Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-03-20 Z q 1. r TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 20 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , March 20 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Edward Mazza , Bernard Stanton , David Klein , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Rocco P . Lucente , Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , I . Stanley Goldberg , Jean Chabot , Charles Walcott , David G . Allen , Catherine Milnor , Ellen Robb , Claude Robb , Patrick Hughes , Alan Renwick , Anne A . Renwick , Ian Tyndall , William Reed , Mario Giannella , Bernard A . Hutchins , Jinyong Hutchins , Gerardo Sciarra , Nancy Jackson , John Novarr , Nancy DeLuca , James Clapp , Peter Rider , Susan Corapi , Ann Goldfarb -Clapp , Wayne Corapi , Scott Camazine , Diane Walker , Frank Walker , Pamela Rosenberg , Larry Rosenberg , Robert H . Schwarting , Louise Taylor , Roger Allen , Beverly Livesay , H . Padamsee , David Gluck . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 31 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 March 12 , 1984 and March 15 , 1984 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Clerk of the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Administrator , upon the State of New York in the care of Cornell University , and upon each of the owners , developers , and / or agents , as party to the action . Chairman May announced that the Public Hearing scheduled for 9 : 00 p . m . with respect to the Lake Shore West development at the former Biggs Memorial Hospital site will not be held , at the request of the developer , and will be adjourned to a future meeting of this Board , probably April 3rd . PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO REZONE TAX PARCELS N0 . 6 - 7010 - 3 . 12 TO - 3 . 25 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . ROCCO LUCENTE , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Planning Board 2 March 20 , 1984 Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above noted matter duly opened at 7 : 33 p . m . [ Secretary ' s Note : The published notice was erroneous insofar as the zoning designation was cited as R30 rather than R15 and also with respect to the use of the words " a portion of " tax parcels , etc . The corrections were pointed out by the Board and are as noted above . ] Mr . Lovi noted that the plan presented by Mr . Lucente , and appended to the bulletin board , was a similar plan to that which the Board has seen , as is the proposal . Mr . Mazza noted , however , that this is the first Public Hearing on the matter although there have been several meetings with Mr . Lucente and his architect , Robert Boehlecke , and suggested that Mr . Boehlecke outline the proposal for the benefit of those of the public present . Mr . Boehlecke appeared before the Board and stated that nothing has really changed in the proposal since last June [ 1983 ] . Mr . Boehlecke pointed out that there are 14 existing , split - level , buildings , the lower level being partly below grade . Mr . Boehlecke noted that each of the 14 existing buildings contains two units with each such unit containing five bedrooms . Mr . Boehlecke stated that , presently , each of the existing buildings may legally be occupied by up to 14 individuals . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the proposal is two - fold , i . e . , a request for the rezoning of the 14 lots involved from R15 to a Multiple Residence District and to convert each five -bedroom unit into two units , one containing two bedrooms and one containing one bedroom , thus , there would be four dwelling units within each of the 14 existing buildings , rather than the two dwelling units as is the case at present . Mr . Boehlecke , indicating on the drawing , noted that the number of bedrooms per level would be reduced from five per level to three per level , but that the number of units per level would be increased from one per level to two per level . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the proposal does not involve any additions to the buildings ; there would be no expansion of the buildings , merely an interior subdivision of the structure . Mr . Boehlecke stated that there would be an entrance to each unit on each level , adding that they are already existing and , basically , a subdivision of the space into two units utilizing the two existing entrances . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the conversion will involve some building code work , i . e . , fire separation , etc . , and some addition of kitchen space , all of which will , basically , create one two - bedroom and one one - bedroom unit on each floor . Mr . Boehlecke noted , in conjunction with that , since the amount of people occupying the structures will be reduced , the parking lots are proposed to be defined better and paved , or oiled and stoned , and to provide four outdoor spaces with two spaces in the existing garages . Mr . Boehlecke commented that the present parking lots are rather indistinct and not very well defined and somewhat larger than what is proposed . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the proposal includes clearly defined ' Planning Board 3 March 20 , 1984 • parking spaces , landscaping around the parking spaces , some interior refurbishing , refinishing , painting , and so forth . Mr . Boehlecke stated that there is some exterior work which Mr . Lucente plans such as painting , possibly replacing some siding , shutters , etc . , that is , a general sprucing up of the buildings . Mr . Boehlecke concluded by noting that the proposal is mainly interior conversion and changing the parking areas , remarking that he had gone over the proposal many times before and hoped he had covered it all again this time . Mr . Boehlecke stated that he would be happy to answer questions if he could . Chairman May asked Mr . Boehlecke if he had given the Board any landscaping plan that is being proposed at this point . Mr . Boehlecke stated that he had presented the tentative proposal . Mr . Boehlecke passed 8 " x 10 " colored photographs of some of the buildings among the Board members to show the existing situation . Referring again to landscaping , Mr . Boehlecke noted that with their proposal they had said there would be additional landscaping to screen and define the parking areas . Mr . Boehlecke distributed to the Board members a general plan of landscaping proposal to do as a minimum , entitled " Planting Diagram " . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the intent of the landscaping is to provide adequate plantings , seeding , etc . , so that people do not pull their cars in over the grass . Mr . Boehlecke noted , on the drawing , the use of " paired lots " to achieve this , and commented that they would either take advantage • of existing landscaping or supplement it so that a 7 ' on center results . Mr . Mazza asked if there were to be any definition of these lots by railroad ties or something of that nature . Mr . Boehlecke stated that that would not be the case , adding that the definition would be achieved by pavement - type area to grass area . Mr . Klein asked if the parking lots will be blacktopped . Mr . Lucente stated that they would be oiled and stoned in the usual manner . Speaking again of the landscaping plans , Mr . Boehlecke stated that the plan just presented speaks to a minimum number of plantings that will be done . Mr . Boehlecke stated that he did not want to be too specific as to what goes exactly where , but there is the commitment to that number of plants as a minimum . Mr . Stanton spoke of the drainage with respect to the driveways and noted that he believed it to be a relatively flat area . Mr . Stanton asked if there were something for the runoff to flow to . Mr . Lucente stated that water drains to the road ditch now and , basically , that same grade will be kept . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter before the Board . Mr . David G . Allen , 254 Sapsucker Woods Road spoke from the e floor and stated that he is a neighbor down the road . Mr . Allen Planning Board 4 March 20 , 1984 • stated that he had two questions , the first being why this rezoning is needed because Mr . Lucente basically got what he wanted 18 years ago , Mr . Allen stated that what Mr . Lucente is talking about is just general maintenance , as he saw it , which any good landlord should do . Mr . Allen stated that his second question was with regard to the number of units proposed to be in each building . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the number proposed was four . Mr . Allen asked for a definition of " family " . Mr . Boehlecke responded that , in this particular matter , the answer to that question lies with the Town Board . Chairman May stated that at the present time the permitted , legal , occupancy of these buildings is up to 14 unrelated persons , With respect to any future occupancy in connection with this proposal , were it to be approved , Chairman May read aloud from the Resolution adopted by the Town Board on February 27 , 1984 , with respect to its determination that no significant adverse impacts upon the environment are presented by the proposal , as follows : " . . . 4o there has been discussion by the Town Board to limit any rezoning by the following occupancy restrictions : ( 1 ) each building would be owned by no more than one owner , ( 2 ) occupancy of the one bedroom apartment would be limited to two people , whether related or not , ( 3 ) occupancy of the 2 - bedroom apartment would be limited to a family plus one unrelated person , or no more than three unrelated persons , ( 4 ) all aspects of the conversion of the 14 buildings shall comply with the 1984 New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code . " Mr . Allen wondered if a precedent would not be set by changing the zoning to accommodate one person . Mr . Allen stated that his lot is bigger than Mr . Lucente ' s lots and wondered what would happen if he wanted to change his lot to multiple residence . Mr . Allen commented about the housing that is across the street , which is in the Town of Dryden . Mr . Mazza stated that it was important for him to be able to determine whether the situation with respect to Mr . Lucente ' s 14 buildings would be improved or would be worsened by the proposed conversion , Mr . Mazza asked if Mr . Allen , as a resident of the area had any opinion on that . Mr . Allen said that he felt things would be just the same . Mrs . Jean Chabot , 246 Sapsucker Woods Road , spoke from the floor and stated that past experience with and the performance of Mr . Lucente leads the neighbors to doubt future action . Mr . Mazza posed the proposition assuming that certain restrictions such as those just read by Chairman May are in place and asked if , under those circumstances , the situation with respect to these 14 lots would be better or worse in the opinion of the neighbors , Mr . Allen responded that the zoning ordinance has been unenforced ; Mr . Lucente ' s buildings are in violation of the zoning ordinance ; how could these restrictions be enforced ? Mr . Mazza offered , as a given , that Mr . Lucente has the right to occupy his buildings in their present manner and asked if the proposal under consideration at this meeting would make matters ' Planning Board 5 March 20 , 1984 • better or worse . Mr . Allen stated that he doubted very much that it would be better . Chairman May pointed out that the law suit which occurred between the Town and Mr . Lucente some 15 years ago was won by Mr . Lucente and , further , that Mr . Lucente is operating the buildings under discussion in a legal manner . Chairman May noted that there is no question of non - enforcement of the ordinance nor violation of the ordinance . Chairman May stated that Mr . Lucente is now before the Board with a proposal and the Board is in the process of looking at that proposal in order to transmit a recommendation thereon to the Town Board , Chairman May stated that what has been proposed involves a reduction in the occupancy level of each of the buildings , individual ownership of the buildings and the possibility of owner - occupancy of the buildings . Chairman May noted that Mr . Lucente has stated that his interest is to put the buildings up for sale . Mr . Allen asked if Mr . Lucente had proposed to put these buildings up for sale on the public market . Mr . Lucente responded , yes , of course . Mrs . Chabot stated that Mr . Lucente ' s proposal is really just blackmail . Mr . Allen stated that Mr . Lucente has devalued properties next door all the way down the street and asked why someone over on Snyder Hill Road cannot pull off the same caper . Mr . Mazza stated that what he really wished he could do is find out the feelings of the neighbors on the present proposal . He commented that it is a matter of being either the way it is now or something better - - or worse . Mr . Mazza asked if the neighbors had any suggestions , adding that it had been said that this proposal was blackmail , however , in his opinion it was not , it was negotiation . Continuing , Mr . Mazza pointed out that , given the situation that Mr . Lucente has there , which is legal , this is a negotiating process to improve a situation which the neighbors obviously feel is very bad . Mr . Allen stated that , if this goes through , he should be entitled and so should the Chabots or anyone in R15 , to the same kind of special consideration . Mr . Charles Walcott , Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology , spoke from the floor and stated that his concern is one of precedent . Mr . Walcott stated that the pressure of housing is increasing around the Sapsucker Woods Road Bird Sanctuary and from their parochial view they want to keep the meaning of the Sanctuary . Mr . Walcott stated that he was not sure that this proposal imposes a threat but wondered if it does set a precedence that would have to be followed . Mr . Mazza stated that , with respect to the discussion of precedence , he did not think the Town of Ithaca had within it any other situation like this whereby dwellings in R15 could contain up to 14 individuals . Mr . Mazza stated that an approval could • set a precedence for a situation of this kind , perhaps , but this is not a normal situation . Mr . Mazza stated that that is the way he perceives that particular question . Mr . Mazza stated that he was not speaking for or against the proposal , merely enunciating Planning Board 6 March 20 , 1984 • the matter , as he saw it , that there is an existing situation that is very unique in the Town . Chairman May stated that he very much agreed , adding that he did not think that in any way this should be looked at as precedent - setting . Chairman May stated that every situation coming before the Board is looked at individually . Chairman May stated that the Board is concerned with what has been proposed as an improvement to the area involving a reduction in occupancy levels , a reduction in the number of cars , and an improved state of buildings . Mr . Allen stated that he did not see how that is not the landlord ' s duty now . Mr . Stanton , speaking to Mr . Walcott of the Ornithology Lab , stated that he thought it fair to say that once a zoning plan is in place one cannot say that it will never change because people can , and do , make proposals and that will continue to occur . Mr . Klein commented that the Board has seen this proposal informally upon several occasions and since the first discussions last June there has been a lot of water over the dam , adding that he thought for the benefit of the public , a brief synopsis of the last eight months might be helpful . Mr . Klein noted that , at first , Mr . Lucente ' s proposal was for the conversion from two dwelling units to four dwelling units and individual sale as condominiums . Mr . Klein noted that a part of Mr . Lucente ' s proposal was also a reduction in the number of occupants from the . 14 which is currently legal , adding with respect to that , the Town Board has placed a restriction such that the number of future occupants may not exceed 10 . Mr . Klein stated that he thought what that Board is missing is that they are not stipulating owner occupancy which , in his opinion , was unwise in that with all kinds of owners it is difficult to track down the person responsible for the property and enforce conditions which may have been imposed . Mr . Lovi stated that the issue of owner -occupancy was brought up at the Town Board level and there was some question as to the legality of requiring that an owner occupy a building which he owns . Mr . Lovi commented that there was some thinking that that might not be enforceable . Mr . Lovi offered some further history of this proposal , noting that in May or June of last year Messrs . Lucente and Boehlecke met with him to discuss different ways to move from the present situation to some other situation . Mr . Lovi stated that at that time , as now , Mr . Lucente expressed his intention to sell these units to other persons . Mr . Lovi stated that three alternatives were in the realm of possibility and were discussed , being ( 1 ) present the proposal as a cluster . Mr . Lovi stated that , because of the specifics of the Town ' s cluster regulations , that approach was deemed impractical by Mr . Lucente because of many things , not the least of which was additional land which would have to be appended to these properties , ( 2 ) present the proposal as an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Lovi stated that that approach was rejected by Mr . Lucente because of the many Planning Board 7 March 20 , 1984 • variances which would need to be granted , ( 3 ) present the proposal as a request for rezoning the total acreage involved from an R15 zone to a Multiple Residence zone wherein four dwelling units in a structure are permitted . Mr . Lovi described the discussions which ensued over the course of time , such as selling in fee simple , homeowners ' association , condominiums , commenting that many different approaches were considered between the developer and staff , the developer and Planning Board and the developer and the Town Board up to the point at which we are this evening , being Public Hearing of Mr . Lucente ' s request for the rezoning of the land occupied by these 14 buildings from R15 to Multiple Residence . Mr . Lovi spoke of some discussion having taken place with respect to concern , once rezoned to a multiple residence district , about tearing down the structures and replacing them with apartments . Mr . Lovi pointed out that restrictions could be written about that by the Town Board . Mr . Lovi commented on the elusive question of improving something which is non - conforming to something better . Mr . Allen asked Mr . Lucente how much land he owned to the rear of these parcels under discussion . Mr . Lucente responded that there were about 40 or 50 acres back there . Mr . Allen asked Mr . Lucente what his plans were for that land . Mr . Lucente stated that it probably would be developed as single family under R15 . A discussion followed between Mrs . Chabot , Mr . Allen and Mr . Lucente with respect to Mr . Lucente ' s property in the Town of • Dryden . Chairman May asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak to the matter of the Lucente request for rezoning . No one spoke . Chairman May declared the public comment portion of the meeting closed at 8 : 15 p . m . Mr . Mazza wished to speak to the Resolution of the Town Board adopted on February 27th , specifically item # 4 , paragraph # 3 thereof , which reads : " occupancy of the 2 - bedroom apartment would be limited to a family plus one unrelated person , or no more than three unrelated persons . " Mr . Mazza posed the following question to Mr . Lucente - - if the family in the two - bedroom unit is three or more , i . e . , husband , wife , and one or more children , could he ( Lucente ) live with a condition something like no unrelated persons in that apartment . Mr . Lucente responded that the purpose of the three unrelated was for , say , an elderly couple who might want to take in someone to live with them for help or security . Mr . Lovi offered the following as further explanation of the intent of paragraph # 3 which would allow for no more than three unrelated persons , stating the hypothesis of a man and a woman living together and having a third person also in residence . Mr . Mazza pointed out that , even so , with a husband and wife and two kids even they could have a total of three unrelated persons in the two -bedroom . Continuing , Mr . Mazza stated that he would also like to see some restriction placed on the property in the event Planning Board 8 March 20 , 1984 • they are torn down , or a portion torn down , commenting that the owner could come back with a different building . Mr . Lovi wondered if words in the rezoning effecting some sort of reversion in that event would counter such an eventuality , or , if a special approval approach would be more appropriate . Mr . Lucente stated that his intention is to sell the whole building to an individual who would live in it and rent out the other three units . Mr . Klein stated that , if they were owner - occupied , he thought it would be an improvement , adding , if that condition cannot be imposed , he was not sure it would be better . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Attorney expressed some doubt about the legality of requiring owner - occupancy . Mr . Mazza stated that the Planning Board should ask the Town Attorney to research that aspect and report back to the Board . Mr . Mazza stated that he would like some more time to think about this , for example , limiting the future of these buildings were they to be torn down or destroyed , as well as the owner - occupancy question . Mr . Lucente stated that it was okay by him , if there were , say a fire , to require rebuilding in a like manner . Mr . Lucente spoke in terms of , say , fifty years down the line , the property reverting back to the R15 designation . Mr . Lovi stated that it is important to take care of this as it may affect a case being made before the Board of Appeals on the grounds of " hardship " . Mr . Boehlecke pointed out the difficulties which would make any future changes unlikely since the total area of all the lots is • 5 . 9 acres and it is split by a road , thus , it is just too small . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca adjourn and hereby does adjourn the Public Hearing in the matter of rezoning request and site plan review with respect to the property of Rocco P . Lucente , 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road , until Tuesday , April 3 , 1984 , at 7 : 45 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May requested of the Planning / Engineering staff that a draft resolution be prepared for Board consideration and that the various questions posed at this meeting be looked into , particularly discussion with the Town Attorney with respect to an opinion from him on the matter of owner - occupancy . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Lucente proposal with respect to lands located on Sapsucker Planning Board 9 March 20 , 1984 • Woods Road duly adjourned to a specific date and time , noting that such constituted notice to the neighbors . Chairman May repeated his announcement that the Public Hearing scheduled for 9 : 00 p . m . with respect to the Lake Shore West development will not be held and will be adjourned , at the request of the developer , until a future meeting of the Board , probably in April , PUBLIC HEARING0 CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 40 -UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF DOVE DRIVE . TAX PARCEL # 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 , 14 . 32 ACRES . STANLEY GOLDBERG , OWNER / DEVELOPER ; JOHN NOVARR , BUILDER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8s40 p . m . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like to offer , for both the public ' s and the Board members ' information , some of the background of the property under discussion before presentation of the proposal by the developer , adding that some history of this particular area of the Town may be in order so that allure informed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that in 1976 developer Willis Hilker came in and asked for approval , in concept , of a 43 - lot subdivision in two phases [ 44 lots counting the site of the original farmhouse ] . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Hilker then • proceeded , after conceptual approval of a proposed layout by the Planning Board , to final subdivision approval on 21 [ 22 ] of those lots in Phase 1 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that a map was prepared for the entire parcel delineating the boundaries of Phase 1 and Phase 2 , was approved by the Planning Board , and was filed at the County Clerk ' s Office , Mr . Fabbroni stated that that is the file , although amended twice , and is essentially the map approved by the Planning Board in 1976 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that subsequently development began with respect to those 21 [ 22 ] lots , noting that utilities were put in and some of the lots were built upon . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was during this time that Mr . Hilker declared bankruptcy and eventually Mr . Goldberg took over the land which he had sold to Mr . Hilker and was , and is , the owner again and , furthermore , since that time Mr . Goldberg has sold off several of those lots to individual builders or owners who have constructed houses . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that nine of the so - called front lots , a part of Phase 1 , remain to be sold . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , with respect to the 22 back lots , i . e . , Phase 2 , which are located in the back portion of approximately 14 acres , those back 14 acres were never given final subdivision approval of any kind , adding that the records at the Court House and the Tax Assessment Office will verify that . Mr . Fabbroni reiterated that nothing was ever done with regard to the back acreage , Mr . John Novarr appeared before the Board at this point and appended three colored drawings to the bulletin board - - ( 1 ) Site Plan , entitled " Snyder Hill Townhouses " , also showing proposed 4 Planning Board 10 March 20 , 1984 • property lines , ( 2 ) Floor Plans and Elevations , ( 3 ) Preliminary Planting and Grading Plan . Utilizing the drawings during his presentation , Mr . Novarr stated that the proposal involves the building upon the back acreage 40 townhouses clustered in groups of two or groups of four . Mr . Novarr noted that the portion in red denotes the townhouses , the blue is the carports with a carport for each townhouse , the green portion represents a designated Town park in which the Town has expressed interest , and the shaded area in the middle is a piece of land which the developers will retain until all the lots are sold and then will be offered to the entire group or to people adjacent thereto . Referring to the floor and elevation plan , Mr . Novarr stated that that plan represents what the apartments or townhouses will look like , in plan , and the facade drawing is there so that there will be an understanding of what they will look like on the outside . Mr . Novarr stated that there will be no more homes on the land than what the current Town zoning allows , adding that , actually , the number falls about 4 short of what could be built under current zoning , the difference being the grouping of the units under cluster provisions . Mr . Novarr stated that the cluster approach offers some economic advantages and also leaves more space for patio and private use . Mr . Novarr recalled that one of the Board ' s questions had been about how the land was going to be divided up , and stated that that is why the proposal is now for four - plexes rather than six - plexes . Mr . Novarr stated that these homes will be sold in fee simple . Mr . Novarr commented that there is little difference between buying a townhouse and a home on a traditional lot , noting that , in this case , one buys a home and an individual carport with easement to get to the carport . Mr . Novarr recalled the discussions with the Board with respect to the earlier proposal for a park in the middle , commenting that the Board clearly did not like that , and adding that , after a while , they did not like that either . Mr . Novarr stated that that area would be gifted individually to adjacent owners or to the owners as a group . Mr . Novarr pointed out a green area on the site plan which , he noted , was the area that the Board indicated as a park it would like to have . Mr . Novarr stated that the original plan discussed at the informal meetings with the Board had 48 units in it , commenting that it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that it should be 40 units . Mr . Novarr stated that the landscape plan shows the reality in trees , shows the drainage , and even names the trees and shrubs they plan to put in . Mr . Novarr introduced his colleagues , naming Mr . Ian Tyndall of Cambridge , Massachusetts , as the architect , Mr . Martin Shapiro as their attorney , Mr . Stanley Goldberg , the owner of the land , and Mr . William Reed , as financial advisor . Mr . Lovi suggested that before discussion goes too much further , the Board should consider the Environmental Assessment Form ( Long Form ) , dated March 5 , 1984 , which had been submitted by Mr . Novarr , a copy of which each of the Board members had received . Planning Board 11 March 20 , 1984 • Chairman May asked if there were any questions from the Board before moving on to discussion of the EAF . Mrs . Grigorov wished to have it clarified whether , or not , all of the lots in the approved portion have houses on them right now . Mr . Goldberg , indicating on the site plan , pointed out the lots upon which there are presently homes either completed or under construction , and pointed out the nine lots which have no homes in place . There being no further questions from the Board , Mr . Lovi reviewed the Long Form EAF , reading aloud each question and each answer , page by page , number by number , with some personal observations on a couple of questions and some brief explanation on a couple of others . Mr . Lovi stated that , as for his review , he had recommended a negative declaration and had suggested a resolution to that effect . Chairman May asked if there were any comments on the EAF as presented and reviewed . Mr . Novarr commented that this is it , adding that there will never be any further development of this property and further that , if the Board were concerned with the center portion , there will be no development there . Chairman May pointed out that the 9 remaining front lots will be developed . Mr . Novarr stated that that was correct , adding that they do not want to affect the selling of those lots by inferior development of the back portion . • Mr . Mazza asked that Mr . Lovi explain , for the benefit of the public , the meaning of clustering . Mr . Lovi briefly described Town Law Section 281 , as amended , as the enabling legislation permitting a Planning Board to be delegated the authority by the Town Board to cluster homes on a parcel in another manner than a standard grid subdivision . Mr . Lovi briefly described the Town of Ithaca cluster regulations adopted pursuant to Section 281 which are a part of the Town Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Lovi noted that clustering permits no more dwelling units on a particular parcel than the zone designation of such parcel permits . Mr . Lovi stated that the way by which the number of units permitted in a cluster proposal is arrived at is important , noting that under the standard subdivision approach 44 dwelling units are permitted on the parcel under discussion , but , because it is a cluster proposal , it is necessary to envoke the cluster regulations which require no more than 3 . 5 units per gross acre read concurrently with the requirement for road acreage removed , thus , 40 units is permitted under the cluster approach on this 14 . 32 acre parcel . Mr . Lovi also commented briefly on the difference between Commonland Community and Mr . Novarr ' s proposal , noting , for example , that there is a homeowners ' association at Commonland , there is none proposed here , individual parcels being offered in fee simple to individual owners with a proposal of the open space being gifted either to individual owners or as a group . Mr . Novarr , at this • point , stated that there was also one other possibility , being if the Town still wants that open space at some time , it will still be talked about . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he agreed with Mr . • Planning Board 12 March 20 , 1984 • Lovi ' s description of the reasoning for the 40 - unit proposal , adding that after one comes up with 44 , in this case , the 3 . 5 per acre limits one to the 40 . Mr . Mazza noted that some land was excluded , as described - - some was definitely taken out - - otherwise , one would get about 50 units . Mr . Robert Schwarting , 112 Park Lane , spoke from the floor , and stated that he was present tonight at the behest of the residents of Dove Drive , Pheasant Lane , Snyder Hill Road , and , in addition , at the behest of the residents of Eastern Heights . Mr . Schwarting stated that he wished to speak to the matter of the EAF . Mr . Schwarting stated that the character of the community , although both two - family residences and clustered housing are permitted under the Town zoning , is now , currently , by the occupancy there , single family . Mr . Schwarting stated that the land is zoned R15 and there is no question about that , Mr . Schwarting indicated that his principal question was with regard to the requirement that the EAF be submitted ten days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the matter is to be discussed , noting that , in this case , Mr . Novarr had signed the EAF on March 13th , Chairman May noted that the EAF was dated March 5 . The Secretary explained that the EAF had been received on March 5th as dated , however , it was during his reviewing of the document and his signing of it on March 13th that Mr . Lovi noted that Mr . Novarr had forgotten to sign it ; Mr . Novarr came in and signed it . Mr . Schwarting accepted the explanation . Mr . Schwarting stated that he was also concerned with the indication that there were no rare species on the parcel in question and spoke of certain EMC ( Environmental Management Council ) statements which refer to rare flora present . Mr . Lovi briefly described the criteria for " rare and endangered " species being referenced on an EAF and stated that , in his opinion as reviewer , the answer was appropriate , Mrs . Pamela Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and referred to question # 34 on the EAF which describes the vegetation existing on the site . Mrs . Rosenberg stated that there was a considerable amount of tree species less than 30 ' in height , several of which are 6 ' to 10 ' in height and there are many evergreens . Mrs . Rosenberg stated that Mr . Novarr had marked that part of the question " no " and that was not the correct answer . Mrs . Rosenberg stated that , in addition to that problem , she had a letter , which she submitted to the Board , from Scott Camazine , M . D . , a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Plant Science at Cornell who resides at 36 Dove Drive , which states that this development would be detrimental to the ecology of the nearby environment because the area to be constructed upon and the adjoining wooded areas contain a number of protected , rare and unusual native plants . Mr . Fabbroni asked if endangered plant species had been identified . Mr . Bernard Hutchins , 1 Pheasant Lane , spoke from the floor and stated that fringed Polygala , Trillium , and other unusual plants are there . Chairman May asked if there were any publication of these plants on a map • Planning Board 13 March 20 , 1984 relating to endangered plant species . No indication of such documentation came forth . Mrs . Ann Goldfarb -Clapp , 120 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that the road was certainly named Pheasant Lane for some reason , and described how she and her family enjoy walks up there to watch the pheasants breeding . Mrs . Nancy Jackson , 6 Pheasant Lane , spoke from the floor and referred to question # 51 on the EAF which indicates that residences are intended for the medium income segment , a few high income segment , families , and elderly . Mrs . Jackson stated that it is very unlikely for elderly to live that distant from the City , to live in a place with two stories , and to live where their carport is away from their home . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had no difficulty in accepting the indication by the builder that he expected to sell some of his units to elderly , adding that he would have to question the assumption that elderly people do not live in two - story houses although he supposed it depended on one ' s personal definition of " elderly " . Mrs . Rosenberg referred to question # 52 on the EAF , which speaks to whether the proposal will substantially change the socio - economic population distribution with regard to income , race , ethnic background , or age , noted that the answer given was " no " , and stated that she had made note of a comment made by Mr . Lovi . Mrs . Rosenberg stated that she had a Doctorate in Sociology and would point out that the existing socio - economic factor for this neighborhood is : ( a ) families ; ( b ) people of a certain economic sector . Dr . Rosenberg stated that Mr . Lovi ' s comment had been that these units could generally appeal to people who would otherwise be in a rental unit . Mr . Lovi stated that he assumed Mrs . Rosenberg was referring to one of his comments which referred to the question , # 49 , he believed , which refers to shifts in population as a result of this project , the answer to which was " none " and with which he had no problem . Mr . Schwarting explained what Dr . Rosenberg meant , stating that the point she was trying to make was that a couple , or a family , of the $ 30 , 000 income level does not fit with the $ 50 , 000 to $ 60 , 000 houses existing there . Mr . Lovi briefly described the problems inherent with establishing causal links between income and the value of a house one lives in , commenting on certain facets of the study of societal motivation which indicate rather clearly that persons who may be considered , under certain criteria , as " low income " live in $ 70 , 000 homes and , on the other hand some of relatively high income choose to reside in modest homes . Mr . Mario Giannella , 6 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to say that a great proportion of the people currently residing in the Dove Drive area have just recently moved in and did pay current value for much of the housing in the area . Mr . Giannella stated that the housing is Planning Board 14 March 20 , 1984 predominantly single family . Mrs . Jackson stated that five families out of eleven have moved in in the last year and a half , purchasing in a specific area because of the way it looks . Mr . Hasan Padamsee , 103 Skyvue Road , spoke from the floor and pointed out question # 12 which shows an increase of 300 cars a day . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , first he would note that the projection for traffic generated is in terms of 300 trips per day , and then say that the increase in traffic would be about four times what currently uses Dove Drive now with respect to the number there and the number contemplated . Mr . Fabbroni stated that in terms of a local street that is normal and not , by any means , out of scale for a local street . Mr . Fabbroni stated that anything under 1 , 500 cars a day is considered local residential traffic . Mr . Padamsee stated that the Town cannot handle Snyder Hill Road now in the winter and in maintenance , and wondered how it can do 20 % more . Mr . Lovi noted that whether the parcel is developed as a clustered subdivision or as a standard subdivision , the same number of trips per day would apply . Mr . Giannella stated that the original proposal for this part of the subdivision was 22 lots , 22 houses . Mr . Giannella stated that single family homes are in the neighborhood so Phase 2 would probably have been of that nature , therefore , there would be 22 dwelling units rather than 40 and the density less and traffic less , Mr . Wayne Corapi , 4 Pheasant Lane , spoke from the floor and stated that he recently purchased his property and his house is now under construction . Mr . Corapi stated that the prime reason for his purchasing there was the lack of traffic and , in addition , on October 15th , 1983 , prior to purchase , he was shown a plan for development which he was told was planned and approved by the Town . Mr . Corapi stated that he asked how the area was to be developed and Mr . Golberg told him that he had no time to develop the land now but , if developed , it would be developed according to the plan shown with lots equivalent to his . Mr . Schwarting explained what is being perceived by the homeowners , stating that , however one counts it , with a maximum of three per lot usually , therefore , they see three registered vehicles . Mr . Schwarting stated that , if there were 22 units , there would probably be not more than 66 valid drivers , but , under the proposal , they see 120 drivers and , therefore , a doubling of density and automobiles . Mr . Lovi stated that in the cluster regulations the point being raised by Mr . Schwarting is explicitly raised such that the Planning Board can restrict the number of unrelated persons . Mr . Lovi referred to just an action by the Board with regard to Commonland where the number of unrelated persons permitted in the one - bedroom units is less than three . Mr . Lovi commented that that was a good question and noted that appropriate provisions are in the cluster regulations . Mr . Schwarting commented that he got the number " 120 " from page 6 Planning Board 15 March 20 , 1984 of the EAF , question # 48 , which indicates that the number of planned permanent residents is approximately 120 . Mrs . Grigorov wondered why there were no substantial trees . Mr . Goldberg stated that farming took place there in the early ' 60s , adding that it was the Frank Backner Farm and that it had to be mowed because of fire regulations . Chairman May stated that Mr . Fabbroni had just brought down the aerial photo from the Engineering Office . Mr . Fabbroni reviewed the 1980 aerial photo , indicated the parcel under discussion , and it was agreed that it was pretty clear , Mr . Novarr noted that there is a plan , Hilker ' s plan , which shows Phase 1 on it and the proposal for the back . Both Mr . Lovi and Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is no final subdivision plan for the back lots . Discussion followed with respect to the matter of endangered plant species , the question being whether trillium , fringed polygala , coralroot orchid , ferns and clubmosses , bloodroot , and butterflyweed , were such ; it was noted that the New York State protected plant list does not carry with it indication that these are endangered plants . Chairman May asked what the Board ' s pleasure might be with respect to the EAF and any changes thereon . Mr . Stanton suggested that the listing of protected plants as described in Dr . Camazine ' s letter be shown on question # 41 . The Board agreed . The answer to question # 41 was clarified to incorporate the series of protected plants as indicated by Dr . Scott Camazine , by reference , to his letter of 3 / 20 / 84 . Mr . Novarr agreed to this amendment of his EAF . Mr . Stanton suggested that the answer to question # 34 could be changed to indicate that there are some young tree species less than 30 feet tall . The Board agreed , as did Mr . Novarr ; # 34 was so amended , Mr . Mazza pointed out that there are 11 buildings , not 10 , as indicated in question # 10 , The Board agreed , as did Mr . Novarr ; # 10 was so amended . With respect to question # 51 , Mr . Novarr stated that he did not know that much about Commonland Community , but he did know about people moving down in house size . Mr . Novarr described what he said Mr . Reed might term " empty - nesters " . Mr . Lovi stated that he felt that there really would be no substantial socio - economic change within the SEQR meaning of such . Mr . Novarr described certain older people who have two homes - - one here for the summer and one in Florida for the winter . Dr . Rosenberg asked if the apartments in Commonland are one - story or two - story , expressing her concern about older persons managing the stairs . Mr . Lovi stated that the homes in Commonland are two - storied . Mr . Fabbroni commented that there are all kinds of elderly in all shapes and sizes , some of whom he knew could go up and down stairs , Mrs . Jackson asked why Mr . Novarr had not checked the box [ question # 511 marked " students " . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that these units are to be sold . A discussion followed with regard to parents who purchase homes for Planning Board 16 March 20 , 1984 their children who are students at Cornell University . Mr . Mazza . pointed out that the applicant completes the EAF and this is an indication of what this project is intended for , adding that if he is not intending that these apartments be for the student market , he can say that . Mr . Novarr stated that they have a marketing approach and students are not their target , but possibly a student might wish to buy a single family house and in that case he was not sure how that could be stopped . Mrs . Beverly Livesay wondered if the units would all be built and then sold or would there be phasing . Mr . Novarr responded that the project would be built in phases , say 10 and then sold , then build next phase , and so on . It was decided by the Board , with Mr . Novarr agreeing , that # 51 remain unchanged . Mr . Fabbroni commented on the earlier comments of Mr . Schwarting with respect to the picture of 22 units and 66 drivers , stating that 66 would be the low end of the range . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of $ 125 , 000 homes up in the Northeast Town of Ithaca , 5 out of 9 being two - family , stating that to work from 66 is not necessarily a good number to work from . Mr . Fabbroni stated that what was discussed with the developer was an average of two unrelated persons per unit through this whole development , for instance , the four - unit structure would equal 8 unrelated persons . Noting again that to work from 66 is the low end of the range , Mr . Fabbroni commented that , at the very least , he would work from 33 [ units ], Mr . Giannella stated that this project is a change in the neighborhood , noting that the existing homes on Dove Drive and Pheasant Lane are single family . Mr . Lovi stated that he could not support a change in the answers to those questions referring to socio - economic change since he felt that that would not occur . Mr . Mazza stated that he did not define a " neighborhood " as what is on these two streets . Mr . Schwarting stated that it is usual that a one - family home may have three unrelated persons in residence , however , with regard to two - family houses there is an aspect of certain properties in the neighborhood which causes great concern . Mr . Schwarting described the lack of enforcement of the occupancy rules as it applies to several two - family houses in Eastern Heights , Mr . Schwarting stated that the residents here tonight are fearful of the spread of this problem to their area . Mr . Lovi read aloud Section 35 [ page 241 of the Subdivision Regulations : " As a condition of approval of a clustered subdivision plan , the Planning Board may restrict or require the restriction of the number of unrelated persons who may be allowed to live in any dwelling unit or in the clustered development as a whole , to a number less than that permitted by the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Law , irrespective of any subsequent revisions . These restrictions may be made conditions of preliminary or final approval or placed on the subdivision plat or included in the approval of any homeowners ' agreements , Planning Board 17 March 20 , 1984 covenants and bylaws , open space agreements , and / or similar . documents subject to the final approval of the Town Board . No Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance shall be issued for any building or dwelling unit in a clustered subdivision unless the Building Inspector has received written assurance that the owner understands that he must abide by the terms and conditions regulating the number of unrelated persons permitted to live in the dwelling unit . " Chairman May stated that if there were no further comments , he would close public comment on the EAF and ask for Board comment . No further comments were forthcoming from the public , Chairman May closed the comment period at 9 : 55 p . m . With regard to the discussions on protected plants , Mrs . Schultz asked if the protected plants had to be set aside or marked . Chairman May said that he thought not . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the environmental review of the proposed 40 -unit cluster subdivision development ( tax parcel # 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 , 14 . 32 acres ) in the vicinity of Dove Drive , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as completed , and amended , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 - 1980 , this action is classified as Type I . 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 , Mazza , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May stated that discussion would now turn to the matter of consideration of preliminary subdivision approval . Mr . Stanton stated that he would like to comment that , to him , the new arrangement being presented tonight is more appropriate were he to place himself in the position of someone who might buy a home there , adding that he would now know where his land is . Mr . Stanton stated that he felt it to be a much better plan . Mr . Novarr stated that they have a lot to thank Mr . Planning Board 18 March 20 , 1984 Stanton , the Board , and the staff for , adding that it is a much . more saleable plan as a result of all the meetings . Mr . Mazza stated that , as he understood it , on an individual lot there will be no more than two units . Mr . Novarr stated that that was not the case - - there is one unit per lot . Mr . Novarr described to the public the lots using the plan on the bulletin board , commenting on " funny - shaped " lots , big lots and little lots . Chairman May commented that he was a little confused as to where the lighting is . Mr . Ian Tyndall indicated the lighting , shown in yellow , on the big plan on the board . Chairman May wondered if there were to be sufficient light for anyone not to be in a shadow while getting from their carport to their individual home . Mr . Mazza asked what kind of lighting was being considered . Mr . Tyndall stated that the project will be lit to street lighting standards . Chairman May commented that it would seem to be important that the carport area be lit for protection . Mr . Novarr stated that that is their intention also . Chairman May asked about provisions for trash . Mr . Novarr apologized for that not being clear on the plan , stating that that will have to be there . Mr . Novarr spoke of a trash accummulation area delineated for each homeowner . Mrs . Langhans wondered if they were considering having dumpsters . Mr . Novarr stated that he , personally , thought dumpsters were ugly and would take care of trash in a nicer way . Chairman May stated that the Board would need to know that , with Mr . Novarr responding , absolutely . Mr . Mazza asked about the " little squares " on the plan . Mr . Tyndall stated that those delineated patios for the smaller yarded units , commenting on areas with trellises and hedges and referring to them as really a little yard which will make the centre units a little more attractive . Mr . Klein stated that he , too , appreciated the improvements made to the site plan . Mr . Klein recalled that one of the Board ' s questions last time had to do with some concern with upkeep of the common areas . Mr . Klein noted that the developer does not want a homeowners ' association and stated that the proposal involves a common path and common sidewalks . Mr . Klein asked how those things will be taken care of . Mr . Novarr stated that the sidewalks are owned by those on whose property they sit which is no different from City properties and the responsibility for shovelling and maintaining is just like anywhere else . Mr . Klein inquired about the same sort of thing with regard to the blacktop areas . Mr . Novarr stated that the carport is owned by the homeowner as well as the place in front of it and is his responsibility . Mr . Novarr stated that the street will be built to Town specifications and will be owned by the Town . Mr . Klein commented that , operationally , it could be a difficult item . Mr . Klein stated that , at the previous meetings , he had expressed that he did not like the garages ' location , adding that he still saw problems there because they are remotely located from the units . Mr . Klein stated that , even though there is allocation Planning Board 19 March 20 , 1984 for two parking spaces , he thought there is a potential to have . an awful lot of street parking because the units are remote . Mr . Klein stated that he also could see people backing their cars into the roadway from their carport into a public road . Mr . Klein wondered why the developer did not consider clustering the garages and having some kind of courtyard , commenting that it could be tastefully done as , say , a carpark , more enclosed and not so visible to the street . Mr . Klein commented that , with different owners , there is the potential for the carports having a messy appearance . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the units to be woefully lacking in storage , wondering where people would put their implements for the maintenance of those bigger yards and noting that there could be a limit for storage , because of security , in these carports . Mr . Novarr stated that there is adequate storage in the attic of every building , adding , however , that that was not what Mr . Klein was talking about . Chairman May commented that Mr . Novarr was correct ; Mr . Klein was talking about carports or garages , Mr . Novarr stated that they envision them as somewhere in between a carport and a garage . Mr . Lovi asked if there were to be a door on the front . Mr . Novarr stated that they did not plan that . Mr . Novarr stated that he thought what he was hearing is that he has to re -work the garages and he did not have a problem with that . Mr . Tyndall stated that he agreed that they do need to make provision for the kind of storage referred to by Mr . Klein and that could be in the back of the carport / garage . Mr . Tyndall continued and pointed out that the farthest distance for a homeowner to his garage is 601 , adding that , by any standards , that is not a long walk . Mrs . Langhans thought it could be were one carrying groceries . Mr . Tyndall stated that they chose to cluster the garages and also to separate them in order that from your home you could look out over the back or the front and see the neighborhood . Chairman May commented that the garages were opposite each other and the residents could back into each other . Mr . Novarr responded that he thought most everybody backed out of their driveway into the road . Mr . Schwarting stated that he and all the residents are here prepared to make substantial comments . Mr . Schwarting stated that all the neighbors , as the Board can probably tell , are opposed . Mr . Schwarting commenced reading from the Subdivision Regulations , Article V . Section 32 , paragraph 4 , sub - paragraph ( a ) , as follows : " will such a development be substantially and materially injurious to the ownership , use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or neighborhood ; " Mr . Schwarting stated that the answer is " yes " ; the injury is real ; the neighbors will not enjoy the development . Mr . Schwarting continued with sub - paragraph ( b ) : " will such a development impede the orderly development of land in the vicinity or neighborhood , and will such use be appropriate in appearance and in harmony with the existing or intended character of such land in the vicinity or neighborhood ; " Mr . Schwarting stated that the answer is " negative " by all the neighbors . Mr . Schwarting stated that he was , personally , very familiar with the problems with these kinds Planning Board 20 March 20 , 1984 of developments because he lived in one just like it in Germany . Mr . Schwarting pointed out that in Europe the government had ways of enforcing regulations which are not avenues open to the Town of Ithaca and , even there , the maintenance of and the appearance of the developments was a very difficult thing to handle . Chairman May commented that Mr . Schwarting was speaking in terms of a lot of generalities and asked if he could be more specific . Mr . Schwarting stated that , if this is approved , it should be clear to the developer that he will have to listen to the neighbors who will keep him informed of the rules and regulations to be followed . Mr . Schwarting offered his services , stating that he would be more than happy to work with the Board and with the developer , to meet with them , now and throughout the approval process so that all the problems can be worked on and everybody knows what has to be done . Mr . Roger Allen , 215 Snyder Hill Road , spoke from the floor and stated that there appears to be a real problem of density in the Eastern Heights area . Mr . Allen stated that it is not good now , adding that the residents are presently very concerned about it and , in addition , these proposed townhouses will certainly add to it . Mr . Allen stated that it is not only the 300 trips per day but it is people on their way to East Hill Plaza imposing a real burden on the Crances , the Redmonds , etc . Chairman May commented that the 300 trips a day is not out of line , adding that , even if you said 600 a day , it would be pretty normal . Mr . Lovi stated , as a point of information , that the 300 a day notation is the appropriate doubling of the number 150 , noting that that was what was done = - 150 x 2 = 300 . Chairman May commented that that was actually a very insignificant number . Mr . Allen stated that when you live there and see what happens , we are talking about a major increase . Mr . Mazza wondered if it would be different under the way the development was proposed a long time ago . Mr . Fabbroni commented that it is all rule of thumb and varies with every single family and the individual choices of people , adding that he thought there really ought to be more concern about what happens in the Town of Dryden than what happens on this parcel of land . Mr . Allen stated that what is being talked about is a doubling of the area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that traffic counts have been done all over the Town and anything under 1 , 500 is almost too little to hone in on as a signficant factor . Mr . Fabbroni commented that there are other things that should take up the residents ' time . Mr . Schwarting stated that as a traffic engineer he agreed with Mr . Fabbroni , Mr . Schwarting stated that the traffic problem that they have has to do with duplexes . Mr . Schwarting explained that what the residents are worried about is a continuation of the problem they see behind them in Eastern Heights , Mr . Lovi stated that it is useful to bear in mind that each one of these units will be a single family household so its characteristics are more similar to a single family development Planning Board 21 March 20 , 1984 than to Eastern Heights where there exist two - family houses rented to students each with his own car and noted that here the situation could be one of a husband and wife each with his or her own car . Mr . Lovi suggested that one think of four single family houses and think of the impacts of traffic , as one part of the picture , and then think of 40 single family houses with those impacts . Mr . Schwarting , asking if he may speak for the group , stated that they do not see this proposal as 40 single - family units . Chairman May wondered why not , adding that the Board is looking at 1 , 000 square foot units . Mr . Mazza inquired if there were covenants that were going to be provided . Mr . Goldberg responded , absolutely . Mr . Martin A . Shapiro , Attorney for Messrs . Goldberg and Novarr , spoke from the floor and stated that there are to be essentially two areas with which the covenants deal , one of which relates to the land itself - - that which is to be sold in fee simple with corresponding carport , and , that which is to be retained by the developer as open space and maintained for a certain period of time . Mr . Shapiro stated that there will be deed restrictions in each deed requiring certain things , among which will be levels of maintenance with maintenance of walkways , rights of way , etc . , all by deed restrictions , the covenants setting forth certain maintenance requirements and rebuilding restrictions . Mr . Shapiro stated that the specific details of that have not been put down in legal language yet but , in essence , should there be fire damage , replacement must be substantially the same as before such that there are no changes other than those necessitated by the passage of time and changes in building materials and building techniques . Mr . Shapiro stated that the second area addressed by the covenants is to be occupancy , commenting that it is his understanding that they are all to be single family dwelling units , within the meaning of the Town zoning ordinance , and other considerations which may or may not be worked out . Mr . Shapiro stated that it is not the intent to build a development and start packing it up to here with 30 student per 1 , 000 square - foot unit , noting that there will be restrictions and they will be carried over into the deeds . Mr . Shapiro referrred to an earlier question or concern with regard to enforcement and stated that the answer falls in two areas , commenting that the Planning Board was right in that those things which will be under the Town will be enforced by the Town . Mr . Shapiro commented that , as City Attorney for eight years , the City did its best to do that and , he was sure , the Town does too . Mr . Shapiro commented that certain other problems may arise in this development , as well they do in others , so he might add something about snow , ice , enforcement between neighbors since this is little bit different from a City where the sidewalk is the responsibility of the owner and , in problem cases , the City steps in and does required work and bills the landowner . Mr . Shapiro stated that these rights of enforcement will be in the deeds and they will enforce it . Mr . Shapiro stated that he thought one of the purposes of this • meeting is to see what sorts of specific problems the Board might see and how we can resolve those problems . Mr . Shapiro stated Planning Board 22 March 20 , 1984 that they are very open to the Board ' s suggestions with respect to restrictions and covenants , up to a reasonable way , of course . Mr . Shapiro stated that they want a marketable project . Mr . Shapiro spoke of their consideration of the question of other buildings and words effectively restricting to no accessory buildings whatsoever , using as an example , an owner constructing a summer house . Mr . Shapiro stated that , insofar as improvements , " what you see is what will be there , " with no additional structure permitted in the development other than what they build themselves . Mr . Shapiro , commenting that there is one thing not shown on the plan which he would also like to mention , stated that , obviously , they need some access to this interior parcel ( indicating ) . Mr . Shapiro spoke of rights of way to individuals to that middle area from the streets shown . Mr . Mazza asked how long these restrictions will last and is it not possible to have them removed by agreement of the landowners . Mr . Shapiro stated that ( 1 ) he would expect the restrictive covenants to last , noting that there have been court cases limiting those , throughout the number of years set forth in the restrictions and which would be a number that they think the courts would think reasonable . Mr . Stanton wondered how long that might be . Mr . Shapiro thought 20 to 25 years as a minimum . Mr . Shapiro stated , with respect to Mr . Mazza ' s second question about the owners getting together and agreeing on removal of restrictive covenants , that there are two ways to go - - ( 1 ) as a part of the Town ' s approval process , or , ( 2 ) make the Town the beneficiary with the right to enforce but not the obligation . Mr . Shapiro stated that that is what they intend to do , adding that that would need Town approval . Mr . Shapiro commented on one other thing in noting that the vast number of buyers will be financing their units and in pointing out that banks are getting very restrictive these days before they lend money . Mr . Shapiro stated that what he is seeing more and more of is a bank requirement for a Certificate of Occupancy from a Town or City , etc . , thus , these proposed covenants and restrictions must be adhered to or the Town will not issue a certificate . Dr . Rosenberg stated that the neighbors got into this because of concern for the single family character of the neighborhood and now they are hearing about certain restrictions in order to make it appear like single family homes . Mr . Mazza pointed out that it was going on eleven o ' clock and he thought the Board should inform the developer what the further needs of the Board were and adjourn . Mr . Stanton stated that economic concerns were what he was hearing and asked if the applicant could talk about the character of the units . Mr . William Reed stated that the only way the development makes any sense is to provide good quality , high value , construction at a cost of $ 55 . 00 per square foot . Mr . • Reed stated that their intention is to build a good , high quality , single - family house and the fact that it is attached is the only reason they can do that for that per square foot cost Planning Board 23 March 20 , 1984 level . Mr . Reed stated that a prospective owner will be getting good value for the money . Mr . Reed stated that they have done some projections on how much a person or family can afford with a 10 % down payment and the financing of the remaining 900 , speaking in terms of a couple with a combined income of $ 30 , 000 . Mr . Reed stated that the three - bedroom units will run about $ 68 , 000 and the two -bedroom around $ 59 , 000 . Mr . Schwarting spoke about people who buy space for their kid while a student at Cornell . Mr . Schwarting described certain volumetric problems inherent with this type of housing . Mr . Novarr stated that what is seen here in this proposal is all over the country as someone ' s home . Mr . Novarr commented that just because some of those present live in a bigger home , those sorts of statements are not relevant . Mr . Shapiro also commented on the matter of volumetrics , pointing out that one thing these homes have is the land , adding that one does not find that kind of land , that kind of lot , associated with an apartment . Mrs . Grigorov commented that Eastern Heights may have an occupancy problem but it is not caused by clustered homes . Mr . Schwarting stated that the people are not opposing cluster . Dr . Rosenberg stated that they are opposing attached houses of this size . Mr . Giannella stated that this proposal is out of harmony with what exists in the neighborhood today . Mr . Giannella stated that he used to live in Eastern Heights and moved out of there to Dove Drive because of all the two - family houses there and all the problems with them as to occupancy . Chairman May pointed out that all of this area , Eastern Heights , Dove Drive , Pheasant Lane , etc . , is zoned R15 which permits one - and two - family homes , adding that there is no single family only zoning in the Town of Ithaca . Chairman May stated that it also has been mandated by the State that the Planning Board look at cluster - type development as a means of preserving open space . Mr . Gerardo Sciarra , 8 Pheasant Lane , spoke from the floor and stated that he bought his lot one and a half years ago and now they are building a carport in his backyard . Chairman May explained the buffering requirements in the cluster regulations . Mr . Stanton noted that the buffering requirements in cluster call for setbacks which are even farther than under the R15 setback requirements . Noting that it was getting quite late , Chairman May suggested that the Board put together a list of specific concerns for the developer to address and adjourn . Mrs . Ann Goldfarb -Clapp stated that she wished to know what happens if these quad- plexes , built as single - family units , are not sold as single - family units , adding that this is what happened in Eastern Heights where a house is built , then sold , then sold to investors , rented and not maintained . Mrs . Goldfarb - Clapp stated • that these quad -plexes could be sold to investors too and then rented . Mrs . Goldfarb - Clapp stated her concern with maintenance and also the fact that these buildings are to be quad -plexes , Planning Board 24 March 20 , 1984 asking what would happen if one person drills into the house wall and then water leaks onto the rugs of his next door neighbor and further , who is responsible for this . Chairman May stated that there are covenants which will be developed . Mrs . Nancy Jackson stated that she wished to point out to the Planning Board her major concern which was particularly with a certain four lots and a certain three lots ( indicating ) which are currently undeveloped . Mrs . Jackson asked what would become of those undeveloped lots . Chairman May stated that those lots ( indicating ) will be developed as R15 lots . Mr . Novarr noted that at no time will there be more than ten to twelve built units and this proposal is not a means to build and then rent . Mr . Novarr stated that they have had discussions with the Town as to rental and under what circumstances that would be acceptable , with the Town indicating that that would be acceptable only for a time with a limited number of units . Mr . Novarr stated that the worst scenario would be that ten or twelve units are built and none are sold ; they would try to rent ; if they are not sold over three or four years , which should not happen , they will have lost the right to even have these lots . Mr . Novarr stated that he did not think people should say that this is a back - in -way to rental property . Dr . Rosenberg stated to the Board that she had in her hand nine letters and a Petition , consisting of four pages , opposing this development and signed by over 100 residents . Dr . Rosenberg stated that she would read them . Chairman May assured Dr . Rosenberg that the letters and Petition would form a part of the record of this meeting . Dr . Rosenberg requested that she be given permission , at least , to read the Petion into the record . Mr . Mazza stated that Dr . Rosenberg would be afforded the opportunity to read the Petition at the next meeting , noting that it was now well after eleven o ' clock , and adding that each of the letters , as well as the Petition , will be included in the record . Chairman May asked that the Board compile a listing of those things which the developer should address at the next meeting on this matter . The list developed was as follows : 1 . Garages and how they may be going to be dealt with . 2 . Covenants with some idea of the direction they will be going . 3 . Provisions for taking care of garbage , trash , tools . 4 . Possibilities for lighting . 5 . Rights of way in covenants . 6 . Occupancy should also be a part of the covenants . Chairman May stated that he would like to move to adjourn but he did not know to when . Mr . Shapiro asked if he could speak • and , upon being granted permission to do so , stated that , as is always the case it seems , development should have a certain momentum , thus , they would appreciate an adjournment to an as Planning Board 25 March 20 , 1984 early as possible date . Mr . Shapiro stated that he could have things in order as early as Monday , noted that he understood the next meeting of the Board is in two weeks , and commented that a month ' s delay at this preliminary stage pushes things quite far into the construction season . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton . RESOLVED , by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca that the Public Hearing in the matter of consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for a 40 - unit clustered subdivision in the vicinity of Dove Drive , as proposed by Messrs . Goldberg and Novarr , be and hereby is adjourned until Tuesday , April 3 , 1984 , at 8 : 30 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing duly adjourned to a specific date and time and that such constituted notice to the neighbors . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the March 20 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .