Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-03-18FILE�''�� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Tom Hoard, HOLT Architects; Susan Titus, 250 Culver Road; Conrad Istock, 213 Texas Lane; Mark Macera, Ithacare (Longview); William H. Goodhew, 674 Coddington Road; Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road (Ithaca College); Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Ree & Marjory Thayer, 10 Townline Road; Rich DePaolo, 126 Northview Road; Susan McCutcheon, 157 Enfield Falls Road; Bill Lesser, 406 Coddington Road (Town Board Member); Alfred Eddy, 544 Bostwick Road; Evan Monkemeyer, 123 King Road East; Cathy Valentino, 110 Eastern Heights Drive (Town of Ithaca Supervisor); Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Carolyn Grigorov, 629 Coddington Road (Town Board Member); Ted Bassani, WHCU Radio; Bety Falcao, 114 Cobb Street; Bill Foster, Cayuga Lake Watershed Network; Susan Beeners, Town of Dryden Code Enforcement Officer; William Burbank, 132 Glenside Road (Town Board Member); Tom Niederkorn, 25 Whitetail Drive (Town Board Member). Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:17 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 10, 2003 and March 12, 2003, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on March 12, 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 7:17 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:18 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Drive. SEAR Determination: Longview Pavilion, Fill, and Sidewalks, 1 Bella Vista Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Mark Macera, Executive Director of Ithacare (Longview) — We have an application before the Planning Board, which seeks to essentially modify a previous application submitted and given a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED preliminary site plan approval to locate and construct an open -air pavilion on our north lawn. This reapplication or second application follows up the initial application because of what we understand to be a significant change or modification of the original plan. In essence, that is a relocation of the originally proposed pavilion further west on the site in concert with the introduction of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of soils that would be relocated from the College Circle project to our land to make it possible for us to increase that benched area of our north lawn to relocate that pavilion slightly further west and indent it, if you will, into the woods to open up the north lawn to maintain the open spaces for programs and recreational activities as well as free up the views from the site and from the rear of the building... viewing both north and west by pushing that pavilion further west and outside the direct view of that wing that is directly south of the proposed pavilion. Beyond that, other than what our application indicates just two adjustments from the previous application. I am prepared to answer any questions members of the Planning Board may have. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Mark. Are you aware of any environmental concerns? Mr. Macera — No. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that the environmental impacts are tremendous. I went out there and it is tremendously steep. There is a lot of erosion. Mr. Macera — I disagree. Again, what it does is it actually relocates the pavilion, if you will, approximately 30 feet further west from the proposed original location. I don't find the steep slopes that you are referring to because the area that would be built -up there would essentially from my own perspective are relatively gentle grade away from the building that would in fact be built up to provide for a floating slab on that area. In terms of whatever erosion concerns, we would take all the steps necessary to protect it from erosion based on the project going forward. There is essentially a lot of scrub growth now. Most of the trees there are in the process of dying off. I'm not an environmentalist, but the particular types of vines and growth, which are covering those trees, seem to be destroying or killing those trees off now. So in the very near future, much of what's there won't exist. Other than, again, the original application attempted to identify and locate a pavilion in that north lawn. The reasoning to locate it further west is to open up the space that is now occupied by open space ... the promenade. In view of that, what we refer to, as "B" wing with that wing that is currently adjacent to the proposed pavilion. We are just going to move the existing bench a little further west. It will have approximately the same slope when it is rebuilt ... the same number of feet further west of the fill that would be introduced in that area. It doesn't change anything other than, again, it would make it a little further west. Board Member Conneman — The original plan seemed to provide lots of space. Mr. Macera — We don't see it that way to the extent that ... I think collectively if you look at the impact that perhaps that impact will be less in some respects in the community because I don't necessarily know where the site sub - contractor for the College Circle project would be taking any residual soils, but rather than traveling the Town and County highways further to dispose of that soil, they are basically going to be crossing the street and locating it on a property that basically is benched from... Board Member Conneman — It still seems problematic because of all the fill. 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I must say that I agree with Mr. Conneman that this version of the plan is much more problematic because of all the fill that is in it. There are some aspects of it that are fine. I think adding the sidewalks are a great idea. I think if they had been there from the beginning it would have been even better, but adding them now is a good idea. I have no problem with adding the pavilion as such, but I have serious problems with changing the location of it, thereby, necessitating all this fill. I was there and looked this afternoon, so I saw how steep those slopes are. I saw how much water there is in the wetland, which I know was a manmade wetland. We know that from when you first built this project, but nevertheless, it is there. There is a stream going through and there is a lot of water flowing. There are birds in the trees there, which may be dying, but they are supporting wildlife. The ones in the wetland seem to be dying. The ones in the steep slope area where you are talking about putting the fill, I didn't look at them that carefully and I don't know if they are dying. To me it seems like a major move to put that amount of fill in there... in an area, which we sought to protect from the very beginning. Mr. Macera — Well, it has no impact on the wetland. You are referring to basically abandoned quarry... Board Member Hoffmann — No. It is north of the wetland. Mr. Macera — The tributaries, that for example, drain that when there is the type of runoff that would create standing water and then water exiting that wetland area or that abandoned quarry is not going to be impacted by this project so we wouldn't be changing any of that. Board Member Hoffmann - The stream that leads away from that may very well be impacted. Mr. Macera — I believe the environmental analysis suggests that was done by the staff that that is not the case. That will be no impact on the stream that is adjacent to the area that we intent to modify. As a matter of fact, ironically, the nature area that is currently in the area that we would fill is now being by the residents to navigate and we even have some residents in wheelchairs with some assistance that have difficulty may be able to move about the area. Again, I don't see the significant impact based on either the slopes or the materials there. It is all fill that we would be introducing in an area that already includes fill that was indigenous to the site that was excavated when we benched the site. Again, we just propose to move it a little bit further west. We will reintroduce stock in that area. We will use a conservation mix to make sure there are no problems going forward with regards to erosion. We think that not withstanding whatever impact during the project phase will be mitigated with our proposal to replant and we should focus on the impact on the residents of this community who will benefit by that project. Board Member Hoffmann — But as I said, I think the general idea for the pavilion for this population is a great one. I just don't like the new location. Chairperson Wilcox — Any comments, Tracy? Board Member Mitrano — Well, gosh. Longview and Mr. Macera, in particular, has been such an excellent applicant over the years, as best I know. I always take very seriously the criticisms that George and Eva present. So, I am looking over at our folks at the other side of the table for a little guidance. 91 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, does the engineering department have a comment? Mr. Walker — I walked the site before it snowed last fall. The area in question on the fill does have low value. Vegetation and a lot of the trees are dying. They have reached their maturity basically. It was pretty messy in there. There were some birds in there. There is no question of that. The fill that they are proposing to put in and the erosion and sediment control that they are using will protect the area. If you notice on the site plan, the outlet for the wetland on quarry drains on the south side of the area that is being proposed to fill. They are leaving at least a 50 -foot buffer between the watercourse and the toe of that slope in that area. They are going to be replanting with higher quality trees. They will be preserving the pine trees that are larger to the north of the site. You will also notice that there is the new walkway that is proposed on the fill. That is at a much better grade than the existing walkway, which is a little further north shown by the dotted line. I had trouble coming up that hill myself. Of course, I could lose of few pounds. The new walkway will be much more useable by the residents and anyone. They have a very good plan for sediment erosion control. I do not see any problems with this from an environmental standpoint other than about an acre of ground will be disturbed, filled and revegetated. Chairperson Wilcox — A comment was made that fill will be placed next to existing fill. Mr. Walker — Right. The whole site was excavated and filled. Knowing how the Ithacare people have taken construction seriously in the past, I am confident that this project will be constructed properly. Plus, we will be monitoring it continuously. Board Member Conneman — I just think the original plan is better. I'm not an engineer, but... Mr. Walker — The original design was being put in an area that was meant to be an open area. They want to preserve their views from the building. Shifting the pavilion slighting to the west will preserve all the view from the existing facility. Some of the apartments would have had their views obstructed by the pavilion. I believe that is why they tried to go with the flat roof originally. If there is anything that I have a problem with it is the stupid flat roof. Mr. Macera — That presents a minimal profile, which is one of the objections to minimize the impacts from people who live and use the site. Again, it has never been an issue environmentally as a site issue from Danby Road, particularly in the summertime. In the fall time, I guess if you want to stop on the highway and twist and turn you might be able to get a peak around the edge of a wing to catch a corner of it. It is not a substantial issue, we feel. Board Member Mitrano — Based on what Dan has said, I'm would have to vote for it. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to environmental review? Comments? Board Member Hoffmann — Just one question. Is the only reason for changing this the fact that you are going to preserve the views from some of the living units? Is that the only reason? Mr. Macera — No. The issue is to maintain the open spaces closest to the building, to the north of the building, for activities whether it is picnicking or whether it is walking or general recreation. There is a limited amount of space and that pavilion was even covering a portion of the promenade, which programmatically raised some questions, but we felt that we could live with that. Clearly, with the M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED opportunity perhaps to introduce some soils that we could benefit from and basically received as a gift economically that had to be moved. We wanted to take advantage of that and move the pavilion west to accomplish primarily those two objectives. The view issue is something that I think is important, but not to the public. Its Ithacare's property and the view would impact residents of Ithacare. The residents did discuss that among members of the Resident Council and felt that that was a reasonable approach to take and they also recommended in favor of making this move. This is something that the leadership of the Resident Council was involved in and reviewed as well to. It was a collective decision on part of all the parties. George, I respect your opinion but... Board Member Conneman — I respect your opinion to, but... Mr. Macera — From a selfish... Board Member Conneman — I don't think, regardless of the aspect of... Mr. Macera — You can understand the residents' view of this looking at the objectives and the variables a little bit differently than you. 1 0=1 611111104"110MK 2111111"IITITSTNW -0 a I• Board Member Hoffmann — I understand a little bit the concern about the views, but it doesn't make a huge difference. First of all, the building is higher than one story. So the people who live in the upper stories would not have their view affected at all, it seems to me, and it would be only some people on the lower level who might see the pavilion as part of the view, but the pavilion is open so they can see through it. Mr. Macera — Actually, it's a little more invasive than that. If you were to take a look at the western face of the building, that faces due west from the patios, all the residents along that wing of the building and I would guestimate 15, 18 or more actually turn to their north and look through a window if you will that is a space between the building and the woods towards the lake. Of course the original proposal for that pavilion was right smack in the middle of that. So it is not only those people who live facing the north would be impacted by that, but everyone, which is not clear from the drawing that you have, that lives on all of the units facing the west side of that "B" wing who were impacted by the previous project. This would free that up behind the garage or shed to open up the view for everyone that would have otherwise lost it. It is a significant impact and a material issue to the residents of Ithacare based on their evaluation of the two proposals. I am conveying their conclusions, not mine. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I don't quite see it within the plans. I see that you are replanting a lot of trees that will be in the way of the view. There are other trees north of that, too. As far as seeing the pavilion from the road or from the viewing area off Route 96, 1 don't think it can be seen from there. Mr. Smith — Just one item about the fill...I believe that when you are talking about the numbers of fill that is being brought in, the 3100 cubic yards that is being brought in, I believe it is around 25,000 cubic yards that is coming out of College Circle. It is only a small portion that is coming out that is going some place. Mr. Kanter — Do we know about how many truck loads that would be, Dan? 61 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Walker —About 310 truckloads. Chairperson Wilcox — My comments, if anyone is interested? Thank you, Mike, because I was going to comment that we approved 25,000 cubic yards being removed from College Circle. The fact that approximately 3000 of those are going to go directly across the street and not some greater distance is certainly an environmental benefit. This particular area of the site is mostly, I don't know if I want to call it spoils, but... Mr. Macera — Fractured shale from the excavation that occurred. Chairperson Wilcox — Not the best soil and conditions over there. Adding more fill to that site and extending the lawn area and moving the pavilion, is there an environmental impact? Sure, but everything we have has an environmental impact by weighting in the factor versus benefit to the members of Ithacare and the community as a whole. I don't have a problem with it, especially with the short distance that the fill is being hauled. Board Member Conneman — We are talking about on site, environmentally. Chairperson Wilcox — No, we are talking about the environmental impacts of the project. If there is no further discussion... Board Member Hoffmann — Conrad Istock is here from the ERC (Environmental Review Committee). He may have some comments. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to? Then I will give you the opportunity. Conrad Istock, 213 Texas Lane — I am a member of the ERC of the Conservation Board and we came to the recommendation that the original design was the best because it was definitely less intrusive. I think we do not take seriously two of the things that Mr. Macera has emphasized here. If you stand along that west wall and look now, you don't see the lake. Nobody from that side can look out their windows and... Mr. Macera — That is not accurate. Mr. Istock — We stood there. The other incident, the intrusion onto the lawn. It is still inside of the current walkway that goes there. It doesn't make a major intrusion on to the lawn, but it does require a great deal of re- sloping in there. You can look at the diagrams and you can see how they are creating much more intense variation in two places going down where they are going to put the jute mat. There certainly will be attempts to control erosion, but it is very unlikely that there will be none from those slopes during construction and immediately afterwards and even when they try to replant there will be a period of time in which there will be silt on down. I think the feeling in the ERC was simply we did not see any strong purpose. The original plan was a good plan. Contrary to another thing Mr. Macera said, if you look at the gradient on those maps, you have about three lines that cross the old design. You got many more when you swing it farther west. It is a much steeper slope that they are going to fill there. They are going to use the bulk of the slope on the slope farther down. The planting that they want to do can be done with the present configuration if the trees have to be removed and so on. They could replant on that slope just as they intend to. 101 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — May I ask a question of this gentleman? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Board Member Mitrano — I appreciate your determination that the original design is the better design, but do you find this design so objectionable that the board should not pass it? Mr. Istock — It seems to be unnecessary. In risk analysis you always ask yourself why take any risk when you have one that has either less or no risk. I don't think there are any risks with the first design. There are risks with the second design. Board Member Mitrano — Could you briefly state what those risks are? Mr. Istock — Sure. If you look at the diagrams that have been supplied for this project, you can see where the two broad areas, the contour lines have to be modified down below what the pavilion will be. You can see very crowded lines there because the slopes are steep. That is going to be cleared. All of the vegetation is going to be removed. It is going to be reshaped and fill is going to be put in there. Then they are going to put jute mat on top of it and then they are going to try to replant it with ground cover and eventually some trees in there. There is a potential for erosion. It just doesn't seem necessary to go to that amount of engineering on that slope. Board Member Mitrano — If the best scenario is produced, such that the degree of engineering accomplished their goals, how would you feel then rather than focusing on the process of what they have to do and assuming the result is achieved, how do you feel about it then? Mr. Istock — The same thing I said before. If you are thinking about a risk analysis, we don't know what the final result is going to be in that amount of engineering. In my particular opinion and the opinion of the ERC was that it was not necessary to take that risk. The original design is a good one. It is a very good one. I think it was done because at that time they knew that they were going to have to buy the fill. So they wanted to do the minimum amount of filling. Now, they can do a lot more filling because they don't have to pay much for the fill assuming they are going to pay to move it maybe. They are not going to pay what they would pay for over 3000 cubic yards. Board Member Mitrano — I would additionally then be interested in any remarks that Mr. Macera has as a rebuttal. Mr. Macera — Again, I just want to point out that all of those living units in the "B" wing, which face the west all have patios and decks. I don't recall the precise dimensions, but when they walk out of their living units, which is clearly and obviously they can't view to the north, they can when they walk out onto those patios and decks ... 90 degrees in that direction. So the statement made suggested there is no view now is just wrong... mistaken. The residents have raised that as an issue in looking at the modification to move the pavilion further to the west. I have to respect the differences in opinions of the individuals that serve on different committees who have different orientations. I just have to state for the record that I think that these concerns are so modest or minimal that they weren't viewed as significant issues for the administration and the residents. The Board of Directors for Ithacare recognizing and contrasting with the benefits that that would provide. We've worked with the staff to review all considerations and so- called risk analysis any reasonable person might be willing to apply 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED to that and take the steps to mitigate those that any project would. Anything has a risk. I don't think that would be grounds for dismissing the notion and a good project if felt by those using that project would benefit their program. Board Member Mitrano — My last question is I wonder if there are any changes that could be made to this proposal and you would adjourn the vote until such time as perhaps some mediation occurs or is everything that you are suggesting so foundational to the proposal that... Mr. Macera — Tracy, can I make one more observation? I would ask this board to take into consideration that clearly we have a window of opportunity here and we are trying to do is move the soils into place in concert with the schedule and the plan that the site contractor has. I'm not familiar with their schedule of events and plans for completion of the project. I know that the soils that they propose to be at Ithacare needs to be moved immediately. If this doesn't receive approval, then those soils will not be available to us and we'll come back with a reapplication of the original application because there is really nothing more we can do and we don't have a timeframe where we can work with resubmissions and re- reviews. Those soils have to be moved. Again, it was an opportunity for us to benefit from that and improve on a project that we have been planning for the better part of the year. Board Member Mitrano — I appreciate your timeline, Mr. Macera. I'm looking at the number of votes that you have facing you. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments, questions? I would ask if someone would like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Mitrano — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Tracy. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kevin Talty. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor of the SEAR motion please raise your hand. (Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Mitrano and Board Member Talty raised their hand.) I have three. All those opposed? I have one opposed. Board Member Hoffmann — This is a little bit of a problem because. Chairperson Wilcox — First tell me what your vote is. Are you opposed or an abstention? Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to explain my vote. Although, maybe this is nothing huge, the impacts from an environmental point of view, and normally in a case like that I would have voted for it even though I might not have supported the project. I vote against it. Chairperson Wilcox — The vote is three in favor and two against. The motion does not pass. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -010 — SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, Pavilion, Fill, and Sidewalk Extension — Longview, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Kevin Talty. E:3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on March 18, 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 "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," including sheet A -1, "Final Site Plan," and sheet A -3, "Erosion Control Plan," prepared by T. G. Miller P. C. and dated 2117103, "Longview — An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," sheet A -2, "Preliminary Drawings ", prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated 8107102, plans received Feb. 19, 2003 showing location of sidewalks, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special 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, Mitrano, Talty. NA YS: Hoffmann, Conneman. ►L�7�[�irL�]►�I :�'�l.'1 :ffie Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney — Sir? we PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter— Does State law say anything about SEQR motion ... (not audible). Attorney Barney — Four affirmative votes are required for an action. Chairperson Wilcox — The SEQR is not approved, Mark, which means we are done for now. We can't procede any farther. Mr. Kanter — It is not the same as a no vote, which would be the case for a Zoning Board as far as think I understand. Attorney Barney — That is correct. The litigation to date has estranged isonomy. It says basically if a Zoning Board turns it down or fails to reach a majority that the vote is a negative. They have not applied it to the Planning Board, yet. The law used to be that it took an affirmative vote of the majority of the position on the board to conduct any business. I think the position tonight would basically be no action because you don't have enough I suspect to get a four to one vote against it or a four to one vote for it. Chairperson Wilcox — What actions could the applicant take to satisfy some of your environmental concerns? Board Member Hoffmann — Not so much fill. Maybe try to locate the pavilion in some other way, but accommodate it on the site. Chairperson Wilcox — And reduce the amount of fill. Board Member Conneman — I don't see a need to change it. I don't think this window of opportunity is included in SEAR... Attorney Barney — Lets remember what the SEAR reasoning is. The SEQR reasoning is is there a significant environmental impact resulting from this particular project and if there is not a significant environmental impact, the appropriate vote is to say so. If you think there is a significant environmental impact, and I'm not telling you how to vote, that is the issue before you. Board Member Conneman — I understand that, but I think it is significant. I understand that. We have voted before. I think this is significant, partly because the alternative proposal avoids the whole process. Mr. Walker — I just want to state an engineering fact here. On the original construction on this exact same site, there was somewhere of 15,000- 20,000 cubic yards of earth moved. This proposal has a much higher level of environmental and restoration protection with the jute mesh, which was not required and that 15,000 yards was found not to have a significant impact on that same site. There were more watercourses and a bigger drainage area flowing across the original site, which had no negative environmental impact as determined by this board. This is a much smaller area. They have a much higher level of restoration with the jute mesh on the slopes and I think some of the existing slopes are actually steeper. It might be a case to contest the statement. In my mind, they've done and excellent engineering job here. I would have a hard time saying that there is a significant environmental impact, but I'm not the board. III] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — That's right. You are not the board. Mr. Walker — I know I'm not, but I am an engineer and understand sediment and erosion control. This will work just fine. Board Member Hoffmann — Dan, could you explain to me if there were more watercourses that would exist in the earlier plan ... are those water courses that were there already or were they to come about? Mr. Walker — There were several drainage ways to this site that were diverted as part of the original project. They've been diverted around the north side of the project so they fall along the northern property line of the existing slope. There were several drainage structures. Board Member Hoffmann — Are you talking about the construction of the original project? Mr. Walker — I'm talking about construction of Longview in the first place. That's what I'm saying. That was a much bigger project on the same exact site, adjacent to the same sensitive wetland areas, which this board actually required less revegetation. I just have a little problem with that. That was not an impact. Board Member Hoffmann — That was a long time ago. I thought you were talking about the first approval of the pavilion project. Mr. Walker — It wasn't that long ago. It was four or five years ago. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I think our sensitivity to these things has improved over the years, even if it is just four or five years. Mr. Walker — I'm just making an engineering statement. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I appreciate hearing what you have to say. Board Member Conneman — I appreciate it, too, except that I think risk assessment is more important than window of opportunity. Attorney Barney — I would just add having had the uncomfortable experience of a 3 -2 vote on a ZBA issue and having the applicant challenge it and losing it in the court and then going to the appellant division and then losing it there, which always arouses embarrassment. I, quite frankly, think you are subject to challenge on the vote you have just taken given the history of this. If you want to discuss in any greater detail, I think it would be more appropriate to do it in executive session. Board Member Mitrano — I'm not the lawyer here, but I concur. Board Member Conneman — Lawyers always think the same. Board Member Mitrano — I don't think that's true, George. Lawyers always think the same, please. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — My point is, Fred, I don't see anything wrong with the original proposal. I don't see anything good about this one. I respect Dan, but engineers are not always right. Sometimes I think you have to stand for what is right. We do have some indication from the environmental board that they have some concerns. Chairperson Wilcox — I move that we adjourn into executive discuss the potential litigation that may result as a result of this particular vote. Board Member Talty — I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Kevin. All those in favor to adjourn to executive session please raise your hand. I have all five. No one is opposed. I want to do this right now. Attorney Barney — Now, or after... Chairperson Wilcox — I want to do this right now because I think it will be very quick. Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who are here to provide comments with regard to the proposed Zoning Ordinance, you will certainly get your chance this evening. This particular application has taken longer than anticipated, but if you will bear with us for hopefully a short time, we are going to leave your presence and disappear into a room and have conversation with our council. Mr. Kanter — What I would propose also before you do that, I don't think I need to be in the executive session. I really had fairly minimal involvement in this particular... Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to do your presentation? Mr. Kanter — Well, what I would offer is that I would stay out here and walk over to the maps and if anybody has questions regarding zoning maps. Board Member Mitrano — That's a great idea because we've had private time with that kind of discussion. Mr. Kanter — It might save some time later. So I would be glad to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — Brilliant idea. Board Member Talty — I would like to ask if Dan could join us, however, and share his expertise. Executive Session On motion by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty, the Board went into Executive Session at 7:55 p.m. discuss the potential litigation that may result as a result of the vote on the Ithacare SEAR resolution. On motion by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Mitrano, the Board resumed regular session at 8:10 p.m. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Ithacare SEAR Cont'd Chairperson Wilcox — All right, ladies and gentlemen. We've had a discussion with the Town Attorney, who has provided legal advice to this board. Having done that, would we like to have any further discussion with regard to the SEQR? What I'm asking is, is that based upon John Barney providing his legal opinion and our subsequent discussion of the ramifications of his opinion, and is anybody prepared to change their vote? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I'm prepared to change my vote because as I already said, I realize unless the impacts are serious enough to require an environmental impact statement, there is no reason to vote other than positively. Chairperson Wilcox — Positively meaning negative impact, negative significance. Board Member Conneman — I would leave my vote the way it is, Fred, because I believe the change is unnecessary. I think there is a serious environmental impact. Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy, can I ask you to move the SEQR motion again? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Kevin, will you second it again? Board Member Talty — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor please signal by saying aye. Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Hoffmann, Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Talty — aye. Chairperson Wilcox — All those opposed. Board Member Conneman — nay. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed. That is one down. I don't know where we are going to go from here. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -011: SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, Pavilion, Fill, and Sidewalk Extension — Longview, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Kevin Talty. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED obtained from the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on March 18, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," including sheet A -1, "Final Site Plan," and sheet A -3, "Erosion Control Plan," prepared by T. G. Miller P. C. and dated 2117103, "Longview — An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," sheet A -2, "Preliminary Drawings ", prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated 8107102, plans received Feb. 19, 2003 showing location of sidewalks, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special 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, Talty. NA YS: Conneman. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Mark, do you have anything to add at this point? Mr. Macera — I am prepared to answer questions, but I think all of the information that was presented during the environmental review was... Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I have no issues. Board Member Talty — I don't either. Board Member Mitrano — My thought is that there is no significant impact. It is up to the applicant to decide what is within the scope of our criteria and what they want to do with their land. So, I am going to vote in favor of it. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, are you looking up something relative to this? Attorney Barney — Probably not. Chairperson Wilcox — I was just wondering if you anticipating something. Board Member Mitrano — Do you have the criteria there? Attorney Barney — That is what I thought we would take a look at. Attorney Barney read the following section from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 46 -d. General Considerations. The Planning Board's review of a general, preliminary, or final site plan shall include as appropriate, but shall not be limited to, the following considerations: 1. Adequacy, arrangement, and location of vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, off - street parking and loading areas, and traffic controls. 2. Adequacy, arrangement, and location of pedestrian and bicycle traffic access and circulation, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and appropriate provisions for handicapped persons. 3. Adequacy, location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting, signs, open spaces, and outdoor waste disposal facilities. 4. Adequacy, type, and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping constituting a visual and /or noise - deterring buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the retention of existing vegetation of value to the maximum extent possible. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED 5. In the case of a residential property, and in the case of other properties where appropriate, the adequacy and utility of open space for playgrounds and for informal recreation. 6. Protection of adjacent properties and the general public against noise, glare, unsightliness, or other objectionable features. 7. Adequacy of storm water, drainage, water supply, and sewage disposal facilities. 8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency provisions. 9. The effect of the proposed development on environmentally sensitive areas including but not limited to wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, steep slopes, and water courses, and on other open space areas of importance to the neighborhood or community. 10. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision regulations, if applicable, and any other applicable laws, rules, requirements, or policies. Board Member Mitrano — Anything in there that makes you twitch, Dan? Chairperson Wilcox — Nope, he's not twitching as he shakes his head. Mr. Kanter — Mike was the lead on the project. Board Member Mitrano — Oh, I beg your pardon. Mike, anything make you twitch with that criteria? Mr. Smith — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Your title is? Mr. Smith — Environmental Planner. Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental Planner. Thank you. Subtle. Board Member Mitrano — No, too. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions or discussions amongst the Planning Board. There being none, let me move the motion for preliminary and final site plan approval and special approval, by the chair. Seconded by Kevin Talty. Any discussion? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I would just like to say that even though I think that there is no significant environmental impact, enough to require an environmental impact statement, I still think there is an environmental impact. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? 101 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman — I do, too. Board Member Talty — I agree with that statement. Board Member Mitrano — I do too, but I don't find it fits the criteria by which we have been asked to review this matter. Nor do I believe it is significant. Chairperson Wilcox — There being no further discussion, all those in favor of approving the site plan as proposed please raise your hand ... one, two, three (Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Talty). All those opposed... Eva and George. The motion does not pass because the vote is three to two and we need a vote of four. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -012: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, Pavilion, Fill, and Sidewalk Extension — Longview, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Tax Parcel No. 39 -1- 1.31. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Tally. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, has, on March 18, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 18, 2003, has reviewed and accepted plans entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion, " including sheet A -1, "Final Site Plan," and sheet A -3, "Erosion Control Plan," prepared by T. G. Miller P. C. and dated 2117103, "Longview — An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," sheet A -2, "Preliminary Drawings ", prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated 8107102, plans received Feb. 19, 2003 showing location of sidewalks, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the pavilion, approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill, restroom and storage addition, and sidewalk extension at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, as shown on plans entitled "Longview - An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion," including sheet A -1, "Final Site Plan," and sheet A -3, "Erosion Control Plan," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. and dated 2117103, "Longview — An Ithacare Community, Open Air Covered Pavilion, " sheet A -2, "Preliminary Drawings', prepared by Hascup Lorenzini Architects and dated 8107102, plans received Feb. 19, 2003 showing location of sidewalks, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. revision of planting materials on Final Site Plan to replace the Norway Maple with a similar, but non - invasive species, and b. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, revised to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic survey, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. AND BE IT FURTHER RES OL VED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Approval, determining the following: a. the proposed use and the location, design, size, and general site compatibility of the pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk are consistent with the character of the area in which they will be located; b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use; C. the proposed pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk wi110 not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue neighboring property; d. natural surface water drainage ways are not adversely affected and will not create drainage or erosion problems; e. the proposed pavilion, shed addition, and sidewalk will not impact any environmental sensitive areas including but not limited to wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, steep slopes, and watercourses, and on other open space areas of importance to the neighborhood or community. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: 16] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman. The vote resulted in NO ACTION BY THE BOARD. Mark, I can make the following suggestion. Timing may be a problem, but potentially coming back when the board has either six or seven members might be an option for you. Modifying the plan, think to reduce the amount of fill or going back to the original plan are other options. Mr. Macera — When is the next meeting of this body? Mr. Kanter —April 1 st Mr. Macera — And given your tentative agenda now, if we were to come back, would there be an opening for us to revisit this project? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Mr. Macera — Then I would propose that I would review my options and discuss it with the Town staff and we will see what the future has to offer. Board Member Mitrano — I need to show my legal stripes. May I ask the legality of just bringing things back? Obviously I am in favor of this passing, but is that appropriate? Attorney Barney — This last vote was a "non- vote ", so it is not inappropriate to defer another vote at a time when there may be more members of the board present. You need a majority of four one way or another. Board Member Mitrano — Very good. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Mark. Mr. Macera — Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed Town wide comprehensive revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map. This revision follows many of the recommendations in the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Key changes are proposed in areas such as Agricultural and Conservation zones, simplified procedures for Special Permit uses, a new Lakefront Residence zone with special provisions to protect the character of the Cayuga Lake shoreline, a new Office Park Commercial zone, clarification of the purposes and revisions in the permitted uses in the Business zones, and many other updates and clarifications. The Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have accepted a revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance (Jan. 15, 2003) and Map (Nov. 26, 2002), and have referred those to the Planning Board for a recommendation regarding adoption. The revised draft of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions is available for public review, along with an Executive Summary highlighting the proposed changes. Copies are available for review at the Town Hall and the Tompkins County Public Library. They can also be purchased at Town Hall for $15.00 for the W7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED whole package or separate parts of it (there is a price list at Town Hall). All of the documents are also available in downloadable and printable format on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being patient. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, has offered to do a short presentation if members of the public would find that useful. I was not present when he had the opportunity to answer questions. Are there members of the public who would like a short, 5- minute overview of the changes being proposed or are most of you relatively up to speed with the proposed changes and we could just go right to the public comment period? Rich DePaolo, 126 Northview Road — It would be nice to hear something more about the proposed changes to the various procedures of the Planning and Zoning Boards. Chairperson Wilcox — I believe Mr. Kanter is prepared to give a general, 5- minute overview of the proposed changes. Mr. Kanter — That sounded like a specific question. Are you referring to the change in provisions for special approvals and special permits? Mr. DePaolo — Right. Mr. Kanter — Okay. That is pretty specific. Chairperson Wilcox — We can address that after the public comments are taken and questions are asked. Mr. Kanter — I could answer that right now. It's pretty simple. Basically, as most of you are aware, the current process for special approvals is such that many items have to go to the Planning Board and Zoning Board for special approval reviews. Many of the boards involved, as well as the Town Board, felt that that often times that was a very duplicative process. Basically, we have established now new procedures. We have special permits, which will go to the Planning Board and those items are basically those that also involve site plan review. That review process will all be consolidated with the Planning Board now and will not have to go to the Zoning Board. Then there will be a separate category of actions called special approvals, which will be under the Zoning Board's jurisdiction, which will be things like approval of home occupations, elderly cottages... some of the very special provision kinds of things that have some additional criteria to look at. Those things would be under just the Zoning Board's jurisdiction. The Zoning Board could still refer back to the Planning Board for a recommendation if they choose to, but that would not be part of the required process. That is basically and overview of it. It is intended to really streamline and simplify the review process and avoid duplication. This has been reviewed by the Zoning Board as well, and although we had some questions about it initially, I think the Zoning Board is very much in line with that change. That is the short answer to that. 11] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Can I have a show of hands of how many people would like to address the board this evening? I see six or seven. We have an hour and half. So that is good. The reason ask is that I do not like to impose time limits, and therefore, I will not impose time limits for those of you who wish to address the board. If you have ten minutes worth of something to say, then you should have that ten minutes to say it. If you have two minutes worth of something to say, hopefully you will keep it to two minutes and not stretch it to five. That is all we ask. Given that, I will ask you to raise your hands. I will pick the young lady in front first and I will call on you and ask you to come and sit down at the microphone. Margery Thayer, 10 Townline Road — I would like to raise the concern about the slope and so forth for the light industrial right along the townline with Newfield. I brought a topo as well as an aerial (please see attachment 1 and 2). This shows the Townline. This Townline and... I'm looking at it upside down so I'm having a hard time. This is Ithaca ... these are the slopes and you can see by the parallel lines ... this is the highway. It is appropriate along the highway. I'm not questioning about that, but across the drainage of the Inlet and then go up these slopes in that configuration ... and I understand the need to have a place for adult entertainment. Mr. Kanter — Could we ask you to go back and summarize your concerns so that the tape could pick it up? I'm a little worried it is not going to pick it up to well. Now that you've shown the area, could you sort of summarize? We want to try to have as complete a record of the comments as we can. Ms. Thayer — My concerns are the light industrial... Chairperson Wilcox — Ma'am, I really need you to sit, if you would please. Ms. Thayer — The topo maps, which you can look at. From Route 13 it is appropriate along Route 13 to have the light industrial and there already is the propane business there, but to cross the drainage of the Inlet for one thing and the railroad to get to the available land, which is very steep slope. I just think it is inappropriate to have the wet area and the steep slope in crossing the railroad as part of the light industrial. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Would you give those to Mike Smith? Mike, I thank you. Susan Titus, 250 Culver Road — I would like to tell you where Culver Road is for those of you who may not know. You go out 13A and you make a right onto Bostwick Road and visualize the school buses, and the highway department and the new church across the way where it used to be farmland... very brightly lit there at night now. The first right turn passed the highway department is Culver Road. I would like to thank the Town for opposing the County about the expansion of the highway department. Attorney Barney — We have some judges we would like you to write to. Ms. Titus — When you go up Culver Road, there are two houses on the right and then you go up maybe a quarter of a mile or a half of a mile and that is where I live. I have five acres on the north side of Culver that runs parallel to Coy Glen. I would like to call your attention to this map here ... the last one on the left, a Unique Natural Areas and critical environmental area in the Town. Well, Coy Glen runs parallel to Culver Road and is the only area shown on your map as a critical environmental area. Now, across the street from Culver Road on the south side, which is not far from Coy Glen is 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Culver Creek Ravine and Woods, a Unique Natural Area also on your map. There are houses on the north ridge of Coy Glen and old and newer houses, pretty much the length near the north ridge. From the ridge and down into the Glen on both sides it is protected, but now is the great opportunity since there are no houses on the south ridge of Coy Glen to protect this area. The houses are many acres away on Culver Road, where I am. There are very few of us on Culver Road. In my will, I am going to have it stated that my land will forever be protected so that I can help protect the Glen. It is a very beautiful area. There are more wildflowers in that Glen than any of the gorges in the Town. There are coyote, red fox, lots of deer, and it is just a precious place. So, shouldn't the south side of the Glen be designated a Conservation Zone on both sides of Culver Road because of these Unique Natural Areas. I understand that you are looking into this. So I still wanted to speak out in support of it. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Ms. Titus — Thank you. Susan McCutcheon, 157 Enfield Falls Road — Enfield Falls Road borders Robert Treman State Park. You are changing our property and our neighbor's property to a Conservation Zone and the rest of the neighborhood will go from R -30 to Low Density Residential, but ours will go from R -30 to Conservation. In a low density residential, you are allowed to have ... one of the uses is a bed and breakfast. We live in an 1820 farmhouse and it would be an obvious choice as a minimum size bed and breakfast possibly in the future. In a Conservation Zone, it would not be permitted. So, I think a bed and breakfast would be consistent with the goals and objectives of a Conservation Zone as enumerated to the purpose section relating to this zone, which is preserving the natural resources and scenic beauty of the areas and to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca. I am hoping that perhaps you are considering including a bed and breakfast in section 502, which is the principal uses authorized by special permit only. (Ms. McCutcheon submitted a written statement. Please see attachment 3). Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Mr. Kanter — I will add a footnote to Susan's comments. Susan came into the office and we looked on the tax maps and everything to see where her property was. It turns out that this is kind of a unique area with her and the neighboring parcel are completely surrounded by State Parkland. Somehow all the properties that ended up going to the Treman State Park ended up with these virtually landlocked parcels with houses on them. It got conglomerated into the Conservation Zone, whereas the other parcel that she was talking about that remained in LDR are right along Enfield Falls Road. That is just a little bit of information to go along with that. Susan Beeners, Town of Danby Code Enforcement Officer — One thing is that my Town Supervisor said that he was initially impressed with what he had seen about this plan and indicated that the Planning Board and Town Board will be looking forward to interacting with the Planning Board here on trying to do something similar, maybe not fully similar, but I see some of the things like the Conservation Zone concepts as being something that will carry south into the Danby. had a couple of little trivial things. One is respect to bed and breakfasts...I agree; I think they should be in your Conservation Zones. I noted in the medium density zones you permit bed and breakfasts, but only if they are up to two guest rooms. I can understand if you have some density issues and 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED want to keep the impacts down. I'm wondering if you should in defining bed and breakfast, if you should be aware of the new building or new residential codes definition by the State, which is between three and five guest rooms and whether there should be any correlations made at least in your definitions or are you going to just have bed and breakfasts be up to ten bedrooms or something. The definition for bed and breakfast is in the residential codes, which was effective in January. Another thing that confused me about definitions is related to community residences and adult... the whole business about adult care facilities. I saw that community residences are permitted in all of your zones except for Conservation Zone. I would be confused as a Zoning Officer and trying to figure out what that actually meant and I do know... Attorney Barney — That's how you earn your money... by interpreting what is put into law. Ms. Beeners — I would be confused about what that really means. I do understand that some adult residences regulated under the hygiene law are actually defined in that law as single - family homes and so they would be automatically permitted. Attorney Barney — I think that is really what we were directing at. Ms. Beeners — Well, if that is the case, you might want to make sure that is all clear and also consider whether that should be in your Conservation Zone or just make it cleaner for the Zoning Officer to be able to figure out. Chairperson Wilcox — You're asking us to make Andy's life easier? Ms. Beeners — Kennels. I saw you had kennels in your Ag. Zones as a permitted use. I was wondering if you should have any provisions related to excessive noise. In Danby, we have an issue with kennels. I saw that as being... it is sort of an ag use, but it also could be one that really shouldn't be subject to the right to farm provisions entirely. The other ting about home occupations in your ag zones, I see home occupations... that is the only zone where it looks like home occupations... no, no I'll forget about that. It seems strange in low density zones you permit home occupations as a permitted use, if an ag zone is almost a low density zone, then why don't you allow all home occupations as permitted uses instead of making non -farm related home occupations a special permit use. I can see why you are regulating home occupations in your medium density and other zones making them special permit things. So, those are my trivia questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Overall, how do you like it? Ms. Beeners — Overall, I think it is a good ordinance. Evan Monkemeyer, 132 King Road East — I am a resident of the Town of Ithaca and I have some comments to make tonight. (Mr. Monkemeyer read from a prepared statement. Please see attachment 4). Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a copy of us? Mr. Monkemeyer — I have a copy for both boards, Town Board and Planning Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — Jonathan, can you point out the lands that he is concerned about that are proposed to be rezoned as conservation? Mr. Kanter — Part of the South Hill ... (not audible). Board Member Mitrano — And that small portion is where? Mr. Kanter — On the eastern side of this property? Board Member Mitrano — Talk to me like I'm three. There is the corner and then there's College Circle down the way. There is the Montessori School. Where are we talking about? Mr. Kanter — We could show you actual maps of the South Hill conservation zone. In later on, I could go and get them. Board Member Mitrano — So, going up the hill, behind all of that... Mr. Kanter — Toward the area of the Cornell owned and Ithaca College owned South Hill Swamp parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — Evan, thank you very much. Mr. Monkemeyer —Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — An old foe. Mr. DePaolo — Oh, man. I've changed my ways. At least that's what I'm going to tell you right now. First and foremost I would like to applaud the Town for devising and attempting to adopt an ordinance and a plan that takes into consideration the value of the environment and the natural resources. I am on the other side of the spectrum from the previous speaker. I have two issues I would like to comment on. One has to do with the specific element in the proposal and the other one has to do with more of the process. First, the first issue is the low- density residential zone. I currently...I favored the original proposal that proposed a three acre minimum lot size for parcels that did not have sewer and water hook -up. I think if the aim of the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage sprawl and to encourage development in more clustered, more toward the urban core, I think you basically... the larger parcels would better serve that objective. I think you run the risk in this case of the way the current proposal with the two - thirds acre minimum lot size...I think you run the risk of encouraging land owners who currently large parcels to subdivide and basically pave the way for the sprawl you are ultimately trying to prevent from occurring. Also with respect to the low density residential zone, if as stated one of the purposes of the proposed minimum lot size, if not to encourage, but then at least not to preclude agricultural use, I don't know that there is anyone who would tell you that they could farm anything on two - thirds of an acre and make a living. I don't know if that is a serious consideration or not, but I though I would bring that up. The second has to do with the language of these provisions in the ordinance in general. How as a lake person, as lake people, how are we to know at what point... how specific are these ordinances? I'll give you a case in point. Taking the proposed lake front commercial zone as an example, the only stated uses of right as it is proposed at the current time are I think a boat yard and a marina. Special permitted uses include hotels, restaurants, etc., with a specific setback provision of 100 feet from the road. Now, as a person 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED reading the Zoning Ordinance, I would assume that a hotel, for example or a restaurant, couldn't be built within 100 feet of the ... without the setback provision even with the special permit. As understand it, Cornell has made or is about to make overtures to consider the development of that parcel into a luxury resort of sorts and as I understand it the setback provision is something of a deal breaker. So, I don't know. Reading the ordinance, it seems to me that if I was someone who had the where - with -all to develop that kind of parcel in that manner, I wouldn't even approach the Town because it seems to me that the setback provision is pretty much carved in stone. Is there anything in the ordinance that provides... is that something in the standard variance review procedure that provides for the waiving of the setback requirements? Is there anything that could be written into the language that would make it more apparent to people like myself who aren't planning, engineers, or lawyers, that there is the possibility that these parcels could be developed in such a way that is somehow contrary to what their apparent stated use is. I pose that as a rhetorical question. I don't expect you to answer it at this time. The third question is now, assuming that this resort does become an actual proposal, is this the kind of ... going back to the question I posed before ... is this the type of development that is subject to special permit and as such, would only fall within the purview of the Planning Board or is there something further away from the acceptable uses of a parcel you get the more oversight is then triggered? Is that what happens in a case like that? Can someone answer that question? Would that parcel be subject to a more scrutinous review or less or would if fall within the consolidated review process that is being proposed? I'm just trying to use that as a way to understand how that special permit portion of the ordinance is being proposed. Attorney Barney — Well, in a nutshell, it would really depend on how closely the proposal applied to what is provided in the ordinance. If they come in with something that is considerably different from what the ordinance permits, then there will be ... probably a rezoning or some very significant variances to be obtain. Mr. DePaolo — So anytime there is a variance, not to get into the question and answer, anytime there is a variance the BZA comes into play? Attorney Barney — Right. Mr. DePaolo — Okay. Attorney Barney — That gets us back to your first question. The 100 -foot buffer or 100 foot setback is what we call an area variance, area variances being dimensional. An area variance is subject to being obtained and the usual very general state criteria is does the benefit to the applicant in obtaining the area variance outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood in granting the variance. If it was a use variance, it is a much more difficult standard because there the applicant has to show that they cannot realize any reasonable economic return from the property without the variance. That is a pretty tough test. In answer to your overall question, I suspect if Cornell comes in with a project that is different from what is provided in the lake front commercial zone, in any meaningful way, I would suspect that the application would be an application for a rezoning, which would enable them ... that would go to the Town Board. Mr. DePaolo — So without commenting on the specifics of what may or may not materialize on that parcel, it is not unrealistic to suggest that any project, any development, any use can be proposed for 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED virtually any zone in the Town. Granted, there are more hurdles to go over, but that's kind of the way... Attorney Barney — Any project can be proposed for anywhere in the Town, but the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide guidance to the Town Board, Planning Board, and BZA as to whether the proposal is appropriate for a specific area of the Town. I cannot foresee what might come in the door, but I would also suggest that if someone were coming in to build a major industrial plant in the middle of an agricultural zone, then probably with the Comprehensive Plan and the way the Town Board feels, it is not likely to get the approval. Mr. DePaolo —Thank you. Mr. Kanter — Basically just to follow up, any zoning change would need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I for one am not concerned about whether our Comprehensive Plan is consistent with State Laws or not. I am confident that it is. Attorney Barney — It actually predates Section 272a. Mr. Kanter — That section does not apply to all comprehensive plans anyway. It is only those done pursuant to that section that have to comply with that section. You can still have another category that are... Attorney Barney — The entire section is in the form of ... (comments not audible) Chairperson Wilcox — Would anybody else like to address the board this evening? Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road — I am not here to make a verbal comment. I am wondering if the board will be accepting written comments, and if so, for how long? Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try to address that. I'm going to look at the clock right now and the board spent a few minutes discussing this two weeks ago. Once the public hearing is done this evening, it is my expectation that the board may discuss it for a brief while tonight, but I think we will come back in two weeks and really sit down and think about making a formal recommendation to the Town Board. Now, there is one issue and that is the environmental impact statement has not been completed yet. So this board in talking about that two weeks ago, sort of informally agreed that the board might be willing to make a preliminary recommendation to the Town Board subject to a review of the environmental impact statement when completed. That is a critical part of our recommendation is to understand fully the impacts that the proposed zoning will have on the Town. So, you are welcome to submit comments certainly for the next two weeks. Those comments can also be sent to the Town Board as well. As you know, we are asked to make a non - binding recommendation, but know the Town Board members will take into consideration what this board... How is the traffic study coming? Never mind. Is there anybody else this evening? Its only 9:05, Sue, come on up please? Ms. Beeners — (Comments not audible. Speaker not in front of microphone.) Mr. Kanter — I think it was intended to mean the 1993 adopted Comprehensive Plan. 1401 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — As it may have been amended from time to time by other documents. Ms. Beeners — You might want to look at the title again to see ... (comments not audible). Attorney Barney — Good point. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There being none, I will close the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. thank each of you who stuck around through the other prolonged first item on the agenda. I thank you for providing us with your comments this evening and of course written comments will be accepted as well. Mr. Kanter — Also, if anybody has not yet picked up a copy of the Executive Summary, they are out on the table. Also, please sign in. I'm sure most of you have, but we would like an accurate record of who attended the meeting. Portion of tape bad ... about 1 minute of conversation. Chairperson Wilcox — At this point, I think I would like to come back in two weeks. Board Member Talty — A little tired, Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — Tired ... a little bit. Board Member Hoffmann — We will get copies of this discussion for the next meeting, right? Mr. Kanter — Yes. There is one from Rod Lambert that he emailed and there is one from the County Department of Planning with a preliminary comment. Chairperson Wilcox — Both of those were on the table when you came in this evening. Mr. Kanter — If you want to discuss any of that now, there were some interesting comments in the Planning letter that we could address. Just for your information, I got a call from a gentleman who lives out on the west shore and just had some remarks about... he's concerned with some of the new regulations on the lake shore residential zone and the over - regulation perhaps. He mentioned a lot of the provisions for the regulations of docks. Boathouses are already covered by DEC and the Core of Engineers and his opinion was that he did not want to see an additional layer of regulations imposed by the Town. That was his preliminary comments. His name is Bob Barthlos ( ? ?). AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 4, 2003. Chairperson Wilcox — Next item is approval of minutes of March 4t ". So moved by the chair. Seconded by Kevin Talty. Eva? All those in favor? Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? No one opposed. The minutes are passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -013: Approval of Minutes — March 4, 2003. 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 APPROVED - APRIL 1, 2003 - APPROVED MOTION by Fred Wilcox , seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the March .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, Conneman, Mitrano, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox — I got a fax from Jon Kanter, and essentially my reading of it is that somebody is trying to do the right thing at Summerhill. We may see a new design for the retention area that hopefully resolves all of the existing problems. That is my spin on that one. That is all I have under other business. Mr. Kanter — I don't reall�r have anything additional. So, we have two items that were already scheduled for the April 1' meeting. We will now reschedule the public hearing for the Longview proposal. Do we to reschedule the public hearing? It also depends whether we get any modifications additionally. That was one option. It really isn't that complicated to re -post the hearing notice. Attorney Barney — It can go either way. Chairperson Wilcox — Then we'll add the discussion item of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Kanter — Okay. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Wilcox — Do I have a motion adjourn? So moved. We are adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Upon MOTION by Board Member Hoffmann, Chairperson Wilcox declared the March 18, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Re tfully Submitted, Car e i ore, VV� Deputy Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MARCH 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT #1 \ \\ L�_... /^ �lU I 'r1'�� f,` r' _ `,'` lY'�'�ru•l'�1 ^ `\ S !—i�•.� (j. :r. "I, .-,:�- \�`.'` N .i! Nl kk •• � t r r6S I i i \ .., _ III✓ ,� r i \ X11, \ / / /'��y,'• 1\ " �_ J i'� '� • \1 ,Jn �� `�t`�- \\ i� __ Id to _f / 60. `, j •.. �.: ��` __�, \- �_ i , - =S i31; . to OF A 5 J 200 U —.� lop s00 ir I A. too ol Ion 42 N*0000doo ! \ A No ip No LN Off` -� \� �\ �".�\\ '.�. ;• njr� ,''._. .• [[[� /J �` , \,1 1, , >��, ��. \ \:.' , l I L `` � 11 ,: ��•= . -.:. �'= �:�•�.;��,.' 1�,_. _; \ \��� 111, , � ,I "��� \ \ \VVV »\ � � -- , 11! \ �'Uh I ' ^fit \ �� \yt�ti�\ — `:r • — .� it —0 I ,� j 4 r• \ :\' _ .\ :� Vic,.`. ,\i �N� � � O o „\ s Ilk fe to of Ao rl ti I \.✓ ".p - f to to _” `\ In 1\ I .orle t /, i /= �' • ' 0 ter'.. /i� �: }.. r, ✓. too or March 18, 2003 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board: We would like you to consider the following recommendation regarding the proposed revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinances and map. The property in question is located at 157 Enfield Falls Road, Tax Map Parcel 34 - 1 - 12.2 and has an area of 6.63 acres net including a conservation easement. Under the current proposed revisions, our property would change from R -30 to Conservation Zoning. As such, it would preclude the use of this specific property as a Bed & Breakfast. The neighboring properties will change from R -30 to Low Density Residential where a Bed & Breakfast could exist. Our home was built in 1820 and would be an obvious choice as a minimum size Bed & Breakfast with its close proximity to Robert H. Treman State Park. We are currently raising our family in the home and have considered the possibility of beginning a Bed & Breakfast when the last of our three children finishes high school and leaves Ithaca. We think a Bed & Breakfast would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Conservation Zone, as enumerated in the purpose section relating to this zone - "Preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the areas to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca." ( section 500, page 16) Perhaps you would consider including a Bed & Breakfast in section 502 - Principal Uses Authorized by Special Permit Only, or changing our property to Low Density Residential instead of Conservation. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan and Jim McCutcheon 157 Enfield Falls Road Ithaca, New York 14850 607 - 272 -4468 e -mail: susanml954 @yahoo.com �aq PLANNING BOARD - MARCH 189 2003 ATTACHMENT #3 March 17, 2003 Town of Ithaca Old Post Office Building Tioga and Buffalo Streets Ithaca, New York 14850 Planning Board, Town of Ithaca Revisions to Town's Zoning Ordinance Ladies and Gentlemen, I request that the following comments be formally entered into the formal public participation hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed rezoning. These are my professional opinions as a Town of Ithaca real estate owner, a real estate broker, and a community builder for over 30 years in Tompkins County. My comments and suggestions concerning the changes and revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1. Town of Ithaca's comprehensive plan needs to be rewritten. It is out dated and does not meet certain State of New York Town Law Section 272a requirements for a Town Comprehensive plan. It needs. to encourage the expansion and growth in businesses, commercial and residential uses within the Town Limits. The current C.P. discourages businesses and commercial growth within the Town Limits. It's current "stated purpose" is to push business and commercial and residential growth into the City of Ithaca limits! This was to help the city to retain a higher tax base in past years when it was falling dramatically in the early 1990's. Now that the city of Ithaca has realized it's growth and expansion in over One Billion Dollars worth of new commercial growth with in the last few years as well as "permitted" future expansions underway, this "Steering" plan must change! Why should I, as a town resident, continue to support a township with full payment of real property taxes, when the community steers its growth to the City of Ithaca and actively discourages needed and necessary growth in all the emerging neighborhoods in the Town? There is no benefit to the citizens of the neighborhoods in the Town when you have to drive down steep hills to purchase your basic family needs. In addition, when water and sewer mains were installed around South Hill and other areas in the 1960's, they were designed for a projected growth on these lands and special assessments were assigned on all of these as fully developable parcels. In my case and as with other tax payers, we have a right to access these municipal services for business and commercial growth that will serve these neighborhoods as well as higher density residential growth. 2. The Town of Ithaca is " upzoning" portions of my lands from R -30 to conservation zoning (tax parcels 43 -1 -3.2 and 43- 1 -3.4). I respectively demand that this change in zoning on my lands be removed and changed to R -15 or R -9 (medium density zoning). The Town of Ithaca staff, consultants, and Town Board members have knowingly fabricated and have made incorrect statements about the conditions existing on my lands. There is absolutely nothing on these lands that would warrant a conservation zone. Conservation zoning practices discriminate against affordable housing! These types of exclusionary zoning practices were tried in the 1970's in the Philadelphia suburbs known as "the main line ". They lost in court! If you proceed with a comprehensive plan that proposes exclusionary upzoning of my property, I will consider it a taking of value and pursue my legal rights. n ANTTTTNTr. RnAR.n - MARCH 18. 2003 ATTACHMENT #4 Page 2. 3. The Town of Ithaca is allowing the highest possible residential densities (College Circle Apts. Zoned multifamily) to be put up against my lands (tax parcel 434-3.4 and 43-1- 3.32) which are proposed for the lowest possible density zoning? Any rational planning process and planning consultant would propose a gradual transition of uses to provide for buffering. Your proposal to upzone my land is contrary to standard practice. These lands should be changed to at least medium density zoning. This practice of medium density zoning being placed next multifamily zoned can been viewed on your proposed Town Zoning Map by looking at the lands South of my multifamily tax parcel (43- 24)!!!!! 4. The Town should give serious consideration, in its Comprehensive Plan, to a Planned Unit Development or Mixed -Use Development Zone for my property for a variety of Needed and buffering uses. 5. The commercial zone on the northeastern side of the intersection of Route 96 B and King Road East, needs to be increased in size. With the current and proposed zoning there is not enough zoned commercial lands to serve the neighborhood and Ithaca College. This land is above the roadway and is served by all utilities and would be a great community /neighborhood center for local residents and I.C. Also, see enclosed the Town's undelivered obligations that will be addressed and brought up to compliance with a court stipulation agreed to by the parties in 1970. Town of Ithaca attorney, the Honorable John Barney signed as a witness to this historic settlement as well as myself. In addition to the above comments, specific to my property, I am providing the following general comments about the existing code, for your consideration: 1. Commercial zones need to have included gas - pumping kiosks such as the one that Tops Plaza is constructing in front of their food market on Rt. 13. Gas pumping today is a Retail function. Exclude car repairs from the gas pumping operations and place them elsewhere (Industrial zones ?) In contemporary times gas pumping should be separated from car repair. (e.g. look at East Hill Plaza). 2. Boats and Trailers need to be stored in rear yards or in garages – not in the driveways. 3. Set up a special zone for modular housing. 4. House Elevations – every building permit review should include a grading plan for the lot to insure proper drainage and proper relationship between residential units and roadways. 5. Fences —Too many fences! -- Zoning should permit only one fence set per outline of a house may be installed. Also, who will repair these fences when they go into disrepair? 6. Trespassing should be addressed in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. New York State law says even if a property is "Not Posted ", you are breaking the trespassing laws by going across private property without the owners' permission. The Town's building Page 3 inspectors should be allowed to issue infraction tickets based upon a property owners' complaint! Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns and thoughts, Evan N. Mon keme y er Current Land Use, Planning and Zoning Laws Applicable to `Smart Growth' Issues Comprehensive Planning — encourages municipalities to periodically review and update their short and long term land use plans, taking into consideration regional needs and the actions and plans of other governmental bodies and agencies. (city, sec. 28 -a; village, sec. 7 -722; town, sec. 272 -a) Contents of a comprehensive plan: Consideration of population, demographic and socio- economic trends and future projections. Housing needs, including affordable housing Commercial, institutional, industrial facilities. Plans of other public agencies. Referral to county planning Subject to SEQRA Provision for periodic review Clustering — allows a planning board to modify the zoning ordinance to consider alternative layouts for lots, buildings, roads, utilities, landscaping and other infrastructure, to encourage flexibility of design and development of land to preserve natural and scenic qualities of open lands by clustering the development in a portion of the parcel. This can be applied to any zoning district. Overall density remains the same, land use cannot be changed, and the planning board can mandate clustering if they feel it would be beneficial to the community. (city, sec. 37; village, sec. 7 -738; town, sec. 278) One of the biggest problems in using clustering is the issue of `neighbor character' and the perception that clustering means subsidized. Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) — allows a municipality to designate `sending' districts and `receiving' districts for the purpose of transferring development rights from one lot, parcel or area of land, located in a `sending' district, to another lot, parcel or area of land in a `receiving' district. The intent is to "protect the natural, scenic or agricultural aspects of open lands, to enhance sites and areas of special character or special historical, 11 r. cultural, aesthetic or economic interest or value" by transferring the ability to develop a property (i.e., the use and density) to another area which the municipality determines to be more suitable for development and in keeping with their comprehensive plan. (city, sec. 20 -f; village, sec. 7 -701; town, sec. 261 -a) While this has been on the books for quite a while, it is not widely used due to the procedural aspects of implementation, relative to a municipality buying and then selling development rights. Although it may become more popular in some situations, i.e. Pittsfords' Greenprint. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) — offers municipalities the option of allowing mixed uses; residential, commercial and/or industrial, within one area or as part of a development plan for a single project. Encourages the efficient use of infrastructure, conserves open space and promotes economic development. This is currently being introduced in the state legislature, however, municipalities can adopt a local law at any time under home rule. (proposed, Senate Bill - S.4328; Assembly Bill - A.5722) While many communities already have a PUD ordinance on the books, they haven't been used much. Again, this may change if people are serious about wanting to keep growth around existing infrastructure and, if such development is successful. Incentive Zoning - was adopted by the state legislature to allow municipalities the option to grant incentives, or bonuses, to an applicant in return for specific benefits that are identified in a local law or ordinance. These benefits, or amenities, can include: open space, low or moderate income housing, parks, senior care facilities, day care facilities, or any other types of social or cultural amenities that the municipality identifies. The law also allows a cash donation to the municipality, in lieu of providing a specific amenity. The incentives that an applicant may receive could be M adjustments too "..density, area, height, open space, use, or other provisions of a zoning ordinance or local law" 0 This is essentially a negotiated process between the applicant and the municipal board, where the end result should be a win -win scenario for each. (city, sec. 81 -d; village, sec 7 -703; town, sec. 261 -b) Here, more so than in any other application, public acceptance of the concept and the process is critical to its' implementation. This is a relatively new concept around here, and no matter how much rhetoric you hear from residents and municipal officials, there is a reluctance to try something new, much less entirely different from what one is used to. Intermunicipal Cooperation in Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Development — reinforces the provisions given to cities, villages and towns under article five -G of the general municipal law, and places in land use law the authority for municipalities "to enter into agreements to undertake comprehensive planning and land use regulation with each other or one for the other, and to provide that any city, town or village may contract with a county to carry out all or a portion of the ministerial functions related to ... land use ". Here again, the legislature is encouraging cooperation between 2 L' cities, towns and villages to increase the effectiveness of comprehensive planning, the regulation of land uses, the use of existing infrastructure and efficient use of municipal revenues. (city, sec.20 -g; village, sec. 7 -741; town, sec. 284) This has the most potential and gives municipalities the ability to jointly plan and regulate land use and development on an inter - municipal level. So far no one has taken advantage of it. Municipal Redevelopment Law —this allows a municipality to acquire title to, or an interest in, properties to facilitate their redevelopment or rehabilitation for commercial, industrial or residential uses. The law recognizes that public financing of planning, design and construction activities may be necessary to redevelop properties in order to increase employment opportunities and provide housing options. It provides for the repayment of public money or loans through bonds that are paid by the incremental increases to be realized from taxes to be collected as a result of the increase in property value. (general municipal law, sec. 970) This also has potential, however there have been very few instances where it has been used, only one that we are aware of in this area. K I IORMAN D. FREEMAN A71ORNEY AT LAW 84 CAST COURT STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS In the hatter _ of The Application of HERBERT No MONKEMEYER, Petitioner, - against- WALTER SCHWANN, NOEL DESCH, VICTOR DEL ROSSO, and ANDREW MC ELWEE, constituting the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Respondents. For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Correcting or Vacating the Assessments against Tax Parcel 42 -1 -13 of the South Hill Sewer District and the Second South Hill Water District. STIPULATION Index No. 71 442 WHEREAS, the Petitioner in the above entitled matter com- menced a proceeding against the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on the 21st day of November, 1970, the purpose of said proceeding being to vacate and set aside the water and sewer assessments levied on Petitioner's property (Tax Map 42 -1 -13) for collection in the year 1971 by reason of the illegal and arbitrary applicatic. of a so- called unit benefit formula to Petitioner's property, and the Respondents having answered on the 11th day of January, 1911, which answer denies the basic allegations of the Petition herein, M WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1972, the Town Board of they Town of Ithaca, pursuant to Section 209 -R of the Town Law of the State of New York, dissolved the previous water and sewer bun.:t{t t PLANNING BOARD - MARCH 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT #4 I r CoRMAN D. FREEMAN AT76RNEY AT LAW 24 EAST COURT STRELT ITIIACA. NEW YORK -2- districts and formed a single water and sewer improvement distri.ctl throughout the entire Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on November 18, 1971 revised the unit benefit formula pertaining to benefit charges for sewer and water, a copy of which formula is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and proposes to make such new foi-rnu{. 1a effective uniformly throughout the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, it is understood by the Petitioner that it is t11L,1 present intention of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to extc_ill the present commercial zoning of the Petitioner's property loczite at the intersection of Danby Road and East King Road further al.on both roads so as to include additional acreage of the Petitioner in the commercial zone as shown on the proposed zoning map of the Town of Ithaca, a copy of which is- attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner is in agreement with the proposal to extend the commercial zone as aforesaid, and WHEREAS, by reason of the above, the Petitioner is destro of withdrawing his Petition and discontinuing the above ent:itl_eci proceeding with prejudice,, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby STIPULATED by and between t:hc: parties as follows: 19 The Petitioner and the undersigned members of his family are willing to pay water and sewer benefit, charges under t..Ile proposed new benefit unit formula and stipulate that they will wal.le no objections to such new formula as applied to the tax parcc,ls presently owned by the Petitioner, the Petitioner's wife, Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer, the Petitioner's son, Evan N. Monkemeyer t f ► L NORMAN D. FREEMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 1[: EAST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of December, 1971, 4 I`'.t.6Y_L.F He _A":z �1, pert N. Monkemeyer Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer,� ff ,. IT Evan N. �nkemeye TOWN- • OF ItHACA By r , Waiter S �hSwann, Supervisor STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.. COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this day of December Nineteen Hundred and Seventy One before me, the subscriber, personally appeared HERBERT N. MONKEMEYER, LENORA ROUSSEAU MONKEMEYER and EVAN N. MONKEMEYER to one personally known and known to me to be the same persons descri- bed in and who executed the within Stipulation and they duly acknowledged to me that they executed the same. r Notary Public h 44 ORMAN D. FREEMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 14 EAST COURT STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK On this ,�?�;r day of December Nineteen Hundred-and Seven -One before me personally came WALTER SCHWANN to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides in the Town of Ithaca; that he is the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, the municipal corporation described in, and which executed, the within Stipulation; that he knows the seal of said municipal corporation; that the seal affixed to said Stipulation is such municipal seal; that it was so affixed by authority grant- ed by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regularly schedu- led meeting held on the 13th day of_.December, 1971; and that he signed his name thereto by like authority. �. or JoNotarxtip� lie N6tary Public, Slat of New ,York / No. 55- 0)6985 . ' (qualified in Tompkins Count}r Term Expires March 40,;J97 3 r i X y r Jl i 34r� s 3 >. r ry;fb to niAf f r l �.a ♦. r••h it f .r fir. I�ir�i, i > o. o. roI • f 'to „r , h� c> j -v i `' t"f�l ., 1Tr' ` ~ 4 'K.ISt1 •, �i1 i r f i -1 f 1 it .1S.F '�?^6 oo ILI i rt* .1 It of or o. lo. Lt ooa u i RMAN D. FREEMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW • KA \T COURT &TRECT ITUACA. NEW YORK STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of The Application of HERBERT N. MONKEMEYER, Petitioner, - against- WALTER SCHWANN, NOEL DESCH, VICTOR DEL ROSSO, and ANDREW MC ELWEE, constituting the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Respondents, For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Correcting or Vacating the Assessments against Tax Parcel 42 -1 -13 of the South Hill Sewer District and the Second South Hill Water District. STIPULATION Index No. 71 -442 WHEREAS, the Petitioner in the above entitled matter com- menced a proceeding against the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on the 21st day of November, 1970, the purpose of said proceeding being to vacate and set aside the water and sewer assessments levied on Petitioner's property (Tax Map 42 -1 -13) for collection in the year 1971 by reason of the illegal and arbitrary applicati of a so- called unit benefit formula to Petitioner's property, and the Respondents having answered on the 11th day of January, 1971, which answer denies the basic allegations of the Petition herein, MM WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1972, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, pursuant to Section 209 -R of the Town Law of the State of New York, dissolved the previous water and sewer bunt4 it i PLANNING BOARD - MARCH 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT #4 COURT COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SUPREME --------------------------------- - - - - -- In the Matter of The Application of HERBERT N. MONKEMEYER, Petitioner, - against- WALTER SCHWANN, NOEL DESCH, VICTOR DEL ROSSO, and ANDREW MC ELWEE, constituting the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Respondents, For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Correcting or Vacating the Assessments against Tax Parcel 42 -1 -13 of the South Hill Sewer District and the Second South Hill Water District. STIPULATION Index No. 71 -442 WHEREAS, the Petitioner in the above entitled matter com- menced a proceeding against the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on the 21st day of November, 1970, the purpose of said proceeding being to vacate and set aside the water and sewer assessments levied on Petitioner's property (Tax Map 42 -1 -13) for collection in the year 1971 by reason of the illegal and arbitrary applicati of a so- called unit benefit formula to Petitioner's property, and the Respondents having answered on the 11th day of January, 1971, which answer denies the basic allegations of the Petition herein, MM WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1972, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, pursuant to Section 209 -R of the Town Law of the State of New York, dissolved the previous water and sewer bunt4 it i PLANNING BOARD - MARCH 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT #4 CUM D. FREEMAN AITCRHEY AT LAW 24 CAST COUNT 5TRECT ITHACA. I:EW YORK .2. districts and formed a single water and sewer improvement distri.ct throughout the entire Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on Noveml)L�r 18, 1971 revised the unit benefit formula pertaining to benefit charges for sewer and water, a copy of which formula is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and proposes to make such new forma la effective uniformly throughout the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, it is understood by the Petitioner that it is tll present intention of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to ext:(.• the present commercial zoning of the Petitioner's property locate at the intersection of Danby Road and East King Road further alout: both roads so as to include additional acreage of the Peti.tionvi: in the commercial zone as shown on the proposed zoning map of the Town of Ithaca, a copy of which is attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner is in agreement with the proposal to extend the commercial zone as aforesaid, and WHEREAS, by reason of the above, the Petitioner is desiroi of withdrawing his Petition and discontinuing the above entitled proceeding with prejudice,) NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby STIPULATED by and between tli parties as follows: 1. The Petitioner and the undersigned members of his family are willing.to pay water and sewer benefit. charges under 1_1 proposed new benefit unit formula and stipulate that they will wil no objections to such new formula as applied to the tax parcels presently owned by the Petitioner, the Petitioner's wife, Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer, the Petitioner's son, Evan N. Monkemeyer i7 le 10 rl•, . CUM D. FREEMAN AITCRHEY AT LAW 24 CAST COUNT 5TRECT ITHACA. I:EW YORK .2. districts and formed a single water and sewer improvement distri.ct throughout the entire Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on Noveml)L�r 18, 1971 revised the unit benefit formula pertaining to benefit charges for sewer and water, a copy of which formula is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and proposes to make such new forma la effective uniformly throughout the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, it is understood by the Petitioner that it is tll present intention of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to ext:(.• the present commercial zoning of the Petitioner's property locate at the intersection of Danby Road and East King Road further alout: both roads so as to include additional acreage of the Peti.tionvi: in the commercial zone as shown on the proposed zoning map of the Town of Ithaca, a copy of which is attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner is in agreement with the proposal to extend the commercial zone as aforesaid, and WHEREAS, by reason of the above, the Petitioner is desiroi of withdrawing his Petition and discontinuing the above entitled proceeding with prejudice,) NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby STIPULATED by and between tli parties as follows: 1. The Petitioner and the undersigned members of his family are willing.to pay water and sewer benefit. charges under 1_1 proposed new benefit unit formula and stipulate that they will wil no objections to such new formula as applied to the tax parcels presently owned by the Petitioner, the Petitioner's wife, Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer, the Petitioner's son, Evan N. Monkemeyer i7 le 10 �IL NORMAN D. FREEMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW II: EAUT COURT STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto sat their hands and seals this STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) day of December, 1471. i 't Herbert N. Monkemeyer 1 Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer' ,L 2 _ / � lL. Plt:•c'.. Evan N. Monkey eye TOWN-.OF ITHACA By 1^Jc . Walter ScHwann, Supervisor On this 1 day of December Nineteen Hundred and Seventy One before me, the subscriber, personally appeared HERBERT N. MONKEMEYER, LENORA ROUSSEAU MONKEMEYER and EVAN N. MONKEMEYER to me personally known and known to me to be the same persons descri- bed in and who executed the within Stipulation and they duly acknowledged to me that they executed the same. I Notary Public T Yo_ \YA: i' t .r RMAN D. FREEMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW KAST COURT .TR[.T TRAM NEW YORK On this ,�i;r day of December Nineteen Hundred-and Seven One before me personally came WALTER SCHWANN to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides in the Town of Ithaca; that he is the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, the municipal corporation described in, and which executed, the within Stipulation; that he knows the seal of said municipal corporation; that the seal affixed to said Stipulation is such municipal seal; that it was so affixed by authority grant- ed by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regularly schedu- led meeting held on the 13th day of.December, 1971; and that he signed his name thereto by like authority. NotaryNhlic `'T_ FJOHN C. Pubfit.' Slnle of New York No. 55- Ol;ivao5 Pied io Tompkins County.*.' . ' arch; irl A 4, \r l �4 .!.- /1 L"f y:.�. Y3 tY�N1 Y.•�TT'� *1 11� .. .. 3 l Ike... Key hF .T3i5.'..:, ii,L�:r1 •^its '� -. r; NotaryNhlic `'T_ FJOHN C. Pubfit.' Slnle of New York No. 55- Ol;ivao5 Pied io Tompkins County.*.' . ' arch; irl A 4, \r l �4 .!.- /1 L"f y:.�. Y3 tY�N1 Y.•�TT'� *1 11� .. .. 3 l Ike... Key hF .T3i5.'..:, ii,L�:r1 •^its '� -. T I a ro: r ' ` ,\:. �`,\`,�`�ti "< • � -'1\ ♦f ..gyp C•.� z r: r, Ong -w- Oslo 7 It me 0 to es rrA fit It I It 1` Ziff -� `� �!!-! t� kkt �u ;< psi [y��] 1 T. M� ^ O V1 1� ♦f µ�Y , t �� f j D..�.�I/ �e 3 'i( (+� C ; Lf) it Fit at a TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Longview Pavilion, Fill, and Sidewalks, 1 Bella Vista Drive. 7 :15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the 611 and the pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed Town wide comprehensive revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map. This revision follows many of the recommendations in the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Key changes are proposed in areas such as Agricultural and Conservation zones, simplified procedures for Special Permit uses, a new Lakefront Residence zone with special provisions to protect the character of the Cayuga Lake shoreline, a new Office Park Commercial zone, clarification of the purposes and revisions in the permitted uses in the Business zones, and many other updates and clarifications. The Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have accepted a revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance (Jan. 15, 2003) and Map (Nov. 26, 2002), and have referred those to the Planning Board for a recommendation regarding adoption. The revised draft of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions is available for public review, along with an Executive Summary highlighting the proposed changes. Copies are available for review at the Town Hall and the Tompkins County Public Library. They can also be purchased at Town Hall for $15.00 for the whole package or separate parts of it (there is a price list at Town Hall). All of the documents are also available in downloadable and printable format on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: March 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- 1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, March 18, 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 18, 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 and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion, sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002. Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed Town wide comprehensive revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map. This revision follows many of the recommendations in the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Key changes are proposed in areas such as Agricultural and Conservation zones, simplified procedures for Special Permit uses, a new Lakefront Residence zone with special provisions to protect the character of the Cayuga Lake shoreline, a new Office Park Commercial zone, clarification of the purposes and revisions in the permitted uses in the Business zones, and many other updates and clarifications. The Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have accepted a revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance (Jan. 15, 2003) and Map (Nov. 26, 2002), and have referred those to the Planning Board for a recommendation regarding adoption. The revised draft of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions is available for public review, along with an Executive Summary highlighting the proposed changes. Copies are available for review at the Town Hall and the Tompkins County Public Library. They can also be purchased at Town Hall for $15.00 for the whole package or separate parts of it (there is a price list at Town Hall). All of the documents are also available in downloadable and printable format on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. 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, March 10, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 T:he Ithaca' Journal _ ,edne8day; March 12;:2003. 40V011 OFJTHACA =, PLANN1140 BOARD.; . NOTICE:Of `1' PUBUC-,HEARINGS Tuesday, i' prehensive; revisions to. the Marchl8, 2003 rTownlof Ithaca Zoning Or -. By direction- of the-Chair -"p. -' durance dnd Map This re pperson of the Planning (.vision follows many of. the', Board,'NOTICV15S HEREBY,, 4_ recommeridohons rn''the4 GIVENahatPubhc Heanngs r.1,993jown of Ithaca Cont. will be`held;byy the`Plgmm�g (,pieh'ensiJe ', Plan ^ -`Key B6&d of -the Town'of Ithoca, changes are, proposed in cu r -- 2003 ia215 Northh,Ti 1 a lurid s,Consejvahonrl zonal` h, Sheet, Ithaca, N.Y., at"! stmphfied :procedures ' for follow' mg-hmes and;'on the Especial; Permit uses a. new. followingsmatters ? r Y - Lakefront ,Residence; zone with speca provisions•' to potect the 7 15 P h the ' Cavuaa Lake ishoreline, = a Ithaca TOX Parc61 N6.•391- btions the Codes and Ordi 1.31,.Special Land _Use Drs- 1- trances Committee-and1he trict (SLUD( No 7.,: The `Town Board have accepted pro posal includes ppl�acing a revised drab of the.Zonin' a roximatel 3 10b` &bic I Ordinance "(lon "15; 2003 yarpds'of fill obta h 41,6m { ,and Map (Nov. 26,:2002), the College Circle. ;:Apart and h6ve_.ieferrecl those'to rnents.'proleci.to-the west:of,i tlie:;Plpnoing ,Board- for a the existing building;, rcorr t ,recommendation = regarding struchng 7:''a''-.219 00._ n +/ adoption:: The revised draft square foot, pavilion: on a' of: the proposed.Zonind Or -. portion: of the new. fill, add ldind;6? and Map revisions ing: o restroom - ond',storage is avodable for , public rem area on ro the existing shed. I view along with an' Execu' and= .adding','two sidewalk .'tivet-Uimmary:.'highlighting extensions . • with ' , a . ,total-: the proposed . _ changes.; length of 471 +/= feet local I Copieslare available for,re (id along the existing drive view ai fhb; "Town Hall and ways:. The p roposalras the TompkinCounty - Public been modified; with`te ad Library jhey•can aso'be - iihon of the fdl ;and`the po- l purchased at Town.Hall -for vrlron beingg shifted;- :since. $1500,for the whole.pack- receivin g_ Preliminary- .;Site age, or..seporate;parts_of it Plan - :Approval on October -' I -ie is a price list atTown; 15;' 2002. °.Iihacare:Center-'H6ll(.r`:All of _the documents Service- Co , Ilnc , are also available in Chvner /ApPplicant; Mark A" .'downloadable and ;printable Maces, Agent` formats on; the .'Town's ,websder at .7 *30 PsM: Consideration rowntithaco ny us. " t of a recommendationlo , the ' down Board regarding the Said Planning Board will at proposed.Town wide corm. said times an said place hear all 'persons in'support of -such rnatferi orabjecfiohs ;therero. °:. Persons may' ap- pp`eeaar b_y agent orlin person. ,.Iridividud1 it _with ,visual. im- Ypairments;:. hearing .impair- menu- :oc•'= other- ' special needs;;will•be provided with assistance _ +as'. necessary, (upon request. Persons;desir ing assistance must make such .a request not. ess than 48-h6urs priorao the Nine of ithepublic heorings. .. ,Jenathan:Kanter, AICP. Director of. Pla'nn'M 273= 171 'March ,10;"20 3' 0; 2003 ; Publish: Wednesday, March'.12; 2003 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: March 18, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT To ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESVAFFILIATION A Oe- r �w w e � CA , o G� i' � ` 2 L/"C/ - l �lt�eJO / lr tiL rv� e) D I r&tACA 12 ( N.,, vUpu ii rl �s )Vtt 7l ... 6 2-.°l �-- � ISct S s �t,� ' W' C U 'mil A TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: March 18, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /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 18, 2003 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting Date of Publication March 10, 2003 March 12, 2003 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of March 2003, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 A V t i ,+,^ •'•� ENFIELD STATE PARK lks^. a �- --t - - III s ♦ - 4; \� 9 w" 1/ i_ t R -15 C g !t i co 1°< t,E I •. t �i ^` p l .'Y - VY ASr I '1 A i r �b J t ° f W z t F p � N W f s r s o u 0 m z - r r.._.._ a t" [ JJ v �i• P/� J I! J _ 1 w Ji J CI +r i I -1 l��tt / \ 0TTt'RM.'LK F!,I.L i °,% •\ STATE. PAgK z �t .. t { St .-r. Y'� H'}1 "�.�. -t" "�ttrY + +��'- •{f{.+rrT'Y'tt+Lk` t,♦ 1 11�Y �i- j- ,rf- FyY- r4Yt'T z F ?� t� itY� a.'r� + rt AG IT �\ 1 .A TDPY LINE ROAD Me IMP LEGEND: ROADS, I MISTING ROADS, rHOPOSEO ROADS, PLANNED - PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RAILROAD RIONT OF MAY PARR EXISTING OR PROPOSED RWNBARIES. TORN D� ITNACA ° Illip PLANNING BOARD — MARCH 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT #4 "..... _ ....... otsrrRICT AREAS* CA AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE (ONE a TWO FAm;I'Y RESIDENCES) RA0RESIDENCE (MULTIPLE j� F:+MILY RESIDENCES) RESIDENCE (MOBILE ` R -5 " JJ' A HOSE= PARKS) Ma Aq iR J BUSINESS * T ' INDUSTRIAL (LIGHT j� OR HEAVY) P -I PUBLIC USE REVISED SEPT TOM �b w Ji J CI +r i I -1 l��tt / \ 0TTt'RM.'LK F!,I.L i °,% •\ STATE. PAgK z �t .. t { St .-r. Y'� H'}1 "�.�. -t" "�ttrY + +��'- •{f{.+rrT'Y'tt+Lk` t,♦ 1 11�Y �i- j- ,rf- FyY- r4Yt'T z F ?� t� itY� a.'r� + rt AG IT �\ 1 .A TDPY LINE ROAD Me IMP LEGEND: ROADS, I MISTING ROADS, rHOPOSEO ROADS, PLANNED - PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RAILROAD RIONT OF MAY PARR EXISTING OR PROPOSED RWNBARIES. TORN D� ITNACA ° Illip PLANNING BOARD — MARCH 18, 2003 ATTACHMENT #4 "..... _ ....... otsrrRICT AREAS* CA AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE (ONE a TWO FAm;I'Y RESIDENCES) RA0RESIDENCE (MULTIPLE j� F:+MILY RESIDENCES) RESIDENCE (MOBILE ` R -5 " JJ' A HOSE= PARKS) Ma Aq iR J BUSINESS * T ' INDUSTRIAL (LIGHT j� OR HEAVY) P -I PUBLIC USE REVISED SEPT TOM