HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-09-03 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 3 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , September 3 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman May , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Barbara
Schultz , James Baker , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy
M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Robert Berggren , Theresa L . Berggren , Alethea Hall ,
Esther Eckert , Walter Eckert , William L . Hall , Walter
G . Lane , Louis G . Michael , Sam Matychak , Paul L .
Hartman , Shirley Raffensperger , William F . Albern ,
Ivar Jonson , Anthony A . Schultz , Mary Margaret
Carmichael , Nancy L . Krook , Douglas Armstrong , Ed
Bredbenner , Marie Cario , Isobelle Flight , Nell Mondy ,
Amanda Ufford , David G . Cassel , Joseph A . Multari ,
Nathaleen Multari .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 32 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
• Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on August 26 , 1985 and August 29 , 1985 , respectively ,
together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of the property in question , upon
the owner of the property in question , and upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning on August 27 , 1985 .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 18 , 1985
MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of June 18 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 30 , 1985
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of July 30 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Planning Board 2 September 3 , 1985
• Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi
Mr . Lovi noted that the Secretary had just distributed to each
member of the Board copies of material from Mr . Cartee in re Park
Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . Appeals to the Zoning Board for
variances in order to maintain nine billboards - - two on Danby Road
and seven on Mecklenburg Road . Mr . Lovi stated that this material
came across his desk this afternoon and , frankly , it was infuriating .
Mr . Lovi noted that the Town of Ithaca has a Sign Law in place which
was enacted in 1980 and which specifically sets out a four - year
amortization period - - it is now 1985 . Mr . Lovi stated that these
people have had these billboards up there for many years . Mr . Lovi
stated that prior to the enactment of the 1980 Sign Law , there was a
Sign Law in place from 1972 which established an eight - year
amortization period . Mr . Lovi stated that , at the very least , R . H .
Park Advertising Inc . has been on Notice for better than a dozen
years that these billboards should come down , and , for them to
suggest that this amortization period is somehow defective and that
they would be entitled to some sort of compensation and maybe the
Zoning Board of Appeals should save the Town some money and give them
a variance is just plain wrong . Mr . Lovi stated that he was so
• incensed that he went over to the City Attorney ' s office and he
obtained a copy of the decision from the Judge on their case which
was settled December 31st , 1984 and filed in June of this year . Mr .
Lovi stated that , basically , the Judge lays out the Court cases that
established , first of all , that amortization in New York State is a
perfectly acceptable way of providing for the termination of
billboards . Mr . Lovi commented that it is ironic that in the City ' s
case twelve years had passed - - just as it has in the Town . Mr . Lovi
noted that the leading cases relied on by the Judge upholding
amortization as a principle and the length of time for amortization
to occur are both significantly less than twelve years [ Modjeska Sign
Studios , Inc . v . Berle and Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co . v . Town of
Southampton ] . Mr . Lovi read from the City decision [ RHP , Inc . v .
City of Ithaca ] , " . . . Though normally the question of the
reasonableness of the period of amortization is one of fact , in this
case the preceding analysis of RHP ' s own motion papers and reply
affidavit reveals the absence of any material bona fide triable
issue . The City has amply demonstrated the reasonableness of the
amortization period for its ordinance which now amounts to a period
of twelve years . RHP ' s proofs taken at their face value are
insufficient to deny the City ' s clear entitlement to summary
judgment . JThe motion of plaintiff for leave to reargue or to renew
is denied . %The defendant City ' s cross motion for summary judgment
is granted . Mr . Lovi noted also that what had been submitted in
support of their request for variance to the Town is a letter from
• the Legal Affairs Department of the State DOT written on December 10 ,
1981 , and wondered why such a letter was included , commenting that it
was something of an effrontery to present a four - year- old letter .
e
Planning Board 3 September 3 , 1985
• Chairman May asked if this matter were to be before the Board at
its next meeting . Mr . Lovi responded that Mr . Cartee had suggested
that they could come before the Planning Board on the 17th of
September , but if the Board is so desirous it could state its opinion
at this time . Chairman May stated that he thought it was absolutely
cut and dried , but wondered , however , if they should not have an
opportunity to speak to the Board . Mr . Lovi stated that there are no
other action items for the 17th of September , suggesting that it
could be heard in October , with Chairman May responding , so be it .
Mr . Lovi commented that he would prefer not to have a second meeting
this month just for this item .
Continuing with his Staff Report , Mr . Lovi stated that the
second item about which he would like to report is with respect to
Sketch Plan Review for an 18 - lot clustered subdivision on 5 . 1 acres
at 315 Coddington Road , being proposed by Mr . Orlando Iacovelli . Mr .
Lovi noted that this matter had been briefly described on his Report
which the Board members received with his / her Agenda . [ " 5 . Sketch
Plat review for an 18 - lot clustered subdivision on 5 . 1 acres at 315
Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca tax parcels # 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 and
# 53 - 1 - 17 . 2 ; Orlando Iacovelli , owner -developer . This matter has been
placed on the Agenda with the understanding that Mr . Iacovelli may
not be ready to appear . In brief , I have walked the site with him
and discussed the possibility of clustering 18 units in three
six -unit buildings . A complicating factor which needs to be
• addressed at the outset is that if an existing house on the property
is subdivided from the 5 . 1 acre site , the remaining lands will fall
below the 5 -acre minimum cluster requirement . However , if the house
remains as part of the clustered plan , its present location
encroaches into the 30 - foot buffer yard required of a clustered
subdivision . I have raised this matter with Mr . Iacovelli and he
will have to decide what course to follow . If the house remains as
part of the cluster plan , I believe that Mr . Iacovelli should apply
for a lot line variance from the ZBA before developing a cluster
plan . " ]
Mr . Lovi stated that he [ Iacovelli ] cannot be here tonight ,
adding that he lives in Guelph , Ontario , Canada , and further adding
that he [ Lovi ] will carry this item forward to the next Agenda . Mr .
Lovi described the proposal as a cluster proposal and noted that the
Cluster Regulations require a five - acre minimum site . Mr . Lovi
stated that the proposal encompasses 5 . 1 acres of land upon which
there is already a house in place . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr .
Iacovelli has three choices - - ( 1 ) if he were to subdivide that lot
with the house from the remaining parcels such that it would be of
legal size , the remaining land would be less than 5 acres and
unsuitable for clustering ; ( 2 ) to include the house as a part of the
subdivision , which is within the rules of clustering , and , if that is
the case , the Sub Regs speak to a 30 - foot buffer . Mr . Lovi commented
here that a map that he has seen shows the house closer than 30 feet
to the adjoining property ; ( 3 ) he tears the house down and then there
• would be no problem . Mr . Lovi noted that there is a section of the
Sub Regs which is called " Appeals and Waivers " [ Section 101 , which
the Board has never used , to his knowledge . Mr . Lovi read :
Planning Board 4 September 3 , 1985
• " Waivers . When the strict application of any of the specifications
and provisions of these regulations will cause unnecessary or
significant hardship or practical difficulties , the Planning Board
may waive any such specifications or other provision provided that
the Planning Board determines that neither a significant alteration
of the purpose of subdivision control is made , nor the policy
enunciated or implied by the Town Board in adopting these regulations
is impaired . Whenever any such waiver is granted , a copy thereof
must be immediately delivered to the Town Clerk for distribution to
the members of the Town Board . " Mr . Lovi noted that the Regulations
set forth that appeals on matters such as the 30 - foot buffer yard are
made to the Planning Board which has the authority to waive the rule ,
however , if the Board does waive the rule it must notify the Town
Board via the Town Clerk ,
Chairman May stated that he , personally , could not do that for a
five - acre plot , but , maybe the Zoning Board of Appeals could . Mr .
Lovi stated that the Zoning Board would have no authority . Mrs .
Grigorov suggested that this problem could be used as a way to have
the developer do something else . Mr . Lovi noted that Mr . Iacovelli
needs to know whether he has enough land right up front . Chairman
May expressed his concern that Mr . Iacovelli could say 4 . 8 acres is
left and the Board says , okay , and then the next guy says he has 4 . 7
acres and so on .
Mr . Klein stated that if Mr . Iacovelli wants to develop this
land he should come down here and meet with the Board . Mr . Lovi
stated that he certainly agreed , adding that all he [ Lovi ] told him
[ Iacovelli ] was that this was an issue which has to be addressed .
Mr . Lovi commented that it makes no sense to pursue cluster if he
cannot meet the five - acre minimum requirement , but that is related to
whether the house is in the subdivision or out of it . After a brief
discussion , Mr . Klein stated that he did not see how the Planning
Board can tell Mr . Iacovelli how to proceed , and suggested that Mr .
Lovi say to him - - these are the Subdivision Regulations and you do
what you want to do . Mr . Lovi , concurring , stated that he was really
just informing the Board that when Mr . Iacovelli comes and makes a
sketch plan presentation you have a case , unlike Mr . Jonson ' s which
has a lot of issues in no particular order , which has a specific
question here before you . Mr . Klein commented that he did not know
the site and maybe some part of it is unbuildable . Mrs . Schultz
commented that it is pretty steep and may be hard to get to .
Mr . Lovi stated that all the rest of the items on which he would
report are Agenda items .
REPORTS OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR - Lewis D . Cartee
Mr . Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of
July 1985 showed that 16 permits were issued for a total of
$ 515 , 850 . 00• in improvements as compared with July 1984 when 20 permits were issued for a total of $ 724 , 000 . 00 in improvements . Mr .
Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of August
1985 showed that 15 permits were issued for a total of $ 629 , 683 . 00 in
Planning Board 5 September 3 , 1985
• improvements as compared to August 1984 when 25 permits were issued
for a total of $ 424 , 534 . 00 in improvements .
DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr . Lovi stated that he would present a summary of the work
which his Summer Associate , Ted Pope , a Cornell University student in
City Planning , had begun on a Technical Appendix for the
Comprehensive Plan . Mr . Lovi noted that the Comprehensive Plan , as
it is being reviewed by the Planning Board , sets forth a series of
Comprehensive Planning statements of community assets , constraints ,
limitations , trends , and objectives . Mr . Lovi stated that , as a
result of good comments from the Board that there was a need to
supplement those statements with facts supporting those statements ,
during the summer Mr . Pope and he worked on material which would
provide those facts and compiled it in a form which would be readily
accessible and easy to understand .
Mr . Lovi presented for the Board ' s review a very large
collection of material contained in a three - ringed binder which he
described as the first volume of reference materials which will form
the " Technical Appendix " . Mr . Lovi noted that the volume presented
here starts off with a list of its contents and mentioned , type of
bedrock , depth to bedrock , soil stability , ground water aquifers , and
so on . Mr . Lovi displayed the prints , or maps , which explain the
physical geography of the Town by the use of these physical maps
together with descriptions of what those maps say . Mr . Lovi
commented that the Board may have noticed that in some of the EAF
reviews he has done he has made reference to these maps .
Mr . Lovi stated that this is only the first part of the
Technical Appendix which has to do with physical geography - - next
will deal with Census information , and building permit information .
Mr . Lovi stated that he has written to the State for information on
traffic counts , adding that he had another student go through our own
traffic counts , and commenting that he was trying to get the most
up - to -date information . Mr . Lovi stated that this , too , will be part
of our Appendix so , when traffic comes up , we have reasonable bases
for discussion .
Mrs . Grigorov wondered what happened to the videos that Mr . Lovi
and Mr . Pope were doing of the Town and which Mr . Lovi had shown the
Board a while back , and asked if they were in a file . Mr . Lovi
responded that they were in a file and stated that they serve as
information , as well as orienting both the student and him with the
Town itself . Mr . Lovi noted that one of the maps Mr . Pope put
together was a land uses map and he also redid the zoning map . Mr .
Lovi commented that , perhaps , we can in the next month get back to
reviewing the Comprehensive Plan policy statement .
Mr . Klein stated that one of the Town Board members and he were
• talking and it came up that maybe the Town Board is not aware of what
the Planning Board is doing with the Comprehensive Plan . Mr . Klein ,
noting that over the past year the Board has discussed how its
J
Planning Board 6 September 3 , 1985
• agendae have become so crowded , stated that he thought it was a high
priority , although he knew the Town Board gets the Planning Board
Minutes , and suggested that , perhaps , a letter from Mr . Lovi or the
Chairman be sent to the Town Board updating them on the Comprehensive
Plan .
Chairman May stated that the Board could do that , adding that he
has talked with Supervisor Desch about this project and he is very
much aware of it . Mr . Klein stated that he was not sure that the
Town Board members are really aware . Chairman May commented that
they get Minutes just as we do . Mrs . Grigorov asked Mr . Lovi if he
reported to the Town Board . Mr . Lovi responded that he did , but not
in the detail that he does to the Planning Board . Chairman May asked
Mr . Lovi to draft a letter to the Town Board , adding that the zoning
ordinance amendments are a part of all this work effort too .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR AN 8 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 118 COMPTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 . ROBERT BERGGREN , OWNER/ SUBDIVIDER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr .
and Mrs . Berggren were present . The following material was in the
hands of the Board members :
• 1 . " Report of the Town Planner : September 3 , 1985
. . . The actions to be considered by the Planning Board on this
matter are :
1 . Determination of Environmental Significance . A Short EAF
was reviewed and distributed to the Board at the time of
Sketch Plan review May 21 , 1985 . A draft resolution of
negative declaration is enclosed .
2 . Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval . A
suitable subdivision plat has been prepared and reviewed .
A draft resolution granting preliminary approval and
waiving final approval is enclosed . "
2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form , as signed and submitted by
Robert G . Berggren and Theresa L . Berggren , under date of May 9 ,
1985 , and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under
date of May 15 , 1985 , as follows : '° . . . Provided that the Health
Department approves the water and sewer systems for this
subdivision , I do not anticipate any adverse environmental
impacts from this development and recommend a negative
declaration of environmental significance conditioned on the
preparation of a final subdivision plat acceptable to the Town
Engineer and Planning Board . "
• 3 . Survey Map entitled , Preliminary Subdivision Map , Robert G . &
Theresa L . Berggren - Developer , " Schembri - Hollister Estates " ,
Compton Road , Military Lot 86 , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ,
Planning Board 7 September 3 , 1985
• New York , dated September 16 , 1982 , amended March 27 , 1985 ,
further amended July 29 , 1985 , to show proposed subdivision , as
prepared by T . G . Miller Associates P . C . , and showing " Stage I " ,
Lots 1 , 2 , and 3 , the area marked " for future development " with
cul de sac shown , proposed future 60 ' wide road , parcel reserved
for open space [ 1 . 47 acres ] , parcel to be consolidated with
existing Berggren parcel [ 0 . 45 acres ] , and the existing Berggren
parcel [ 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 1 ] containing the Berggren home . Survey also
shows the names of the adjoining property owners - - Michael ,
Matychak , Fairview Manor Realty Co . , McManus , and Mello .
4 . Two draft resolutions , one with respect to the EAF , and the
other with respect to the proposed subdivision .
Mr . Berggren appeared before the Board and , referring to the
Subdivision Plan presented to the Board , stated that the Board
members have all seen this plan before . Mr . Berggren pointed out the
open space , the small change in the cul de sac shape , and the eight
lots , noting that Stage I involves three lots at the front with four
right behind them for future , and one for open space . Mr . Berggren
stated that at this time he is only requesting to develop the front
three parcels . Mr . Berggren pointed out that they surveyed the road
as a 60 - foot highway so it could be a Town highway if that ever
happened . Mr . Berggren noted the cul de sac at the back , adding that
if it should ever tie in to Schickel ' s property , it could go there .
• Mr . Berggren stated that he went with bigger lots , over
one - and - a - half acres , because a lot of subdivisions are smaller even
though they do not have water or sewer either . Mr . Berggren stated
that the lots could be quite a bit smaller but , personally , he did
not like that , adding that he has four kids and he liked them to have
lots of room .
Mrs . Schultz asked Mr . Berggren if he were going to sell the
lots and not build on them . Mr . Berggren stated that he was trying
to sell the lots , adding that he might build - - that is his work
but not right now .
Mr . Lovi stated that he had spoken to Mr . Berggren and the
engineer at T . G . Miller ' s office who drew this plan up . Mr . Lovi
recalled that Mr . Berggren had brought back a sketch showing the road
somewhat different from what the Board saw in May [ May 21 , 19851 and
that the Board saw that in July [ July 16 , 19851 . Mr . Lovi noted that
the Board had before it a draft resolution in re the EAF and a draft
resolution for approval .
Chairman May asked if the back portion is just open . Mr .
Berggren replied that it was and added that the reason for the road
being changed a little is that he liked the looks of the " jog " , and
also , having the road straight made the back lots too small . Mr .
Lovi pointed out that another reason was the preservation of the
hedgerow . Mr . Berggren agreed that that was also a factor .
• Noting that the neighbors were present , Chairman May asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the
Berggren subdivision request .
Planning Board 8 September 3 , 1985
• Mr . William Hall , 131 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he lives directly across the road and is concerned with
water and sewer . Mr . Hall stated that a little while ago they were
told - - no more than three lots up there . Mr . Hall spoke of wells
and septic systems and talked about a well which was dug for a new
house and when the house was built , their well went muddy .
Mr . Louis Michael , 116 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that his well went bad . Mr . Michael spoke of a garage and of
places on King Road ,
Mr . Lovi pointed out that one of the conditions in the draft
resolution before the Board is that the final subdivision plat be
reviewed and approved by the Tompkins County Health Department . Mr .
Lovi noted that , in addition , all of these proposed lots are
considerably in excess of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Health Department would have to determine how the sanitary
sewer system and well could be placed . Mr . Berggren stated that he
had talked to the Health Department about his plans and at that time
they had no problem but , of course , he would have to have their
approval .
Mr . Walter Lane , 112 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that since the new well was put in he is short of water ,
adding that he is down 162 feet and he is still affected . Mr .
• Berggren commented that he did not think it is just this neighborhood
with such a problem - - it is all over . Mr . Bergrren stated that his
well is not dry .
Chairman May asked if there any further questions . There were
none . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 25 p . m .
Mr . Lovi recalled that the Board had decided at its May meeting
that the environmental review could be attended to at preliminary
subdivision approval hearing time .
Mr . Klein stated that he was concerned about the wells ,
commenting that it is true that we have a drought situation and it is
true that the summers have been dry for the last few years . Mr .
Klein wondered if the Board could have some sort of engineering
report that these concerns are valid . Chairman May wondered if it
was not difficult to tell without extensive testing that one well
draws down another . Mrs . Schultz wondered if it were possible to
hear from the Health Department first . Mr . Lovi offered that ,
unfortunately , the Health Department will not review a matter
contingent upon Planning Board approval . Mrs . Schultz asked if they
would do it based on preliminary approval . Mr . Lovi responded that
they probably would , although he was not sure of that . Mrs . Schultz
offered that that might get the Board the information that it
requires , adding that she would like to have a look at the site . Mr .
Berggren stated that he had been talking with Peter Coates up there
• at the Health Department and so he thought that he [ Coates ] could
give the Board the information it would need . Mr . Klein stated that
he would like some technical information to relate to . Mr . Berggren
Planning Board 9 September 3 , 1985
• wondered if Mr . Klein meant from sources other than the Health
Department , Mr . Klein noted that T . G . Miller is an engineer .
Chairman May wondered if Cornell University ' s information services
might be of assistance .
A man spoke from the floor , stating that the Board should check
on Schickel Road ; they have one house there ; they tried to build a
subdivision there ; they dug six lots and that was it . Mr . Berggren
pointed out that the public water goes up there , and stated that he
believed if Mr . Schickel wanted to build , he would .
Chairman May stated that he believed the Board should adjourn
this matter for additional information . Chairman May re - opened the
Public Hearing and requested that the Board consider an adjournment
to its meeting of September 17 , 1985 , adding that that would
constitute formal notice to the neighbors and , so , they would not
receive further notice by mail , and also , to request the Board
members to take a walk on the property for a first -hand look , and
also , to request Mr . Berggren to bring back information as to water
and any other information helpful to his case . Chairman May
suggested that the adjournment be to 8 : 00 p . m . on the 17th .
Mr . Berggren asked if he could ask what the possibility is of
public water ever going up there . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Berggren
should make a request to the Town Supervisor in the form of a letter ,
• adding that it would be something he would consider along with
requests for water all over the Town .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Public Hearing in the matter of consideration
of preliminary subdivision approval for the proposed Robert Berggren
subdivision at 118 Compton Road be and hereby is adjourned , for
further information , until the Planning Board meeting of September
17 , 1985 , at 8 : 00 p . m .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the
Robert Berggren subdivision proposal duly adjourned at 8 : 42 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO - LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS AT 258 - 270
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 .
ANTHONY AND BARBARA SCHULTZ , OWNERS / SUBDIVIDERS .
Mrs . Schultz stepped away from her chair as a member of the
• Planning Board and appeared before the Board . Chairman May asked
Mrs . Schultz to tell the Board about her plans . Each of the Board
members had before him / her copies of the following documents .
Planning Board 10 September 3 , 1985
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and completed by
Barbara A . Schultz under date of July 23 , 1985 [ Part I ] , and
Parts II and III thereof , as signed and completed by the Town
Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of August 27 , 1985 , as
follows *
" TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE : Barbara and Anthony Schultz , Pennsylvania Avenue , 2 - lot
subdivision
Impacts on Land
1 . There are no adverse environmental impacts expected as a
result of physical changes to the project site . This
conclusion is based upon the fact that the land to be
subdivided has already been developed and is proposed to be
subdivided for purposes of sale .
2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project . This conclusion is
based upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique
physiographic formations prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department and referred to as part of our Town
Comprehensive Plan .
• Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected or non - protected water bodies which
would be affected by this project . This conclusion is
based upon an examination of a Townwide map of watersheds
and surface drainage prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department ,
4 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality .
This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) The subdivision is not located on or near a
groundwater aquifer .
b ) The subdivision is connected to public utilities .
5 . This project will have no significant impact on drainage
flow and surface water runoff . This conclusion is based
upon the fact that the overall slope of the site is between
3 and 10 percent . This grade is steep enough for
acceptable surface drainage but not so steep as to cause an
unacceptable amount of soil erosion or flooding .
Impact on Air
6 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact
on air quality . This conclusion is based upon the
following [ sic . ] fact that the site is already developed
and a subdivision of the property for purposes [ of sale ]
• will not have any additional effect on air quality .
Impact on Plants and Animals
Planning Board 11 September 3 , 1985
• 7 . There are no known species of plant or animal , either
protected , non - protected , endangered , or non - endangered
which will be adversely affected by this project . This
conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) There are no Waterfowl , Wild Turkey , or Deer Wintering
Areas on the site .
b ) There are no other Unique Wildlife Habitats on the
site .
C ) There are no Forest Lands or Unique Floral Regions on
the site .
Impact on Visual Resources
8 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas ,
or other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character . This conclusion is based upon the following
facts
a ) There is no panoramic landscape view available from
the site .
b ) There is no distance landscape view present from the
site .
C ) The site is not served by a scenic road .
Impact on Historical Resources
9 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic , pre - historic or paleontological importance . This
conclusion is based on the fact that the parcel is already
• developed and no new construction is planned at this time .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
10 . This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community . This conclusion is based
upon the following facts :
a ) The parcel is already developed and no open space was
reserved or dedicated at the time .
b ) The reserved road right - of -way for the eventual
extension of Pennsylvania Avenue will not be affected
by this action .
Impact on Transportation
11 . This project will not have an impact on the existing
transportation system . This conclusion is based upon the
fact that the increase in residential traffic associated
with the construction of the apartment house has already
occurred and will not be further affected by the sale of
the property .
Impact on Energy
12 . This project will have no significant effect on the
community ' s sources of fuel and energy . This conclusion is
based upon the fact that any slight effect on the use of
• fuel and energy associated with this project has already
occurred and will not be further affected by the sale of
the property .
Planning Board 12 September 3 , 1985
• Impact on Noise
13 . There will be no significant odors , glare , noise , vibration
or electrical disturbances as a result of this project .
This conclusion is based upon the fact that glare , vibra -
tion , noise and electrical disturbances are not associated
with a residential subdivision of this type .
Impact on Health and Hazards
14 . This project will have no significant impact on public
health and safety . This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the apartment house has already been constructed in
conformance with the New York State Life Safety Code and
has been inspected by our Building Inspector before a
Certificate of Occupancy was issued . The sale of the house
will have no further effect on health and safety .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
15 . This project may have an adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community . This conclusion is
based upon the fact that the Zoning Board ' s approval of a
variance for the ' apartment house was predicated upon the
assumption that all five lots ( numbers 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
would be encompassed within the variance . Given the
present wishes of the landowners , the Zoning Board should
be asked to amend its variance of September 14 , 1983 before
the Planning Board may proceed with subdivision approval .
• 16 . There is no public controversy concerning the project at
this time . This conclusion is based upon comments received
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 27 ,
1985 . It is possible that negative comments may be
received prior to , or at the time of , the Public Hearing
[ sic . ] on September 3 , 1985 .
REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATION :
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law # 3 ,
1980 . As the property exists at present , I do not believe that
it may be subdivided . However , if the Zoning Board of Appeals
amends the conditions of its prior variance , the property would
be able to be subdivided as proposed . It is within the purview
of the Planning Board to propose appropriate restrictions for
the ZBA ' s consideration . Provided that a suitable amendment is
prepared by the Zoning Board , I recommend that a negative
declaration of environmental significance be made . "
2 . Survey Map of the property in question , old Ithaca Land Company
lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 , dated December 16 , 1983 ,
prepared by T . G . Miller Associates P . C .
Mrs . Schultz stated that she had thought this meeting tonight
• was to be a public hearing for subdivision approval and not a sketch
plan review . Mrs . Schultz stated that this change creates a real
problem with a closing on the property set for the 16th . Mr . Lovi
Planning Board 13 September 3 , 1985
• stated that the reason for this meeting not to be a public hearing
was that when he reviewed the action taken by the Zoning Board of
Appeals it appeared that the conditions under which the apartment
house was constructed were predicated on the assumption that all five
lots were involved . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not think the
Planning Board could consider subdivision until the Zoning Board had
considered an amended resolution .
Mrs . Schultz stated that the resolution adopted at the Board of
Appeals meeting was worded that way so that the land could not be
further developed . Mrs . Schultz stated that the land cannot be
further developed because it is in the deed that access must be
provided to other lands by way of old lot 32 . Mrs . Schultz stated
that at that time she and her husband did not object because it was
reasonable to say that you cannot build on that lot . Mrs . Schultz ,
commenting that there are two mailing addresses on one tax parcel
number , stated that they are selling one - half of that parcel , which
is old parcels 30 , 31 , and half of 32 , which is the parcel with the
road on it , and which is the one that is going to be split in half ,
with 25 feet to the apartment building and 25 feet to their house .
Mrs . Schultz commented that Mr . Aron , Chairman of the ZBA , had
problems with old lot # 32 . Mrs . Schultz stated that she did not feel
that it was ever the intention of the Board of Appeals that this
property could never be sold . Mrs . Schultz stated that the reason
the wording about the five old lots was put in was because there is
no further development that can be done .
• Mr . Lovi wondered if there were any problem with the Board of
Appeals stating that as a clarification , and stated that everything
Mrs . Schultz was saying is reasonable . Mrs . Schultz stated that the
only problem is the potential closing , and the ZBA meets next on
September 18th . Mr . Anthony Schultz pointed out that the Town has
paved that middle lot [ old lot # 32 ] that they [ Schultz ] own . Mr .
Schultz stated that they [ Schultz ] did not ask for that , and added
that they [ the Town ] made their own subdivision ; they [ Schultz ] did
not do it . Mrs . Schultz distributed photographs of their property ,
including views of the paved roadway , among the Board members .
Discussion followed with respect to this " paved road " , which the
Board members noted is actually a " private drive " . Mr . Schultz noted
that the Town water and sewer is located on that paved area . Mrs .
Schultz commented that this concerned Mr . Aron and that is the reason
for that specific wording . Mrs . Schultz stated that they agreed that
there would be no further development simply because there couldn ' t
be any anyway .
Chairman May wondered what would preclude development of old lot
# 34 - - the old 50 - foot lot east of the Schultzes ' house . Mrs .
Schultz , commenting that there is no way that lot can be developed ,
stated that the road [ Pennsylvania Avenue ] ends , adding that when you
come down Pennsylvania Avenue you come in front of the Steeles '
property and that is it . Chairman May commented that that road could
• be extended some day . Mrs . Schultz commented that it would probably
never happen in either of their lifetimes , and added that she would
really like to have a Public Hearing on this for the Board ' s meeting
of the 17th so that she could appear before the Zoning Board on the
` Planning Board 14 September 3 , 1985
. 18th , and further adding , that something will have to be done about
the closing on the 16h .
Mr . Klein asked , if the matter before the Planning Board is a
two - lot subdivision , what does the ZBA need to do . Chairman May
offered that the ZBA needs to hear it because of it appearing that
all the lots were tied up . Mr . Klein commented about the question of
old lot # 34 and access . Chairman May commented that that could be a
question too .
The Board indicated that a Public Hearing for the proposed
two - lot subdivision requested by the Schultzes could be held on the
17th of September . The Secretary offered to send the Board members a
copy of the Minutes of the September 14 , 1983 meeting of the Zoning
Board of Appeals .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A 53 - LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION ON 30 . 54 ACRES
AT 131 HONNESS LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 2 ;
GLADYS BLATCHLEY , OWNER ; IVAR JONSON , DEVELOPER .
At 8 : 55 p . m . Chairman May welcomed Mr . Ivar Jonson and his
engineer , Mr . William F . Albern to the meeting and asked that they
tell the Board about their plans .
For the record , the Board had before it the following :
• 1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form [ Part I ] , as completed and
signed by Ivar R . Jonson under date of August 23 , 1985 ,
describing the project as " Single and Two Family Homes on 53
lots plus Park Area of approximately 2 . 8 acres ; Two Family Homes
to be Duplexes " , and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M .
Lovi , under date of August 28 , 1985 [ Parts II and III ] , as
follows :
" REVIEW OF SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND SKETCH PLAT
Re : Ivar Jonson 53 - lot clustered subdivision , Honness Lane
1 . Project Classification : because this project will result
in more than 30 new residential units to be connected to
public utilities at the time of completion , it is
classified as a Type I Action according to Local Law # 3 ,
1980 ( the Town SEQR Law ) . A Long Environmental Assessment
Form will need to be completed and reviewed .
2 . Minimum Gross Area : The project has a total of 32 . 2 gross
acres of land . The acreage is in excess of the five acre
minimum required for clustered subdivisions .
3 . Zoning : The land is zoned R15 , for which one and two
family dwellings are permitted uses . Clustered
subdivisions are permitted on R15 land .
4 . Open Space Reservation : The cluster subdivision requires
the subdivider to reserve an open space parcel of at least
Planning Board 15 September 3 , 1985
• 10 , 000 square feet . The park shown on the sketch plan is
2 . 8 acres , or roughly 122 , 000 square feet . The site
exceeds all minimum frontage and size requirements . This
open space dedication represents 8 . 7 per cent of the gross
lot area . The park is accessible by a 20 foot right -of -way
between lots # 27 and # 28 .
The park site slopes to the south and will be fenced from
Slaterville Road on the lower border . A park of this size ,
shape and topography would be suitable for low- intensity
recreational uses such as play structures and picnic areas .
A connection to the existing Circle Greenway trail system
through this park would be appropriate .
5 . Number of Permitted Dwelling Units : Each lot of the 53 - lot
subdivision is permitted to be developed with a two - unit
dwelling . As a result , 106 units could be clustered on the
parcel . The cluster regulations restrict the developer to
no more than 3 . 5 dwelling units per gross acre . This
restriction does not apply in this case because 112
dwelling units could be built on this site at a density of
3 . 5 units per gross acre . The Planning Board may restrict
the developer to a lesser number of dwelling units , if
particular conditions of the site warrant such restriction .
6 . Lot Sizes : To determine the number of permitted dwelling
units , the developer has prepared a conventional
subdivision sketch plan . All blocks are less than 1 , 500
feet in length . The lots in this plan meet all the lot
size requirements of the R15 residential district , with the
exception that lots # 1 - 10 , 11 , and 32 - 36 are 146 ± deep .
Lot # 16 is 125 feet deep and 130 feet wide . The Zoning
Ordinance requires that lots in an R15 district be 150 feet
deep and 100 feet wide . I was asked early in the staff
review by the site engineer whether this deficiency in lot
depth was significant . I told him that I did not believe it
was . My reasons were that :
a ) the lots were wider than required for subdivisions in
an R15 zone , and
b ) all lots exceeded the 15 , 000 minimum lot area
requirement , and
c ) the Subdivision Regulations give the Planning Board
the authority under Section 10 , Number 3 , to modify
the application of these regulations where they will
cause significant hardship or practical difficulties ,
and
d ) the Planning Board has made similar modifications in
• the past .
7 . Unbuildable Areas : After referring to the Comprehensive
Plan , soil maps , USGS topographic maps , and the Phase II
Planning Board 16 September 3 , 1985
• sketch plan for the Blatchley subdivision , I believe that
all of the lots shown on the present sketch plat are
buildable .
8 . Conditions to limit the Number of Dwelling Units or Lots :
a ) Neighborhood Concerns : I have no information which
would indicate that this subdivision would be
substantially and materially injurious to the use and
enjoyment of present owners in the neighborhood . A
concern has been raised that a clustered subdivision ,
particularly clustered duplexes , would be
objectionable to existing landowners . However , the
neighborhood is zoned R15 and clustered housing is a
permitted type of development .
The clustered developments which the Planning Board
has previously reviewed have been attached townhouses .
This present development is different in that the
cluster plan would permit the construction of
attached , two- family dwellings which are otherwise
restricted by our Zoning Ordinance .
b ) Orderly Development : This subdivision would develop
the balance of the open land presently available in
the area bounded by Honness Lane , Pine Tree Road , and
Slaterville Road . As a result , the orderly
development of this area is related to the orderly
development of this subdivision . The recent
experience of the Town indicates that orderly
development of large - scale , multi - phased clustered
projects are possible in East Ithaca and that a demand
exists for this type of housing .
The second aspect of this question is whether this
development would be in harmony with the existing or
intended character of the neighborhood . It is the
developer ' s intent to build one and two - family dwel -
lings on this site . At this time , the one - family
houses are proposed to be built on the eastern half of
the site and two - family homes on the western half . One
and two - family dwellings already exist in the
neighborhood . The point of contention is whether
duplexes , meaning side by side dwelling units of
roughly equal size , are compatible with existing
dwellings in the neighborhood . This question will
need to be answered completely during the review of
the Long Environmental Assessment Form ( LEAF ) .
c ) Traffic Conditions : After the proportion of one and
two - family homes has been allocated and their location
• identified in greater detail , an evaluation of the
traffic impacts will be made as part of the LEAF
review .
Planning Board 17 September 3 , 1985
• d ) Water and Sewer System : The entire subdivision will
be served by public water and sewer as shown on the
sketch plan schematic . The public utility system can
handle the expected increase in use . Approval of the
utility plan by the Tompkins County Health Department
is required .
e ) Site Planning , Design and Landscaping : Building
designs , locations and landscaping will need to be
reviewed when preliminary and final plans are
developed . A landscaping plan should indicate
planting size , species , and location for the project
as a whole and a detail sheet for a representative
lot .
9 . Buffer Zone Requirement : Buffer zones at least 30 feet
wide are required between the buildings in a clustered
subdivision and the boundary of adjacent property . When a
preliminary plan is prepared it should show the required
buffer zone . The developer should be aware that parking
areas are forbidden in the buffer zone . A problem
identified with the sketch plan is that the roadway to the
east of lots 9 and 10 and to the north of lots 44 and 45 is
adjacent to property which is proposed to be deeded to the
Trinity Lutheran Church . If this property were retained by
the developer , the roadway would meet the suggested 40 foot
• buffer zone . If the land is transferred to the Church , the
road will be directly adjacent to an adjoining property .
The Planning Board has the discretion not to require the 40
foot buffer and , given that this , property may be used by
the Church for additional parking area , a waiver , given
this circumstance with , perhaps , the requirement for
additional landscaping or a fence would be a reasonable .
10 . Regulation of Exterior Characteristics : When building
plans , detailed topography , and other information are
available , an evaluation of the following characteristics
can be made as part of the LEAF review :
a ) the effect which this development will have on the
view of existing neighbors , and
b ) the size , shape and type of materials to be used , and
c ) the amount and quality of noise both during and after
construction .
d ) The phasing plan and the need for performance bonds ,
if any .
11 . Restriction of Unrelated Persons : At the time of the LEAF
• review and the review of the preliminary plan , the Planning
Board will have to determine what restriction , if any , are
appropriate on the number of unrelated persons permitted to
live in any dwelling unit on the project . For this reason ,
Planning Board 18 September 3 , 1985
• the developer should be prepared to indicate the number and
location of the one and two - family houses to be
constructed .
12 . Streets : All streets are shown with 60 foot rights -of -way .
The preliminary plan will show street names . There is more
than 300 feet between the center lines of highway intersec -
tions . Several streets do not intersect at right angles .
One intersection , at the northwest of the site , has a 50
degree intersection between two streets which would be
principal collectors for the subdivision . The subdivision
regulations mandate that no highway intersection be less
than 70 degrees . Curb radii of 25 feet are acceptable .
Sight distances are acceptable , except that the Planning
Board may wish to place additional setback restrictions on
lot # 10 so that no landscaping is placed on the southwest
portion of the property in a manner which would interfere
with sight distance at that intersection . There are no
cul - de - sacs on the property . The intersection with Slater -
ville Road will need to be approved by the New York State
Department of Transportation .
13 . Solar Access : This parcel has good solar access and the
general orientation of the streets , blocks and lots does
not compromise it . Passive solar construction and
• superinsulation techniques have been proven to be extremely
effective in this area in reducing yearly heating and
cooling costs . These reduced living costs make passive
solar and superinsulated homes a good investment and
contribute to the development ' s long - run affordability .
14 . Storm Drainage : Assuming a rainfall rate of . 5 inches per
hour , the estimated runoff for the entire site at present
is 6 . 8 cubic feet per second ( 24 , 633 cubic feet per hour ) .
As a fully developed suburban residential subdivision , the
expected runoff is estimated to be 7 . 7 cubic feet per
second ( 27 , 821 feet per hour ) . The increase in runoff as a
result of this development is 13 percent . These
calculations are only estimates and a more detailed
analysis will be required of the proposed drainage plan and
culvert sizes to make certain that they are appropriately
sized . The project has an average slope of more than 7
per cent . For that reason , check dams , detention ponds and
riprapping shall be required in areas designated by the
Town Engineer ,
CONCLUSION :
A Long Environmental Assessment Form should be completed and
reviewed as soon as possible . This form will provide additional
• information to the questions raised above . In particular , more
information is needed on the construction plans and locations of
the houses to be built . This information will be needed in
Planning Board 19 September 3 , 1985
• order to fully assess the impact of this type of cluster
development upon the surrounding community . "
2 . Cluster Sketch Plat entitled " Proposed Subdivision by Ivar
Jonson " , dated 8 / 23 / 85 .
Mr . Jonson appended a large , colored copy of his proposed
cluster sketch plan to the bulletin board , and stated that he was
requesting approval for 53 lots of 15 , 000 square feet or more .
Mr . Klein wondered how the proposal varied from a regular
subdivision . Mrs . Grigorov also wondered how the plan is different
and why it is called cluster .
Mr . Jonson explained how with an up - and - down two - family , with
one of the units in the basement , both units can be the same square
footage , and that is okay , but if both units are the same square
footage and you put them side -by - side , you cannot do that ; so , under
cluster , where you can have attached housing he was proposing
side -by - side duplexes . Mr . Lovi stated that , under the Cluster
Regulations , it is permitted to put two units together but not more
than six . Referring to the Cluster Sketch Plat on the bulletin
board , Mr . Jonson noted that all the lots are 15 , 000 square feet or
more and look like regular lots . Mr . Jonson commented that they are
big big lots compared to places close to New York City where this
• type of plan is on 65 ' x 80 ' lots .
Chairman May commented that this is not New York City , adding
that the Board is aware of smaller lots around the country . Chairman
May commented further that some of the lots are not 100 ' x 1501
1
however , the square footage is okay . Chairman May , noting that Mr .
Jonson had stated that he was here tonight for preliminary approval ,
stated that what the Board has before it tonight is sketch plan
review . Chairman May stated that this is not a Public Hearing ,
although there is a lot of " public " present , so there can be no final
action taken at this time .
Chairman May noted that in his review of the Short EAF , the Town
Planner had made a recommendation that a Long EAF be prepared .
Chairman May stated that he did not have a Long Form in his packet .
Mr . Lovi stated that the Board members each have a copy of the Short
EAF as required by the Subdivision Regulations for Sketch Plat
Review , Mr . Lovi stated that a Long Form will be presented for the
next meeting .
Indicating toward the sketch plan on the bulletin board , Mrs .
Grigorov asked if that is where the pond used to be . Mr . Albern
indicated where the pond was , noting that it is not related to this
plan .
A gentleman spoke from the floor and asked where Pine Tree Road
• is in relation to this plan . Mr . Albern pointed out Pine Tree Road .
The gentleman then asked where Slaterville Road is , with Mr . Albern
again pointing it out .
Planning Board 20 September 3 , 1985
• Mr . Klein stated that , since this is just a review and Mr .
Jonson is here to get the Board members ' thoughts , and since this
proposal is laid out as a typical subdivision and Mr . Jonson wants
'° cluster " in order to have duplexes , he would like to say that he had
been here on the Board during the writing of the Sub Regs and this
was not really the intent of the Sub Regs or Cluster Regs , Mr . Klein
stated further that part of the review process for a clustered
subdivision is to show the Board a typical subdivision development
and also show a possible cluster development which may have distinct
benefits . Mr . Klein stated that , here , Mr . Jonson is really asking
for a zoning variance to put up side -by - side duplexes in the guise of
going with the Cluster Regulations . Mr . Klein stated that he saw no
particular advantage other than an open door for misuse of the
Cluster Regs to do this . Mr . Klein stated that he would need a lot
more information to have this plan go as a cluster .
Mr . Jonson stated that you can take this proposal under the
present zoning with the layout he has and build 106 units , that is , a
house with an apartment . Mr . Jonson stated that what he is trying to
do is build the same thing side -by - side and get people out of the
basement . Mr . Jonson stated that it can be beautiful , reiterating
that you do not have to put people in the basement . Mr . Jonson
wondered why he has to put people in the basement in his house when
there is no difference . Mr . Jonson stated that you can take the same
size for the bottom floor and put it up where there is light and air
and what is the difference .
• Mrs . Schultz stated that she agreed with Mr . Jonson , but Mr .
Klein has a good point . Mrs . Schultz stated that this is logical so
maybe cluster is not what Mr . Jonson needs , maybe a variance is .
Mr . Albern stated that this plan meets the regulations of a
cluster , adding that it is a technicality , he granted that , but it
meets the requirements of a cluster plan . Mr . Albern stated that he
would make one correction ; there is one location where it does not .
Indicating directly on the sketch plan on the bulletin board , Mr .
Albern stated that " back in here " in the vicinity of the " road " and
the " Church property " . Mr . Albern commented that that person would
have a parking lot in their backyard . Mr . Albern noted that it is
30 ' in there . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the Section Mr . Albern was
referring to is Section 33 of the Sub Regs [ Buffer Zone Requirement
page 231 . Mr . Lovi stated that in his original discussions with
Messrs . Jonson and Albern he had spoken of a " 40 - foot " buffer , and
that was his error . Mr . Lovi stated that the " 40 feet " is a " may
require " , unlike the " 30 feet " which is a " shall require " . Mr .
Albern stated that , in any case , they do not have that " desirable "
buffer because of the Church ' s option on " that " land . Referring to
section # 9 of his Short EAF review [ Buffer Zone Requirement ] , Mr .
Lovi noted that the 40 feet would be in excess of that which is
required .
• Continuing , Mr . Lovi stated that when he reviewed this project
with Mr . Jonson and his engineer , Mr . Albern , and he [ Jonson ] was
aware of the side -by - side requirement , he [ Lovi ] proposed that the
Planning Board 21 September 3 , 1985
• project be proposed as a cluster plan . Mr . Lovi stated that it is
not any connivance on their part ; it is an option under the Cluster
Regulations , Mr . Lovi stated that he thought the plan is fairly
brought before the Board as a cluster subdivision . Mr . Lovi stated
that there are some design areas which he has pointed out to Mr .
Albern , for example , the acute angle " here " [ indicating ] does not
meet the requirement that no intersection shall be at an angle less
than 70 degrees , and some configuration changes need to be made . Mr .
Lovi stated that the purpose of the sketch plan review at this time
is to determine the overall number of units permitted and to
establish whether the project should move ahead as a cluster plan or
a traditional plan .
Mr . Jonson stated that , in regard to this plan for all of these
homes he is asking for an option , in other words , he is not asking
for duplexes on every lot . Mr . Jonson showed a plan with an
elevation drawing of a typical of the houses proposed and stated that
the cost of these is $ 140 , 000 . Mr . Jonson stated that the " American
Dream " is not there for everybody any more ; they have to be able to
rent . Mr . Jonson commented that with this sort of layout it would be
possible for every person to own his own house just like the American
dream . Mr . Jonson stated that this plan makes no more units than a
regular subdivision plan and the reason , again , for using cluster is
that the side - by - side is not permitted in the Town of Ithaca . Mr .
Jonson stated that in the Village of Cayuga Heights , in Dryden , in
• the Village of Lansing , duplexes are permitted . Mr . Jonson stated
that it does not make sense to keep people in the basement and have
people stepping over one ' s head all the time .
A gentleman spoke from the floor and stated that the
side -by - side approach cuts down on the greenery . Mr . Jonson stated
that , again , you can only cover 10 % of the lot in any case so the
same amount of greenery is permitted either way , reiterating that
only so much of the lot , so many square feet , can be covered by
buildings .
Referring to the elevation drawing of a house that Mr . Jonson
had displayed , Mr . Lovi noted that if that house , that size , that
shape , were a single family house , it would be permitted on any R15
lot . Mrs . Grigorov commented that she supposed the reason for the
way the ordinance was written then was so that people could have a
little apartment for some income . Mr . Lovi pointed out that that
" little apartment " could be the same size . Discussion followed
between Mrs . Grigorov and Mr . Lovi with respect to house size and
apartment size . Mrs . Grigorov noted that there is no part of the
Town where one could only have single family houses .
Mr . Jonson stated that he has built houses on Pine Tree Road , as
everyone knows , under the zoning ordinance and there are houses where
there are eight cars in the driveway because somebody is down in the
basement . Mr . Jonson stated that in the side -by - sides in Cayuga
• Heights there is a more orderly appearance , not all those cars . Mr .
Jonson stated that with this design [ indicating the elevation
drawing ] there are two driveways , not so many cars all over , and so
` Planning Board 22 September 3 , 1985
. on . Mr . Jonson stated that he is planning around 103 units , 112
would be permitted , and he is asking for some to be side -by - side ,
individually owned , 15 , 000 square foot lots , or in a cluster , with a
green area but still the same number . Mr . Jonson commented that
everybody pays taxes on each one ; water taxes ; sewer taxes .
Mr . Klein pointed out that , with this plan , Mr . Jonson would
have to specify where the units are . Mr . Lovi stated that , in a
cluster plan , the builder should specify the units which would be
single - family and the units which would be two - family , adding that
that would be part of any approved site plan .
Mr . Albern wondered if , as an example , Mr . Klein and Mr . Lovi
meant - - something like one - third will be one family . Mr . Klein
stated that that sort of thing would not be in accordance with the
Regulations . Mr . Lovi stated that the Board can require a certain
level of specificity . Mr . Albern commented that a two- family
designation on a plan could go to a one - family if a buyer so chose .
Mr . Klein stated that he would have a problem with that , adding that
the Cluster Regulations give the Planning Board control .
Mr . Lovi noted that in his review of the Short EAF , he spoke of
just those things , adding that the Board has to know where everything
is . Speaking to Mr . Jonson , Mr . Lovi stated that this does not give
him as much flexibility as he might like . Mr . Jonson allowed as how
• he was confused , adding that apparently he is being asked to build a
" Commonland " . Mr . Jonson stated that if that is what is wanted , no
problem - - 112 units is permitted . Mr . Lovi , pointing out that that
number is a maximum , stated that if the Planning Board wants to get
real picky and talk about drainage , etc . , it could drop below 106 .
Mr . Lovi stated that there are aspects of this project that are very
good and that fit within a market niche providing affordable housing .
Mr . Lovi stated that he was supportive of the concept of affordable
housing , but also , it is important for the Planning Board to know
what is going to happen and this is not an unreasonable burden to be
placed on a developer .
Mr . Jonson commented that the Town , in considering the rule for
a side -by - side duplex , is talking about lots to be 18 , 000 square feet
and this is considered in this plan . Mr . Jonson stated that they are
asking for preliminary approval , not really preliminary approval in
the public hearing sense , but more like approval of this or telling
us what we should do so that we do not spin our wheels .
Mr . Paul Hartman , 132 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
asked what the light gray and the dark green on the drawing meant .
Mr . Albern indicated that they meant the backyards of the new
properties and the buffer , adding that the blue is the water line ,
looped , the pink is sewer , and the yellow is drainage . Mr . Albern
noted that the roads are basically in between the blue and the pink .
Mr . Lovi stated that the green line is the buffer yard and it is the
• backyard . Mr . Lovi pointed out , however , that in the R15 zoning
regulations , if this were a conventional subdivision plan , one could
build an accessory structure much closer than 30 feet , actually 3
Planning Board 23 September 3 , 1985
• feet , from an adjoining property line . Mr . Lovi stated that under
cluster , no building may be closer than 30 feet .
Mr . David Cassel , 152 Pine Tree Road , wondered if a house could
be built up to the green line , with Mr . Lovi responding , no , there
has to be at least 30 ' of undeveloped space .
Dr . Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and asked
if the thinking is about the possibility of 106 families , Mr . Albern
stated that that is a theoretical possibility . Dr . Mondy wondered
if , with only two outlets , that would not cause a traffic jam ,
Mr . Joseph Multari , 1430 Slaterville Road , spoke from the floor
with reference to the roadway onto Slaterville Road and with respect
to the proposed park area along Slaterville Road . Mr . Multari
pointed out that his lot is the one which abuts the proposed roadway
from Slaterville Road . Discussion ensued between Mr . Albern and Mr .
Multari with respect to drainage as well as the road and the park .
Mrs . Nancy Krook , 113 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she was very concerned with the " niche " spoken of by the
Town Planner , Mrs . Krook stated that this neighborhood is in the
center of this " niche " - - Cornell University . Mrs . Krook stated that
the neighborhood is very concerned about the preservation of families
and with traffic , adding that there is a very serious problem with
• the traffic from all the apartments , mostly from Commonland . Mrs .
Krook stated that they have almost no time day or night when the
traffic is not going by - - uncontrolled . Mrs . Krook deplored the
shifting emphasis to transient housing , Mrs . Krook stated that she
did not like the use of the word " niche " - - it means student housing
for Cornell University , adding that the best way to get a child
through College is to buy a house for them and sell it after they ' re
through .
Chairman May commented that all the traffic should not be blamed
on Commonland . Mr . Lovi stated that there was a very good point made
by Mrs . Krook , concerning , in a new residential subdivision such as
Commonland , and what you could expect to see in a development of this
sort , and that comment was made about traffic . Mr . Lovi stated that
developments , such as this [ Jonson ' s ] and Commonland Community , are
planned in such a way as to carefully consider circulation , limited
access , limited frontage and concerns with children . Mr . Lovi spoke
of Commonland , with Restrictive Covenants in deeds such as no
rentals . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposal , here again , is similar ,
in terms of its interesting layout , to what the Planning Board has
seen before from Mrs . Blatchley where five or six lots were
subdivided , some sold . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the lots on
Slaterville Road , a part of Mrs . Blatchley ' s plans , are now a park ,
adding that these would have been lots in the other plan , and
pointing out that internal circulation is developed less with cul de
sacs . Mr . Lovi , commenting that that could be spoken to now , at
• sketch plan review , stated that the internal circulation is not
stubbed off with cul de sacs as in the Blatchley plan . Mr . Lovi
stated that for life safety access reasons there may be sufficient
I
Planning Board 24 September 3 , 1985
reason for extra access and extra maintenance of roadway , however ,
that is a decision for the Planning Board .
Chairman May indicated an area on the plan , toward the northeast
corner , where there appear to be some almost square turns , and stated
that he would like to have the Fire Chief look at it . Mr . Albern
stated that that would be no problem .
A lady spoke from the floor and stated that her land is below
the " green line " , so , her land would receive drainage from below ,
adding that the area drainage ditch slopes down and it is very
spongy . Mr . Albern referred to the drawing and indicated the
drainage pattern , noting that the basic runoff is in " this " direction
- - not " this " way . Mr . Albern stated that , with this plan , there
would be less water than there is now . Mr . Albern stated that the
drainage ditch is in red , pointed out how the water from the last 100
feet would continue its path , and described the use of riprap .
Discussion followed with respect to one - family houses ,
two - family houses , numbers of occupants , families , etc . Chairman May
noted that , as far as families goes , the zoning ordinance is very
specific in that there can be no more than three unrelated persons in
a one - or two - family dwelling . Mr . Douglas Armstrong , 121 Honness
Lane , wondered how enforceable the numbers of unrelated persons
regulation can be when there are eight Chinese who are related and
. live in a house with two other persons . Dr . Mondy stated that this
is a real problem , adding that she had to live with this problem when
she used to live in Collegetown . Dr . Mondy stated that she left her
home in Collegetown because of the unenforceability of the zoning ,
and now she may be faced with the same thing .
Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that her understanding of the Zoning ordinance is
that it does not permit side -by - side duplexes presently . Mrs .
Raffensperger stated that she would question the definition of this
plan as a cluster , adding that it appears to be a subterfuge in order
to build side - by - side duplexes . Mrs . Raffensperger suggested that
the developer go to the Town Board for a change in legislation , or ,
go to the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Mr . Lovi read from Page 22 ( Sections 5 and 61 of the Subdivision
Regulations , as follows : " The Planning Board may allow the
subdivider to cluster the permitted number of dwelling units in
detached , semi - detached , attached , or multi - storey structures . No
more than six semi - detached , attached , or multi - storey dwelling units
shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure . . . " Mrs .
Raffensperger stated that she was not just talking about the
definition -- she was also talking about intent . Mr . Lovi read the
definition of Cluster on page 10 of the Subdivision Regulations , as
follows : " A development of residential dwelling units on lots which
may be smaller than permitted within the existing zone , but where the
• number of dwelling units shall in no case exceed the number which
could be permitted , in the Planning Board ' s judgment , if the land
were subdivided into lots conforming to the minimum lot size and
Planning Board 25 September 3 , 1985
density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Law applicable
to the district or districts in which such land is situated and
conforming to all other applicable requirements . "
Mr . Jonson asked the Board to please give him an indication of
what it thinks .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that she certainly liked it as better than
what the Board saw a few years ago on this land , however , it seemed
to her like a zoning variance problem . Mr . Klein stated that he did
not see this as a cluster ; it does not meet the Board ' s intent as he
saw it . Mr . Klein noted that it is within the Board ' s power to
disapprove of a cluster plan as well as request it . Chairman May
stated that he had difficulty calling it a cluster . Chairman May
stated that there are some efforts afoot to discuss just what is the
size for side - by - side units , lot size , etc . , adding that using the
Cluster Regulations merely to get a side -by - side unit is not
appropriate . Chairman May stated that he was not nearly as opposed
to the " side -by - side " as he was to the method .
Mr . Lovi asked the Board what he should tell the developer
tomorrow when he comes in to find out how he can prepare a plan for
further review . Chairman May stated that the Town Board is , right
now , looking at side -by - side legislation . Mr . Lovi , indicating the
Town Subdivision Regulations , pointed out that there is a law , right
here , right now , that the developer is coming to the Board under .
Mr . Lovi stated that he really thought the Town Attorney should be
requested to speak to the Town ' s liability . Mr . Klein stated that he
thought Mr . Lovi ' s comment was out of order . Mr . Lovi asked if the
Board were turning down this plan and , if so , what would it prefer
the developer to present . Mr . Albern asked what the purpose of
to sketch plat review " was , adding that he would think it was - - " Yes ,
it looks good ; continue . " , or , " It does not look good ; revise it thus
and so . "
Speaking to Messrs . Jonson and Albern , Mrs . Schultz stated that
she thought they had heard from the Board members what their feelings
are . Mr . Albern stated that he was hearing mixed emotions . Mrs .
Schultz stated that there are merits to side -by - side dwellings rather
than one in the basement , however , this plan is not what she thought
of as a use for cluster . Mr . Albern pointed out that the plan is
well within the law of cluster . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that it is
also within the Planning Board ' s purview to deny it and stated that
if the developer wanted a final decision , she would suggest that he
ask for a public hearing , adding that he must have a sense of the
Board . Mrs . Schultz commented that , maybe , Mr . Klein was right and
the developer should go to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Albern
agreed that they could do that . Mrs . Schultz stated that this plan
looks like a conventional subdivision to her and suggested that Mr .
Albern could go back and re - draw it under cluster . Mr . Jonson stated
that this plan is a lot better plan than Commonland where everything
• is clustered together . Mr . Jonson stated that with this plan people
can own their own individual homes , own a duplex and rent just like
the permitted house with an apartment . Mrs . Schultz stated to Mr .
T
Planning Board 26 September 3 , 1985
• Jonson that they agree , adding that the question is - - " How do you
get to that ? " Mr . Jonson offered that you get there , first class .
Mrs . Schultz commented that it is the Planning Board ' s job to
encourage orderly development .
A lady from the floor questioned the use of the term " first
class " , asking how this can be first class when Mr . Jonson is
cramming in all he can possibly get . Mr . Jonson described
$ 140 , 000 . 00 homes and $ 40 , 000 . 00 homes and asked what it is that is
wanted . Mr . Jonson pointed out that in these homes he is proposing ,
which are first class , a person lives there and can afford it because
he can rent the other half . Mr . Jonson commented that he just did
not understand .
Chairman May suggested to Mr . Jonson that he might come back
with a little bigger lots on the duplexes . Mr . Jonson responded that
that was a good point , and thanked Chairman May , Mr . Jonson noted
that at this point he had shown 110 ' frontage . Mr . Jonson stated
that he had no objection , adding that this is a sketch plan - - help
us out . Mr . Albern asked the Board if , if they come back with
something like what Chairman May said , it would consider approving
such an approach , with the following response - - Mr . Klein stated
that the sketch plan presented does not fall under cluster ; Mrs .
Schultz agreed ; Mr . Baker agreed ; Chairman May agreed .
• Mrs . Krook stated that she wanted the Board to be aware of a
terrible pollution problem created by Mr . Jonson ' s houses on Pine
Tree Road and caused by the fact that they are all heated by
wood -burning stoves and the dirt , grime , and smell is over - powering .
Mrs . Krook stated that Mr . Jonson had installed electric heat , even
though the gas line is right there , and so everyone burns wood and
the pollution is horrendous . Mrs . Krook urged that there be law
enacted with respect to wood -burning stoves and pollution .
Chairman May concluded the discussion of Mr . Jonson ' s sketch
plan at 10 : 10 p . m .
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1 . Duplexes
The Secretary distributed copies of the following proposed draft
amendment to the Board members .
" DRAFT AMENDMENT : Duplexes
RESOLVED :
That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows :
• A . " Duplex " is defined as " a two - family dwelling for which the
second dwelling unit exceeds 75 % of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit .
Planning Board 27 September 3 , 1985
• Be Article III , Section 4 , Number 2 ( R9 ) is amended as follows :
2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling
unit shall not exceed 500 of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second
dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement
area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the
floor area of the primary dwelling unit .
A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows :
Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least
twice the frontage and lot area and has no less depth than
otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks
shall be twice that otherwise required by this Article .
Duplexes shall be considered as two , one - family dwellings for
the purpose of determining permitted occupancy .
Co Article IV , Section 11 , Number 2 ( R15 ) is amended as follows :
2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling
unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second
dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement
area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the
• floor area of the primary dwelling unit .
A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows :
Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at
least 20 % greater frontage or lot area and no less depth
than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard
setbacks shall be 50 % greater than otherwise required by
this Article . Duplexes shall be considered as two ,
one - family dwellings for the purpose of determining
permitted occupancy .
D . Article V , Section 18 , Number 2 ( R30 ) is amended as follows :
2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling
unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second
dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement
area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the
floor area of the primary dwelling unit .
A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows :
Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at
least 20 % more frontage or lot area and no less depth than
otherwise required by this Article . In no case shall the
Is
permitted lot size be less than that required by the
Tompkins County Health Department . All side yard setbacks
shall be 50 % greater than otherwise required by this
y
Planning Board 28 September 3 , 1985
• Article . Duplexes shall be considered as two , one - family
dwellings for the purpose of determining permitted
occupancy .
Revised : September 3 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner "
0
Mr . Lovi stated that , in connection with this proposed
amendment , the " family " definition is proposed to be two or more
persons related by blood , marriage , or adoption . Mr . Lovi noted the
proposed definition of " duplex " as " a two - family dwelling for which
the second dwelling unit exceeds 75 % of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit . " Mr . Lovi explained that , by
such definition , the second dwelling unit is always smaller . Mr .
Lovi continued with an in -depth explanation of the purpose and
meanings of the various sections of the draft amendment with respect
to duplexes , noting particularly that everything has to be read in
terms of the family definition as two or more persons . A lengthy
give - and - take session followed .
2 . Satellite Dishes
The draft amendment before the Board for discussion follows :
" DRAFT AMENDMENT : Dish Antennae
• RESOLVED :
That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca by adding the following
definition :
' Dish Antenna ' is defined as ' A large parabolic antenna used to
receive television , radio , microwave , or other electronic
signals from orbiting satellites . This device may also be known
as a satellite antenna or satellite earth station .
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED :
That a new Section shall be added and hereby is added to Article
XIII , General Provisions , to read :
Dish Antennae . Free - standing and roof -mounted dish antennae
shall be prohibited from all districts except as follows :
1 ) In Residential Districts R9 , R15 , and R30 , and Agricultural
Districts , a free - standing dish antenna with a diameter or
height of 15 feet or less shall be considered a permitted
accessory building and subject to all applicable yard and
height requirements .
• 2 ) In all other zoning districts , a free - standing or
roof -mounted dish antenna with a height of 15 feet or less
may be permitted following site plan review by the Planning
� Planning Board 29 September 3 , 1985
• Board . In the site plan review , the Planning Board shall
consider :
a ) the aesthetic effect of such antenna and the effect on
neighborhood property values ,
b ) the accessibility of the particular property to
commercial cable television service ;
C ) the location of the property and its effect on the
physical effectiveness of the dish antenna ;
d ) landscaping , berming , and buffering .
3 ) No dish antenna may exceed 15 feet in height when measured
vertically from the highest exposed point of the antenna ,
when positioned for operation , to the bottom of the base
which supports the antenna .
4 ) No dish antenna may be located on any trailer or portable
device . However , a portable or trailer -mounted antenna may
be placed on a lot by an antenna installer for a period not
to exceed one week for the purpose of determining the most
acceptable place for a permanent installation .
• 5 ) A dish antenna located on a building within 200 feet of an
R9 , R15 , or R30 zone shall not exceed 6 feet in height
above the roof height at the building line .
6 ) The installation of all roof -mounted dish antennae must be
certified by a registered architect or professional
engineer .
7 ) No such antenna or device shall be abandoned unless the
owner removes same from the premises and restores the
surface of the ground to its original grade and
approximately the same condition as before the antenna or
device was installed .
8 ) Applicability . Regulations on dish antennae apply to all
types of installations , such as :
a ) Dish antennae serving more than one user on a single
lot , such as apartments in an apartment complex ,
mobile homes in a mobile home park , or separate
business establishments in a single business building ;
b ) Dish antennae operated by commercial , regulated cable
systems ;
C ) Dish antennae which serve one user on one lot .
• Revised : June 19 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner "
r
Planning Board 30 September 3 , 1985
• The Secretary passed out two colored photographs which Mrs .
Langhans had mailed , with a note , for the meeting as she had promised
she would because she was unable to attend the meeting . The
photographs showed two views of a dish antenna mounted on a private
residence ; Mrs . Langhans ' note indicated that the dish was a good 10 '
across and the home was located in a very fine residential
neighborhood zoned for two acres plus lot sizes . Mrs . Langhans ' note
also showed graphically how the antenna was attached to the roof and
indicated that it did not look very nice .
Mr . Lovi stated that he had asked the Building Inspector , Mr .
Cartee , to review the draft amendment and he does not have
administrative problems with the amendment as it was revised June
19th . Mr . Lovi noted that the present draft is much simplified from
his original proposal , commenting that it treats an antenna as an
accessory building .
Mrs . Isobelle Flight , 116 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor
and asked if she could comment on the proposed amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance , Chairman May welcomed Mrs . Flight to join the
discussion , commenting that he had thought she was present for the
Jonson matter . Mrs . Flight stated that she did live on Pine Tree
Road but her purpose in coming was in connection with the Agenda item
on dish antennae . Chairman May gave Mrs . Flight a copy of the
proposed amendment to read .
• After having read the proposed amendment , Mrs . Flight stated
that she did have a question or two . Mrs . Flight referred to Section
2 ( b ) and asked why the commercial cable TV company should have
anything to do with what she does on her property . Chairman May
pointed out that it does not , adding that her home is located in
Residential District R15 , so Section 1 applies . Mrs . Flight stated
that that was okay .
Mrs . Flight referred to Section 4 which states that no dish
antenna may be located on any trailer or portable device and asked ,
" Why ? " Mr . Lovi explained that if an antenna is to be permanent , it
should be appropriately placed and landscaped . Mrs . Flight described
her situation with a trailer in her driveway with an antenna on it
and how she and her husband are away six months of the year .
Chairman May clarified that " trailer " did not mean trailer in the
sense of a recreational vehicle ; it was referring to a trailer on
which a dish is set and which can be moved around . The Board members
agreed that the word " trailer " ought to be clarified .
Discussion of the draft amendment with respect to Dish Antennae
ended at this point .
3 . Mobile Homes
It being almost 11 : 00 p . m . , it was agreed that discussion of the
draft amendment with respect to Mobile Homes would be deferred until
the next meeting of the Board .
l yr
• n
Planning Board 31 September 3 , 1985
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the September 3 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11e00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy Ma Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Boardo
•