Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1983-09-06 L C `i TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 6 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , September 6 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , Barbara Schultz , David Klein , Bernard Stanton , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Ivar Jonson , John Vasse , Peter Costanza , Esq . , Vincent Franciamone , Mary Ludlom , J . C . McKinley ( WTKO News ) , and James V . Buyoucos , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 7 , 1983 MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker . • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 7 , 1983 , as submitted . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 21 , 1983 MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 21 , 1983 , as submitted . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 5 , 1983 Planning Board 2 September 6 , 1983 • MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . David Klein . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . Meeting of July 5 , 1983 , as submitted . There being no .further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER , LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI Mr . Fabbroni stated that those who live on West Hill know that the Town spent a good part of the summer preparing roads for oil and stoning and that that work is just about completed . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the paving of Stone Quarry Road is in process and will largely complete the improvement project for that road with the exception of the railroad project . He noted that the matter of the drainageway needs to be discussed with the City and commented on some past history wherein , years • ago , the City rebuilt the retaining wall there . Reporting with respect to park work , Mr . Fabbroni stated that quite a bit of work has been accomplished with our summer help , e . g . , Forest Home Walkway from the North Bridge up to Warren Road in the vicinity of the tenth hole of the Golf Course is well under way . The bikeway from Maple Avenue to Game Farm Road is also well under the way to be completed . The Highway Department will complete brush cutting and landscaping . Mr . Fabbroni stated that protective bridge structures will be installed across the Judd Falls Road and Cascadilla Creek bridges . He described the status of the bikeway which goes all the way from Honness Lane to Game Farm Road . Mr . Fabbroni reported that some drainage work was looked at with the County and noted the upcoming receipt of $ 1 , 000 . 00 ( matching funds ) which will go toward the purchase of bin walls which can be stockpiled for some future larger project . Mr . Fabbroni commented that $ 2 , 000 . 00 would only go for about 20 feet of a project . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the Burns Road project has involved a great deal of work , time , and effort . He stated that the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( F / EIS ) went to the Town Board on August 30th and included all the answers to the responses , of which there were not many , during the 45 - day review . period . He commented that William Mobbs , the County Commissioner of Public Works , had a couple of questions and the Six Mile Creek Committee had a list of things they wanted included which were either answered or it was concluded that the alternatives were Planning Board 3 September 6 , 1983 • more damaging . He stated that the Findings and Conclusions with respect to the F / EIS should be accepted by the Town Board on September 12th and some work should be started this Fall . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , in parallel , some Civil Engineers at the Cornell Graduate Department have been doing sample gathering and lab testing on the soils in this area . Some useful information should be obtained from the work . He commented that as soon as the weather allows in 1984 we should be able to go ahead with heavy construction . Mr . Fabbroni reported briefly on the various transit systems with which the Town is involved , noting that they are all doing very well . Mr . Fabbroni reported on four ARC applications in process involving proposals for a two million gallon tank on Snyder Hill , a fire station on South Hill , water and sewer on West Hill , and a bus to increase service to the Hospital . Mr . Fabbroni commented that most of these applications require some definite application of private funds . He felt that the tank has the best support for this year or for next year . A discussion followed between Mr . Fabbroni and Mrs . Grigorov about the tank vis a vis the Pine Tree Road Tank with Mr . Fabbroni describing discussions with Cornell University and needs such as East Hill Plaza . Mr . Fabbroni commented that almost in what might be termed a " backwards • fashion " this tank could supply the whole Bolton Point system . He stated that the pre - application process was a good learning experience . Mr . Fabbroni reported that Susan Beeners has been working hard on the landscaping program which we got notice of in July and is well into that project . He noted that the deadline is definitely September 30 , 1983 . He stated that materials have all been ordered and about half delivered and pretty well planted . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the six -week summer youth people are gone . He reported that the five best were kept on for completion , one surveying with Mike Ocello . He stated that the CETA employees were extended for two weeks , but we lost them on Friday , September 2nd . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is one CETA worker left and one temporary , besides the park people , doing the landscaping program . Mr . Stanton expressed his compliments to the staff for the excellent work in completing the Burns Road F / EIS . All members of the Board agreed on kudos to Larry Fabbroni , Peter Lovi , Mike Ocello , Susan Beeners , and Helen Blauvelt . Chairman May thanked Mr . Fabbroni for his report . REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Lovi was on vacation , commenting that he ( Fabbroni ) had been engrossed in agreements with respect to Commonland and the Professional Building matters , Planning Board 4 September 6 , 1983 • so he would merely touch on Mr . Lovi ' s efforts to the extent that Mr . Lovi has been involved with the Burns Road F / EIS , the administrative aspects of the summer workers , and working with Mrs . Connie Allen , the Town Budget Officer , on future computer needs . Chairman May thanked Mr . Fabbroni for speaking on behalf of Mr . Lovi . REPORT OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR , LEWIS D . CARTEE Mr . Cartee noted that the Board members had received with their Agenda copies of his July and August , 1983 , Report of Building Permits Issued . In July of 1983 , 11 permits were issued for a total of $ 1 , 202 , 175 . 00 in improvements as compared with July of 1982 where 10 permits were issued for a total of $ 73 , 950 . 00 in improvements . In August of 1983 , 31 permits were issued for a total of $ 786 , 790 . 00 in improvements as compared with August of 1982 with 6 permits issued for $ 59 , 200 . 00 in improvements . Mr . Cartee commented that the number of building permits issued in August ( 31 ) would seem to be the fruits of all the work done in connection with the Commonland Community . He stated that he issued 15 building permits for Section 2 of Phase I of Commonland . He stated that Section 1 of Phase I is almost • completed as far as building homes goes . Mr . Cartee stated that 31 building permits in one month is unusual . Chairman May thanked Mr . Cartee for his report . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Noting that the Board members had each received copies of the Minutes of both the July 13th and August 10th , 1983 , Meetings of the County Planning Board with their Agenda , Mrs . Grigorov reported briefly on the August meeting . Referring to " PASNY " power , Mrs . Grigorov stated that the Board of Representatives passed a Resolution in August approving the establishment of the Public Service Utility Agency , adding that the Resolution has the same intent as that which was considered by the County Planning Board . The Resolution specifies that the Board of Reps will act as the Agency and the Proposition will be on the November ballot . The Village of Groton should continue to receive its present allocation of hydropower and should be held harmless essentially . The Agency is not really a " paper agency " but will have full authority , even though Project I is primarily a paper project . • Mrs . Grigorov stated that the whole Biggs Complex situation has changed since the August meeting . Planning Board 5 September 6 , 1983 • Mrs . Grigorov reported that a current EMC project is the creation of a handicapped accessible wetland for educational purposes at Hogs Hollow in the area of the Marina north of Cass Park , an area some of which used to be under water . EMC has met with DEC to consider a 20 - acre piece of land , half of which may be converted to a wetland . Mrs . Grigorov indicated that most of the meeting was devoted to an update on Route 96 , with the following being the latest proposed schedule - - final design 1984 , bid 1987 , build 1988 ( first phase ) . As a final comment , Mrs . Grigorov reported that a very nice compliment had been made with regard to code enforcement in the Town of Ithaca when it was noted by the County Commissioner of Planning , Frank Liguori , that the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code adoption would affect the Town very little because it had a very sophisticated enforcement system now . Chairman May thanked Mrs . Grigorov for her report . PUBLIC HEARING : PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF PROPOSED CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AT 108 RIDGECREST ROAD . FIRST PHASE - - FOUR UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 5 . 5 ACRES . TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 AND 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 2 , AND A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 2 . GRACE • CASCIOLI , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing ( s ) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 29 , 1983 and September 1 , 1983 , respectively . The following documents , submitted by the developer had been received by the Planning Board with their Agenda : ( 1 ) Reduced copy of Proposed Cluster Housing plan , King Road / Ridgecrest Road , dated August 10 , 1983 , and , ( 2 ) Completed Short Environmental Assessment Form with all answers checked " no " , signed by Grace Cascioli , dated August 10 , 1983 . In addition , the Board had received a copy of the Reviewer ' s comments - ( Mr . Lovi ) with respect to the SEQR Review of the proposal dated August 15 , 1983 , as follows : SEQR REVIEW - Cascioli Cluster Subdivision Introduction The proposed subdivision presents several environmental and design - related problems for the Planning Board to consider . The primary problem is one of road access to the development . Though a 15 ' right - of -way may be sufficient for a private driveway to the dwelling units proposed at this time , any further development of the interior lands should only be permitted if a minimum 50 ' • right - of -way is permanently established . Such a right - of -way would be necessary in order to permit an orderly and safe two - lane traffic pattern serving the interior lots in the Planning Board 6 September 6 , 1983 • cluster . Given the present unavailability of additional frontage for such a right - of - way , further development of the site as a clustered subdivision would result in a traffic problem in this area . I believe a more correct answer to question # 11 on the S / EAF would be " yes " . Alternatives I . The developer could acquire additional land fronting on either Ridgecrest or East King Roads contiguous to her present parcel . A easement of 50 ' minimum width would be either : a ) mapped and deeded to the Town for use as a future road right - of -way . b ) mapped and held by the developer with the restriction that no building or other structure may be constructed within its boundaries . Such a condition would be established as a restrictive covenant and would perma - nently run with title to the land . In any case , the exact location and minimum size of this road easement would be determined to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer . The documents reserving this easement as a • permanent road right - of - way would be drawn to the satisfac - tion of the Town Engineer . II . The developer could move the two existing buildings on tax parcels 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and 45 - 1 - 5 . 2 to the interior acreage and use this land for the road right - of -way . This would be a preferable arrangement since there are several waivers of the cluster regulations which would otherwise have to be made in order to permit the present proposal to be con - structed as a clustered subdivision . These specific cluster regulations which would have to be waived are detailed below . Specific Cluster Regulations to be Waived NOTE . The numbers in the brackets refer to the sections of the cluster regulations to be considered more fully by the Planning Board . [ # 3 , 41 Since the developer in only proposing to build one dwelling unit in the cluster subdivision at present , a map showing the number of units permitted in a tradi - tional subdivision may not be necessary . However , it would still be helpful to have an indication of the eventual development plans for this land . • [ # 5 b , c ] Without some consideration for the eventual development of the additional land , the present proposal would oblige all traffic generated by 5 . 5 acres of R15 Planning Board 7 September 6 , 1983 • acreage to be served by a single 15 ' access road . Furthermore , since the developer owns additional land contiguous to the present proposal , it is possible that in the future , additional traffic load may be put on this substandard driveway . In my opinion , the proposed arrangement would impede the orderly development of land in the neighborhood . [ # 5 g ] The subdivision plan should present the parking areas in greater detail . It appears that the developer is proposing that parking lots be located in the front yards of both buildings ; given the congested develop - ment of this proposal , rear yard parking lots would be preferable . [ # 5 h ] The effect of this clustered arrangement would be to put four residential dwelling units on an area ( 100 x 150 ' ) which would only allow 1 - 2 dwelling units . The concentration of bulk and percentage of lot area covered are significantly greater than that of the immediate neighborhood . Relocating the existing structures to the interior lots would alleviate this problem . [ # 8 ] No open space reservation has been indicated on the • present plan . Given the proposed development and narrow access road , use and maintenance of any interior acreage as parkland would be difficult . [ # 9 ] The buffer area between the proposed subdivision and adjacent properties is only 15 ' , not 30 ' as required . The Planning Board may also require a buffer 40 ' wide between the edge of the pavement of any public road in a clustered subdivision and adjoining properties . This requirement may necessitate the reservation of an easement 140 ' wide for use as a road right - of -way serving the subdivision . Conclusion Given the existing houses on the site , a cluster plan has been suggested as a way for the developer to construct an additional dwelling unit which would otherwise not be permitted . However , the use of the cluster provisions obliges the developer to meet additional requirements , which have been detailed above . These requirements were adopted by the Planning Board because it was realized that with the privilege of clustering should be certain obligations for adequate parking , access , buffering , and rational site development . Clustering was not devised as a way to " get around " any particular , onerous zoning requirements . • Unless the environmental questions raised above are addressed in a revised preliminary plan , I believe the Planning Board would be setting an unfortunate precedent by favorably considering this Planning Board 8 September 6 , 1983 • project , as presented . If the developer merely wants to construct an additional dwelling unit on his undersized rear lot , and can prove some practical difficulty or peculiar hardship , then a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is all that is necessary . To propose a cluster plan which itself would require numerous waivers when all that will be constructed at this time is the otherwise unpermitted dwelling unit seems an inappropriate use of this otherwise flexible development tool . Attorney Peter Costanza appeared before the Board on behalf of Mrs . Cascioli and , utilizing the large - sized version of the plan received by the Board , spoke to Mrs . Cascioli ' s proposal . He stated that there are two structures presently existing , noting that he was talking about the narrow parcel fronting on Ridgecrest Road . He pointed out that there is a two -unit building in the front and a 2 - unit building in the back and stated that the dark portion shown on the plan , with respect to the back z -unit building , is proposed for construction and is to be included as part of a cluster development including additional land which has been purchased . Mr . Costanza stated that the present proposal refers only to the two presently existing structures . Mr . Costanza passed around two 8 " x 10 " photographs of these two buildings . Chairman May inquired as to the square footage of the • smaller back building to which Mr . Vincent Franciamone responded , less than 1 , 000 square feet . Mr . Costanza spoke of a 15 - foot passageway in terms of going into the back. area . Mr . Stanton asked about what is situated on the two adjacent lots ( 45 - 1 - 4 and 45 - 1 - 6 ) with Mr . Costanza responding that there are houses located on those two lots . Mr . Stanton noted that there appeared to be no right of way into the back land . Mr . Costanza stated that there was no right of way . Chairman May inquired as to the acreage of the front parcel and was informed that it is a little short of 30 , 000 square feet ( 100 x 275 ' ) . Mr . May stated that in his opinion there is inadequate access to the back lands to even consider the proposal , adding that there is inadequate lands in front and there is no buffer area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mrs . Cascioli now owns 15 acres in the back , about 5 of which is a part of the proposal being presented tonight as the first phase . Mr . Costanza corrected the acreage involved by noting that Mrs . Cascioli now owns 16 . 7 acres in the back . Mr . Klein asked if there were land available to permit access from King Road . Mr . Costanza stated that at this point he did not know if such land were available . Planning Board 9 September 6 , 1983 Chairman May stated that he had trouble seeing how the Board can consider this as a cluster the way it is here proposed . He stated that the front parcel is too small and he did not see how it can be tied in with the back land just purchased. . Mr . Costanza stated , with respect to the portion fronting directly on Ridgecrest Road , that that is all the space there is . Mr . Costanza stated that Mrs . Cascioli is willing to dedicate a certain amount of land to achieve what is proposed . Chairman May stated that even if that were the case , with the buffer areas required by the cluster regulations , he could not see how it can be done . Mr . May also noted the yard requirements that are not met . Mrs . Grigorov asked if the two buildings were just built , to which Mr . Costanza replied that they have been there about ten years . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the proposal , as presented , was terrible .. Mr . Fabbroni asked what the developer ' s options were for access other than through the Ridgecrest Road land . Mr . Costanza replied that he wished to stress , in terms of the way they are treating this proposal , that there is no problem with access to the back land , there are no plans for the back area , the Board should not consider this as part of the proposal . He stated that what they are talking about is the two front buildings at this time . Mrs . Grigorov asked if the front parcel is in compliance now as it stands ., Mr . Fabbroni stated that if the back unit is not occupied , it is in compliance . Mr . Stanton stated that he agreed with the Chairman . Chairman May stated that , on the surface 5 . 5 acres is sufficient for a cluster_ proposal , but if there is no access to the back area it is not really a useful part . Mr . Costanza wondered if the Board wanted a 50 - foot access way to the back land . The Board indicated that that would be important . A discussion followed among the Board members , Mr . Costanza , and the Town Engineer with respect to the Cluster Regulations and the number of items therein that would have to be waived as to the proposal . Mr . Costanza suggested that further discussion was not going to go anywhere at this time and the matter should be put aside for now . He stated that other things are under discussion . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to Mrs . Cascioli ' s subdivision proposal . No one spoke . Planning Board 10 September 6 , 1983 • Chairman May declared the Public Hearing duly closed at 8 : 15 p . m . Board discussion followed . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . James Baker . WHEREAS , at Public Hearing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed plans submitted for a proposed cluster subdivision at 108 Ridgecrest Road , the first phase thereof proposed to include four dwelling units in two structures on approximately 5 . 5 acres , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and 5 . 2 and a portion of Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 2 , Grace Cascioli , Owner / Developer , Peter Costanza , Esq . , as Agent , and WHEREAS , said Planning Board finds said cluster subdivision proposal as presented this date , September 6 , 1983 , to be lacking in that the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Cluster Regulations are not met with respect to buffering , access , side yards , and distances from adjacent neighbors ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reject and hereby does reject the plan , as it has been presented , for a proposed cluster subdivision , as hereinabove described , at 108 Ridgecrest Road . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that , in view of the Planning Board ' s decision in the matter of the cluster subdivision proposal , as submitted on behalf of Mrs . Cascioli , a determination by said Board under SEQR with respect to said proposal , as submitted , appears to be inappropriate at this time . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION • APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED FOUR- LOT SUBDIVISION ON PINE TREE ROAD . TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 2 , COMPRISED OF 2 . 27 + ACRES . IVAR JONSON , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Planning Board 11 September 6 , 1983 • Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 23 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing ( s ) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 29 , 1983 and September 1 , 1983 , respectively . Chairman May pointed out that , due to publication deadline requirements of the Ithaca Journal , the following Notice of Public Hearing was set forth in the legal notices but that the Agenda which had been mailed as required noted the change in the proposal just prior to publication - - " Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Proposed Three - Lot Subdivision on Pine Tree Road , and , Consideration of Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in re variance ( s ) required for the construction of two - family dwellings containing dwelling units of equal size , side by side . Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 2 , comprised of 2 . 27 acres . Ivar Jonson , Owner / Developer . " Mr . Ivar Jonson appeared before the Board with ten large copies of his Preliminary Subdivision Plan proposing four lots on land previously owned by John Marion , now deceased . The Board members had received with their Agenda a copy of the completed Short Environmental Assessment Form . Mr . Jonson asked , because the matter of the pond was of concern , that the Secretary read aloud the following portion of a letter Janice M . Womble had written to Mr . John Vasse : " As to the topography and drainage • plot which Johnson ( sic . ) is having done - - make sure all references to the pond recognize its man -made origin . There are detailed topography and soil analysis maps drawn by the Conservation Dept . when they built the pond as a demonstration project in 1950 . That was one of the first anywhere , and established a method for water conservation for fire protection , and other farm uses , before most areas had public water . It was also used by the State Fisheries Dept . for research in stocking and growing fingerling brook , brown and rainbow trout - - knowledge later used for restocking trout streams elsewhwere in the state . It was never for drainage control . SHORT HISTORY LESSON . " Mr . Jonson stated briefly that he wanted to build four houses and leave the pond the way it is . He stated that he was asking for approval to do this and commented that everything that is there will be there including the pond . He stated that he has been and will be working with Larry Fabbroni and Lew Cartee . He stated that he will preserve the pond and make the land better by working with Mr . Fabbroni . He stated that he wanted to build one - family homes only in the way permitted in the zoning . Mr . Jonson passed around an 8 " x 10 " black and white aerial photograph of the land in question and adjacent areas . Mr . Fabbroni clarified Mr . Jonson ' s statement as to one - family homes , noting that the request is for standard • dwellings with maybe a basement apartment which , in essence , would be a two - family dwelling . Mr . Jonson agreed , adding that what he meant was that the zoning permitted an apartment if 500 Planning Board 12 September 6 , 1983 • of the main unit , unless in the basement . He stated that he was talking about a basement apartment . Mr . Fabbroni commented to the Board that the proposal was pretty straight forward and proceeded to refresh the Board ' s memory with respect to the area , recalling that the Zwerman , Biesdorf , and Iacovelli properties were subdivided when John Marion and Armand Adams , both now deceased , came in and were not willing to dedicate park land . Out of those discussions came some wording that the pond would always remain as open space . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this is still possible as shown on the survey / subdivision plan being presented by Mr . Jonson . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he felt some kind of commitment as to the pond remaining should go along with this plan in order to be consistent with our intent to maintain the open space . He stated that he would not want to see an owner fill in the pond and diminish the open space . Mr . Jonson stated that his lawyer is drafting an agreement that the pond will stay that way . Mr . Fabbroni suggested various ways to insure this , such as a restrictive covenant and / or notations on the subdivision plan that is filed with the County Clerk . Mr . Jonson stated that he has what Mr . Fabbroni wants but he forgot to bring it and will give it to the Secretary first thing in the morning . Mr . Jonson stated that his proposal is a • simple , straight forward , thing ; the .lots are there as the plan shows ; there is nothing out of the way that is not permitted . He stated that sewer and water are there , the road is there , and he can do very little harm to the land . Chairman May stated that his only concern was the pond . Mr . Jonson stated that that pond will remain . Mr . Jonson stated that he will work with Mr . Fabbroni as to grading , commenting that water can only go one way and that is straight downhill . Mr . Klein asked Mr . Fabbroni for some more history about the Marion proposal done in prior years . Mr . Fabbroni described again in more detail the larger picture of the Marion land as it evolved in late 1980 referencing again the now Zwerman property , the now Biesdorf property , and the now James Iacovelli , a fairly recent owner , property . [ Secretary ' s Note . See Planning Board Minutes 11 / 4 / 80 and 11 / 18 / 80 . 1 Turning to drainage , Mr . Fabbroni stated that proposed parcels A and B will drain into the pond , but C and D will follow lot lines . He commented that the Biesdorf parcel and the Iacovelli parcel , referenced on the plan presented by Mr . Jonson , are vacant at this time . He stated that a swale would have to be developed . Mr . Klein expressed considerable concern about the pond with • respect to assurances that it would remain intact . Mr . Klein stated that he was not particularly happy with what Mr . Jonson Planning Board 13 September 6 , 1983 • had mentioned as forthcoming assurance and noted that there was nothing on the plan stating that the pond would remain . Chairman May asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak to the matter of the proposed four - lot subdivision . No one spoke . Chairman May asked the Board to turn to the matter of the SEQR review , noting that the answers on the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) had all been checked " no " and Mr . Lovi had reviewed the project making the following recommendation : " This project should pose no adverse environmental consequences , as presented . The pond on site should be preserved as a condition of approval . I recommend a Negative Declaration for this Unlisted Action . " MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed four - lot subdivision on Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 2 , Ivar Jonson , Developer , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above - mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . Chairman May wondered if the Board might wish to consider waiving the final approval hearing at this point . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , if that were the case , there should be some indication on this map which would be signed by the Chairman for recording , specifying that the pond is to remain , in essence in perpetuity , and that that should be stated in any approval resolution as a condition of the approval . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board both grant and hereby does grant preliminary subdivision approval and waive and hereby does waive final subdivision approval , thus , said Planning Board 14 September 6 , 1983 • grant of preliminary approval , in this case , shall be construed as final approval , for a four - lot ( 4 - lot ) subdivision along Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 2 , consisting of 2 . 89 ± acres , as presented to said Planning Board on September 6 , 1983 by Ivar Jonson , Developer , and as is shown on Map entitled " Survey for Estate of John Marion " - 8 / 83 - George Schlecht , P . E . , P . L . S . - Preliminary 9 / 6 / 83 , said Map designating such four lots as " A " " B " " C " and " D " and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the grant of approval hereinabove described is subject to the following conditions : 1 ) With respect to the pond located on Parcel " B " , the subdivision map heretofore described shall denote that said pond is to be preserved in perpetuity . 2 ) Such preservation of said pond shall be reflected as a restriction incorporated in any deed conveying title . 3 ) The requirements of the Town Engineer with respect to drainage shall be met . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Stanton . Nay - Klein . The MOTION was declared to be carried . [ Secretary ' s Note : On Wednesday , September 7 , 1983 , Ivar Jonson hand delivered to Nancy Fuller at Town Hall , the following letter signed by Ivar R . Jonson : " September 7 , 1983 Town Planning Board Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Pond - Pine Tree Road Property Gentlemen . Please be assured that I have no present intent to alter , drain , or fill the pond located on Pine Tree Road in the Town of Ithaca in the event I acquire title to said property , and that in the event I subsequently convey this parcel , I will see that such a restriction is incorporated in the deed . • Very truly yours , Ivar Jonson " ] r Planning Board 15 September 6 , 1983 Y • SIGN REVIEW BOARD ( PLANNING BOARD ) - REVIEW OF PROPOSED SIGN FOR OFFICE OF DR . MICHAEL GOODFRIEND , 1212 TRUMANSBURG ROAD . Mr . Cartee presented Dr . Goodfriend ' s request for an additional 3 sq . ft . of signage reading " 1212 Trumansburg Road " to be added to his permitted 3 sq . ft . sign presently existing and reading " M . A . Goodfriend M . D . " Mr . Cartee noted that 4 sq . ft . of signage is permitted pursuant to Section 4 . 01 - 1 ( a ) of the Sign Law , adding that a recommendation by the Sign Review Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the request is required by the Sign Law , The Board members had received with their Agenda copies of the Appeal Form with attachments showing the sign and its location . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , on the basis of need , attractiveness , and character , a grant of variance from the requirements of Section 4 . 01 - 1 ( a ) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit an additional 3 sq . ft . sign reading " 1212 Trumansburg Road " as requested by Dr . Michael A . Goodfriend . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . NEW BUSINESS - REQUEST FOR SIGN PERMIT EXTENSION FOR ORCHARD HILL SUBDIVISION , OFF DUBOIS ROAD NEAR INDIAN CREEK ROAD . Mr . Cartee recalled for the Board that a Sign Permit for " Orchard Hill " had been granted in 1980 , renewable for two years , which was done in 1981 and then again in 1982 . He stated that the Board had indicated that the extension which was to expire in July of 1983 was not to be renewed , however , Mr . Niedorkorn had requested an additional year because of the economic situation . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board , grant and hereby does grant an extension of oneear for Sign Permit No . 89 Orchard Hill Y g Subdivision . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Schultz , Klein , Stanton . f n Planning Board 16 September 6 , 1983 • Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . NEW BUSINESS - NEW YORK PLANNING FEDERATION , 45TH ANNUAL PLANNING AND ZONING INSTITUTE , OCTOBER 16 - 181 1983 , GROSSINGER , NEW YORK . The Secretary reported to the Board members that the Town Board will be making its decision on September 12th as to Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals representation at the upcoming Planning and Zoning Institute . Mr . May , Mr . Klein , Mrs . Schultz , and Mrs . Grigorov indicated their interest in attending and stated that they would check their office schedules and inform the Secretary by Thursday ( September 8th ) . OLD BUSINESS - PROPOSED AGREEMENT - PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Town Attorney James V . Buyoucos discussed with the Planning Board and the Town Engineer certain aspects of an agreement he had been asked to prepare with respect to the Planning Board ' s decision in May 1983 in the matter of the additional building at the site of the Professional Building , 1301 Trumansburg Road . ADJOURNMENT • Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the September 6 , 1983 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 P . M . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .