Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-03-31 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 31 , 1987 At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 P .M . , on the 31st day of March , 1987 , there were : • PRESENT : Noel Desch , Supervisor Henry McPeak , Councilman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilwoman Marc Cramer , Councilman Gloria Howell , Councilwoman Robert Bartholf , Councilman Patricia Leary , Councilwoman ALSO PRESENT : Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer Susan Beeners , Town Planner George Dickman , 136 Seven Mile Drive , Lot # 12 Barb Dickman , 136 Seven Mile Drive , Lot # 12 Linda S . Jacobs , 146 Seven Mile Drive Paul A . Jacobs , 146 Seven Mile Drive W . Albern , Consultant S . Phillips , 721 Elmira Road Don Josselyn , 152 Seven Mile Drive Lucille Brink , 706 Elmira Road Dick Tompkins , 176 Seven Mile Drive Linda Tompkins , 176 Seven Mile Drive Joyce Maki , 184 Seven Mile Drive Nanse Josselyn , 152 Seven Mile Drive Eleanor Sturgeon , 718 Elmira Road George Sheldrake , 174 Calkins Road Tracie Evans , 174 Calkins Road Representatives of the Media : Luise Angelastno , FM 93 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF PAUL A . JACOBS Proof of posting and publication notice of a public hearing to • consider the rezoning of a portion of the lands of Paul A . Jacobs , located at 136-146 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-33-2-2 and a portion of Tax Parcel No . 6-33-2-11 from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-5 (Mobile Home Park District) having been presented by the Town Clerk , the Supervisor opened the public hearing . Supervisor Desch stated the first item is a brief overview . He went on to say that the Board has an update of the environmental assessment . The Supervisor noted that the draft local law has been on the table for more than the minimum. requirement of seven days , Town Board 2 March 31 , 1987 as a matter of fact the attorneys for the interested parties have had an opportunity to conment on that draft local law as well as Town Board members . Town Planner Susan Beeners reviewed the environmental assessment form, noting that the main jist of it is that there has been a great deal of information submitted since the October 20 , 1986 Town Board negative declaration of environmental significance for this project , and that information has been examined by staff to see just what additional light might be shed , whether any of it might actually represent or indicate that there would be any significant adverse impacts , especially in regard to water supply . Following that review , the staff reports that they find no factors that would nodify the negative declaration . The new information as submitted , includes that presented by Ms . Rinando-Lee representing several members of the public opposed to the project , the approval of the Tompkins County Health Department of the design of the water and sewer systems and additional well tests which were submitted by the developer . With all that information , none of it substantially changes the basis for approval of the project or changes the basis of the negative declaration which was given to the project back in October . There are quite a number of conditions both as part of the Zoning Ordinance the R-5 District zoning and also as part of the Planning Board resolution of December 2nd and as part of the local law drafted for you which are expected to mitigate any potential adverse impact . The main thing that has been incorporated into the local law is the phasing of the project . Ms . Beeners went on to say that she was recommending the Board reaffirm the negative declaration . Supervisor Desch stated that today he received a letter from William Seldin on behalf of those opposed to the project , that he would like entered into the record . The letter from William Seldin is dated March 25 , 1987 and is addressed to Noel Desch , Supervisor and all Town Board Members : "Since it now appears that the local law with respect to the rezoning of the Jacobs parcel is set for a final vote on March 31 , 1987 , I believe it is time for the neighboring property owners who are in unanimous opposition to the rezoning to set forth their legal arguments in writing . As you know , an overwhelming number of those residing adjacent to the premises in question oppose the expansion on a number of grounds , the most significant being the potential dangers to the environment . Again , a petition will be filed requiring that any rezoning be approved by at least a 75 % vote of the Town Board . The opposition is based upon two distinct grounds : I . The amendment is sport zoning and therefore improper . Spot zoning is a term used by Courts to describe a zoning regulation which is not in accordance with a comprehensive pland and is therefore invalid . Lawyers and planners define spot zoning • as a process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of the other owners . Lawyers in our office have been to innumerable Town and Planning Board meetings but we have yet to find that the Town has done any planning for the future of the Five Mile Drive , Floral Avenue , Coy Glen , Seven Mile Drive area in the Town of Ithaca . What does the future hold for devleopment of this Part of the Town of Ithaca ? No one seems to know at this time . A comprehensive plan does not exist ! We are now at the last minute told that there might be water and sewer there at sane future date . Town Board 3 March 31 , 1987 If so , planning is even more important so that unbridled peacemeal , spot development does not run rampant . II . The State Environmental Quality Review ( SEQR) Act was not complied with . Even more important is the question of the environmental impact of the project . We wish to remind the Board that initially , many , many , months ago , the Town Board as the lead agency voted not to require an environmental impact statement and voted that there be no significant environmental impact with respect to this project . Since that time , very important information and concerns have come to light and we attach the February 5 letter of Enivronmental Engineer Marjorie Rinaldo Lee , the January 27 , 1987 letter of the Fire Chief of the City of Ithaca and most important the April 4 , 1986 letter to Supervisor Desch from the Tompkins County Department of Health . Although the Health Department letter was dated in April of 1986 , it is my understanding that neither the Town Board nor the Planning Board had the letter when the vote was taken with respect to the necessity of a formal environmental impact statement . We realize that none of you are lawyers and therefore , we are also sending a copy of our letter to the Town Attorneys . It is our position that New York law dictates that an environmental impact statement be filed in this case . The leading case in the State is the HOMES case which involved the building . of the Carrier Dome in Syacuse . Although the Dome was eventually built , the Courts ruled that environmental impact statements must be filed not only when the environment will be affected as a matter of certainty , but with regard to any action which agencies propose or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment . Certainly , in this case it appears that this rezoning may have a significant effect on the environment . If this were not so , why would the Board be going through the proposed construction in phases . As numerous Courts have held by enacting SEAR , the legislature created a framework which as specifically designated to promote the environment by requiring parties to identify possible environmental changes before they reached ecological points of no return . At the core of this framework is the E . I . S . which acts as an environmental "alarm bell . " Any attempts to deviate from the procedures will undermine the law ' s express purposes . The Town of Ithaca must comply both with the letter and the spirit of the SEAR laws . In reality , the Board spent the last three months discussing the quality or quantity of water as affected by this project . The neighbors have gone to great expense to hire an expert and that expert has brought serious concerns to your attention . However , your past consideration of these environmental matters , even if substantially reviewed , do not meet the strict compliance standards as required under the law . A full environmental impact statement is still required . A good discussion of the procedures is contained in scme of the Court cases which I have attached including Save the Pine Bush , Inc . v . Albany . All of these cases have gone through the Court system during the past few years and • the Courts have consistently upheld the importance of environmental impact statements . The Jacobs case is very similar to the Glen Head v . Oyster Bay case where environmental concerns surfaced after the initial SEQR vote . Many of the environmental concerns in the Jacobs case came after your SEQR vote ! In conclusion , the neighbors whose drinking water may very well be affected for years , request that you vote No at least until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS ) is completed . We believe that Town Board 4 March 31 , 1987 the law requires it and fairness and justice to your constituents demand it . " Supervisor Desch asked if there were any specific environmental questions , either to the update that the Town Planner just reported on or to other matters , that in your view , have not been considered in the various environmental forms or comments that have been reviewed in the various hearings to date . William Seldin stated that he had a statement to present but it pertains to the local law . Supervisor Desch remarked , then we will proceed to the local law . • William Seldin , attorney for the neighbors stated that he again would like to present the Board with the petition under Section 265 . He stated that this may be a little redundant . He went on to say that he felt we have come full circle and the fact that perhaps he spoke out and said that he applauded Councilwoman Raffensperger ' s efforts at a compromise should not be misconstrued as our laying down and saying we approve of what is being proposed . Obviously we don ' t . The fact of the matter is , that in the beginning , the better part of a year ago when this matter came before the Planning Board , I stood before the members and displayed a series of photographs that we thought would aptly demonstrate the history of the management of the park as being negative in terms as to what was being proposed . There was dumping , there were two converging streams and dumping in the streams . I think I attacked the environmental assessment form on an item by item basis . He went on to say that he recalled vividly the Town Engineer Larry Fabbroni , at that time , and I going back and forth and making various statements about how many people would look backwards out the windows of their vehicles to see the expanded site . But I think the expanded thrust of what we had to say at the very beginning is still true . You can say you are going to do this and You can say you are going to do that but the history of the park tells another story . After we traveled through the Planning Board with our concerns which did center on the water supply and I also recall , and I believe it ' s a part of the record , a sheaf of paper work from the Health Department going back sane good many years . Boil water notices , etc . We took the position that this had not been thought out and that if it went through we would not have an adequate design of what the consequences would be . The inclusions of the environmental assessment form of a negative determination were not borne out by the facts . The Planning Board was split and we defeated the proposed rezoning the first time around . Then we went through it all over again . Somewhere along the line we discovered a couple of letters , we discovered a letter from the Health Department which had been around since March or April which talked about the inadequacy of the water supply and the need for municipal water . We also have the letter of Chief Olmstead which is a matter of record and stands for the proposition that the water supply is inadequate and doesn ' t meet minimum standards in terms of fire protection . Throughout all of the proceedings we said there is no comprehensive plan . Where is the comprehensive plan? We • said this is spot zoning . It is done for the benefit of one owner . We went to the expense of hiring a geologist and the geologist said that the backup well is insufficient and Mr . Josselyn ' s property might be in jeopardy because of drawdown . We argued that point and throughout it all we called for the need for an environmental impact statement . At one point during the course of one of our meetings , I heard a Board member remark something to the effect - well Mr . Jacobs has been through a lot in effect , he has gone to a lot of expense . I think we can agree , so have the people who oppose the rezoning . They have gone to some expense as well . I think the one thing we should all agree upon is that we are not Town Board 5 March 31 , 1987 going to make a decision as to what is best for this canm mity based upon who has paid what for what . We are going to consider the factors that are relevant which include fire protection , adequacy of water supply , the impact on the environment and we are going to take into account , I would hope , the fact , and this is the age old argument , that when these people moved into this area it was zoned residential and they expected it to be so and now you are calling for a change and that is a drastic provision from their standpoint . What was hurtfull and still is to a certain extent , is that from the very beginning we felt as if we were fighting an uphill battle . It was with some chagrin that I read Noel Desch ' s memorandum because I wanted to think that all of you would absorb everything that everybody had to say on both sides of the fence and • then take a position with your vote . But that wasn ' t to be the case . Supervisor Desch asked Mr . Seldin if he wanted to elaborate on his chagrin . Mr . Seldin responded that the wasn ' t excited to see Mr . Desch urge the Board members to vote for the rezoning and outlining your principles . Supervisor Desch remarked , on what basis ? Mr . Seldin responded , that when they cane before this Board and we present our arguments we present our arguments to the entire Board and that includes you Mr . Desch , and we would like to think that you have not made up your mind on this issue . We would like to think that your still going to look at both sides and then you are going to come to some conclusion . But for you to send out a memorandum to the other Board members and say this why I think it ' s a good idea puts the residents in the comTrunity in the position of thinking that you are not looking at both sides . That you are not going to absorb the evidence on both sides of the fence , that you have already got your mind up so why are we here , why should we say anything at all . Town Attorney John Barney asked when did the memo go out ? I don ' t think it was the first time that this Board had heard anything about this proposal . It should be made clear that the memo came out , not in the abstract , before any other member of the Board had the to opportunity to hear anything . We ' ve had , I don ' t know how many hearings on this issue . I hesitate to count how many times the Jacobs rezoning has been before us . Mr . Seldin asked Attorney Barney why he was speaking out on this issue . Town Attorney Barney stated that he just wanted to make it clear that the fact that one Board member chooses to attempt to pursuade the other Board members is exactly the way government operates . Supervisor Desch asked Mr . Seldin if he would rather have him done it verbally? • Mr . Seldin responded , I would rather have you sit back and listen to what everybody had to say before you took a position . Town Attorney Barney remarked , but the Supervisor had been listening for months . That is my point , he had heard it for a long time . Mr . Selden responded , but up until the time that vote is taken , because we have had evidence caning into this case through out all Town Board 6 March 31 , 1987 these many months and the door has never really been closed to evidence on either side of the fence . Supervisor Desch remarked , it still isn ' t . Mr . Seldin responded , I would hope not . Supervisor Desch stated that is why we are giving you the opportunity to make this statement . We have been through hearings , and really , quite frankly there has been no new information presented either in your letter , I can go through your letter point by point but I don ' t think we will do that . I think the public and the Board already knows the position of the Planning Board , the • position of the staff , each persons position in their own mind as to how they feel about this project . The other point that you have a tendency to leave out is the fact that many of the mitigating measures that have been built into this local law were done voluntarily by the developer . Mr . Seldin responded that he was glad that Supervisor Desch had mentioned this . When it canes to mitigating measures that ' s what I mean when I say we have gone full circle . To say , as you did in your memo , to the Board members that at sane point we may have municipal water is a kin to saying that at some point in time these evergreen trees that are supposed to hide the development are going to be forty feet tall , may be it ' s going to happen and may be it isn ' t . These people live there and they have watched Mr . Jacobs operation and they don ' t believe any of this is going to happen . That has been their view based up their being his neighbors and watching his management of this trailer park . As we said in the memorandum , to suggest a phased rezoning plan , which is what this is , is to in effect admit to the problem that we are talking about . If we trusted this situation , if we didn ' t have any apprehension about the impact on the environment or the impact on the water and if we really had no question about that we wouldn ' t be taking it a step at a time . The legal arguments in the memorandum calling for an environmental impact statement is sound . We shouldn ' t have had to go to the expense of hiring a hydrologist who ' s work and study is incomplete . We disagree and yes , Mr . Desch I know that perhaps we are beating the bush a little bit in saying things that have already been said but the fact is we have cone no further than we were at the very beginning . The questions that we raised then still remain . I would hope that everyone does have an open mind about this project and about our stance and our position because we would suggest that it is a bad project for a lot of reasons all of which each and everyone of you know about . Supervisor Desch stated that Mr . Seldin had stated his position . Now he wished to asked him a few questions . He went on to say that Mr . Seldin had spoke about the thrust of the initial Town Board hearings in September and October , that being the question about who should be the lead agent . Why didn ' t the developer get the Tompkins County Health Department approval and so on . Those issues , my friend , have been addressed , the developer has received the approval of the Tompkins County Health Department . You raised • a question about the April 6 , 1986 letter from the Health Department having to due with the overall ground water question in the area . That letter was available to this Board immediately after it was released , as a matter of fact it ' s built into the record for the Five Mile Drive rezoning , the whole area that was reviewed there in relation to Light Industrial and Residential . To say that this project , is a drastic change from the zoning that exists there is erroneous , it ' s a residential zone . The density is very little different fron the residential characteristics that could be developed with no zoning change . My question of you is , and I think I know what the answer will be , you are saying no Town Board 7 March 31 , 1987 matter what controls the Town Board puts in this local law , the developer won ' t follow . Mr . Seldin responded that he was saying two things . He stated that he was saying that there was a history of that , yes the answer to that is yes , the history speaks to that . I ' m also saying that no matter what controls you put in the drawdown is still a factor , that there has been inadequate testing and that Chief Olmsteads comments have not been answered . Supervisor Desch responded that Chief Olmstead makes it clear in his letter that there are no mandates on public water in the code . Further the Chiefs guidelines having to do with the road have been accepted by the developer . Mr . Seldin remarked that the Chief also spoke of the number of gallons that would be taken out of the well in the event of a fire and that he had spoken to the people from the Health Department and they had indicated to him that if that were the case there was a likelihood they would have a boil water notice . He went on to say he did not know how you could look at these things and say that there aren ' t inhertent problems . How do you answer , Mr . Desch , this business of having a phased zoning in effect , if there were not difficulties , if there was no apprehension . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she would like to comment on that . She went on to say we have had testimony from experts , and conflicting testimony and that she did not see how in an environmental impact statement we are going to get any clearer view of what will happen if we add units to that area , whether or not they are mobile homes or they are residences on ordinary lots . The only way , that at least I see , with the kind of conflicting testimony we have had that we can determine the environmental significance of the whole project is to phase it . Permit ten units and then test out what has happened environmentally . She went on to say she thought that was a responsible thing for the Board to be doing . Mr . Seldin responded that there are two things that occur to him when Councilwoman Raffensperger says this . One , that there must be some doubt in your mind as to which way this thing is going to swing whether there will be problems or there won ' t be problems . So we are going to take it a step at a time . What happens at the end of step one if there are problems , what happens to the additional units if problems do occur , then what . If there is that doubt in your mind then why go ahead with it to begin with . Supervisor Desch responded , there are options to solve those problems . Councilwoman Raffensperger , addressing Mr . Seldin , added , that she did not think your hydrologist , or whatever she was , indicated that the addition of ten units had any likelihood of causing any kind of problems because I sat and listened to her very carefully . Mr . Seldin responded , then I take it that the Health Department letter which talks about the area in general and the testimony and concerns from the area residents about the difficulties they have had with the water supply and drawdown and etc . , have raised some concern , Councilwoman Raffensperger responded of course , it has beem evident on this Board , from the beginning , that we were very concerned . Town Board 8 March 31 , 1987 Supervisor Desch added , ground water is problem in that area , there is no question about it , that ' s why we spent so much time addressing it . Mr . Selden responded , then why is there the sense of urgency to go ahead with this project if you have this problem . Supervisor Desch stated that he did not feel there was a since of urgency after having held public hearings over a six months period , which does not even include a very similar period of time that the Planning Board spent on this project . It ' s not a matter of the developer going through a costly investment it ' s a matter of the developer being cooperative and building into the local law the things that the Town has indicated are the controls and the things you have indicated are the controls . He hasn ' t turned the other way and said no we aren ' t going to do anything . You can ' t really say nothing has changed . Don Josselyn , 152 Seven Mile Drive stated that he would just like to say that , we from our area , do dislike what has been happening in the trailer park and on top of that Mr . Brink , eventhough he is not hear I ' m sure he is hearing us , he disliked having Mr . Jacob ' s kids with their three wheelers running across his fields and on top of that they are still running around the lot between my lot and Mr . Jacobs and he doesn ' t even own it . This has something to do with the environmental impact . It has something to do with whether we can trust this man or not . Now , I ' m suggesting to this Board that if you do go ahead with your option to put ten trailers in that you rezone the whole trailer park so then we can take a real good look at whether he is going to abide by the ordinances you developed . Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that this question did come up . The whole trailer park will be under the requirements of the Planning Board , I checked that rather carefully to make sure that was the case . The cleaning up of any trash that is there and all of the requirements of the Planning Board in their resolution must be met or a yearly operating permit will not be issued . One of the things that can be said about the new rezoning of the additional land is that it brings under the control of the Planning Board the control of the mobile hone park that is already there , which is not presently under their control . Town Attorney Barney remarked that it goes one step further because it brings the requirement of the regulation , year to year under the control of the Zoning Enforcement Officer , Andy Frost . Right now you have a non-conforming use for that existing trailer park and the Town has virtually no regulatory power over it . Part of the local law, one of the conditions of the local law , is that existing area is incorporated and made subject to the rules that govern the R-5 District , which is not the case now and would not be the case unless the rezoning occurred and unless the developer was willing . So on the one hand , yes you are getting a slightly expanded area but on the other hand you are also getting enforceable regulations where the Town actually has a handle that if Mr . Jacobs does not live up to what is in place here we can go to Court and seek to have him live up to that . Attorney Barney then asked Mr . Seldin if this was not correct? Mr . Seldin stated that he agreed entirely . The interesting aspect of what you are saying , and I ' ve heard this from other people notably on the Planning Board as well that there is a need to bring the existing trailer park under the provisions of sane enforceable entity because of the way it ' s been operated in the past and if we have the rezoning and we can bring him under the Town Board 9 March 31 , 1987 umbrella of the existing laws then perhaps we can cure sane of the problems that have been in existence . Town Attorney Barney responded that he disagreed , that that was not what he said . He went on to say that he said they would cane under that , he stated that he did not say there was a need . He went on to say that he did not know whether there was a need or not . All he was saying was that if there was a need and if there is regulation that is required it can be done under this ordinance . It cannot be done today . You are the one who keeps caning forward and saying there is a need , there is a problem , etc . , I have no sense one way or another except what you have indicated . But if there is a need the only way we can get at it is by having the • entire trailer park under the umbrella of the ordinance . Mr . George Sheldrake , 174 Calkins Road asked if there was a provision in the phasing plan to provide for the removal of these ten units after one year if there is a major problem or an environmental nuisance going on . Once they are there , suppose there is a water problem , polution problem or sane sort of thing , then what - once it ' s done it ' s done . Supervisor Desch responded , the answer to your question relates to whether the operating permit is renewed or not . It does not say necessarily that the units have to be moved , the developer would have other options in terms of water supply . Which would presumably be pursued first . Mr . Seldin remarked , it like the Hotel Leonardo dilemma where the Health Department shut them down but where were all the people going to go once they were in there . Eleanor Sturgeon , 718 Elmira Road , she stated that she had lived in the valley for about 35 years . I love the valley , it ' s a beautiful place . We have talked to you about the insufficienty of water and the problems with the water . We have talked to you about the difficulty in bringing in emergency vehicles . We have talked to you about the lack of sufficient water for fire fighting , especially when you are creating an urban density residential area in a rural area with all of the niceties of rural living but also with a lot of handicaps . She asked , would any of you be able to live with your conscious if a fire struck this newly created urban area and spread to several trailers with speed because you couldn ' t get emergency vehicles in . Bad fires usually hit in the winter time when you have bad conditions . Could any of you live with yourself? With the amount of publicity involved in this creating this enlarged trailer park there is a good chance that the Town Planning Board and the Zoning Board could be sued for negligence in failing to provide the necessities for protection for the people who are going to live here . Now, use your good sense and your judgement , if you are going to create a trailer park , if you are going to enlarge it , make sure that the niceities are there , the things that you need to give these people protection . She went on to say , you do no have water for fighting fire , you do not have adequate roads for getting in emergency vehicles , you do not have good winter protection for the highway . That side road there is the last road to get serviced , your highway gets first but then the side road with access to it , the road into the park itself its questionable how much service it would get , use your good sense , do not let yourself be opened up for a damage suit . This could happen . Supervisor Desch remarked that he felt Mrs . Sturgeon was a little bit out of date . He asked her to look at the current plans where Town Board 10 March 31 , 1987 she would find that the emergency access complies with the Fire Chief ' s recommendations . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that she was talking about the road that goes fron Route 13 into the trailer park , she stated that she was not talking about the trailer park road . Supervisor Desch responded that the road was above average in terms of Town road standards and roads throughout the State . He went on to say that as far as the question of the concern about fire spread , you have to understand that the spacing of the buildings in this mobile hone park are at least as great as you will find elsewhere in the Town for other types of housing . So as far as concern about conscious and the spread of fire , this has already been considered . Mrs . Sturgeon remarked , but you don ' t have any water to fight it with . Supervisor Desch responded we have as good a supply of water and perhaps even better because of the proximity of this site to the City of Ithaca , particularly with the discussions about fire stations , than many of the other remote residential areas in the Town . I wish it were as good elsewhere in other parts of the Town , for instance where I live , as it will be in this area . Mr . Seldin remarked , this is going to be a little higher density by comparison . Supervisor Desch responded , not a bit higher . Mrs , Sturgeon remarked and you are going to have propane trailers for virtually every cooking unit there , which is subject to explosion . Supervisor Desch responded , that ' s not particularly uncommon in the rural areas of our community . We would all love to have natural gas , this may even give you folks the opportunity to have natural gas . Mrs . Sturgeon remarked , we have natural gas along the highway . Supervisor Desch remarked , a bigger area then such as along Seven Mile Drive , perhaps this will bring it about sooner . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that she would like to see water come out there first , before you add anything else there . She asked , how will you beable to face yourself if you have a death in this situation . Supervisor Desch stated that he was glad Mrs . Sturgeon asked the question and you made the statement about wanting public water because this was the thing that prompted him to write the Problematic memorandum that Mr . Seldin made reference to to the Town Board members indicating that from a cost standpoint it wasn ' t all that economically infeasible to extend public water and sewer to that area . He stated that he was very encouraged that the people in that area are interested , irrespective of the Jacobs project on the subject of public water and sewer . That helps our case in considering whether that ' s a priority for the next priority for extension of water and sewer in the Town . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that the majority of people have their own wells and aren ' t going to give a hoot whether or not you bring out city water now . We are not going to vote for the proposal if you ask us to vote for it . Town Board 11 March 31 , 1987 Jeff Coleman , 178 Calkins Road stated that he had a question about the amended ordinance . He stated that he wondered if this specifically applied only to Jacobs application or for future developers who want to get an R-5 zone can use this amended ordinance? Supervisor Desch responded , specific to this proposal . Future developments would have to stand on their own merits . Mr . Coleman stated that he had one more comment , that evaluating after phases is a good idea but he hoped that everyone has considered what has happened before the first phase and that this is a trailer park that has had a management history and a history that you feel should be expanded upon at this point . Possibly the first phase will be a track record that would warrant an expansion . Mr . Seldin stated that he felt there were too many what if ' s . That ' s the bottom line and what our constituency has proposed for your consideration . There are too many question marks to go ahead with this proposal . As there were no other comments to be heard from the public , the Supervisor closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if incorporated in this , are the majors which the Planning Board required to go with the approval? Town Planner Beeners responded yes , it is referred to in the local law . RESOLUTION N0 , 72 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger , seconded by Councilman McPeak , WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the rezoning of 18 +/- acres of the lands of Paul A . Jacobs , such lands consisting of all of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-33-2-2 containing 2 . 9 acres and being the site of the College View Park mobile home park , and a 15 . 1 +/ - acre portion of Tax Parcel No . 6-33-2-1 , such lands located at 136-146 Seven Mile Drive , from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-5 (Mobile Home Park District) and for expansion within this acreage of the existing mobile home park from 24 to 56 units , and to 52 units within three years , such 52 units to include 5 doublewide units . 2 . This project is a Type I action for which the Town Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board , the Tompkins County Health Department , and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation are involved agencies which have been notified of this determination . 3 . The Town Board on October 20 , 1986 made a negative determination of environmental significance for this action , contingent upon the adoption and implementation of certain mitigating measures as set forth in drawings and documentation as set forth at that time for this project , in conditions for final site plan approval , and in conditions for project implementation and operation . Town Board 12 March 31 , 1987 4 . The Planning Board on December 2 , 1986 , finding that the revisions proposed for the project as reviewed on December 2 , 1986 did not significantly alter the scope or scale of the project as it was previously submitted , recommended to the Town Board that the aforementioned negative determination of environmental significance be reaffirmed , and approved the revised site plan with certain conditions . 5 . The Town Board on January 12 , February 9 , and March 31 , 1987 has reviewed the revised site plan and detail sheet entitled "Addition to Collegeview Mobile Home Park - Paul Jacobs - Drawings 1 and 2 " by William F . Albern , P . E . , dated November 20 , 1986 , and a revised Environmental Assessment Form dated March 12 , 1987 and • reviewed through March 31 . 1987 . 6 . A recommendation of a reaffirmation of a negative determination of environmental significance has been made by the Town Planner , contingent upon the adoption and implementation of certain mitigating measures as set forth in drawings and documentation submitted for this project , and as set forth as requirements of approval . THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this action , reaffirm and does reaffirm a negative determination of environmental significance for this action , contingent upon the adoption and implementation of certain mitigating measures as set forth in drawings and documentation submitted for this project , in conditions for final site plan approval , and in conditions for project implementation and operation . Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote . Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Cramer Voting Aye Councilwoman Howell Voting Aye Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye The Resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted . LOCAL LAW NO . 6 - 1987 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilman Cramer , LOCAL LAW N0 . 6 - 1987 TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY REZONING A PORTION OF LAND AT • 136- 146 SEVEN MILE DRIVE FROM R-30 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) TO R-5 (MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT) The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted , amended and revised effective February 26 , 1968 and subsequently amended , be further amended as follows : i . The zoning map dated July 1 , 1954 , as amended to date , is hereby further amended by rezoning the lands described on Schedule A incorporated into this local law from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-5 (Mobile Home Park District) . Town Board 13 March 31 , 1987 29 The area so rezoned is subject , in addition to the conditions set forth in Article II-A to the following additional conditions : (a) A buffer zone 30 feet in depth from the right�of-way of Seven Mile Drive be established within one year from the effective date of this local law . (b) The density of the present , non-conforming , existing mobile hone park , be reduced from 24 to 22 mobile homes within one year fran the effective date of this local law and to 20 mobile hones within three years of the effective date of this local law . • (c ) The total number of mobile homes within the area being rezoned ( including the existing park and the planned expansion of same) shall not exceed 52 . (d) The expansion of the park shall occur in phases . The first phase shall consist of no more than ten new units plus removal of up to two units fran the existing park to the proposed expansion area . Building permits for no more than such twelve new units may be issued during the first year following enactment of this local law . After such twelve building permits are issued and mobile hones installed with respect to all of such permits , no further building permits shall be issued until ( i ) The developer , in cooperation with the Town of Ithaca Engineer and the Tompkins County Health Department , conducts such tests as the Town Engineer may reasonably require to determine the impact of the additional units on the water and septic systems of the Park and surrounding neighbors ; and ( ii ) The Town Engineer reports to the Planning Board the results of such tests , and ( iii ) The Planning Board is reasonably satisfied that the addition of such twelve units has not had a significant adverse impact ( a) upon the quality and adequacy of water for the remainder of the Park and for the surrounding landowners ( or if a significant impact is found , such impact will be ameliorated by the imminent availability of public water) or (b) upon the quality , adequacy , and effectiveness of the septic systems for the Park and surrounding neighbors ; and ( iv ) The Planning Board is reasonably satisfied that the addition of up to ten more units (Phase Two units ) will have no such sugnificant impact in the future upon water supplies and septic systems . Upon making such determination , and subject to such other additional conditions as the Planning Board may reasonably impose , the developer may be authorized by the Planning Board to install up • to ten more new units in accordance with final site plan approval from the Planning Board for Phase II of the development , and up to ten more building permits may thereafter issue for same . No more than the ten permits for Phase II shall be issued until completion of Phase II and the developer has again conducted tests as required upon completion of the first phase of ten units and two relocated units and the same procedures are again followed and the same determinations are again made with respect to there being no significant impact on water supplies and septic systems from the already constructed units and the planned final ten units . If the Town Board 14 March 31 , 1987 Planning Board finds no such significant impact has or will occur , and otherwise approves a final site plan for Phase III , the developer may receive building permits for up to ten final units to the extent authorized and approved by the Planning Board and upon such conditions as may be reasonably imposed by the Planning Board . (e ) The existing park driveway be reconstructed upon completion of Phase I of the proposed mobile home park expansion , or within one year of the effective date of this local law, whichever is earlier , as may be specified by the Planning Board , including specifications as to width , parking , surface construction , and granting any final site plan approvals of any of the phases . ( f) Proper erosion control measures be practiced during project development . (g) The owner of the area being rezoned enter into an agreement in form and substance satisfactory to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Town Attorney submitting the entire area to be rezoned ( including the existing mobile home park) to the conditions contained in this local law, and , to the extent not modified by this local law, to the requirements of Article II-A of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance or any successor statute , with such modifications applicable to the existing . non-conforming park as the Town of Ithaca Planning Board may approve in approving the final site plan for the expanded park and including those modifications set forth in the resolution of the Town Planning Board relating to this project dated December 2 , 1986 . Such agreement shall be in a form as to permit its recording in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office and shall be recorded in such office at the owner ' s expense within ten days of final site plan approval of the first phase by the Town Planning Board . (h) The owner of the rezoned area provided an "as built " site plan of the existing mobile home park in form and substance satisfactory to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board showing the mobile homes , lots , utilities , roads , and other items reasonably required by the Board . Such plan shall be submitted before final site plan approval of any new lots . ( i ) All refuse and debris , including especially any inorganic items (pipes , sheetmetal , cans , etc . ) , be removed from the existing park and the planned expansion of the park , or stored only in closed garbage containers located as approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , before any building permits are issued for the new park . ( j ) The mobile home park (both existing and the planned expansion of same ) be kept free of refuse and debris . • (k) If the operator of the mobile home park fails to comply with the requirements set forth in this local law, without limiting other remedies available to the Town of Ithaca , the Town may withhold an annual operating permit as well as any future building permits until the premises and the owner are in full compliance with the conditions set forth in this local law and the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . ( 1 ) A final site plan containing such details and information as may be required by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Town Board 15 March 31 , 1987 be submitted to and approved by such Board pursuant to Section 46-a of the Zoning Ordinance , as if this were the creation of a Secial Land Use District , 3 . In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity . 4 . This law shall take effect 20 days after its adoption or upon the date it is filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York , whichever is later . • SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION OF LANDS BEING REZONED FROM R-30 TO R-5 ON SEVEN MILE DRIVE ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , State of New York , more particularly described as follows * COMMENCING at a point in the center line of Seven Mile Drive which point is approximately 1 , 472 feet northerly along the center line of Seven Mile Drive from its intersection with the center line of New York State Route 13 and which point of beginning is in a southeasterly corner of premises presently owned by Paul Jacobs , running thence north 89 degrees 55 minutes 30 seconds west along the southerly line of said Jacobs parcel approximately 1 , 206 feet to a southwesterly corner of said Jabocs parcels running thence north 3 degrees 5 minutes 29 seconds west along a westerly line of said Jacobs parcel a distance of approximately 444 feet to a corner in said property ; running thence south 89 degrees 49 minutes west 120 feet to a point , which point is approximately 1 , 135 . 82 feet easterly of the center line of Calkins Roads running thence north 0 degrees 11 minutes west parallel to the center line of Calkins Road a distance of approximately 209 . 1 feet to a point in the north line of premises owned by Jacobs ; running thence north 89 degrees 49 minutes east along said north line of Jacobs 1 , 075 . 66 feet to a point which point is located 250 feet south 89 degrees 49 minutes east from the center line of Seven Mile Drive and which point is marked by an iron pin ; running thence south 54 degrees east between said barn and garage a distance of 180 feet to an iron pin ; running thence north 89 degrees 49 minutes east passing through an iron pin at 224 . 20 feet a total distance of 250 feet to the center line of Seven Mile Drive ; running thence south 0 degrees 54 minutes east along the center line of Seven Mile Drive a total distance of 478 . 02 feet the point or place of beginning . The description set forth above is based upon two maps , one entitled "Map of Survey Portion of Lands Owned by Paul A . and Linda S . Jacobs " dated April 26 , 1986 , revised July 31 , 1986 , surveyed and mapped under direction of Richard L . McDowell , Jr . and a general site plan entitled "Addition to College View Mobile Home Park , Paul Jacobs , Seven Mile Drive , Ithaca , New York , 14580 " dated November 20 , 1986 , made by William F . Albern , P . E . , copies of which maps are on file with the Planning Department of the Town of • Ithaca . Containing approximately 18 acres of land , more or less . Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote . Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Cramer Voting Aye Councilwoman Howell Voting Aye Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Town Board 16 March 31 , 1987 Councilwanan Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No . 6 - 1987 , was thereupon declared duly adopted . Supervisor Desch noted that the Planning Board would be doing the site plan approval and noted that the Town Planner had a question . Town Planner Susan Beeners asked if the Town Board , in addition to the Planning Board , had to approve the general plan? Town Attorney Barney responded that he would check on this and • advise the Board . AUTHORIZE $ 2 , 400 FOR STREET SIGNS RESOLUTION NO , 73 Motion by Councilman Cramer ; seconded by Councilman McPeak , WHEREAS , the Highway Superintendent has prepared a list of street intersection signs in need of replacement , and WHEREAS , it is estimated that 116 signs @ $ 16 . 00 each , 25 posts at approximately $ 10 . 00 each and new mounting hardware at a cost of $ 250 will be needed to update the street signs , NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the appropriation of $ 2 , 400 for replacement street signs , posts and mounting hardware be appropriated fran B3310 . 400 . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none ) . REVIEW PETITION ON ROUTE 13 IMPROVEMENT Supervisor Desch stated that the only reason he put the Route 13 petition on the Agenda was as a reminder . The people supporting major change to Route 13 near NYSEG would like our efforts in getting support so that those municipalities that are effected would have as much strength as possible in moving DOT forward . He stated that he . felt the petition should be available at the front desk if the Board agreed . CODM'IONIAND II COVENANTS Gerald Weisburd stated that he felt there was a misunderstanding with regard to the road (Penny Drive ) and sewer being Town facilities in that I had agreed that we would design them so that if the land to the west of Caumnland were developed in the future they could tie into that road and that sewer . He stated that he did believe that land will be developed at same point but by no means was I trying to justify the development that we are doing now by future development . I just felt it was a good idea to tie in into what might happen in the future , but I ' m not saying that future development justifies what we are currently trying to do . He went on to say the he believed what they are currently trying to do stands on its own very well . For example , with regard to the sewer we are asking for a Town lift station . As you may well know, the Town has five lift stations in use right now that serve houses directly . Those lift stations range fran serving two to twenty Town Board 17 March 31 , 1987 houses and they average about 8 . 5 houses per lift station . In this situation we would be starting right off the bat with 18 houses on a lift station . Our engineers have been working with the Town engineer to make sure we have capacity for another 30 houses if in the future the land to the west were developed . It would be efficient now , it would be even more efficient in the future . Secondly , with regard to Town services and the efficiency of those services , I think that one of the reasons that the State of New York has mandated that local governments adopt cluster zoning is because clustering makes a very very high efficient use of Town facilities , in general . As an example of this , I would like to point out that when this entire Comnonland development is finished there will be 3 , 700 lineal feet of road . That includes what we • have already built plus what we are building in this phase . On that 3 , 700 foot of road and sewer will be 118 houses . The stretch of Pine Tree Road from Slaterville Road up to the first intersection where Honness Lane cones in is 3 , 600 feet , that is fully developed . I believe there are about 35 houses on that stretch , that ' s conventional subdivision . The tax base at Camwnland when this is finished will be about 8 . 5 million dollars . The Town is getting a very very high ratio of tax base for Town services in cluster development . I think you have to look at that overall picture . The other things are the alternatives to the sewer station that we are proposing . The most obvious alternative would be to have the individual houses on individual lifts . They could petition the Town saying we pay taxes , why can ' t we have a Town facility to handle this . The Town could find it ' s self in the position of having to go out and borrow money to put in a lift station . What we are talking about now is a lift station built to the Town ' s specifications for the 18 houses plus capacity for more houses at no expense to the Town whatever . Our engineers have been working with Town staff in designing a lift station which would be to Town specifications , this is not going to be a little fly by night lift , it ' s a very fancy operation with duplex pumps and a lift rail system so that the pumps can be serviced very easily if there is a jam . They are very heavy industrial machines rated at five horsepower a piece . Pumped through 4 " ductile iron pipe up to the catch basin that goes along Penny Lane . It is a very elaborate system . He went on to say that he though initially it probably would be of equal or greater cost than the individual lifts but I think in the long run the people who live there will be better off with Town services and I think the Town will because it insures better permanent services to those people . Mr . Weisburd went on to say that in regard to the restrictions and covenants , if you have seen them they are very similar to the Edgewood proposal that was approved last year , the only difference at Commonland Cresent that is what we are calling this project , there is no shared driveway , every house has it ' s own driveway directly on the Town road . Other then that , they are very similar to the restrictions and covenants that were approved for Edgewood . Supervisor Desch asked if the issue of the service road was still • floating . Mr . Weisburd responded that the service road was given final approval at the last Planning Board meeting with the stipulation that the Town staff has 45 days to cone up with an alternative , if they can work one out . Supervisor Desch remarked that this item need not be decided upon this evening . Town Board 18 March 31 , 1987 Supervisor Desch asked if there were any questions regarding whether or not the 400 ' service road should be a Town road and the sewer , should the sewer be a Town sewer or a private sewer? He noted that the Board members had a written recommendation from staff . Mr . Weisburd stated that he would like to clarify one point , the private sewer would be in the form of 18 individual lifts and is the alternative . Supervisor Desch noted that under the plan where the Town would accept the sewer the laterals would be the responsibility of each individual owner . • Mr . Weisburd responded , just like any other subdivision . Councilman Cramer asked if the Town staff was in fact recommending a single pumping station , it isn ' t clear on this engineering report . Supervisor Desch responded that he thought the thing the Board should do if they are comfortable with the staff recommendation , is to accept the recommendation , we can ' t accept the road yet , nor can you accept the sewer yet as it has not been built . The developer needs to know which direction to go . Mr . Weisburd stated that there was one minor additional thing on the road that was not resolved by the Planning Board and that was that he was recommending that the road as well as all the land to the north and west of the road be deeded to the Town at the time we deed the road . The Planning Board referred that to the Town Board . My only point there was that obviously I could give that land to the adjacent homeowners , I ' m sure they would like to have it , but since the existing Town sewer runs through that land I thought the Town actually might better own that land , Therefore , we are recommending that we deed over land adjacent to the road as well as the road . Supervisor Desch stated that the Board should look at that in more detail , perhaps that should be done at a separate time . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if it would be possible to talk about water and sewer and roads separately . She stated that she had no idea now where that proposed road is to be . She stated that she was at the Planning Board meeting in which several alternative were discussed , but I don ' t know what we are talking about today . Supervisor Desch agreed a map of the area is needed . Mr . Weisburd then showed the Board members a map showing existing and proposed roads . Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned what the Board was being asked to do about the road that no one is sure where it is going to be ? What is the action? • Supervisor Desch responded that we are being asked to accept the staffs recommendation that it become a Town road at the time that it ' s constructed . Town Attorney Barney questioned if Penny Lane , as it presently exists , has been constructed to Town specification and has been accepted by the Town? Mr . Weisburd responded that he was not sure the actual conveyance had taken place , the Town has taken over the maintenance of it . Town Board 19 March 31 , 1987 Larry Fabbroni asked us not to complete it totally and we have money in escrow in order to complete it . That is because the City has been doing a lot of work down in the water shed and they have really been messing up the road . We will complete the road at our expense and bring it up to grade when the City is all done and money has been put aside to insure that . Town Attorney Barney asked if the Town had accepted , in principal , that they are going to accept that stretch of road when it meets Town standards ? Supervisor Desch responded , that is correct . • Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned , this is to be a service road and one-way? Mr . Weisburd responded , no . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she misunderstood , she thought that they were talking about the access road to Slaterville Road , Councilman Cramer , addressing Mr . Weisburd , remarked you are planning to build this road to Town specifications , will there be a cul-de-sac at the end of the road so that Town highway equipment will be able to turn around? Mr . Weisburd responded , yes and no . We are designing a hammerhead to accommodate Town equipment but we felt an additional cul-de-sac would be too much open asphalt at this time . Town Attorney Barney stated that some wording should be added regarding subject to an easement for the construction and maintenance of a sewer line , as conveyed to the Town of Ithaca . Councilwoman Raffensperger noted that the last time the subject was discussed , there were some questions as to wisdom of the Town taking over the sewer and the pumping station . She went on to say that she assumed they have been resolved to the Town Engineer ' s satisfaction . Town Engineer Flumerfelt responded , yes . The way I feel about it is that this is more like a conventional subdivision in which we customarily accept the roadways and water and sewer mains , as constructed by the developer to Town specifications and County Health Department standards , Supervisor Desch , addressing the Town Attorney , stated that he felt if we simply restated the conditions of the Planning Board ' s final site plan approval , it lays those out , subject to Town Engineer ' s and Town Attorney ' s approval . RESOLUTION NO , 74 Motion by Supervisor Desch , seconded by seconded by Councilwoman • Raffensperger , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby conceptually accepts the recommendations of the staff with regard to the Town ' s accepting the Penny Drive 400 ' extension or alignment and the sanitary sewer that will serve the properties in Commonland Crescent development subject to the conditions set forth in the Planning Board final site plan approval recommendations . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none ) . Town Board 20 March 31 , 1987 COMMONLAND II (CRESCENT) COVENANTS Supervisor Desch asked if the Board members had any questions on the covenants ? Councilman Cramer questioned the notation regarding 8 ' height for trees and shrubs ? Town Attorney Barney responded , the theory of the covenants is to provide a view and if you have trees or building or anything else that grow up over a period of time , you block out that view . We talked about it one time at the Planning Board or may be the Town Board , about how you are going to regulate the growth of trees . • The feeling was just to put on an absolute height , may be 8 ' or whatever . Supervisor Desch remarked that this wording doesn ' t do it . This wording allows you to plant trees that are 8 ' high at the time of planting . Town Attorney Barney stated that it should say not trees may be planted or maintained or permitted over 81 . Supervisor Desch suggested the wording should be that no tree or shrubs shall be permitted to grow in excess of 8 ' in height in the open spaces . RESOLUTION N0 , 75 Motion by Councilman Cramer , seconded by Councilwoman Howell , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the Commonland Crescent Covenants as amended . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none ) . FLOOD DAMAGE PROTECTION Supervisor Desch noted that the public hearing on the Flood Damage Prevention Local Law amendments was scheduled for April 13th , Town Attorney Barney suggested that the Town Board members review the proposed local law and contact either the Supervisor or himself by noon on Friday , when a meeting has been scheduled to intently review the amendments . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if this encompassed the new requirements ? Supervisor Desch responded that this was the new, more or less mandated base change . • Town Attorney Barney added , based on the model ordinance provided thought DEC and our existing ordinance . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if there were significance changes or are they all technical ? Town Attorney Barney responded they are largely technical but there are some areas where there are substantial changes , different from what the DEC recommends based upon what our prior ordinance had , which we felt were policy decisions and should be implemented in the new ordinance . Town Board 21 March 31 , 1987 Attorney Barney stated that after the meeting Friday , he would draft a memo , to the Town Board members , highlighting any substantial changes . ANNEXATION Supervisor Desch noted that the annexation (City properties being annexed into the Town) was passed , as the result of an election , with a favorable vote of four in favor , one against . HIGHWAY COMMITTEE • Councilman Cramer noted that the Highway Committee was meeting with the Kay Street residents , April 2nd at 7 : 30 P .M . , here at Town Hall . That will be followed by a meeting of the Highway Committee with a recommendation to the Town Board for the 13th meeting . COT.LEGEVTEW TRAILER PARK Town Attorney Barney stated that in response to Town Planner Susan Beeners question , he felt it would be a good idea for the Town Board to approve a general site plan for the Collegeview Trailer Park . The site plans that have been seen to date all were a site plan for a higher development and since we are phasing it it would make sense to approve where those next ten units are going to go rather than saying they will go somewhere where those thirty units were to go . Town Planner Beeners stated that she had hoped it could be done this evening . RESOLUTION N0 , 76 Motion by Supervisor Desch ; seconded by Councilman McPeak , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the placement of Collegeview Trailer Park units on lots number 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 321F 33 , 34 , 39 , and 38 and the relocation of two units in the existing park to lot numbers 25 and 27 , as presented in Phase I of the General Plan . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none ) . EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION N0 , 77 Motion by Supervisor Desch ; seconded by Councilman Cramer , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adjourn • into Executive Session to discuss legal advise . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none) . RESOLUTION N0 , 78 Motion by Supervisor Desch ; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger , 4 Town Board 22 March 31 , 1987 RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby moves back into open session . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none) . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned at 9 : 00 P .M . • Town Clerk •