Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-01-03 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY , JANUARY 3 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , January 3 , 1984 in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 * 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Bernard Stanton , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT * Arnold J . Albrecht , Margaret M . Rumsey , Town Councilwoman Gloria Howell , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU News ) , Robert Jason ( WTKO News ) , Deborah Gesensway ( Ithaca Journal ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 32 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 15 , 1983 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and . hereby does approve the Minutes of the November 15 , 1983 meeting of said Planning Board , as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans . The MOTION was declared to be carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 6 , 1983 MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the Minutes of the December 6 , 1983 meeting of said Planning Board , as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Planning Board 2 January 3 , 1984 . REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER Mr . Fabbroni was unable to be present because of another commitment . REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER Mr . Lovi reported that , although Mr . Fabbroni was unable to attend this meeting , he had prepared a Memorandum for the Planning Board members in connection with the Therm , Inc . , site plan review adjourned public hearing . Mr . Lovi reported that , unfortunately , the members of the Competing Interests Subcommittee of the Six Mile Creek Study Committee had made other commitments for this evening and were unable to attend , therefore , that informal discussion will be placed on the Agenda of another meeting . Mr . Lovi reported that the 8 : 30 p . m . Public Hearing with respect to site plan review for a proposed Danby Road fire station has been cancelled . In response to Board members ' questions , Mr . Lovi and Mr . May briefly described the meaning of the term " Competing Interests Subcommittee " of the Six Mile Creek Study Committee . Mr . Lovi , noting that it is now 1984 , suggested that the Board might wish to take this opportunity to consider various matters and directions which it would like to see pursued during this year . There followed a give - and - take discussion of items which both the Board , Mr . Lovi , and the Secretary saw as matters to be considered by the Planning Board . Such matters were : 1 . Evaluation of physical areas of the Town - physical land use justification . Examples - Bikeways , Wetlands , 2 . Developers . Example - Biggs Complex development . 3 . Refurbishing of facilities . Examples - Water and Sewer . 4 . Planning Board Guidelines . 5 . Comprehensive Plan - general direction for completion . Examples - physical evaluation ( as above ) , attraction of light industry . 6 . Fire Protection . Examples - West Hill , South Hill , Fire Station ( s ) , 7 . Uses of big , old , houses . 8 . Increased Occupancy in certain situations . Example - " Section 71 " once proposed for zoning ordinance . 9 . Roads . Example - What do we want in the community juxtaposed with how does the community move around , speeds , volumes of the present day . 10 . Highway Master Plan update . 11 . Planned Unit Developments ( PUDs ) . 12 . View Shed and Solar Access . 13 . Discussions with Town Building Inspector , Lewis D . Cartee , with respect to matters of concern to him . Planning Board 3 January 3 , 1984 . 14 . Police Protection - City , Town , and Village interconnection . ( This is an issue which relates to Fire Protection . ) 15 . Parking Lots - how do we want to look at parking lots ? Examples - parking lot maintenance , standards for construction . 16 . Planning and Zoning Seminars . Examples - New York State Department of State , In- House . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY The Secretary distributed to each Board member a copy of Mr . Fabbroni ' s Memorandum , dated January 3 , 1984 , with respect to the Therm , Inc . , site plan approval hearing to follow . The Secretary noted that each Board member had received with his / her Agenda a copy of the Building Inspector ' s Report of Building Permits Issued . Said Report shows that during the month of December 1983 , 5 permits were issued for $ 103 , 500 . 00 in improvements , as compared with the month of December 1982 where 4 permits were issued for $ 30 , 350 . 00 in improvements . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Mrs . Grigorov was out of Town so no report was given . 0 ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM NOVEMBER 15 ) IN RE CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 10 , 000 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE BUILDING . THERM , INC . Chairman May declared the Adjourned 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 Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 22 , 1983 and December 29 , 1983 , respectively . Mr . Arnold Albrecht , representing Therm , Inc . , was present . For the record , Mr . Fabbroni ' s Memorandum is herein set forth : " I have had the chance to review the Therm site plan dated December 15 , 1983 . It would seem appropriate to clarify the following points as part of any site plan approval : 1 ) What type of building is the 50 x 200 foot structure ? 2 ) What size , spacing , and species of plantings does Therm intend to use in creating the ten - foot buffer strip and landscaping to break up the scale of a twenty - one foot high building ? With a 8 - 12 % gradient ' barely ' identified by topographic information , it remains unclear to me whether views homes enjoy on a first floor level on Kendall Avenue , some 120 feet away , will not be blocked by the upper 10 - 15 feet of the new building , and , how specific landscaping will mitigate this . 3 ) What schedule of buffering developing or paving parking areas and access roads shown is contemplated ? Planning Board 4 January 3 , 1984 4 ) The Kendall Avenue access would preferably be for emergency use only . It is important that the plan approved include some specifics of proposed site improvements and buildings to make subsequent enforcement meaningful . " Mr . Albrecht appeared before the Board for discussion of the revised site plan , dated December 15 , 1983 , a copy of which each Board member had received in the mail with their Agenda . Mr . Albrecht pointed out that the proposed building had been moved farther from the line , i . e . , 60 feet distant . Mr . Albrecht noted that he had put in a few contours , adding that Therm is on a hill . Mr . Albrecht noted that he had also put in some of the driveways . Mr . Albrecht displayed a photo of Therm . Mr . Albrecht stated that the height of the proposed building is 25 feet . Mr . Stanton inquired as to what type of construction will be used . Mr . Albrecht stated that the type of construction was unknown at this time . Mr . Stanton wondered how the Board could pass on this without knowing the type of building to be constructed . Mr . Albrecht replied that he believed the hearing was with respect to site plan approval , adding that he will know the specifics of building construction type at the time of application for building permit , and further adding , that Therm • is presently in the process of shopping around for the kind of building to be constructed . Mr . Albrecht stated that he thought the building would be a painted , enamelled type , or block masonary ( concrete block ) . Mr . Klein asked if the roof might be flat or peaked . Mr . Albrecht stated that the roof will be either flat or of a very low pitch , adding that it will look like the rest of the plant ' s buildings in that respect , some parts having flat roofs and some low pitch roofs . Mr . Lovi , indicating on the site plan , asked Mr . Albrecht where the " driveway " , shown with the words " To Kendall Avenue " fits in with the plans . Mr . Albrecht stated that it is merely indicated on the drawing because it is there , however , it cannot be used , nor is it used ; the chain link fence is in place . Mr . Lovi wondered if this " driveway " is existing . Mr . Albrecht stated that it is existing , adding that it is just there and commenting that it is of gravel . Mr . Lovi referred to what he termed a " shelf " in a certain area which has been filled in and asked if the land down underneath is of a nature such that the building could be taken down a little . Mr . Albrecht pointed out that the Board had asked for a delineation of possible expansion area , stating that he wished to bring that to the Board ' s attention . Utilizing the plan , Mr . Albrecht noted that the plant goes " that " way and stated that he is being chased down into a place he does not want to be . Mr . Lovi wondered if , in that • shelf , some 60 feet away , there would be any plantings . Mr . Albrecht stated that there would be plantings , i . e . , some sort of evergreen . Chairman May wondered how tall these plantings might Planning Board 5 January 3 , 1984 . be . Mr . Albrecht stated that they would probably use arbour vitae although he did not know how high they might be . Mr . Lovi stated that he had noticed some pallets and various kinds of stuff around the area . Mr . Albrecht said that that was true and that is why they are building the building . Mr . Albrecht commented that the building may be lower in the end . Mr . Klein stated that he still felt that for an operation such as Therm , which is a big company , the Board is still getting presented with some sort of almost casual thoughts . Mr . Klein stated that he likes to look at things in a more precise way with a more positive approach . Mr . Klein stated that the Board had asked for a site plan and something has been plotted out , adding that what has been done is the splitting up of the site three ways . Mr . Klein noted that in November , Mr . Albrecht had said that the area chosen is one of the few areas that is flat although it appears to be no different . Mr . Albrecht indicated that the area has been graded flat . Mr . Klein noted that the drawing shows an eight - foot drop . Mr . Albrecht stated that the site has not been surveyed . Mr . Klein wondered why the building could not be located at the " other " end ( indicating ) where it could be 20 feet lower , adding that , as he looks at this plan , he is not convinced that very much thought has been given to this building . Mr . Albrecht suggested that this matter be looked at the way it is because the Board is asking him to dream into the future and he cannot do that , adding that maybe the Board can , . but he cannot . Mr . Klein reiterated his thought about the building being up in another location ( indicating ) because he was not convinced that where the building is being proposed is the best place on the site . Chairman May stated that he was a little troubled about having the information available at the time of application for building permit . Mr . Albrecht stated that he can give the Board only what he has , noting that the building is not designed at this point . He stated that it is that simple , the building is not designed yet , however , the Board knows the size that Therm would like , the Board knows the height Therm would like . Mr . Albrecht asked the Board if it wanted him to wait , adding that he did not want to design a building for which he cannot get a building permit . Chairman May stated to Mr . Albrecht that he is aware of the Board ' s concerns , adding that the Board needs to know what the building is to be . Mr . Albrecht wondered how that affects the site plan approval . Chairman May responded that it certainly affects the appearance of the neighborhood . Mr . Stanton stated that he did not think Therm should be treated any differently from anybody else in the community . Mr . Albrecht stated that he should hope not . Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the public . There were none . Mr . Lovi noted that Mr . Albrecht had drawn the possible expansion area and there are two possible circulation routes . Mr . Albrecht stated that he was a little disturbed because , first , the Board indicated that it was a matter of moving the Planning Board 6 January 3 , 1984 . proposed building away from the fence and , now , it is a matter of the height and being away from people . Chairman May wondered what kind of a problem it would be for Therm if they got all their quotes in and designed the building . Mr . Albrecht stated that that would be so close to the building time if there were another bunch of meetings . Mr . Lovi pointed out that two options have been presented for the building - - metal or block - - and suggested that , perhaps , the Board could put conditions on the site plan approval . Mr . Klein stated that he did not think the Board is discussing anything it did not discuss at the November meeting , i . e . , buffer , more detail , impact on the neighborhood , as Therm is expanded where would the parking go , what would the building look like . Mr . Klein stated that he still felt that the level of detail is not up to what he had hoped to see . Mr . Albrecht commented that he guessed this was being done this way because this is the way they do things , adding that Therm is a family business . Mr . Albrecht recalled the many different kinds of meetings and the information required during his many years as a member of the Planning Board , Mr . Lovi suggested that , if at all possible , there should be some indication of plantings such that the lengthy facade of the building is broken up . Chairman May stated that Therm has always done a good job and is a good neighbor on South Hill , however , the site is • getting pretty complex and this is the time to lay it out . Chairman May stated that he , personally , had no problem with the building . The Board discussed the status of the SEQR review , it being their belief that the determination made at the November meeting included the subject proposal . Chairman May suggested the following in order to move things along as expeditiously as possible - - ( 1 ) a description of the specifics of plantings ( landscaping ) , schedule and species , ( 2 ) limiting the site plan approval strictly to the building location and sizes ( 3 ) finish drawings are to come back to the Planning Board and to include building design , south elevation , grading and drainage , and lighting . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton ; RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby does grant site plan approval for proposal of Therm , Inc . , 703 Hudson Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 , such site plan approval being specifically for a 50 ° x 200 ' storage building in the location set forth on Therm Plot Plan , dated September 16 , 1983 , revised December 15 , 1983 , with the restriction that before any Building Permit be issued , Therm , Inc . , is to bring before said Planning Board , for approval , a building design with the specifics of the south elevation , grading and drainage plans , lighting plans , size and spacing and species of plantings and scheduling thereof including Planning Board 7 January 3 , 1984 plantings that are to go along the existing fence , and , further , that such drawings are to be presented at at least 1 " = 201 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye m May , Baker , Stanton , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR A REZONING TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO PERMIT THE USE OF AN EXISTING HOUSE AS A " BED AND BREAKFAST " ACCOMMODATION , 110 EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , MARGARET M . RUMSEY , OWNER , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly open 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 December 22 , 1983 and December 29 , 1983 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of the Agenda upon the various neighbors of the Rumsey property , upon the Finger Lakes State Parks Commission , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning . The Board members had received with their Agenda the following items * 1 . Appeal Form , signed and completed by Margaret Rumsey , dated 12 / 28 / 83 , reading as follows * " . . . From 1948 to 1952 my husband and I took in tourists ( with a sign in front of our house and a ' Tourists ' sign on Route 13 ) . My husband died November 1979 and my youngest son ( 23 ) has now left home , so that I have a large empty house that I want to help support by a low key ( no signs ) Bed and Breakfast business . My two story white brick house , circa 1814 , has 3 bedrooms , and an efficiency apartment , on 2 acres surrounded by tall hedges , located by the entrance of Buttermilk Falls . Tax Map # 38 - 1 - 2 . " 2 . Completed Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) , signed by Margaret M . Rumsey , dated 11 / 18 / 83 , with all questions answered " NO " , reviewed by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , on December 28 , 1983 , as follows * " SEQR REVIEW ° Rumsey Bed and Breakfast Proposal • Planning Board 8 January 3 , 1984 . The project is an unlisted action pursuant to Local Law # 3 , 1980 . Given its small scale , I would recommend a negative declaration given that the following information be determined : 1 . That the water and sewage systems are in good repair and of suitable capacity to handle the prospective load , and 2s the structure meets all necessary fire codes and the electrical system is safe . Planning Considerations The applicant is proposing a ' tourist home ' as defined in our Zoning Ordinance . This use is allowed in any R9 zone in the Town . Her property is presently zoned R300 tourist homes are not a permitted use . A spot rezoning to R9 is one alternative ; this would be similar to the procedure followed by the Planning Board in its review of Walter Wiggins ' ' Chateau ' proposal . Another alternative is for the Planning Board to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that , in this instance , there is an unnecessary hardship in following the strict letter of the Ordinance and that a use variance be granted to permit this proposal . In my opinion , the second alternative is more appropriate for a project of this scale . " • Mrs . Rumseyappeared before pp e the Board and stated that she moved into her home in 1948 as a bride and at that time her husband was a student at Cornell University and they took in tourists . Mrs . Rumsey passed around three photographs of her home for the Board members to see . Mrs . Rumsey stated that there would be no signs in connection with her present proposal and the operation would be low key . She stated that her home contains three bedrooms and has an efficiency apartment where her mother comes sometimes in the summer . Mrs . Rumsey stated that this " bed and breakfast " facility would be part - time , e . g . , weekends . Mrs . Rumsey had with her a copy of the tax map of the property in her neighborhood , upon which she had drawn the house , and which she passed among the Board members . Mr . Lovi stated that , at first , when the notice for publication had to be prepared for the newspaper by December 22nd , consideration of a rezoning had seemed to be the way to proceed , with a variance for the " bed and breakfast " being requested of the Board of Appeals - - much like Mr . Wiggins ' s proposal on the Danby Road . Mr . Lovi stated that , upon re - reading the ordinance which permits tourist homes in R9 , he did not think that a rezoning is the way to go and those thoughts were set forth in his review of the SEAF on December 28th , Mr . Lovi stated that he felt a more appropriate approach would be to • consider a recommendation to the Board of Appeals with respect to a use variance specific to Mrs . Rumsey . Mr . Stanton inquired if Mr . Lovi had discussed the variance approach with the Town Planning Board 9 January 3 , 1984 • Attorney . Mr . Lovi stated that he had not . Mr . Lovi noted that the zoning in place for Mrs . Rumsey ' s property is R30 and asked Mrs . Rumsey if she had public water service . Mrs . Rumsey stated that she did not , she has well water and a septic system . Mr . Lovi suggested to Mrs . Rumsey that she check with Mr . Andersson at the Tompkins County Health Department as to any requirements or permits which may be required by the Health Department , Mr . Lovi also suggested to Mrs . Rumsey that she discuss her proposal with Mr . Cartee , Town Building Inspector , and ask him to inspect her premises with respect to building and fire code requirements . Mrs . Langhans suggested that it would be a good idea to do this before any further meetings . Mrs . Rumsey asked that the Board tell her exactly how and when to proceed with her application both with respect to Mr . Cartee and to Mr . Andersson and , further , precisely what it was she should ask for or receive from each and what their requirements are . The Board and Mrs . Rumsey discussed at length some of the possibilities , such as the capacity of her septic system , fire safety , and electrical safety . Chairman May suggested that Mrs . Rumsey contact the Health Department in terms of their requirements for places providing public lodging . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter before the Board . No one spoke . Chairman May stated that he would defer the matter of review of the SEAF and a determination of environmental significance to the Zoning Board of Appeals . The Board agreed . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca defer and hereby does defer consideration of the proposal of Mrs . Margaret M . Rumsey for a " Bed and Breakfast " accommodation in her home , 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 , to the Zoning Board of Appeals as being the appropriate body to act upon such request , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Planning Board wishes to inform and hereby does inform said Board of Appeals that the Planning Board sees no particular difficulty with the proposal , as presented , but would suggest that a building inspection for fire protection and safety be done prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits and that any required approvals from the Tompkins County Health Department be received prior to any occupancy as such proposed use . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Stanton , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . 46 Planning Board 10 January 3 , 1984 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Rumsey proposal duly closed . Mrs . Rumsey thanked the Board and stated that she would get right on with the job and contact Mr . Cartee and Mr . Andersson tomorrow morning . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the January 3 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9000 P . M . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .