Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1983-11-15 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 15 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , November 15 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , David Klein , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , Lawrence P . . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Harold Mix , Raymond V . Hemming , Jay Guyer , A . J . Albrecht , Peter D . DuMont , Monica L . Perry , Sara Jane Hymes , Walter J . Wiggins , Esq . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM OCTOBER 18 ) IN RE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDING . THERM , INC . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Adjourned Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 7 , 1983 and November 10 , 1983 , respectively . Mr . Arnold J . Albrecht , representing Therm , Inc . , appeared before the Board and noted that the Board members had received copies of the new drawing . Mr . Albrecht commented that it was a little different from the first drawing they had received for the October 18th meeting , adding that the difference is that the size is now known - - 50 ' x 200 ' . Mr . Albrecht pointed out that the positioning of the building is about the same except that it is now a little farther from the property line , i . e . , ten feet farther . Mr . Albrecht also pointed out that it is now shown on the plan that one can drive to it . Chairman May noted that there is proposed to be 35 feet from the building to the property line . Mr . Albrecht stated that that was correct . Mr . Albrecht commented that he also put in a couple of other things and proceeded to describe them . He pointed out that the bigger rectangle is an extension of the last building Therm built and is to be the same construction as before extended out 50 feet . Mr . Albrecht noted that they are actually building around an existing structure which is a just a little bit smaller and then they tear down the wall inside . Mr . Albrecht pointed out a proposed garage addition , for trucks , to the carpenter shop . Mr . Albrecht stated that the construction of all this is • either masonary or all steel , i . e . , the extension of the warehouse is all steel and the garage will be masonary . Mr . Albrecht stated that the construction of the 50 ' x 200 ' building Planning Board 2 November 15 , 1983 is not known yet , however , it will either be steel or masonary , and all fire resistant . Mr . Albrecht noted the dotted lines on the drawing as indicating where one can drive now and added that the access will remain the same . Utilizing the drawing , Mr . Albrecht showed the parking area , the creek on the property , and the old Railroad right of way . Mr . Albrecht indicated where the Town property that is adjacent to Therm property is located , mentioning that it is fairly near the proposed building . Mr . Albrecht pointed out that the house , on Therm property , indicated on the drawing is not occupied by people - - it is just a storage area . Chairman May asked how much of the property is blacktopped . Mr . Albrecht pointed out that there is none in the area under discussion , however , he indicated on the drawing that all the blacktopped area of Therm land is on their upper portion , stating that there is quite a bit of it there . Mr . Albrecht pointed out the areas that are gravel , indicating on the drawing the dotted lines depicting same . Mr . Mazza inquired if there were any plans to change or expand further , to which Mr . Albrecht replied , no , adding that . what appears to be additions to the big Therm building are , actually , existing concrete pads . Mr . Klein wondered why , with all the land Therm has available , it picked this one particular site so close to the residences for the big storage building . Mr . Albrecht stated that , as he had indicated at the October meeting , it is fairly • flat there , out of the way of any expansion , and is one of the few spots Therm has that is flat . Mr . Albrecht commented that there is a pretty good grade up there , adding also that with the building located where it is proposed to be , it will really be used for storage . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the Therm matter . No one spoke . Mr . Klein noted that the section of the zoning ordinance dealing with light industrial districts speaks to side yards and rear yards . Mr . Klein stated that it was not entirely clear in the case of the proposed storage building which is which , however , it does not really matter since the proposed building is much closer to the property line than the ordinance requires , being a side yard of 60 feet and a rear yard of 50 feet . Mr . Klein pointed out that the proposed structure is drawn much too close to the property line and , further , there is no indication of a buffer or a planting strip . Mr . Klein stated that the Board should be looking at some of the minimums in the regulations . Chairman May stated that the Board had talked before about moving the proposed storage building and Mr . Albrecht did respond to that . Chairman May commented that he must admit he was confused a little about the fence and the property line , adding , however , that Mr . Klein ' s comments are very valid . Chairman May • stated to Mr „ Albrecht that Therm does have some distance to work with and the building could be moved and still not interfere with any possible expansion some day which Therm might eventually Planning Board 3 November 15 , 1983 • need . Mr . Albrecht agreed , adding , however , that the more he moves the building the more it is out on fill and that is a concern . He stated that there is fill there from prior construction . Mrs . Schultz wondered how long the fill area had been in place , to which Mr . Albrecht replied that it has been there going on two years now . Mr . Klein stated to Mr . Albrecht that he had talked about staying out of possible expansion area but no expansion is indicated on the drawing . Mr . Klein wondered what Therm was thinking about in terms of expansion - - perhaps , doubling . Mr . Albrecht stated that there were no plans for expansion but because of grade , etc . , he would just like to keep those areas that may some day be needed - - maybe years from now - - available . Board discussion followed . Mr . Albrecht stated that if the Board says - move it - he will move it . Mr . Klein pointed out to Mr . Albrecht that his drawing shows very little information . Chairman May stated that he hoped the Board did not mislead Mr . Albrecht at the last meeting , however , two more extensions have been added and perhaps the time has come to do a drawing of all the site as it exists , as it may exist with known plans , and maybe even with " best thinking " plans for the future . Chairman May suggested that the drawing might well include the topography , grades , elevations sheets , and maybe some indication of when , as best it can , Therm plans to do some of these things . • Mr . Albrecht stated that all three of the " additions " shown on the present drawing are immediate . Chairman May suggested that buffering should be indicated and described a good drawing with everything as is and what Therm sees as coming up as well as it might be able to do . Chairman May suggested indicating shrubbery and also defining what this building is going to be . Mr . Albrecht stated that he had thought he should do that when he applied for a building permit , commenting that they are not designed yet . Referring to the two expansions , Mr . Albrecht stated that he was going to apply for building permit in the next few days . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had no problem with those two expansions , however , Therm is now getting to a scale that might be starting to impact this neighborhood . Mr . Fabbroni explained that that is the purpose of the 10 - foot landscape buffer required under the ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni commented that if this is the only place for this storage building , then there is a need to pay more attention to a landscape buffer . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the plan has to be somewhat projected although he recognized the difficulty in knowing the future , but , as Therm adds space it may add employees , for example , and then there is the: need for parking space ; now the question is - - where does it go ? Mr . Albrecht asked if there were anything the Board could do • on the two expansions at this time . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : Planning Board 4 November 15 , 1983 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and hereby does adjourn the Public Hearing with respect to Therm , Inc . until approximately 8 : 30 p . m . this evening , November 15 , 1983 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing with respect to Therm , Inc . duly adjourned . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR RE - ZONING FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 9 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . FORMER KOPPERS CO . PROPERTY , 125 VINE STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 59 - 1 - 1. , 59 - 1 - 3 , and 63 - 2 - 10 . 3 ; 2 . 77 ACRES . SUIT-KOTE CORP . , OWNER , PETER DuMONT ( GALLAGHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ) , AGENT , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 07 p . m . and accepted for the record the • Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 7 , 1983 and November 10 , 1983 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , and upon Suit - Kote Corporation and Mr . Peter DuMont , as parties to the matter . Mr . DuMont appeared before the Board and stated that he hoped the Board members had all seen the letter of submission . The Board members had each received copies of same with their Agendae . Thi letter of submission referred to by Mr . DuMont reads as follows : " Gallagher Commercial Properties 508 Savings Bank Building Ithaca , New York 14850 November 4 , 1983 Planning Board Town of Ithaca Gallagher Commercial Properties , acting as Agent for Suit- Kote Corporation , 1911 Lorings Crossing Road , Cortland , NY , hereby requests a change in zoning from R- 9 Residential to Multiple Residence District as per Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance , Town of Ithaca , for the property owned by Suit - Kote Corporation , Planning Board 5 November 15 , 1983 located on ' Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca , as described and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office , Book of Deeds 556 Page 563 and Book 561 Page 1036 , further identified as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 59 - 1 - 1 , 59 - 1 - 3 and 63 - 2 - 10 . 3 . ( See Survey and reference maps , attached ) . The property consists of approximately 2 . 77 acres in a triangular shape with interrupted Southerly frontage on Mitchell Street of 150 ' and 34 ' , a Westerly boundary of about 6862 ' , 30 ' at the Northerly end and 786 ' along the Easterly line . A substantial part of the parcel ( 750 ± ) is blacktopped , and situated on the site are a number of large , above - ground asphalt or emulsion tanks and some smaller drums and tanks , two wood - frame buildings , and a 3000 sq . ft . main office building and truck garage of about 3000 sq . ft , in area . The perimeter of the parcel is surrounded by a chain - link fence with one entrance / exit gate at the Southeast corner of the lot . The existing use is a legal non - conforming use . It is currently primarily used for truck maintenance and garaging , with no active use of the storage tanks , at this time . Based on the current use , the economic gain does not cover the Real Estate Tax expense on the property . The corporation is in the process of consolidating its operations and real estate holdings , and wishes to declare this property surplus , and dispose of it . Under current Zoning restrictions , unless the present allowed use was continued , single or two - family housing is allowed , or a small number ( 10 ) of clustered condominium units can be constructed . Based on current site development cost projections and the lot configuration , it is not economically feasible to develop the parcel as single or two family housing . The ultimate selling price of the structures would be considerably out of line with existing nearby single and two - family properties . Considering the possibility of clustered condominiums , the resulting market price , because of the limited number of units allowable , would be exceedingly high and of questionable marketability now or in the forseeable future . It is also doubtful that a development of this nature would fit the neighborhood . The proximity to Cornell Quarters ( Immediately adjacent to the East ) which is a de facto multiple residence district , and the type and price - range of neighboring residential structures would not be commensurate with a development of this nature . It appears then , that the highest and best use of this parcel would be : • 1 . A carefully planned , slightly more dense condominium development with a market price within the reach of upper -middle income prospects and above . Planning Board 6 November 15 , 1983 2 . A townhouse concept of rental properties , carefully situated and landscaped to take advantage of the lot configuration and private nature of the site . 3 . A single , medium- rise apartment building , tailored to the site , set within park - like grounds , again , using to advantage , the enclosed private setting . Economic hardship exists on several levels : 1 . The current economic use of the facility does not meet the costs of owning it . 2 . A reversion to full - time use as an asphalt plant is not economically justified according to corporate plans . 3 . Abandonment , or maintaining the status quo is not economically possible . 4 . The cost of developing the property within current zoning restrictions makes the property virtually unsalable . 5 . The property has been for sale for the past five years . One offer was received in that time that did not meet the selling costs . It therefore follows that a change in zoning to a Multiple Residence District would assist in alleviating the economic hardship experience by the owner , would substantially improve the use of the land to the benefit of the Town , and would allow the greatest flexibility of development to a potential buyer while leaving a fair measure of control in the hands of the Planners and Board of the Town of Ithaca . Respectfully submitted , ( sgd . ) Peter D . DuMont Peter D . DuMont , Broker Gallagher Commercial Properties , Agent for Suit - Kote Corporation , Owner . xc : Suit -Kote file enclosures : Short Environmental Assessment Form :Maps ( 2 ) " Mr . DuNiont stated that , quite simply the property is for sale and has been for sale off and on for a number of years - - unsuccessfully . He stated that it is the feeling of the owners that a change in zoning will assist in the sale , adding that they do not choose to use it . Mr . DuMont stated that in the submission letter he pointed out that he felt the highest and best use of the parcel falls in the domain of a multiple residence district . Mr . DuMont asked what the Board would like to know . Chairman May noted that presently Mr . DuMont does not have any proposed site plan . Mr . DuMont stated that he did not , the proposal is for rezoning . Mr . DuMont continued , stating that a • rezoning enhances the potential for a developer and makes it more marketable . Mr . DuMont pointed out that within the ordinance the Planning Board will exercise a great deal of control as to what Planning Board 7 November 15 , 1983 can eventually be developed there , commenting that between R - 9 and Multiple Residence what it boils down to is density and how that is handled is what matters . Mr . DuMont described the various aspects of the site and the various approaches that could be utilized for development within the set back requirements of Multiple Residence Districts . He described an area that could be used if the parcel were developed for a single building use , noting that that approach would put the building fairly deep within the lot . Mr . DuMont , indicating on the large drawing version of the plan received by the Board , noted that there is a large area within the odd - shaped parcel which is useless for a structure . He stated that a building would be buffered from the neighborhood and vice versa , adding that the entire property is surrounded b :y a chain link fence . Mr . DuMont stated that he has talked to a number of developers about the best use of this parcel and it appears that multiple residence is that best use . Mr . DuMont spoke of foot traffic to the bike path and , possibly , to Worth Street , however , pointing out that the main access would be from Mitchell Street . With regard to traffic , Mr . DuMont stated that , depending on the nature of the development , his feelings are! that most would go in an easterly direction - - toward Campus . Chairman May asked Mr . DuMont how many years this property has been a petroleum storage site , to which Mr . DuMont replied , since the ' 40s , adding that it has been in place since the enactment of the Town Zoning Ordinance as a legal non - conforming use . Chairman May asked how long the tanks have been in the ground . Mr . DuMont replied that the seamless tanks have been removed and the only things that remain are riveted tanks . Chairman May asked what those riveted tanks contain , to which Mr . DuMont replied , gunk . Chairman May inquired as to what has been done on the site with reference to PCBs and other petroleum products . Mr . DuMont stated that nothing has been done that he knew of , adding that the bulk of the land where the tanks are is a macadam surface although not in terrific repair . Chairman May stated that he would think that would have to be done before much could be done with that land . Mr . DuMont stated that , if this were done under current zoning , say , single family homes , the site preparation costs would be out of sight . Mr . DuMont noted that several things would have to be removed - - the macadam , the tanks , three buildings . Mr . DuMont described what he termed the next current legal use and which could be around ten condominium units under cluster which permits 3 . 5 units per acre . Chairman May pointed out the 5 - acre requirement under the Town ' s Cluster Regulations and stated that that could be out . Mr . DuMont stated that what he has tried to show is a potential use for this land , adding that the owner could always continue the asphalt plant which they do not want to do . Mr . DuMont commented that he lives in the area and he really did not want that either . Mr . Klein asked Mr . DuMont what the asking price for this property is , with Mr . DuMont replying , $ 150 , 000 . 00 with some of the removal being done by the owner , and adding , this is a Planning Board 8 November 15 , 1983 negotiable figure depending on the amount of preparation . Mr . Lovi inquired as to how much the asking price would go up if the property were rezoned . Mr . DuMont stated that it would not go up , that is the price . Mr . Mazza wondered why the price would not go up and Mr . DuMont replied that they do not think it will . Mr . Mazza suggested that the answer might be , then , to leave the property the same and added that , otherwise , what is the purpose of the economic hardship indicated . Mr . DuMont stated that he had not been presenting an appeal citing economic hardship , his intent was to indicate that the owners want to get rid of the land . Mr . Fabbroni stated that many of the points raised so far have been valid , such as the point that the site needs a lot of work , among others , however , price is a problem . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , putting that aside , it would be easier to deal with this matter if Mr . DuMont could locate a prospective buyer who has half an idea of what he would like to do up there - - just for an example , four buildings , 30 townhouses ; etc . Mr . Fabbroni stated that with such an idea it is a lot easier to get into seeing how it would affect the whole surrounds , or whether , as an example , we might want to forget what happens to the side yard distance to the old railroad track . Mr . Fabbroni expressed his concern with " carte blanche " multiple zoning which would , he felt , be very difficult to deal with . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the next guy could very well plead economic hardship . Mr . DuMont described some of theP roblems that had been wrestled with in working with this property and pointed out that with a single building containing 48 units , rounded to 50 units , and with a price tag of $ 150 , 000 , $ 3 , 000 per unit start - up cost is way out of line for this area and , then , there are the added costs of site preparation . Mr . DuMont stated that he tried to point out in his letter three viable things that would go there under these circumstances such as - - something slightly more dense than a ten - unit condominium - - a townhouse concept of rental properties - - or a single 48 - unit building , say , two stories , three stories , or four stories . Indicating on the drawing , Mr . DuMont pointed out where such a four - story structure could well be located in an area around 135 ' x 801 . Speaking to Mr . Fabbroni_ , Mr . DuMont stated that he felt the Planning Board , in consultation with him with his knowledge of planning and zoning and the rules and regulations , a two - story structure being permitted anyway , has the tools to avoid carte blanche problems . Mr . DuMont stated that the Board has the variables before it and , therefore , all the owners need to ask for is rezoning because the Town knows -the other variables , for example , if it were a high building the only variance would be for building height over 30 feet . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Board has more control if the owner or developer says - - 48 units - - and that is what he wants , then , the Board can deal with the areas of concern such as buffer , heicfht , improvement to neighborhood . Planning Board 9 November 15 , 1983 Mr . Mazza cited Section 46 ( Article IX ) of the Ordinance which sets forth the procedures to be followed by an ' applicant who is requesting that a Multiple Residence District be established . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the burden falls to the applicant , in this case , Mr . DuMont , to present some tangible approach to development of this land . Mr . Fabbroni outlined several suggestions as to how this could be accomplished , perhaps through discussions with , say , three prospective buyers . Mr . DuMont stated that he consulted with the Town Planner ; he took the Town Planner to the site ; they discussed many of the things that Mr . Fabbroni brings up , and , with . the exception of the possible height variance , he really saw no further issue that might come up . Mr . Fabbroni described further possible approaches to establishing some sort of drawing , such as when one works with this triangular site and puts in side yard , front yard , buffer , etc . - - one has a little triangle . Mr . DuMont stated that what he has been trying to say is that they did just that . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against this matter . Mr . Raymond V . Hemming spoke from the floor and stated that he has lived in his home at 807 Mitchell Street , which is opposite this place , since 1948 , adding that he is a member of the Bryant Park Civic Association , Mr . Hemming stated that he has led many fights over these years to keep this neighborhood residential in character . Mr . Hemming asked what kind of " Pandora ' s Box " would be opened were this. land rezoned to multiple . Mr . Hemming stated that he has photographs from 1951 that show tar and other crud flowing down Mitchell Street ; he recalled a petition that went to the Town of Ithaca demanding that it be stopped . Mr . Hemming stated that there is all kinds of that stuff on that site although the trees have grown up and do help to hide it . Mr . Hemming stated that Vine Street is not a " street " - - it is owned by Norbert Schickel . Mr . Hemming stated that he did not know about access off Mitchell Street and how that would work , however , there is a lot of traffic on Mitchell Street . Mr . Hemming commented that the school crossing guard is present tonight and will tell the Board about the children crossing that street . Mr . Hemming expressed his fear of an accident occurring involving the children crossing . Mr . Hemming stated that their main concern is not to stop someone from doing something , however , they have fought for appropriate residential and will continue to do so . Mr . DuMont asked Mr . Hemming if he were for or against this proposal . Mr . Hemming replied that he was against opening up the zoning and a whole lot of students coming in there . Planning Board 10 November 15 , 1983 Mrs . Sara Jane Hymes , 120 Vine Street , spoke from the floor and stated that she agreed , adding that she is concerned with congestion which has got to stop somewhere . Mrs . Hymes stated that they have multiple housing there now with Cornell Quarters . Mrs . Hymes stated that she was also concerned with ,traffic patterns . Mr . Jay Guyer , spoke from the floor and stated that he lives next door to Mr . Hemming , at 805 Mitchell Street and he ( Guyer ) is also President of the Bryant Park Civic Association . Mr . Guyer pointed out that the Bryant Park Civic Association is in the City of Ithaca , not in the Town , however , the City / Town line is Vine Street , Mr . Guyer stated that at meetings of the BPCA concern has been expressed with regard to encroachment . Mr . Guyer stated. that he felt that the townhouse concept might be above student capabilities . Mr . Guyer stated that he would like to place before the Board three concerns : ( 1 ) Mitchell Street has become such a thoroughfare . Mr . Fabbroni asked if he might be permitted to note here that Mitchell Street is a County Highway , not a Town of Ithaca road . Mr . Guyer continued : ( 2 ) Belle Sherman School has been " rezoned " as to student population and is bulging at the seams , so any residential zoning or rezoning must be carefully considered ; ( 3 ) Bryant Park Civic Association and the residents of the area have tried to keep the Belle Sherman area a pleasant place in which to live allowing students in as much as possible , however , the Board should realize that a University of that size and importance , Cornell University , :maintains less than 30 % of its students . Mr . Guyer stated that Cornell is asking us - - you and me - - to maintain their students . Mr . DuMont stated that he has talked to a number of developers , potential buyers . Mr . DuMont stated that he , himself , lives in the area and he agrees with a lot of the things Mr . Hemming says . Mr . DuMont stated that Belle Sherman is an excellent district , commenting that his own house is R- 1 which is a City of Ithaca Zoning Designation , and adding that there are City people trying to sell their houses which are rented by students . M. r . DuMont stated that he is subjected to similar things in violation of the City Housing Code , Mr . DuMont stated that his feeling about the potential for this particular property being student housing is less of a liklihood than it being faculty , staff , simply because of the development costs and because of what the people he has talked to have visualized . Mr . DuMont commented that , as with anything else , there are no guarantees . Mr . Hemming stated that he was concerned with a " carte blanche " multiple designation . Chairman May asked if there were anyone else who wished to • speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 45 p . m . and asked for Board discussion . There was none . Planning Board 11 November 15 , 1983 Chairman May asked that the Board turn its attention to the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as signed and submitted by Peter DuMont , Agent for Suit -Kote Corp . , under date of November 3 , 1983 , on which all questions had been answered " NO " and which had been reviewed by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , on November 7 , 1983 . Mr . Lovi ' s attached comments read : " There are no unusual landforms or existing bodies of water on the site , which is at present completely blacktopped . Several underground and aboveground storage tanks , formerly used for the storage of petroleum products , are still on the site . The site slopes gently to the west , removal of the blacktop and the re - establishment of natural ground cover in this area would reduce runoff to adjacent properties in the City . From an environmental point of view , there are no significant impacts expected from a rezoning itself . 9[As there is no development plan presented with this rezoning proposal , it is difficult to fairly evaluate the prospective traffic , noise , air quality , and visual impact which rezoning would have on this site . Given the ' triangular site , it would be awkward to subdivide the land into permitted 9 , 000 square foot lots . However , a clustered arrangement of one or more structures could be attractively designed . However , traffic circulation and overall impact of any project on the community can only be determined on the basis of a site plan . '[ The issue before the Planning Board is whether it is appropriate for a rezoning to be recommended in the absence of a • site plan for the property . There is no question that the market value of this property would be enhanced considerably by this rezoning . The site would be appropriate for multiple family or cluster development land use , given its proximity to Cornell . However , the Planning Board would be foregoing some of its leverage to influence the eventual development of the site if the rezoning were granted at this time . Given the costs of site preparation which a developer would incur ( removal of blacktop , buildings , storage tanks , and chain link fencing ) the premium of a multiple family zoning added to the purchase price would likely be recouped by a developer ' s request to increase the development density through " hardship " variances and exceptions . 91I recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance for the concept of a rezoning to multiple family but would caution against proceeding with the rezoning at this time . It might be appropriate for the Board to indicate the type of developments it would consider appropriate in the future . However , any positive action on a rezoning should be based upon a specific site plan and use proposal . " Chairman May stated that he took issue with all the answers to the questions being " NO " . Chairman May stated that this land has been a petroleum storage area , in effect , a chemical storage area . Chairman May stated that , at the least , a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form must be completed and , possibly , more than that . Mr . Lovi stated that he had not taken issue with the rezoning per se , however , he was concerned about the lack of site Planning Board 12 November 15 , 1983 plan . Mr . LOVi stated that he did visit the site with Mr . DuMont and walked -the land and he agreed with much of Mr . DuMont ' s analysis such as high fixed cost in preparing it and that the existing zoning may push the price of whatever kind of housing could be built there up into a range that is not attractive for a developer to build . Mr . Lovi stated that , on the other hand , the latter matter is something that could be asked of that person offering the land to take into account . Mr . Klein noted that there are utilities serving the parcel . Mr . Mazza stated that he agreed with Mr . May on the inadequacy of the EAF . Chairman May stated that , as he sees it , this is a chemical storage area . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not disagree . Chairman May stated that that issue has to be addressed . Mr . DuMont stated that he has no objection to preparing a Long Form . Mr . Mazza stated that it is important to any position he might take and he would like to have the proposed plans for this site to review before he would want to make a recommendation for a rezoning . Mr . Mazza cited Section 78 of the Ordinance which sets forth the three things the Planning Board must find . They are :" ( 1 ) There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location ; ( 2 ) The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected ; ( 3 ) The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . " • Mr . Mazza stated that he knew none of these things . Mr . DuMont stated that he would submit that the three variables fall within that requirement . Mr . Mazza stated that he would tell Mr . DuMont now that they do not . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the applicant is asking for the burden to fall on the Planning Board when it should be on the applicant . Mr . Mazza stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit that . Mr . Klein commented that certainly during his time on the Board and he thought for some time before that even , no rezonings had occurred without a proposal . Mr . Fabbroni recalled many years ago when lands in the area of King and Danby Roads and lands near the old airport site were simply rezoned . Mr . Fabbroni went on to talk about other areas in the Town which " might " not require " site plan " specificity - - such as the area by Game Farm Road , as an example . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca determine and. hereby does determine that the Short Environmental Assessment Form as presented by Mr . DuMont with respect to lands of Suit -Kote Corp . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 59 - 1 - 1 , 59 - 1 - 3 , and 63 - 2 - 10 . 3 , is unsatisfactory due to the potential of chemicals or other items on the site which , at this point , are unknown , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that a Long Environmental Assessment Form ® must be presented prior to there being further consideration of the applicant ' s request for rezoning of said land . Planning Board 13 November 15 , 1983 • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDING - - THERM , INC . At 9 : 00 p . m . , Chairman May declared the previously adjourned public hearing in the matter of site plan approval with respect to Therm , Inc . duly re - opened for further consideration of the proposed garage and warehouse extension . The Board turned to the Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Arnold J . Albrecht under date of November 15 , 1983 , all questions thereon having been answered " no " . Chairman May noted that the EAF ( Short Form ) had been reviewed by Mr . Lovi with a recommendation for a negative declaration . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency .in the review of Therm , Inc . proposal for extension of existing warehouse and garage addition to existing carpenter shop as shown on plan entitled " Therm Plot Plan " dated September 16 , 1983 , revised November 4 , 1983 , 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 , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . • MOTION :by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov0 Planning Board 14 November 15 , 1983 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant site plan approval for proposed additions of approximately 5 , 000 square feet to existing buildings , more specifically , extension of existing warehouse and garage addition to existing carpenter shop , at Therm , Inc . , 703 Hudson Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 , 22 . 8 acres , as shown on plan entitled " Therm Plot Plan " dated September 16 , 1983 , revised November 4 , 1983 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of the Therm proposal duly closed at 9 : 10 p . m . CONTINUED INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH WALTER J . WIGGINS , ESQ . IN RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF WIGGINS ' PROPERTY ON DANBY ROAD ( ROUTE 96B ) IN THE VICINITY OF L ' AUBERGE DU COCHON ROUGE AND THE BARN APARTMENTS . • Mr . Wiggins appeared before the Board and presented a new drawing of the site , as prepared by William Downing Associates , Architects , entitled " Site Plan - - The Chateau " and dated 11 - 15 - 83 , drawn by K . D . G . , Project Number 83 - 568 , Mr . Wiggins recalled for the members his concept of this proposal as a " Bed and Breakfast " complex in the manner of a French chateau - = thus , the name " The Chateau " . Mr . Wiggins noted that when complete the proposal will contain 80 units , adding that it will be done in stages , however . Utilizing the drawing appended to the bulletin board , Mr . Wiggins indicated that parking is shown for the whole concept and is such that it will avoid impacting of the view . Mr . Wiggins recalled that the Board had asked about the rest of the land involved in this large parcel and stated that he did not have definitive thinking on this yet , however , because of the Board ' s request , he had asked the Architect for a depiction of a possible layout . Mr . Wiggins described this projection as multiple residence units that are more " countrified " than those the Board may be used to , adding that they would be similar to those on his Comfort Road property . Mr . Wiggins indicated that access is shown off Danby Road , Mr . Wiggins indicated on the drawing an extension to L ' Auberge , which would be needed because of the bed and breakfast plan , with an outdoor patio area also . Mr . Wiggins stated to the members of the Board that he was open to suggestions . Chairman May noted that Mr . Wiggins had previously suggested • that all of these possible future units which he is proposing would be rental units . Mr . Wiggins stated that that was correct and , as he sees it now , he can see the point of rental units . Planning Board 15 November 15 , 1983 Mr . Wiggins stated that he did not think the site is conducive to ownership homes down in that area . Mr . Wiggins noted that the open space is left open because it is very pretty and added that there are no trees there , the trees are in the gorge area . Again utilizing the drawing on the board , Mr . Wiggins indicated an existing right of way and commented that that may be saved for a bridle path . Mr . Wiggins also indicated and described wooded land between a certain lot and Sesame Street , Mr . Wiggins commented that the builder has talked to the neighbors and they seem to be in favor of his ideas . Mr . Wiggins pointed out that the proposed building would be located some 600 ' or 800 ' back from the road ( Danby Road ) and he would maintain that as green area . Chairman May commented that it looks very nice . Mr . Lovi stated that the first question he has , presuming the cost of money does come down and Mr . Wiggins can complete the poject as he has tentatively mapped out , with all traffic via a single driveway passing L ' Auberge which is the centerpiece of this entire proposed development , is - - is this desirable from a traffic point of view or business point of view for L ' Auberge ? Mr . Wiggins stated that he could not address that now . Mr . Wiggins talked about a road that serves his daughter ' s cabin , he spoke of a certain existing residence that a different road would be an imposition to and possibly to others in the future . Mr . Wiggins described topographical problems also . Utilizing the drawing , Mr . Wiggins showed the only way in to one place describing it: as a very wet area and noting , also , a very deep gorge which goes some 50 ' or 60 ' down . Mr . Wiggins stated that he did not know any better way to do it , commenting that a road could come around the other side but there are lovely trees there . Mr . Wiggins commented that a driveway could also come in the center but he did want to keep the green area . Chairman May asked Mr . Wiggins what the relative percentage is between the bed and breakfast versus L ' Auberge when it is to capacity . Mr . Wiggins stated that there are 60 to 65 seats in L ' Auberge and his guess is that maybe half of the people that would stay here would consider dining at L ' Auberge among other nice eating places in the area . Mr . Wiggins surmised maybe 80 potential people and turning a table , say , two and a half times , with service from 6 : 00 to 11 : 00 p . m . Mr . Wiggins thought that L ' Auberge would have to expand some as this concept expands , however , the kitchen at L ' Auberge needs expansion now , actually it has to be expanded because it cannot do the job the restaurant quality really needs . Mr . Wiggins thought that around 250 people would be served . Mr . Wiggins commented that he would probably have to have a variance to expand this kitchen unless it were approved as part of that concept . Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Wiggins how he would prefer to move from the zoning point of view , adding if he were asking for a rezoning • or variance . Mr . Wiggins responded that he would ask the Planning Department how they see the best interests of the Town served . Mr . Lovi stated that certainly discussions have been f Planning Board 16 November 15 , 1983 • about " bed and breakfast " and he had envisioned something like a farmhouse on the road but , as Mr . Wiggins plans this , the overall concept is less bed and breakfast and more something else - - not a motel , not a hotel , but some of both . Mr . Lovi stated that , in his opinion , we should be looking at this as some sort of PUD ( Planned Unit Development ) and working through that . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , unfortunately , some years ago we recommended the PUD concept as part of the proposed zoning ordinance which has not been followed through , so , all we really have to work with is almost " contract zoning " in a way , since the existing zoning ordinance only allows us to piecemeal , thus , we tend to have to approach such concepts in fits and. starts . Mr . Fabbroni conjectured a scenario such as multiple rezoning , variance for bed and breakfast , and , long - term situation of phasing . Mr . Fabbroni suggested , insofar as the restaurant part goes , maybe the only way to handle it with the existing zoning is for the Planning Board to recommend an expansion to the Zoning Board of Appeals . In a manner of thinking out loud , Mr . Wiggins supposed that if he were to call this a " Country Inn " , commenting that people are fed up with " motels " and " bed and breakfast " is a hot item right now which he thought will fizzle out , what he thought of this concept is something providing an alternative to a " Holiday I :nn " in the country such that one can have breakfast but still have the efficiency that , unfortunately , only numbers • can permit . Chairman May wondered if Mr . Wiggins knew just when some of this might occur . Mr . Wiggins stated that he would like to break ground in the spring for about one - quarter of the building proposed . Mr . Fabbroni outlined for Mr . Wiggins that he has in place a variance for the restaurant and cluster approval including the pond and grassed area in front of the barn which tied up about: 5 acres as a cluster unit . Mr . Fabbroni expressed his opinion that Mr . Wiggins should stand on his variance for the restaurant , and added that , then , the next question he would pose is - - how does Mr . Wiggins feel about dealing with the front , say , 25 acre; ? Mr . Wiggins stated that that would be fine . Mr . Fabbroni staged , in that case , he would suggest a proposal for a rezoning of the front 25 acres; approximately , to multiple such area to include the 80 units , plus four in the barn and the restaurant and continue the variance on the restaurant , treating the expansion. as if it needs a variance . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that the restaurant matter could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals after the Town Board has acted on the whole site . Mr . Fabbroni commented that if the concept falls on its face , what is left to deal. with is 20 apartments , and , at such time , Mr . Wiggins could work into approvals that he would have and re - look at his concept . Mr . Fabbroni noted that density is controlled by dedication of the whole 25 or so acres . • Mr . Mazza wondered , if it were to " fall on its face " , how Mr . Wiggins might divide up the 20 units . Mr . Wiggins stated Planning Board 17 November 15 , 1983 • that each unit is designed so that there is a bath and a potential kitchenette - - therefore , 20 studio apartments . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , on a site plan that Mr . Wiggins may next present , he would want the sewer line located and a showing of how connection would be made to the water line , and , landscaping with thoughts of breaking up the breadth of the facade a little bit . Chairman May stated that proposed lighting and trash handling should be indicated also , adding that a Long Environmental Assessment Form should be submitted as well . Mr . Wiggins thanked the Board for their help and stated that he hoped to be appearing again at their December 6th meeting . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 18 , 1983 MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Minutes of the meeting of said Planning Board of October 18 , 1983 , as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair - called for a vote . • Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . Abstain - Klein . The MOTION was declared to be carried . REPORT OF TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Noting that the Secretary , Mrs . Fuller , had mailed to each member a copy of the Minutes of the October 12 , 1983 meeting of the County Planning Board , Mrs . Grigorov stated that she would report on the November 9th meeting of the County Planning Board . Mrs . Grigorov stated that the Town of Lansing representative had reported that they are about to adopt a zoning ordinance , so it will no longer be the only town in the state without one , and added that Dryden Village reported that it is changing its zoning to increase commercial area . With respect to the Hospital , Mrs . Grigorov reported that six proposals were submitted and three or four are good possibilities , adding that the best arrangement , not necessrily the highest bid , is the most important factor , it being that the interests of the present hospital must be preserved . With respect to the Jail Site , Mrs . Grigorov reported that there are three sites left - - ( 1 ) NYSEG property between Planning Board 18 November 15 , 1983 • Cascadilla and Third Streets ; ( 2 ) U - FAIR , Clinton Street West ; ( 3 ) AIRPORT . Mrs . Grigorov reported that it was discussed that all sites would work well . She noted that sites 1 and 2 involve acquisition costs and removal of property from tax rolls and utility connection is close on site 3 . Mrs . Grigorov also noted that site 2 would cost about $ 100 , 000 . and could involve foundation problems that could add another $ 100 , 000 , plus it is farther to water and sewer lines , however , annualized over 20 years , it would cost $ 45 , 000 . more than site 3 . She stated that site 1 would cost about $ 200 , 000 . , development about $ 100 , 000 , however , including lost taxes , this one would annualize at $ 45 , 000 . per year more than the airport site ( 3 ) . Mrs . Grigorov noted that -the time saved in transporting prisoners would be about four minutes a trip between Lansing and the City sites . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the County Planning Department staff has been unable to determine any economic advantage to the City in keeping the jail . With respect to Route 13 , Mrs . Grigorov reported that the CPB had discussed that after 14 years of study , two possibilities are left - - B - 1 north of Freeville and A- 1 near Dryden . She reported that B - 1 is opposed by affected farmers and Cornell may worry about interference with drainage toward wetlands . Mrs . Grigorov reported that A - 1 is opposed by Dryden , which does not want the highway between the Village and the High School . Mrs . Grigorov noted that A - 1 would not intercept Route 38 so it will not get the Freeville traffic , and it does not change the hill by TC3 . Mrs . Grigorov reported that there is a possible A - 2 north of A - 1 but there would be an unacceptably steep grade involved . Mrs . Grigorov reported that Mr . Liguori , County Commissioner of Planning , sees no use of further study locally and will recommend to the Country Board of Representatives that they submit both routes to the State and let them decide . She stated that it appeared to be Mr . Liguorl ' s feeling that there is strong local opposition to all routes , so the DOT ( Department of Transportation ) should decide . Mrs . Grigorov noted that the prime objective is safety , not convenience . She also noted that Cortland will. cooperate with improvements to Router 281 and 13 , but would veto the northern route preferred by Dryden . Mrs . Grigorov reported the following , quoting Mr . Liguori - - " We have the lousiest road system in central New York State , and a lot of it is our own fault because we can ' t get a consensus . " Mrs . Grigorov stated that the advisory board will discuss this further , after members meet with the groups they represent , and if they do not agree with Mr . Liguori they can send a different recommendation to the County Board along with his . Chairman May thanked Mrs . Grigorov for her report . ADJOURNMENT . Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the November 15 , 1983 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 P . M . Planning Board 19 November 15 , 1983 Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .