older homes, which are quite expensive to maintain, they have all
these decorations and things. But yet, they are very nice to preserve because they give
character to the community. That's why I think it's a very nice thing to have. I think a
barn and building that is a bed and breakfast or a building in which you can live are
quite different. When you talk about dilapidation, it's not just a building, a dilapidated
barn is not just a question of appearance, it's a question of safety. You often see barns
that are about to fall down. That is entirely a different thing. You can't legislate this
aesthetically, but you can legislate what's unsafe.
Mr. Barney — Well, we have that. We have an unsafe buildings law already in the Town
of Ithaca.
Board Member Hoffmann — I can't imagine that a bed and breakfast would be allowed to
get that run down, no one would stay there.
Board Member Conneman — Suppose that she dies and then it is not longer a bed and
breakfast. That's the only concern that I have.
Board Member Talty — That's my point. It's fine and dandy when they take it over
initially. They build it up, they do renovations and things of that sort, but what happens
three years, five years, seven years when people move out, they bring in new owners.
Bed and breakfasts often have turn over. Not only with people who own the property,
30
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
but the people who serve the people who stay at the bed breakfast and the people who
maintain the property. So I just feel that it needed discussion before —
Mr. Kanter — One way that you might be able to address that is this would be a special
permit use and it would have to come to the Planning Board for approval in the first
place. You could do what we often do, which is give a term-limited special approval,
special permit which would maybe have to be re-visited every five years or something
like that. So that might be one way of addressing that kind of situation.
Board Member Talty — Well, what happens if they stop being a bed and breakfast and
someone just wants to live there? That's no problem living in a Conservation Zone,
correct?
Mr. Barney — Single family homes are permitted.
Board Member Talty— Pardon.
Mr. Barney — Single family homes are permitted.
Mr. Kanter —And usually, I think, the way they are set up, the conversion is not really a
significant rehab, it's really just using the existing building as it is.
Board Member Conneman — Is there not a bed and breakfast in Buttermilk Falls, right
on the edge of the State Park right there.
Mr. Kanter—Yes.
Board Member Conneman — Suppose that she went out of that business and it went to
another owner.
Mr. Barney — It depends what the zone is. The right to conduct the bed and breakfast to
the extent that it's legal and valid there could continue, that goes with the property.
Mr. Kanter— That particular one, I think, operates as a use variance. Actually, right now,
we don't allow bed and breakfasts in the R-30 Zone.
Mr. Barney — I'm not sure whether it's a use variance or pre-existing, non-conforming
use because it was created before bed and breakfasts were very common things.
Mr. Kanter— Just as a side note, right now in our current ordinance, bed and breakfasts
are only allowed in R-30, I believe and not R-15, so we're adding it into all the
residential zones. It sort of seemed like an obvious thing, once this was brought up, to
do it in the Conservation Zone as well.
Board Member Conneman - We have one right on Hanshaw Road.
31
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Mr. Kanter— Oh yes, yep.
Chairperson Wilcox— Which is well run and relatively small. You don't even notice it.
Board Member Conneman — It's well run, but it 's relatively big.
Mr. Kanter— It has a lot of lights.
Board Member Conneman — I think it's fine. I was just saying, since Kevin raised the
question, do they have a permit to do that?
Mr. Barney — Actually, I'm not sure, that might have a time limit. I vaguely remember it
coming through, I don't remember. I think one instance, the ZBA put a time limit for a
renewal and they had to come back every time.
Mr. Kanter — The other thing, and we talked about this at the Codes Committee a little
bit, we also have the opportunity to rent out a room to a single boarder in, I think all
residential zones. In any single-family house. So that, basically goes unregulated.
That's not even a special permit use, that's just anybody can rent out an individual
room. So this is a little bit beyond that, but it's also a more regulated way to control it a
little bit and have a little better idea where these things are occurring.
Board Member Conneman — Would we have to change special permit for the Town in
this resolution or would that be something we raise individually?
Chairperson Wilcox — I think that that's allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, isn't it, or—
Mr. Kanter—That would be a case by case decision by—
Chairperson Wilcox- We can't be arbitrary about this. It has to be whatever is in the best
interest of the neighborhood. We could let it operate for a couple of years, see how it
goes and then if it does well and it doesn't effect the neighbors after two years, they
come back after five.
Any further discussion? Jon Kanter, anything else you want us to address in regard to
the zoning specifically?
Mr. Kanter — No. Again, it's just a matter of your comfort level. I drafted this up so that
we could send a positive message back to the Town Board now and still reserve the
opportunity to review the EIS.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I really want to see the Environmental Impact Statement.
There will be a lot of interesting information in there. Hopefully nothing too surprising,
but we'll have to wait and see.
Mr. Kanter— No, I don't think so. Just like you say, a lot of information.
32
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Do I dare ask when you expect you and your staff might have
something to distribute?
Mr. Kanter — Hopefully within a month to finish it and then, again, it would go to the
Town Board for them to decide if it's ready to distribute. So, it might be a little more than
that before you would get it. We could distribute a draft, an unaccepted draft to this
Board too and sometimes the Town Board might appreciate input, even to the
acceptance of it before it's completeness, so that's possible also.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the proposed resolution? So moved
by Eva Hoffmann. Second? Seconded by George Conneman. Any suggested changes,
other than the draft as presented? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by
saying "aye". Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed, the motion is passed. Thank you
very much.
All right ladies and gentlemen, we're doing pretty good tonight. Gary, are you sure you
don't want to say anything? All right, no persons to be heard, minutes are done.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox — In front of you is something labeled Town of Ithaca Community
Announcements. This is certainly interesting to me to hear a report back on the effect of
Cornell Lake Source Cooling on our beloved lake. Or the lack of effect on our beloved
lake.
Mr. Kanter— We do have a report available. There are a limited number of copies, but if
anybody really wants to review it, we have them here in the office.
Chairperson Wilcox— We have a meeting in two weeks?
Mr. Kanter—Yes, we do have one. We have enough items for a meeting.
Mr. Barney — I won't be here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good. And Mr. Barney won't be here so we can have fun.
Board Member Howe- It depends on who he sends as his replacement.
Mr. Barney —Who would you like?
Chairperson Wilcox— Randy. We haven't seen Randy in a while.
Mr. Barney — Actually, that week I think we are contracting to the Law Offices of Peter
Grossman only. Virtually all of us are going to be out of town. That week is the week of
the school vacation. Peter has covered for other meetings.
33
Planning Board Minutes of April 1, 2003
APPROVED April 15, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — He has not, as far as I know.
Mr. Barney — He hasn't been here for any Planning Board Meetings? He's been over
here at one time or another.
Chairperson Wilcox —That will be interesting. Any other business Jon or John.
Mr. Kanter— Nope.
Chairperson Wilcox — Board Members, any other announcements.
Board Member Conneman — I have a question. Someone said that maybe Cornell won't
build all those fields, does anyone know anything about that? They're having budget
problems.
Mr. Kanter— I haven't heard anything yet.
Board Member Conneman — Okay. Someone said well maybe they're not going to be
building all the fields because they're having budget problems. I was just curious.
Mr. Kanter—That's quite possible. I think everybody has had their budgets cut.
Chairperson Wilcox— Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Board Member Conneman —Adjourn.
Chairperson Wilcox —We are adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 1, 2003 meeting of Town
of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Waring
Deputy Town Clerk
34