HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-07-15t.
s
•
•
•
FILE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE
TUESDAY, JULY 159 2003
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 15, 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 (7:14 p.m.); Larry Thayer,
Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member (7:10 p.m.);
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Creig
Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Christine Balestra, Planner (7:27 p.m.).
EXCUSED: Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering.
ALSO PRESENT: Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Rd; Vincent Walsh, Cortland NY; Ira
Goldstein, 155 Compton Rd; Mark Mecenas, 115 Coddington Rd; David Parks, 903
Hanshaw Rd; Gerri Soneo & Slade Kennedy, 113 West Haven Rd; Cathy Emilian, 536
Elm St. Ext; Tom LiVigne, 33 Grandview Dr; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Peter ?,
101 Brandywine Dr; George Frantz, 604 Cliff St; David McCobb, Rachel Carson Way;
David Robertson, 101 West Haven Road; Bill Albern, Engineer; Boris Simkin, Schickel
Rd,
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 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 July 7, 2003 and July 9, 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 July 9, 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 7:03 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:04
p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Mecenas 2 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street
Extension.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Please give your name and address and then a brief overview of
what you are proposing.
Mark Mecenas, 115 Coddington Road — I am proposing to subdivide approximately 2.5
acres. The purpose is to build a single - family house on each one. I am going to sell
one to a friend; actually, he wants to live next to me.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any environmental impacts with regard to the
subdivision?
Mr. Mecenas — I am not. I filled out the short form that was given to me by Mr. Kanter. I
believe you have copies for your review.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions for the applicant with regard to the environmental
review? I note we have no comments from the Environmental Review Committee on
this one.
Board Member Hoffmann — This is not very complicated as long as some of the issues
about the access drive and things like that ... is there any problem with the length of the
driveway that is proposed?
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you looking to John or Jon?
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm looking to Jon Kanter.
Mr. Kanter — I think for the number of houses, two houses, that is really up to the
subdivider and the residents of the parcels. There is still potential access off of Elm
Street Extension, which if necessary, probably some kind of emergency drive could be
provided. I mean, basically for two houses, I don't think this is a problem. It is a long
driveway, that's for sure. It is probably a maintenance issue for the home owners, but...
Chairperson Wilcox — John?
Attorney Barney — This may be more on the issue of merits, but what is the reason for
drawing the line and creating a kind of toe on the parcel next north.
Mr. Mecenas — Oh, that is the way the existing tax parcels were divided. It was
suggested to me by my engineer to actually move that and I thought it would muddy the
waters if I had to subdivide and then subdivide this tax parcel and include it. That toe is
part of a separate tax parcel. The only thing, if you eliminated this line right here, the "L"
line, you would have had the tax parcel as it was presented to me when I purchased it.
Attorney Barney — This board is actually sophisticated enough to actually understand
when you are subdividing two lots as opposed to one lot. It is all one proceeding. It
could have been done that way.
04,
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Mecenas — Not having done this before, Mr. Barney, I wanted to make it as simple
as possible.
Chairperson Wilcox — You shouldn't fear us.
Mr. Kanter — I suppose that could be added on at some future time. Again, that is more
of an issue on the remaining parcel, not on the proposed subdivision. In this area, there
are several odd things. One of which is another parcel owned by Mr. Mecenas just
northeast of the proposed subdivision, which is basically a landlocked parcel. You'll
notice all on the map, this is not an environmental issue, but recommended as a
condition in the resolution is to ... there is a small parcel above that one which was
shown on the plat for some reason as a future conveyance or a possible conveyance,
but that is actually not part of this proposed subdivision. We are recommending that it
be deleted from the map.
Chairperson Wilcox — Lots are strange in this area. We are not making it any worse, but
were not making it any better either. Any other questions with regard to environmental
review?
Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEAR.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer. Do I have a second?
Board Member Conneman — I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion? All
those in favor please signal by saying "aye ".
Board — aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? There are none.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -048: SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Mecenas /Theodore Two -Lot Subdivision (Eastview Estates), Elm Street
Extension, Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1.
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located off of Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide
the 2.396 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.26 +/- acres (Parcel 1) and 1.13 +/-
acres (Parcel 2). Mark Mecenas and Carolyn Theodore, Owners /Applicants, and
3
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on July 15, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision
Plat, Eastview Estates, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York,"
prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 6- 12 -03, and
other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, How.
NAYS: None.
Absent: Mitrano, Talty.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed two -lot subdivision located off of Elm Street Extension, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to
subdivide the 2.396 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.26 +/- acres (Parcel 1) and
1.13 +/- acres (Parcel 2). Mark Mecenas and Carolyn Theodore,
Owners /Applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay at 7:10 p.m., the next item this evening is the public
hearing. Mr. Mecenas, could I have you come back up please? I have ... just so you are
there in case we have questions now in regard to the subdivision. Before we do that,
we have an email from a David R. Chupp dated Monday, July 14t ". I'm just going to
read it. He asked that it be made part of the record.
"As an adjacent property owner, tax parcel 29 -6 -13.3, 1 received notice of
the Mecenas /Theodore two lot subdivision proposal. I have no objection
El
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
to the proposal as long as the access to the two lots is from West Haven
Road and not from Elm Street Extension, if the access was from Elm
Street Extension I would object. In voicing this comment I'm speaking
also for my 87 year old mother, Jesse Loomis, who lives at the adjacent
property at 560 Elm Street Extension. Please incorporate these
comments into the public record on this matter. If you need to contact me
can be reached at..."
Chairperson Wilcox — The phone number is given. I note that the proposed access is
from Elm Street Extension and I also note that Mr. Chupp does not state why he would
object in his email.
Good evening, Kevin.
Board Member Talty — Good evening, Fred.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's it. Does anybody have questions for the applicant at this
point with regard to the subdivision itself? You may have a seat. This is a public
hearing ladies and gentlemen, if there is any member of the public who wishes to
address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to
please come to the microphone, we ask that you give us your name and address and
we will be very interested to hear what you have to say.
Cathy Emilian, 536 Elm St. Ext — I live at 536 Elm Street Extension, which is right below
the parcels that are being considered at this time. I'm not in objection to the
subdivision, but I called your office today and I just inquired about adequate drainage,
like how you protected yourself to make sure that the drainage did not affect ... there are
a lot of streams underground and such in that area. They said that I should just come
to the meeting and make a statement that I just wanted to be sure that adequate
attention was made in regard to there because there is a lot of running water under the
ground.
Chairperson Wilcox — That would be an issue when and if homes are built on the lot.
Ms. Emilian — Well, they told me to come here. I'm just saying this for the record as I
was advised to do so.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody else? Yes, sir. Well, he's up so we'll let him go
first. Thank you.
David Robertson, 101 West Haven Road — I've got a few questions. This long, long
driveway... this used to all be farmers' fields. You start messing around in there with all
the French tile drains and stuff like that; everybody down here is going to have water
problems then. This long, long driveway... it just looks to me like a subdivision is going
to get put in like Chase Lane, Woolf Lane, and all these other things. I personally think
some of this should be left alone. It has been like that for years and years and years.
6i
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Its just ... even if the entrance is in here or over here, it is just a ridiculously big driveway.
It shouldn't be allowed. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir.
Slade Kennedy, 113 West Haven Road — I'm just north and east of the subdivision as
proposed. It is my understanding that Mr. Mecenas also owns the parcel directly north
of the proposed subdivision. Is that correct?
Mr. Mecenas — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sir, can I ask you to address the board, please?
Mr. Kennedy — Yes. My question is actually to Mr. Mecenas and what his intention is for
the parcel north of the proposed subdivision. Secondly, it says that a parcel has access
to West Haven Road, I believe via this access here. If in creating the subdivision, the
access to West Haven is likely to be incorporated or permitted to be incorporated into
this action.
Chairperson Wilcox — Into this action.
Mr. Kennedy — Or can that be done later, how is that tacked onto this proposal?
Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the proposal, all that is in front of us is the two lot
subdivision down in the southern end. That is the only thing that is in front of us this
evening.
Attorney Barney — With access...
Chairperson Wilcox — With access from Elm Street Extension, that's what's in front of us
this evening.
Mr. Kanter — Actually, with access from West Haven Road.
Attorney Barney — It is shown as a subdivision with legal access from Elm Street
Extension.
Mr. Kanter — Access frontage, yes. Access, no. The plan actually shows the driveway
access coming from West Haven Road. He is proposing an access driveway from West
Haven Road.
Attorney Barney — I think, legally, the board should understand with a subdivision like
this, there is nothing preventing the developer from cutting off that access from West
Haven and requiring access to be Elm Street Extension. That is where the frontage is.
Chairperson Wilcox — I will give the applicant a chance to address your other question.
10
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Kennedy — Can I just ask Mr. Kanter to amplify one point?
Chairperson Wilcox — Sure, can I ask you to come to the microphone so that we can
record you?
Mr. Kennedy — You have a proposal that indicates that access will be from West Haven
Road?
Mr. Kanter — Right. We have small sized maps, but it is the same drawing as up there.
You'll see on the subdivision plat that there is a driveway shown coming down to serve
these two parcels and we have written material from the applicant indicating that he
plans to build that driveway to West Haven Road as opposed to Elm Street Extension.
Actually, it is the applicant's preference not to build a driveway to Elm Street Extension,
but of course, the applicant can expand on that.
Mr. Kennedy — Yet, that is not part of this subdivision action?
Mr. Kanter — As far as I can see, it is a proposal by the applicant, but we have so far not
imposed any conditions. The Planning Board so far has not imposed any conditions on
this, but staff was not recommending that that be a condition to be imposed. I think as
we discussed there may be some reasons why access on Elm Street Extension may be
desirable at some point in the future.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Then I will close the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
and bring the matter back to the board. Would you like to address the question or not?
That is up to you. I have to ask you to be at the microphone to do it.
Mr. Mecenas — Could you repeat the question?
Chairperson Wilcox — The question is, Mr. Kennedy wanted to know what if any plans
you had for your parcels north of the subdivision.
Mr. Mecenas — At this time I actually have none. In fact, I spoke to Mr. Kennedy before
the meeting and said that building my house here is something I have been trying to do
now for a couple of years. I don't even know if I'll get to it this year, but I thought that at
least if I get the ball rolling on something, it could drag on forever and I could be like Bill
Lower and own it for 20 years and then sell it to somebody else after having paid 20
years of taxes on it and done nothing. Just for clarification, Mr. Wilcox, Mr. Chupp
specified in his email that he preferred to have me have entrance off of West Haven
Road, is that correct?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
7
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Mecenas — So I've got one neighbor who wants me to enter off West Haven Road,
and I got one neighbor who wants me to enter off of Elm Street Extension or perhaps
not live there at all.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah.
Mr. Mecenas — I try to keep everybody happy, but you can't.
Chairperson Wilcox — Understood. Tracy, you snuck in.
Board Member Mitrano — Hi, Fred. How are you?
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm fine. Good to see you. Discussion, ladies and gentlemen.
Everybody is shaking their head. Larry?
Board Member Thayer — Driveways I guess are our discussion.
Chairperson Wilcox — There were comments about leaving this acreage open. I think
that's unreasonable at this point. Zoning allows it. The issue about old farmland and
underground drainage tiles is always a problem in some of these older and you will
have to be sensitive to that when and if construction is started on these.
Board Member Conneman — Is there evidence that there are underground tiles there?
Chairperson Wilcox — We have seen no evidence that there are.
Board Member Hoffmann — In any case, if there were to be any development, there
would have to be a proposal for it and would most likely have to come in before this
board and we would have to look at things like drainage and other things at that time
and deal with it.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, where are you going on that one?
Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to say that it just wouldn't be something that
would be ignored just because we are not looking at it now. It would be looked at very
carefully if there were some development happening.
Board Member Conneman — The question being raised is that they would have to
demonstrate that there is no drainage problem or it would have to be mitigated.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Would someone like to move the
subdivision approval resolution? So moved by the chair. A second ?'
Board Member Hoffmann — I'll second it.
E:
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Eva Hoffmann. There being no further discussion,
all those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone opposed? No one is opposed. There are no abstentions.
The motion is passed. Thank you, sir.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -049: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Mecenas /Theodore Two -Lot Subdivision (Eastview Estates), Elm Street
Extension, Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located off of Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide
the 2.396 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.26 +/- acres (Parcel 1) and 1.13 +/-
acres (Parcel 2). Mark Mecenas and Carolyn Theodore, Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has
on July 15, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 15, 2003, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled " Subdivision Plat, Eastview
Estates, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York, " prepared by
Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 6- 12 -03, and other
application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision off of Elm Street Extension, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1, as shown on a survey map entitled "
X
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Subdivision Plat, Eastview Estates, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of
New York, " prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated
6- 12 -03, subject to the following conditions:
a. Obtaining the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior
to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and
b. Submission of easement language providing access for proposed Parcels
1 and 2 via a common driveway through adjacent Tax Parcel No. 29 -6-
24.1 for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town prior to signing
of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and
C. Submission of evidence of County Health Department approval of the
water supply for proposed Parcels 1 and 2 prior to issuance of any
building permits, and
d. Revision of the subdivision plat to delete the parcel labeled "Tax Parcel
29 -6 -24.1 R.O. Mecenas & Theodore (250112677), 0.42 AC (Currently
Optioned to Laura Lower)," prior to signing of the plat by the Planning
Board Chair, since the above - referenced parcel has not been formally
proposed for subdivision approval by the owner, and
e. Submission of one mylar and three dark line prints of the subdivision plat
revised as above, all signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor who
prepared the survey, along with the required surveyor's certificate, for
signing by the Planning Board Chair, to be filed with the Tompkins County
Assessment Office and Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission
of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any parkland reservation created by
this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any parkland
reservation.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Cornell University 2 -Lot Subdivision, East
Shore Drive.
10
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Name and address, and a brief overview.
Tom LiVigne, Cornell Campus and Business Services — I am here representing Cornell
tonight. We are here to seek approval for a two lot subdivision of tax parcel 19.- 1 -5.2.
To orient you on the map, this is East Shore Drive. This is the East Shore marina here.
The Lake Source Cooling plant here. This is the parcel that we are interested in
subdividing out of the main parcel. The parcel itself is about 7.15 acres. The main land
that would be left over is about 6.3 acres. The total acres are about 13.43 acres. The
purpose of this is for us to sell the land. This is property that is excess to the
University's long -term needs and now is a good time to sell. That is the reason why we
are here. We would like to get this as a standalone parcel and sell it on the market.
Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental issues that you are aware of?
Mr. LiVigne — Not that I know of.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may start ... in my 7 years on this board, I am not aware of
Cornell subdividing and selling a parcel of land.
Mr. LiVigne — I can explain that. You may have missed the original Lake Source
Cooling discussion.
Chairperson Wilcox — I was here.
Mr. LiVigne — Well, this land and the marina had always ... when we bought this property
for Lake Source Cooling, we had always intended on doing something with this land
here to the north as well as the marina. Time is right now for us to sell the excess
portion of this off. That is what we are doing. Our original projections of the Lake
Source Cooling project, we had always projected something for the value of this land to
be sold in the future. This was not ever intended to be used for educational purposes.
Board Member Conneman — Did you buy the property or was it given to you?
Mr. LiVigne — It was a bargain sale. We bought part of it and part of it was a gift. It was
an undivided interest.
Board Member Mitrano — Do you have any anticipation as to what the market value of
that property would be?
Mr. LiVigne — Of this property ... $225,000.
Board Member Mitrano — I was absent... has any more development occurred with
respect to the marina and Cornell's ownership?
11
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — We as a board have heard nothing.
Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Very good, nothing.
Board Member Conneman — That is entirely separate.
Mr. LiVigne — Yes. The marina is a separate tax parcel all together.
Board Member Conneman — There is some land available on the other side of Lake
Source Cooling.
Mr. LiVigne — This land here between the Lake Source cooling plant and John Lowery
building, that is zoned business "E ". We don't have any intention of doing anything with
that.
Board Member Hoffmann — So is that something that you might develop in the future for
educational purposes then?
Mr. LiVigne — I don't have an idea of that right now. Our intention right now is to leave
all of this together. We don't have any plans for it. I can't answer your question.
Board Member Hoffmann — Since you mentioned educational purposes it just made me
curious about the proposal for the marina parcel of the land. The marina part of it that
might stay, I could see could have some educational purposes, but I don't see that the
restaurant...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, I don't want to go there. That is not part of this. I don't
think that is appropriate. I would just like to quickly note the comments provided to us
by Jon Kanter, the Director of Planning, in his memo to this board. The environmental
assessment form part II describes the site and surrounding area and general
environmental conditions. Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental
significance in conjunction with the proposed subdivision because it is strictly allowing
the conveyance of a 7.151 acre parcel, but as can be seen in the end of part 11, a
number of potential environmental issues are raised regarding any specific development
proposal that may be submitted in the future. I read that just in case anyone is unclear
that what is before this board tonight is simply the subdivision of this piece of property
not any proposal to build anything on it. I suspect that such a proposal when we see it
could potentially have some environmental impacts. In front of us this evening is simply
the subdivision of the land.
Board Member Mitrano — When did Cornell acquire it originally?
Mr. LiVigne — 1995.
Board Member Hoffmann — While we are on the environmental part, I noticed that we
did get some comments from the Conservation Board about this because it is indicated
12
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
in the EAF. Maybe that could be marked on the first page of part II, where it says
comments of staff, city and other attached.
Mr. Kanter — We could do that. It is always a timing issue because when I did the part II
as staff, I didn't have the ERC comments, so I couldn't mark that. But, as the board you
could do that now as a supplement.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think so because it still hasn't been signed off. That would
be true for the other two items tonight, too.
Chairperson Wilcox — Again, the ERC comment's mostly had to do with what the
potential uses of the land are. And when and if we have a proposal before us, it would
be very interesting to see what is done.
Board Member Thayer — It really isn't a question tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct.
Board Member Conneman — The person who buys it beware.
Chairperson Wilcox — One presumes they are an informed buyer, but ... it is an
interesting piece of property.
Board Member Conneman — Cornell should make that clear.
Board Member Mitrano — What obligation does Cornell have to make that call?
Mr. Kanter — The theory of "Buyer Beware ".
Attorney Barney — That's about it.
Board Member Mitrano — It's a courtesy, but I'm not sure its an obligation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion with regard to environmental review?
Would someone like to move the resolution? So moved by Rod Howe. Do I have a
second?
Board Member Talty — Second.
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Kevin Talty. This is the SEQR motion. All those in
favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed. There are no
abstentions. The motion is passed.
13
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -050: SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Cornell University Two -Lot Subdivision, 983 East Shore Drive, Tax
Parcel No. 19- 1 -5.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located on the site of the Lake Source Cooling Plant
at 983 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1 -5.2, Multiple
Residence District, Special Land Use District No. 11 (SLUD), and Business "E"
District. The proposal includes subdividing 7.151 +/- acres, which is zoned
Multiple Residence, from the 13.43 +/- acre parcel. The remaining 6.279 +/- acre
parcel, which contains the Lake Source Cooling Plant on 3.12 +/- acres zoned
SLUD, and an additional 3.159 +/- acres zoned Business "E" District, will be
retained by Cornell University, while the 7.151 +/- acre parcel is proposed to be
sold. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Thomas P. LiVigne, 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 Subdivision Approval, and
3. This environmental review is strictly limited to the proposed subdivision, which is
intended to allow the conveyance of the 7.151 +/- acre parcel, currently zoned
MR Multiple Residence, and is not related to any specific development proposal
on the MR parcel, which would have to undergo a subsequent environmental
review at such time as a specific development proposal is submitted to the Town
of Ithaca for approval, and
4. The Planning Board on July 15, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision
Map Showing Lands of Cornell University, East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca and
Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins Co., New York, " prepared by Allen T.
Fulkerson, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 611312003, and other application
materials, and
5. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
14
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on the site of the Lake Source
Cooling Plant at 983 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1 -5.2,
Multiple Residence, Special Land Use District No. 11 (SLUD), and Business "E"
District. The proposal includes subdividing 7.151 +/- acres, which is zoned
Multiple Residence, from the 13.43 +/- acre parcel. The remaining 6.279 +/- acre
parcel, which contains the Lake Source Cooling Plant on 3.12 +/- acres, zoned
SLUD, and an additional 3.159 +/- acres zoned Business "E" District, will be
retained by Cornell University, while the 7.151 +/- acre parcel is proposed to be
sold. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Thomas P. LiVigne, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — At 7:32 p.m., we will open the public hearing. Ladies and
gentlemen, once again this is a public hearing. If there is a member of the audience
who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on a particular agenda item, we
ask you to please come to the microphone. We ask that you give your name and
address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. Good evening,
George. Good to see you again. I just noticed you were sitting back there. There
being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. and bring the matter back to
the board.
Board Member Howe — Its straight forward.
Chairperson Wilcox — I agree.
Board Member Thayer — This is a simple two lot subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox — This is the easy part of doing something on this property. That is
the way that I look at it.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it was very nice to get all the materials from staff
about the potential problems if this were to be developed.
Board Member Mitrano — Absolutely.
15
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — It also helps us sometimes because sometimes we meander off
the subject a little bit and get onto tangents myself included.
Mr. Kanter — I do have an update for the resolution for you when we get there. We had
a condition that the plat should be relabeled because one of the boundary lines south of
the Lake Source Cooling plant implied that there was an actual third parcel being split
up and that was not the case. It was only meant to show the existing zoned boundary.
We did receive that revised plat and we have them revised and ready to sign should the
board decide to approve this.
Chairperson Wilcox — Someone is moving quickly.
Mr. Kanter — "b" would be stricken and "c" would become "b" and I would suggest
changing "c" because we do have them submitted to just say signing of the plat by the
Planning Board Chair.
Chairperson Wilcox — You have sufficient copies over there?
Mr. Kanter — Yup.
Attorney Barney — The only thing that I'm having difficulty with is the key.
Mr. Kanter — Well, this isn't what we are going to be signing. I think you might want to
take a look at... It is different on this reduced version because it just didn't come out
right on the reduced version.
Attorney Barney —Area represented zoned "e "...
Mr. Kanter — Would you like to take a look at the big map?
Attorney Barney — Yeah, maybe I should.
Chairperson Wilcox — So we'll take a break just for a minute.
Mr. Kanter, Attorney Barney & Board Member Mitrano looked at the map for a few
minutes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney?
Attorney Barney — My problem is the reduced key in the lower left hand corner for the
area representing zoned MR and the area representing zoned "e" and the SLUD zone,
when you go to apply it to the dark areas, about the only area that shows as zoned "e"
really is this little tag end down at the far right end. Whereas in fact, all of it is zoned "e"
except the SLUD area. The SLUD area is hard to pick out. I don't think it makes a
Mo
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
great deal of difference in terms of subdivision, but it would be nice to have the map be
a little more readable.
Mr. Kanter — If you like, we could ask the applicant to eliminate the zoning entirely
because it is not really...
Attorney Barney — It is crucial because the MR zone is the only area... It is what the
understandment is. I think we want to add a sentence as part of a condition that the
approval in any way does not alter the zoning as the zoning is in fact in place regardless
of how it may be shown on the map.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy, go ahead.
Board Member Mitrano — I'm just curious of the history of the foundry.
Chairperson Wilcox — No one knows.
Mr. Kanter — We may find out more about its results when we look further up the
shoreline property when the Remington comes back in.
Board Member Mitrano — You read my mind. I am anticipating that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution for preliminary and
final subdivision approval?
Board Member Mitrano — I will.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Seconded by Larry Thayer. I should
say moved as already revised.
Attorney Barney — A new "c" that approval of subdivision does not evidence approval of
the depiction of the zoning on the subdivision map other than the Multiple Residence
zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable.
Board Member Mitrano — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, you're all set?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the "c" that exists here is being altered a little bit.
Attorney Barney — Just the signing.
17
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — All set?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is anyone opposed? And there are no abstentions. The motion
is passed. Thank you very much.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -051: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Cornell University Two -Lot Subdivision, 983 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19-
1 -5.2.
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located on the site of the Lake Source Cooling Plant
at 983 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1 -5.2, Multiple
Residence District, Special Land Use District No. 11 (SLUD), and Business "E"
District. The proposal includes subdividing 7.151 +/- acres, which is zoned
Multiple Residence, from the 13.43 +/- acre parcel. The remaining 6.279 +/- acre
parcel, which contains the Lake Source Cooling Plant on 3.12 +/- acres zoned
SLUD, and an additional 3.159 +/- acres zoned Business "E" District, will be
retained by Cornell University, while the 7.151 +/- acre parcel is proposed to be
sold. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Thomas P. LiVigne, 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 Subdivision Approval, has
on July 15, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 15, 2003, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing
Lands of Cornell University, East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca and Village of
Cayuga Heights, Tompkins Co., New York," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson,
Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 611312003, and other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
W0
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 983 East Shore Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1 -5.2, as shown on a survey map entitled
"Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Cornell University, East Shore Drive, Town
of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins Co., New York, " prepared by
Allen T. Fulkerson, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 611312003, subject to the
following conditions:
a. No development shall take place on the "Proposed Parcel to be
Subdivided and Conveyed" until a detailed site plan for such development
has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
pursuant to Articles VI and IX of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
and such development proposal shall be subject to a subsequent
environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and
b. Signing of the Plat by the Planning Board Chair, to be filed with the
Tompkins County Assessment Office and Tompkins County Clerk's Office,
and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department prior to conveyance of the "Proposed Parcel to be Subdivided
and Conveyed, " and
C. Approval of the subdivision does not evidence approval of the depiction of
the zoning on the subdivision map other then the Multiple Residence
zone.
That the Planning Board finds that there is no need for any parkland reservation created
by this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any parkland
reservation at this time, but reserves the right to consider the need for such parkland
reservation in conjunction with the approval of any development or further subdivision of
the 7.151 +/- acre parcel to be conveyed.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
19
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Walsh 4 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street
Extension.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Vincent Walsh, Cortland NY — We are proposing to subdivide this 12 acre parcel into 4
parcels. Right now we want to build 3 residences for myself, my son and his family, and
my daughter. The fourth is for a possible residence for my grandson someday. We
really don't foresee any environmental impacts. We want to keep it just the way it is as
much as possible. It is beautiful the way it is.
Chairperson Wilcox — They are going to bring a larger version of this. Thank you, Jon
and Chris. This is the night for odd shaped lots. Who want so start with questions with
regard to environmental review? Eva does.
Board Member Hoffmann — We did have some comments from the Conservation Board.
Members of that Board went out and looked at the site. Their comments had to do with
the placement of the proposed buildings as they are on the drawing with respect to
steep slopes and flat areas on the site. They felt that at least three of the buildings were
placed too close to the step slope and would suggest that they be placed in flatter areas
where there is not so much possible problems involved with the construction with runoff
and other problems. Could you address that for us?
Mr. Walsh — The Town codes have a formula that they use, which I was not aware of
when I placed those houses as to how close you could get to the edge of the drop off.
When we go for building permits, we are going to have to abide by that formula. Also,
the Health Department has a formula for how close you can get to a slope that leads to
a waterway like that. We assume that we will have to abide by those.
Board Member Hoffmann — So, we can assume that the houses that are shown on the
drawing are not necessarily going to end up where you have shown them here.
Mr. Walsh — They will be back as far as required by the Health Department and the
Building Codes.
Board Member Hoffmann — They did also mention placement of the septic systems.
Another question they had was how electricity and water would be supplied.
Mr. Walsh — Right. Well, we have spoken with NYSEG about running power in. We
can either run it in from the road; they have an easement across the front of Longhouse
Coop. I have also spoken with the people at Longhouse Coop and they've agreed to let
me tap into their service, which is much deeper into the property. It is a short run in from
their substation or whatever it is that they have there into where we want to build the
houses. NYSEG has said that would be feasible. We will bury the cables so nothing
20
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
will show except for a junction box at the edge of our property. Then a transformer
centrally located between the three places. That is all it will show.
Chairperson Wilcox — You said bury the cable?
Mr. Walsh — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Key word.
Board Member Hoffmann — That is true except, of course, if it happens that there has to
be digging done in areas where it is not appropriate to dig, then that could be a problem
because of slopes and special plants. We did get an excerpt from the new UNA that
exists on part of this site. So, that is something that has to be looked into, too, that you
don't accidentally dig up an area with rare plants or something like that.
Mr. Walsh — Well, the route for the cable that we would lay in is all on flat ground. It
wouldn't involve any of the calanimer. The machinery to dig the trench digs a trench
that is about that wide and they go down five feet deep. I don't think there will be a
whole lot of disruption of what is there already. As soon as we dig the hole and lay the
cable we just fill it back in.
Board Member Hoffmann — Even if the trench is narrow, the machinery you need is
probably quite big.
Mr. Walsh — The machinery sits on rubber tires. They are big and made for going over
soft terrain. We don't anticipate a big impact on the area where we lay the cable.
Board Member Hoffmann — Those are things that you'll get to later, but it is good that
you are aware of them.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm just curious why these lots were drawn the way they were.
Mr. Walsh — I came in before we got the property and spoke with Mike Smith in the
Planning office. We were required to have road frontage for each lot, we were required
to have a certain amount ... 60 foot setback. Also, we had to ... (not audible, bad tape) for
the septic system. With 12 acres, we thought we had plenty of room.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to environmental review?
Mr. Kanter — Just for the record, as indicated in the environmental assessment form,
this is almost entirely within the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area.
Board Member Hoffmann — Which is a very special area that the Town is trying to
protect.
21
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Board Member Mitrano — Are we in the same situation that we were with Cornell. That is
in terms of the subdivision, that is not an issue right now, but it is something to be aware
of if development occurs on those properties or are there other distinctions?
Mr. Kanter — In this case, this is a proposal for four building lots and we are getting... it is
largely up to the Planning Board in terms of setting the thresholds for when larger
studies need to be done like should a watershed and drainage analysis be done with a
four lot subdivision. In most cases we don't do that, we waive that requirement. But
that is why we also added some conditions that had to do with submission of setting up
an erosion control plan with each individual building lot as well as with the driveway. In
this case, this is a much more sensitive area than the other one is.
Board Member Mitrano — I take it that is your recommendation rather than ... okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is very unusual that we require sedimentation plans for
subdivisions of residential lots. It seems appropriate.
Board Member Hoffmann — In fact what the Conservation Board recommends as you
saw in the papers is that a Comprehensive Plan be prepared by the owner to justify the
use of this area and to explain how he intends to preserve the character of the Unique
Natural Area. Then that there should probably be an environmental review for each
house prior to construction, which is very unusual.
Chairperson Wilcox — It seems a little overboard, I think. Any further discussion with
regard to environmental review? Would someone like to move the SEAR resolution?
So moved by Kevin Talty. Do I have a second? I have a second by Larry Thayer.
There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed. There are no
abstentions.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -052: SEQR, Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval,
Walsh Four -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -28.51
and 28- 1- 28.52.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed four -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -28.51 and 28 -1- 28.52, Residence District R -30.
The proposal includes consolidating the two existing parcels into one parcel, and
22
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
then subdividing the entire 12 +/- acres into four new residential lots with one
shared driveway. Vincent Lane Walsh, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on July 15, 2003, has reviewed a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, a map entitled, "Survey Map — Lands of Vincent Lane
Walsh'; prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, dated 8123102 (stamped
Preliminary 06111103), and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed four -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -28.51 and 28 -1- 28.52, Residence District R -30. The
proposal includes consolidating the two existing parcels into one parcel, and
then subdividing the entire 12 +/- acres into four new residential lots with one
shared driveway. Vincent Lane Walsh, Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox — At 7:53 p.m., the item this evening is a public hearing. While Mr.
Walsh is standing there, any questions with regard to the actual subdivision as being
proposed this evening.
Attorney Barney — What is happening on lot one?
23
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Walsh — This is...
Attorney Barney — Oh, I see. It's got this little strip of land that ties it together.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would lie if I said I looked at this, I had a beer, and I looked at it
again. This is a difficult one to look at, especially reduced. There is that little tiny piece
there. Any other comments or questions?
Attorney Barney — I have a lot of comments, but I will keep them to myself. I won't play
Deputy Planner.
Chairperson Wilcox — Why? We play assistant attorney.
Attorney Barney — That's what I'm used to.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If any member of
the audience wishes to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item, I
think you've heard the drill, we ask you to come to the microphone. We ask that you
give your name and address and we would like to hear what you have to say this
evening.
David McCobb, Rachel Carson Way — It is a beautiful area and I would like to
encourage thorough review and perhaps considering some of the property being jointly
owned by the ... whoever purchases or owns the land ... set aside to preserve in its
natural state. A portion of that is...I really haven't had a chance to look at how it is
subdivided. It is a bit torturous.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is. Thank you, sir. I will note that this property is rather close to
EcoVillage. I'm not sure that it borders directly, but it is certainly in the neighborhood.
Anybody else this evening? There being no one else, I'll close the public hearing at
7:56 p.m. and bring the matter back to the board.
Attorney Barney — Mr. Walsh, the road or driveway easement here, have you checked
to see whether that would require the filing of an offering plan with the Attorney
General's office?
Mr. Walsh — A filing of what?
Attorney Barney — An offering plan with the Attorney General. It is basically offering an
interest in real estate in conjunction with each lot, as I understand the interest being a
right over a roadway. I haven't checked recently and there may be an exemption for a
small number of lots, but I wondered whether you had looked into that.
Mr. Walsh — I wasn't aware of that at all.
24
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you say that in English for me?
Attorney Barney — Well, when you have ... in a more typical situation you have a
homeowners' association. You have 40 lots and then they own roads and things like
that in common. That requires, because it is a public offering of interest in real property
a filing of an offering plan, which is a nasty, thick, expensive document with the Attorney
General.
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is?
Attorney Barney — The issue is here whether this common driveway, which is running
through the property, would call for that kind of offering plan. Off the top of my head I
don't know.
Chairperson Wilcox — I assume he has an attorney.
Mr. Walsh — Yes. I was under the assumption that if we just put in easements for each
piece of property... before we could file the subdivision we had to put in easements in
each property stating that they all share a right -of -way.
Attorney Barney — I think that is what you want to have your attorney take a quick look
at. I think it is the general business law, section whatever it is that deals with
conveyance of real property. Who's your attorney?
Mr. Walsh — Larry Knickerbocker in Cortland.
Board Member Mitrano — How long have you owned the property, Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh — We closed in around January or December.
Board Member Mitrano — Of this year?
Mr. Walsh — This year.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions, comments or concerns?
Mr. Kanter — There is an interesting technicality here that we sort of addressed in the
memo and the resolution. I was thinking we might want to revisit the way the resolution
is worded regarding the consolidation. There are actually two tax parcels to start off
with here. If you really did it from a technical viewpoint, this would actually be more
than four lots because you are starting with two and splitting the back one. I think this
would be a six lot subdivision with consolidations. Rather than doing that, what I was
suggesting is...I checked with the applicant because the applicant had indicated, and he
might expand on this, that he had requested consolidation of the two tax parcels at the
assessment department, but because of the timing of the way those go on the tax maps
that had not actually been put onto the current tax maps. However, a consolidation is in
25
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
effect a type of subdivision. So this board can actually as part of subdivision approval
start off with consolidating the two parcels and then go from there to subdivide it as
shown on the plat. Actually, the public hearing notice was advertised as a consolidation
involved in it. Maybe with John Barney's assistance is was suggesting that we add as a
number 2 now therefore be it resolved... number 2 would say something like that the
Planning Board hereby grants the consolidation of tax parcel numbers 28. -1 -21.51 and
28. -1 -28.52 into one parcel for the purpose of further subdividing that parcel as
described below. Then we would take out condition a under what was number 2.
Number 2 would become number 3. Remove "a" because the consolidation will have
occurred. Then re- letter everything after that.
Chairperson Wilcox — It sort of gives the consolidation more weight if you will just to
more formally acknowledge that is what we are doing.
Mr. Kanter — I mean the end product on the plat being filed is the same, but just to avoid
any possible confusion at the tax office or any lack of clarity in what the board is doing I
think it would make it a lot clearer.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney has not said a word, so he concurs.
Attorney Barney — Absolutely. I always concur. I think Jon's wording is fine. We need
to re- letter because I have a new suggested b.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion with regard to subdivision?
Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that we do this housekeeping bit of
adding to the environmental assessment form that the Conservation Board has made
comments. The other thing is I just want to be sure that it is clear to everybody that this
survey map that we got whereas we might approve the lines of the lot divisions, we do
not approve the locations of the houses that are indicated.
Mr. Kanter — When you first mentioned it I jotted down something like house locations
as shown on the plat are approximate and will be subject to siting criteria applied during
the building permit process.
Board Member Hoffmann — Do we need to do anything similar with the road because it
seems to me that this survey map is not complete as far as topographic contour lines.
They are not necessarily accurate, is that right?
Chairperson Wilcox — It says that on the map.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that's true. But, if the driveway is drawn in ... is the
driveway actually constructed?
Mr. Walsh — It has existed for a long time. It is an old logging road. So it has been there
for years.
K1:
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — We are approving the metes and bounds, which define where that
driveway is.
Mr. Kanter — How far back does that logging road go? Does it go back as far as...?
Mr. Walsh — It keeps going.
Mr. Kanter — So it basically follows that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Just the comment about the house locations then.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did anybody notice, just because it is interesting, it reminds me of
the old surveyors when they putting rocks down at corners of properties and blazing
trees, in the upper portion of the survey map we have something labeled 12 -inch birch
tree in corner, found behind pipe at south base of basin tree referred to as 8 -inch oak
tree, 10 -inch cherry tree per T. G. Miller. So it has gone from an 8 -inch oak to 10 -inch
cherry to a 12 -inch birch on three surveys. I guess surveyors are not...
Board Member Thayer — That's a heck of a tree.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the draft resolution for preliminary
and final subdivision approval? So moved by the chair. Seconded by George
Conneman. Lets start with the changes. Who wants to go first? Jon, why don't you
repeat the one you started with?
Mr. Kanter — Okay, propose adding a number 2 in the now therefore be it resolves that
the Planning Board hereby grants the consolidation of tax parcel numbers 28. -1 -28.51
and 28. -1 -28.52 into one parcel for the purpose of further subdividing that parcel as
described below. And then change number 2 to 3. There would be some additional
wording in number 2 after the reference to the tax parcels and put in parens, as
consolidated above.
Chairperson Wilcox — You eliminate what is shown on the draft as 2a.
Mr. Kanter — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Then b -f are re- lettered up. Changes acceptable? We are all set
with that.
Attorney Barney — Then reference the size of a 12 plus or minus acre parcel in what Mr.
Kanter read. I would suggest re- lettering what was old b as an "a ", and then inserting a
new b reading submission to the Attorney of the Town of evidence of no formal offering
plan is required to be submitted to the New York State Attorney General in connection
with the common driveway, or if required, a copy of the offering plan and proof of its
acceptance by the Attorney General be provided prior to the signing of a plat by the
i►.�1
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Planning Board Chair. Now what you re- lettered before gets re- lettered back to what it
was originally.
Chairperson Wilcox — Then we have one more, which has to do with the locations of
houses as shown.
Mr. Kanter — Which would be house locations shown on the plat are approximate and
will be subject to siting criteria applied during the building permit process.
Chairperson Wilcox — George, you all set with those changes?
Board Member Conneman — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — As am I. Any other changes Jon or John? Any further
discussion? All those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed. The motion is passed
unanimously. Thank you, sir.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -053: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Walsh
Four -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -28.51 and 28 -1-
28.52.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed four -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -28.51 and 28 -1- 28.52, Residence District R -30.
The proposal includes consolidating the two existing parcels into one parcel, and
then subdividing the entire 12 +/- acres into four new residential lots with one
shared driveway. Vincent Lane Walsh, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has,
on July 15, 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, has held a public hearing on July 15, 2003, and has
reviewed a plat entitled, "Survey Map — Lands of Vincent Lane Walsh'; prepared
4:
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
by Reagan Land Surveying, dated 8123102 (stamped Preliminary 06111103), and
other application materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that
such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants the consolidation of Tax Parcel No's. 28-
1 -28.51 and 28 -1 -28.52 into one 12 +/- acre parcel, for the purpose of further
subdividing that parcel, as described below, and
3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
28 -1 -28.51 and 28 -1 -28.52 (as consolidated above), located on Elm Street
Extension, as shown on a map titled "Survey Map — Lands of Vincent Lane
Walsh'; prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, dated 8123102 (stamped
Preliminary 06111103), subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of an easement agreement, for review and approval by the
Attorney for the Town, allowing for access to all four parcels through a
single driveway as shown on the subdivision map, said approval to be
issued prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board chair, and
b. submission to the Attorney for the Town of evidence that no formal
offering plan is required to be submitted to the New York State Attorney
General in connection with the common driveway, or, if required, a copy of
the offering plan and proof of its acceptance by the Attorney General, all
prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and
C. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing
with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of
filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and
d. submission of evidence of County Health Department approval for the on
site septic systems, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board
Chair, and
e. submission of sedimentation and erosion plan(s) to be submitted for
review and approval of the Town Engineer for construction of the houses
and driveway extension, prior to issuance of any building permits, and
29
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
f. construction of a gravel or similar material turn -a -round at the end of
driveway, which will be sufficient for emergency vehicle use, prior to
issuance of any building permits, and
g. house locations shown on the plat are approximate and will be subject to
siting criteria applied during the building permit process.
AND BE /T FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by
this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land
reservation at this time.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 34 -lot
Westview Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS
Route 96B ( Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Residence
District R -30. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east
and creating a loop road for 33 residential lots and one % +/- acre lot for a park
site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin,
Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Bill Albern, Engineer — Good evening. It has been a long time since I've been before
this board. There are a few old faces. Fancy new digs since I've been here. However,
lets get on with the show. This is a proposed subdivision. This is Danby Road in there.
Schickel Road extends to about this point. If anybody were to go out there, you would
see a stub road is here. We are not following the stub road. We are coming south
before the stub road. The property is a very, very constant slope from the east down to
Danby Road.
Presently there are streams up in here and a couple of ponds. The drawing show all
water flowing this way. It appears that none of the storm flow from uphill flows across
this property. It all flows pretty much around. We are proposing 33 residential lots plus
the park for our 34 lot subdivision. We are showing one, two, three utility easement, so
that should that subdivision be built south or east they can connect to the utilities
involved here. This road, Schickel Road Extension, is adjacent to the properties to the
north. So you can easily... in that direction.
[ill,
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
This little piece of property right here is part of the Simkin property. Basically, it is being
unused. It could be a park. It could be left unused. It could be bought by anybody who
wants to do something with it. You could also furnish a road and or utilities to the Ithaca
College properties to the north. I think that is all I have to offer to begin with. I'd be
happy to answer questions.
Board Member Mitrano — Hot hill.
Chairperson Wilcox — Who wished to start with comments, concerns about this?
Board Member Howe — I would just echo what Christine put in her memo. That I would
like to see cluster development examined and maybe more parkland.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would also like to see that. I would also like to see a larger
park area and not necessarily located off in the corner like that. I understand there is a
reason for trying to create a park area adjacent to another one that is already existing or
planned in that area, but I think for as many houses as is this proposed for, it is not
enough just to have one park in the corner. Maybe there should be another smaller
piece of land in the center for smaller children closer to where everybody can supervise
them.
Mr. Albern — First of all, the present Compton Park is landlocked. It is not accessible.
This park being located here is access to that park. You have now a 1.5 acre park. As
far as centrally located, basically, it is not going to be many, many years before you are
going to have people around here so it is going to be centrally located.
Board Member Hoffmann — But I think we have to look at the proposal as it is now. We
can't speculate about what might happen in the future. That is why I make that
comment.
Mr. Kanter — One thing that is a benefit of having a larger acreage combined into one
area is that it would allow the Town to do more different things on that particular area. If
it is an informal playfield, whatever it might be, having something in the range of a little
over 2.25 acres as shown with this proposal, something more like 3.5 acres certainly
would be more appropriate to be able to do more things with.
Board Member Hoffmann — I guess what I'm saying is, if one were to combine the larger
portion of that 3.5 acres, maybe 3 acres with the Compton Park one could do that and
that would be fine, but I think I would like to see a smaller area like half an acre more in
the center of this development.
Mr. Albern — Well, you have this area right here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sir, sir, please don't interrupt.
Mr. Albern — This area does exist right here if you want to make that into a park.
31
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
Board Member Hoffmann — We are only at a very preliminary stage of looking at this
now, so I'm just suggesting for small children I think it would be better to have
something more in the center of the development where people who live around can
keep an eye on them and which would be easier to get to for young parents and small
children who can maybe just stay for a little while and not have to walk all the way over
to a bigger playground. Bigger playgrounds are often set up for older children, too, for
playing ballgames and such, which is fine. But, there needs to be a range of activities
for a range of ages of children.
Mr. Albern — We could show this as a park. This could easily be a park. Right now it is
unused property and that would be great for small children.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to continue, Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — Go ahead with something else and maybe I will think of
something.
Chairperson Wilcox — I, too, would like to see what could be done with a clustered
subdivision here. Now, I want to make sure that when we say clustered subdivision,
one doesn't think tiny lots with houses close together. That was what clustering was
perceived as and implemented as. Clustering just gives the opportunity to put the
buildings potentially closer together on one side and maybe has some leeway with
regard to the sizes of the lots for example. I don't think anybody on this board is going
to say we want 34 lots clustered on half the acreage with 15,000 square foot lots. I
don't know if anybody is going to say that at this point at least. But at least an
examination of if there is a way to lay this out, get your same 33 residential lots,
potentially a larger set aside for a Town park and better maximize the use of the land
and not give us such a conventional subdivision.
Board Member Thayer — A little less commercial looking.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, try to be a little creative here.
Board Member Conneman — Isn't the purpose of clustering to sort of concentrate the
water and sewer facilities, which are cheaper in that case?
Chairperson Wilcox — That certainly can be an advantage to the developer. We also
acknowledge the fact that there are some water pressure problems in this area. I don't
know what the Town's schedule is for addressing the pressure issues in this particular
area.
Mr. Hebdon — There is a capital project proposed for either next year or the following
year to do some work on the pry at King Road and replace that with one above ground
K%
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
and run a bypass pipe to get more pressure going up the hill as opposed to dropping
the pressure down so that the people down the hill don't get thrown back against the
wall when they take a shower.
Chairperson Wilcox — What is a prv?
Mr. Hebdon — Pressure Relieve Valve.
Board Member Mitrano — Where on King Road will that take place?
Mr. Hebdon — Right now there is an existing one just above the school. It is in the
ground and Town policy right now is to get everything out of the ground. We don't want
any confined spaces that if we can't get them up ... so we are also looking at that and
bringing it above ground and doing some upgrades to the valves that are in there that
control the pressures down hill from that and possibly running a separate pipe down to
Danby Road that will connect into the ones going up the hill then the pry will be
connected into going down Stone Quarry Road and down towards College Circle and
that way.
Chairperson Wilcox — The impact would be to..?
Mr. Hebdon — It would make it so that you had some increased pressures going up the
hill where right now we have some very low pressures at the top end of the system. We
probably would be able to get the pressures back up to where we need the fire flow.
We could maybe get the water to the second story of the house.
Board Member Mitrano — Where is the top end of the system?
Mr. Hebdon — It is right up by Schickel Road, I believe.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would you recommend the addition of any more single family
homes in that area right now given the pressure issues?
Mr. Hebdon — With the current pressure as it is, these houses right here would not be
able to get water.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Mr. Hebdon — I know the sewer ... it would have to be looked at.
Mr. Kanter — Certainly, it would be a fire department issue with fire service. There's no
question about that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead.
33
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Albern - These homes could be served by the present water system, I believe, but
not up here. It's just a minor point.
Chairperson Wilcox - We'll leave that as a disagreement among professionals.
Mr. Hebdon - I would have to look at the pressure of where the house is and how tall
they were.
Chairperson Wilcox - Lets assume that you could add them, I'm not saying that you
said that you could, does that have an impact on the other homes in the area?
Mr. Hebdon - No, you are thinking of five people taking a shower versus two people
taking a shower. Not with the size lines that you are looking at. You are going from an
8 inch line to a small service line. It isn't going to affect the pressure coming off that line.
Board Member Thayer - So the upgrade in the system will take care of another 34
homes?
Mr. Hebdon - The upgrade in the system... theoretically, yes. We are coming off the
Ridgecrest Tank. We come right down and back up. You would have plenty of
pressure. It isn't a matter of volume. Once you get the volume going through the pipe,
it takes an awful lot to drop that volume down. With the pressures, you are talking
about how much you have at the end of that pipe in pressure. I'm trying to think of how
to put this. It isn't a volume issue. Whether it is 100 houses or 5 houses, you are going
to have the same pressure at the end of that pipe. So, the amount coming through the
pipe would have to be to the point where ... where it becomes a problem if the 8 -inch
pipe isn't big enough to handle that many houses then you have to go to a 10 -inch pipe
to get the volume. At this point, 99 percent of the Town is 8 inch pipes. That would
easily take care of what is in there. For our Town the biggest problem has been
pressure problems.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Creig. Anybody else?
Board Member Conneman - I would concur that this is not a very imaginative
distribution. I'm not an architect or an engineer, but it seems to me that there are
creative ways to make better living spaces.
Chairperson Wilcox - Of course it is an attempt to maximize the number of lots and
minimize the size of the set aside for the parkland.
Board Member Hoffmann - The other thing that both Christine mentioned in her memo
and the Conservation Board mentioned is that to build a layout like the one we have
gotten a proposal for, you are most likely to have to clear most of the trees off the land
and that would be a shame. It would be much nicer to see some other layout when you
save some of the wooded areas and some of the more mature trees. I think it would
0-11
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
make it more attractive. More buyers would be interested probably in an area, which
looks ... that has more trees and shade.
Mr. Albern — There are some woods in here. First of all, for those who don't know it, I
was very much involved with the Buttermilk subdivision across the road. That is a
cluster subdivision. A couple of things. Number one, that is a much, much larger piece
of property. The small piece is just like this, it is difficult to be imaginative. Boris Simkin
and I went through a dozen and half lot configurations to try to come with something.
As far as cluster subdivision, I'm going to ask Boris to address that question because
the size of the home has a great impact on how big the lot must be. You can't have a
small lot with a large home. I'm not the salesperson and I'm not the realtor.
Boris Simkin, 217 Buttermilk Lane — I'm general contractor in the area for over 8 years.
If it happens, it is going to be my first development project. I've never developed land,
but I know the market and I know what the market demands today. I would say in the
Ithaca, Lansing area there is a great shortage for lots today. I think that the municipal
sewer and water, we need 150 feet of frontage to satisfy the zoning, as I understand for
this parcel. We are going to build houses in the $300,000 price range, and 2500, 2700,
2800 square feet houses. I have preliminary designs if you want to take a look of how
these houses will look. I do believe that all developers do what market demands.
Today it is good -sized homes.
We spent 2 or 3 weeks working on sketches. It is very difficult because it is just 800 feet
of frontage. It is the most feasible layout, which we could create. I am happy to answer
any questions.
Board Member Thayer — Are you planning on selling the lots with houses on them or the
lot alone?
Mr. Simkin — I cannot tell 100 percent, but my intent today is not to sell lots at all
would like to be able to build the whole subdivision.
Board Member Thayer - Build on speculation or...
Mr. Simkin — Maybe it is going to be contracts, maybe it is going to be speculation or
Spec houses. I would like this subdivision to be consistent, to have similar houses with
the same price range. I don't want to mismatch. I don't know. If market would allow
me to do it, I will do it. But if the market goes down and I'm losing money ... but today...
Board Member Talty — I would like to say that it is about time a developer came in front
of this board, as far as I'm concerned, I like the plan as is. When I first moved to Ithaca,
there were very, very little homes of this character and I have not seen the sketch yet,
but I know what's coming. I would just like to say that I think there is a market even if
the housing market takes a dip, I still think there is a market for it. Based upon the
criteria you mentioned tonight, you have this board member's vote.
m
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Kevin.
Mr. Simkin — Again, I am in business for 8 years and 3 or 4 years ago someone would
have told me that it is impossible to find in today in Ithaca, new construction under
$280,000. Today's market there is no new construction below $300,000.
Board Member Talty — What does it break out price per square footage?
Mr. Simkin - $105, $110. I'm trying to keep my prices as low as possible. I live in an old
time subdivision, which is not far away from this parcel. I build my own house there 5
years ago. After that I build 5 houses. I just sold one house for $350,OOO,a 3000
square foot house. I would not have believed 3 years ago that this subdivision would be
such expensive houses.
Board Member Mitrano — What kind of attic are you looking at, sir? Are you looking at a
crawl space or is this an actual attic?
Mr. Simkin — Usually all houses that I build have a full basement. I always try to do a
full basement, except if bad ground.
Board Member Thayer — Do you need 33 houses on the parcel to make it economically
feasible?
Mr. Simkin — Yes. First of all it is a big expense to extend the sewer. It is about 800
feet along 96B. Right now, road construction is about $120 a lineal foot. Let me tell you
the truth, I'm not going to make any money according to my calculations on lots. I have
no choices today, because there are no lots available to me. Believe me, I wouldn't
want this new project for me if it would be...
Board Member Thayer — Are you going to have curbs and sidewalks?
Mr. Albern — Curbs and sidewalks are not required.
Board Member Thayer — I know. I was asking if there was going to be.
Mr. Albern — We have not discussed it.
Board Member Talty — What does the dotted line constitute on here?
Mr. Albern — The utilities ... (not audible)
Mr. Kanter — It can be long, but it is subject to being dug up by the utility company.
Board Member Talty — I would like to see some type of future consideration for
sidewalks. I know it adds an expense, but I would like you to at least have you
investigate that.
00
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Simkin — Okay. I will.
Board Member Talty — I think it is important to this type of subdivision with also access
to the park that we are talking about.
Mr. Simkin — Do you know of any subdivision in Ithaca or Lansing with sidewalks?
Board Member Mitrano — That is why he is asking for them.
Mr. Simkin — Okay. I never saw sidewalks.
Board Member Talty — You're right and Tracy's right.
Board Member Mitrano — Actually, I agree with everything that Kevin has said tonight.
I'm not bothered by this plan, but I would like to see sidewalks.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Kanter?
Mr. Kanter — Sidewalks is an issue that the Town is working on coming up with policies.
In fact, we are currently reviewing a sidewalk policy, but there is sufficient guidance in
the subdivision regulations that allow the Planning Board to consider the need for
sidewalks even today in any subdivision. It is just that by practice we haven't normally
done that in the past, but it is something that the Town is beginning to lean towards and
especially where there is a need to connect and provide pedestrian access to certain
facilities like a park.
Mr. Albern — Can I get an opinion from the board? You want sidewalks on both sides of
the road or just one side?
Board Member Mitrano — Just one would be good for me.
Board Member Talty — Outside perimeter.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think what we have asked is that you investigate it and look at it
and get back to us.
Board Member Mitrano — I have lived at both Lake Watch and I live out in Chase Farm.
The lack of sidewalks at Lake Watch is a real detriment to my young children. Chase
Farm is better, but it is without sidewalks. It is a great objection that I had to the
development that we reviewed previously up on South Hill. I think Jonathan is correct to
note that there is a growing sentiment that in future developments that these start to
include sidewalks.
Board Member Hoffmann — We have talked about developments that haven't been built
yet that we have required sidewalks.
37
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Board Member Talty — This isn't the first time. You're not first.
Mr. Kanter — We haven't had any subdivisions of this size coming into the board of
years late. This is kind of a new thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — It's been a while.
Mr. Kanter — It's been really since the late 1980's really when the last big ones were
coming in. At first there was the over creation of lots and the economy took a downturn
and actually for quite a while we were left with an abundance of undeveloped lots.
Chairperson Wilcox — Wally Wiggins up on that side.
Mr. Kanter — Right. Those are still sitting there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Approved, but sitting there.
Ms. Balestra — Can I talk?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you can. I'm sorry.
Ms. Balestra — I have to apologize. I referenced the EAF in your memos, but I didn't
actually put it in there. So I apologize for that. I also have to say in contrast to what I
said in the memo, the EAF was correct as far as the soils are concerned. I was
concentrating on a property that was a bit north of this property. It was my bad. So
there are indeed hydric soils on this property. So, that is one of the reasons for the
suggestion for the cluster subdivision. If you clear the land of all the vegetation and put
houses with basements in an area that has hydric soils, you are going to have issues.
Board Member Mitrano — What kind of issues?
Ms. Balestra — Drainage issues, first of all. Soil that is not permeable means that it does
not drain.
Chairperson Wilcox — It runs off.
Ms. Balestra — Or it retains.
Board Member Conneman — So you are saying that the statement in the memo is
correct.
Ms. Balestra — No. The statement I wrote in the memo about the soils being well
drained is incorrect. So I apologize for that.
Chairperson Wilcox — The soils are poorly drained on the site.
0 *1
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Board Member Talty — Are we talking clay?
Ms. Balestra — There are some clay soils. They are mostly soils that are typical with a
high water table. The soil survey talks all about it.
Board Member Talty — I have a question. Are you going to strip everything out or are
you going to identify trees that you are going to keep?
Mr. Simkin — Usually, I keep as many trees as I can.
Board Member Talty — Okay, because nothing bothers me more than when I see
everything stripped.
Mr. Kanter — One thing I think this board could ask for is more documentation of the
existing vegetation on the site so that we could get a better idea and then have the
plans actually show at least approximations of where existing trees could be saved.
Board Member Thayer — So drainage is going to be a big issue.
Ms. Balestra — It could potentially be.
Mr. Kanter — It is an issue.
Board Member Thayer — What would it require?
Ms. Balestra — What would what require?
Board Member Thayer — Are you going to have to have a holding pond?
Ms. Balestra — They will want to talk with the Engineering Department about some of
the drainage things, but a storm water retention area ... they have suggested on the map
where see in blue, a detention area. Something more detailed as far as ... and maybe
potentially larger. They will want to talk with Dan Walker about that.
Mr. Kanter — It might actually affect the lot layout of those front lots. It might take a
couple away. It might alter the way they are configured.
Mr. Simkin — January or February of this year, DEC passed new regulations. It is going
to be pretty complicated. I think we should have pretty good engineering plan for
drainage.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, after having heard about the soil situation being
different from what I though, I would even more like to see some alternative proposals
for clustering. Which would also allow you to have lesser road surface, fewer meters of
40;:
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
sidewalks and it might cut your expenses for building those things. So, try to think
about that.
Mr. Simkin — What do you mean by cluster subdivision?
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, rather than having me explain it to you tonight, I think
it would be a good idea for you to contact staff. I think they are usually very helpful in
explaining things like this. But, basically it means trying to create grouped areas of
somewhat smaller lots.
Mr. Simkin — Smaller? I'm sorry in this case we cannot meet R -30 requirements.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, when you bring in a cluster proposal, we can allow
you to build on smaller lots even though normally that is not allowed. But, you group the
houses on smaller lots thereby freeing up some areas that are untouched as green
space. You can do it in many different ways. But, very often a developer will have
savings in the ways that road and sidewalks and such are constructed because they
don't have to be so long.
Mr. Simkin — I'm sorry. I understood that we have to have R -30, 150 by 200 and make it
cluster. I just couldn't imagine how we would do that.
Mr. Albern — The problem is the size of the home that Mr. Simkin wants. Across Route
96 we have a clustered subdivision where the lots are much smaller. The homes that
Mr. Simkin wants to build would not fit on those lots.
Board Member Hoffmann — But they don't have to be...
Mr. Albern — You cannot have a large home on an 80 foot lot.
Board Member Hoffmann — How large are the lots across the road?
Mr. Simkin — I would say 0.3 to 0.4 acres.
Board Member Hoffmann — How does that compare in size to the ones that you are
proposing?
Mr. Simkin — It is about twice the size. All lot size is 0.7 minimum up to 1.1 or 1.2.
Chairperson Wilcox — I was going to say that these are good two thirds of an acre.
Mr. Albern — Here you have a 60 foot home and a garage with another 30 feet.
Mr. Simkin — I would say the average house is about 65 percent... but still it would be
100 or 110 feet of frontage, it is going to be just 15 to 20 feet to property. There is no
privacy.
R(
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Mr. Albern — (not audible).
Board Member Hoffmann — I hear what you are saying, but I would like you to hear what
have been saying, too, and try to look at it again. With the help of staff, maybe you will
be able to figure out a way to do it.
Chairperson Wilcox — And that could mean, for example, maybe half acre lots would
work. I have lived on a half acre lot for many years before and about a 2500 square
foot house. There was plenty of room on a half acre lot for a 2500 square foot house.
Board Member Conneman — You were saying about two thirds of an acre. A half acre
is...
Mr. Simkin — The issue for me is not size, but ...(not audible).
Board Member Mitrano — I have to agree with Mr. Simkin. I can understand, taking the
dimensions of this and picturing it in my mind. Again, I'm using Chase Farm as a
reference, where it has been widely considered that there are too big houses for the
size lots that are there. It is not true in every single case, but it is true in a number of
cases. If the environmental issues, drainage in particular, can be addressed through
some other means, retaining ponds or something else, I would be in favor of letting the
developer do as he wishes with respect to the proportion between the size of the lot and
the size of the home.
Board Member Talty — I agree with Tracy because I live on a 100 by 150 up in the
northeast, which is approximately .4 and I am on top of my neighbors. Its okay, I have
nice neighbors, but I do know when my wife and I were looking for a home, if this had
been built and we were moving to the area, we probably would have chosen this over
where we live in the northeast right now. That is only this board member, but I can tell
you that there is a market for people because I have numerous friends who are real
estate agents and there are not enough homes in the Ithaca area that constitute this
type of layout.
Mr. Simkin — Another reason why we decided to buy this property was because it is not
cornfield. We would like to save all shrubs and trees to let people have privacy.
Board Member Thayer — The Perry Lane subdivision, I am quite familiar with. I have a
lot of trees. We didn't lose hardly any trees. They are all over one acre lots and they
are all fairly good size houses. We don't feel cramped with our neighbors at all. I agree
that the acre lot is really great.
Mr. Simkin — About drainage issues, I would say that if we go with a cluster situation
that we would have more problems. Smaller lots with more houses are going to be
more complicated.
M
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Ms. Balestra — You also leave a significant amount of more open space and vegetation
to deal with the drainage issues naturally. And also, if you had a retention area, but
understand the potential difficulty with the size of the house.
Chairperson Wilcox — We are not going to solve this tonight. Even the board seems
somewhat divided.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, it is good to get these issues out.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, the board seems somewhat divided.
Board Member Conneman — Christine... these soils are wet. I'm not sure where these
soils are located.
Ms. Balestra — Just for illustrative purposes, the hydric soils are brown and the purple.
The gray is the only portion of the parcel is not potentially hydric soils. Then the green
is the park.
Board Member Conneman — What is the brown area?
Ms. Balestra — The brown is potentially hydric. Then the purple is the erie ... (not
audible). The Langford on not on this parcel. There ended up being different soils.
They are slightly north.
Board Member Conneman — Well, if you were farming, Langford is a heck of a lot better.
The other soils are just wet.
Board Member Talty — And where are those?
Ms. Balestra — They are right here. Most of the site actually.
Board Member Conneman — What she is saying is that most of the site is poorly
drained.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is something that will have to be dealt with.
Ms. Balestra — It is just something to consider if it means reducing the actual number of
houses on the parcel.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or increasing the size of the water detention facility.
Mr. Hebdon — The developer has to do a big watershed analysis and come in and tell us
exactly how they are going to mitigate this. Staff will review it and decide whether they
have mitigated it or not.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think there should be more parkland set aside.
W�
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Board Member Mitrano — That would be great, especially with this issue.
Chairperson Wilcox — I like the fact of some of it tying in with the existing Compton Park
and providing access to it. I don't know. I'm not an expert here as to how between 3
and 4 acres of parkland should be divided between in the corner so that it is near
Compton Park and possibly other little pocket parks around the subdivision. I don't
know how to do it. I would hope that you would come before us and give us your idea
of what might work best. But clearly, we are interested in having areas for this particular
community or subdivision where the children and adults can go and recreate.
Mr. Kanter — My suggestion would be to, also, early on to get some feedback from our
Parks Departments who has developed these things and get a little bit more specific
idea from them on what they would like to see and what they would need.
Chairperson Wilcox — We asked you to look at sidewalks. Nobody is saying that we
require them, but certainly we are beginning to have more interest in sidewalks. Mr.
Auble, for example, has preliminary approval that requires sidewalks. You are aware of
the soils problems and the issues dealing with those. We are interested in preserving
any trees that are worth keeping. Phasing, that is mentioned in Christine's letter. The
one thing that I don't want is for this to be ... this is phased is suspect. You may get four
homes and that's it based upon current water pressure or lack of water pressure. The
one thing I don't want is the parkland to only become available five years from now
when the last lots are built. That doesn't do the existing residents there, but maybe by
having a couple of parks one tying in with the existing Compton Park and one some
place else, maybe as the subdivision develops there will be some parkland available
rather than only at the very end when the last lots are developed.
One thing we did with the Wally Wiggins subdivision is there was access to the
proposed park even though I don't think the road may have been completed, asphalted,
whatever. I believe there was provision for legal access to the park.
Anything I missed? Rod, how are you doing?
Board Member Howe — I still have some agreements with Eva. To me, this is not very
imaginative. If we haven't done a subdivision for a while, I don't want to send a
message out to everybody that we're very open to unimaginative developments.
Board Member Mitrano — What would you do?
Board Member Howe — Some of it is personal preference and that is what I am
struggling with. I think we have all started sharing personal preferences. My personal
preference is to be in a neighborhood that is more diverse, has different kinds of big
houses, little houses. I think some of it is personal preference that is why I have been
holding back.
M]
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Board Member Talty — This has to do with what Rod just said. I think we have enough
diversity that way. I don't think we have enough this way. I think that would add to the
diversity of the community because I shopped long and hard for a home and it was very
little like this in the Ithaca area. We have enough diversity the other way, in my opinion.
That is why we need a more traditional sense outside this community like in the more
larger cities, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse that have these more traditional or boring
or conservative type of layouts. There aren't this many and the people who move into
this community from those communities are used to these type of plans and when they
are forced fed into what we already have here, they are not happy. And what we want
are happy people so they move to this area and stay in this area.
Chairperson Wilcox — George?
Board Member Conneman — The Town of ? In Orange County had a big proposal to
build a cluster housing. I don't know whatever happened to it, but there were a lot of
people talking. I don't know what has been done. Can you find out?
Mr. Kanter — What is it you are trying to find?
Board Member Mitrano — You are unfamiliar with every single development in New York
State?
Mr. Kanter — Well, that's easy. That's much clearer.
Board Member Conneman — They proposed that there be cluster housing and that they
have common areas that make a more livable community and it would also reduce the
cost of putting in sewer and water. I'll try to find it.
Mr. Kanter —Good.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy?
Board Member Mitrano — I have agreed with everything that Kevin has said, however, I
am not saying that I want to see Ithaca look like Syracuse and Rochester.
Board Member Talty — But it wouldn't hurt to have little pockets.
Chairperson Wilcox — Everyone has made their point. Do you need anything more from
us right now?
Attorney Barney - ...if I were sitting outside ... one of the purposes of the sketch plan
process is to give feedback to the developer. We have in a sense two types of
feedback going here. I think it is probably incumbent upon this board to give that
particular issue or address it as far as a vote. It is not fair to the developer to say come
in with a cluster for two of us when the rest of don't want it. It's a waste of time.
.i
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Lets start at one end.
Board Member Talty — You can start at my end.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tell me how you feel Kevin.
Board Member Talty — I am perfectly fine with this plan, although I do like the idea of
maybe a larger park, which has been outlined this evening. I am not personally in favor
of a satellite park. I don't really think you need it. We are only talking about 33 lots.
lived in a 33 lot division. This is not too bad. If you are going to have the flow going this
way, I don't see a need to have a satellite park. I think that is an unnecessary part of
the proposal that honestly could make or break you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Rod, cluster? Yes or no?
Board Member Howe — I don't think it is a cluster or noncluster issue. When I look at
this it just strikes me as sprawl. So that's what I think I'm reacting to. So I think it is
more of a different kind of plan that is more diverse and more engaging.
Chairperson Wilcox — You don't see the need to require...?
Board Member Howe — No.
Board Member Thayer - And I don't either. I'd like to see ... we are going to have to
have a retention pond. We've talked about sidewalks, which I would like to see. Maybe
a northern access to the park, other than that I'm happy.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy?
Board Member Mitrano — I'm with these gentlemen.
Board Member Conneman — I would like more parkland and I would like them to think
about sidewalks. I'll try to find out anything about cluster subdivision in the Town of ? in
Orange County.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any need to see a cluster layout?
Board Member Conneman — Well, that's why I'd like to see what they did. They made a
big deal out of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — I've already said what I think. I'm not going to repeat it. I
would like to add; Christine mentioned that perhaps another way of coming up with
something, a different layout, which will accomplish some of the same goals as a
cluster, or other layouts is to maybe reduce the number of houses that are built here so
that it becomes a more pleasant development. Otherwise, refer to what I said earlier.
mi
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — It is unimaginative, but I don't see a need for cluster. So, there
are five of us who don't require clustering and one that does and George is sort of
wishy- washy.
Board Member Conneman — I'm not wishy- washy. I just think that it is unimaginative.
Chairperson Wilcox — I agree that it is not imaginative.
Mr. Albern — May I reiterate?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may.
Mr. Albern — More park, sidewalk, have park available before the whole thing is done,
save the trees.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah.
Board Member Thayer — And drainage.
Mr. Albern — May I make one other comment about the term "unimaginative ", which, of
course, ruffles me, but I am all for you. The configuration of the property makes
something imaginative difficult. I do not like straight roads. I detest them. If you read
my book, you'll see that I want curved roads where you can't see around the corner.
There is not much we can do when the developer wants, and the community probably
needs, larger housing and you have a piece of property so configured. That is why we
are looking at what we're looking at. Thank you folks.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ah ... you think I'm going to let you go yet?
Mr. Albern — Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, no. Why don't you have seat for a second? Both of you.
Mr. Simkin — May I make one more comment?
Chairperson Wilcox — Sure.
Mr. Simkin — Everyone is concerned about saving trees, I would say that this
unimaginative drawing has the minimum road frontage. And you understand that trees
are removed when roads are constructed. We did a lot of drawings; a lot of calculations
and this is the result.
Mr. Albern — An aerial view shows woods in there.
RO
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Have a seat. For those of you who have stuck around, this board
has a habit for allowing people to speak even at meetings such as this where a public
hearing is not scheduled. So, if there is any member of the public who wishes to
address the board, we ask you to just to keep your comments on target and as brief as
possible, but we will give you a chance to speak this evening.
Tess Flores, 154 Compton Road — I own the property east and my husband and I own
the property north together. I am concerned about this development. My concerns
have been addressed by all of you. I was concerned about the number of homes on
this area. I was concerned about how they would look. I'm very concerned about park
area because my land is natural area that I want to save and have that way. I don't
want hunters, atv's on it. I don't want people recreating or leaving garbage and like that.
know the soil is sensitive there. Its really clay. The water is a problem in that area.
So, the density is a big concern. I would like to see fewer homes and everything I just
said. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would anybody else like to speak? All right. Thank you very
much. I thank you for staying. Anything else? You are all set?
Mr. Albern — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: July 1, 2003.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me move the approval of minutes of July 1St. Seconded by
Larry Thayer. Let me withdraw my motion because I wasn't here. So moved by Rod
Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. Do you have your corrections?
Board Member Hoffmann — I have a couple of things that I wanted to talk about.
Chairperson Wilcox — All right.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. It has to do with this secretary's posting and
publication and so on. This time it says Danby on page one, and I think it was really the
Town of Dryden we were talking about having notified. On page 19 that is what it says.
Ms. Whitmore — It is always the same from meeting to meeting.
Board Member Hoffmann — But if we add a community like Dryden...
Ms. Whitmore — The only thing that changes in the paragraph from meeting to meeting,
is when it was opened and the posting and publication dates.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is boilerplate when there is a public hearing.
M
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Board Member Hoffmann — The next one is on page 31, it was you, George, who said,
"They also build butler buildings ". I don't know what a butler building is.
Board Member Conneman — It is a brand name. It should be capitalized.
Board Member Hoffmann — That took care of that. The most important thing is the
resolution that we came up with; the changes in there don't quite make sense. This is
on page 45, at the top, point e, "submission of a truck routing plan and timing of, for the
implementation of fill material ". It is an incomplete sentence. I think we must have
meant to add something else or put those words in, in a different place. I was going to
suggest adding, "submission of a truck routing plan and the timing of, for the
implementation of fill material ".
Attorney Barney — Move "for" over after "plan ", so it reads,
"submission of a truck routing plan for ".
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. That makes sense. Then the next one 'T', "that the
after lights used to illuminate the athletic fields be shut off by 9:00 p.m. every night ".
Didn't we say that they were to be shut off as soon as the activity was over, but at the
latest 9:00 p.m?
Board Member Conneman — That is correct. It was my understanding.
Chairperson Wilcox — I wasn't here. I just want to make sure we are not modifying a
resolution in a way we shouldn't be after the fact. Lets just be careful.
Attorney Barney — I think it was part of the discussion and then when we came to the
resolution, this reflects...
Board Member Thayer — We said no later than 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Kanter — I recall what John was saying is right. There was discussion where they
said they would purposely keep them on after they don't have to be on.
Attorney Barney — The problem from our standpoint is an enforcement matter, unless
we have someone standing there to watch the game to see when it ends ... we can
certainly go by at 9:00 at night and if they are on their in violation. I think we were trying
to deal with it more simplistically.
Board Member Hoffmann — I feel bad because I probably should have gone over this
more carefully since I chaired the meeting. Under point "j ", it says, "submission of
construction details of all proposed structure ". That should be plural, it seems to me,
"structures ". And then "n ", "all items noted about are being submitted prior to the final
site plan approval ". That should read, "Are to be submitted ". I wanted to bring along
the envelope with the draft resolution to compare it, I just didn't have time to do it before
I came.
CIE:
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — There is a copy of the resolution that gets stamped and
everything else. Has that already been done?
Attorney Barney — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Now, if we make changes in the minutes that doesn't necessarily
make a change to the certified copy of the resolution.
Attorney Barney — Well, I would send out a revised copy of the certified resolution. In
this case I am not terribly worried about, but if we were in the middle of a lawsuit, then
would have more reservations about it.
Board Member Conneman — Didn't Mr. Paradise agree also, that he would consider
some different... he would come back to us with the final...
Board Member Thayer — He didn't agree to that.
Board Member Talty — I don't think so.
Board Member Thayer — He just said that that was what the architect drew and that was
it. He didn't say he wouldn't come back.
Board Member Hoffmann — I just feel that maybe I was negligent when I chaired the
meeting and not making sure that...
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other changes Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — No. Okay. The other things are just the usual.
Chairperson Wilcox — With those changes, all those in favor.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 054: Approval of Minutes — July 1, 2003
MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the July 1, 2003
minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meetings as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Wilcox, Mitrano
%
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
The motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Board Member Talty — Next meeting?
Mr. Kanter — The next meeting is August 5t ". I will not be able to attend.
Board Member Thayer — What is on the agenda?
Mr. Kanter — There is a lot of stuff.
Chairperson Wilcox — Big stuff? Little stuff? Mixture?
Mr. Kanter — Little stuff.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Are you taking requests from people who want to go to the
Planning Federation Meeting, yet?
Mr. Kanter — Sure, if you have an idea. We haven't gotten the formal material from
them, but we know the dates.
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely.
Board Member Conneman — Do you know when they will come back with the fields and
when they will come back with the Remington?
Mr. Kanter — No. It won't be August 5t" and it is not likely to be the second August
meeting either. We are waiting for some fairly big ones.
Board Member Hoffmann — I haven't had a chance to read this letter, but I see that
there is a letter here critical of how I handled the meeting last time.
Board Member Thayer — She's critical of everything.
Board Member Talty — She's waiting outside for you right now.
Laughter
Board Member Hoffmann — Do I have an obligation to respond to her?
Attorney Barney — Absolutely not.
Mr. Kanter — I did want the board to see it because it was addressed to the board. I just
wanted you to have an opportunity to say if you wanted to do anything about it. My
reaction when I saw it was there is no way I'm going to respond to it.
I11(
PLANNING BOARD
JULY 15, 2003 MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 5, 2003
• Board Member Talty — Apparently understand who Eva is.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm just a little bit concerned that maybe I didn't make it
clear that it wasn't a public hearing but I was allowing them to speak anyway.
Board Member Thayer — She was allowed to speak prior to the public hearing, during
the public hearing and after the public hearing, so I don't know how much more she
wants.
Board Member Hoffmann — I didn't make it clear normally people are not allowed to
speak.
Attorney Barney — You made it clear.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business Mr. Kanter?
Mr. Kanter — No, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all done?
Board Member Thayer — Yes.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the July 15, 2003 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carrie
&.1
Whitmore
Deputy Town Clerk
•
51
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
0 Tuesday, July 15, 2003
AGENDA
7 :00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Mecenas 2 -Lot. Subdivision, Elm Street Extension.
7 :10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
two -lot subdivision located off of Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1,
Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.396 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.26 +/-
acres (Parcel 1) and 1.13 +/- acres (Parcel 2). Mark Mecenas and Carolyn Theodore, Owners /Applicants.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University 2 -Lot Subdivision, East Shore Drive,
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
two -lot subdivision located on the site of the Lake Source Cooling Plant at 983 East Shore Drive, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 1.9- 1 -5.2, Multiple Residence, Special Land Use District No. 11 (SLUD), and
Business "E" District. The proposal includes subdividing 7.151 +/- acres, which is zoned Multiple
Residence, from the 1143 +/- acre parcel. The remaining 6.279 +/- acre parcel, which contains the Lake
Source Cooling Plant on 3.12 +/- acres, zoned SLUD, and an additional 3.159 +/- acres zoned Business
"E" District, will be retained by Cornell University, while the 7.151 +/- acre parcel is proposed to be sold.
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Thomas P. LiVigne, Agent.
7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Walsh 4 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
four -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -28.51 and
28 -1- 28.52, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes consolidating the two existing parcels into
one parcel, and then subdividing the entire 12 +/- acres into four new residential lots with one shared
driveway. Vincent Lane Walsh, Owner /Applicant.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 34 -lot Westview Subdivision located at the
intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2-
3.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and
creating a loop road for 33 residential lots and one' /4 +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of
the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant.
9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
10. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 2003.
11. Other Business.
12, 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.)
G
•
•
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, July 15, 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, July 15, 2003, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot
subdivision located off of Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29 -6-
13.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.396 +/- acre parcel into
two lots of 1.26 +/- acres (Parcel 1) and 1.13 +/- acres (Parcel 2). Mark Mecenas and
Carolyn Theodore, Owners /Applicants.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot
subdivision located on the site of the Lake Source Cooling Plant at 983 East Shore Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1 -5.2, Multiple Residence, Special Land Use District
No. 11 (SLUD), and Business "E" District. The proposal includes subdividing 7.151 +/-
acres, which is zoned Multiple Residence, from the 13.43 +/- acre parcel. The remaining
6.279 +/- acre parcel, which contains the Lake Source Cooling Plant on 3.12 +/- acres,
zoned SLUD, and an additional 3.159 +/- acres zoned Business "E" District, will be
retained by Cornell University, while the 7.151 +/- acre parcel is proposed to be sold.
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Thomas P. LiVigne, Agent.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot
subdivision located on Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1-
28.51 and 28 -1- 28.52, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes consolidating the
two existing parcels into one parcel, and then subdividing the entire 12 +/- acres into four
new residential lots with one shared driveway. Vincent Lane Walsh, Owner /Applicant.
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 impainnents, 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.
Dated: Monday, July 7, 2003
Publish: Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
The Ithaca Journal
Thursday, July 10, 2003
•
•
r�
town W ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARINGS
!iTuesday, July 15, 2603
�
By direction of the Chair-
person of the Planning
Board, NOTICE 15 HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca
on Tuesday, Julyy 15, 2003,
at 215 North Tia a Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the follow-
ing times and on the follow-
ing matters:
7:10 P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the
Proposed two-lot subdivision
ocated off of Elm Street Ex-
tension, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 29 -6 -13.1, Resi-
dence District R -15. The
proposal is to subdivide the
2.396 +/- acre parcel into
two lots of 1.26 +/- acres
(Parcel 1). and 1.13 +/-
acres (Parcel 2). Mark
Mecenas and Carolyn The-
odore, Owners /Applicants.
7:20 P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the
Proposed two-lot subdivision
ocated on the site of the
(Lake Source Cooling Plant
at 983 East Shore Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 19.1.5.2, Multiple Res -
idence, Special Land Use
District No. 11 ISLUDI, and
iBusiness "E" District. The
'proposal includes subdivid-
ling 7.151 +/- acres, which
lis zoned Multiple Residence,
from the 13.43 +/- acre
parcel. The remaining
6.279 +/- acre parcel,
which contains the Lake
Source Cooling Plant on
3.12 +/- acres, zoned
SLUD, and an additional
3.159 +/- acres zoned
Business "E" District, will be
retained by Cornell Universi.
ty, while the 7.151 +/- acre
parcel is proposed to be
sold. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; Thomas
P. LiVigne, Agent.
7:40 P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the
proposed four -lot subdivi
sion located on Elm Street
Extension, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.'s 28-1 -
28.51 and 28.1. 28.52,
,Residence District R -30. The
proposbl includes consoli-
dating the. two existing par -
cels into one parcel, and
then subdividing the entire
12 +/- acres into four new
'residential lots with one
'shared driveway. Vincent
Lane Walsh,
Owner /Applicant.
'Said Planning Board will at
(said times and said place
hear all persons in support,
of such matters or objections
rthereto. Persons may op-
Pear by agent at in person.
ndividuals with visual im
pairments, hearing impair-o'
ments or other special]
needs, will be provided with
assistance as necessary,
upon request. Persons desir-
ing assistance must make
such a request not less than I
48 hours prior to the time of
the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning,
lDated: 273 -1747
Monday, July 7, 2003
Publish:
Wednesday. July 9. 2003
J 1 •
0
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: July 15, 2003
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
lw
C;om
p to n K4 . _Lt h ot.c�
emw /4 Jim-CA
Y-
G
; �� .'
✓i% v
Aft
fl� k S
9v3��Sµ�,
�-
�QcQ� �ekv�e�
1A,
k
i ►Y
j
3 Ge'ati -�C l�
t� i c) -- C C
Wide,
13 1,s kov
Lk�
Ej,—AQ
o I 3�
d
lw
a
is
4 It
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1.
1, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that 1 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, July 15, 2003 commencing
at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting :
Date of Publication
July 7, 2003
July 9, 2003
aac"«
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of July 2003,
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No, 01CL6052878
Oualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20