Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1983-02-01 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 1 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 1 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Bernard Stanton , Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT . Stephen J . Pete Jr . , Dan Peterson , Carolyn Peterson , Robert E . Marion , Edna R . Clausen , John Wooding , Joan Parker , Claudia Weisburd , Jerry Weisburd , Peter J . Walsh , Esq . , Ronald Hunt , John Huenneke ( Ithaca Journal ) , Julie Mertus ( WTKO ) , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU ) , Patty Brooke ( WQNY ) , Hollie Hemstreet ( WICB ) , and David Lytel ( Ithaca Times ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 2.11 1982 • MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board meeting of December 21 , 1982 ; be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Schultz , Langhans , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Mazza . The MOTION was declared to be carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 4 , 1983 MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board meeting of January 4 , 1983 , be and hereby are approved as written . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . r Planning Board 2 February 1 , 1983 Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans . The MOTION was declared to be carried . REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI Mr . Lovi informed Board members that on Saturday , February 26 , a workshop will be held on SEQRA sponsored by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council , the Tompkins County Planning Department , and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . The tentative time for the workshop is 10 a . m . to 1 p . m . The workshop will be held at One Country Club Road at Ecology House . Members should contact Leslie Dotson or Mary DiGiacomo of the Tompkins County Planning Department to reserve a Neat . Each municipality or agency can reserve five seats up to the 18th of February , after that if there should be a small response there should be no problem in getting additional seats . Mr . Lovi urged everyone to attend this workshop . Mr . Lovi will be receiving a letter from the sponsors later in the week and will pass further details on to those interested . Mr . Lovi reported that the conference in Albany he attended on January 7th with Mr . Buyoucos on New York State Trends in • Planning , Zoning , and Land Development , sponsored by the New York Land Insitute , was extremely informative . There was a lot on SEQR and courts ' interpretations thereof with particular emphasis on procedure . He commented that other programs will be coming up . Mr . Lovi reported that he had received a message from Councilwoman Raffensperger suggesting a couple of changes in the Short Environmental Assessment Form . Mr . Lovi stated that , with the permission of the Board , he will prepare a copy incorporating her suggestions and circulate to the Board . These changes , he felt , were worthwhile . Mr . Lovi reported that a draft of revisions to the subdivision regulations had been sent out to everyone . He hopes that there will be time in the next month or so for a committee to be formed to take a look at these regulations before the full Board ' s consideration . Committee review in the Town Engineer ' s office might work out better , Mr . Lovi could make changes right on the word processor as they were suggested . Comprehensive revision of the subdivision regulations is something Mr . Lovi hopes to be working on in the next couple of months . Chairman May commented that he hoped in the middle of this month the Board could bring some things back into perspective . • Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi for his report . REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER - LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI Planning Board 3 February 1 , 1983 • Mr . Fabbroni reported that half of his time has been spent being ill with pneumonia . He has spent two to three hours a day on Commonland going over a lot of the same ground . He also had several things to prepare for with regard to the Manos develop - ment for the Town Board in the way of helping their review of the rezoning matter . The Town Board expects to take this up as a Public Hearing on February 7 . He commented that there was very little public comment on January 26th when they heard the matter , however , a draft resolution has been prepared reflecting that discussion . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the NET contracts have been set up for the calendar ;1983 which should simplify things ; the whole calendar year is contracted for this time . NET is carrying 60 percent more passengers over the identical service last year . Mr . Fabbroni commented on two things which enter into this increase - - choice of housing ; reality of bus . Mr . Fabbroni reported that there has been much activity from developers coming into the office . This , he commented , probably is being brought about because of the drop in interest rates . Inquiries are constantly coming in and we let them know where utilities are , etc . Inquiries come from developers who were ready in the 1970s but never got going , and also from new people . Areas being considered for development are pretty well spread out . around the Town . Mr . Fabbroni stated that quite a bit of his time in the past two weeks has been spent in documentation on the sewage treatment plant process and our rating . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the parks maintenance personnel are packaging play structures and will start construction in the field when the weather permits . Mr . Fabbroni reported that Mike Ocello is moving forward with the plans on Burns Road with the County rebuilding the bridge on Burns Road , and , access thereto . Mr . Ocello will talk to the City about rights of way , etc . Chairman May thanked Mr . Fabbroni for his report . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV Mrs . Grigorov reported on the January 12 , 1983 meeting of the County Planning Board . The following topics were discussed : GYPSY MOTHS : The County Extension Service will educate and inform neighborhood groups who want to pay private sprayers - - no County funds are available for spraying . The Gypsy Moth Program . is about the Name as 1982 . SOLID WASTE : The County is considering a combined solid waste , septage , and sludge disposal benefit district with a user fee so Planning Board 4 February 1 , 1983 the program will be able to charge tax exempt property as well . This is a visible tax which is an alternative to the " tipping fee " suggested by Earl Arnold of the Energy / Housing Committee which would encourage recycling . Cortland and Tompkins Counties have hired a consultant to look into a cooperative site for landfill , preferably a site straddling the border . TOMTRAN . Northeast and East Ithaca contracts are to be renewed at same level of subsidy . Ithaca - Dryden transit system is gaining riders . A survey will be done for the Newfield and Trumansburg areas to see if there is enough interest to get a private enterprise to provide service [ jitney ] . Mrs . Grigorov reported on the Biggs Complex issue from the Tompkins County Economic Advisory Committee meeting . BIGGS COMPLEX : As the Tompkins County Planning Department sees it , 10 years ago the City " thwarted " the County when it tried to build a new County office building in DeWitt Park . ( The Historic Landmark Committee would not allow the Boardman House to be demolished . ) Now the City is trying to keep the County from moving its offices to the Biggs Complex . Space for County Offices is a. big problem and the Biggs Complex is an economical solution . The drawbacks are that the Department of Social Services and other human service agencies object to the move and the City objects to losing the office rentals and sees other economic loss to the City . Mrs . Grigorov asked for comments from the Planning Board members . Adequate busing appeared to be a main concern , also the welfare of the City - - a County concern as well as a Town concern - - taking economy out of the City ; fire protection facilities , site development costs , often ignored , should be considered carefully within the rental aspects , not just cost per square foot Mrs . Grigorov stated that she would report further after the public hearings . PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AP - PROVAL OF 3 - LOT SUBDIVISION AT 310 CULVER ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 32 . 2 AND 32 . 3 . STEPHEN J . PETE , JR . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 10 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 24 , 1983 and January 27 , 1983 , respectively . Mr . Fabb _roni stated that about three or four years ago Mr . Pete subdivided his lot and was granted a variance for septic disposal . At that time , everything was legal . Now Mr . Pete wants to subdivide the same parcel for his daughter and son - in - law . Mr . Fabbroni advised Mr . Pete that he should get subdivision approval and that it would be in his best interests to include the original subdivision at this time so if he wanted , M Planning Board 5 February 1 , 1983 • to sell the land he would be able to do so without coming back for another subdivision approval . Since it is family members that are concerned and since the land is on Town roads and they are large lots , there is not a lot to consider . Mr . Pete has submitted the Short Environmental Assessment Form . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought the resolution offered for adoption speaks for itself . Chairman May asked if there were any comments at this point on the Short Environmental Assessment Form or on the subdivision . There was no public comment . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 25 p . m . Chairman May stated that the Short Environmental Assessment Form had been completed and signed by Stephen J . Pete Jr . , with all questions answered " No . " The reviewer was Peter M . Lovi and his comment; were : " The Planning Board should proceed with the consideration of this subdivision ; I would recommend a determination of non - significance . " MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS . 1 . The developer is subdividing a 23 . 5 acre parcel for the purpose of selling a 1 . 2 acre parcel and recording the prior subdivision of a 1 . 4 acre parcel ( Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels # 6 - 28 - 1 -- 32 . 2 and 32 . 3 ) , and 2 . This subdivision is classified as an unlisted action accord - ing to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Town of Ithaca Local # 3 , 1980 , and 3 . The Planning Board finds that this project shall not have an adverse effect on the environment ; THEREFORE , IT' IS RESOLVED : 1e that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed 3 - Lot Subdivision at 310 Culver Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 32 . 2 and 32 . 3 , by Stephen J . Pete Jr . , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as completed , and 2e that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and 3e that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from • the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent informa - tion that the above -mentioned action will not significantly Planning Board 6 February 1 , 1983 impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Schultz , Langhans , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .. Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . The Board then proceeded with the consideration of subdivision approval . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . the subdivider has prepared subdivision plat ( s ) in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer , and 20 an environmental assessment form has been prepared and reviewed by the Town Planner , and • 3e this subdivision has been classified as an unlisted action and the Planning Board has determined that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment , and 4e there will be substantial conformance between the prelimi - nary subdivision plat ( s ) and the final plat ( s ) to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk , and 5e that such conformance shall be certified by the Town Engi - neer prior to such filing ; THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant p:Celiminary approval for the three - lot subdivision , Town of Ithaca tax parcels # 6 - 28 - 1 - 32 . 2 and 32 . 3 , for the lands of Stephen J . Pete Jr . as presented in the maps in the Office of the Town Engineer , and that said Planning Board FURTHER RESOLVES : to waive and hereby does waive the requirement for a final subdivision hearing provided that the final subdivision plat ( s ) to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk shall • be in substantial conformance with this preliminary plat and that the Town Engineer shall certify the conformance of such Planning Board 7 February 1 , 1983 . final plat with the preliminary plat prior to its filing and before any offer for sale or other transfer shall be made . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Schultz , Langhans , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Lovi commented at this point that in the past the Planning Board had prepared a set of policies to help the public when they come into the planning office . He thought it would be a good idea to get items together to explain how the Planning Board operates . Mrs . Fuller has helped Mr . Lovi to draw together the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Policies and put together a handout that can be given to the public when they come into the office . Mr . Lovi handed out copies of these policies for Plan - ning Board review at some time in the future . Chairman May pointed out the exits in case of fire and also stated the faire regulations . • ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM OCTOBER 5 AND DECEMBER 7 , 1982 AND JANUARY 18 , 1983 ) FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF 124 - UNIT CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 1443 SLATEKVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , APPROXIMATEL). 45 ACRES . JEROLD WEISBURD , OWNER / DEVELOPER , COMMONLAND COMMUNITY . Chairman May stated that he had closed the public input portion of the hearing and the Board was in discussion of a final resolution when they adjourned the January 18 , 1983 , meeting . Mr . Mazza asked , to be excused from the discussions on this public hearing for reasons he has explained before . Mr . Mazza departed . Mrs . Fuller read the following proposed resolution : A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE COMMONLAND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION , 124 UNITS ON TAX PARCEL 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , JEROLD WEISBURD OWNER AND DEVELOPER WHEREAS : 1 . The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the • site plans , engineering drawings and details , landscaping plans , utility arrangements and all other necessary documents , and the matters of the development which may require examination and Planning Board 8 February 1 , 1983 • determination by the Board all as required and set forth in the provisions of all applicable subdivision regulations of the Town and the provisions of Article 16 of the Town Law including , without limiting the foregoing , the provisions of Sections 274 - a , 276 , 277 , and 281 of the Town Law to the extent they may now be applicable , and has 2 * made a declaration that the Project would not have a signi - ficant impact on the environment provided the applicant complied with all mitigating measures and all other requirements contained in the Environmental Assessment Form adopted as part of such declaration , and such decision was confirmed by the decision of the Honorable Frederick B . Bryant , Justice of the Supreme Court dated and filed January 6 , 1983 ( In the Matter of the Application of the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , et al vs . Town Planning Board , et al , Index # 82 - 1397 ) , and all notices of such declaration were duly given to and filed with all other agencies and parties entitled thereto , and 3 * has actively solicited public comment and has held four public hearings ( June 1 , June 15 , October 5 , 1982 , and January 18 , 1983 ) at which time all material aspects of the project have been thoroughly discussed , investigated and examined , and 49 the developer has complied with the letter and spirit of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in an effort to build aesthetically attractive , , affordable equity housing in the Town of Ithaca , and the clustered housing plan preserves valuable open space within the residential subdivision and reduces the cost of roads , utilities and other public im- provements , and the Planning Board is satisfied that the latest revised plans satisfy the intent of the Town of Ithaca Cluster Regulations , and 5 . the Planning Board finds that there is an existing public need for such moderately priced housing within the Town , and 6 * in order to control the density of occupancy of the project , the applicant has agreed to terms required by the Planning Board under which any dwelling unit in the project may be occupied , leased or assigned ; these conditions are set forth in Article XV of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions , a copy of which , marked Appendix A . is annexed hereto , a synopsis of such density requirements will be included as a part of any Certifi - cate of Occupancy , and 7 . The developer agrees to take such reasonable steps , through landscaping , physical barriers , and other means to control or discourage access to adjacent lands of the City of Ithaca Water - shed and will coordinate his efforts with those of the appropri - ate agencies of the City and Town ; it is understood nevertheless • that it is the obligation of the City in the final sense to control access: to the watershed area and to regulate its use , and = Planning Board 9 February 1 , 1983 • 8 . the Project will be developed in nine clusters described by the phasing plan submitted by the Developer , dated September 14 , 1982 , and filed in the office of the Town Engineer , a synopsis of the number of structures to be constructed , and the distribution of dwelling units in these structures , are set forth in Appendix B , annexed hereto , and 9 . no more than four clusters ( of the nine identified ) in Appendix B and in said Phasing Plan shall be started and under construction or incomplete at any time , except that the Planning Board may waive this restriction for good cause shown ; neverthe - less , any cluster will be completed within three years from the date of commencement of construction , and 10 . a second access road for access southerly to the street labeled " Penny Lane " , adjacent to the lands of Edna Clausen , is shown on the subdivision plat filed on September 14 , 1982 in the office of the Town Engineer and the strip of land over which such second road is located shall be kept free and unencumbered for the purpose of providing such second access , such second access may be constructed at a location farther to the east of its present location in a manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer if the developer acquires the title to lands for such purpose , and 11 , the developer has agreed to construct check dams of rock or • treated railroad ties and to comply with all other mitigative measures - desc4ribed in Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form approved by the Planning Board October 5 , 1982 and on file in the office of the Town Engineer as the location or the Town Engineer requires throughout the project ; the seeding recommenda - tions of the Soil Conservation Service , which have been sought , shall be implemented for disturbed or unstable areas , and 12 . the Regional Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation has approved the design for the entrance of the project with State Route 79 , and 13 . a subdivision map , prepared by a licensed surveyor , showing such details as the Planning Board has required by this approval , approved by the Tompkins County Health Department , signed by the Planning Board Chairman , will be filed within the time prescribed by Town Law in the Office of the County Clerk , and 14 . an " as - built " map of each cluster will be prepared by a licensed surveyor showing at minimum the exact location of dwelling units , land improvements , driveways , parking areas , carports , sidewalks and utility easements , and a metes and bounds description of all properties conveyed to individuals or the Homeowners ' Association will be filed with the Town Engineer and in the Office of the County Clerk upon completion of each clus - ter , and • 15 . The construction , operation and maintenance of the Project shall be in accordance with all applicable laws , codes , Planning Board 10 February 1 , 1983 . ordinances , rules and regulations , without limiting the foregoing , the developer will comply with those provisions of the Town Law governing the manner in which public improvements will be accepted prior to each cluster being occupied , including the offering and acceptance of adequate security and agreements toward completion of improvements as the Town Board may require , and 16 . this approval shall be subject to approval of the Declara - tion of Covenants and Restrictions by the Town Board , and by the State ' s Attorney General or other State agency having juris - diction and no building permits shall be issued until such approval has been obtained except that if the developer encoun - ters an unreasonable delay in obtaining such approvals from the State , the developer may apply to the Planning Board for such building permit and the Planning Board may deny such application , or grant the same , in its sole discretion , with such conditions as the Planning Board may impose , and 17 . The Developer agrees that no Covenants and Restrictions , By - laws , or other rule or regulation of the Homeowners ' Asso - ciation shall at any time be less restrictive than the require - ments of this Approval or any other applicable law , statute , ordinance , rule or regulation of the Town or any of its boards , and this Approval , or any amendment thereof , shall be incorporat - ed in and be made a part of the Declaration of Covenants and . Restrictions and shall be referred to by suitable provision in the By - laws of the Association , and 18 . along with other requirements of State Law , the Covenants and Restrictions shall be referred to in the deeds conveying title to the units and , the full Covenants and Restrictions shall be furnished to all buyers prior to said conveyance , and 19 . all of the above requirements relate to and are added to the plans and specifications contained in the project drawings last revised and submitted to the Planning Board February 1 , 1983 ; THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS : A . The provisions set forth above shall be deemed to be the conditions , findings , and agreements to which the developer has agreed , and Be the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , subject to the above requirements , conditions , and agreements , grant and hereby does grant final subdivision approval for 124 clus - tered residential dwelling units on 45 + acres , tax parcel 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 21 otherwise to be known as the Commonland Com - munity Subdivision ; the final subdivision map shall be signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board , and C . the provisions of this resolution and approval are binding upon the developer or his successors and assigns in the Planning Board 11 February 1 , 1983 . ownership of the above land , or in any portion thereof or interest therein . APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN EACH CLUSTER OF THE COMMONLAND COMMUNITY PROJECT Number of Buildings Total Number in Cluster with number of of Residential Units Cluster Units in each Building in each Cluster 1 3 buildings with 3 units 11 units 1 building with 2 units 2 1 building with 3 units 15 units 3 buildings with 5 units 3 1 building with 3 units 18 units 3 buildings with 5 units 4 2 buildings with 2 units 9 units 1 buildings with 5 units • 5 1 building with 2 units 17 units 3 buildings with 5 units 6 3 buildings with 5 units 15 units 7 2 buildings with 2 units 14 units 2 buildings with 5 units 8 1 building with 3 units 12 units 1 building with 4 units 1 building with 5 units 9 2 buildings with 4 units 13 units 1 building with 5 units TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS 124 units MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . David Klein to adopt the resolution as read . Chairman May opened the meeting for discussion on the motion . Mr . Stanton commented that there are very substantial additions to the motion discussed on January 18 , 1983 and added that many are positive . ,Planning Board 12 February 1 , 1983 . Chairman May asked Mr . Fabbroni to address the changes . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the landscaping plan now shows specifically the size and nature of the hardwood plantings and the performance standards of the maple and hybrid popular softwoods . These plantings will occur along the boundary of the property and between the existing residences and the project . The plan goes on to describe the softwoods within the project and what size they will reach two years hence . Mr . Fabbroni stated that rather than getting into size , spacing , leaving ( or adding ) , we were looking for a certain performance level two years down the line . Hardwoods could be specified by a caliper size or minimum height ; the hybrid poplars and maples are not specified in percentages . Susan Beeners advised to have both in alternate planting schemes . This will provide a screen . The maples and suitable alternate hardwood after fifty years are just beginning their life . They are much more shapely and have a value some twenty years hence . Hybrid poplars are a different variety from Lombardy . The hybrid poplar is much sturdier and has fast growing features . These will be used on a 50 / 50 basis instead of 90 / 10 . Mr . Fabbroni stated this for the record . In the case of the things discussed last time , Mr . Fabbroni stated the parking area adjacent to the Robert Marion property has been completely eliminated . Overflow parking was created on the parking :tot on the other side of the road . This parking was . in excess of the zoning standard for multiple family dwellings . The developer- has submitted a cut sheet whereby that parking lot is eliminated . On the same cut sheet , the developer shows the westernmost carport moved 30 feet from a neighboring property . This was the carport on the very west end of the property and adjacent to a treed lot which was a laboratory for Professor Clausen during his lifetime and continues to be inventoried by Mrs . Clausen . It was agreed to move this structure to be 30 feet from that property . All other structures are 20 feet or more from the City of Ithaca watershed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the proposed resolution indicates that the cluster regulations , which came in after , are met . Mr . Fabbroni then discussed the retention pond . He felt that the pond , as previously shown , did not do what the essence of our discussion had been . Details were added whereby the pond can be a dry pond or can be a wet pond by the simple operation of either leaving a plug intact to create a wet pond or unplugging it for a dry pond . It has been determined that the Homeowners ' Association would basically be the ones to address the liability issues , much the same as the Manos proposal . This design now offers either option within five minutes time . Either option adequately provides for peak runoff control . The dry pond would provide a little more storage area than the wet pond . The dike does provide :some storage and that satisfies us as feasible and meets what we have been talking about in all these months . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he prefers an open channel to the pipe that is shown for the spillway within the existing creek , adding that Planning Board 13 February 1 , 1983 . we will look to the advice of the Soil Conservation Service which advises on -thousands of these ponds . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the resolution addresses the issues of the adjacent City watershed . It details what the responsibilities are of the developer with regard to landscaping . Mr . Fabbron _L was satisfied with the as - built maps in the resolu - tion . He had received letters from the Department of Transporta - tion office in Syracuse that they are in agreement with the plans that have been proposed . They have minor changes in regard to warning signs but basically they feel the design has improved . The following letter states that the design meets their stan - dards : " January 28 , 1983 Mr . J . Weisburd House Craft Builder 167 Calkins Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Common Land Community Subdivision Dear Mr . Weisburd : The Traffic Section has reviewed the plans submitted with your • highway work application . Inasmuch as you have designed for the class of vehicle we requested and Mr . Grout and the Town have recommended �.7our access design , we are approving the work permit with some minor modifications . The changes appear in red on the attached plans and will become part of the highway work permit . A brief description follows . Sheet No . 9 1 . We have eliminated some signs as noted on the plans . When Abbey Road becomes a public road the Town will be responsi - ble for requesting a speed study and Mr . Grout will be responsible for informing T & S for an intersection study . 2 . Note number two shall be deleted . 3 . The end of the median shall be moved to a point 35 feet from the centerline of NY 79 . 4 . The median shall be curbed with concrete or granite curb . 5 . A solid yellow full barrier line shall separate traffic . Sheet No . 10 . 1 . The 38 feet radius shall not extend past the projected property line . 1 Planning Board 14 February 1 , 1983 2 . Add note number two . R50 & 51 signs shall be placed where the service road connects to the cul - de - sac . The geometry of Abbey Drive may be aesthetic and allow additional units , however we foresee possible operation problems requiring a vehicle to execute a 1800 turn from the State highway . We urge you and your consultant to redesign the roadway with a less severe curve even though this may increase the grade . In a project of this magnitude the alignment and location of the entrance roadway should be acceptably established on site plans prior to any on site physical grading . Very truly yours , [ Original signed by Raymond F . Novak ] Joseph M . Powers Regional Director of Transportation Region 3 Attachments cc : L . P . Fabbroni , P . E . Town Engineer F . A . Grout , Tompkins County " Mr . Fabbroni also stated that he had received the following • letter from John Andersson of the Environmental Health Division of the Tompkins County Department of Health : " February 1 , 1983 Mr . Jerold Weisburd 167 Calkins Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Commonland Community Town of Ithaca Dear Mr . Weisburd : I have reviewed the subdivision , water distribution and sewage collection application forms , plans , and engineering report for the above project , submitted by Hunt Engineers . Based on the review , and subsequent telephone discussions with Lawrence Cook of Hunt Engineers , on several minor items , I expect no problems with issuing approvals for the subdivision , water , and sewer services upon receipt of final plans . The approvals will be on behalf of the Tompkins County Health Department , the New York State Health Department and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . Very truly yours , ( sgd . ) John M . Andersson Planning Board 15 February 1 , 1983 . John M . Andersson , P . E . Director - Environmental Health cc : Mr . Larry Fabbroni , Town of Ithaca Engineer " Mr . Fabbroni stated that with this information presented and those letters available for your inspection , it left very little in the way of contingencies of design to attend to after whatever resolution .might be passed , and therefore are indicated as matters of fact in the proposed resolution and being things you have considered and will rely on in inspecting . Mr . Fabbroni commented on other things that had been talked about at length and are reflected in the proposed resolution , e . g . , no more than four clusters under construction at one time . This controls the flow of the project and protects against some people ' s worst fears that the project might be abandoned . Mr . Fabbroni felt that it was realistic to have no more than four in construction at one time because of what has happened with a previous developer in another project . There is a proviso for reconsideration . There is also a provision for minor things left undone . Should another unit need to be started and minor things left incomplete in previous clusters , Town Law provides for security such that the Town Board may accept a security bond pending completion of those clusters . • Mr . Fabbroni talked about " native rock " and indicated that , with regard -to the check dams , what we really are talking about is rock and we did not care if it was native rock . Limestone is not readily available on the site . There will be rip - rap in all probability . Mr . Fabbroni continued by saying that paragraph 14 gives us the most accurate map we could have at that times a survey map . It really calls for no more detail than most survey maps for bank closings . The bank will want a complete map for each cluster . The developer must record each one of the clusters ; that will be required by the Department of Law in the future in any case . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought this resolution takes care of what needs to be taken care of . He stated that occupancy is tied down to the numbers the Board reviewed throughout this whole process . It was rioted that on Appendix B , Cluster 2 , there was an error . It should read " 3 buildings with 4 units . " Mr . Fabbroni felt that the resolution concerns itself appropriately with the comprehensive planning questions raised by the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , although it did not consider their request for a two - year moratorium . He noted that the Board members had each received a " paper " from the Six Mile . Creek Preservation Committee , 136 The Commons , containing suggestions in. terms of how to control trespassing and travel in Planning Board 16 February 1 , 1983 this area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he felt the proposed resolution deals with these aspects . Mr . Klein asked if there were any kind of controls that could be incorporated to ensure that not too much of the land is scarred in the drainageways and that certain improvements are done early so that a large part of the site is not stripped off so that , if a delay occurred , it would not create excessive erosion . Chairman May stated that he thought this was dealt with in paragraph 9 of the resolution . Mr . Klein stated that even within the four clusters this is still a good chunk of land and asked if there were anything that could be added to make this section more restrictive . Mr . Lovi stated that the Environmental Assessment Form details several points . The developer will be preserving drainageways and seeing that mitigative measure set forth in Part III of the EAF are carried out . Mr . Lovi felt there was enough enforcement ability stated here to see that no scarring or erosion was taking place and that there was enough language in the resolution adopted already to take care of this point . Mr . Fabbroni then talked about the second access point . He • stated that there is good reason to believe that it is possible to develop a second access in the vicinity of present City right of way . Mr . Fabbroni ' s preference was to have the second access in the vicinity of the City right - of -way rather than between the two properties of Edna Clausen . The rights need to be legally determined . A quick review has shown Mr . Fabbroni that there is a property right to do just that ; he asked whether Mr . Walsh would like to add to that . Mr . Peter J . Walsh , Thaler & Thaler , referred to paragraph # 10 , and stated that thanks to Mr . Fabbroni ' s eagle eye the second access might be built . Mr . Walsh stated that it was Mr . Fabbroni who brought this up as a possibility while he was examining deeds . Mr . Walsh stated that after preliminary examination , he thought that Mr . Fabbroni may very well be correct on this second access road . Mr . Walsh was not in a position to make a commitment as to what piece of land will be the location of a second access road but it seemed that they would be able to do it in accordance with Mr . Fabbroni ' s preference . Mr . Walsh again referred to the second access road . He stated that if' the Board felt fit to make this a service road for access it would reflect the intent of all concerned . He needed a change in the wording since he felt the present wording implies 10 that this access is the same as a full scale road in the conventional sense . He wished to establish that this road is for emergency vehicles and the like , not for everyone ' s use . Planning Board 17 February 1 , 1983 • Mr . Walsh asked the Board to permit him to refer to some minor points regarding the resolution which he would ask them to consider changing . Mr . Walsh first referred to paragraph 14 which speaks of the most detailed map possible that might be required , a point with which he could agree up to a point , but , he stated , he was not fully in accord with the requirement for two reasons . First , he said , is simply , expense . It costs a surveyor and developer just as much to survey the sidewalk as it does to fix the location of an entire building . Mr . Walsh commented that when you ask for precise survey of driveways , sidewalks , you are asking something that in his experience has not commonly been required of developers - - utilities have been required . He stated that they all add to the developer ' s expense without any real benefit . Mr . Walsh stated. that the banks , which normally require a survey and will require metes and bounds of conveyance , will not be financing the common areas . Mr . Walsh commented that the location of sidewalks can be plainly seen and does not intrude on utility . He indicated that it is not usually required and seems a bit excessive . Mr . Walsh then referred to paragraph 16 and stated that following the last meeting , he and the developer appeared before the Town Board to discuss the matter of the covenants and restrictions ,, commenting that it was an animated discussion and • resulted in some reordering of the paragraphs and some changes . Mr . Walsh stated that he had indicated to the Town Board a concern about time . He stated that he still has this concern . Mr . Walsh stated that , based on the discussion by Mr . Desch at that meeting ,, the Town Board might be in a position to pass on the sufficiency of the Covenants and Restrictions . He stated that they have to be approved by the Attorney General ; they will be approved , they have to be approved . Mr . Walsh spoke of " reasonable " as a dimension and suggested that the second line contained a built - in trap , adding that the line could actually end after " Town Board " . Mr . Walsh referred to paragraph 18 as frought with mischief stating that the first phrase , " along with other requirements of State Law " suggests problems in that State Law fills a wall of bookshelves . He noted that there are many requirements of State Law and he was not certain which ones would be the ones the Board was referring to . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had no problem with paragraph 10 as long as we can deal with alternates . He stated that it should be understood that if we can deal with an alternative right of way to provide a simple full access intersection that is the intention . Mr . Fabbroni stated that once we determine the grade of an alternate right of way , there will be an in and out at that point even if at 10 % grade and that we will not know - - the only way is to get down to profile . That is all we want to see in re Mrs . Clausen . Planning Board 18 February 1 , 1983 Mr . Walsh commented that he thought one of the things the Board has been shooting for is safety . He stated that one of the design features of this project was single access and minimize problems for children . Mr . Walsh stated that they are not anxious , frankly , to find themselves in a situation where , in effect , they have developed a through traffic situation . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that was highly unlikely . He stated that he has inspected each and every deed in this area on an unrelated matter and on related subdivision matter . It is clear to him that there was not even a 50 foot right of way as surveyed by T . G . Miller , there is not the room nor the compatibility with adjacent land use to provide more than emergency entrance between the Clausen parcels . He noted the problems with emergency entrance ; it has to be plowed ; it has to be maintained . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he could not accept Mr . Walsh ' s line of reasoning . He stated that there never was a suggestion by this Board that there should not be a second access . He stated that from the beginning of time , a second access was wanted - however , there was no such suitable second access available , and , there was no suitable alternative for such second access except between the two Clausen parcels and that is where we moved it , but as an emergency access , in a right of way that did exist . Mr . Fabbroni stated that if , at some time , the developer is able to acquire title through negotiation with the �- City , the second access may be located farther to the east . Mr . Weisburd stated that when he first came in with his plans there was a road proposed right where the one Mr . Fabbroni is talking about is . He stated that after working with the plans and the land and the people involved , it appeared that a more controlled entrancing and exiting could be achieved in the manner finally settled upon in order to mitigate the effects of two people leaving at the same time . If we could control it to a place where everyone could wait , it would be better . Mr . Weisburd commented that this was discussed with Fred Grout and he seemed to agree . Mr . Weisburd said that he did beg to differ , adding that they did discuss two entrances onto Route 79 with the Board and he presented his case with respect to be it being safer and more orderly . Mrs . Schultz wondered if it would solve the problem to delete " road " . Mr . Weisburd stated that if this is a Town road it is up to the Town how they want to use it . He stated that only one point is his preference , but as to Town roads it is ultimately the Town ' s decision . Mr . Weisburd commented that , in agreeing to change the access road to that point , with the additional expense to re - engineer that , he would request that the Board not do anything to change the main road grade - - this has been already engineered twice , at considerable expense . . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would accept the grade within the right of way we have to work with . Planning Board 19 February 1 , 1983 Mr . May stated that signs will dictate the control that you want to achieve . Mr . Weisburd , indicating on the plan , stated the visibility was better at one particular point than at another point . The Board indicated that paragraph # 10 would stand as is . Mr . Fabbroni referred to Mr . Walsh ' s comments on paragraph # 14 and indicated that he would like to state for the record that the sort of exact location in locating parking areas , sidewalks , utilities is less exacting than dwelling units , adding that that is understood enough in the surveying industry such that where metes and bounds may be determined by sophisticated electronic equipment , utility easements , sidewalks , etc . , may be determined by stadium measurements in the field and as opposed to metes and bounds for building or land . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , with that sort of perspective , he would disagree that such locating was an extreme expense and that it was not a common way of doing . business . The time and expense is in the metes and bounds survey , not in picking up the land features " exact " location . However , there should be a clarification of what we mean by the word " exact " ,. Mr . Stainton asked if the word " exact " could be taken out . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the metes and bounds description speaks for itself and he could agree to this . Mr . Klein commented that we are asking for record drawings essentially . Mr . Walsh stated that the metes and bounds description of dwelling units would be required and he could agree to the word " exact " being deleted . Mr . Fabbroni referred to paragraph # 16 and suggested that the words " building permits " be deleted and the words " certi - ficate of occupancy " added , noting that with that the intent is met ; Mr . Walsh agreed . Mr . Walsh referred to paragraph 18 and suggested that the first phrase " along with other requirements of State Law , " be deleted . Mr . Lovi and Mr . Fabbroni both agreed and the Board indicated the same . Mrs . Grigorov asked about paragraph 4 on the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee ' s Paper proposing requirements for final approval and if these had been included in the resolution . Mr . Lovi stated that between the Department of State ' s requirements that go along with offering plan , mitigation measures , site approval plans and restrictions in the resolution , these concerns have been addressed . Mr . Fabbroni added that the matters covered in the Committee ' s Paper , paragraph 4 , are all recognized collectively and the proposed resolution deals with that problem without there being a hole in that process . Mrs . Grigorov asked about what may be termed " unforeseen " problems . Mr . Fabbroni • stated that what is " unforeseen " is handled by what may be termed an " insurance policy " built in on top of an insurance policy . Mr . Fabbroni cited as examples , the posting of a bond , the zoning ordinance 'which calls for demolition of an Planning Board 20 February 1 , 1983 abandoned building within a certain time , and noted again that between the Department of State requirements that go along with the offering plan , mitigating measures like site approval plans and phasing , it is doubtful that " unforeseen " matters could not be reasonably handled . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , to amend the following items on the resolution , as moved and seconded , and before the Board for discussion : 1 . Section # 14 - Delete " exact . " 2 . Section # 16 - Replace the words , " building permits , " with the words , " certificate [ s ] of occupancy . " 3 . Section # 18 - Delete the phrase , " along with other requirements of State Law , " . 4 . Appendix B - Cluster 2 , second line , should read " 3 buildings with 4 units . " There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Schultz , Langhans , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . • The MOTION TO AMEND was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman. May asked for any further discussion on the AMENDED MOTION before. the Board . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Schultz , Langhans , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION , AS AMENDED , was declared to be CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . For the record , the RESOLUTION , as adopted , is set forth below . " A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE COMMONLAND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION , 124 UNITS ON TAX PARCEL 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , JEROLD WEISBURD OWNER AND DEVELOPER WHEREAS : 1 . The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the site plans , engineering drawings and details , landscaping plans , utility arrangements and all other necessary documents , and the • matters of the development which may require examination and determination by the Board all as required and set forth in the provisions of all applicable subdivision regulations of the Town Planning Board 21 February 1 , 1983 • and the provisions of Article 16 of the Town Law including , without limiting the foregoing , the provisions of Sections 274 - a , 276 ,r 2 7 7 , and 281 of the Town Law to the extent they may now be applicable , and has 2 * made a declaration that the Project would not have a signi - ficant impact on the environment provided the applicant complied with all mitigating measures and all other requirements contained in the Environmental Assessment Form adopted as part of such declaration , and such decision was confirmed by the decision of the Honorable Frederick B . Bryant , Justice of the Supreme Court dated and filed January 6 , 1983 ( In the Matter of the Application of the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , et al vs . Town Planning Board , et al , Index # 82 - 1397 ) , and all notices of such declaration were duly given to and filed with all other agencies and parties entitled thereto , and 3o has actively solicited public comment and has held four public hearings ( June 1 , June 15 , October 5 , 1982 , and January 18 , 1983 ) at which time all material aspects of the project have been thoroughly discussed , investigated and examined , and 4 * the developer has complied with the letter and spirit of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in an effort to build aesthetically attractive , affordable equity housing in the Town of Ithaca , and the clustered housing plan • preserves valuable open space within the residential subdivision and reduces the cost of roads , utilities and other public im- provements , and the Planning Board is satisfied that the latest revisedP lane; satisfy the intent of the Town of Ithaca Cluster Regulations , ,and 5 . the Planning Board finds that there is an existing public need for such moderately priced housing within the Town , and 6e in order to control the density of occupancy of the project , the applicant has agreed to terms required by the Planning Board under which any dwelling unit in the project may be occupied , leased or assigned ,* these conditions are set forth in Article XV of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions , a copy of which , marked Appendix A , is annexed hereto ; a synopsis of such density requirements will be included as a part of any Certifi - cate of Occupancy , and 7 * the developer agrees to take such reasonable steps , through landscaping , physical barriers , and other means to control or discourage access to adjacent lands of the City of Ithaca Water - shed and will coordinate his efforts with those of the appropri - ate agencies of the City and Town , it is understood nevertheless that it is the obligation of the City in the final sense to control access to the watershed area and to regulate its use , and • 8 . the Project will be developed in nine clusters described by the phasing plan submitted by the Developer , dated September 14 , . I Ij APPENDIX A ction 20 . No action shall at any time be taken by t Associa ' on or its Board of Directors which in any ner would unlaw lly discriminate against any owner or ners ink favor of other ners . i Section 21 . Vegetation . No tree greater th two in es ( 211 ) in diameter , as measured twelve inches ( 12 " ) ve the ground , may be cut without the approval of e B rd of Directors or the Architectural Review Co, ittee , No v etation at all may be removed from slope with a gradient ox: more than fifteen • percent ( 150 ) wout approval of the Board f Directors or the Archite ural Review Committee , No tree or shrubs, general_ referred to as 'flowering ' trees or shrub may be cut ithout approval from the Board of Directors or the chitectural Review Committee . ARTICLE XV Rentals I: t is the acknowledged sense of the members of the Association that they have joined in an effort to create and sustain a participatory community of neighbors . To further • this goal , it is understood that long - term renting and 50 e • subletting are to be discouraged , and the following provisions are meant to enforce that understanding : i ( a ) All owners of units , with the exception of the Declarant , must have their primary rsidence at Commonland Community . ( b ) Renting and /or subletting is restricted to a culmulative period of twelve ( 12 ) months within any continuous thirty - six ( 36 ) month period . i Permission to rent and /or sublet for a longer period of time must be obtained in writing from i the Board . of Directors , and must specify the specific time ; period for which an extension is being granted; . In no case may an owner rent i and /or sublet a unit for more than twenty- four ( 24 ) months cumulatively in any five ( 5 ) year period . Leases between owners and tenants must be written and signed , and must state that ( a ) any failure on the part of the lessor to fully comply with the obligations set forth in this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and the By - Laws of the Association constitutes a default on the lease ; and ( b ) all financial obligations to the ' Association • remain the sole responsibility of the Owner . 51 ' COMMONLAND DECLARATION Article XV Rentals and Occupancy Section 1 Rentals ( Same ) Section 2 Occupancy by Unrelated Persons No owner shall permit more than the following numb"ers of unrelated persons to reside in his or her unit : ( a ) in one-bedroom units , two unrelated persons ; ( b ) in two =bedroom units , three unrelated persons % ( c ) in three -bedroom units , three unrelated persons . For purposes of the above limitation a family or housekeeping unit , as such is or may be defined by the Ithaca Town Zoning Ordinance , shall count as one person . I • Planning Board 22 February 1 , 1983 Ile • 1982 , and failed in the office of the Town Engineer ; a synopsis of the number of structures to be constructed , and the distribution of dwelling units in these structures , are set forth in Appendix B , annexed hereto , and 90 no more than four clusters ( of the nine identified ) in Appendix B .and in said Phasing Plan shall be started and under construction. or incomplete at any time , except that the Planning Board may waive this restriction for good cause shown ; neverthe - less , any cluster will be completed within three years from the date of commencement of construction , and 10 . a second access road for access southerly to the street labeled " Penny Lane " , adjacent to the lands of Edna Clausen , is shown on the subdivision plat filed on September 14 , 1982 in the office of the Town Engineer and the strip of land over which such second road is located shall be kept free and unencumbered for the purpose of providing such second access ; such second access may be constructed at a location farther to the east of its present location in a manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer if the developer- acquires the title to lands for such purpose , and 11 . the developer has agreed to construct check dams of rock or treated railroad ties and to comply with all other mitigative measures described in Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form approved by the Planning Board October 5 , 1982 and on file • in the office of the Town Engineer as the location or the Town Engineer requires throughout the project , the seeding recommenda - tions of the Soil Conservation Service , which have been sought , shall be implemented for disturbed or unstable areas , and 12 . the Regional Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation has approved the design for the entrance of the project with State Route 79 , and 13 . a subdivision map , prepared by a licensed surveyor , showing such details as the Planning Board has required by this approval , approved by the Tompkins County Health Department , signed by the Planning Board Chairman , will be filed within the time prescribed by Town Law in the Office of the County Clerk , and 14 . an " as -built " map of each cluster will be prepared by a licensed surveyor showing at minimum the location of dwelling units , land improvements , driveways , parking areas , carports , sidewalks and utility easements , and a metes and bounds descrip - tion of all properties conveyed to individuals or the Homeowners ' Association will be filed with the Town Engineer and in the Office of the County Clerk upon completion of each cluster , and 15 . the construction , operation and maintenance of the Project shall be in accordance with all applicable laws , codes , ordi - nances , rules and regulations , without limiting the foregoing , the developer will comply with those provisions of the Town Law governing the manner in which public improvements will be accep - ; ' , ' . • Planning Board 23 February 1 , 1983 • ted prior to each cluster being occupied , including the offering and acceptance of adequate security and agreements toward com - pletion of :improvements as the Town Board may require , and 16 . this approval shall be subject to approval of the Declara - tion of Covenants and Restrictions by the Town Board , and by the State ' s Attorney General or other State agency having juris - diction and no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until such approval has been obtained except that if the developer encounters an unreasonable delay in obtaining such approvals from the State , the developer may apply to the Planning Board for such Certificate of Occupancy and the Planning Board may deny such application , or grant the same , in its sole discretion , with such conditions as the Planning Board may impose , and 17 . the Developer agrees that no Covenants and Restrictions , By - laws , or other rule or regulation of the Homeowners ' Asso - ciation shall at any time be less restrictive than the require - ments of this Approval or any other applicable law , statute , ordinance , rule or regulation of the Town or any of its boards , and this Approval , or any amendment thereof , shall be incorporat - ed in and be made a part of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and shall be referred to by suitable provision in the By - laws of the Association , and • 18 . the Covenants and Restrictions shall be referred to in the deeds conveying title to the units and , the full Covenants and Restrictions shall be furnished to all buyers prior to said conveyance , and 19 . all of the above requirements relate to and are added to the plans and specifications contained in the project drawings last revised and submitted to the Planning Board February 1 , 1983 ; THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS : A . The provisions set forth above shall be deemed to be the conditions , findings , and agreements to which the developer has agreed , and B . the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , subject to the above requirements , conditions , and agreements , grant and hereby does grant final subdivision approval for 124 clus - tered residential dwelling units on 45 + acres , tax parcel 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 21 otherwise to be known as the Commonland Com - munity Subdivisions the final subdivision map shall be signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board , and C . the provisions of this resolution and approval are binding upon the developer or his successors and assigns in the ownership of the above land , or in any portion thereof or interest therein . APPENDIX B Planning Board 24 February 1 , 1983 • DESCRIPTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN EACH CLUSTER OF THE COMMONLAND COMMUNITY PROJECT Number of Buildings Total Number in Cluster with number of of Residential Units Cluster Units in each Building in each Cluster 1 3 buildings with 3 units 11 units 1 building with 2 units 2 1 building with 3 units 15 units 3 buildings with 4 units 3 1 building with 3 units 18 units 3 buildings with 5 units 4 2 buildings with 2 units 9 units 1 buildings with 5 units 5 1 building with 2 units 17 units 3 buildings with 5 units • 6 3 buildings with 5 units 15 units 7 2 buildings with 2 units 14 units 2 buildings with 5 units 8 1 building with 3 units 12 units 1 building with 4 units 1 building with 5 units 9 2 buildings with 4 units 13 units 1 building with 5 units TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS 124 units " Mr . Walsh stated that they would very much like to thank the members of the Town staff for their unstinting patience and for their time , courtesy , and assistance - it has been a pleasure . Chairman May stated that the Planning Board feels the same way they have been very helpful . Mr . Stanton stated that the Board also recognizes that there have been important contributions made by the public in all meetings and further it is a better plan and a better statement of resolution because of all the input from a lot of people . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLAN - NING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV Planning Board 25 February 1 , 1983 • Mrs . Grigorov stated that there was a lot of discussion on PASNY ( Power Authority of the State of New York ) power at the January 12th meeting of the County Planning Board . She stated that in 1961 PASNY power became available to NYSEG by a State law providing for such apportionment of the cheap hydropower from Niagara Falls , Niagara Hydropower is zG a killowat hour , compared with coal at 2 � from Milliken Station . Half was supposed to go to residential and rural , but at the time municipalities couldn ' t take it all , so some was sold on long - term contract to investor - owned utilities like NYSEG . In 1978 , the municiples sued to get more of their share ; the federal regulators ruled that PASNY should not have made those long - term contracts and will have to reimburse the munis for the difference between the cost of hydro and nuclear . This is on appeal . Now the problem is , what will happen when these contracts run out in 1985 and 1990 . As it stands , the munis ( 2 % of state customers ) will get 50 % of the hydro and the rates for all of us who are not munis will go up . To distribute the benefits over the state , either the law must be changed ( one man / one watt ) or each municipality should construct a " paper " agency to channel the power to NYSEG , etc . The munis question the legality of these paper agencies , since they do not have any distributing ca - pability of their own . • Originally , ower could not be distributed south of Alban g Y , P y in an economic fashion , although now it is possible to transmit the power to any place in the State and places out of the State . Chairman - May thanked Mrs . Grigorov for her report . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 1 , 1983 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 00 P . M . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .