The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2003-01-21PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003 RLE DATE The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member, Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning EXCUSED George Conneman ALSO PRESENT: Lawrence Fabbroni,127 Warren Road; Ivar Jonson, Suite 222, Summerhill Drive; William Seldin, 405 North Tioga Street; Andrew J. Houtenville, 116 Pinewood Place; Todd Olson, 115 Pinewood Place; Thomas McGalliard, 112 Pinewood Place; David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Road; Candace Cornell, 1456 Hanshaw Road. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 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 January 13, 2003 and January 15, 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 January 15, 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 7:06 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEiQR DETERMINATION: SUMMERHILL APARTMENTS PHASE II MODIFICATIONS, SUMMERHILL LANE: Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Recording System Malfunctioned for the first hour of the meeting. (Notes taken in summary form) Conversation consisted of Mr. Fabbroni's presentation regarding Summerhill Apartments Phase II Modifications on Summerhill Lane. 1 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann showed concern regarding the need for 26 extra parking spaces. She didn't feel that every family would have four vehicles and wanted to better understand the need. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there should be a parking space for every room. Board Member Hoffmann questioned why these 26 parking spaces were not requested the first time the plans were presented to the Board. She wanted to know what had changed since then. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it was not realized that the spaces would be needed when the plan was first presented. Chairperson Wilcox noted that 117 parking spaces were already approved, 26 more would be a 20% increase. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it had already been pointed out that an excess of driveways onto the road could become a problem if the road was ever turned over to the Town to become a public road. Board Member Hoffmann questioned why the walkways had been changed for Buildings 4 and 5. Mr. Fabbroni responded that the primary access to those buildings is in the front, so this would develop private space. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you done with your comment, Larry? When I was thinking about the parking spaces, I said to myself, if you were here for the initial approval for this plan, what would I have thought about this 26 parking spaces and would I have approved them, I think that's the fair way for me to decide that. I will ask Dan to comment on drainage shortly. Clearly, this Board has been very concerned about drainage in this area. You can look at the structures and the retention ponds, the Credit Union building, the Burger King building for example. This Board has required significant structures in that area to deal with the flooding issues. A change to the plan, which has apparently surprised Town staff, doesn't strike me as the right way to proceed. I'm also bothered, Larry, because, frankly speaking, when you were here before you described the wetland as marginal, which, in some way, tells me something about how you felt about it. Now I find out it has been bulldozed in one area and filled in another. I don't know what your relationship with the construction of — Mr. Fabbroni — It was not bulldozed. It was only filled in the 250 square feet. Chairperson Wilcox — I understand that. Well, I'm talking about the other place. Mr. Fabbroni — I've been careful not to use that word tonight. 2 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — You're right, but you used it before and now the wetland has had fill placed in it and that bothers me. Board Member Mitrano — What was the reason for that. Mr. Fabbroni — As I've pointed out, the silt fence, to the best of our investigation missed the one flag that would have been at the point of the wetland. If you look at the wetland, the little "finger" coming out here, we missed that flag. Board Member Mitrano — So, it was a mistake, it wasn't intentional? Mr. Fabbroni — My best explanation to you, that was not recent. I surveyed that wetland like it was a piece of property and provided a meets and bounds description to you. So that's when we went out to satisfy Dan's request for the actual grading that occurred, we discovered that 250 foot filled in. That's the best way I can go back and explain to you how it happened. Board Member Mitrano — It was a mistake by the people who were putting in the fill? Mr. Fabbroni — It was a mistake. There were little flags — Board Member Mitrano — Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. Chairperson Wilcox — That one was a mistake. The other one was done intentionally. Mr. Fabbroni — The bulldozing was not in the wetlands though, is my only clarification. It was not in the wetland. Not at all, what -so -ever. The filling that Eva was talking about earlier was not in the wetland. None of that that resulted from the excess fill that we didn't have a perfect handle on, when we did the cuts and fills and we saw the nature of the soil under the buildings or whatever and we ended up with extra fill. It went north of Building 9, that fill is not in the wetland. Chairperson Wilcox — What about the work that was done to protect the property during the rain event last year? Mr. Fabbroni — Not in the wetland what -so -ever. Board Member Hoffmann - That fill was not placed in the wetland, it was placed adjacent to the wetland in such a way that the slopes came closer to the wetland and therefore, water did not spread out as far as it would have been able to. Mr. Fabbroni — Right. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The area we added, because of the overflow pipe in the original section of Summerhill and the area that would be added on the Cornell land to back up water, it would be way in excess of that amount of water that was decreased by what you are describing. 91 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — That may be, but it didn't help the situation. It seems to me that it made it slightly worse rather than slightly better. Mr. Fabbroni — What makes you say that? Board Member Hoffmann — Because there was less space for the water to go. Mr. Fabbroni — This was after the storm, it wasn't before the storm. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but you have the other fill by Buildings 9 and 10 was done before that storm. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, do you want to weigh in with your opinion as the Town Engineer about the drainage structure as existing and as proposed. Mr. Walker — You probably read my memo. The fill around Buildings 9 and 10 as well as some of the fill on the western side of the site between Buildings 4 and 3 in the area of the sewer and the infamous "finger" of the wetlands. There was additional fill placed in what was originally a storm water detention area outside the wetland, but still within the ponding area of the storm water management feature. What Mr. Fabbroni's provided may have been an analysis of what was filled in, the extra material that was filled in, an area that was supposed to be open and the storage area that is proposed to be used on the Cornell property to the east of the site, has adequate storage to replace that amount of storm water storage. From a hydrologic stand point, leaving that berm in place and putting a culvert through it and backing water up onto Cornell is fine. From a legal standpoint, believe we should require drainage easements from Cornell to the Summerhill with whatever agreements they have to reach and it may be such that we want to put something into escrow to protect Cornell's value if they deem it necessary. I would leave that up to the attorney's of Mr. Jonson and Cornell with review by our own legal staff before we sign off on it. Well, Mr. Barney. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you offer an opinion whether the proposed drainage structures are superior to the ones that were proposed initially? Mr. Walker — From the standpoint I think there is actually more storage area now because the berm on the east side of the site is actually higher than the original berm within the site along the driveway between Buildings 10 and 2. The flood storage area in now including a larger area on the Cornell property, probably more water will actually be retained in the long run. Of course, more property will be flooded that's owned by Cornell. Mr. Barney — This puzzles me a little bit, Cornell University is not usually in the business of giving that kind of thing away. How much area on Cornell's land needs to be covered by an easement in order to get the equivalent of what they need. Mr. Fabbroni — It's about a 40 foot wide strip because that area just east of our boundary is a very flat area. It's pretty much contained to the east. M PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Walker — But equivalent to probably close to two acres though, right? Mr. Fabbroni — That's right. Part of that John, is that that don't have any more control than we have over some of the things that get hard surfaced up on to Baker Lab so they're sympathetic to what they experience themselves coming at their fields and then we end up getting it in the corner down by Ellis Hollow and Pine Tree Road gets it. It's for that reason that we've also had discussions about approaching the County to deal with that run off from Baker Lab more directly down Ellis Hollow in time. This would, we think, add to the storage capabilities over what we started out with and if we're able to reach that second phase, it would just be better for everybody. Mr. Barney — Is there an area or piece of land that's identified that's going to be subjected to this easement? Mr. Fabbroni — I had given Dan a map and I'm sorry I don't have a copy with me. Mr. Walker — There was a delineation map that was provided to me to show the area. We could have a meets and bounds description, to a certain elevation. Mr. Barney — Is there going to be any type of a structure? A retention pond or anything of that nature? Mr. Walker- Actually, this berm that is on the east side of the Jonson property will be the structure that holds the water back. Mr. Fabbroni — There's no improvement on Cornell land necessary. I'll tell you, basically that's, I mean if it answers your question differently, that strip of land is fairly wet because it's so flat. So it's not really lost crop land. They were, more or less, protecting themselves against some horrendous backup that got into their crop land. The land we're talking about is not utilized for crops. Mr. Barney — Are they, maybe this is addressed to Bill, are they prepared to give you a permanent easement on that piece of land for drainage purposes? Bill Seldin, 120 Northview Road — There's a letter from Tom Livigne of which accepts our proposal in a written letter, dated November sixth. Here's the problem, if I could just step back from this for a moment. I'd like to , with your permission, highlight some other areas as well. Let's talk about this culvert with Cornell. Part of the difficulty that we have is that we have Building 7 finished and it is our hope that the Board would find a way to authorize a temporary C.O. without finalizing the site plan, approval. In so doing, we would expect, having welcomed the comments that you've had tonight, several conditions. John would be the first to agree with me that the ability to fashion an agreement with Cornell is not necessarily one of substance, but one of logistics and working through the process. I'm trying to be politically correct. Their wheels may not spin as quickly as our wheels. So what we would like to do is to have time within which to work through an agreement that is acceptable to the Town vis -a -vis your counsel and Shirley Egan up in the University's Counsel and myself, but the sentiments and the substance of that agreement have been thought through by Tom Levigne and I really think that it is not a big leap to create a meeting of the minds and reduce it to writing in this 61 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 instance. We, John, will have a finite plan with the meets and bounds description that Shirley Egan and Tom can accept if need be to satisfy their concerns in terms of an indemnification to crops. We can have that built into the agreement. Again, Tom's letter of November sixth addresses that. Mr. Barney — I don't see anything in here that says that they will give you an easement right. Mr. Seldin — No, that was communicated to Larry by Tom, verbally. Mr. Fabbroni — I spoke to Tom yesterday, I only got your material Saturday, and he authorized me to say to you tonight that we could reach some agreement on this matter. Mr. Barney — In my lifetime? Mr. Fabbroni — Well, that was the only thing he couldn't guarantee, the time table that they all would move forward with it. He thought he could write it up in 24 hours time. Mr. Barney — I guess, Dan, that you're not uncomfortable with it not being shown on this site plan that your being asked to approve tonight? Mr. Walker — I think they don't need to show it on the site plan, but I do think, very strongly, we — I can't recommend that the Board approve anything without a condition that we have the document in hand that allows the flooding because this will flood the Cornell property and I don't want to approve something that is going to create flooding that wasn't going to create flooding in the original plan. Mr. Barney - Well, it's also directed, it's one thing to have it sheet. By the divisions of the law, you can have runoff sheet onto another property without liability, but once you start to funnel and direct it, you have a different question of liability. Mr. Walker — Well, they're not directing it on to the property, they're preventing it from leaving the property at the rate at which it used to. Mr. Barney — They're allowing it to leave the property and forcing it to leave the property, in one area as opposed to a slightly wider area. Mr. Walker — In the berm it's an elevation of approximately 42, 942 and I think we need a flooding easement from Cornell up to elevation 942 at least. Mr. Barney — I don't quite follow. When they say the culvert inlet should be set at an elevation below the elevation at the edge of Cornell's field? Mr. Walker — In addition, it's set slightly lower. Mr. Fabbroni — That's what's proposed, you know, the edge of Cornell's field is about 39.5 and the entrance to that culvert is about 38.8, so it's roughly a foot lower. Mr. Walker — It is shown on the detailed drawings. 101 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — Again, somewhere back in high school I learned that water doesn't run up hill, so why wouldn't you put the culvert down below where you want the water to go. Mr. Walker — The water is coming from the Cornell property onto this site, we're not pushing it that way, we're backing it up. Mr. Barney — That's up hill, I see. Mr. Fabbroni — This is 940, 939 all through here and the culvert is 938. The entrance to the culvert is roughly a foot under this area. Mr. Barney — Where' s the water coming from and the water going to? Mr. Walker — The water is coming from the east side of Cornell's property and the action that the developer has taken to create the change has been to put an obstruction in the flow of the water which causes it to back up into a higher elevation in a high density rain fall. Mr. Seldin — If I may, we should emphasize that this is the developer's effort to protect it's project from a flow of water that is coming from Cornell University and in so doing, we have tried to work through the dynamics of how to do it with them. So, this isn't a situation where we are putting drainage onto their property. Mr. Barney — I was reversed. I was thinking the water was going — Mr. Walker - Actually, this project was designed to safely pass all the water that came from Cornell through the property. Granted, on a higher level storm, like we did have last May, it could rise across the driveway, which is an acceptable way to deal with storm water because the driveway is lower than the buildings. It does cause damage, but you have to take a balance , you can handle a hundred year storm within the detention pond for purposes of protecting your structures or can you allow it to be, in a 25 year storm, and take the risk of minor damage. Most of our road raised culverts and ditches are designed for a 25 year storm as opposed to a hundred year storm. Mr. Seldin — With you permission Fred, I'd just like to revisit some of your comments, very briefly. Ivar knows that. I guess the thing that strikes me about that is — as you travel through a project and this starts out as a good project and I think it ends up as a good project . Eva questioned the veracity and need for these 26 spaces, as do other people. Ultimately, as you travel through with a project of this dimension, the proof is in the pudding. You see people walking in a certain direction across the project and you accommodate their needs. You have retired people, you have people who are physically challenged. The 26 spaces are being requested because now that the project is in place, there is a need for it. We are not asking, nor has the Planning Department recommended, I believe that anyone approve this as being permanent as of this moment. We're suggesting to you that as long as that road is a private road. As long as for the foreseeable future, Cornell plans to use this area as crop land for their own needs, it wouldn't be deleterious to anyone's interest to allow those 26 spaces as, if indeed the road becomes dedicated and there is a grand design beyond what is in the foreseeable future, then that condition would terminate and that is the developer's problem. But this, I 7 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 would suggest is not any different than any other condition that finds it's way into the approval process. I'd also like to address some of the material that has been submitted and the suggestions that have been offered in terms of the parking that has been taking place, and all quote "vehicles have also been parked parallel along the western edge of Summerhill Lane, appears to create problems for snow removal." Ivar has put up to professional "No Parking" signs and we will police it and we will call the tow trucks and we will do what has to be done in a responsible matter so that that is not an issue. Again, that did not arise until the usage came into place and now we're addressing it. The movement of the building is demimous, not the result of any intentional act on the part of the developer. They laid out the storm drains, they shot the adelite or whatever, laid the thing out and it came out wrong by how many feet? Six feet. It should not have happened, it was a mistake. Nobody was thumbing their nose at the process and trying to take undo advantage of what this Board approved initially. Likewise, by way of a condition, the developer's prepared to remediate the 250 square feet, that should happen, with your concurrence, it will happen and before any even temporary C.O. is granted, we would undertake to do that. We welcome the oversight of this Board. We take issue with the notice that we've been there and done that and we're trying to stretch your patience. That's not what this project has been about. It has been about a process of laying out buildings, dedicating space in a way that you approve and finding that there is some modification that is required. There was a time when the Zoning Ordinance allowed the developer to go in, if it was under $10,000 and there was some other criteria, recognizing that there were modifications to be made, you allowed that flexibility. You changed that and rightly so because you should maintain control over the destiny of what you approve initially and we welcome that. You're smiling because you know that was involved in that scenario. But I'm happy to eat crow in front of you Fred and I'm here to say that that was not a bad thing, that amendment. To revest control in the Board, but to suggest that, been there and done that and we're trying to gain an inch and then a mile, I don't think the history of this project speaks to that. I think it's a good project. I think that it serves a need and I think that there is a way, with the appropriate conditions vested in any resolution to accommodate so that the developer can satisfy the legitimate concerns of this Board. I would only end with the notion that Building 7 is complete and Ivar is so hopeful that there will be a resolution tonight that will permit him to go forward with Building 7, to rent it out, subject to the conditions that, most notably with Cornell University that have to be ironed out. That may take some time because they have a lot of irons in the fire and they may not see this as the most important thing that has to be addressed at the moment. Chairperson Wilcox — We have a situation here with a self induced hardship, where, if Ivar and his representatives or agents had communicated promptly with the Town staff, whether it was the Engineer or the Planning staff about these changes, then he might not be in this particular position right now having Building 7 essentially completed, ready for occupancy, but unable to occupy it because he doesn't have the necessary certificates. Mr. Seldin — I don't disagree. I don't disagree with that at all, but I would add and you appropriately asked Larry, whether or not there were things as we traveled through, what things caught him by surprise and what didn't, well, the building. But I'll tell you what, the building caught more than just the Planning Department by surprise, it caught the owner by surprise. The things that were of surprise to them, were of surprise to us. The things that came as a challenge as we went through the process were communicated to the Planning Department as they came up, such as the drainage and the parking. These are the things that we tried to work through, especially with Cornell. E:3 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Before you sit down, I would like to make a comment too about something that you said. You said something to the effect that the owner is trying to protect his property and his investment in doing things to prevent water coming from the Cornell land onto his property and causing problems. We, on the Planning Board, through the help of the staff, have been aware of this all along and that's why the wetland area has been so important to us. We have been trying, all along, when the developer has come in and Mr. Fabbroni has come in wanting to have changes, to make sure that the wetland is allowed to do it's job of retaining the water, slowing down the flow so that there is not any damage on this property or on any property down stream. I just wanted to make sure that we're really trying to do the same thing, but we seem to look at it in different ways. Mr. Seldin — Well, what looked good on paper with the advent of that storm, turned out to be something that required an additional effort. So, I think that it's good that Cornell and Larry Fabbroni got together with the assistance of the Planning Department. We tried to fashion a result that would be beneficial to both neighbors. I don't know that that was something, as the site plan is initially drafted and approved, that should have been addressed at that moment, I just don't know, but I think the important thing is, as we get to end line, that this is happening now and that we are going to feed it into the process. I'm not here and I don't think that anyone is here to cast aspersions and to lay blame on this and to lay blame on that. I think the important thing is to structure a site plan that, in the final analysis, represents everything that it should. I very much appreciate what you said. Board Member Mitrano — Was this land purchased from Cornell at some earlier period or has there been developers who owned this land for a period of time? Mr. Fabbroni — Graff Associates owned it and they own the property that Ellis Hollow Apartments is built on and East Hill Plaza is built on. That's who Ivar bought the property in 1980 from with two of his partners. In the course of this project, the other thing that has happened, which I didn't mention, was that he bought his two partners out for the first 32 units that were built. That enabled him to use that area as an additional retention area that he didn't have even up to the last time that we were here to make changes. Board Member Mitrano — How long had Groff Associates owned that property, just off hand? Mr. Barney — Many years. They were the initial developers of the East Hill Plaza. Mr. Kanter — I think all that land around was part of that farm. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Cornell actually bought the East Hill Plaza from Groff and they bought the property that the motel is on and they leased the property that the motel is on, I'm not sure that they don't own the East Hill Plaza outright and pay you taxes, just like any private developer would. Mr. Barney — I think the first house ever built in Ithaca was right where Building 7 is. Chairperson Wilcox — Would anybody else from staff like to be heard with regard to the environmental issues? Any other questions from the Board? Would someone like to move the SEAR motion? we PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I just have a thought. What if in the future — I mean, Cornell's Levigne already wrote in this letter that the drainage on Cornell University's land has changed already since this development started and it has resulted in generally wetter conditions along the western edge of their research field. Now we hear that maybe they want to keep this as crop land, but what is they change their mind and they suddenly want to do something else? Are they then locked into having to have these wet areas there? Mr. Walker — That's why I'm suggesting that a legal document, setting aside a portion of this land for drainage usage, be executed so that Mr. Jonson's property is protected. Now, if Cornell were ever to develop that sire for athletic fields, maybe, or student housing, they would have to go through the site plan approval process and provide adequate storm water management for any of the improvements that they made on that agricultural land and I would say that, probably, looking at that area as a low area, that would be a site of a more enhanced storm water management facility of some type. If they develop it. Mr. Barney — Let me speculate. Any agreement that Cornell signs is probably going to have a provision in it which allows them to move the detention area subject to approval, if they were to develop that space. So, I can't conceive them giving a permanent easement which says forever and ever. As long as there are adequate protections in place for this property when they move it, then I think it would probably be acceptable to them. Mr. Fabbroni — If it helps in the short term, the alternate field site drains wholly into Cascadilla Creek, it doesn't come this way. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion. So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Do I have a second? Seconded by Rod Howe. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -001 SEAR Site Plan Modifications Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Summerhill Lane Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.twelve7 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase II located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.twelve7, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include shifting one building and eliminating one garage, adding a new path and modify existing paths, drainage changes, and adding 26 parking spaces along Summerhill Lane. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent. [D] PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 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 Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 21, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses, " revised twelve -2002 (received on Dec. 20, 2002), prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase II located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include shifting one building and eliminating one garage, adding a new path and modify existing paths, drainage changes, and adding 26 parking spaces along Summerhill Lane. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent; Bill Seldin, Attorney. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask that you please step to the microphone, give us your name and address and we'd be very interested in what you have to say this evening. David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Road — I'm not here for this purpose, but sometime fresh eyes are a good thing to look at. If the only documentation for the 26 parking spaces is what he orally provided, I think you have the obligation to figure out what the heck he is talking about. I heard more about disabled people and old folks and things like that. I think you ought to ask him how many people are 11 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 in the apartments to document how many cars they have. The reason that I'm stepping to the mike is because the cast of players is the same and they do this, they do a bait and switch every time. Chairperson Wilcox — Would anybody else like to address the Board at this evening. Board Member Mitrano — Do you have any evidence? Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, sit tight please. I'd like to give everyone a chance to speak and then I will give you a chance to ask questions. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you take a question? May I ask you to come back up to the microphone. Board Member Mitrano — Sir, do you have evidence that there are these 26 spaces completely unused. Mr. Collum — No. What I have evidence is to what he presented was, from the perspective of a physical scientist, pathetic evidence that he needed the space. So, in the very least, I'd say "show us the money ". Board Member Mitrano — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Any other questions, comments, statements? Mr. Kanter — I was just going to add a comment about use of the surrounding Cornell properties, in particular there's a Genex site. Another branch of Cornell is actual studying now that they know that Genex will be moving off of that site, what to do with the property . So, I'm not so sure we can assume that it will be used for agricultural research purposed in the long term. Short term, sure whatever number of months or years that there is no other use for it, I'm sure they will do that. I think this is a prime development site, certainly the key area of the Town and that is why we did propose the re- zoning to include office, commercial and multiple residence for that area, so It could be sooner than we think in terms of future development of that site. Mr. Walker — One of the other things as far as the road and the potential need for the road, it's shown on our maps as a proposed new road, probably not going all the way through across Cascadilla Creek, but the area where the office space is that Genex has been in the old bull barns there, along with the car wash, which is on the opposite side of their access road, I believe, when we looked at some proposals for a parking lot in that area and other office areas, that the need for two access into that area where the bull barns was thought to be important. I'm not saying that we want to have a primary business road through a primarily residential area, but this area does serve the hotel already. There is parking along side there and the logical extension would be to have Summerhill Lane go and take a left turn and go out to Pine Tree Road sometime in the future to provide secondary access for emergency vehicles, if nothing else to that area. 12 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? Would anybody like to move the proposed resolution as presented to us? Board Member Mitrano — I will. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Do I have a second? Seconded by Rod Howe. Okay, what do people want to change? With regard to b. on the back page, along Summerville Lane shall be, this says: "re- evaluated by the Planning Board" , how about "removed ". Mr. Barney — I'd go a little stronger, let's say " the 26 parking spaces designated for Summerhill Lane shall be temporary only and shall be removed prior to or simultaneously with conveyance of that portion of Summerhill Lane to the Town as a Town road or prior to or simultaneously issuance of the first building permit for any development which occurs north of the Summerhill Apartments, whichever event comes earlier ". "the 26 parking spaces designated along Summerhill Lane shall be temporary only and shall be removed prior to or simultaneously with the conveyance of that portion of Summerhill Lane to the Town as a public road or prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the first building permit for any development that occurs north of the Summerhill Apartments, whichever event is earliest." Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the significant mistakes, will someone talk about the Certificates of Occupancy, there are temporary and there are final, Building 7 has neither right now, correct? For that building to be occupied, the developer needs to obtain at least a temporary. How does the Board feel about occupancy of Building 7 and potentially Building 8, but for right now Building 7 with this necessary drainage structure in place or an agreement with Cornell in place? I'm not suggesting anything at this point. I have my own personal feeling which is that this is a self induced hardship and I'm sorry, but you get the drainage systems in place and you get an agreement with Cornell that's approved by the Director of Engineering and approved by the Town Attorney and until such time, Building 7 doesn't get occupied. That's the way I feel, but I think I'm in the minority here most of the Board seems to be a little more generous. Board Member Hoffmann — I feel the way you do. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. And you're (comments inaudible), we've got to remember that. Board Member Howe — I'm willing to be more flexible. Chairperson Wilcox — So Mr. Barney, condition c. "submission of an agreement between Cornell University and the developer for the drainage easement on Cornell property to be approved by the Director of Engineering, but also to be approved by the Town Attorney before the issuance of any temporary of permanent Certificates of Occupancy." 13 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — For any particular building.? The reason I ask is because I'm not sure what the status is of 7. Chairperson Wilcox — 7 is essentially almost done, but not occupied. I think 7 is close to being occupied and 8 is nearing end of construction. Mr. Barney — What about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10? All the others have final certificates? Chairperson Wilcox — If you could step to the microphone. Ivar Jonson — Before this happened, like two months ago, we signed leases with, like, four people and they were supposed to move in two weeks ago. Now they end up moving in a moving truck and staying in a hotel. It's kind of like a big hardship to us. We will work these problems out. I don't know what to say. I apologize for coming here again, but it's just, I will survive if they don't move in, but, like said, they're kind of waiting to move in. The sprinkler system has been inspected, the plumbing inspection has happened, the electrical inspection has happened. The Building 8 we are sheet rocking right now. It would give us another three weeks and I hope to be all done with the landscaping and be complete and out of there by the end of May. Mr. Barney — What's the status with regard to the Certificates of Occupancy on the buildings other than 7 and 8. Mr. Jonson — You can tell me that you wouldn't give me the Certificates on number 8. Mr. Barney — Other than 7 and 8. Mr. Smith — Numbers 1,2,3,9 and 10 have final certificates and I believe 4 and 5 have temporary. Mr. Barney — So if we're trying to construct something here, it sounds like we're just dealing with 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Jonson — And we normally just get temporaries anyway when we are under construction. We don't get a final before we get everything finished, that would be done in May. Mr. Barney — Has 6 been constructed? What's the status? Mr. Jonson — It's finished. People are living there. Mr. Barney — So that's got a temporary Certificate of Occupancy? Mr. Jonson — Yes, temporary. Mr. Walker — Right now, as it stands, that culvert is not in place, but because there has been additional fill put into the original storage area, a high rain fall event is going to back rain up onto the Cornell property. If we get two inches of rain and the snow melts, it's going to flood Cornell's property. 14 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Mitrano — So the water drainage will flood just the way it is now. Mr. Walker — Right. They reduced the storage on site and it's going to cause additional water to flow back up to Cornell. Board Member Mitrano — So, which way would you vote? What I want to know is there an issue with the drainage significant enough to keep us from doing this or are we turning our frustration with the applicant onto that issue? Mr. Walker — My only concern is that if we approve this, this Board approves this tonight you're basically approving something that will cause additional flooding on an adjoining property in a high rain fall event. I'm not sure if that opens this Board up to any legal action by Cornell. Board Member Mitrano — That was going to be my next questions. Mr. Walker — That's my concern about making sure we have all the "i "'s dotted and 'T's crossed. Board Member Mitrano — So, in other words, it is a real issue unto itself, it is not becoming the target for displaced frustration. Chairperson Wilcox — No, they're going to back water up, everybody has acknowledged that they are going to back water up, but the need to get permission in a formal way. Mr. Barney — Let me ask another question, if I could. That is, if nothing were done, would we get a back up onto Cornell's property now? Mr. Walker — Yes. Mr. Barney — The damage is done? Mr. Walker — Putting the berm and the culvert in will cause it to back up more, probably. But you've got a very narrow channel for the water to go through, it's going to go slower than it would have under the originally approved site plan. Mr. Barney — Under the present time, there is no berm barricading Cornell? Mr. Walker — There is a berm that is filled in, if you look at the site plan, between Buildings 9 and 7 there was an area that was probably, the channel area was at least 15 to 20 feet wide and then there was a broad area of some 50 — 60 feet wide that was fairly low. Now, you've got a channel that is probably 3 or 4 feet at the bottom and 10 feet wide at the top, something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Have your written a revised resolution? Mr. Barney — It really depends on which way you want to go. Chairperson Wilcox — I need to have four members of the Board that seem to be in agreement. 15 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — That's fine, I am probably more of a bleeding heart on this. I probably would have suggested temporaries for 7 and no finals for any buildings and no temporaries even for 8, until all that occurs. Not only is the developer at some risk here, but also people that he's contracted with, rightfully or wrongfully and you're basically saying that they can't move in, they have to stay in a hotel and I've had that happen to me one time and I know it's not a comfortable place to be in. That's clearly a policy, it's not a legal issue, that's up to you. Unfortunately, for better of for worse, the developer has exposed four or seven or however many people he had leases with, he tells us with all their worldly goods, they're ready to move in and have no place to go. Chairperson Wilcox — Even though you agree that it is self induced? Mr. Barney —Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — So, what you're offering is a compromise, with a temporary on 7? Mr. Barney — A temporary on 7, nothing on 8 and no finals on any of them until we get all that stuff. No finals that don't already have finals. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll take it. Board Member Mitrano — I'll take it, but I want to say that it's not because I believe that this Board accepts the responsibility for the business practices of applicant. I accept it because it sounds fair. Mr. Barney — I had actually a new "d" and a "c" both with the same condition. submission of agreement between Cornell and so forth to be approved by Director of Engineering and Attorney for the Town and that "d" would be completing of proposed drainage structures. Both of those conditions prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Building 8 and prior to issuance of any final certificate of occupancy for Building 7 or any other buildings not presently occupied pursuant to the final certificate. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we need to show the detention area on Cornell's property on the sketch plan? I think that's a John question. Mr. Barney — I would be more comfortable if there was something sketched in there, but I'm perfectly willing to defer to Dan, if he thinks we have sufficient information. When you go to look at a site plan three years from now, that would be nice to see. Mr. Walker — I think that the final site plan should be drafted to show — I think I would put that in the same conditions as allowing the temporary c.o. because you really can't put the final easement onto a drawing until you get the draft from Cornell. Chairperson Wilcox — Parking spaces? Is there any further discussion regarding parking spaces? Mr. Kanter — I have one comment about actually the proximity of the parking spaces, in some areas, to the walkway. I would kind of like to see some kind of physical separation where that occurs, even 101 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 though this would be temporary parking spaces. I see some possible conflicts, certainly with the northern most several spaces and the southern most, where they basically go right up to the walkway. So some kind of curbing or something that would physically help stop car from actually going onto the walkway. That's something I just noticed looking at it now. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the other thing about the walkway is when we talked about it previously, it was not supposed to be for the benefit of only the people who live at Summerhill Apartments, but for other people who would walk along the road and continue on after the road was expanded as well. I see that the walkway ends in the middle of Building 5. It doesn't continue to the edge of the property. Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, what would you suggest to separate the grass? Mr. Kanter — Probably something like railroad tie separation. Something that is at least several inches high and thick that would help to stop cars from rolling. Chairperson Wilcox —Or rolling over and covering part of the sidewalk. Mr. Kanter — I think railroad ties could be done in a fairly inexpensive way. But, yeah, Eva did notice correctly. Chairperson Wilcox — I agree with Eva too that the walkway in front of Building 5 needs to extend to the north. Board Member Talty — What happens at the end. Where that gets extended what happens at the end? Chairperson Wilcox — It opens up the potential for the next developer to then tie into it. It's easier to make the applicant do it now than five years from now when the applicant goes and builds to the north to try to go back and say "by the way, would you be a nice guy and extend it so that they can connect." Is that okay Rod and Tracy? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Mr. Barney — Do you want a time frame on that or just to show it on the revised site plan? Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor, please signal by saying ay. Is anybody opposed? Abstentions? PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Site Plan Modification Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Summerhill Lane Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.127 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano , seconded by Rod Howe. 17 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 11 located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.twelve7, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include shifting one building and eliminating one garage, adding a new path and modify existing paths, drainage changes, and adding 26 parking spaces along Summerhill Lane. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent. 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, has, on January 21, 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, at a Public Hearing held on January 21, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses," revised twelve -2002 (received on Dec. 20, 2002), prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E., L. S., and other application material; 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 proposed site modifications to Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.twelve7, as shown on plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses, " revised twelve -2002 (received on Dec. 20, 2002), prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E., L, S., and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and b. the 26 parking spaces designated along Summerhill Lane shall be temporary only and shall be removed prior to or simultaneously with the conveyance of that portion of Summerhill Lane to the Town as a public road or prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the first building permit for any development that occurs north and northwest of the Summerhill Apartments, whichever event is earliest, and 16] PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 C. submission of an agreement between Cornell University and the developer for a drainage easement on Cornell property, to be approved by the Director of Engineering and the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of any temporary or new Final Certificates of Occupancy, and d. completion of the proposed drainage structure prior to issuance of any further Certificates of Occupancy for Building 8, and prior to the issuance of any additional final Certificates of Occupancy for any buildings. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: Hoffmann, Talty. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be defeated. Alright, I've got a vote of three in favor, two against and one abstention. I do not have four. The motion has not passed. Is there anything that we could modify that would change any body's votes? Or better yet, would someone like to tell me what they object to? Either Kevin or Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think the changes that were made to the resolution helped, but I still feel that what has happened was not what we wanted to see and not what we expected based on earlier plans and I'm speaking mainly about the drainage situation. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, is there anything that could be added to the resolution or removed from the resolution that would deal with any issues that you have. Board Member Talty — No. I think that when Jonson brought to our attention that people are living in hotel. My parents, for years have done a lot of renting out and you don't put the cart before the horse. You don't do it. These people moved or sold their houses, whatever they did and they were under the pretenses that they were going to be able to move in, in a certain amount of time. I have to hold Ivar responsible, I don't care if these things jumped up and I don't think there was any intent by him and these things do crop up, but I was all set to vote one way and then you say what you said and then John, and I do feel for these people, I really do, but that shouldn't alter my thinking too much based upon what you said, Fred, earlier and that's what I'm sticking to because you just don't rent out things before you're ready to go, you just don't do it. Chairperson Wilcox — What do you think about allowing temporary occupancy until the drainage structure is in. Board Member Talty — I think that the drainage structure should be in, then they should move forward. Chairperson Wilcox — We have not approved this. What happens? Wel PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Barney — Nothing happens. You have not approved the motion. You can choose to consider another resolution or you can say "good night, I'm going home and adjourn." Board Member Thayer — What about my status for abstaining, could that be reduced. Chairperson Wilcox — You have elected on your own to abstain. You have stated previously your reasons for abstaining and those reasons are? Board Member Thayer — Well, he's a customer of Thayer Appliance. I'm not the owner of Thayer Appliance, I'm an employee. I own the building. How does that work? Mr. Barney — Is Thayer Appliance providing appliances for this project? Board Member Thayer — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — You own the building, but not the business? Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox- What if you owned the building and your name wasn't Thayer? Mr. Barney — You were the owner of the business and don't you have a son who owns the business. think it's a good idea to abstain. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, is there anything we could do with the resolution to change your vote? Let me propose a thought. It's the Town Board's job to impose sanctions upon the developer, should they see fit. What if this Board recommended to the Town Board that sanctions be imposed upon Ivar Jonson as the Town Board sees fit — we can only recommend, but that we recommend that the Town Board impose appropriate sanctions, whether they be financial or otherwise, upon Ivar Jonson because changes were made, because the Town staff was not promptly notified, because the Town incurred additional costs, whatever, whatever. If we were to make such a motion, after we finish this, would that in any way mitigate your position to change your vote? Board Member Hoffmann — After we change it? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we approve that and then we put together the motion. I'm not trying to lose any votes either. I'm trying to get four here. Board Member Mitrano — May I say that I hope it wouldn't. Chairperson Wilcox — Hope it wouldn't? Board Member Mitrano — I hope it wouldn't. Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board wouldn't approve it? 01 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Mitrano — Well, I think one should look at a proposal for it's proposed issues. We shouldn't be doing this subversively to the proposal. If there is an issue with what the proposal is that is movable, let's talk about it and if there isn't, then the applicant will have to decide what they're going to do. I'm all in favor of sanctions. If I have known we had that power — Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we have no power, all we can do is recommend. Board Member Mitrano — I can think of three other applicants I would have loved to have done that for. Chairperson Wilcox — We can recommend anything we want, but the decision is up to the Board. To me a recommendation is not power. Rod, I'm concerned I'm losing a vote here possibly. Board Member Howe — I guess I'd like to see it focusing on the current resolution. Board Member Mitrano — What if you took out the "temporary" and just said they don't get the c. of o. Would that do it? Well, you said your concern was the drainage, so we took out the temporary on the c. of o. and just required that the drainage be done before the c. of o. Mr. Kanter — The Certificate of Occupancy for 7 would still not be allowed until the drainage situation was resolved. Board Member Mitrano — If that's going to get you your four votes, I'll go ahead and go along with that. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me move the motion that was vote. Second? Alright. Mr. Barney — What I've done is actually lump the requirements into a separate subdivision saying the requirements of subparagraph c, d, e, and f. which are the drainage, the completion of the structure, the revised site plan, showing the Cornell property that is subject to the easement and revisions of the site plan to show the extension of the sidewalk to the north and so forth. Chairperson Wilcox — That sounds acceptable to me. Do we have any comments? All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anybody opposed? One opposed. And we have one abstention. We have passed the motion, four in favor and one opposed and one abstention. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -002 Site Plan Modification Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, Summerhill Lane, Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.twelve7 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 21 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 11 located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include shifting one building and eliminating one garage, adding a new path and modify existing paths, drainage changes, and adding 26 parking spaces along Summerhill Lane. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent. 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, has, on January 21, 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, at a Public Hearing held on January 21, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses," revised twelve -2002 (received on Dec. 20, 2002), prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E., L. S., and other application material; 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 proposed site modifications to Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.twelve7, as shown on plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses, " revised twelve -2002 (received on Dec. 20, 2002), prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and b. the 26 parking spaces designated along Summerhill Lane shall be temporary only and shall be removed prior to or simultaneously with the conveyance of that portion of Summerhill Lane to the Town as a public road or prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the first building permit for any development that occurs north and northwest of the Summerhill Apartments, whichever event is earliest, and C. submission of an agreement between Cornell University and the developer for a drainage easement on Cornell property, to be approved by the Director of Engineering 22 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 and the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of any temporary or new Final Certificates of Occupancy, and d. completion of the proposed drainage structure, and e. submission of a revised final site plan showing the area of the Cornell property subject to a drainage easement, and f. revision of the final site plan to show extension of the side walk along the front of Building 5 to the north of the property line, and g. revision of the final site plan to show the addition of railroad ties or similar car stops between the temporary parking spaces along Summerhill Lane and the walkway /sideway to prevent vehicles in the parking spaces from encroaching upon the sidewalk, and h. the requirement of subparagraphs c., d., e., and f. be met and completed prior to issuance of any future Certificates of Occupancy for any building. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NA YS: Hoffmann. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM : Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the Droaosed 14 Lot subdivision located off of the intersection of Birchwood Drive North and Briarwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 10 -3.5, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to extend Birchwood Drive North to the East for twelve residential lots, with the remaining lands reserved for potential future development. Rocco Lucente, Owner; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9: 05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, the floor is yours and to those members of the public, I will give you and opportunity to speak if you want one later on. Mr. Fabbroni - As you said, Fred, the proposal is to extend Birchwood Drive north, to a cul -de -sac that would end just southwest of where the Town tank is. I think you all have a copy of a master plan type map that shows the twelve lots highlighted on that particular map. I want to make clear before we start that our sole intention is to develop those twelve lots. Looking much farther into the future, for Mr. Lucente at the age of 72 is a little difficult even for him, but in terms of knowing what context to look at it in, we've developed a master plan that seemed like the most plausible way of extending 23 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Birchwood Drive out to Sapsucker Woods Road and extending Sanctuary Drive down to Birchwood Drive. We have absolutely no interest in Phases II and III at this point in time. Having said that, let me kind of start out with the specific and branch out to the master plan aspects. We picked this particular area because it was pretty much by the discussions that went on in both the late eighties and the mid - nineties. This piece of land, in here got bracketed pretty much north of the wetlands, south of the development that Steve Lucente did as his own company with his wife and I would say, it's the highest, driest, most suitable piece of ground on all the land he owns to develop. So, we thought, if ever there was a no- brainer that would be isolated from the concerns of the neighborhood along Hanshaw Road or Salem Drive, that would be it. I guess, where we go from here, we'll smooth that out to be true or not, but that was our intention, was take the simplest piece of land, get the twelve lots done. Having said that, we developed this master plan, we showed the wetland that's within it, we left the area that's of most interest to the sanctuary in terms of expanding the sanctuary identified because, as much as we don't want to talk about Phases 11 and III, we certainly don't want to get into that area. There's been discussions on and off for 20 years about swapping lands with the sanctuary and Cornell to make that expansion of the sanctuary possible, so I didn't see any useful purpose to re -visit this area just west of the existing sanctuary lands. We have some information that we developed on this wetland that is central to the site that the Town Comprehensive Plan has shown as a conservation area. The area that we are proposing to develop we thought, is shown in red as residential on that Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space Plan that we are working from shows the UNA to take in the existing sanctuary and a portion of this land that is shown as "future ". We came to discover, after submitting the plans, that in the year 2000 the UNA was evaluated to be all of Mr. Lucente's remaining lands. That was pretty much a surprise to us, although we probably should have known that somehow, but it wasn't in the Comprehensive Plan and it wasn't in the Open Space Plan for the Town so, it's a little shocker to us, in terms of that information. Having said that, Vince Lucente, who did the wetlands determination developed the report on the plant species and a different evaluation when at one time a road was proposed to come from Sapsucker Woods to the north, some of what was in that report caused us to propose a cul -de -sac rather than a road that came through the wetland area and did some additional information than was provided in the UNA, one other problem with the UNA process is that it includes the Sapsucker Woods area so, until I can have further discussions with Bob Wesley, I really don't know what of this area that we are talking about contains everything that is shown. The UNA has blown out to be a pretty large area and a lot of the things that are identified are self- evident to the sanctuary and self- evident to the wetlands, but I don't think they are appropriate to the area that we're talking about subdividing at all, but I would say we're going to involve Bob Wesley to clarify what the field determinations were made and we're going to involve Vince Lucent who was our consultant to clarify that point as time goes on. So, I don't really want to get into subdivision discussions because I think the purpose tonight is to kind of put the twelve lots in context and come back and you'll have all the detail, Jon has to mail it all out to you. We submitted everything we thought was pertinent to a preliminary subdivision hearing on the twelve lots. We've discussed drainage, we've agreed to expand the drainage study and see how areas that drain in from Dryden, in through this wetland might be retained at the western edge of the wetland so that we could improve kind of what goes on with drainage down stream in the existing neighborhoods and I have and am developing a report for staff review that would expand the drainage study beyond just serving the twelve lots that we are talking about. That's not a difficult thing to do and it I think would improve things down stream in terms of drainage. Like I say, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the Master Plan and what your perspectives are. Jon brought up a number of issues 24 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 on the park. I would say that our number one preference is to donate this parcel one that's just south of the sanctuary to the sanctuary. Preliminary discussions with the sanctuary folks would indicate that they are interested in that so, that's about all I can tell you tonight. They haven't said "definitely give it to us ", but they seem very interested in that offer. As far as adding on to the north end of Salem Drive, this plan actually shows a little added on and squaring off of it, if it meant because of basically the wetland or some other reason that we would add a hundred feet more on to it, that would make sense, I can see if we weren't laboring over this area that the trade of land might happen just as plausibly down the line and it would be all either sanctuary or Town Park up in that area so I'm trying to paint a picture for you just equally a possibility down the line because somebody else is going to be dealing with that land or it's going to be traded down the line. Mr. Lucente doesn't see himself being the one that subdivides those lots up where you see the big three. Certainly, if you wanted to add a little piece on to Salem Drive in the process of what we're doing, I think that's open to discussion. The one preference we don't prefer and I've consulted with him, he doesn't want to pay money in lieu of parks because he feels that he has so much land, you should take whatever land he gives instead of money. So, he was pretty clear to me on that, but whether it's Parcel 1 or an addition of Salem Drive Park , if that's your preference. The other issues, like I say are down the line. Someone could come in just as easily and present a cluster of subdivisions down the line. If I haven't made it painfully clear, we really only want the deal with the twelve lots and to the extent that we can do that, we'd be very happy. I'm here basically to have an open discussion with you, I think, so I'll just shut up and answer questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Board, questions? Comments? How long has Mr. Lucente owned this land? Mr. Fabbroni — At least 40 years. Mr. Lucente has been building east of Warren Road and north of Hanshaw Road for about 50 years. He's got a good life and the only thing I can tell you about him, he's done things slowly, he's never done things in big jumps. He's built two houses a year for the last ten years. He keeps his work force busy between building houses by maintaining the properties he already has and that's the biggest reason, I think he is still building these houses to keep the people, some of whom have worked 35 or 40 years for him employed. Steven is his son, there is absolutely no connection at this point in time between the two. Steven owns Life Cycle properties and operates out of an office in the hamlet of Varna at the moment and they're two separately run companies with no connection between the two. That's shown in your packets as a little over one acre parcel, he was proposing to donate it to the sanctuary. If the Town wants it fee simple, that's fine too. Chairperson Wilcox — My personal preference, I think I would prefer to see Salem Park expanded. That's not to say that the Cornell Lab of Ornithology isn't an appropriate entity to have additional land, but given the fact that there is available land to the north of Salem Drive Park, if we were to go back to Rocco and see if he would agree to set aside land for a park that would take into account not only this space, but also the other space and deal with it all at once up front. Board Member Mitrano — Who owns the wetlands? Chairperson Wilcox — He does, Rocco. Get the set asides out of the way and build a nice big Town Park and then he doesn't have to deal with it any more. You can ask him. 25 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — I can ask him. I'm sort of being honest with you and saying they're really difficult when you don't know who wants to do what. Chairperson Wilcox — We've had other developers who have given us a 50 acre site and they're only developing phase one or two and 25 acres, they've dealt with the entire set aside all at once and it can be a wonderful way to do business. Mr. Kanter — Well, what I was suggesting, and I think it is pretty clear in my memo is that, if not setting it all aside up front, at least going through a planning process and figuring out ahead of time what the approach will be for the whole conglomerate of property. Chairperson Wilcox — I think this approach of that triangular piece as one and then the other triangular piece as two and the three. I'm not sure. It seems haphazard I guess is the word. Mr. Kanter - the other thing to think about is what would the long range preservation of the wetland area would be and that very well could also enter into the park and open space set aside aspect. Chairperson Wilcox — I will hold up a map showing that there are two lots proposed, right here, well not proposed, but potential and that may be an area that we don't want to use for development, for example. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't like what's being proposed here, but I think we can come up with something acceptable. Mr. Fabbroni — I won't take up your time, but I was going to show you two or three other Master Planning efforts that occurred from 1965 on and just kind of what I'm saying, whoever ends up with that land decides what they want to propose to do, there is going to be another Master Plan in the end. Board Member Mitrano — Shouldn't some of this be up to the Town? Mr. Kanter —Yeh, I would turn this around to be more of a Town planning process than the developer's. Yes. Whether it ends up being all implementable is another story. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we concerned with the wetlands? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and I have a question. In the drawing, it looks as if the wetland as mapped has been cut off of the western edge here along Briarwood Drive. I remember — Mr. Fabbroni — There is a wetland that's quartered off that's roughly the back 37 feet of those adjacent lots and it's not shown on that map. Board Member Hoffmann - Are those lots still undeveloped? 1401 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni- Only one is undeveloped but the wetland area is basically on a silt fence that separates it from the rest of the lots. Mr. Barney — Does that extend all the way over to Sapsucker Woods Road? Mr. Fabbroni — No. What Eva's referring to is on the rear end of these three lots. You see where the narrow little walkway is on Briarwood? Three blocks north of that. MR. Barney — So, actually the wetland goes onto the lots themselves. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — And all of those three lots are developed at this point? Mr. Fabbroni — No, only two of the three. The construction trailer for all of the construction is on the third. One of the three is not developed. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Any comments? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think if we allow more development, I think we should think of open space park land, kind of set aside. We will need it because of the development. I can see also that one might want to save some space because it needs to be protected, like wetlands or maybe adding something to the Lab of Ornithology land, but I think the greatest need is to have some land that serves the residents that would live in this area. The question is whether we should allow this to be developed. I would have preferred to not have that land developed where the wetland extends out, in these lots that have already been laid out. Board Member Mitrano — Well, legally what do we need to have to keep it undeveloped? Mr. Barney — They've already been approved right? Chairperson Wilcox — These have already been approved. Board Member Hoffmann — I think I would have preferred to have had those open, I guess. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments? Larry, you know the drill. We're concerned about the wetland, we're concerned about the protection of the wetlands. Mr. Fabbroni — The lots proposed, I didn't mention are all way over minimum zoning, the buffer between those larger lots and the wetland is as it's shown on those drawings. There was some attempt, not only to have larger lots. I mean the smallest lot is 17,000 square feet, the largest is in excess of 20,000 square feet and then the intention was to leave that buffer area between the lots themselves. So that was our attempt to provide space and buffer. Chairperson Wilcox — No one is happy with the proposed park set aside. 27 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — As I say, we can add, it's six and a half acres, we can add the ten percent to the north side of Salem Drive Park, if that's what I'm hearing, it's not a big issue. We could square it off. The park has kind of got a weird northeast corner because of an earlier Master Plan that envisioned streets up there. With the wetland and other things that are going on up in that area, that's not too likely to see the light of day. If that's what I'm hearing, we'd come back with an addition to the north end of Salem Drive Park. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not sure that I think that is such a good idea to expand on the existing park. I think it might be nicer to have an additional smaller park, so that the open space park areas are spread out through that built up area and each of them is closer to a little grouping of houses. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Comments? Mr. Kanter- Sue has something that she would like to say. Ms. Ritter — I just noticed that north of Salem Park is a wetland area so if you added on, that area would probably not be used for ball fields. It would be set aside for wetlands. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Ms. Ritter — We could probably explore it a little more, but you have all of Sapsucker Woods over there and I'm sure that they would love some additional land. Or if there's some other area that could be added onto Salem Park. Mr. Kanter — I think one thing that we could probably do is take an actual look out at that Salem Park and see what that land is actually like. Mr. Fabbroni — Some paths. I mean pretty much developed it with a little modest playground, but it's pretty much trails and benches. The Tareyton Road site was meant to be the active site for that neighborhood. Mr. Kanter — Tareyton Park is up, it's not shown on these maps, but it's a little bit farther north and it has a small ball field. Mr. Fabbroni — This is the actual park. If you want access through the Sanctuary Drive at some point, then it's kind of difficult to do anything east of the existing Salem property. In other words, I'm saying adding on to the east edge of Salem Rive Park stands in the way of that connection. Board Member Mitrano — So, was Mr. Lucente aware that the area that he was offering in here was not developable? IS that what I'm understanding? Ms. Ritter — No, he was offering an area to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Board Member Mitrano — He was offering that triangle? So you're not talking about that? U:3 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Ms. Ritter — Now, we're also talking about, see this parcel right here? Just north of the parcel has been identified as a wet land area, so we probably would not want this for a park. The other area over here is already a ball field. Board Member Mitrano — But, unless I heard incorrectly, one offer was that maybe Mr. Lucente might give some property in or around Salem Park, did I hear this correctly? Chairperson Wilcox — Larry indicated that this could be open for discussion. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, I thought you were asking that. Susan is pointing out that it's definitely going to be a passive area. A sanctuary's a wetland and there's walkways. Board Member Mitrano — So, it couldn't be developed anyway? Mr. Fabbroni — It couldn't be developed as an active recreation. It could be a nature walk. Board Member Mitrano — I'm trying to determine if the developer could develop this anyway. Mr. Fabbroni — There's a sewer line that runs through that area, so it's not exactly under water. Ms. Ritter — The other site though, I don't know much about the other site, the one that you had proposed actually is just north of Sanctuary Drive where there is developable land. Mr. Fabbroni — I chose the triangle to explain a little bit because it adjoins the sanctuary, number one. We had full intentions kind of thinking about what you were getting at earlier of handing over lot 2 in time, but lot 1 would fully border on the Allen property that fronts on Sanctuary Drive. He's sort of been upset about various development over the years, it seemed like a nice gesture along with other things to secure his back space forever too. So it wasn't just a weird shape that we picked. It's one acre, we were going to develop 6.5 acres, so it was well over the 10 percent that was normally required anyway. Again, whether you believe it or not, everything was set up to not leave you too much to agonize over. Mr. Kanter — The purpose of the Park and Recreation Reservation in the subdivision regulations is to fulfill a park and recreation purpose for the Town residents who will be living in that subdivision primarily and the residents of the Town. So, if we can construe that they'll all be doing their recreation at the Lab of Ornithology, fine, but if there are other needs identified for that area, then that's not going to do it. Board Member Mitrano — Right. Mr. Kanter- So, that's back to Eva's point that maybe the park should be in the area of the development, Right? •'7 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Or close to it, but it doesn't have to relate just to that. One could imagine something from this angle over here. SO that there is one park here, one park over here somewhere and one down there. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, you know that we're going to want to see drainage plans. There was a drainage problem up there at some point a couple years ago, where drainage was diverted one way. Mr. Walker — That was corrected. Chairperson Wilcox — Who was the developer? Mr. Walker — Steven Lucente. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, enough said. I'd like to give the public a chance to speak if we're all set for now. I'm going to recognize Candace Cornell first. For those of you who don't know her, she is a former member of this Board and a former chair of this Board. Candace Cornell, 1456 Hanshaw Road — I have a few concerns. The first concern is that I want to protect areas that we've been discussing, I call it the Briarwood wetland for lack of a better name at the moment. Wetland delineations are only legal for certain types of permits, essentially the Army Corps permit. They require that the areas are delineated within five years of the proposed project because wetland borders change all the time, that's the natural process. In this case, there's been a lot of development around the wetlands, so I'm assuming there will be a change to the borders. Lots 33 through 38 and back are close to the wetland borders or right on them. You want to make sure that you are providing enough of a buffer. Hearing that they are proposing extra long lots to protect the wetlands. It would probably be better if those lots were shortened because the more land and grass area, the more chemicals are going to run off into the wetland areas. So, keeping the lawn areas away from the wetlands is particularly important. Also, the more development that occurs around the wetland area, it's going to continue to effect the wetland. Whenever there's any sort of development in this area, you need to have current permits. These other lots that haven't been developed, I have been developed, I have a question whether they have a current permit for them. Also, this lot right here, originally it was shown to be part of the Briarwood duplexes, now it's shown that it is part of the Briarwood Project, so I question what these lots are. Mr. Kanter — I checked the tax map, Candace, and that I think was just drawn wrong on the sketch plan, that's not an approved lot. It's part of the whole Briarwood parcel that has not been subdivided yet. That sketch plan does not show correctly the lot that you pointed to. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, we are in the southeastern most lot at the bottom of the page. It's not an approved subdivided lot yet. 9111 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Ms. Cornell — I have a concern about putting a new Town road next to Salem Park, although that road extension has been there all along, one of the best things about Salem Park is that it is totally isolated from the road so it's really conducive to young children playing. So, if the road's going to be built right next to Salem Park, the park needs to be sheltered from the road itself. And, let's see. I would like to see on a sketch plan like this where the hydic soils are , the wetland soils, in the area. According to Mr. Fabbroni's letter they have elihydronium and that's a hydric soil. It's not a good soil to build on in the first place, so I'd want to see where the soils are on the present site plan or sketch plan. As a final concern of mine is that the red shouldered hawk and the coopers hawk tend to utilize this area. They are both forest birds of prey and the more forest that is disturbed in this area, it effects the hawks. The red - shouldered hawk is listed under the New York State special protection. So this is an important note to keep in mind. The more the wetland gets developed around, the more it will impact it. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry knows we're concerned about wetlands. Mr. Cornell — Oh, I'm sorry and owner - occupied houses. David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Road - I am the alter ego of Candace in case you haven't figured that out. dealt with this same thing 10 years ago, so I'm having an out of body experience. If I have this right, these are the ones that were built. They told you guys that they were going to be owner occupied houses, with a little salt and peppering of apartments in there. To the best of my knowledge, every single one of those is a duplex, every single one of these is a rental. When I think of that and why I stepped up to the Mike on the other one, I think there's a pattern here and it makes me crazy. Why can't I document this. Well, I could actually to go door to door. The last time I got in a fight with these guys, it got kind of ugly so I found my self served with a summons on some trunked up charge and I found myself doing weird stuff to get out of that and then they sued Candace for fifteen million, it's a classic slap- Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you to stick to the point please. Mr. Collum — Now, these guys talked a lot here, I want to have my say. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have some comments about the site plan? Mr. Collum — Yes, I do. When you make them do whatever you make them do, get it hard and fast, get them to promise. Now, did I hear, did you actually say — Chairperson Wilcox — Sir, could I ask you to address the Board, please. Mr. Collum - Did Mr. Fabbroni say that he was turning this land over of did he just say, "we can't develop it "? 31 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Fabbroni and the Board have engaged in a sketch plan review this evening and we have discussed many options and no commitments have been made on either part by Mr. Fabbroni, as agent, or by this Planning Board. This is simply an exchange of ideas tonight. Mr. Collum — And I'm exchanging ideas and if I throw a chair or something, you tell me okay. Just because I have a different view, I don't think it's an unreasonable view. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not questioning your view sir, but I don't want to hear about litigations, want to hear about what you think about the site. Mr. Collum - That is the problem because what worries me the most is because you won't pin him down. I thought we had them pinned down the last time, but we didn't. I can delineate these wetlands better than Mr. Fabbroni can, it's a trivial process, you get an aerial photograph from around 1935 and you can see where the farmer avoided cutting fields, farmers don't like to plow in wetlands because their plows don't make it. The wetland was gigantic. I'm actually not the big wetland fan, these guys probably are. I think it's a legitimate concern, but I think it's very, very important when you guys get him to lay out the plan. This is why I stepped up to the mike in the previous one, when they said they need more parking spaces. Pan down on what's going to happen forever and ever, not just what Mr. Lucente said on his death bed that he's not going to do. If it's the last development that Mr. Lucente does, that won't be such a bad thing in my book, but the fact of the matter is that we're going to be back here in another decade, we're going to be chipping off little chunks here and there because it's not going wetlands after that. So whatever you do, get it on paper. Pin him down. The problem is, the last time we got into this, I wasn't totally equipt to handle this. This is actually what got Candace on the Board, she started out as just an environmentalist. I'm more equipt to handle this and you can not talk litigation, I'm equipt to handle it. It is my right as a citizen that you guys pin him down. If you want to pin him down and say "yes we'll leave that open for you ", so be it, but pin him down. Don't just think that because they say they're not coming back that they're not going to touch it. He's been working this area for 40 years as Mr. Fabbroni explained and every time he's just shrinking and shrinking. These duplexes are not owner occupied, there's nothing like what I heard in the meeting. would like you to say none of these are duplexes and none of these are rentals. I'd like you to say that it is not allowed for you to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. The gentleman in the back in the blue shirt, who has waited very patiently since 7:00. Todd Olson, 115 Pinewood — I'm the co -owner with my wife. 115 Pinewood would be here. Chairperson Wilcox — Would that be behind the lot numbered 1"? Mr. Olson — Yes. There are actually two houses behind Lot #1 and we're the next one down. So we're not actually on Birchwood Drive, but we're a little down. Two preliminary remarks, one is, thank you to the Board very much for sending the letter around, otherwise I would have never known that any of this was happening. So, whoever did that, the process worked and I'm very grateful. Second, I don't know anything about how this works so tonight has been a real education. I'm very impressed. Some of my neighbors are here and I'm sure that they have some more specific remarks because they actually have more detailed concerns than I, but I'd 32 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 like to share with the Board the feeling of living in this neighborhood. Now, I have lived in this neighborhood since 1997 and when I dated my wife, I was familiar with the neighborhood for five years prior to that. My wife has lived in the neighborhood since 1986, 1 believe at 115 Pinewood. As to the comments about the wetland, when she moved there, there was one of this stuff and her daughter played in that area. So the character of this area has changed. As mentioned, except for Rocco Lucente's house, all these are duplexes and they're rentals. I don't know if that matters or not. In your discussion with the parks, here, you mentioned this park. This park is a very interesting park. Our neighborhood has a problem between pedestrians and automobiles. It has a lot of young families and in decent weather you see, in the evening, a lot of parents out with their kids pushing them in strollers and particularly a lot of people use this park. People like to come from Salem Drive here up into here to use this park. This park is has tall trees and is shaded and has that little play area. It is a very different character than this park, which is an open field that people play soccer and is used very heavily by the Winston Court area. I think the character of this park has the potential of changing if all the trees around this area come down. That change in the character of the area, as you're considering where to put the parks in the area to serve those of us who own there and live there, I think is important, not every park is a flat piece of grass that is open. I don't quite know how to resolve that issue. I sense that this end of the neighborhood is going to change drastically with this plan. The other big part that happens in this neighborhood is that there are a lot of people who own dogs and there's a lot of dog walking. It happens in all weather. One of the interesting things is that in the morning and the evening, the renters, in particular are leaving or coming home, they do it at a relatively high speed and they are not aware of the pedestrians, they just sort of whip through. Particularly in this area, here, where Salem Drive makes this turn right here and Birchwood comes down, it's not particularly safe. The interesting thing about this plan is that it has Salem Drive coming down, it's going to connect this, here. It's interesting that now there is a dirt track and for a couple of years, somebody has cable up here to prevent people from driving through. The cable is no longer there and when you walk along there, you frequently see fresh tire tracks from people making this cut. One of the things that's really easy to predict is that when this is put in here, traffic from people taking short cuts, rather than coming down Sapsucker Woods Road, people are going to cut through this back area to get out here on Salem Drive to get out and that amount of traffic, I think, is going to drastically change the living character of this neighborhood. I think it will change the value my wife and I place on living here. We talk periodically about moving elsewhere into a different area. One of the things that keeps us here is that it is really a very quiet residential area and putting these houses here and changing this traffic pattern completely changes the character of that neighborhood. Now, we don't have young kids, I'll let other people who do speak specifically about their concern with the safety issues. I hope as you're negotiating for the parks, you're aware that those spots are considered. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, we go to 10pm, but we just agreed to go an extra 15 minutes, so please go ahead. Thank you for being patient. Andrew J. Houtenville, 116 Pinewood Place - Thank you for your patience as well. I also, like Mr. Olson, am very impressed with this proceeding, it's my first time to something like this. Who knows, may end up on the other side, I'm already roped into a lot of things. could speak to the environmental impact, but I'll forgo that because this is still discussion. I'll can tell you that they were wetlands 30 years ago because I have some massive white swamp oaks in my back yard. I've also seen red shouldered hawks, pileted woodpeckers. I can attest to you, there's a lot gy-1 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 of water running through there and that this is a property that if wetlands protection had been around, it would never have been developed, not in a million years and you know it. Discussion about the future plans, I'm a strong believer in private property and the value of private property, I'm an economist. I understand that he has rights to do what he wants and he has the right to develop this land. Wetlands came in and changed that, but he has a right to do that. The tactic of moving slowly, over a number of years, where planning boards change, is a good one because you can just say "I want to look at these twelve lots ". That's crap, excuse me. That's not right, because he may live 70 years, he may die tomorrow, but he benefits, the profits for selling that property are based on the development rights. If he just gave it up, fine, give it all up. Get it in writing, twelve lots and then you're done, wonderful because you're only concerned about these twelve lots. But no, he's not concerned about these twelve lots, if he was only concerned about these twelve lots, he would have donated all the property now, while he can enjoy the Rocco Sanctuary, he would have done that. No, He's going to wait. I'm sorry I'm getting upset. The idea of twelve lots, and I really like the way you guys handled the first one, you know, what are the real issues, let's make a firm decision, let's not get angry, let's not have anything, you know, Building # 7 what's the true decision, what's the right decision. Well, by piecing things together, you guys will make the right decision, based on these twelve lots and whatever side payments you guys can accrue. A lot of the conversation was not about these twelve lots, but side payments that the Town could accrue for the benefit of the Town. I love Salem Park and somebody accrued that by the same kind of negotiations. So there's benefits to that, even though it's probably improper to talk about side payments to the Town or to the sanctuary, given that only the twelve lots on it are involved. So, I came here because of children. I told these guys I would only stick to children and not talk about my bird watching. I'd love to put this up, but I'm afraid it would become public property and I wouldn't be able to get it back, but they are beautiful children. This corner of Salem a lot of kids stand out there for the bus every morning. This is a really slow, narrow road with a stop sign, everybody here is coming on Salem Road, no wonder they're all rentals. People jump to 50 miles per hour. They slow down, squeal their wheels around this turn every morning. Sometimes they'll go into our friends property because they miscalculated their speed. Or they'll have to slam on their brakes because they're trying to cut the corner. Teenagers have fun, it's a fun corner. And then they gun it up Salem. They're all doing it, they're not going down this very narrow road with a stop sign here and a stop sign here, they're gunning it to Winston Court. These people over here, all these people, all these rental units, they are rental units. We're not talking twelve lots, we're talking two families- Chairperson Wilcox — We have a few more minutes, but please make your point. Mr. Olson — Twelve units, 24 families, four cars per family. That's a lot of cars. I drive slowly because know these people and I've lived there for four years and I'm going to live there for another 15 probably. Renters gun it every time. The owners of this property down here, Rocco drives slow. Most of these are one year MBA students, none of them are here very long. If this ever connects, I'm doomed, I'm moving because it's all going to come this way. Anyway traffic is a real issue. Walking to that park. Kids walk to that park all the time, all the time. Pulled in wagons, as long as they can run this gauntlet. You can't cross this road without running because you don't dare get caught. A traffic study needs to be done. You need to get a plan before anything is approved because this is devastating. If whoever Rocco sells this land to finds a way to move around this wetland and develop this property and if Birchwood is extended down this way, cul- de -sacs are the way, so you're going to see a cul -de -sac because cul -de -sac properties have a 9n, PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 higher values, if they ever stop renting and sell them they'll get higher retail value. Cul -de -sacs, everything is coming into Salem. Double occupancy homes mean tons of cars that drive fast. I knew this was coming. I asked my realtor, call Rocco Lucente, how many units does he have. 350 units. And so, I knew and so I was concerned about that because I have animals and pets and I knew, well maybe I'll have to move if it gets bad. He said well, I only do a few houses a year and that's true. But Rocco will accrue money when he sees the property and the potential for development will go into that sale price. So, get everything in writing. This will indeed change the composition from this as being a dog walking, a stroller walking, a wagon pulling neighborhood and I hope that you stick to the values. You represent me in your decision, you represent Rocco, he has a right to develop this property in an appropriate manner. Get the side payment if you can, but make sure they're in writing. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody else? One more back there. Thomas McGalliard , 112 Pinewood Place — I'm also a neighbor of these folks over here. Again, I'd like to commend you for distributing that notice, it was really helpful. Next time I would appreciate getting it a few days earlier than we got it this time. Mr. Kanter — Sorry, that's the best we can do. Mr. McGalliard — That's great, well it was good enough. I would echo many of the concerns that my neighbors have put before you about any further development in this area. I've lived there for three years and in those three years I've seen the character of the neighborhood change in ways that I didn't really expect. Being a relatively new resident in Ithaca, I probably didn't know as much about the northeast and this particular neighborhood of the northeast as I would have liked. It was my first home purchase, I naturally assumed that this was just an owner occupied subdivision, I don't know the percentages, someone else might, but there are a fair number, I would say probably close to half or the properties, that are renter occupied, if not probably a little more. That concerns me for a couple of reasons, the biggest reason for me now is that I have a 14 month old son and I am concerned about the high rates of speed by people who are essentially transient members of the neighborhood, there for one or two years, renting properties from Mr. Lucente, as well as other people who have bought houses or bought units in the area and left behind rental properties. That is my main concern. My secondary concern that bothers me is, I am always worried about property values. This being my first home, it was almost like I mortgaged my future. As we go on and as we see changes to the neighborhood which could be potentially detrimental to property values, I start to get more and more nervous. My final concern is something which you've heard about from most of the previous speakers, is the fact that the amount of water that flows through the culverts in this neighborhood is a very high rate of flow. Come May, through the rainy season, the culverts are going to have standing water in them. Just to give an example, we had standing water all last year in our culvert and it froze, finally, in late November. Prior to that, we had water in the ditches for probably close to nine months. Again, as a father, I worry about things such as west Nile virus and all the other things that are out there to worry about when you're a new parent. I'll leave it at that. It's late, I know I'm getting tired, you guys must be tired. But again, I want to thank you for doing this. 9341 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — To those members of the audience who are here, should the applicant decide to proceed with the subdivision either in this form or a modified form, there will be a formal public hearing at that time and you will, of course have the opportunity to speak once again. Mr. Barney — Several of you made reference to the traffic speed, that is something that could, perhaps be addressed irrespective of this subdivision proposal and what I would suggest is maybe putting together a proposal and getting together with the Highway Superintendent, Fred Noteboom because we just installed, I think over in the Roat Street area, a couple of stop signs that, hopefully, are going to act as a speed reducing. It looks like there are a couple of intersection here that might be susceptible to that kind of treatment. I don't know and I can't warrant that anything will happen, but you don't lose anything by trying. Board Member Mitrano — Absolutely. And call the Sheriffs and have the patrol. Mr. Barney — Actually, the Sheriff's Department is spread kind of thinly. Getting some stop signs in place and having them enforced, the Sheriff will come up once those signs go up to get people to respect them a little bit. That might help to alleviate some of what you're talking about. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further comments from this Board to Mr. Fabbroni? Board Member Mitrano — Well, I have a question. Chairperson Wilcox — May I remind you that we are running out of time. Mr. Kanter — Unless the Board requests additional time from the Chair. Board Member Mitrano - What could a Board ever do about the matter of the detail nature by which development occurs? Mr. Barney — What Jon has done here and the Planning staff, in terms of requesting an overall look. It's interesting because in some respects, I think people assume we, as a town have more power than we actually have. Once an area is zoned for a particular type of development in terms of a certain lot size. When someone comes in with a plan that does not violate a SEQR or some environmental concern, we cannot stop or prohibit the development, whether it is a twelve lot subdivision or a 50 lot subdivision. We can certainly regulate it and make it as aesthetically and environmentally sound and sensitive as possible. This area is zoned for this and unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side of the fence you are on, the Town does not have the authority, without re- zoning it, to stop a subdivision. Board Member Mitrano — A second question I have, is the Town aware of any violation to the current code or previous code? MR. Barney — Our Zoning Ordinance permits two family houses, at the moment, in every zone. There is a prohibition against two side by side units of equal size. KZ01 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — These are not duplexes as the strict definition of term. One unit is half the size of the primary unit. Mr. Barney — Our ordinance permits that or you can have two of the same size as long as they're up and down. I think if somebody has an issue here, again, it's one that should be directed to our Code Enforcement Officer. I would guess that he issued the building permit for all these plans. Mr. Kanter — As far as I know, there were no Planning Board conditions that said those houses could not be done that way. Board Member Mitrano — And my last question is, could you please tell me how many times we have done things and not gotten them in writing? How many site plans has the Town of Ithaca had that have not been in writing? MR. Barney - I can't think of any. I don't what the general question is directed at. Unless there were representations made in a particular way when this was begun. That, in and of itself is not binging on the Town or binding by the developer, as long as what is constructed meets the requirements of the Zoning. I'm not aware of any violations. Mr. Kanter — And also, unless a subdivision is approved as a cluster subdivision , which has some potential for restricting occupancy, there's very little this Board can do to prevent two family occupancy, as long as it meets the requirements of the zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — Or renter occupied. Mr. Kanter — Right. And the Town Board has talked about, from time to time, having an owner occupancy provision in order to have a second unit, but that's never been adopted as code. Chairperson Wilcox — We can't make policy. All set Larry? Thank you Larry. Mr. Fabbroni — I guess the only question I have is how to proceed at this point. I've listened to a lot of things, I can think of some things to offer back that address — Chairperson Wilcox — I'll give you the quick answer because it's 10:15. Talk to Jon and his staff, I'm sure they have a good idea of what we want. Mr. Kanter — I think some of the key items you already mentioned that you're starting to work on regarding having Bob Wesley look at some of the environmental aspects, plant habitats, drainage analysis is going to be a key one. I'm not sure what direction we have in terms of park and recreation set aside. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a feeling that maybe you guys want to do a little looking yourself first and come up with an idea of what you think is best for the Town. Ms. Ritter — It's not a large area that we're about. These are small lots. 37 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Mr. Kanter — I have heard some indication that perhaps a through road connection from Sanctuary Drive down to Birchwood might not be such a great idea. So, if that were removed, would that leave open some of the lands east of Salem Park available to add to the park. That's something we could look at maybe. Mr. Fabbroni — I heard that. The problem is length of Sanctuary Drive in the end. But if you're comfortable with that, it sort of addresses everything you heard from the audience too, as far as the sneak through. We, actually abandoned an earlier plan to go straight through to Salem Drive because of what I anticipated the feelings of Salem Drive to be after 25 years of enjoying no road there. That's been useful from my standpoint. My assumption would be that you don't want cul -de -sacs and you want things to go through. If, based on what you heard tonight, you'd rather not have it go through, then it opens up other possibilities with the park. Chairperson Wilcox — I think we like the through roads to connect, but, as John Barney mentioned to the residents, there are ways to mitigate speed through stop signs, for example or speed bumps or other methods. But clearly multiple ways of access to properties are important for safety concerns and other concerns. Cul -de -sacs have their place, but they may not have a place here. We need to get going here. Thank you Larry and I thank the members of the public. Who's going to be a vice chair? Board Member Mitrano — Eva. Chairperson Wilcox - So, moved. Seconded? Larry seconds. DO you want it? All in favor? ADOPTED RESOLUTION : PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -003 Nomination and Election Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2003 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Eva Hoffmann as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2003. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty NA YS: None ABSTAIN: Hoffmann The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Wilcox - I move the approval of minutes. 91.01 PB JANUARY 21, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED MARCH 4, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to come in and listen to the tape. There were several things that were not audible, I was not audible. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is why we now have these little signs. Let's approve these with your changes. All in favor of approving minutes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -004 Approval of Minutes — December 17, 2002 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the December 17, 2002 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — We do have a meeting. Spring newsletter information, get your articles in. My thanks to Mike Smith today, who came through. I needed to quickly read up on this particular thing so he faxed me the information so I could have an intelligent conversation on television, thank you. Mr. Kanter — I don't think it helped. Chairperson Wilcox — You can watch it on the news when you get home. I don't have TV any more. Mr. Barney — That's assuming we get home. Mr. Kanter — Their big headline was, "and of course there are going to be some problems with this development" and then they show you talking about a couple of issues, like wetlands. Chairperson Wilcox — Camouflaging cell towers as trees can be pretty ugly. I don't have any other business. Anyone else? AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the January 21, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:20 p.m. gue TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 21, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Summerhill Apartments Phase II Modifications, Summerhill Lane. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase II located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include shifting one building and eliminating one garage, adding a new path and modify existing paths, drainage changes, and adding 26 parking spaces along Summerhill Lane. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 14 Lot subdivision located off of the intersection of Birchwood Drive North and Briarwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 10 -3.5, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to extend Birchwood Drive North to the East for 12 residential lots, with the remaining lands reserved for potential future development. Rocco Lucente, Owner; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent, 5. Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of Planning Board for 2003. 6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 7. Approval of Minutes: December 17, 2002. 8. Other Business. 9, Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 2734747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, January 21, 2003 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase II located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include shifting one building and eliminating one garage, adding a new path and modify existing paths, drainage changes, and adding 26 parking spaces along Summerhill Lane. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 13, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 the Ithaca'Jou.rnal x ri , t 1Nednesday, January ry15, 2Q03 "PLANNIN.U'§VAKD,;. - NOTICE-OF ^f �PUBLICHEARINGS,,a Tuesday, January2V2003,` , y_ direction of;.the Chair -` )ersort', .of ` Jthe "Planning ioard; `NOTICE.IS .HEREBY.' iIVEN."thot:;Piiblic Head nos :u- r_,L_u 003 at �T3 Nort�i Tioaa' feet Ithaca;- N.Y:-;',6t the`' dlovii rig >times:drid oo,thei' Blowing matters:... 151-130 a on side ration:of.Preliminary . rid' Finol Site;'Approv6foe I. Summerhill-:J .-Apartments . Phdse�:: _ 11- ;,.aocated; �' -on Siimmerhilb;Lane;�jown`- of:j .Ithaca Taz Porcel No 622 =: 1:.:127 Multiple Residence;' [Disttict:'Thei`propose'd J9 di -.'_ ficatio'ns+include.shifting one, building :'and ^s' eliminating: -one garage; adding:.a, new. atfr :'and"" modiL1y' ewsting paces". -."along ;:Sumnierhill I ane. -Jvar' &:'Janet lonson,: iwners /Applicants; : ;Lavi- ence.'P. :;Fabbroni Agent.' idid.Planning.BOaTii will.ar:. aid - times: and: 'said place': ear', all ,peisons ' in= support. if-such'mottets,or objections^ iereto, Persons may appear ,viduals- .with'.. visual "iiiipair mehts; liearing`impoirments or _other_ipecial' needs-, will be'providec-with assistance as necessary, -upon request.;. Persons desirinayay�: assistance must :make'. suc0.'a request' n6f less than.48;'hours prior to1',the`!time's of _the' .public . hearinas: 3r * A1CP: lanning' 3 =1347 2003, Dated;;'' TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SI&WIN SHEET DATE: January 21, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION II e w• o.�l Pf g c —il "�R+W C.t� i j n� f L 0 AZ ()j orv�ks M`4 ,1)1 ,e, LIZ �Ini£�tJo��L -� OF, TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication: January 13, 2003 January 15, 2003 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of January 2003, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL60521878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 v6