Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-03-04PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 DATE The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Vice Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member, Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner EXCUSED: Kevin Talty ALSO PRESENT: Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design; Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College 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 Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 24, 2003 and February 26, 2003, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or.agents, as appropriate, on February 26, 2003, Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD: Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Sl 1031 Danby Road: : Colleae Circle — Buildi Chairperson Wilcox — Before we begin I have to make a disclosure. College Circle Apartments is owned or controlled by Integrated Acquisition and Development. Vincent Nicotra — Actually by South Hill Land Associates and the College Circle Associates. Chairperson Wilcox — Which I believe are IAD. I live in Warren Road Apartments, which is owned by IAD. I should also point out that I work at Cornell Business and Technology Park, therefore I get a discount on the rent. So, that disclosure made, we may begin. Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design — I am here tonight to ask for approval on modifications on the site plan that was approved in April of 2002. What we're looking to do is to take an apartment that exists already, that is being used as a laundry facility. A one unit in a four unit building that originally was used as a laundry facility and is currently being used as a laundry facility and also is the 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED administrative office. At the end of construction this Fall for the Phase II project which was approved here, the Community Building will house the functions that are currently in this apartment or in this space, I should say, it's not an apartment now. Once those functions are up and running, they'll no longer be needed in this building. Ithaca College, as the caretaker of the property wishes to convert that space into a handicapped accessible apartment unit and what we are asking for tonight is that the count of the original 89 apartments be granted a count of 90 apartments in total, but the overall occupancy for the complex does not change. The proposal includes an asphalt walk that will be built from this apartment unit to the community building so that a person using a wheelchair will have access to the community building. I have a site plan if someone is interested in seeing it. This is the plan that I think everyone here has seen at one time or another. The building that we are talking about is Building 13, which is labeled in this plan. This is a diagram of the walk that will get you from here to the community building. There already exists a handicap accessible parking spot. Other than that asphalt walk, the only exterior modification, that may be necessary may be some widening of the door, potentially. We'll study that once we get into the construction. Everything else will be internal to the unit. It will be converted from a laundry room and r.d. office to a two person apartment. The reason the campus has chosen this location is that there is no longer a need for the laundry facility once the building is built and they also don't have the opportunity for two bedroom handicap - accessible units because all of the new units are four and five bedroom as was mandated in the previous site plan approval that went back to the original approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Are there any environmental concerns that you are aware of? Mr. Nicotra — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Board members, questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I have a question. I'm a little bit confused about how many apartments are being added. In your letter from January 27, you said that the renovations of the one unit that you talked about in conjunction with the renovation of the mailroom back into an apartment that will also be handicap accessible. So you have accessible units, plural. Mr. Nicotra - We added that, I had spoken with Jonathan and mentioned that we are also going to take a unit that was originally an apartment unit and was converted to a temporary mailroom and we're going to convert it back to an apartment. That was done under a building construction permit that we received from the Town through the building official, Andy Frost, and it was just a minor renovation. We just mentioned it there because, I think the campus is trying to demonstrate that they are trying to move forward with providing more accessibility to students there. So that unit was always part of the original 89 count, we're not changing anything. Right now, it's just not being used as an apartment, per se, but it was part of the original approval as 89 units. So, the request is for the addition of one unit to change it from 89 to 90, but without changing the allowable occupancy of the complex, that will remain constant as what was approved here last year. Board Member Hoffmann — The one unit already was approved last time then? 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Nicotra — Yes. It's part of the original 89 units, it was converted to a temporary mail room until this community building was built. So they've taken it off line and it's not occupied currently. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions in regard to the Environmental Review? Board Member Howe — So, are the laundry facilities going to be up in Building 10. Mr. Nicotra — Yes, that's the new community building. It will have the laundry facility and the administrative office, mailroom. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Thayer — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer, do I have a second. Board Member Conneman — I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "Aye ". Anybody opposed? There are none. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -007 SEAR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval College Circle Renovations — Building 13 1033 Danby Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1-2.3 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Modifications and modification of a condition from a previous approval for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include renovating the existing office and laundry room in Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards the Community Building. Also proposed is an increase in the approved number of apartment units from 149 to 150 (149 units was approved on April 2, 2002 by the Planning Board), with the occupancy remaining at the originally approved 750 persons. South Hill Land Associates, LLC and College Circle Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 91 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED 3. The Planning Board, on March 4, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Site Plan — Bldg. 13 / Proposed Walk'; "Ithaca College — College Circle Apartments, College Circle Site Plan'; "College Circle — Renovation Project Building 13, Floor Plan', Sheets R -1 and A -1, dated January 27, 2003, prepared by QPK Design, 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. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe NAYS: NONE The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modifications and modification of a condition from a previous approval for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include renovating the existing office and laundry room in Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards the Community Building. Also proposed is an increase in the approved number of apartment units from 149 to 150 (149 units was approved on April 2, 2002 by the Planning Board), with the maximum occupancy remaining at the originally approved 750 persons. South Hill Land Associates, LLC and College Circle Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions of the agents for College Circle? Comments from staff, Town Attorney? There being none, would someone like to move the motion for a site plan modification? Board Member Hoffmann — I will. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Seconded by Rod Howe. There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". No one is opposed and there are no abstentions, the motion is passed unanimously. Thank you gentleman. M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 008 Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval College Circle Renovations - Building 13, 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1-2.3 MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Rod Howe. IF VC AFINAF163 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Modifications and modification of a condition from a previous approval for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include renovating the existing office and laundry room in Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards the Community Building. Also proposed is an increase in the approved number of apartment units from 149 to 150 (149 units was approved on April 2, 2002 by the Planning Board), with the occupancy remaining at the originally approved 750 persons. South Hill Land Associates, LLC and College Circle Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on March 4, 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 II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 4, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Site Plan - Bldg. 13 / Proposed Walk'; 'Ithaca College - College Circle Apartments, College Circle Site Plan', "College Circle - Renovation Project Building 13, Floor Plan'; Sheets R -1 and A -1, dated January 27, 2003, prepared by QPK Design, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovation of the existing office space and laundry room in Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards the 3. Community Building, as shown on plans entitled "Site Plan - Bldg. 13 / Proposed Walk'; 'Ithaca College - College Circle Apartments, College Circle Site Plan'; "College Circle - N1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Renovation Project Building 13, Floor Plan', Sheets R -1 and A -1, dated January 27, 2003, prepared by QPK Design, and other application material, subject to the following condition: a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby approves the requested increase from 149 apartment units to 150 apartment units, maintaining a total occupancy not to exceed 750 persons. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe NAYS: NONE The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Enjoy your drive back up north. Board Member Thayer — I wish they were all that easy. Chairperson Wilcox — Then life would be boring, right? Board Member Thayer — I suppose. AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of Town of Ithaca Planning Department Annual Report for 2002. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:17 p.m. Mr. Kanter — We always call it a presentation, but I really don't mean it to be that. We did present our annual report to the Town Board at the last meeting, as did all the other department heads and managers and they were all accepted by the Town Board, so we always like to give this Board the opportunity to take a look at the report and just get a good feeling of all the things that have happened during the year. In particular, this Board really does the development review and that's a big part of this report. It's always good to take a look back and see what actions were reviewed and what approvals were about. This was about, I'd say, maybe a little bit less busy year in terms of development review, although it never seems that way until you look back at it. This year we had, I guess, a total of 59 actions that the Board dealt with. Although, it didn't seem like a whole lot of development coming out of it, it's always interesting. It certainly included our own Public Works facility, that now is just opening up. Actually, we were down in the building today. We had a Public Works Committee meeting so we had a tour of the building and that's basically in shape. It will be kind of like this building was when we first moved in, for two months or so, it was just a continuing process of little details being finished up by contractors. It's really nice. Anyone who hasn't gotten to take a look at it during construction should go down and take a look at it. It will definitely be a much better situation for the public works people. 101 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED And then some of the bigger things that we've done. Of course, Phase II of Linderman Creek, College Circle Apartments, Cornell's recent nine athletic fields. 19 new potential residential building lots. Then some of the things that are pending for the upcoming year, Linderman Creek's, the future subdivision. We think they may be coming in some time within the next couple of months. I got a call from John Fenessy and they were trying to work out the secondary access issues and they think they might have some options, so hopefully they'll be submitting something and coming back in, probably for a follow up sketch plan sometime soon. Then, of course the Cornell Alumni Field relocation is well underway at the new proposed site, so we'll be seeing something more on that soon. So, development reviews, basically what we did is we put all of the descriptions of all of the actions, categorized them by subdivision, site plans, recommendations to make it easier to see what was accomplished. Mike puts together a really nice summary, along with Chris too. Chris is doing a lot of the database organization. Mike is doing all the tracking on the development review fees and accounting for the actions that come in, so there are summaries of all those at the end of the report. That's the development review part of it. Then, what I usually like to do also is give this brief summary memo at the beginning highlighting accomplishments and priorities that appear to be upcoming for 2003 and future years. So, hopefully, you'll have a chance to look at that. Then we also attached the Codes and Ordinances Committees most recent updated work plan priorities listing. They just basically came out with this new list at their last meeting. So there is a lot of stuff to do in the upcoming year. So, I don't know, I don't want to keep on talking. Chairperson Wilcox — Stop talking. Mr. Kanter — I'll stop talking and I'll let you guys ask any questions that you might have after looking through this. Again, it's been a pretty busy year and I assume it's probably even going to be busier this upcoming year with the zoning process kind of winding down. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm always amazed when I think of the Planning staff as a wonderful and professional Planning staff that is dedicated to serving us on the Planning Board, but when I read the annual report, I realize how much more you, Mike and the two women do for the Town Board and the Town staff and I forget about that. This is an opportunity to realize all the other committees that you support, the boards that you support and initiatives that are supported. I also need to take this opportunity to thank the staff for making our job that much easier. Mr. Barney — The two women do have names. They're Susan and Chris. Chairperson Wilcox — They're not here to accept my accolades. Mike's here though. But, I just want to thank them for making our job easier and sometimes allowing us to get a little lazy. Board Member Conneman — I had a conversation with Hollis Erb the other day and she said "you know, even Burger King's not bad because you prevented them from making it look like the MacDonald's in Lansing." So, I think we ought to commend ourselves, in the sense that we raise the relevant questions. We don't always vote the same, we don't always agree, but in general, I think 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED we've made it better, College Circle included. There was an alternative, you pushed them to look for it and other people don't. Mr. Kanter — I'll also add thanks to the participation of some of you Board members on some of our committees. Of course, Fred and Eva are on the Codes and Ordinances Committee and that's certainly one of the more active committees and will be pretty busy this coming year. George, of course, is on the Transportation Committee and that's been doing a lot of good work. As we start moving ahead on the Town wide transportation plan. Eva, also, on the Conservation Board, that's a pretty unique situation to be on two pretty active boards and seeing how those interrelate. And others, haven't mentioned them all, but we do appreciate your work. Chairperson Wilcox — Mike, how do you spell your last name. Mr. Smith — It's a tricky one. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm just trying to get him on the record. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I always think it is fun to look through this list and be reminded of the things that we have worked on and also to realize how things have turned out after you look at this. For instance, since I live near East Hill Plaza, I'm there fairly often and I noticed a while ago that the sign that is mentioned on page 19, under recommendations, Best Western University Inn. Remember they came in and wanted another sign? I had questioned why they wanted to have the sign facing west because people could see the hotel face on there with the big sign on the building and they said that no they really wanted it for people to be able to find them from Ellis Hollow Road. I think we agreed to have them put the sign to face Ellis Hollow Road, rather than facing Pine Tree Road, but they have put the sign facing Pine Tree Road. It's not the way that we asked them to put it. And the other thing is — Chairperson Wilcox — I'd be hard pressed to believe that the resolution stated which way the sign faced. It probably showed which way the sign would be placed on the ground. We may have had a discussion about it. Board Member Hoffmann — It could have been that it didn't state it in the resolution and that's why. But to me, it's not as useful a sign if you put it that way. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, that's their problem. Mr. Kanter — You have to realize some of these come through this Board for a recommendation and then go to the Zoning Board. So somewhere in there things may have been changed. I don't know, maybe John remembers that particular one because I wasn't at that particular one. Mike goes to that one. Mike is also our staff member liaison for the Zoning Board. I don't know if you remember what happened in that. The Zoning Board oftentimes will modify things. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing you might be interested to know. Remember that we gave an approval for the East Side restaurant to be divided into two spaces, both eateries, were supposed to be? There is a chicken wings place in the larger one now. In the other one, the smaller one next to E:3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED it, there's a sign on the outside that says soon there'll be coming a shop that sells greeting cards and gifts and things like that. So, I guess they couldn't find a tenant for another eating place. Chairperson Wilcox — I've heard Wings Over Ithaca is very popular. I haven't been there yet. Board Member Thayer — Remember that temporary sign that you objected to up at PRI? That was only there maybe three weeks at the most and they took it down. Board Member Hoffmann — Even though the construction isn't finished? Mr. Kanter — That one was denied by the ZBA. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, it was. Do you remember why? Mr. Kanter — Too big. It was on the side of a trailer. Chairperson Wilcox — Of course I'd like to sit here and say that the side of a trailer truck would have been nicer to look at, but no. Mr. Kanter — I'll just highlight, you all know, but we did close on our first agricultural conservation easement on January 31St so that was successfully completed, definitely thanks to the hard work of Mike Smith, I'll mention his last name. Mike really did an awful lot to make sure that thing went through. It was a lot of work. Then John Barney, of course, made sure all the legal aspects of it came through. We'll see how it ends up implementing, but that will be the first one so it will be our model for if anyone else becomes interested in it. We'll see how that ends up working out. It's was an interesting process, definitely a learning experience. Board Member Conneman - I was down on Long Island last week, I had a meeting regarding development rights. In the meantime I read an article in "Country Folks" that said that the State of Pennsylvania, the new governor designated $40 million to preserve farm land. Somehow we missed the boat on that. It isn't the fault of the town, this town, it's just if they can find $40 million, they have the same problems that we do. I was flabbergasted. That's a lot of money to lay out for farm land. Mr. Kanter — We have a little cash stashed away. Certainly not enough for the whole program, but it's seed money. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Mike, thank you very much. Dan, you don't count, you're an engineer. Mr. Kanter — Well, we didn't put it on the agenda, but Dan is going to present his annual report to you now. Mr. Walker — We built a lot and we're going to build more. Water and sewer everywhere. We are serving the public with the things they need. Just remember that every time you take a shower or flush your toilet, we take care of you. we PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter — Hopefully the right one comes out the right faucet. Board Member Conneman — I thought that was Bolton Point. Mr. Walker - They just make the water and get it to us and then we get it out to you. They work for us actually. Board Member Conneman — Is that right? I'll have to ask them about that. Mr. Walker — Well, if we weren't here, they wouldn't get paid. AGENDA ITEM : APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 21, 2003 and February 4, 2003. Chairperson Wilcox — As I tend to do, I'll move the approval of the Minutes of January 21 and February 4, second? Seconded by Larry Thayer. Eva, other than Berm being misspelled often? Board Member Hoffmann — No. Well, there is something you said Fred. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's see. Bear with me ladies and gentlemen. I have no idea what I said. With Eva's corrections, all those in favor please signal by saying "aye ". All those opposed? There are none. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -009 Approval of Minutes — January 21, 2003 and February 4, 2003 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the January 21, 2003 and the February 4, 2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — Do members of the Board have anything else to bring up and then I'll get to Jon. We'll let Mr. Kanter go first then. Mr. Kanter — Let me give to you these materials. Chairperson Wilcox — He's going to talk about the proposed zoning ordinance. III] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter — We have the updated materials for you on the revised zoning and the Town Board has referred it on to this Board for a recommendation. The vote four to three, certainly wasn't unanimous, I'll tell you about that in a minute. We didn't want to get into a discussion about the zoning per se, but the process more, now that the Town Board has referred it on. Basically what happened was, the Codes and Ordinances Committee accepted the revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance, which is dated January 15, 2003. So I've put together a new executive summary summarizing both the changes from the previous draft because there are some from the April 2002 version, and then re -did the whole executive summary to basically correspond to the page and sections of the new draft ordinance and then also, to make it a little bit easier to see the changes from the 2002 version, there is a set of comparison copy pages, so you can see the exact provisions that were changed. Then we also put in a new set of the revised updated zoning maps. We put in the comparison ones showing, for instance, the Ag and Conservation Zones existing and proposed as they are now. So, I guess the first thing we want to do is ask this Board for your direction on setting a public hearing so we can initiate the process of a Planning Board recommendation back to the Town Board on the zoning provisions. We would suggest doing it at the next meeting, the March 18th meeting, which gives us, basically, two weeks to get ready for it. Then, I was just going to talk a little bit about the timing and process of how that could work. I was mentioning to Fred that this is maybe a little bit different from the normal recommendation that this Board usually does on, say, local laws, usually it's a fairly focus - limited type of local law that comes before the Board or a zoning amendment, which is fairly easy to understand and usually ends up with a recommendation back to the Town Board with a public hearing and a recommendation that same night. That's certainly a possibility if the Board chooses to do that, if you're comfortable with everything in the zoning, understanding that it's a complicated document. That might not be the case, but we certainly have the option of holding the public hearing initially and having one or several more discussions at future meetings until the Board feels that it is ready for a recommendation. The other thing that we don't have yet is the generic Environmental Impact Statement that will be, basically, describing the impacts of the proposed zoning, which, of course, at this point, we don't see anything in it that will be a significant negative impact. In many cases, there are going to be positive impacts on the environment in terms of reducing densities in environmentally sensitive areas and encouraging agricultural operations to continue, that sort of thing. But, again, the Environmental Impact Statement will look at a number of issues, it'll have also a growth inducing impact analysis with basically a development potential analysis in it, comparing the potential under the existing zoning ordinance versus that of the proposed. So there will be certainly valuable and helpful information in that document so that Board could choose, for instance, to take a look through the ordinance itself and the map proposals. One option is to send a preliminary recommendation or indication back to the Town Board, either that you've identified certain issues that you'd like them to be aware of or, perhaps, to do something else with. Or, on the other hand, that you're generally happy with the way that the ordinance is at this point. So there really are a number of options open to the Board and it's really totally up to you to decide how you're going to handle it. So, we'd kind of just like to kick it off with getting your feeling on when we should start the process by setting up a public hearing and this would actually be the first of the formal public hearings and then a series of several, probably at least three 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED total because there would be another hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement and then another hearing yet on the actual enactment at the Town Board level. Chairperson Wilcox - Is the staff ready to hold a public hearing in two weeks? Mr. Kanter — Absolutely. We're well practiced. We'd have to do a little bit of thinking about what we would do in terms of an overview or presentation . I wouldn't see it as being necessarily the same that we did at the public information meetings. Those were really — you have to remember we did quite an effort in April last year to get this out to the public to help them understand it. We've even gone on cable t.v. with our broadcasts, which I'm sure some of you have seen, helping the public understand the ordinance and the process. So, I assume probably what we would do is just give kind of a fairly brief update, an overview without getting into a lot of details, but certainly answering questions, if people would have them. So, I think after you take a look through the materials, you'll see that it's pretty easy to follow along because there weren't very many, except for one fairly obvious change, which we'll talk about now or we could wait till the next meeting. That one fairly significant change is the reason there was a four to three vote to pass it on to this Board at the Town Board level. It wasn't unanimous in the Codes and Ordinances Committee either. It was a five to two vote there and that is- Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board members split two -two at Codes and Ordinances. Mr. Kanter — And that change basically has to do with the change in the low density residential zone. In the April 2002 draft version there was a proposal to have two densities based on the availability of public sewer, which, if public sewer is available, you would have the original R -30 density of 30,000 square feet, but if public sewer is not available, you would have a three acre minimum lot size and density. I guess it's up to you if you want to get into a discussion of why or how that all came about or we could wait until the next meeting when we are actually talking about it. For whatever reasons- it had a lot to do with the fact that areas that ended up being shown on the map finally, now that we have the ability to do the mapping of where sewer is available and what parcels are served by sewer, it was ending up being — I would categorize it as a fairly scattered hodge - podge, haphazard pattern of where these three acre lower density areas were ending up. The theory of that provision was that there would be some outlying areas of the Town that would be desirable to keep in lower densities and be less desirable for extending sewer facilities to those areas, yet there was nothing in the provisions that prohibited or would foreclose the opportunity to extend sewer if the land owner had the financial resources to do it and wanted to develop sewer to an area, there's really nothing, not only in that zoning provision, but right now, nothing in the Town that would prevent that from happening. Of course, we have a town wide sewer district, basically. So there were some problems with the proposal. We had three meetings with Codes and Ordinances discussing that issue and I think, in our minds anyway, it was pretty clear that the provision wasn't working the way people had anticipated it would work and so that was the debate. Some people agreed with that and some didn't. Chairperson Wilcox — Some people agreed that we should go ahead with the revisions, with the original intent we had and study the issue and possibly revise the zoning to change where the three acre zoning is. Or, the other side says lets remove the whole issue of three acre zoning and keep it R -30 and go with that because there's enough go stuff that they want us to get out to the public, we'll study the problem and then maybe change some of the R -30. While acknowledging at he same time that the County Health Department plays a large role here as well, in regard to the issuance of 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED permits, given some of the soils that are around the Town of Ithaca, you may need an acre or an acre and a half or possibly two acres in order to site your house. I think everyone generally is in favor of this transitional zone between 30,000 square foot, seven acres let's say. It's more of a question of how to do it, where to put it, where it makes sense, where it doesn't. In my case, I don't want to spend two months, four months, six months, a year, maybe I don't know, studying this issue of this transitional three acre zoning. Board Member Conneman- Can't we change it? Chairperson Wilcox — Zoning is changed all the time. Board Member Conneman — I understand that. Board Member Hoffmann — And actually one of the things that we talked about at the Codes and Ordinances meeting and we agreed on, is that this should be a very high priority after the new zoning ordinance is enacted. Not just the 30,000 square feet versus three acre zoning, but whether there are some other characteristics like steep slopes, or various other reasons why it might make sense to have larger lots. That's what's going to take a long time. Board Member Howe — So how can you generalize that? It almost seems like it has to be done individually. Mr. Kanter — That's right. Exactly, you won't be able to generalize that. You'll have to do it very specifically and that's why it could be a fairly long process. I think we have, at our next Codes and Ordinances meeting, that will probably be the main agenda item. To try and figure out what this new three acre zone will be. Again, try to visit what is it's purpose, what the location criteria will be. If people can agree on that, it will be a whole mapping effort. It's not, which I've heard some people sort of surmise, it's not a matter of going back to the map and bringing in a new product to the Codes and Ordinances Committee, no way! I've very straight forward said that to several people, one which was today. It's going to be a matter of the Town Board and the Codes and Ordinances Committee, with the input of this Board, trying to figure out what it really is that this three acre zoning, or whatever acre zoning it would be. What it's meant to accomplish and where it would make sense to have it and if it would make sense to have it is still a question that everybody needs to answer. Board Member Conneman — Having split, was it about whether we should go with 30,000 or fewer? Mr. Kanter — John can probably explain some of the intricacies. Mr. Barney — The draft, when it was originally done, made an exception .Their feeling, initially was a feeling, and then there was some further discussions, as I recall when the draft was issued, I think in April, drafted the limit of 30,000 square feet because they were reluctant to throw a lot of lots into a non - conforming situation, but in those areas where there was no water and sewer, there would be the minimum. That's very forwarding of the draft we did in January. But, it was after that draft that Jon and his Planning staff plotted it on a map and it was, in my view, very erratic. You had subdivisions that had been approved with less than two acres, where all of the lots would now be considered non- conforming lots. You had other areas where you had water and sewer available, but they were 30,000 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED square feet. The rationale of controlling density was not reflected by using the water and sewer as a test. So there was a lot of discussion and still people that felt we ought to leave it in that way and present it to this Board, have this Board have it's public hearing and at that point decide with the input. There were others that felt that it ought to be a straight 30,000 square foot minimum for sewer and water. I don't think anybody was really unhappy about transmitting it to the Board or having the process continue. Board Member Howe — Do we have an example of what other towns have done with this similar issue? Mr. Barney — There's a number of towns and villages. The Village of Lansing, which we represent has a sliding scale depending where water and sewer goes based on lot size, I don't remember whether it's 30,000 square feet. I think there are a couple of others that Mary Russell turned up that are somewhat similar. It's not an unheard of limitation to have. The problem we have here is when we applied it to our particular set of circumstances and looked at it on a map, it just didn't, again in my view- Chairperson Wilcox — It didn't accomplish it's goal. Board Member Howe — Would we be able to see that kind of map ourselves? Mr. Kanter — Definitely. Board Member Howe — With the Environmental Impact, is it possible to do it on two different scenarios or is that always done on how it's currently written? Mr. Kanter — Well, theoretically , we could do an analysis of what it would have been with the sewer provision. I think our preference would have been, rather than to do an exhaustive analysis of it, rather to do it as descriptive characterization of what the proposal was and why it wasn't working, but not to go with the full extent of doing a full other development potential analysis on that. It's a very time consuming effort. But rather to indicate process wise what happened and why it happened and what the continuing process will be about. If you really wanted to, we could go get the maps now and do it. Another thing we could do is, for instance- Board Member Mitrano and family enter room, temporary interruption. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you remember where you were? Mr. Kanter — Yes, I was offering to go get the maps. Chairperson Wilcox — No, we don't want to get the maps tonight. Mr. Kanter — One option is, rather than give a group presentation, although we can certainly do that, is anybody who hasn't seen them could come in and look through them here at the office. If you want to do it as a group and use that as a basis for some discussion on it, we can certainly do that. 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Why don't you use those maps as part of an opening statement before the public hearing. You could point out what the difference between what was presented to the public last April? Mr. Kanter — Oh sure. My own preference in this is not to over emphasize that aspect of it so much that that becomes the single issue that people will focus on, but we can probably do it in a way that would quickly highlight why that was not included in the current version and then certainly after the public hearing we could get more into it if there is a question. Chairperson Wilcox - I think I'd like to do it next time. I'm not sure what else might be on the agenda. Mr. Kanter — Not much. Board Member Conneman — I think it would be useful to have as much time as possible. Mr. Kanter — There is only one other item and that's the Ithacare Pavilion coming back. It's not too controversial. It's a little more complicated than it was before with some grading and fill, but if we put that on first on the agenda and it would be fairly quick. Board Member Howe- Jon, the 18th, would we just be sending a general signal back to the Town Board because we'd want to wait for Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Kanter — That's up to you guys to decide if you want to do it that way, you could basically come up with a, I'd call it a preliminary indication of where your recommendation's going to come out. In other words, if you identify certain problems that you have with it up front, I think you should tell that to the Town Board as soon as possible. On the other hand, if you're very comfortable with the way the ordinance has come out and you want to basically just wait on your final recommendation until the EIS is available for your review, you could basically send a positive preliminary recommendation subject to further review of the EIS. There are really all kinds of options. Again, you don't really have to decide until after the public hearing. There may be public comments that may help influence the way you see this. It's going to be interesting. I'm not really sure what kind of a turn out for the public hearing we're going to get. We didn't have huge masses turn out for the public information meeting. We had some very interested people and some good comments. Actually, the reason it's taking a while to get this far is because the Codes and Ordinances Committee spent quite a number of meetings going through all of the public comments that came in in those May meetings last year and spent quite a bit of time discussing further certain issues, so it's already been revised or discussed to great length based on that. So, we'll just have to see what the public wants to do with it. Board Member Conneman — It works for me. Board Member Hoffmann — Jon, you didn't mention specifically the Conservation Board being involved in this, but I assume they are involved. Mr. Kanter — Basically at this point what has happened is that all the boards and committees have gotten a couple of chances at commenting on the zoning. This is really the formal process now of referring it to this Board. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Barney — Statutorily, the Town Board can not amend the Zoning Ordinance without an opportunity for a recommendation from the Planning Board. Whether you give a recommendation or not is up to the Planning Board, but at least that you are given the opportunity. The Planning Board is not required to give a recommendation. This is a formal process. Mr. Kanter — And also I think what would happen is when the Environmental Impact Statement is out and it's accepted by the Town Board, that really along with the document will be passed around to the Conservation Board, the Zoning Board, basically as interested agencies. So, it'll sort of be a simultaneous Environmental Review and sort of another opportunity for input into the process, that's how I see it going anyway. So, if that all sounds okay, we'll schedule a hearing for March 18t" . Mr. Barney- Have there been two or three meetings by now? Mr. Kanter — There were two meetings in May and — Mr. Barney — The last one the staff and Board outnumbered the people form Town by two to one. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, thank you Jon. Mr. Barney? Mr. Barney — We need to discuss the Summerhill Apartments. I think at the last meeting, you recall that they had not yet been successful in negotiating any kind of an easement with Cornell University to allow them to back up their water onto Cornell's property. The language that has been bantered about has not been acceptable to us, particularly because Cornell is not going to give anything permanently. The attorney for Ivar Jonson came up with law which is fairly accurate, that a down stream riparian owner, as Ivar Jonson is, really has the right to do whatever he wants to his property and if it affects the runoff from the property uphill from him, that's tough potatoes or even to back water up, as long as he doesn't dam up a stream or some existing water source. To translate that a little bit, if Ivar was, if this Board approved it, and Ivar chose to take the wetlands and just fill it up and the end result was water backed up onto Cornell, he could do that legally. So, they're suggesting that they don't need the easement from Cornell at all. They would like to come back before this Board and have further modifications to the site plan. I learned of that a couple days ago, but didn't get around to actually talking to Jon or Dan until today. I sent over to each of them a copy of the letter because what legally may be the case, and I tend to agree with the attorney, may not be what this Board has to find for other reasons, capacity, storage in a storm event and that sort of thing. I'm bringing in and raising it tonight to give you an opportunity to think about and also to get Jon's and Dan's thought and maybe to get a little feedback so I can take it back to Bill Seldin. Chairperson Wilcox — Is Bill doing all right? Mr. Barney — Bill is doing just fine. He tires a little easy. He just got a clean bill of health from his doctor. Bill wanted to know whether or not he should come here tonight and I suggested not to bother IN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED with it. He always has a right to apply for a modification and to come before this Board. I thought I'd just give you an opportunity to talk about it and see where you wanted to go on it. Board Member Conneman — Does Bill understand our concerns? I always found him to be reasonable, very reasonable. Mr. Barney — Yes, he is reasonable. Board Member Conneman- He seems to be a compromiser, but does he understand our concerns? Mr. Barney — Well, I think, the way they look at it a little bit is if they walked in the door and Larry and Ivar, probably without much involvement from Bill at the time, offered this easement because they said Cornell would give it to them. You may recall at the meeting, I asked them what the arrangement was going to be for the termination of this, I've been working with Cornell now for many, many years, I was pretty sure that they weren't just going to give them a cart blance in perpetuity easement. They said well, we'll work it out. They haven't worked it out. So, now they're maneuvering to try to find a way to get around this easement. They're saying, legally we don't need it, we can back the water up on our property anyway. Mr. Walker — Basically, from an engineering standpoint the development of that site with parking and buildings is going to increase the amount of runoff from that particular site. A plan was prepared and an analysis done from the engineering standpoint that there are certain storage areas to be maintained on the site to store the additional runoff that was going to be generated by the additional impervious surfaces. The plan was approved, which is required to get a building permit for that use of the land. This Board approved that. The plan was not followed. Now, the Environmental Review of that project was based on storing a certain amount of runoff and that was the basis for a negative determination of environmental significance on the SEAR. So, if the plan is changed, then maybe we should be doing a new SEQR on it every time they come through with a decision like this because, other than the revised site plan was approved predicated on the basis that the storage area was being maintained, storage was going to be available. Now, whether it's a legal question that they have to get the easement or not for Cornell to back the water up is one thing, but if it were a legal question, if this Board were to approve something that's going to cause potential damage to someone else and that other party has already put us on notice that they are concerned about that. That just sets a legal precedent for them to come back at this Board. Mr. Barney — I don't have a lot of concerns — Mr. Walker — I understand. Mr. Barney — I' d be delighted for a lawsuit, we could use the fees. Mr. Walker — From strictly an environmental standpoint, what Ivar is doing, what he has done, is — unless Cornell fills that space up for something else, the water is going to back up in there. I don't care at this point because the storage is going to be there, it's going to back up. If Cornell is upset about that, that is fine. I don't really want to set the precedent though, of this Board giving an 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED approval, which they expected to be followed and due to neglect for, is not carried, the planning was not fulfilled properly. We can do like they did up in Geneva and tear the houses down. Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, isn't it pretty simple? They came to us with a plan and said, engineering drawings and calculations, and said we need this amount of storage, water detention, you agreed that that was what they needed, they showed us the plans that that's what they were going to do on their property and they changed the plans. Possibly accidentally, possibly on purpose, possibly a combination of the two, but the plans were changed. They need more storm water detention area, okay? Apparently, they can't get it on Cornell's property, whether they have the right to or not, but apparently they can't get it. Mr. Barney — Let's keep in mind though, and here I don't know Dan, whether it's the storage of the water that's coming onto their property or the storage of the water that's coming off of their property that's also coming down hill from Cornell because that's a little different to say Ivar, you've got to take care of everybody's water that's coming off the side of the hill there. What he's basically saying is, I'm taking care of my water, I'm just restricting the flow of Cornell's water onto my property so I don't need as much capacity to store it here. Mr. Kanter — It's not just the volume though, it's the rate. Mr. Barney — I understand. Mr. Walker — Effectively, I think, for the storm water management, putting another berm up there and having more storage volume above onto Cornell property. It's going to work. I guess, in the past, we have hesitated to approve a project that depends on something else to make sure that it doesn't cause a problem for another grading system. They've come in and said we should divert the flow back up the road. Larry Fabbroni suggested that if we cut a tree down in the County right of way and open the ditch up, the water would flow directly down to the intersection and wouldn't even go through Ivar's property anymore. Of course, that may flood Ellis Hollow Road worse, but that's a County issue. Chairperson Wilcox — They have an approved plan and they haven't followed it, right. My sense of this Board is that we'd like to see a plan that, at this point, I want to see a plan that they come back with which has sufficient storm water detention on their property. Mr. Barney — For their water or for Cornell's water as well? That's what is sort of unique about this. You're saying to Ivar, we want you to take care of all the water that is running across your property, even though some fraction of it, I don't know whether it's a major fraction or a minor fraction was really generated up hill from you. Chairperson Wilcox — Why is that unique? In College Circle, all the water running down hill, they had to take care of their water, plus- Mr. Barney — I think with the College Circle, Ithaca College diverted the water. IFQ PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — They diverted it around and into the detention, but I think that's pretty normal to have to take care of the water across your property, whether it originates on your property or flows to your property. Mr. Barney — Well, again I'm playing a little bit of a devil's advocate here because we're talking about Ivar. He has done that. He has basically said "I have a plan ", in fact, Bill reminded me when I talked to him when he was back at work and I was on vacation apparently you had a lot of rain and nothing flooded. Basically it worked the way it was supposed to work. Mr. Walker — We didn't have much flooding any place. Mr. Barney — Well, I didn't have a response for him because I didn't really know, I wasn't here. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, we had a one year storm and it worked. Thank you very much. Prove it. Board Member Hoffmann — What about the other properties up at East Hill? The Cornell Fingerlakes Credit Union and the Burger King? They had to take care of water that came from the same sources. I mean the water that came across their property came via Ivar Jonson's parcel from the Cornell land, both to the east of Ivar Jonson's parcel and further up the hill and we required them to take care of it on their parcels, why shouldn't he? Mr. Kanter — The difference here with all of this is that it is our practice and policy not to have a developer use off site detention or retention, but to retain or detain water on their own property so that the rate of runoff does not exceed after construction what it was before construction. In this case, Ivar has now come in with his revised plan using somebody else's property to store the water that he originally was supposed to store on his own property and that's the key difference. To me it's not really a legal question of upstream, down stream owner's rights. It's a question of the Planning Board and the Town's policy of storm water management, which we now are, obviously, going to have to be all that much more careful about with all these new EPA and DEC regs and the Phase II storm water. I suspect a lot of those 200 year old common law doctrines are going to be out the window with a lot of this stuff at some point. That's a different issue. Board Member Conneman — I'd like to confront him with that issue and ask him whether that argument is reasonable. I'd like to see him turn us down, but then I'd change my opinion of him. Mr. Barney — Attorney's cause people to change their opinions of them every day. Board Member Conneman — I know they do, but sometimes they're wrong John, see. And I'd like to tell Bill Seldin "you're wrong." Mr. Kanter — They're looking at it from a legal perspective. Board Member Conneman — I understand that, but his job was to represent that guy at Burger King and he constantly had the guy at Burger King change. He really did. Mr. Rowe changed his opinion when he finally told Eva she could have all the trees she wanted. I would have never believed that when we started. Wel PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Barney — The problem here is basically, the plan that they had sought approval for is conditioned on an item that has now, apparently, they can't get so they've got to come up with another plan. If you say that they've got to deal with the water that is generated, their plan is to now let it stay on the property that it's coming from. If that's not acceptable for this Boar, then they've got to come up with a different plan or maybe we ought to say make your application again and the Board will look at it. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think that it's acceptable. Does anyone else? Board Member Thayer — I've abstained. Chairperson Wilcox — Can you not even express an option? I know you can't vote. No, that's okay, I understand. And we know how Kevin feels. Alright. Board Member Hoffmann — How do you feel? Rod Howe — That they need to take of this. Chairperson Wilcox — It's consistent with how we've dealt with all applicants and it's consistent with what they've agreed to do. Mr. Kanter — And the part about the offsite, if there's some accommodation, which is what we thought was going to be happening, then you can plan and allow for that detention to be permanently there. Without it, Cornell could tomorrow go in and fill the area and plant some soybeans or whatever it is that they want to do and then that detention area is gone. Mr. Walker — They're not going to plant soybeans. What they've done, from an engineering standpoint, I think is fine. My own personal opinion of the impact on Cornell's property is, the water would be backed up for a short period of time, but it already has to flood that area anyhow. It really isn't impacting Cornell adversely. It's a wet field. Board Member Conneman- But Cornell doesn't want to set a precedent. Mr. Walker — No, they don't. They've had problems with wetness up there, but that's neither here nor there. Ivar has a problem with his drainage system because, when I look at the storm water, I'm looking at pretty much a 25 year event and what it does on his property. It does flood his own buildings on a 25 year event or maybe a 50 year. It sounds like a big difference, but it's a percentage chance. It's a one percent chance versus a five percent chance or four percent chance. Remember that real heavy downpour that they had where we got a lot of flooding? It did come over the top of the road, his driveway, which flooded out an apartment or office, which I don't even think was supposed to be there on the original site plan, but everybody says it was, but I don't remember it being there. Plus his parking area was not supposed to, but that's beside the point. He said that he needed to block that up so that he can protect his own buildings. Well, the buildings weren't designed properly because the water is going to come up to a certain level. That's more of a building code issue to protect the buildings and a common sense issue and he's done it to himself as far as potential for flooding. 11] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I was just going to say, when he bought that land, he knew it was wetland. We were all aware of it and we tried to make sure that he built in such a way that — Mr. Walker — Well, he didn't get into the wetland, except for one little corner there, but - Chairperson Wilcox — Self induced. Mr. Walker — Plus he doesn't have approval for all the cars they want to park there. There's a zoning ordinance for that requiring three cars. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm being cynical, but can we make him move the building back to where it was originally intended to be? I really should ask the Town Attorney. Mr. Walker — That's a legal question. Mr. Barney — It's been done. Board Member Conneman — The Village of Cayuga Heights has done it. The street that I used to live on, made them move a garage because it was two feet over the fifteen foot limit for the property. I felt it was outrageous, it didn't really make any difference. Chairperson Wilcox — At this point, we've already said that him putting the building where it wasn't supposed to be or moving it was okay. Mr. Barney — Well, if he came up with an easement that allowed him to back up the water — There are cases, the most famous case is the one in New York City where they built a building thirteen stories too high, so the court of appeals said take the thirteen stories off. So it does happen. I guess in Skaneateles they eventually knocked a building down. With history, we sued Ivar Jonson over four inches. He built a house along the east shore and was given a specific site plan and was specifically told not to be closer, I forget what it was, a foot, a foot and a half, to the other house, you know how jammed up they are there. He built a house with a four inch extension. He put the foundation in the right place, but them he put his exterior around outside the foundation. We said take it off and started a lawsuit and he took it off. So Ivar, our history with him has not been pristine, if you want to put it that way. Mr. Walker — It's possible to restore the storm water storage without him having to move that building back. The amount of space behind the patios would have to be decreased and so you'd have a bigger drop off. But you could excavate the excess material out of that site without shifting a building. Mr. Barney — So what I'm hearing is that I should go back to Mr. Seldin and say we've talked about it and the Board's not terribly enthusiastic about having you utilize someone else's property for your storm water management. So, you'll have to figure out another plan and come see Dan and Jon and then this Board. Board Member Conneman — Tell him he has a tremendous reputation with this Board that he doesn't want to ruin. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003 APPROVED - MARCH 18, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Barney — He doesn't and he's conscious of that, George. He said that he'll take guidance from whatever I bring back. Chairperson Wilcox — He also knows, right now, this Board has been generous in dealing with this situation. Mr. Barney — He's got temporary c.o.'s for I believe it was five or four, I forget. Mr. Kanter — It was four. Mr. Barney — He claims he has other people waiting. I'll bleed on that once, but I'm not going to do it again. Mr. Kanter — Does that mean that we are done? Chairperson Wilcox — Does anyone else have any other business? Mike, any business from you. Mr. Smith — None. Chairperson Wilcox — All set. Dan, thank you for coming. We Town Clerk's staff, who also makes our lives that much easier me to sign things and nudge me in the ribs when I don't open hearings. Now, are we all done? Motion to adjourn? forgot to thank, or I forgot to thank the They get the materials out and remind the public hearings or close the public Board Member Thayer — For, the record, I should say that I'm not going to be here for the next two meetings. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, you said it before we turned on the tape. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the March 4, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully S bmitted, Lori Waring, Deputy Town Clerk �Pa TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday March 4, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: College Circle Apartments — Building 13 Renovations, 1031 Danby Road. 7 :10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modifications and modification of a condition from a previous approval for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include renovating the existing office and laundry room in Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards the Community Building. Also proposed is an increase in the approved number of apartment units from 149 to 150 (149 units was approved on April 2, 2002 by the Planning Board), with the maximum occupancy remaining at the originally approved 750 persons. South Hill Land Associates, LLC and College Circle Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, Agent. 4. Presentation of Town of Ithaca Planning Department Annual Report for 2002. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2003 and February 4, 2003. 7, Other Business. 8. 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 273 4747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, March 4, 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, March 4, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modifications and modification of a condition from a previous approval for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include renovating the existing office and laundry room in Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards the Community Building. Also proposed is an increase in the approved number of apartment units from 149 to 150 (149 units was approved on April 2, 2002 by the Planning Board), with the maximum occupancy remaining at the originally approved 750 persons. South Hill Land . Associates, LLC and College Circle Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Inc other special needs, will be provided with assistance as make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the Dated: Monday, February 24, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 hear all persons in support of such matters or objections lividuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 The Ithaca Journal y 1Ned.nesday, febrUwy 26, 2003;.. .:TOWN'OF-RHACA =. AmNWGIOARD :. �`, - NOTICE OED .4 PUSUJC� HEARINGS > : i i1' Frfl� , >.f E Tuesd , March 4003 direction' of the° Chair j; arson 'of. the Planning I Boord, NOTICE l EREBY G, I ic Hearings Will be field byy,the'Planning Board of tfie Town:of Ithaca 'an Tuesday O ch 4, lowing' times and on the;f lowmgimatters ' .I 10 P M Consideration,_:. Site Plan Modifications 1&m of.a con&l n from a brevioiis-appro- sting office and `laurr im,in Bbilding`13-!into iddjtional 'apartment din�`g ,an as Halt walk tuilding` 13 towards onijnum Build* zropas is; an -in the,';- approved apartment - units 44 to': *r5 49i6nits P irovd on Ape' ril:'2` r p A P!•11 V nnnina origin-ally`',;approve3 750 persons:+ `.';South Hill'.'Land Associates, LLC,and_College Circle:- = Associates;.',_ LLC, Owners; -`QPK 'Design; -Af plicant;_ Vincent- fNicotra;i Agent:. Said`Plonnmg Boor&will at `said`times.dnd =said place hear'dll "persons' in support I- such.inatters- or'objections, thereto:- .-"Personsq may,rap Pear.by ggeht or'in.person. ndividudls;;,witfi =.visual ; im_ pairments • hearing iimpair ments or ;:- other- ';;special needs; will 1 ,provided;with the ° public, hearings, ;_ -' Jonbfhdn -'Komar, AICP Director of'Plannin'g 273 - 174 , ; irDated :Monday .;February 24, 20031= Publish':. Wednesday,: ;February 26,: 2003 ; TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION 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, March 4, 2003 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tiolza Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication February 24, 2003 February 26, 2003 ti <z7c Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of February 2003. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 _