Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-09-17 4 h A a TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 17 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , September 17 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , Edward Mazza , David Klein , Nelson Roth ( Town Attorney ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Paul Jacobs , Shirley Raffensperger , Robert Berggren , Theresa Berggren , William L . Hall , Alethea C . Hall , Gloria S . Michael , Louis G . Michael , Sam Matychak , Walter G . Lane , Barbara L . Lane , Patrick McLean , Harold Fishburne , Alma Fishburne , Walter Eckert , Esther Eckert , Tammo Steenhuis , William F . Albern , Edna R . Clausen , Mary Margaret Carmichael , Nancy L . Krook , Joy G . Mecenas , Amanda Ufford , Nell Mondy , Fred T . Wilcox III , Joseph Multari , Orlando Iacovelli , Janette McCord , Robert J . Daniels , Robert I . Williamson , Mark B . Li , • Betty Li , Thomas B . Mills , Marguerite 0 . Mills , Patty Porter , Joan Horn , Kinga M . Gergely , Harry Fertik , Roger M . Spanswick , Stephen Lichtenbaum , Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 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 September 9 , 1985 and September 12 , 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 applicants , and upon the Tompins County Commissioner of Planning , on September 11 , 1985 . Chairman May suggested to Mr . Lovi that the Agenda be modified slightly so that the draft amendment with respect to Mobile Home Parks may be discussed since Mr . Jacobs was present , as was Mr . Cartee , Mr . Lovi thought that that was a fine idea . DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - MOBILE HOMES For the record , the following document was before the Board , prepared by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , under date of June 4 , 1985 , and showing Revision Date of June 20 , 1985 . " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Mobile Homes RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca add and hereby does add the following definitions to the Zoning Ordinance : w Planning Board 2 September 17 , 1985 • Mobile Home : A transportable dwelling unit suitable for year - round occupancy . A mobile home is designed and built to be towed on its own chassis , comprised of frame and wheels , and connected to either public or private utilities . The unit may contain parts which may be folded , collapsed , or telescoped when being towed and expanded later to provide additional cubic capacity . A mobile home may also be designed as two or more separately towable components designed to be joined into one integral unit capable of again being separated into the components for repeated towing . This definition excludes travel or camping trailers towed by an automobile and neither wider than 8 feet nor longer than 32 feet . Self - propelled motor homes , or modular housing which is not built with an integral chassis and which must be transported on a separate vehicle from factory to housing site are also excluded from this definition . Mobile Home Lot : A parcel of land used for the placement of a single mobile home and the exclusive use of its occupants . This lot may be located only in a mobile home park as defined by this ordinance . Mobile Home Park : A parcel of land owned by an individual , partnership , or corporation which has been planned and improved for the placement of mobile homes for nontransient use . This parcel may be no less than fifteen acres in size . Mobile Home Stand : That part of an individual mobile home lot which • has been reserved and improved for the placement of the mobile home , appurtenant structures and additions . AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance : 1 . Article II , Section 2 is amended by adding to the list of permitted districts a Residence District R5 . 2 . A new Article and Sections are added to the Ordinance . The text of this Article and Sections is given in Appendix A . [ End of Page 1 APPENDIX A RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R5 SECTION 1 . Location . With the approval of the Town Board , a Residence District R5 may be established in any Residence or Agricultural District of the Town . SECTION 2 . Use Regulations . In Residence Districts R5 no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than a mobile home park . is SECTION 3 . Accessory Uses . Permitted accessory uses in Residence Districts R5 shall include the following : Planning Board 3 September 17 , 1985 V • 1 . Automobile parking and garages , subject to the further requirements of this Section . 2 . Structures and open land for recreation , intended for residents of the mobile home park . 3 . Such areas and structures as may be necessary for home -making activities , such as a common laundry or garden plots . The use of any such area or structure shall be limited to residents of the mobile home park . SECTION 4 . Area , Yard , Coverage and Height requirements shall be as follows : 1 . Area : A minimum tract of fifteen ( 15 ) acres is required for the development of a Residence District R5 . 2 . Lot Size : Each mobile home lot shall have a minimum gross area of 5 , 000 square feet . The arrangement of lots in the park shall facilitate the efficient development of land and permit the convenient access of emergency vehicles . 3 . Stand Location : The location of the mobile home stand on each lot shall be identified on the site plan . • SECTION 5 . Special Requirements shall be as follows : i . Stands : The mobile home stand shall be provided with anchors and other fixtures capable of securing and stabilizing the mobile home . These anchors shall be placed at least at each corner of the mobile home stand . [ End of Page 21 2 . Skirting : Each mobile home owner , within thirty days after the arrival of the mobile home in the park , shall be required to enclose the bottom space between the edge of the mobile home and the mobile home stand with a skirt of metal , wood or other suitable material . This skirt shall be properly ventilated and securely attached to the mobile home . 3 . Parking : One garage or lot parking space shall be provided for each mobile home , plus one additional lot space for each 3 mobile homes . No parking lot shall be located farther than 100 feet from the dwelling unit it is intended to serve . Each parking space shall have a minimum of 180 square feet . 4 . Buffer Yards : A buffer yard at least 30 feet wide shall be provided around the perimeter of the mobile home park . No structures are permitted in the buffer yard and the Planning Board may require that suitable landscaping be provided in order • to effectively screen the mobile home park from adjacent properties . Planning Board 4 September 17 , 1985 V • 5 . Access and Sidewalks : Access drives shall be paved with black - top , concrete , or other solid material . Driveways and walkways shall provide safe access , egress , and traffic circulation within the site . The placement , size , and arrangement of access to public ways shall be subject to the approval of the appropriate highway authority . Where the density of population or school bus routes make it necessary , sidewalks and bus shelters may be required . 6 . Open Space and Recreation Areas : The applicant shall provide recreation areas on the premises for children . The Planning Board shall review and approve all such areas . Ten per cent ( 100 ) of the gross lot area of the mobile home park , exclusive of the area reserved for buffer yards , shall be permanently maintained as open space . 7 . Storage Areas : The developer shall construct common storage structures in convenient locations . These storage areas shall be enclosed and secure and may be located in a common building containing laundry and meeting space . The minimum size of each storage area shall be eight feet high , eight feet deep , and four feet wide . 8 . Screening of Waste and Refuse : One or more common areas shall be provided for the disposal of waste and refuse . These area shall • contain secure garbage bins of a suitable size . These areas shall be screened from public view by shrubbery or a fence . [ End of Page 31 9 . Signs . A single sign at each entrance of the mobile home park is permitted . The size and other characteristics shall be regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law . SECTION 6 . Site Plan Approvals . No building permit shall be issued for a building within a Residence District R5 unless the proposed structure is in accordance with a site plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Article IX . " [ End of Page 41 Mr . Lovi stated that he had had a meeting this morning with Mr . Jacobs and noted that Mr . Jacobs is the owner of a mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive , Mr . Lovi recalled that there was quite a bit of discussion by the Board about the proposed zoning ordinance amendment with respect to mobile homes at its meetings in June and also on July 2nd , and suggested that now is the time to pick up where we left off . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Cartee has reviewed this draft amendment and he has some points for discussion , one of them being the question - - " Does . this Board want to include anything relative to a permit , or , will the permit system be handled by the local Health Department ? " Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Cartee if it were not the case that the Health Department • Planning Board 5 September 17 , 1985 V • has a system now for trailer parks . Mr . Cartee responded , yes , adding , on an actual basis . Mr . Lovi continued and stated that another point Mr . Cartee made was a question with respect to a " community structure " . Mr . Cartee suggested that reference to community structures be deleted , commenting that community laundry structures have been a problem in the past , and further commenting that in the more modern facilities there is a laundry area , so , such reference is not necessary . Mr . Cartee also wondered if the Board wanted to include a paragraph that final approval would be contingent upon water and sewer system approval . Mr . Lovi stated that the points Mr . Cartee had raised were policy questions that the Planning Board could speak to . Mrs . Langhans asked if there had not been problems with water in other mobile home parks . Mr . Lovi responded that conditions change , adding that the system may be okay at the time of the issuance of the permit , but then , circumstances change . Mrs . Langhans wondered what happened then , asking if they pulled the permit . Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Cartee if he knew what happened . Mr . Cartee stated that over the years parks have had a water problem at some time or another and the County monitors that program very closely . Mr . Cartee stated that park owners have to attend a five - day seminar on how to operate their water supply system and they have to submit monthly reports to the Health Department , adding that the system is more stringent than it was ten years ago . Mr . Cartee stated that there always will be • problems in a mobile home park because of the type of situation and that is why there should be no common laundry facility unless the park is on public water and sewer . Commenting that the land is tied up , Mr . Cartee noted that most mobile homes have them in them . With respect to a community center , Mr . Cartee asked who is going to use it , and commented that it is a liability to the mobile home park owner . Mrs . Grigorov commented that , if the Board were to leave it out , then they could not have one . Chairman May stated that , as he read this draft , they can have one if they want to , but it is not mandated . Mr . Mazza pointed out that it was kind of misleading since in Section 3 [ Accessory Uses ] it says that " Permitted accessory uses in Residence Districts R5 ' shall ' include the following : " and then goes on with paragraphs 1 , 2 , and 3 , with paragraph 3 speaking of a " common laundry " . Mr . Klein suggested simply taking out the word " shall " . The Board members agreed . Mr . Cartee , commenting that he would think Mr . Jacobs would agree with him , stated that since he took over this operation this park has increased livability by 1500 , adding that he bought it when it was at its lowest peak . Mr . Cartee stated that he was glad Mr . Jacobs bought it , adding that he has done an excellent job . Everyone agreed with Mr . Cartee , Mr . Lovi referred the Board to paragraph # 6 of Section 5 , " Open • Space and Recreation Areas " , on page 3 , and read aloud as follows : 116 . Open Space and Recreation Areas : The applicant shall provide recreation areas on the premises for children . The Planning Board ` Planning Board 6 September 17 , 1985 • shall review and approve all such areas . Ten per cent ( 100 ) of the gross lot area of the mobile home park , exclusive of the area reserved for buffer yards , shall be permanently maintained as open space . " Mr . Lovi asked if the Board members , or Mr . Cartee , or Mr . Jacobs , had an opinion on this paragraph . Mr . Jacobs stated that it was not really a problem , adding that the Health Department requires so much space to be set aside and you cannot do anything over that system or with the extra areas . Mr . Lovi , commenting that that was true in Mr . Jacobs ' particular park because he was not on public utilities , stated , however , that the question for the Board has to do with those areas which may be served . Mr . Lovi stated that if the park is not served by public utilities , there is no problem , but , if served , the lots could be smaller and that was his reason for including this in the draft . Mr . Lovi commented that it was comparable to what is in conventional subdivisions . Mrs . Langhans offered that paragraph 6 sounded good to her , and Mrs . Grigorov stated that it sounded good to her also . Referring to paragraph # 7 , also on page 3 [ Section 5 , # 7 , " Storage Areas : The developer shall construct common storage structures in convenient locations . These storage areas shall be enclosed and secure and may be located in a common building containing laundry and meeting space . The minimum size of each storage area shall be eight feet high , eight feet deep , and four feet wide . " I , Mr . Lovi stated that " common storage areas " is something which is different from that required in a conventional subdivision , but not so • different from what would be required in a multiple residence facility for the storage of tires , etc . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought that , given the small lot size for each of the mobile homes , it contributes to the conception that parks are congested or cluttered if such facilities are not provided . Mr . Lovi commented that folks need a place to put that stuff and he thought it was better in the design if some place were there for storage , and , better than each one having a shed . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if Mr . Cartee , or Mr . Lovi , wanted to drop " laundry " from paragraph V . Mr . Cartee stated that people do mow their own lawn , adding that he thought each lot needs some storage for the resident ' s mower and tires , etc . Chairman May asked if Mr . Cartee were suggesting that the lot include these accessory buildings . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if they can have garages . Mr . Cartee stated that everyone would have to go over to the common area to get their stuff and asked if the Board would consider an accessory building on each lot , commenting that he did not go for the metal building that goes rickety - rack . Mr . Lovi stated that there was no reason why a structure could not be put over one lot and another lot to serve two lots . Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Jacobs who does the grass cutting now , adding the question as to whether they do have a mower , and adding the comment that she thought the owner of the park should do the • maintenance . Mr . Jacobs stated that he has a maintenance man who does mowing , adding that he mows 23 lots , and further adding that there is one lady who will not let them mow . Mr . Cartee stated that this is ` Planning Board 7 September 17 , 1985 • not a common practice in the County . Mrs . Langhans offered that the Board could make it so . Mr . Mazza wondered what would happen if someone were very meticulous , commenting that we could not require the park owner to do it that way . Mr . Cartee wondered why we would want to be so restrictive on mobile home lots and not so restrictive on other lots . Mrs . Langhans suggested that it could be because the residents do not own the property . Chairman May stated that he would question whether the Board has any business specifying who cuts the grass , but it should look at insuring that there is provision for putting things that normally do not go in the building . Chairman May asked Mr . Jacobs how he felt . Mr . Jacobs responded that you would have to put that in the rent , adding that they try to keep things really neat . Mr . Jacobs stated that he did not have a lot of money to put up buildings , but if need be , he could do that , adding that he could get it back . Mrs . Schultz asked Mr . Jacobs if people do have accessory buildings , with Mr . Jacobs responding , some do , and adding , but they could also put things under the trailer , noting that the skirting comes apart . Mr . Jacobs stated that he also lets them use the shop . Mr . Jacobs stated that storage buildings would be nice for uniformity . Mrs . Schultz asked Mr . Jacobs , if he were going to construct a new park , which would he prefer as an owner - - one main storage building or the smaller accessory buildings , say , one or two to a mobile home ? Mr . Jacobs stated that he would prefer to see one building , or even one building for six or eight units . Mrs . Grigorov asked if that were something the Board wanted to require . Mrs . Langhans , noting that paragraph # 3 on page 3 [ Section 5 . Parking : ] requires one additional parking space for each 3 mobile homes , suggested one storage building for three mobile homes . Mr . Jacobs commented that that just means an extra parking spot for each mobile home . Mrs . Langhans suggested that you could just take the top of one , with Mr . Jacobs commenting that he did not think that would look very good . Mr . Lovi stated that he was trying to make these regulations comparable to what we have for multiple residence districts . Mr . Lovi stated that the thought was that not every mobile home park has to have row after row of trailers with a drive off for each , and added that it would be better to group them around what would be a drive - - a little neighborhood , if you will - - of three or four with one storage building . Mr . Lovi stated that he realized this would not work for Mr . Jacobs because he already has a pattern set up , however , these regulations would guide Mr . Jacobs , and others , toward something other than a grid all lined up . Mr . Lovi commented that this would ultimately be to the benefit of the park owner . Mr . Mazza wondered why anyone should care if they have one , two , three , storage areas of whatever size . Mr . Mazza wondered why it could not be stated that there will be storage space for each lot and , so , the owner can decide if he wants one for six trailers or one for each , or whatever . Mr . Klein expressed his concern for the lack of • conformity and also that metal sheds tend toward junky . Chairman May commented that , actually , if you take out laundry and meeting space , the owner could cluster the storage or put one on a lot so he is not Planning Board 8 September 17 , 1985 • so restricted . Chairman May stated that with this approach , we can require one storage area for each lot and then look at the site plan to see if we agree with what is proposed . Chairman May pointed out that that gives one a lot of flexibility . Mr . Mazza indicated his agreement , commenting , as long as there is a way that they have to come in for approval as to whether their location is okay . Mr . Mazza posed the question - - " How can we control it so that they are not just some chicken -wired thing ? " There appearing to be no answer forthcoming , Mr . Cartee asked if the Board would want to require a permit from the Town , adding that it has no control , and further adding that we depend on the Health Department , Chairman May asked Mr . Cartee how often he goes into a park . Mr . Cartee replied that he did not , adding that he has no jurisdiction . Mr . Cartee wondered how , if we are going to have all these restrictions and if you do not have a permit , he is going to get to it . Chairman May asked Mr . Cartee what he would need to do this , with Mr . Cartee responding that he would have no jurisdiction without a permit system . Chairman May asked if Mr . Cartee were saying that he would like to see a permit each time a home goes in . Mr . Cartee asked the Board to consider a permit for the whole park - - existing and new - - that is , a permit for the whole park . Mr . Lovi , noting the hour , stated that , based on what has been discussed , there are several matters he can add , but , he would like to quickly ask how the Board feels about first , " Skirting " [ page 3 , • paragraph # 2 under Section 5 ] . The Board indicated that " Skirting " was okay . Second , Mr . Lovi asked for the Board ' s feelings on " Parking " [ page 3 , paragraph # 3 under Section 51 , commenting that " Parking " is the same as for multiple residences . The Board indicated that Parking " was okay . Third , Mr . Lovi asked for the Board ' s feelings on " Buffer Yards " [ page 3 , paragraph # 41 , pointing out that " Buffer Yards " is identical to cluster housing , and commenting , parenthetically , that this is not in addition to the mobile home lot . Chairman May pointed out that there should be no parking in the 30 - foot buffer . Mr . Lovi stated that he will add that . Fourth , Mr . Lovi asked for the Board ' s feelings on " Access and Sidewalks " [ page 3 , paragraph # 51 . There were no questions with respect to " Access and Sidewalks " , however , Mr . Lovi stated that he should change " sidewalks " to " walkways " . The Board indicated its agreement with that suggestion . Continuing with " Access and Sidewalks [ Walkways ] " , Mr . Lovi stated that he realized this may seem a little beyond what already exists or may reasonably be expected to exist , but it is better to have it in if a large park were proposed . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Lovi what he meant by " other solid material " . Mr . Klein offered that brick could be used . Mr . Mazza wondered if gravel would be considered " other solid material " . Several people commented , " no " . • Chairman May noted that the Planning Board has approved rock driveways . Mr . Lovi commented that this is not such a problem in a ` Planning Board 9 September 17 , 1985 grid pattern park , but in a curvilinear park you may get into walkways . Fifth , Mr . Lovi asked for the Board ' s feelings on " Screening of Waste and Refuse " [ page 3 , paragraph # 81 . The Board indicated that " Screening of Waste and Refuse " was okay . Sixth , Mr . Lovi asked for the Board ' s feelings on " Signs " [ page 4 , paragraph # 91 . Mr . Mazza , noting that paragraph # 9 says that " A Single sign at each entrance of the mobile home park is permitted . " , asked what happens if there are twelve entrances which , he commented , there could be , and added , as a question , if the Board would want to limit the total number of signs , and noting , if that were the case , the proposed wording locks the Board into having a sign at every entrance . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board may want to say - - " no more than two signs . . . " Mr . Mazza wondered why that regulation is needed at all , since the Sign Law is in effect . Mr . Cartee asked if he might suggest something like " A sign for a mobile home park - - period . Mr . Mazza stated that he would like to see it be up to the discretion of the approval Board . Mr . Lovi suggested , " A single sign for the mobile home park is permitted . . . regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law . " The Board indicated that that was okay . Mr . Lovi now asked the Board to turn back to page 2 and asked if , under Section 4 [ Area , Yard , Coverage and Height requirements shall be • as follows : ] , paragraph # 1 , in the Board ' s opinion , fifteen acres were appropriate . Mr . Lovi stated that one of the things that he would recommend , if the Board would like to have him pursue it , is that he do a planning study of uses , soils , areas , suitable for trailer parks , in order that the Board might have a better sense for this . Mr . Lovi commented that , perhaps , fifteen acres would exclude too many sites . Chairman May asked how many units could be involved on fifteen acres . Mr . Lovi replied , about six per acre . Chairman May commented that that would be about a 90 - unit park . Mr . Lovi offered that it would depend on whether the site were on public utilities or not . Continuing , and referring to paragraphs # 2 and # 3 in Section 4 [ page 2 ] , Mr . Lovi asked if there were any questions on minimum gross lot size , 5 , 000 square feet , or , on stand location . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if Mr . Jacobs had any comments . Mr . Jacobs stated that he did not . It was noted that the words " District R30 " should be added to Section 1 , page 2 [ Location ] so that it reads : " With the approval of the Town Board , a Residence District R5 may be established in any Residence District R30 or Agricultural District of the Town . " Mr . Lovi stated that the principal question he would need answered before he could give the Board a map describing areas appropriate for this type of district is whether the Planning Board would like to restrict these to areas not serviced by public utilities , or , whether all areas in the Town , regardless of public • utilities or not , would be appropriate . Mr . Lovi stated that , because of the soil characteristics throughout the Town , if you are obliging lots not to be on public utilities , it may be the case that it would Planning Board 10 September 17 , 1985 • be quite restrictive on the possible locations . Mr . Lovi stated that , on the other hand , if you allow areas served by public utilities to be rezoned for this type of use , you run into those problems you have with other higher density use proposals . Chairman May stated that he would like to look at both , but he thought that economics would preclude putting it on public water and sewer . Mr . Lovi stated that he will prepare a map . Chairman May asked if there were anything else the Board needed to do . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not think so at this time . DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO DUPLEXES Chairman May stated that , since it was after 8 : 00 p . m . , he would ask that discussion of the matter of duplexes be skipped for the moment . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM SEPTEMBER 3 , 1985 ) : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 7 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 118 COMPTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 . ROBERT BERGGREN , OWNER / SUBDIVIDER . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 20 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings 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 . 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 . " 2 . 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 , 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 ; 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 . ` Planning Board 11 September 17 , 1985 • 3 . Two draft resolutions , one with respect to the EAF , and the other with respect to the proposed subdivision . Chairman May welcomed Mr . Berggren and invited him to speak to the Board . Mr . Berggren stated that he had talked to Peter Coats at the Health Department and he had indicated that there was no problem with the septic system . Mr . Berggren stated that he had thought Mr . Coats could answer the question about the effect on wells but he said it was pretty difficult to determine about wells . Mr . Berggren stated that he talked to Roger Haller about this and he said that it is a pretty good area for water , but you really cannot tell . Mr . Berggren stated that that was all he could find , adding , however , there seems to be water there and there is no problem with the septic . Mr . Berggren stated that he could see no reason why this land should not be subdivided as lots . Referring to his Preliminary Subdivision Map , Mr . Berggren stated that on that map , the back parcel that shows for future subdivision , he was going to try to sell as one lot to cut down on lots , adding that he may not be able to do that , but he will try . Mrs . Schultz , commenting that she had been up there , stated that it is a lovely piece of property , and added that she did not know what you can do about the water or whether it is a problem or not , but certainly the lots are huge and it is a lovely area , not jammed in and not too steep . Mrs . Schultz stated that the land is fairly flat and quite nice . • Chairman May asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board . There were none . Chairman May asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak . Mr . William Hall , 131 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and stated that as well as the water , drainage is a helluva problem . Mr . Hall stated that they have more trouble getting rid of it than getting it . Mr . Hall described what happens to the man down the road in the spring , stating that the clay is so damn close to the surface that there is just no drainage . Mr . Hall stated that the neighbors down below could tell the Board more about it than he can especially in the spring . A voice stated that he would like to see it phased too . Mr . Berggren stated that there is a drainage ditch that runs there , adding that it is the neighbor ' s pond , not his . Mr . Berggren stated that he lives right there too and noted that the Health Department sees no problem . Mrs . Grigorov asked where the " pond " is . Mr . George Michael [ Louis G . ] , 116 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she [ Mrs . Schultz ] said she was up there . Mr . Michael asked Mrs . Schultz if she checked the drainage on his land • too . Mrs . Schultz stated that she did not go on Mr . Michael ' s property . Mr . Michael spoke of his land as mushy , and stated that he has a footer system at his place because there is no drainage . Mr . Planning Board 12 September 17 , 1985 • Michael stated that the water comes right down on his land all the time , adding that all it is is a swamp . Mrs . Michael stated that they have a sump pump in the cellar and it runs all the time , all year . Speaking to Mr . Berggren , Mr . Michael stated that there is water running off from his land all the time . Mr . Berggren responded that there is no runoff and suggested that Mr . Michael talk to his neighbor . Mrs . Alma Fishburne , 104 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and stated that theirs is the first house off Danby Road . Mrs . Fishburne stated that since she moved there the neighbor had some well work done and she had her well cleaned out . Mrs . Fishburne stated that she has water in the basement constantly , adding that they dug a concrete trench . Mrs . Fishburne stated that she has to buy water , adding that the well man told her it was coming from up the road . Mrs . Fishburne stated that she gets all the drainage , adding that she lives at the foot of the hill . Mr . Patrick McLean , 105 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr . Berggren is asking for seven building lots . Mr . McLean asked if there were going to be any more , or was that it . Mr . Klein stated that there are to be three lots at this time . Mr . Berggren stated that there may be only four , but no more than seven . Continuing , Mr . Berggren stated that he contended that there is no problem , adding that this kind of material is not relevant to the matter of subdividing . Mrs . Grigorov asked Mr . Berggren if he thought he was going to have a drainage problem with these lots . Mr . Berggren replied , no . Mr . Hall stated that the lady who sold the property to Mr . Berggren could not do anything with it . Mrs . Fishburne asked if the Health Department had checked the water . Chairman May stated that he did not think the Health Department does that . Mr . Cartee stated that they do not . Mr . Hall commented that there are no guarantees that they will not have their wells go dry . Mr . Berggren stated that he asked Mr . Coats about the septic system leaching into the wells and he said , no , and described how it would be laid out . Mr . Berggren noted that the Health Department lays the system out . Chairman May commented that he did not think they were talking about that , adding that they are talking about drawing the water table down . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Berggren if he had some sort of plan for drainage ditches , and further asking what his system was going to be . Mr . Berggren stated that this land used to be farmed , so it could not have been too wet . Mr . Berggren stated that it is not wet now . Using his map , Mr . Berggren pointed out to Mr . Mazza the culverting . Mr . • Mazza asked if Mr . Fabbroni had ever approved this or looked at it . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he really could not recall , stated that the site is not sloped as much as Honness Lane , for example . Mr . Lovi Planning Board 13 September 17 , 1985 • noted that these lots [ indicating on the map ] are all fronting on a public road and the lots are graded to drain to a roadside ditch . Mr . Lovi commented that with other subdivisions which have been considered there has never been that kind of question about the drainage . Mr . Lovi noted that there are requirements in the Subdivision Regulations , if there are questions , whereby you can ask for a drainage plan , but , once again , in the sorts of two - , three - lot subdivisions reviewed , we have not had people go through the expense of two - foot intervals and a drainage plan , however , it would be up to the Board to require Mr . Berggren to do this . Mr . Klein stated that it is required in Section 26 [ page 191 of the Sub Regs . [ " Section 26 . Storm Drainage . 1 . All land development shall be related to the surrounding drainage pattern , with provisions made for proper storm drainage facilities . All drainage improvements must be acceptable to the Town Engineer . Minimum runoff shall be determined by the Rational Method of an equivalent formula with conventional runoff factors , using as a minimum a rainfall rate of . 5 inches per hour . In all instances , provisions shall be made for adequate storm drainage and drainage structures to prevent water from standing on any portion of deadend streets or cul - de - sacs . 2 . Diversion of storm flow shall be avoided , wherever possible . If storm water is to be diverted from its natural course , the construction plans shall include : a ) A sketch showing the existing waterway and the location of the proposed channel change ; b ) Profile of existing water course ; c ) Provisions for the prevention of soil erosion and silting , such as sodding and paving , in open water courses . 3 . Where an underground drainage system is installed , emergency surface drainage overflows shall be provided to prevent possible flooding in the event of failure of the underground drainage system . 4 . In developments with an average grade of seven per cent or more , detention ponds , check dams or other structures shall be provided to reduce the velocity of storm runoff . Riprapping shall be required in areas designated by the Town Enginer . " ] Mrs . Grigorov , in the form of a question , stated that it will drain to a road just like anybody else ' s , with Mr . Lovi responding , right , and adding that he is going to put in a road and ditches into that . Mrs . Langhans asked for clarification as to what was actually being talked about here , that is , eight lots , seven lot , three lots ? Mr . Lovi noted that when he reviewed the EAF , since there were to be eight lots created , he spoke of eight lots , however , he realized that , in comparing this with others , open space lots have not been counted as a lot , and so , the hearing was for seven lots , and , Stage I of the development involves three new lots . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the back lands , shown in the dashed lines , would be four lots , although Mr . Berggren has stated that he is willing to sell it as one so that number would then be the prerogative of some subsequent owner . Mr . Berggren stated that he thought he would have it in the deed that it would be no more than four , adding that he lives there too . • Mr . Michael stated that he would suggest that someone come up and find those drains , adding a description of the lands it goes over . Mr . Michael stated that the water comes into the front yards and the Planning Board 14 September 17 , 1985 back yards , adding that the Board should see it before it makes a decision . Mrs . Michael asked if the Health Department would make some test holes . Commenting that they did his too , Mr . Berggren stated that the water problem does not start on his land - - it is from a pond above his property . Mr . Berggren stated that he has a ditch which he could deepen . Mr . Lovi noted that , according to the Sub Regs , the Planning Board could ask the developer to prepare a topo map , two - foot contours , for review by the Town Engineer and he [ the Engineer ] could prepare a report as to where this water enters and goes to , given the amount of discussion and genuine lack of consensus . Mr . Lovi stated that he has looked at the site and he considers that the water would enter Compton Road via the road ditching , however , the Board may want to ask for this material . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if that would be necessary for the back land development , adding that she thought the Board should , then . Mr . Klein stated that he thought it would be wise to have Mr . Fabbroni look at it . Mr . Lovi stated that , to clarify what he said before , he has looked at the soils maps he has looked at the U . S . G . S . map , and the general drainage runs from east to west with the slope across the site generally draining toward the road , adding that where there are specific swales , or local features , that would not be picked up in the ten - foot contours of a U . S . G . S . map . Mr . Lovi • stated that , on the basis of the information that he has to work with , the drainage appears to run from east to west and toward the road . Mr . Berggren stated that he has been there for two years and no one has ever approached him about water . Mr . Berggren stated that it appears that the neighbors want to stop it . Mrs . Michael stated that they have owned there since 1952 and the water was always there . Chairman May stated that he thought the smart thing would be to request a topo map . Mrs . Grigorov commented that this is not a casual thing . Mr . Berggren commented that it is very expensive . Mrs . Fishburne spoke of Church services twice a week , and more houses , and traffic hazards . Chairman May offered his feeling that that was not a legitimate reason to deny subdivision . Mr . Mazza , commenting that , in getting these topos , he has heard two - foot contours spoken of , stated that he would assume there are different reports that can be obtained . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board further adjourn and hereby does further adjourn the Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of the proposed Robert and Theresa Berggren Subdivision to October 1 , 1985 , at 8 : 00 p . m . , and Planning Board 15 September 17 , 1985 • FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Planning Board ask and hereby does ask the Town Engineer to prepare a drainage report . Mr . Sam Matychak , 1180 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and , commenting that " he " [ unidentified ] talked about water , stated that the Board should have the Engineer check the ditch that comes right through his property . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May announced the adjournment of the Public Hearing until October 1 , 1985 , at 8 : 00 p . m . , and asked those present to , please , submit to the Town Engineer any information they may feel he should know . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of the Berggren Subdivision duly adjourned at 8 : 55 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A TWO - LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 54 - 7 - 35 . ANTHONY AND BARBARA SCHULTZ , • OWNERS / SUBDIVIDERS . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 57 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Schultz stepped away from her place as a member of the Planning Board and appeared before the Board . Each of the Board members had before him / her copies of the following documents . 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 is subdivided has already been developed and is proposed to be subdivided for purposes of sale . Planning Board 16 September 17 , 1985 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 unaccep - • table 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 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 . Planning Board 17 September 17 , 1985 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 . 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 Planning Board 18 September 17 , 1985 • 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 . , signed and sealed by Richard A . Slade , from Carl Crandall ' s map of June 14 , 195 ? , upon which had been delineated the apartment building , the parking , the trees and shrubs in place , the paved " roadway " [ Lot No . 32 ] , and the locations of both the Mary Lou Thorpe and the William and Judy Steele properties . 3 . Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Barbara A . Schultz under date of September 9 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Subdivide for Sale at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Ithaca NY 14850 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , . . . The necessary subdivision in order to sell the apartment building would result in no change whatsoever to the five lots included on the variance dated 9 / 14 / 83 in terms of further development . As a matter of fact , this subdivision would further enhance that prohibition . The side yard measurements indicated on the attached map would be most beneficial to each new parcel . SPlease see letter attached to this appeal . " [ Attachment ] " 270 Pennsylvania Avenue • Ithaca , New York 14850 September 5 , 1985 Board of Zoning Appeals Planning Board 19 September 17 , 1985 • Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Members of the Zoning Board : On September 14 , 1983 , your Board granted a Variance from Article III , Section 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a four unit multiple residence at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Tax Parcel number 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 . The requirements pertaining to life and safety in multiple dwellings ( New York State Code , etc . ) and for appropriate landscaping were met at the time of construction and subsequent issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy . The other stipulation in the variance was that ' said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots herein cited . . . ' These are Lots 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 and 34 . At the time of the hearing , we took this to mean that there would be no further development of these five lots . In July of this year , we accepted a purchase offer on the apartment building . This offer is contingent upon , among other things , the subdivision of that property from our home . In applying for a subdivision hearing , the Town Planner scheduled only a Sketch Plan Review ( not a public hearing ) as he felt that such a division was impossible based on this wording in the variance . Please understand that , at the time of the hearing , we never understood this to be the case . We concurred with the opinion that the five lots should not be developed any further , but we were never given the impression that the sale of either • the apartment building or the house would be forbidden . In any case , it has been suggested that we come before you for an amendment of the variance granted in 1983 which would allow the property to be subdivided for sale . We must state , at this time , that we are rather uncomfortable with having to proceed ' backwards ' in a sense regarding the subdivision hearing , etc . , but we were unaware until the Agenda of the Planning Board had been set that there was a problem here . After much consideration , we feel that the best way to divide the property would be to cut Lot 32 in half , giving 25 feet to each new parcel . This does several things . First , it uses the roadway as the natural boundary that it has become . Second , it insures an ample side yard to the east for the apartment building and to the west for the house . Third , this division would , of course be subject to ' access to the public on a roadway ' as now exists in the deed to Lot 32 . This access cannot be changed . Fourth , this division would leave ample side yard to the east for the house . Please see the map attached to this letter . We feel that the halving of Lot 32 would be the best way of dividing this property for sale . It would accomplish the Zoning Board ' s objective of no further development of these lots , and also give us the opportunity to pursue the sale of our property . Parenthetically , our house pre - dates any zoning regulations and Mr . Cartee has brought the matter of the front yard depth to our attention . It is his opinion that even though the house • pre - dates the requirements , that this matter should also be brought to the Board ' s attention . This was not a problem when we Planning Board 20 September 17 , 1985 purchased the house thirteen years ago , but apparently it is now an issue which might also be addressed at this hearing . Please accept our apologies for appearing before the Planning Board first , but we were unaware that our intended sale of this property and the subdivision it requires would be a matter for your Board to consider . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Barbara A . Schultz ( sgd . ) Anthony A . Schultz " 4 . Copy of pages 1 through 6 of the Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 14 , 1983 , as follows : " APPEAL OF ANTHONY A . AND BARBARA SCHULTZ , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice - Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 08 p . m . and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above . Mr . Schultz was present and was asked to appear before the Board . Mr . Schultz referenced his Appeal Form , dated September 2 , 1983 and attachments as follows : 1 . Site Plan : Proposed Apartment for A . A . Schultz , Pennsylvania Ave . , Lots # 30 , # 31 , # 32 , # 33 , # 34 , Drawing S - 1 , prepared by Tallman & Tallman , Registered Architects . 2 . Completed Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) , dated 8 / 26 / 83 . 3 . Statement of Appeal ( set forth below ) . - - ' This property is located in an R - 9 District , and is 250 ' x 1201 , consisting of five lots , each 50 ' x 1201 . By using three lots of this property , we would have sufficient square footage to build two two - family dwellings . At maximum capacity , these dwellings could be rented to , for example , a six -member family , plus two other persons , for a total of sixteen persons on the three lot parcel . Our proposal is to construct one building containing four apartments . These apartments would be rented to two unrelated persons each . This would depend on the market at the time of completion , however , this is our plan . The possibility of rental to large families would be minimized by our desires and the size of each apartment unit . The structure would impact us as direct neighbors as much as any other property owner in the neighborhood . To the south there is , and would remain , a heavy shrub - tree border between the properties , and our structure would not block any view . We are neighbors to the east . To the north , the house is totally rented • ( there has always been an apartment in it ) . To the west , the nearest dwelling is about 350 ' away . Further , and of equal Planning Board 21 September 17 , 1985 importance , our proximity will allow us to closely supervise the property . This one multiple residence would actually be more in conformance with the character of the neighborhood than two closely - spaced two - family residences would be . The houses at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue are , at present , large and well spaced . This structure would be 24 ' x 60 ' in area , which is not much larger than a moderately sized home with attached garage . It would also be on a large lot . At present , the house across the street ( north ) is completely rental property , and the house to the northeast has a basement apartment . At least five other houses on Pennsylvania are now rented , and there is a long established multiple dwelling on the street . Regarding traffic and parking : If granted the variance to build one multiple dwelling , we would be able to site the parking area at the rear of the building ( south side ) , thereby minimizing the temptation for roadside parking and also minimizing visual impact on the neighbors . Were we to build two two - family dwellings , we would not be able to provide this protection , and we would also have to create two separate entrances rather than one . The increase in traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue would most likely be the same in either construction case . As to the practical difficulties involved in building two two - family dwellings instead of a multiple dwelling , we must includes a . Cost factors - in terms of actual construction costs , the two separate units would increase costs approximately 30 - 350 ; b . Two separate units would require a greater maintenance time and cost . It must be noted here that we have held this property for ten years , and it is at this point that we are able to invest in improving it . We would like to do that to our maximum advantage . We feel that a variance to construct this multiple dwelling at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue should be granted as it does not materially change the character of the neighborhood , there is precedent for this variance on nearby Kendall Avenue , there is already a multiple residence at 225 Pennsylvania Avenue , the parcel is served by both public water and sewer , five of the nine closest neighbors will not be impacted at all by any increase in traffic due to this construction . It is our full intention to require very strict leases , including provision for no pets , and in every way to attempt to maintain the quiet and almost rural atmosphere which presently exists as we are , and will continue to be , residents of Pennsylvania Avenue . One final consideration is the fact that a portion of one lot is used as a right - of -way to houses located south of our property . The placing of a multiple dwelling within the confines of the total 250 ' x 120 ' parcel , along with the existing house , would require no changes in this right- of - way situation . ' Mr . Schultz verbally stated the reasons for his Appeal as described in his written statement noting that he and Mrs . • Schultz felt that it would be within the legal aspects of the property involved to build two separate houses but that , in itself , they felt , was a little bit non - conforming with the Planning Board 22 September 17 , 1985 • neighborhood because houses in the neighborhood are well spaced . He noted that they could build two very similar structures to be side by side on each of two of the lots shown . Mr . Schultz stated that by constructing what they propose , they would have something more in conformation with the neighborhood because the proposed structure still looks like a house and would not impact the neighborhood quite so much as two structures . Mr . Schultz stated that the structure as placed on the parcel allows for provision of off - street parking which is a concern of those living on the street itself . Mr . Schultz commented that there are similar type buildings in the area so there has been a precedent for utilizing more than one lot in this manner . Mr . Schultz stated that the zoning in the area is R - 9 and in his reading of the zoning it would be within the legalities to build on these lots the two two - family houses as mentioned but they would prefer , rather than that , to have one building . Mr . Schultz described a minimal impact on the neighborhood by having the proposed structure facing north which would be the view of the Lake and noting that what would be seen would be another household comparable in design . Mr . Schultz stated that that house is a full rental unit . He stated that , to the west , the nearest house is 350 ' away . Mr . Schultz noted the driveway on the site plan which the Board had before them and stated the site plan does not show the shrubbery , however , he would state that , to alleviate the sight impact of the driveway , Northern Spruce • would be planted . Mr . Schultz pointed out that the neighbors to the south would have no view of the house at all and described the heavy trees and shrubbery existing . Mr . Schultz described the right - of -way located on his lot # 32 which provides access to houses located south of his property . Mr . Schultz noted that they would be their own neighbors to the east , pointing out that his house is due east . He stated that the impact on the neighbors that would be , in essence , to the northeast , would be minimal . Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Schultz to specifically point out his house , which he did . Continuing , Mr . Schultz spoke to the matter of hardship as to substantial costs in terms of placing two separate entities on the property available . Mr . Schultz stated that the density would not increase in terms of occupancy and with one house there would be more open space , two houses would be close to each other . Mr . Schultz stated that there is also precedence for this type of building and described another similar one on Kendall Avenue , one block away . Mr . Schultz stated that as a resident he would prefer one structure as opposed to two structures . Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Schultz Appeal . • Mr . Lyman Baker , 257 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the floor and stated that he was the second adjacent neighbor . Mr . Baker stated that between his house and Mr . Schultz ' s house the road Planning Board 23 September 17 , 1985 • curves and heads in a southerly direction and is not really a part of Pennsylvania Avenue , adding that he would like to know what is going to happen to that road . Mr . Baker stated that his second question was just where does the driveway go into the dwelling . Mr . Schultz stated that Mr . Baker ' s property is due north of his property and the proposed driveway , in essence , is directly across from the Baker driveway . Mr . Baker stated that that answers his second question , and asked again what will happen to the non - road , which Mr . Schultz names as being his property , when this building is built . Mrs . Reuning commented that as she drove on this road she noticed that the houses beyond have numbers . Mr . Schultz stated that the Town does not own any of the " road " . Mrs . Reuning asked what the peoples ' mailing addresses are . The assumption appeared to be that the addresses are Pennsylvania Avenue , Mr . Schultz stated that he pays Town taxes on that driveway , it is a driveway . Mr . Aron arrived and took over the Chair . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Schultz who uses this private road . Mr . Schultz stated that the residents of the four houses above him use it and mentioned Owens , Baker , and two others whom he did not name . Mr . Austen asked if this were a permanent easement type of thing . Mr . Schultz stated that it is , adding that it is a • private right of way to four people from Schultz as owner of lot # 32 . Mr . Schultz stated that his proposal is not to touch the easement at all . Mr . Aron , indicating lot # 32 on the site plan before him , asked Mr . Schultz again if he owns that lot . Mr . Schultz stated that he did . Mr . Aron asked him if he pays taxes on it , to which Mr . Schultz replied , yes . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak for or against the Schultz Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman Aron asked if the Board wished to turn to the matter of the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) relative to the Schultz proposal . Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency with respect to review under SEQRA in this matter . Chairman Aron noted that all questions on the form submitted had been answered " no " ; the form had been signed by Anthony A . Schultz on 8 / 26 / 83 ; and the matter had been reviewed by Mr . Fabbroni , the Town Engineer , on September 6 , 1983 , with the following recommendation made : " Negative Declaration recommended with some consideration for landscaping area west of driveway ( for future neighbors ) and area north of building to break mass and scale of building . " • MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : Planning Board 24 September 17 , 1985 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed construction of a four unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as completed by Anthony A . Schultz , Appellant , and as reviewed by Lawrence P . Fabbroni , the Town Engineer ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 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 - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Austen commented that the proposal seems to involve two lots • and not three . Mr . Schultz stated that it is really three lots , in essence , that are involved with the proposal . Mr . Schultz added that he might , but not necessarily will , change the driveway location . MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article III , Section 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four - unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , said parcel being comprised of five lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in 1895 , said four - unit dwelling to be constructed upon old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof and which are a part of said Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , as shown on Plan S - 11 titled " Site Plan - Proposed Apartm ' t . for A . A . Schultz " , Tallman & Tallman , Registered Architects , Ithaca , N . Y . , Scale 1 " = 30 " , proposed and presented to said Board of Appeals on September 14 , 1983 by Anthony A . Schultz , Appellant , with the understanding that said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots hereinabove cited , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said grant is conditioned upon there being , for the benefit of future neighbors , both suitable and • appropriate landscaping of the area west of the proposed driveway shown on said Site Plan and there being both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area north of the proposed Planning Board 25 September 17 , 1985 • structure such that , visually , its mass and scale is broken up , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that a building permit shall be applied for by the Appellant and all requirements of the New York State Building Construction , Energy Conservation , and Fire Prevention Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings and any requirements of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and / or the Town Engineer , shall be met . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Schultz Appeal duly closed at 7 : 32 p . m . " 5 . Two Draft Resolutions , as prepared by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , under date of September 11 , 1985 , having to do with environmental assessment and subdivision approval . Mrs . Schultz , noting that this matter is to be before the Zoning • Board of Appeals tomorrow night , stated that when she applied for public hearing in July she was aware of the possibility of coming into conflict with the variance granted in 1983 , however , she would like to point out that the resolution says " encompasses " , but not that it cannot be subdivided . Mrs . Schultz stated that the map which the Board has shows what they want to do , which is split the middle lot directly in half , adding that the middle lot is a paved roadway . Mrs . Schultz noted that this leaves in place the maple trees and the large willow . Mrs . Schultz stated that she asked the Planning Board to grant subdivision approval subject to what the Zoning Board of Appeals says tomorrow evening . Mrs . Schultz , noting that the Board members each had a copy of the 1983 ZBA Minutes , stated that the resolution does not say that the property cannot be subdivided - - it says that the proposal " encompasses " all five lots , and , that they agreed with . Mrs . Schultz stated that this subdivision is not changing anything ; they are building nothing , they are moving nothing , they are just selling one parcel , that is , one half of Tax Parcel No . 54 - 7 - 35 . In response to Mr . Mazza ' s question as to what had been done , Mrs . Schultz stated that they own old lots 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 which is really parcel 35 . Mrs . Schultz stated that old lot 32 is " different " in that their deed says that one must leave access on a roadway . Mr . Mazza noted that this subdivision will not create any more buildings and just lets the Schultzes sell off a portion . Mrs . Schultz agreed , adding that nothing can be built there . Mr . Mazza asked if there were a site plan and all that . Mrs . Schultz stated • that there was and drew the Board ' s attention to the Survey Map . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that the apartment building is on old lots 30 and 31 , adding that it has proper side yards and setback , etc . Mrs . Planning Board 26 September 17 , 1985 Schultz read from the September 14 , 1983 , decision of the Board of Appeals . Mr . Mazza asked if there had been any restrictive covenants required , with Mrs . Schultz responding , no . Mr . Mazza commented that the Board of Appeals may require that now for old lot 34 . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that old lot 34 is their back yard and described the landscaping of trees and privets , as well as how the land slopes down . Mr . Mazza stated that his only concern was that there is nothing in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office that says that old lot 34 cannot be built on . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that old lot 34 is theirs . Mr . Mazza agreed , adding , however , it is a buildable lot . Mrs . Schultz stated that this matter was coming before the Planning Board first because it did not get where it was supposed to be . Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the public , Mr . Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the floor and stated that he would urge the Board to make sure that nothing else gets built on that lot ever and that it not be expanded again . Mr . Steenhuis described eight cars , and racing cars , and students who go 60 miles per hour . Chairman May asked if there were any further comments from the public . There were none . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9008 p . m . Chairman May asked the Board to turn to the matter of the EAF and noted that a negative declaration had been recommended by the Town Planner . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS . i . This project is an Unlisted Action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on September 17 , 1985 . 2 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project . 2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Planning Board 27 September 17 , 1985 • No Vote - Schultz . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May noted that the Board had heard Mrs . Schultz request . Mr . Lovi stated that in his draft resolution he had recommended that the matter be tabled so that the Board of Appeals could proceed without prejudice since it is up to them to speak to their resolution . Town Attorney Roth stated that he did not see a problem taking action subject to the action of the ZBA tomorrow night . Town Attorney Roth reiterated that that could be done provided that the motion is couched in appropriate language , such as , this Board ' s action is subject to subsequent action of the zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Klein commented that , in this way , the Planning Board ' s approval would be contingent upon the Board of Appeals speaking to their 1983 variance . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance . 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed a sketch plat for this proposed subdivision at its meeting of September 3 , 1985 . • 3 . The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed subdivision at a Public Hearing on September 17 , 1985 . 4 . The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a Public Hearing for September 18 , 1985 , to hear an Appeal from the subdividers concerning the terms of a variance granted September 14 , 1983 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval and waive , and hereby does waive , Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of the lands of Anthony and Barbara Schultz as proposed , being the subdivision of one parcel known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , said parcel being comprised of five ( 5 ) Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 , into two parcels , one of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 30 , 31 , and one -half ( 251 ) of 32 , and the second of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 33 , 34 , and the other half ( 25 ' ) of 32 , IF and only IF the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variance that is requested by said Anthony and Barbara Schultz , such request to be before said Board of Appeals on September 18 , 1985 , and • IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED : Planning Board 28 September 17 , 1985 1 . That the Approval , with condition , granted herein be and hereby is contingent upon there being no further subdivision or building of dwelling units on all the parcels concerned in this subdivision , and 2 . That there be something placed of record in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office to that effect , and 3 . That , upon the meeting of the condition and contingencies set herein , a Final Subdivision Map be filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk and no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued until proof of such filing has been submitted to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . No Vote - Schultze The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of the Schultz Subdivision duly closed at 9 : 17 p . m . • CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED SKETCH PLAN FOR A 49 - LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION ON 30 . 54 ACRES AT 131 HONNESS LAND , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 58 2 39 . 2 . IVAR JONSON , OWNER / SUBDIVIDER . Recalling that the Board had discussed Mr . Jonson ' s Sketch Plan for a 53 - lot cluster at its September 3rd meeting , Chairman May welcomed Messrs . Jonson and Albern once again and invited them to speak to the Board . It was noted that at that time the Board had before it a completed Short EAF dated August 23 , 1985 , reviewed by Mr . Lovi August 28 , 1985 , and , a Cluster Sketch Plat dated August 23 , 1985 . Mr . William F . Albern , P . E . , appeared before the Board and appended to the bulletin board a new drawing entitled " Lot Plat , Proposed Subdivision by Ivar Jonson " , dated September 151 1985 . Mr . Albern stated that he would like to point out a couple of corrections to the Agenda description of the project . Mr . Albern stated that it is no longer a clustered plan and no longer is it 49 lots ; it is 48 lots . Mr . Albern stated that the basic difference between what we have here and two weeks ago is that we were talking cluster and now we are talking 17 single family homes and 31 duplexes . Pointing to the drawing on the bulletin board , Mr . Albern showed the single family homes backing up the other single family homes along Honness Lane and also those along Pine Tree Road . Mr . Albern pointed out how the width of the single family lots has been increased to range from 100 feet to 110 feet , and how some of the duplex lots are 135 feet to 140 feet • wide , one being 150 feet , and some being 126 feet plus a half a foot . Mr . Albern pointed out the use of the wider lots to accommodate the duplexes . Mr . Albern noted that the proposal involves one - third Planning Board 29 September 17 , 1985 • single family homes and two - thirds duplex homes . Chairman May asked if there were any questions from the Board . Mrs . Schultz asked what the dotted line in the northeast corner was . Mr . Albern stated that the dotted line delineates land the Church has an option on , adding that it has been conveyed as part of this subdivision but the Church has an option on it . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions from the Board . There were none . Chairman May asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak . Mr . Joseph Multari , 1430 Slaterville Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he owns the property which joins the property that intersects with Slaterville Road , Mr . Multari stated that he has always known that the property under discussion would be developed , adding that he was not against development . Mr . Multari stated that his problem is with the proposed road off Slaterville Road abutting his property . Mr . Multari stated that his deed shows the lot next to his as 1432 Slaterville Road and he has assumed it was to be a building lot , but he just found out that it was to be a road . Mr . Multari asked the Board if some consideration could be given to moving that road into the area that is shown on the drawing as a park . Mr . Multari pointed out that he has cars now on Route 79 and , perhaps , he will have cars on the side of his house too . • Dr . Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor , and stated that the proposed outlet onto Honness Lane will be coming very close to the outlet from Eastwood Commons and , so , they will be within 200 feet of each other . Dr . Mondy stated that there is a vacant lot right next to the Armstrongs ' , adding that Mrs . Blatchley owns that lot , and suggesting that the road be swung . Mr . Albern stated that Mr . Jonson has an option on that lot . Mr . Lovi expressed his concern about street jogs , were that done , adding that it would not be as efficient as what has been proposed . Discussion followed with respect to moving two roads . Mr . Albern commented that if you move " this " one [ indicating ] you cut the park in half , and , if you move " that " one [ indicating ] you get into difficult street jogs . There also followed a discussion between Mr . Multari and Mr . Albern , with Mr . Multari pointing out his suggestion on the drawing on the bulletin board , and commenting that it seems kind of a sin , when there is all that vacant land , to cut two houses in half . Mr . Multari asked if a park is an absolute requirement , adding if that requirement was not under the cluster regulations . A lady spoke from the floor and referred to an article which she had read in the newspaper about a Town proposal for duplexes being 150 % of the standard lot size . Mr . Jonson stated that that law is not in place and described his options under the Town zoning and commented that he might not build all the duplexes . Mr . Lovi stated that the • draft resolution being considered by the Town Board , which the Planning Board has been asked to comment on , and , he assumed , will do so later , talks in terms of a lot area at least 50 % greater and no Planning Board 30 September 17 , 1985 less depth or width than otherwise required , and 20 % greater side yards . Mr . Lovi noted that there are lots which are rectangular shown on this plan of 140 ' by 1501 , as well as several other large lots , for example , proposed lot numbered 45 is also 140 feet wide . Mr . Lovi noted that other lots are irregular , so it is difficult to say about the area . Mr . Lovi stated that his understanding , and the understanding of the developer , he thought , in the last discussion which was had , was , during the Town ' s studying of this ordinance , to develop a plan and , if the requirement is 150 'x , this plan will be revised , if less , it may be revised again . Mr . Lovi stated that both the proposed law and this subdivision plan are being worked on in parallel - - simultaneously . Mr . Lovi noted that not all the lots shown for duplexes are 22 , 500 square feet , which would be the most recent duplex draft . Mr . Albern stated that he would ask the Board to take a look at the size of lots # 35 , # 36 , and # 37 , commenting that they are standard lots , and compare them with lots # 30 , # 31 , # 23 , and # 24 , commenting that they are considerably larger . Dr . Joy G . Mecenas , 105 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she lives across from Mr . Jonson ' s single family houses on Pine Tree Road , Dr . Mecenas asked the Board if they have looked at them . Dr . Mecenas stated that she did see , at an open house , what they would look like - - a duplex - - up and down . Dr . Mecenas stated that there are five unrelated persons in these houses , adding that • right now there are eight unrelated people across the street . Dr . Mecenas asked if there were any way that the Planning Board is going to control that the proposed buildings are going to be built as such . Chairman May responded that the Board certainly does that , adding that the Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee , is sitting here tonight and he does monitor these matters as they are going through . Chairman May stated that he would point out that an accessory apartment in the basement being up to 100 % of the primary unit is permitted , adding that that is the way the current zoning ordinance reads . Mrs . Nancy L . Krook , 113 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and stated that at the last meeting she mentioned that the density of these proposed houses and duplexes is going to be very great , and , with the experience that we have gained with the houses across the street that Mr . Jonson built , even though they are on a gas line , he put in electric heat and wood stoves , and , because electric heat is very expensive , they use the wood stoves and this is a real problem with polluting the area . Mrs . Krook expressed her concern about 48 new residences - - 100 families - - and with all those people heating with wood , about what this is going to be like , describing clouds of black soot everywhere , even inside other people ' s homes . Mrs . Krook stated that with all these revisions in the zoning law , we must come to grips with whether we are going to allow wood heat . Chairman May commented that , at the last meeting , a lady who lives in one of Mr . Jonson ' s new houses said she was not heating with wood heat . Mr . Mazza stated that he knew one person , personally , who lives in one of Mr . Jonson ' s new homes , who has a small fireplace in which he has laid one small fire . Mr . Mazza stated that his friend does not have wood Planning Board 31 September 17 , 1985 • heat . Dr . Mondy stated that the lady was Mrs . Flight and she would say that that house is a beautiful house , adding that Mrs . Flight has gas heat . Mr . Multari suggested that the Board ask Mr . Jonson , the builder , what was in the houses . Mr . Jonson stated that three of the houses have electric heat and are super - insulated , adding that Mr . Badner ' s heating bill was $ 130 . 00 for two months . Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and asked if it were true that the 17 proposed single family houses will have only one unit in them . Mr . Jonson stated that he will have to stay with the zoning ordinance for single family homes . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that they could , then , have an apartment . Mr . Jonson stated that he would not particularly build the apartment himself , but people who buy could renovate to do that . Mr . Jonson stated that he could not control that . Dr . Mondy asked if there were any possibility of having more than two outlets , adding that with only two outlets , one so close to Eastwood Commons , it would be a mess for Honness Lane , Mr . Albern stated that they were fortunate to have two , adding that he did not see any possibility for three . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Lovi what the requirements are under the Sub Regs , Mr . Lovi stated that highway intersections may be no less than 300 feet apart [ Section 23 , paragraph 7 , page 17 ] , and added that , if the Board wishes to waive any requirement , it can do so , but must inform the Town Board through • the Town Clerk that it has waived a requirement . Mr . Mazza commented that he had been referring to Honness Lane , Chairman May , stating that the Board needs to know exactly what the distance is , asked if there were early morning traffic out of Eastwood Commons and out of " here " . Mr . Jonson stated that the way he saw it , there is no choice . Mr . Jonson stated that there is no way to move that over because of Mrs . Blatchley ' s lot . Mr . Jonson stated that he did not own that lot . Mr . Lovi stated that , for the Board and the public , as may be recalled , Mrs . Blatchley came in several years ago for subdivision approval on her land and approval was granted for Phase I - - 8 lots . Mr . Lovi stated that at that time the 60 - foot right of way was mapped in and the issue of its impact was considered at that time because we were discussing a development that actually had more lots than what is proposed here now . Mr . Lovi described certain changes to that proposal , under the new proposal , noting that five lots on Slaterville Road which were approved for Mrs . Blatchley have been taken off and there is proposed , instead , to be a park . Mr . Lovi also referred to three lots on Honness Lane , one of which Mr . Jonson has said he has an option to purchase on . Mr . Lovi again explained that this is a constraint in that , when preliminary subdivision approval was given to the entire concept and final to the 8 lots , that roadway was mapped in . Mr . Albern commented that he believed " this road " [ indicating ] is shown . Mr . Mazza asked what the rationale was for placing the park • abutting Route 79 , Mr . Jonson explained that five road cuts into Route 79 would have been necessary , adding that this is a better plan . Mr . Albern allowed as how he was the one who did it , explaining that Planning Board 32 September 17 , 1985 . he lived on Slaterville Road himself at one time , and adding that it is very nice this way and it would be a good buffer . Mr . Mazza wondered about this going to be a recreation area on Route 79 , Mr . Albern stated that there will be a fence and explained about a very high embankment . Mrs . Grigorov commented on the high embankment and added that it is not easy to run out onto the road . Mr . Multari wondered what kind of fence was envisioned , how high it might be , and what effect Route 79 would have on this . Mr . Jonson stated that all he does is give the land away , as a gift , to the Town . Chairman May commented that anything the State is doing on Route 79 would have no effect on that . Mrs . Mary Margaret Carmichael , 122 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and asked about provisions being made for drainage , mentioning the roofs of houses . Referring to the drawing and indicating on it , Mr . Albern showed the present drainage of this property and its direction going across from " this area " and " down in here " . Mr . Albern also discussed the schematic on the drawing , referring to riprap of rock and stone . Using the previous drawing which was at the September 3rd meeting , Mr . Albern spoke about the " yellow " area and described how the drainage is intercepted and taken out . Mrs . Carmichael spoke further on roof drainage and her swampy lot - - 122 Pine Tree Road - - adding , however , that they have land behind 124 and 126 Pine Tree Road , and further adding that they will get drainage from the " yellow " line down to the " green " line . Mr . Albern stated that there will be less drainage than there is now , or , certainly , no more and pointed out on the drawing where Mrs . Carmichael gets the drainage from . Mr . Albern described to Mrs . Carmichael that the topography is " this way " , not " that way " [ indicating ] . Mr . Albern stated that this project will not affect her , adding that it will not help her or hurt her . Mr . Multari stated that it will hurt him . Speaking to Mr . Multari , Mr . Albern stated that he will have less . Mr . Multari countered that there is a drainage problem there now . Mrs . Amanda Ufford , 147 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and asked what provisions had been made for landscaping . Mr . Albern stated that at this moment , sketch plan review , nothing has been done . Mrs . Ufford asked if there will be or will it just be left scrubby . Mr . Albern stated that they are not ready for this aspect of the proposal at this time . Mr . Lovi stated that all the documents that are presented to the Board and the Town staff are public documents , adding that the public is free to call or come in and discuss these things at any time . Dr . Mondy wondered why she did not receive notice of Mrs . Blatchley ' s subdivision . The Secretary , noting that that was sometime in 1983 , stated that she would check it out . Chairman May asked if there were any further questions . There were none . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi what the Board needed to do . Mr . Lovi stated that the Board , of course , realized that this project . is a Type 1 Action under SEQR and that the developer should be directed to prepare a Long Environmental Assessment Form , which will be reviewed . Mr . Lovi stated that there might be additional Planning Board 33 September 17 , 1985 • information mentioned by the Board at this meeting and by the public which will need to be considered in detail . Mr . Lovi stated that the other thing that would be customary would be for the Board to indicate some sense of whether it would be appropriate for the developer to proceed to the preliminary subdivision development stage . Mr . Lovi noted that , complicating that , is that the developer has informed the Board that he intends to build some duplexes on this land and the standards for him to adhere to have not been written . Commenting that the Board does not have an unambiguous standard for which to guide the developer , offered that he had no opinion as to what the Board should do . Chairman May suggested that Mr . Jonson , or Mr . Albern , contact the staff tomorrow after the Board has continued further with the draft ordinance on duplexes , adding that , at that point , they would be able to get a good sense of exactly where this Board is . Mr . Jonson pointed out that what they are talking about - - the Board is talking about - - is 150 ' frontage . Mr . Jonson stated that land is expensive ; development costs are expensive , and , if the Board goes with 1801 , he would like the option to come back with cluster . Chairman May responded , absolutely , adding that that was his right at any time . Mr . Lovi offered , for clarification , that in the draft duplex amendment before the Planning Board and the Town Board , it speaks in terms of 150 % of the lot size requirement and that does not • necessarily mean 150 feet of frontage . Mr . Albern commented that he did not think any of these lots meet 150 % . Mr . Jonson stated that homes being built today are smaller and are more efficient these days , so , lots should be smaller if houses are - - which makes sense . Mr . Jonson stated that the Homebuilders ' Association of Tompkins / Cortland Counties did discuss this matter and he gave a copy of a letter from them to the Secretary to be entered into the record . The letter follows : Homebuilders Association of Tompkins / Cortland Co ' s 1465 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca , New York 14850 Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Town Board 000 September 15 , 1985 Gentlemen : The local Homebuilders Association has voted to take the following position on the creation of a new zone in the Town Zoning ordinance for side by side duplexes . 1 . The Homebuilders and Land Developers feel that lot sizes of 120 feet frontage by 150 feet depths are sufficient to produce side by side duplexes within the Town . An 18 , 000 square foot lot will provide more than enough land for both the building and as well as meet all of the other setback requirements of the new zone . Any more lands provided to the ultimate property owner will not necessarily improve • his quality of life . Most building types can be designed to fit within the 120 foot frontage requirements and still be visually Planning Board 34 September 17 , 1985 • attractive while not creating any more densities in occupancy than a typical 15 , 000 square foot lot zoned R- 15 . 2 . The Homebuilders and Land Developers feel that by requiring 150 frontages for this new zone will make it not a very used vehicle for new subdivisions and new land use within the Town . The ultimate cost effectiveness of the new zone will certainly increase lot costs and final sales price of the finished product . That is , more and costly road frontage to serve each lot , more and costly water and sewer extensions per lot , ( the before said costs are borne entirely by the Homebuilder and Land Developer - Town makes no contribution to the costs of these services . ) , fewer lots can be developed on a given tract of land thereby increasing the final lot cost of each new lot . 3 . The Homebuilders and Land Developers also feel that the future maintenance of roadways , water and sewer , will create more of a tax burden to maintain on the fewer number of homes constructed in that subdivision . 4 . The Homebuilders and Land Developers feel that the Town should follow the Planning guidelines as put forth by the State of New York that cluster housing and higher density subdivisions be encouraged to save lands for more open space , to help cut construction costs and long term maintenance costs of new subdivisions while still maintaining a better quality of life than typical urban living . Sincerely yours , Richard Platt President " • Chairman May concluded the matter of revised sketch plan review of the proposed Jonson Subdivision off Honness Lane at 10 : 10 p . m . SIGN REVIEW BOARD : REVIEW OF APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK , INC . IN RE BILLBOARDS AT 1325 MECKLENBURG ROAD AND 1180 DANBY ROAD , Chairman May declared the matter of the Park Outdoor Advertising Appeal review by the Planning Board in its capacity as Sign Review Board opened at 10 : 10 P . M . Attorney Robert I . Williamson , representing Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . was present . Each of the Board members had before him / her the following documents . 1 . Copy of letter dated August 30 , 1985 , to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Office , signed by Robert I . Williamson , as follows : " Enclosed please find copies of appeal re signs owned by Park Outdoor scheduled , as I understand it , for September 17 , 1985 . " 2 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor • Advertising of New York , Inc . at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . ' Planning Board 35 September 17 , 1985 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the structures will eliminate income to Park Outdoor at this location of approximately $ 13 , 000 per annum . The boards are an essential tool for local business advertising . The boards at this location advertise local businesses such as Watt Distributing , Fairview Heights and Gallagher Television . There are also public service ads for the United States Army and United States Air Force . IlIn addition , the removal will create a further hardship on the State of New York since these signs located along Route 79 are along a Federal -Aid Primary Highway . Under the Highway Beautification Act as amended , the company must be compensated if the boards are removed . See letter dated December 10 , 1981 , from the Department of Transportation , copy of which is attached hereto . ( These boards do not contravene the intent of the town regulations , nor do they generate a change in the character of the neighborhood . It is respectfully submitted they will have no effect on future development , and they do not generate any extra traffic in the neighborhood . There is no better location in the town available for these boards . " 3 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 , 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the company in the approximate amount of $ 8 , 000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising . The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty . In addition , there is a public service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office . It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area , they do not generate extra traffic , nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . They will not change the character of the neighborhood . The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years . There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance . " 4 . Copy of letter dated December 10 , 1981 , to Robert I . Williamson Jr . , Esq . , signed by Darrell W . Harp , Assistant Commissioner , Legal Affairs , New York State Department of Transportation , 1220 Washington Avenue , State Campus , Albany , NY 12232 , as follows : " This will confirm your request as to our interpretation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 as it relates to • compensation for outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal -aid primary highways . SClearly , this act mandates compensation for advertising signs lawfully in existence which Planning Board 36 September 17 , 1985 • are removed by any public agency providing they are compensable or lawful under the provisions of the Federal Beautification Act . " 5 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 12 , 1985 , as follows . " The granting of this appeal would have large , continuous and adverse impacts upon the visual environment in the Town . By the very nature of the billboards , these impacts are impossible to mitigate . I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . If the ZBA intends to consider this appeal further , the applicant should be directed to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which fully considers the impacts which this action would have upon the environment . " [ Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . ] 6 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Park at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi . [ See environmental review for sign appeal on parcel # 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . 1 • 7 . Copy of pages 15 and 20 of publication entitled " Land Use Law " , May 1985 issue , Judicial Decisions in re Signs and Billboards . Attorney Williamson appeared before the Board and introduced Mr . Bob Daniels of Park Outdoor Advertising who was also present . Attorney Williamson stated that , referring first to the Matychak parcel at 1180 Danby Road , they request a variance for their boards on that property which they rent . Attorney Williamson stated that the area taken up by the two boards on this property is 60 feet by 10 feet , adding that these boards were made unlawful by the Town Sign Law , Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are very compatible with what is currently in the area and noted that there are commercial businesses nearby , e . g . , Sam Peter ' s , a bar and grille , [ Woody ' s ] , Oltz Funeral Home , Attorney Williamson stated that these boards advertise local businesses , currently including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty , and there is also a public service ad for the United States Air Force ' s local recruiting office . Attorney Williamson commented that they also provide income for the Matychaks . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards have no effect on the future development of the area and they certainly do not create extra traffic . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards do not contravene the intent of the sign ordinance and they do not change the character of the neighborhood . Attorney Williamson stated that those two boards have been completely rebuilt in the last five years , commenting that all boards throughout the system have been rebuilt , improved , and • refurbished . Attorney Williamson stated that there is no way that they could continue to maintain those boards unless they get a variance from the Town of Ithaca , adding that the two boards on Danby Planning Board 37 September 17 , 1985 • Road are not on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway , and further adding that they are governed by the Town ordinance . Attorney Williamson noted that those boards on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway are entitled to be compensated for upon removal by any municipality under the Highway Beautification Act . Attorney Williamson spoke of the seven boards on Mecklenburg Road , Route 79 , as entitled to such compensation because they are on a Federal -Aid highway . Attorney Williamson stated that they have applied for and received permits from the State , repeating that the boards are currently under permit and paid for . Attorney Williamson stated that the company ' s income from the Mecklenburg Road site is $ 13 , 000 . 00 per annum and from the Danby Road site , $ 8 , 000 . 00 , and noted again that the boards advertise local businesses . Referring to the Mecklenburg Road site , Attorney Williamson stated that the local businesses advertised there are Watt Distributing , Fairview Heights , and Gallagher Television , as well as public service ads for the Army and the Air Force . Attorney Williamson stated that they felt that if those boards are removed , the State is endangered such that if the boards are not removed in accordance with that Federal -Aid Primary Highway status , the State highways could be endangered by risking up to seventy million dollars in federal aid to highways . Attorney Williamson pointed out that included , as part of their submission , is a letter from Darrell W . Harp , Assistant Commissioner , Legal Affairs , New York State DOT , written in December of 1981 . • Attorney Williamson stated that these boards are in a rural area , adding that they have certainly been there long enough for it to be clear that they are not going to generate extra traffic or change the neighborhood . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards do not contravene what the Town meant by the sign ordinance , noted that they cover a total of one - eighth of an acre , and further stated that they were legal when they were erected . Attorney Williamson stated that either he or Mr . Daniels would be pleased to answer any questions . Mrs . Grigorov asked how long the billboards have been illegal . Chairman May responded that the 1972 Sign Ordinance made them illegal . Chairman May asked when the billboards were rebuilt . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Matychak could tell about that because the ones on his property were cut down . Mr . Matychak stated that somebody came in and sawed them down but he did not know when . Mr . Cartee indicated that it was sometime in 1979 . Chairman May asked Attorney Williamson why they were rebuilt when that was illegal . Attorney Williamson commented that the Chair was talking about history . Chairman May , commenting that Attorney Williamson had talked about rebuilding and improving four or five years ago and a couple of years ago , noted that the present Sign Law was enacted in 1980 , and asked why they were rebuilt and was that not contrary to the law . Attorney Williamson , noting that they had been vandalized , stated that he assumed that when • they were cut down , maintenance went up and put them back up , probably rebuilding them . Mr . Cartee stated that this occurred prior to November of 1979 which was when he came to the Town . Attorney Planning Board 38 September 17 , 1985 Y • Williamson stated that boards throughout the entire system have been rebuilt and refurbished with steel , and paint , etc . Mr . Lovi , noting that many things have been said , stated that he had gone back through the Town Board Minutes and from 1972 , February , to when the first Sign Ordinance was enacted in May , it was clear from several meetings in 1972 at which Mr . Williamson , and others , spoke at length against this sign ordinance , that billboards were made illegal and were given three years to be removed . Mr . Lovi stated that , following that , on January 26 , 1976 , the Town Board called a special meeting at which time Mr . Williamson spoke and persuaded the Board to hold in abeyance the date by which they had been put on notice to remove the billboards because of an on - going case in the Town of Southampton . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board , rather than incur litigation costs , decided to await the outcome of the Southampton case . Mr . Lovi noted that the Southampton case was eventually decided against Suffolk Outdoor Advertising , Continuing , Mr . Lovi stated that next , in 1980 , the present Sign Law was before the Town Board and public hearings were held with Mr . Williamson speaking against that sign law by letter in the record on behalf of Park . Mr . Lovi stated that Park has known for some thirteen years that the intent was not to permit billboards in this Town , adding that the record is clear in that regard . Mr . Lovi stated that , as for Federal -Aid highways , the City of Ithaca has taken Park to court and the judge in that case decided at the end of last year , • December 31 , 1984 , that their amortization period was sufficient . Attorney Williamson stated that that decision is under appeal to the Federal courts . Mr . Lovi noted that the Town Sign Law speaks to a four -year amortization period , adding that it has been held that three - year amortization periods are sufficient . Mr . Lovi stated that it appears to be clear , on the basis of this opinion which Mr . Williamson says is being appealed to the Federal courts , that the Town ' s amortization period seems to be sufficient . Mr . Lovi drew to the Board ' s attention Judicial Decisions from the May 1985 issue of " Land Use Law " which he had xeroxed for the Board , with respect to Park billboards in Pennsylvania , and stated , briefly , that the DOT refused to give Park Outdoor Advertising a permit stating that refurbishing was a new sign ; Park went to court and lost . Mr . Lovi stated that from what he could read and to the best he could inform the Board on this matter , it is clear that it has been allowed for Towns to restrict billboards without compensation . Attorney Williamson stated that they have permits for all their boards , adding that they are current and paid for . Mr . Lovi read aloud from the Pennsylvania case which appears on Page 20 of the May 1985 issue of Land Use Laws " Signs and Billboards 37 ZD 195 - - Pennsylvania Change of billboards ' wooden frames and supports to metal constitutes structural improvement rendering signs newly built and violative of • act regulating outdoor advertising . ( Park Outdoor Advertising Co . v . Commonwealth , Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania [ intermediate court ] , Decided December 27 , 1984 , 485 A . 2d 864 Planning Board 39 September 17 , 1985 • . . . The commonwealth court affirmed the DOT ' s order directing the signs ' removal . After finding initially that the DOT has the authority to promulgate a regulation regarding abandoned signs , the court determined that the changes in the signs are the kind of structural improvement defined by the act as constituting abandonment of the old signs . The signs were to be considered newly built , the court said , because the structural improvements took place after the act ' s effective date . The court rejected the owner ' s claim that its changes were simply permitted customary maintenance or repair , finding that ' repairs ' imply decay or damage and pointing out that there was no evidence that any decay or damage had occured , the changes were substantial and extensive and went beyond normal repair . The court noted in closing that compensation to the owner for the removal of the three billboards is not required here because the newly built signs were not lawfully in existence on the effective date of the act . " Attorney Williamson stated that , number one , he could not recall if those boards were on a Federal -Aid highway . Mr . Daniels stated that they were non - conforming boards . Attorney Williamson stated that the point tonight is that they are asking for a variance to permit their boards to exist . Attorney Williamson noted again that they do advertise local businesses ; they present no traffic problems ; they do not harm the area that they are in , or any intended use . Attorney Williamson noted again that on Danby Road there are other commercial uses - - Sam Peter ' s , the funeral home , Hovanec Builders , the bar and grille . Town Attorney Nelson Roth stated that there is one point which he should highlight and that is the Town ' s responsibility under the Federal Highway Beautification Act , Town Attorney Roth recited some of the history of billboards with respect to both the courts and the legislature , speaking of the New York Court of Appeals as the highest court in the State ; a bill supported by the State DOT providing compensation only for removal of billboads along interstate and federally - aided highways which has been before the legislature since 1978 and failed to pass the Legislature at its 1984 sessions , and , the 1983 Suffolk decision . Town Attorney Roth stated that there is no statute requiring payment by local municipalities of compensation for billboard removal . Town Attorney Roth stated that the State of New York may run the risk of losing highway funds , however , that is not really a problem of this Board . Town Attorney Roth stated that the Court of Appeals has upheld non - payment of compensation . Referring to the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Town Attorney Roth stated that he would draw the Board ' s attention to Section 10 . 03 , " Appeals . The Sign Review Board shall hear and decide on the following matters : " . Town Attorney Roth stated that it appeared the appeal of Park was brought under sub - section 10 . 03 - 1 ( b ) , " Requests for variation from the provisions of this law pursuant to Section 9 . " • however , he would say , if there is any appeal here , it may be under sub - section 10 . 03 - 1 ( a ) , " Questions of alleged error in any order or determination of the Enforcement Official involving the interpretation Planning Board 40 September 17 , 1985 • of the provisions of this law . " Town Attorney Roth commented that the Board could act under that section - - ( a ) . Continuing , Town Attorney Roth , noting that there has been a sign ordinance in effect at least since 1972 , stated that Park ' s billboards have been re - erected when cut down , refurbished , rebuilt , and otherwise improved and Park certainly had knowledge of the Town ' s sign law . Town Attorney Roth commented that he thought there was a reference in the record which indicated that there might have been control of billboards in the Town since the 1950s . Attorney Williamson stated that , to answer Mr . Roth ' s question , they are here on a request for variance . Mr . Cartee stated that he thought the correct reading of the Sign Law was that the Planning Board is the Sign Review Board and must review and recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Williamson is here because of Section 10 . 03 - 3 - - " No Zoning Board of Appeals decision shall be made on a variance until an advisory opinion is received from the Sign Review Board . Failure of said Sign Review Board to report an opinion prior to the hearing on the appeal shall be construed as approval of the variance . " Chairman May stated that , although this was not a public hearing , he would ask for any comments from the public . There were none . • MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of sign review of the Park appeal duly closed at 10 : 35 p . m . 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 . • Chairman May welcomed Mr . Iacovelli to the meeting and asked him to tell the Board about his plans . • Planning Board 41 September 17 , 1985 • Mr . Iacovelli greeted the Board members and presented two different site plans for the proposed development for their review . Appending copies of these plans to the bulletin board , Mr . Iacovelli commented that this is a lot which he and his brother are developing . The first site plan presented by Mr . Iacovelli was entitled , " Site Plan ( Showing Proposal for 9 Lots ) " , Layout of 351 [ sic . ] Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , undated . The second site plan presented by Mr . Iacovelli was entitled , " Site Plan ( Showing Proposed 3 Six - plex Buildings ) " , Layout of 351 [ sic . ] Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , undated . Referring to the first site plan , Mr . Iacovelli stated that this is what it would look like if it were in conformance with the existing regulations . Referring to the second site plan , Mr . Iacovelli stated that this is what he is proposing to do , that is , three six - plexes and lots and lots of free space . Chairman May noted that the rectilinear plan showing 9 lots could mean 18 units and the three six - plexes meant 18 units . Chairman May asked if the 5 . 1 acres calculated for the cluster included the existing building shown on both plans . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it did . Chairman May offered that that would make it one over in density . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he would take a look at making one of the buildings a five -plex , as opposed to this way , or , possibly , removing the building , adding that he had not gotten that far into the detail . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he were right in saying that he would say that 17 would be the Board ' s limit . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought the Chairman was asking him to • interpret the zoning ordinance which he would rather not do , however , by taking the aggregate number of lots , times two , and checking to see if that number is not more than 3 . 5 units per acre , that number is 17 . 5 units , and it would be up to the Planning Board to decide whether that means 17 or 18 . Mr . Lovi offered that other criteria for the Planning Board to answer and the Town Board to answer , as part of the duplex amendment , is to make a change in the size of dwelling unit permitted . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the so -called 50 % rule now means that an apartment may not exceed 500 of the size of the primary unit unless it be in the basement , however , the new rule would propose that the maximum size of the second dwelling unit would be 750 of the size of the primary unit . Mr . Lovi offered that someone could make the argument that , rather than taking the permitted number of lots times two , the appropriate thing to do would be to multiply that permitted number of lots by 1 . 75 , but , again , the Board functions under the cluster regulations as it interprets them and , thus , can do what it will . Chairman May , commenting that this was not a public hearing , asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak . A gentleman asked from the floor if Mr . Iacovelli would please point out the existing roads . Mr . Iacovelli pointed out Coddington Road and Spruce Way across from his proposed development . • A lady asked from the floor where Juniper Drive was . Mr . Iacovelli showed where Juniper Drive would be , noting that it is not on the plan . Planning Board 42 September 17 , 1985 Pointing to the plan , a gentleman asked if " that " were the railroad right of way . Mr . Iacovelli pointed out where the old railroad bed was . Another gentleman asked where Mr . Iacovelli ' s road was . Mr . Iacovelli showed him . Chairman May stated that the public should understand that Mr . Iacovelli has presented two plans here , one being a typical grid , however , he is not proposing that . Chairman May stated that Mr . Iacovelli is proposing a cluster plan , so that is the one to look at . A gentleman asked from the floor where " that " road goes [ indicating the proposed road on the cluster plan ] . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it goes to the units it will serve . A lady spoke from the floor and stated that in her back yard she will have a parking lot with cars coming and going . Mr . Iacovelli described a hedgerow , which he will maintain , and trees . Chairman May pointed out that the cluster regulations require a 30 - foot buffer . Mr . Klein wondered why the road was put there . Mr . Iacovelli stated that this was a result of his talking with Mr . Lovi about the road maybe someday meeting Pennsylvania Avenue . Mrs . Schultz wondered if Mr . Iacovelli meant the private road , adding that there is an access to Coddington Road - - a 50 - foot right of way - - from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Coddington Road . Mr . Iacovelli stated that • it was in front of Benninger ' s property . Mrs . Schultz indicated that she knew where Mr . Iacovelli meant , commenting , okay , it is down farther . A gentleman spoke from the floor and mentioned the Li ' s home [ 112 Juniper Drive ] , noting that he ( Li ) was " here " on the corner and describing the " roads " which have been built going to Pennyslvania Avenue . The gentleman spoke of motor bikes , recreational vehicles , students camping , parking , and walking to the Watershed area . The gentleman stated that the police have been called many times . The gentleman spoke of " that " road stopping and there being parking there , and then a private road built from Juniper Drive through to Pennsylvania Avenue . Mr . Iacovelli pointed out how and where there is a very steep drop by the railroad right of way . Mr . Lovi stated that this is a sketch plat review , the purpose of which is to give the developer some idea of the number of units he could be permitted to build . Noting that the Building Inspector was present , Mr . Lovi suggested that , rather than getting into the merits of the proposal , perhaps we should fix a number of units permitted to be built . Mr . Lovi stated that the reason he mentioned the Building Inspector is that he is the person authorized to interpret the zoning ordinance . Mr . Cartee stated that he would rather address the matter at a time other than a public meeting , adding that this is the first time he has seen this proposal . • Noting that Mr . Iacovelli had spoken of six - plexes , Mrs . Schultz asked Mr . Iacovelli how many bedrooms there might be in each of the units . Mr . Iacovelli responded that he had given no thought to that Planning Board 43 September 17 , 1985 • yet . Mrs . Schultz offered , jokingly , that she would love to see Mr . Iacovelli ' s drainage plan for this area , adding in a more serious vein , that that would be very important , and further adding that that area goes straight up . Mr . Iacovelli stated that there is a natural ditch in the area at the present time , adding that he thought developing the area would benefit the area . A gentleman spoke from the floor and , referring to the parking area on the " back side " , asked if there were any reason it could not be switched around onto the front side . Mr . Iacovelli stated that all of this proposal is subject to input from various people , adding that it is not locked in stone , and further adding that the placement of the buildings could be changed . Mr . Iacovelli stated that what they are looking for is some direction in developing a proposal something like this . Chairman May stated that he had a little trouble with the number of units . Mrs . Schultz said she wondered about the amount of land . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it conformed to all of the information that is in the Town Cluster Regulations , Chairman May commented that he was seeing 18 units . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he had no concern whether it be 17 or 18 . A lady spoke from the floor and asked if there were any variances required , to which Mr . Iacovelli responded , no . The lady asked how tall the buildings were going to be , to which Mr . Iacovelli replied • that that is all laid out in the regulations which will be met . Chairman May stated that they may be two stories and not over 30 feet . A gentleman asked if the existing house was the former Lovejoy property , to which Mr . Iacovelli replied , yes , adding that it was a green house . A lady spoke from the floor and noted that the proposed road would go between Gray and Lovejoy at " the knoll " . The lady asked how many cars do 30 m . p . h . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was a police enforcement matter . Mr . Mazza stated that he wanted to make the Board aware that he will be abstaining from all discussions on this matter because of possible conflict of interest . Mrs . Schultz stated that it would helpful to the Board , and the public , to put more information on the drawing as to where the other roads are . Mr . Iacovelli stated that that was very difficult for him to do since they are quite 'a distance away . Mrs . Schultz stated that a tax map would be okay . Chairman May stated that the staff will bring a tax map for the next discussion on this . A lady spoke from the floor and stated that , since Mr . Iacovelli was in the planning stage , she would like to offer an opinion for consideration . The lady stated that they are very close to Ithaca College and , so , a six - plex will be rented to students and this will Planning Board 44 September 17 , 1985 be very detrimental to the neighborhood . Mr . Iacovelli spoke to the lady and stated that he understood her concern . Chairman May stated that the Board should see a contour map which showed the drainage . Mr . Lovi stated that , in order to assist the Board in the preparation of its agenda , he would ask if he were understanding correctly that the next step for this developer is the preparation of a preliminary plan showing drainage , etc . , along with the other requirements of the Sub Regs , the Long EAF , and so on . Chairman May stated that that was correct , adding that there should also be review by the Town Engineer , Mrs . Langhans asked for clarification with respect to the rationale for this road maybe going to Pennsylvania Avenue , Mr . Lovi stated that there are discussions between the staff and the legislature concerning changes to the official highway map and the draft , which he has seen , shows a connection between Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue and the roads in this area of Juniper Drive . Mr . Lovi stated that there is nothing final but representing our thinking at this time . Chairman May stated that , in fairness to the developer and the Board , we should see those , absolutely . Mr . Lovi stated that there are no roads on the official highway map which would interfere with the development of this land . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposed changes to the highway map would be such that this • development could be part - - and any development of this would be done recognizing that such could be the case . Chairman May stated that that should come out now . Mrs . Grigorov stated that , right now , the Board should consider the number of units . Chairman May stated that he thought the Board should get the opinion of the Building Inspector . Mrs . Langhans stated that it was a matter of 17 units or 18 units . The discussion of Mr . Orlando Iacovelli ' s sketch plan ended at 11 : 10 P . M . SKETCH PLAT REVIEW FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF . 812 ACRES AT 1048 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL 39 - 1 - 12 . JANETTE McCORD AND RON SCAROFILE , OWNERS / SUBDIVIDERS . It appearing that Ms . McCord had departed , Chairman May stated that this item could be discussed at another meeting . DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO DUPLEXES The Board members each had a copy of the following document before him / her . " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Duplexes • RESOLVED : Y Planning Board 45 September 17 , 1985 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 . Be Article III , Section 4 , Number 1 ( R9 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family ,. such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . C . 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 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 50 % greater lot area and has no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . • c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than i R a Planning Board 46 September 17 , 1985 � • • three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . D . Article IV , Section 11 , Number 1 ( R15 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . E . 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 50 % greater lot area and has no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . C ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three borders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . shall be permitted in a unit . F . Article V , Section 18 , Number 1 ( R30 ) is amended as follows : 4 Planning Board 47 September 17 , 1985 • 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . G . 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 50 % greater lot area and no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . In no case shall the permitted lot size be less than that required by the • Tompkins County Health Department . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . " Chairman May asked if everyone had read the proposed draft • amendment , revised as of September 10 , 1985 . Mrs . Langhans stated that all her neighbors say they do not want r ' Planning Board 48 September 17 , 1985 ` r duplexes . Chairman May wondered if they knew that people can have an accessory apartment which could be up to 100 % of the size of the primary unit as long as it is in the basement . Mrs . Langhans stated that she could not really say much because she lives in a two- family house . Mr . Klein offered that a duplex is usually up - and - down , or semi - detached . Mrs . Grigorov commented that , in her opinion , they were talking about 20 % more , but she thought better of 50 % . Chairman May commented that he voted for 20 % more , but , if the Board says 50 % more in area , that is okay . Mr . Klein stated that he was not opposed to duplexes , adding that most anything can be fine if done well , but they could be pretty awful . Discussion followed among the Board members and Mr . Lovi based on the draft duplex amendment and the four types of housing which can occur , i . e . , single family homes , two family homes , duplex homes , and homes clustered as two - plexes , three -plexes , four - plexes , five -plexes , and six - plexes . It was noted that if this amendment were adopted , there would be three different kinds of two - unit houses . It was also noted that there are two - unit clusters existing at Commonland Community , and , right now , there are two - unit , attached , one family houses . After further discussion , Chairman May stated that we were not really getting anywhere because of the lateness of the hour . It was agreed that the Board would meet on Monday , September 23 , • 1985 , at 12 : 00 o ' clock Noon , in Town Hall , to continue this discussion . DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , AND , DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS IN RE SATELLITE DISHES . It was agreed that these items also would be deferred until another meeting . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the September 17 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 35 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • iii► �t • RESOLUTIONS : Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 17 , 1985 IN THE MATTER OF : PUBLIC HEARING : Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for a two - lot subdivision of lands at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 . Anthony and Barbara Schultz , Owners / Subdividers . ( 1 ) MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This project is an Unlisted Action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on September 17 , 1985 . 2 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner . • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project . 2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz . CARRIED . ( 2 ) MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance . 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed a sketch plat for this proposed • subdivision at its meeting of September 3 , 1985 . t Planning Board 2 September 17 , 1985 • 3 . The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed subdivision at a Public Hearing on September 17 , 1985 . 4 . The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a Public Hearing for September 18 , 1985 , to hear an Appeal from the subdividers concerning the terms of a variance granted September 14 , 1983 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval and waive , and hereby does waive , Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of the lands of Anthony and Barbara Schultz as proposed , being the subdivision of one parcel known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , said parcel being comprised of five ( 5 ) Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 , into two parcels , one of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 30 , 31 , and one - half ( 251 ) of 32 , and the second of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 33 , 34 , and the other half ( 251 ) of 32 , IF and only IF the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variance that is requested by said Anthony and Barbara Schultz , such request to be before said Board of Appeals on September 18 , 1985 , and • IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Approval , with condition , granted herein be and hereby is contingent upon there being no further subdivision or building of dwelling units on all the parcels concerned in this subdivision , and 2 . That there be something placed of record in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office to that effect , and 3 . That , upon the meeting of the condition and contingencies set herein , a Final Subdivision Map be filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk and no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued until proof of such filing has been submitted to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz . CARRIED . • h Planning Board 3 September 17 , 1985 . IN THE MATTER OF : SIGN REVIEW BOARD : Review of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re Billboards at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and 1180 Danby Road . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , September 18 , 1985 . • s r • EXCERPT from the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of September 17 , 1985 . SIGN REVIEW BOARD : REVIEW OF APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK , INC . IN RE BILLBOARDS AT 1325 MECKLENBURG ROAD AND 1180 DANBY ROAD , Chairman May declared the matter of the Park Outdoor Advertising Appeal review by the Planning Board in its capacity as Sign Review Board opened at 10 : 10 p . m . Attorney Robert I . Williamson , representing Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . was present . Each of the Board members had before him / her the following documents . 1 . Copy of letter dated August 30 , 1985 , to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Office , signed by Robert I . Williamson , as follows : " Enclosed please find copies of appeal re signs owned by Park Outdoor scheduled , as I understand it , for September 17 , 1985 . " 2 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the structures will eliminate income to Park Outdoor at this location of approximately $ 13 , 000 per annum . The boards are an essential tool for local business advertising . The boards at this location advertise local businesses such as Watt Distributing , Fairview Heights and Gallagher Television . There are also public service ads for the United States Army and United States Air Force , qIn addition , the removal will create a further hardship on the State of New York since these signs located along Route 79 are along a Federal - Aid Primary Highway . Under the Highway Beautification Act as amended , the company must be compensated if the boards are removed . See letter dated December 10 , 1981 , from the Department of Transportation , copy of which is attached hereto . (These boards do not contravene the intent of the town regulations , nor do they generate a change in the character of the neighborhood . It is respectfully submitted they will have no effect on future development , and they do not generate any extra traffic in the neighborhood . There is no better location in the town available for these boards . " 3 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1180 Danby Road , P PlanningBoard 2 September 17 , 1985 • Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the company in the approximate amount of $ 8 , 000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising . The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty . In addition , there is a public service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office . It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area , they do not generate extra traffic , nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . They will not change the character of the neighborhood . The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years . There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance . " 4 . Copy of letter dated December 10 , 1981 , to Robert I . Williamson Jr . , Esq . , signed by Darrell W . Harp , Assistant Commissioner , Legal Affairs , New York State Department of Transportation , 1220 • Washington Avenue , State Campus , Albany , NY 12232 , as follows : " This will confirm your request as to our interpretation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 as it relates to compensation for outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal -aid primary highways . SClearly , this act mandates compensation for advertising signs lawfully in existence which are removed by any public agency providing they are compensable or lawful under the provisions of the Federal Beautification Act . " 5 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 12 , 1985 , as follows : " The granting of this appeal would have large , continuous and adverse impacts upon the visual environment in the Town . By the very nature of the billboards , these impacts are impossible to mitigate . I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . If the ZBA intends to consider this appeal further , the applicant should be directed to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which fully considers the impacts which this action would have upon the environment . " ( Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . ] • 6 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Park at Planning Board 3 September 17 , 1985 • 1325 Mecklenburg Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi . [ See environmental review for sign appeal on parcel # 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . 1 7 . Copy of pages 15 and 20 of publication entitled " Land Use Law " , May 1985 issue , Judicial Decisions in re Signs and Billboards . Attorney Williamson appeared before the Board and introduced Mr . Bob Daniels of Park Outdoor Advertising who was also present . Attorney Williamson stated that , referring first to the Matychak parcel at 1180 Danby Road , they request a variance for their boards on that property which they rent . Attorney Williamson stated that the area taken up by the two boards on this property is 60 feet by 10 feet , adding that these boards were made unlawful by the Town Sign Law . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are very compatible with what is currently in the area and noted that there are commercial businesses nearby , e . g . , Sam Peter ' s , a bar and grille , [ Woody ' s ] , Oltz Funeral Home , Attorney Williamson stated that these boards advertise local businesses , currently including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty , and there is also a public service ad for the United States Air Force ' s local recruiting office . Attorney Williamson commented that they also provide income for the Matychaks . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards have no effect on the future development of the area and they certainly do not create extra traffic . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards do not contravene the intent of the sign ordinance and they do not change • the character of the neighborhood . Attorney Williamson stated that those two boards have been completely rebuilt in the last five years , commenting that all boards throughout the system have been rebuilt , improved , and refurbished . Attorney Williamson stated that there is no way that they could continue to maintain those boards unless they get a variance from the Town of Ithaca , adding that the two boards on Danby Road are not on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway , and further adding that they are governed by the Town ordinance . Attorney Williamson noted that those boards on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway are entitled to be compensated for upon removal by any municipality under the Highway Beautification Act , Attorney Williamson spoke of the seven boards on Mecklenburg Road , Route 79 , as entitled to such compensation because they are on a Federal -Aid highway . Attorney Williamson stated that they have applied for and received permits from the State , repeating that the boards are currently under permit and paid for . Attorney Williamson stated that the company ' s income from the Mecklenburg Road site is $ 13 , 000 . 00 per annum and from the Danby Road site , $ 8 , 000 . 00 , and noted again that the boards advertise local businesses . Referring to the Mecklenburg Road site , Attorney Williamson stated that the local businesses advertised there are Watt Distributing , Fairview Heights , and Gallagher Television , as well as public service ads for the Army and the Air Force . Attorney Williamson stated that they felt that if those boards are removed , • the State is endangered such that if the boards are not removed in accordance with that Federal -Aid Primary Highway status , the State highways could be endangered by risking up to seventy million dollars in federal aid to highways . Attorney Williamson pointed out that ,I Planning Board 4 September 17 , 1985 • included , as part of their submission , is a letter from Darrell W . Harp , Assistant Commissioner , Legal Affairs , New York State DOT , written in December of 1981 . Attorney Williamson stated that these boards are in a rural area , adding that they have certainly been there long enough for it to be clear that they are not going to generate extra traffic or change the neighborhood . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards do not contravene what the Town meant by the sign ordinance , noted that they cover a total of one - eighth of an acre , and further stated that they were legal when they were erected . Attorney Williamson stated that either he or Mr . Daniels would be pleased to answer any questions . Mrs . Grigorov asked how long the billboards have been illegal . Chairman May responded that the 1972 Sign Ordinance made them illegal . Chairman May asked when the billboards were rebuilt . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Matychak could tell about that because the ones on his property were cut down . Mr . Matychak stated that somebody came in and sawed them down but he did not know when . Mr . Cartee indicated that it was sometime in 1979 . Chairman May asked Attorney Williamson why they were rebuilt when that was illegal . Attorney Williamson commented that the Chair was talking about history . Chairman May , commenting that Attorney Williamson had talked about rebuilding and improving four or five years ago and a • couple of years ago , noted that the present Sign Law was enacted in 1980 , and asked why they were rebuilt and was that not contrary to the law . Attorney Williamson , noting that they had been vandalized , stated that he assumed that when they were cut down , maintenance went up and put them back up , probably rebuilding them . Mr . Cartee stated that this occurred prior to November of 1979 which was when he came to the Town . Attorney Williamson stated that boards throughout the entire system have been rebuilt and refurbished with steel , and paint , etc . Mr . Lovi , noting that many things have been said , stated that he had gone back through the Town Board Minutes and from 1972 , February , to when the first Sign Ordinance was enacted in May , it was clear from several meetings in 1972 at which Mr . Williamson , and others , spoke at length against this sign ordinance , that billboards were made illegal and were given three years to be removed . Mr . Lovi stated that , following that , on January 26 , 1976 , the Town Board called a special meeting at which time Mr . Williamson spoke and persuaded the Board to hold in abeyance the date by which they had been put on notice to remove the billboards because of an on - going case in the Town of Southampton . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board , rather than incur litigation costs , decided to await the outcome of the Southampton case . Mr . Lovi noted that the Southampton case was eventually decided against Suffolk Outdoor Advertising . • Continuing , Mr . Lovi stated that next , in 1980 , the present Sign Law was before the Town Board and public hearings were held with Mr . Williamson speaking against that sign law by letter in the record on behalf of Park . Mr . Lovi stated that Park has known for some Planning Board 5 September 17 , 1985 • thirteen years that the intent was not to permit billboards in this Town , adding that the record is clear in that regard . Mr . Lovi stated that , as for Federal -Aid highways , the City of Ithaca has taken Park to court and the judge in that case decided at the end of last year , December 31 , 1984 , that their amortization period was sufficient . Attorney Williamson stated that that decision is under appeal to the Federal courts . Mr . Lovi noted that the Town Sign Law speaks to a four - year amortization period , adding that it has been held that three -year amortization periods are sufficient . Mr . Lovi stated that it appears to be clear , on the basis of this opinion which Mr . Williamson says is being appealed to the Federal courts , that the Town ' s amortization period seems to be sufficient . Mr . Lovi drew to the Board ' s attention Judicial Decisions from the May 1985 issue of " Land Use Law " which he had xeroxed for the Board , with respect to Park billboards in Pennsylvania , and stated , briefly , that the DOT refused to give Park Outdoor Advertising a permit stating that refurbishing was a new sign ; Park went to court and lost . Mr . Lovi stated that from what he could read and to the best he could inform the Board on this matter , it is clear that it has been allowed for Towns to restrict billboards without compensation . Attorney Williamson stated that they have permits for all their boards , adding that they are current and paid for . Mr . Lovi read aloud from the Pennsylvania case which appears on Page 20 of the May 1985 issue of Land Use Law : " Signs and Billboards 37 ZD 195 - - Pennsylvania Change of billboards ' wooden frames and supports to metal constitutes structural improvement rendering signs newly built and violative of act regulating outdoor advertising . ( Park Outdoor Advertising Co . v . Commonwealth , Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania [ intermediate court ] , Decided December 27 , 1984 , 485 A . 2d 864 . . . The commonwealth court affirmed the DOT ' s order directing the signs ' removal . After finding initially that the DOT has the authority to promulgate a regulation regarding abandoned signs , the court determined that the changes in the signs are the kind of structural improvement defined by the act as constituting abandonment of the old signs . The signs were to be considered newly built , the court said , because the structural improvements took place after the act ' s effective date . The court rejected the owner ' s claim that its changes were simply permitted customary maintenance or repair , finding that ' repairs ' imply decay or damage and pointing out that there was no evidence that any decay or damage had occured ; the changes were substantial and extensive and went beyond normal repair . The court noted in closing that compensation to the owner for the removal of the three billboards is not required here because the newly built signs were not lawfully in existence on the effective date of the act . " Attorney Williamson stated that , number one , he could not recall • if those boards were on a Federal -Aid highway . Mr . Daniels stated that they were non - conforming boards . Attorney Williamson stated that the point tonight is that they are asking for a variance to Planning Board 6 September 17 , 1985 • permit their boards to exist . Attorney Williamson noted again that they do advertise local businesses ; they present no traffic problems ; they do not harm the area that they are in , or any intended use . Attorney Williamson noted again that on Danby Road there are other commercial uses - - Sam Peter ' s , the funeral home , Hovanec Builders , the bar and grille . Town Attorney Nelson Roth stated that there is one point which he should highlight and that is the Town ' s responsibility under the Federal Highway Beautification Act . Town Attorney Roth recited some of the history of billboards with respect to both the courts and the legislature , speaking of the New York Court of Appeals as the highest court in the State ; a bill supported by the State DOT providing compensation only for removal of billboads along interstate and federally - aided highways which has been before the legislature since 1978 and failed to pass the Legislature at its 1984 sessions , and , the 1983 Suffolk decision . Town Attorney Roth stated that there is no statute requiring payment by local municipalities of compensation for billboard removal . Town Attorney Roth stated that the State of New York may run the risk of losing highway funds , however , that is not really a problem of this Board . Town Attorney Roth stated that the Court of Appeals has upheld non -payment of compensation . Referring to the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Town Attorney Roth stated that he would draw the Board ' s attention to Section 10 . 03 , " Appeals . The Sign Review Board shall hear and decide on the • following matters : " . Town Attorney Roth stated that it appeared the appeal of Park was brought under sub - section 10 . 03 - 1 ( b ) , " Requests for variation from the provisions of this law pursuant to Section 9 . " however , he would say , if there is any appeal here , it may be under sub- section 10 . 03 - 1 ( a ) , " Questions of alleged error in any order or determination of the Enforcement Official involving the interpretation of the provisions of this law . " Town Attorney Roth commented that the Board could act under that section - - ( a ) . Continuing , Town Attorney Roth , noting that there has been a sign ordinance in effect at least since 1972 , stated that Park ' s billboards have been re - erected when cut down , refurbished , rebuilt , and otherwise improved and Park certainly had knowledge of the Town ' s sign law . Town Attorney Roth commented that he thought there was a reference in the record which indicated that there might have been control of billboards in the Town since the 1950s . Attorney Williamson stated that , to answer Mr . Roth ' s question , they are here on a request for variance . Mr . Cartee stated that he thought the correct reading of the Sign Law was that the Planning Board is the Sign Review Board and must review and recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Williamson is here because of Section 10 . 03 - 3 -- " No Zoning Board of Appeals decision shall be made on a variance until an advisory opinion is received from the Sign Review Board . Failure of said Sign Review • Board to report an opinion prior to the hearing on the appeal shall be construed as approval of the variance . " Planning Board 7 September 17 , 1985 • Chairman May stated that , although this was not a public hearing , he would ask for any comments from the public . There were none . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of sign review of the Park appeal duly closed at 10 : 35 p . m . September 27 , 1985 Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board • 4 r • STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS . : I , the undersigned Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , DO HEREBY CERTIFY: That I have compared the foregoing Excerpt from the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board of said Town , including the resolution contained therein , held on the 17th day of September , 1985 , with the original thereof on file in the office of the Town Clerk , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole of said original so far as the same relates to the subject matters therein referred to . I FURTHER CERTIFY that all members of said Board had due notice of said meeting and that , pursuant to Section 98 of the Public Officers Law ( Open Meetings Law ) , said meeting was open to the general public and that I duly caused notice of the time and place of said meeting to be given to the following newspapers and / or other news media as follows : The Ithaca Journal September 11 , 1985 WHCU September 11 , 1985 WTKO September 11 , 1985 WVBR September 11 , 1985 • WICB -AM- FM- TV September 11 , 1985 WQNY FM 104 September 11 , 1985 OK / 100 September 11 , 1985 The Ithaca Times September 11 , 1985 Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning September 11 , 1985 and that further notice of the time and place of such meeting was given to the public by posting such notice in the following places on the following date and by giving such other notice as follows : Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board September 11 , 1985 Notice Box Outside Front Door of Town Hall September 11 , 1985 Outside Door of Town Hall Meeting Room September 11 , 1985 Service by Mail upon Parties with Interest September 11 , 1985 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this 27th day of September , 1985 . Nan y M . oiler , Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • S E A L