HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-10-29 4 1
1 l
v
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 29 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 29 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia Langhans , David Klein ,
Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , John C .
Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lewis
D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller
( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Paul Iacovelli , Virginia Iacovelli , George C . Kugler ,
Kinga Gergely , Peter Gergely , Stephen Lichtenbaum , Bill
Petrillose , Paula Dougan , Fred T . Wilcox III , Ardis
Pesaresi , Tim Faulkner , Ed Pesaresi , Franklin F .
Butler , Philip Proujansky , Carmine Gerard , Peter
Nickles , Gloria Michael , Esther Eckert , Alethea Hall ,
Roland M . Marion , Doris G . Marion , Louis G . Michael ,
Walter M . Lane , William L . Hall , Walter Eckert , Robert
Berggren , Theresa Berggren , Leslie Dotson , George
Nickles , Edna Clausen , Nathaleen Multari , Joseph
. Multari , George Brenner , Marie Mello , Shirley
Raffensperger , Nelson Stillwell , Harry Ellsworth , Ivar
R . Jonson , William F . Albern , Helen Murison , Nell
Mondy , Christine Stratakos , Douglas Armstrong , Lucia
Armstrong , Paul L . Hartman ,
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 34 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publica -
tion of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca
Journal on October 21 , 1985 and October 24 , 1985 , respectively ,
together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and
upon each of the Applicants , and / or Agent , as appropriate , on October
24 , 1985 .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 23 , 1985
Mrs . Grigorov asked that the second sentence on page 12 , reading
" Mrs . Grigorov commented that she thought getting people out of the
basement was a good idea . " be deleted , noting that her follow -up
clause was not recorded , thus , her comment was incomplete .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of September 23 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved with the
deletion of the second sentence on page 12 .
I
1
{ Hanning Board 2 October 29 , 1985
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Schultz , Klein .
Mrs . Schultz and Mr . Klein stated that they abstained because
they were not present at the September 23 , 1985 meeting .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi
Mr . Lovi reported on a recent telephone conversation he had with
Wilford Sanders of the American Planning Association . Commenting that
they had talked several years ago , Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Sanders
was calling about any projects in the Town which were of innovative
design , which were affordable housing , and how the Zoning Ordinance or
Subdivision Regulations may have been revised to do this . Mr . Lovi
stated that he had mentioned Commonland Community as an example of one
of the ways we were using " cluster " in doing that . Mr . Lovi stated
that he mentioned that , since we have a couple of years experience
now , he would describe the project as successful based upon sales and
numbers , and he also told Mr . Sanders that he lived at Commonland and
could vouch for the development .
Mr . Lovi stated that he told Mr . Sanders that our Subdivision
Regulations had been substantially revised and standards pertaining to
clustered subdivisions had been added . Mr . Lovi stated that one of
the emerging trends in clustered developments is to explore building
formats other than attached townhouses . He indicated that one of the
exciting new developments in the Town is a subdivision incorporating
single - family and duplex homes in a cluster plan .
Mr . Lovi stated that he had recognized Mr . Sanders ' name when
looking through a brochure of planning periodicals which had mentioned
a book on affordable housing edited by Mr . Sanders which he had
intended to order . Mr . Lovi stated that the book ' s cost was $ 16 . 00 ,
but Mr . Sanders told him he would send him one free of charge , which
he did . Mr . Lovi stated that he has had an opportunity to read this
book and , together with his discussion with Mr . Sanders , it reinforced
what he picked up at the Affordable Housing Conference earlier in the
month .
Mr . Lovi stated that land costs are the single determinant of
housing affordability that planning boards can control . He added that
while local government cannot control the business economy on a
national or local level , they can control lot sizes and other zoning
requirements which have a great impact on affordability . Mr . Lovi
noted that several years ago land was much less expensive than now and
that fact puts pressure on every other aspect of housing costs . Mr .
Lovi commented that , as a rule of thumb , the price of land can account
for 20 to 25 per cent of the cost of a home . Mr . Lovi offered the
example of lots selling for $ 15 , 000 being improved with houses selling
y
'Planning Board 3 October 29 , 1985
• in the $ 70 , 000 to $ 90 , 000 range - - or more .
Mr . Lovi , noting that an observation mentioned in the literature
and at the conference was that most people prefer to live in a single
family , detached , house on their own lot , stated that one of the ways
communities can work to keep this " ideal " housing type affordable is
by reducing lot size requirements , thus , planning boards should
encourage developers to build well - designed projects which work with
reduced rear yards and side yards . Mr . Lovi noted that ,
alternatively , zero lot line construction in the context of single
family housing is another method for building - - not multiple - - not
rental - - but , single family houses on smaller lots . Mr . Lovi further
stated that by attaching houses with a common wall and eliminating one
required side yard , you create more usable space on a smaller lot .
Summarizing , Mr . Lovi stated that the book is titled Affordable
Single Family Housing and is going to be in the Planning , Zoning , and
Engineering Library , and , if anyone were interested , he could xerox
some sections , adding that some of the standards may not be usable for
this community .
Mr . Lovi reported that other projects are coming in , adding that
there will be fairly full agendae for the end of the year and into
next year . He stated that , with these kinds of full agendae , he did
not want to take up too much of the Board ' s time , but he did want to
talk about the proposed zoning ordinance amendments which the
• Secretary had distributed to the Board members in their packets .
Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi for his report .
REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD - Carolyn Grigorov ,
Mrs . Grigorov stated that she had no report at this time ; there
was no meeting of the County Planning Board since the last time .
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1 . FAMILY .
For the record , the following document , revised as of October 17 ,
1985 , was before the Board .
" DRAFT AMENDMENT : Family
RESOLVED :
That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows :
1 . ' Family ' is defined as ' . . . two or more persons related by blood ,
• marriage , or adoption ' .
2 . ' Dwelling Unit ' is defined as ' . . . one or more rooms providing
` 'Planning Board 4 October 29 , 1985
• complete living facilities for one family or for an individual
person ' .
3 . ' Dwelling ' is defined as ' . . . any building or structure , or part
thereof , used and occupied for human habitation , or intended to
be so used , and includes any appurtenances thereto ' .
4 . ' One - family dwelling ' is defined as ' . . . a detached building
containing a single dwelling unit ' .
5 . ' Two - family dwelling ' is defined as ' . . . a detached building
containing no more than two dwelling units ' .
6 . ' Multiple family dwelling ' is defined as ' . . . a building , or group
of buildings on one lot , containing three or more dwelling
units ' .
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Ordinance be renumbered and
repaginated , where necessary , in order to facilitate convenient use by
the public .
Revised : October 17 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner "
Mr . Lovi , commenting that we have some additional language in
this amendment , revised as of October 17th , stated that he thought we
• could go around once again . Mr . Lovi stated that the comments , once
again as the Board may recall , were to bring some consistency as to
other affected portions of the ordinance with the family defined as
" two " or more persons , etc . Mr . Lovi commented that we did have to
allow for a dwelling unit to be occupied by one person and # 2 was so
revised . Mr . Lovi asked if there were any comments from the Board
with respect to the draft before it .
Speaking to Town Attorney Barney , Chairman May stated that he has
not had time to really review this , but he would ask why he broadened
the definition in # 3 . Also speaking to Town Attorney Barney , Mr . Lovi
stated that what he did with " dwelling " , in # 3 , is a definition taken
from Anderson on Zoning , adding that he thought it covered it , and
further adding that , if he thought it unnecessary , we could take it
out . Town Attorney Barney stated that he would prefer to take it out .
Mr . Lovi suggested that the existing definition of dwelling , as on
page 1 of the Zoning Ordinance - - 116 . A ' dwelling ' is a building
designed or used exclusively as the living quarters for one or more
families . " be used with the addition of the term " or individuals " . It
appeared that that change was accepted . Town Attorney Barney stated
that his only other comment was that he did not think we should put in
the " AND FURTHER RESOLVED , etc . " paragraph . Mr . Lovi agreed with that
suggestion .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There were
none . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he would like to have a motion
on this proposed amendment at this point . Mr . Lovi responded that , if
the Board would like to do that , he could then forward this as a
` Planning Board 5 October 29 , 1985
• recommendation to the Town Board , along with the satellite dish
amendment , after the Minutes are approved .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed
" Family Amendment " , showing revision date of October 17 , 1985 , as
discussed and amended by said Planning Board this date , October 29 ,
1985 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At 7 : 50 p . m . , Chairman May read aloud the Fire Safety
Notification regulations as to Fire Alarms and Exits to the Public .
2 . MOBILE HOMES .
For the record , the following document , revised as of October 17 ,
1985 , was before the Board .
• " 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 :
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 non - transient use .
4
planning Board 6 October 29 , 1985
Mobile Home Stand : That part of an individual mobile home lot which
has been reserved and improved for the placement of the mobile home ,
apurtenant 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 .
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 District R30
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 .
SECTION 3 . Accessory Uses . The following accessory uses are
permitted in Residence Districts R5 :
1 . Automobile parking and garages , subject to the further
requirements of this Article .
2 . Structures and open land for recreation , intended for use by the
residents of the mobile home park .
3 . Such areas and structures as may be necessary for homemaking
activities , such as a common laundry or garden plots . The use of
any such area or structure may 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 :
,
Planning Board 7 October 29 , 1985
• 1 . 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 .
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 . Parking spaces are not permitted in
the buffer yards .
5 . Access Drives and Walkways . 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 Space : The developer shall provide storage space in
convenient locations for each mobile home lot . This storage
space shall be contained in an enclosed and secure structure .
Several storage structures may be located in a common building .
The minimum dimensions of a storage structure 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 areas shall
contain secure garbage bins of a suitable size . These areas
shall be screened from public view by shrubbery or a fence .
Planning Board 8 October 29 , 1985
• 9 . Signs . A single sign for the mobile home park is permitted . The
size and other characteristics shall be regulated by the Town of
Ithaca Sign Law ,
10 . Operating Permits . An operating permit shall be required for all
mobile home parks . This permit shall be renewable annually . The
Building Inspector shall make periodic inspections of the mobile
home park to determine whether such park is in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permit , the Zoning Ordinance and
the site plan approval . The fee for the operating permit shall
be in accordance with the following schedule :
1 - 4 units $ 25 . 00
5 - 9 units $ 50 . 00
10 - 24 units $ 100 . 00
25 - 49 units $ 200 . 00
50 - 100 units $ 400 . 00
over 100 units ( Number of Units ) X $ 5 . 00
11 . Building Permits . A building permit shall be required pursuant
to Section 75 for each mobile home and accessory structure to be
sited or constructed .
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 and approved by the Tompkins County Health
Department ,
Revised : October 17 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi
Town Planner "
Mr . Lovi noted that this draft amendment had been revised as of
October 17th as per discussions at the last Planning Board meeting .
Mr . Lovi stated that the changes made at that time principally had to
do with storage spaces and permits . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the way
he had phrased " storage space " is shown on page 3 , # 7 , of the draft .
Mr . Lovi read aloud , as follows : '° 7 . Storage Space : The developer
shall provide storage space in convenient locations for each mobile
home lot . This storage space shall be contained in an enclosed and
secure structure . Several storage structures may be located in a
common building . The minimum dimensions of a storage structure shall
be eight feet high , eight feet deep , and four feet wide . "
Town Attorney Barney wondered if it were going to be the minimum
dimensions of storage space per lot , or , the structure . Mr . Lovi
stated that he thought it would be better stated as " minimum storage
space per lot " . Chairman May stated that he thought " per lot " was an
improvement . It was agreed that the last sentence in paragraph # 7
should be changed to read *
" The minimum dimensions of storage space
• per lot shall be eight feet high , eight feet deep , and four feet
wide . "
Planning Board 9 October 29 , 1985
• Mr . Lovi asked the Board to turn to page 4 of the draft where
permits are discussed . Mr . Lovi stated that there would be two
permits - - the one would be a building permit , paragraph 11 , which ,
whenever a mobile home park operator would propose to construct
pursuant to a site plan , just as a subdivider or a person with a
multiple residence site plan , the person would get from Mr . Cartee
with a fee . Mr . Lovi stated that the other one would be after the
mobile home park is set up and improvements made , when there would be
an operating permit , which is given in paragraph # 10 . Mr . Lovi ,
commenting that the Board had seen that paragraph , stated that what is
new is paragraph # 11 . Mr . Lovi read aloud as follows : " 11 . Building
Permits . A building permit shall be required pursuant to Section 75
for each mobile home and accessory structure to be sited or
constructed . "
Chairman May asked if there were any further discussion ,
questions , comments , or changes . There appearing to be none , at the
moment , from the Board , Town Attorney Barney stated that he had one
question having to do with the mobile home park definition on the
first page . [ " A parcel of land owned by an individual , partnership ,
or corporation which has been planned and improved for the placement
of mobile homes for non - transient use . " ] Town Attorney Barney asked
if we were talking about a situation where there is more than one
mobile home - - for instance , a person moving a mobile home on a piece
of land of three acres does not create a mobile home park . Mr . Lovi
stated that he did not think that is possible because of the " plural "
• form after " mobile homes " . Town Attorney Barney questioned if
somebody is prohibited from putting a mobile home on a lot .
Discussion followed between Town Attorney Barney and Mr . Lovi , Mr .
Lovi explained that the thought was that the zoning ordinance prohi -
bits mobile homes except in Agricultural Districts with special
conditions . Mr . Lovi stated that he would think these amendments
would do nothing to change that . Mr . Lovi offered that a mobile home
may not be placed on a lot except in a mobile home park under the
criteria for a park . Town Attorney Barney commented that what Mr .
Lovi was saying was that one cannot put a mobile home anywhere in the
Town except in an Ag Zone and a mobile home park . Town Attorney
Barney stated that he would withdraw his comment .
Mrs . Langhans stated that she had a question with respect to
paragraph # 5 on page 3 [ Access Drives and walkways ] . Mrs . Langhans
asked Mr . Lovi if he wanted something in there about the surface of
walkways . Mr . Lovi responded that he did not think so , adding that in
other regulations in the ordinance we do not have that stated . Mr .
Lovi stated that a driveway may not necessarily be paved , but , when
the Board does its site plan review , it may see that as necessary .
Mr . Lovi commented , for example , that Commonland driveways are all
gravelled . Mr . Lovi stated that his thought was that we would want to
see the roads paved , but he was not sure we would want to see the
walkways paved . Town Attorney Barney offered that he had no problem
with paragraph # 7 as drafted .
• Town Attorney Barney suggested that " / or " be added to paragraph
# 11 on page 4 . It was agreed that paragraph # 11 on page 4 should be
Planning Board 10 October 29 , 1985
• changed to read : " 11 . Building Permits . A building permit shall be
required pursuant to Section 75 for each mobile home and / or accessory
structure to be sited or constructed . "
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed
" Trailer Park Amendment " , showing revision date of October 17 , 1985 ,
as discussed and amended by said Planning Board this date , October 29 ,
1985 .
By way of discussion , Mrs . Grigorov stated that she thought it
was nice to see something we have worked on so long boiled down into
something so concise . The Board members expressed their agreement .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May expressed his feeling that a good job had been done
by all those involved in the evolution of these two proposed
• amendments .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM OCTOBER 1 , 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 : 05 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 .
For the record , the following documents were before the Board .
1 . " Staff Report : Robert Berggren Subdivision
118 Compton Road
Parcel Number : 36 - 2 - 4 . 2
Description : The action is a subdivision of a 15 . 28 acre parcel
on Compton Road . Mr . Berggren has prepared a sketch plan showing
the approximate configuration of seven building lots and one lot
which will be preserved as open space . A 60 - foot right -of -way
ending in a cul - de - sac and providing access to the common open
space has been provided . A Short Environmental Assessment Form
has been provided and reviewed . This is an Unlisted action for
• which I have recommended a declaration of negative significance .
Actions to be Considered : For the Planning Board meeting of May
Planning Board 11 October 29 , 1985
• 21 , 1985 the actions to be considered are :
1 . Sketch plan review of the proposed layout of the subdivision
considering such matters as size and shape of lots .
2 . Whether an open space dedication as shown on the plan is
appropriate in this case and , if so , what instruments
( restrictive covenants , acceptance of a dedication to the
Town , etc . ) would be most appropriate .
3 . Review of attached SEAF and consideration of a determination
of significance .
Drafted : May 15 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi "
2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by
Robert G . Berggren and Theresa L . Berggren , under date of May 9 ,
1985 [ Part I ] , stating the Project Name as Schembri - Hollister
Estates and describing the Project as a proposal " to subdivide
tax parcel 36 - 2 - 4 , consisting of approximately 16 acres , into 7
building lots and 1 open space lot . " , and , as reviewed by the
Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of May 15 , 1985 [ Parts II
and III ] , as follows :
" Cl . . . . The seven lots and related open space to be subdivided
are located on generally level to moderately sloping land .
Health Department approval of the water and sewer systems is
needed prior to sale of any lots . The effect on air quality ,
noise , traffic , solid waste production and erosion is considered
minimal .
C2 . . . . There are no areas of archeological , visual , aesthetic ,
or cultural significance which will be affected by this
subdivision .
C3 . . . . There are no significant known habitats of threatened or
endangered species which would be significantly affected by this
subdivision .
C4 . . . . The Zoning Ordinance requires residential lots of at
least 30 , 000 sf . each . The proposed lots are all in excess of
double this minimum requirement . The density of development is
therefore lower than planned .
C5 . . . . There is a considerable amount of vacant , developable
land fronting on Route 96B which lies to the west of this parcel .
Additional land suitable for residential development lies to the
north and is accessible from Schickel Road .
C6 . . . . The developable land described above would be more
attractive for higher density development if public utilities
were extended south along Route 96B . I do not believe such an
extension likely in the short - run .
C7 . . . . No change in the intensity or quantity of energy use is
contemplated .
Box checked which indicates that the proposed action will not
result in any significant adverse environmental impacts .
• Reviewer ' s Recommendation : " . . . Provided that the Health Depart -
ment approves the water and sewer systems for this subdivision , I
Planning Board 12 October 29 , 1985
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 subdivi -
sion plat acceptable to the Town Engineer and Planning Board . "
3 . A portion of Tax Map No . 36 showing the Robert Berggren property
under discussion - - 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 - - and showing 7 proposed lots on
a proposed cul de sac with an 8th lot shown as open space , and a
small area proposed to be combined with Mr . Berggren ' s own lot
# 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 1 .
4 . A listing of adjacent lots with owners ' names and addresses .
5 . Planning Board Minutes , May 21 , 1985 , pages 9 through 12 .
6 . Planning Board Minutes , July 16 , 1985 , page 16 .
7 . Memorandum from Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . , to Peter Lovi , dated
October 1 , 1985 , as follows :
" On Friday , September 27 , 1985 , you and I met with several
owners of property adjoining this proposed subdivision . It was
raining heavily and , in that respect , it was a good time for us
to be there as one of the group ' s major concerns is what provi -
sions will be made in the new subdivision for handling surface
water runoff ,
• It appears that , even in relatively dry periods , there are
soggy areas in that locality . Mr . Michael , the neighboring
property owner to the west , pointed out such an area on the east
side of his lot where a dump truck had sunk in significantly even
in the driest part of this summer . The Tompkins County U . S . D . A .
Soil Survey indicates the predominant soil in this area is Erie
channery silt loam , a soil type that exhibits a seasonally high
water table and slow permeability . I believe it is quite impor -
tant , therefore , that in new development in this area careful
attention be given to stormwater drainage provisions and siting
and design of sewage disposal systems . Surface water drainage
from this proposed subdivision should be handled in a manner that
will not add to drainage problems that some of the neighbors are
apparently already experiencing .
My recommendation is that Mr . Berggren submit a stormwater
drainage plan for the 15 ± acre parcel to be subdivided before the
Town grants final subdivision approval . The plan should show
contours at a 5 - foot contour interval , existing water courses ,
proposed drainage swales , proposed roadway grades , and gradients
and direction of flow of proposed roadside ditches . Culvert
locations , sizes and slopes should be indicated . With regard to
sewage disposal provisions , we should be sure that the Tompkins
County Health Department has approved the design of sewage
• disposal systems . "
8 . Memorandum from Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . , to Peter M . Lovi ,
{ Planning Board 13 October 29 , 1985
• dated October 22 , 1985 , as follows :
" Today , you and I met Robert Berggren at his property on
Compton Road at his request to observe some drainage work which
he said he had accomplished within the last few days . The
following is a summary of our observations .
1 . A drainage swale had been developed along the entire
westerly line of his land to be subdivided . The swale
slopes continuously to the south toward Compton Road ,
however , in the last 275 ± feet the fall is only about 1 . 2
feet which has resulted in some ponding of water in the
swale in the area 225 ± feet to 275 ± feet from Compton Road ,
The Town Highway Department plans to deepen the roadside
ditch on the north side of Compton Road from Berggren ' s
southwest corner for about 50 feet westerly . The extra
depth will taper from about 1 foot deeper at the southwest
corner of Berggren to nothing at the base of a large tree in
front of Michael ' s property . The tree roots will , thus , not
be disturbed and the development of the roadside ditch
should improve the drainage problem ( sogginess ) at the
southeast corner of Michael ' s lawn due to its low elevation .
2 . Berggren plans to direct the drainage from the northerly
half of the above -mentioned new Swale into the existing
. drainageway running westerly through Matychak ' s property .
It appears , in doing this , that surface water drainage will
be directed toward drainageways to which it would naturally
have flowed prior to any development .
3 . It appears that drainage in the ditches along the proposed
roadway running north - south in the Berggren subdivision will
be directed as follows :
a . Drainage from the northerly half of the roadway will
flow southerly and be picked up in the east -west swale
which eventually runs westerly through the Matychak
property .
b . Drainage from the southerly half of the roadway will
probably be divided , roughly half going to the above -
mentioned east -west swale , and the remainder to the
roadside ditch at Compton Road ,
4 . U . S . G . S . map contours ( 10 ' interval ) indicate that the slope
of the Berggren land is generally northwesterly . Our
observations indicate this is not so ; the land slopes
generally southwesterly such that north - south swales or
ditches perpendicular to Compton Road will flow southerly
toward Compton Road , not northerly as U . S . G . S . maps would
lead us to believe . "
. 9 . Large Survey Map , presented for Preliminary Subdivision Approval ,
entitled " Subdivision Map , Robert G . & Theresa L . Berggren -
Planning Board 14 October 29 , 1985
• 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 , signed and sealed by Allen T . Fulkerson and Thomas G .
Miller . Said Drawing includes and describes the following items :
a . Stage I - - 3 - Lot Subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 , plus , one lot reserved for Open Space . [ Lot
No . 1 for Berggren , 2 . 26 acres , Lot No . 2 , 1 . 54 acres , Lot
No . 3 , 1 . 48 acres , Open Space Lot , 1 . 47 acres . ]
b . Area for Future Development , 9 . 79 acres ( includes future 60 '
wide road ) - - four lots shown by dotted lines .
c . Name and location of abutting property owners .
d . Proposed Future 60 ' wide road [ cul de sac ] , Schembri Drive .
e . Drainage Areas ; Drainage Directions , both in red with arrows
and in yellow with arrows .
f . Locations for two new 18 " pipes and one new 12 " pipe .
g . Portion of U . S . G . S . Map showing " pond " in red .
• Mr . Lovi stated that several days ago he and Assistant Town
Engineer Robert Flumerfelt were asked by Mr . Berggren to come up and
inspect the property proposed to be subdivided . Mr . Lovi stated that
Mr . Berggren had a gentleman cut a drainage swale along the west side
of that property and , in addition , the lawn was mowed . Mr . Lovi
stated that when he and Mr . Flumerfelt inspected the property they
realized - - and they did take some level shots of that drainage swale
- - and it was their judgment that the U . S . G . S . topo maps , and their
observations earlier in the month , were not completely accurate and
that the property does drain to Compton Road , Mr . Lovi stated that
the grade is slight , but it is a grade to Compton Road and , as the
roadside ditch along Compton Road can be lowered in front of Mr .
Berggren ' s property , the grade can be increased . Mr . Lovi noted that
Mr . Flumerfelt had written a short report , dated October 22nd , which
summarizes this inspection .
Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Berggren has not prepared the topo map
as requested , however , Mr . Berggren would like to ask the Planning
Board to reconsider the requirement that he provide a topo map . Mr .
Lovi stated that he thought that his judgment and the judgment of the
Assistant Town Engineer was that the property will drain to Compton
Road . Mr . Lovi stated that in discussion this afternoon with the Town
Supervisor it was indicated to him [ Lovi ] that the Supervisor has had
discussions with the neighbors on Compton Road , and Mr . Berggren was
there , and at that time it was stated that the Town would be willing
to put a culvert at the southwest corner of Mr . Berggren ' s property .
• Mr . Lovi stated that this culvert would go under Compton Road and the
invert of that culvert would be lower than the roadside ditch on the
north side of Compton Road , and , therefore , it would be the primary
Planning Board 15 October 29 , 1985
• drainage culvert for this project . Mr . Lovi stated that it would take
the drainage to the south side of Compton Road where the drainage
ditch has a more regular channel and the drainage across Route 96B is
more direct .
Mr . Lovi stated that it was for the Planning Board to consider
what it would like to do at this point .
Mr . Berggren stated that he had rough - sketched a map to show
where the drainage does go now , as Mr . Lovi had mentioned . Mr .
Berggren pointed out on the Subdivision Map how the lines in red with
red arrows show where the water goes , and pointed out , also , the
proposed culvert . Mr . Lovi stated that that drainage has been field
checked by him and Mr . Flumerfelt and is accurate . Mr . Berggren
stated that the Town did already deepen the ditch . Mr . Klein wondered
just where that had occurred . Mr . Berggren pointed out the location
on the Subdivision Map . Mr . Klein asked if this had taken care of the
ponding , with Mr . Berggren responding , yes , and adding that it has
already started to work . Mrs . Langhans wondered what the " green " was
[ yellow ] . Mr . Berggren stated that Mr . Flumerfelt and Mr . Lovi
thought it might be an old road drain . Pointing to the map , Mr .
Berggren showed what it was that Mr . Matychak wanted . Mr . Berggren
distributed several [ 19 ] color photographs among the Board members and
pointed out the ditch that was deepened and stated that the pictures
show that there is absolutely no water seepage onto Matychak except
• " here " and " here " [ indicating ] which is being taken care of .
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present from the public ,
with new information , who wished to speak .
Mr . Louis G . Michael , 116 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he had new information . Mr . Michael stated that he has
all the water in his front yard .
Several voices stated from the floor that the water was half way
up their front yards . A voice stated that he could not even cut his
grass .
Mr . Berggren commented that before anything was done about the
drainage Mr . Michael was complaining about the water .
Mr . Michael stated that he thought Mr . Berggren was going to have
plans before anything was done .
Mr . William L . Hall , 131 Compton Road , spoke from the floor ; the
Secretary was unable to discern what was said .
Mrs . Marie Mello , 154 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that the minutes from the last meeting should show that a
contour map was requested . Mrs . Mello asked if that were still
expected and , if yes , when , and if not , why .
Chairman May stated that that was the point of discussion
tonight , adding that the Board did request it but it now has before it
Planning Board 16 October 29 , 1985
• a formal request based on other information . Chairman May stated that
there certainly seems to be a difference of opinion as to what is
going on here as far as neighbors and conditions up there .
Mr . Lovi stated that when the Assistant Town Engineer and he went
out in the field , which was before the Town lowered the ditch , they
took three shots of the swale - - one at the north end of the swale and
one where the swale would be in the roadside ditch . Mr . Lovi stated
that those two shots are what is really at issue . He stated that any
topo map prepared by Mr . Berggren would only show what the actual
elevation is at those two points and that we already know what the
difference in elevation is . Mr . Lovi noted that there is 1 . 2 feet of
fall between those two points , and commented that , when the Town
lowered the roadside drainage ditch at Compton Road that increased the
fall .
Mr . Lovi stated that they also took a measurement between Compton
Road and the east end of the culvert on Mr . Michael ' s property and
there is 2 . 5 feet of fall between those two points . Mr . Lovi stated
that what was recommended was that the Town highway crew deepen the
ditch along the north side of Compton Road from the southwest corner
of Mr . Berggren ' s property to the hickory tree on Mr . Michael ' s
property . Mr . Lovi stated that the ditch would be about one foot
deeper at the southwest corner of Mr . Berggren ' s property , adding
that , because of the way Mr . Michael ' s property slopes , the ditch
. could be tapered down so that the hickory would not be disturbed . Mr .
Lovi stated that , with the addition of a culvert at the southwest
corner of Mr . Berggren ' s property , lower than the ditch , it is their
best judgment [ Flumerfelt and Lovi ] that the flow from Mr . Berggren ' s
property will drain along the south side of Compton Road ,
Mr . Lovi offered that you can get a topo map that will tell you
the same thing and will show you some additional information about the
individual lots and will tell you the actual elevations , but what is
important is the difference between elevations . Mr . Lovi stated that
what those differences are is known and that is not going to change
whether a topo is required or not . Mr . Lovi stated that the grade is
so slight and , further , that our Subdivision Regulations , when we
request topo maps , it is for 50 , 6g , 10 % . Mr . Lovi spoke of improve -
ment to the stream flow and noted that there has been a drainage swale
dug which , when it dries , will be a drainage ditch , deepened so there
is a slightly deeper grade , although not very much more since it is
fairly flat property . Mr . Lovi stated that as long as ditches cross
Compton Road , we [ Flumerfelt and Lovi ] do not feel that more informa -
tion is needed .
Mr . George Brenner , 154 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that the land there drops 100 feet in 2 / 10 of a mile . Mr .
Brenner stated that that is not a little grade ; that is a steep grade .
Chairman May commented that that kind of drop in grade would translate
into about a 10 % grade , which is , indeed , quite a grade . Mr . Klein
• asked Mr . Brenner where he was measuring from , with Mr . Brenner
responding , from the top of the property ( east boundary of Mr .
Berggren ' s land ) just about to the bottom of the property ( west
Planning Board 17 October 29 , 1985
• boundary of Mr . Berggren ' s land ) and reiterating that the drop is 100
feet in 2 / 10 of a mile . Chairman May asked Mrs . Langhans and Mrs .
Grigorov if they agreed . Mrs . Langhans responded , with Mrs . Grigorov
indicating her agreement , that she did not remember it as being that
steep a grade .
Utilizing a manila file folder as a visual aid , Mr . Lovi
described the grade as he observed it and spoke , further , about the
grade from west to east . Continuing , Mr . Lovi stated that the other
point he was talking about was the grade from north to south , which is
the direction of the swale Mr . Berggren has dug . Referencing Mr .
Flumerfelt ' s earlier memo [ October 1 , 1985 ] , Mr . Lovi stated that , if
the Board would recall , when they went out there in a rain storm , it
looked like the property did not drain to the road and that was the
question .
Mr . Lovi stated that , on the basis of their field measurements ,
it does appear that from the center of the property that swale is to
Compton Road . Mr . Lovi further stated that it may be the case that
the grade from east to west on Compton Road is greater than the grade
in that swale , however , whether it is greater than 100 , he could not
tell without measurement , and added that it is certainly greater from
east to west than it is from north to south . Mr . Lovi stated that , in
any case , to answer the question that the Board was putting to Mr .
Berggren - - the water will drain from the property to Compton Road ,
Mr . Michael stated from the floor that the Town has not dug that
ditch in front of his house , adding that they came out and scratched
around about six inches . Mr . Michael spoke of a swamp and stated that
the Board should know that there is a lake up there .
Mr . Lovi stated that there are two drainageways , as the Board
will see on the subdivision map before it , and proceeded to append
that map to the bulletin board . Indicating on the map , Mr . Lovi
pointed out the west side of Mr . Berggren ' s property and showed where
Mr . Berggren had cut a drainage swale on that property to where it
intersects with Compton Road . Mr . Lovi stated that , when he and Mr .
Flumerfelt observed the property , it was a continuous swale , and added
that there is a drainageway 300 feet back either on Matychaks ' or
Michael ' s property . Voices from the floor indicated that neither Mr .
Lovi nor Mr . Flumerfelt knew what they were doing . Continuing , Mr .
Lovi stated that their recommendation to Mr . Berggren was to not
interfere with the flow on this drainageway so that part of the
property would continue to drain , as our best information would say it
has , across Mr . Matychak ' s property . Mr . Lovi stated that the rest of
the swale from this point to Compton Road was measured " here " and
" here " [ indicating ] . Mr . Lovi stated that the difference is slightly
more than one foot . Again , voices from the floor indicated that Mr .
Lovi had to be kidding because his statements were all wrong .
Chairman May asked that people not speak from the floor in that
manner , adding that the information presented to the Board was
• prepared by a qualified professional engineer . Mr . Lovi continued and
stated that , when the roadside ditch was lowered and this swale is
regraded , the water will drain , and should not significantly pond
Planning Board 18 October 29 , 1985
• along " this " line [ indicating ] and there will be a culvert which will
be lower and , so , the drainage will be effective . Mr . Lovi commented
that , in consideration to the neighbors , whether it be one foot or
more , the point is that we have taken the measurements along the swale
and the drainage from " here " to " here " [ indicating ] will work as
advertised and will go by culvert - - across Compton Road .
Mrs . Schultz wondered if some of the drainage would not be taken
up by that swale . A comment was made with respect to the swale that
it is not continuous .
Mr . Lovi stated that their recommendation was that Mr . Berggren
put borrowed fill " here " [ indicating ] to cut off the flow from this
part of the property so as not to drain onto Compton Road but onto
Matychak . Mr . Lovi , commenting that one might ask " why " , stated that
it was the judgment of the engineer to leave the drainage as is , and
in effect , it will be split two ways .
Mr . Klein noted that Mr . Lovi had referred to a natural swale .
Mr . Lovi stated that that was correct and indicated that swale once
again on the map on the bulletin board . Mr . Berggren pointed out
that , also , there is a culvert pipe over " there " in the woods .
A voice stated that at the last meeting not only was a topo map
mentioned but also a set of drainage plans from a qualified engineer .
• The voice stated that it seemed to him that there was a helluva lot of
guesswork here . A voice asked how much of this drainage " he "
[ unidentified ] has actually been involved in . Walter G . Lane , 112
Compton Road , asked where the map is that " he " [ unidentified ] was
supposed to come up with . Chairman May stated that that is the next
question for the Planning Board to address . Chairman May requested a
motion from the Board as to whether or not it were going to modify its
request made at the last meeting .
Mrs . Marie Mello , 154 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she thought that at the last meeting the engineer sub -
mitted a lengthy report discussing the kind of soil and clay there and
he had had several recommendations . Chairman May noted that Mrs .
Mello was referring to Mr . Flumerfelt ' s memo of October 1 .
Speaking to Mr . Lovi , Mrs . Grigorov stated that she understood
Mr . Lovi to say that there would be no increase in drainage in the
back . Mr . Lovi , commenting that that was correct , stated that it has
been changed such that there is a swale " here " [ indicating on the map ]
where there was not before . Mrs . Grigorov stated that , so , there
should be no change in the amount of water in that swale with the
current stage of development . Mr . Lovi concurred and stated that the
ditch " here " and the ditch " here " [ indicating ] would be intercepting
water from " here " into Compton Road , so , the water into Mr . Matychak ' s
property would be decreased , but some portion of it would remain .
Chairman May asked if the water flow is increased due to the drainage
• improvement . Mr . Lovi replied , no , adding that the water flow
increase is affected by the concentration in amount . Mr . Lovi stated
that when rain is falling on the property , any swale will not increase
Planning Board 19 October 29 , 1985
. the speed of water draining , but , the question is , when it gets to
" this " point [ indicating ] , where does. it go and how fast ? Again ,
indicating on the drawing , Mr . Lovi noted the fall down the existing
drainageway .
Mrs . Gloria Michael , 116 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
asked , if you put seven or eight houses on that property and with all
that water , where all the water from the septic tanks is going to go .
Mrs . Michael also asked where all this excess water will go that is
going to be poured from this excess usage . Mrs . Michael asked further
if it were going to be down in her back yard .
Chairman May pointed out that no septic systems can be installed
without Health Department approval . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought
it had been said at earlier meetings and it is in the October lst
report of Mr . Flumerfelt that , of course , Health Department approval
of the sanitary systems would be required . Continuing , Mr . Lovi
stated that , for soils like this , it would be reasonable , and he
thought it had been said , that sand filters would be in order . Mr .
Lovi stated that it is true that Erie channery silt loam is not the
best soil to work with but , with sand filters , it is acceptable .
Mrs . Michael stated that they have a sand filter which is not
good . Mr . Berggren stated that what is important is the design of the
sand filter , and added that they have just put one in and they do not
• have any water coming out . Mr . Berggren described his system ,
speaking of an area 30 ' by 10 ' by 14 ' and a 100 - foot trench , per -
forated pipe , weather center on top , sun - evaporation , and no water .
Mr . Berggren noted that the Health Department has recommended sand
filters .
Chairman May stated that he thought it was time to close the
Public Hearing , it being well after 8 ; 00 p . m . , and bring the matter
back to the Board for some decision on the matter of what to do here .
Chairman May referred to the Board request at the last meeting for a
topo map along with engineer ' s plan . Chairman May stated that the
Board has before it a recommendation from the Assistant Town Engineer
and from the Town Planner , adding that the Board has a drainage plan
that they have presented . Chairman May asked what the pleasure of the
Board is .
Mrs . Langhans stated that the Board has a drainage plan and the
only thing it is missing is the topo map , so , it has to decide whether
the topo map is going to be that much more revealing than what has
been presented . Mr . Klein stated that he thought an engineered
drainage plan had been requested . Discussion followed as to what the
Board actually asked for and what it had discussed asking for . The
Secretary noted that on September 17th the Board resolved to adjourn
the hearing to October 1st and in that resolution asked the Town
Engineer to prepare a drainage report , and , that on October 1st , there
was a 30 - minutes discussion with the Board adjourning the matter
• further until October 29th " for consideration of the materials that he
has been requested to get . "
Mr . Brenner spoke from the floor and asked how this stuff cannot
Planning Board 20 October 29 , 1985
be in the minutes . Chairman May stated that it is in the minutes as
discussion , not in the formal motion . Chairman May stated to the
Board members that it does have the report from the Assistant Town
Engineer referencing information , as well as the drawing presented
here tonight .
Mrs . Schultz asked if it was known when that culvert will be in
place , or , has it been placed . Mr . Lovi stated that it has not been
placed , adding that he had spoken with the Supervisor today , but he
[ Lovi ] could not give the Board a timetable . Mrs . Schultz wondered if
it might be soon or if it might be next year . Mr . Lovi stated that he
did not know but , by the same token , there is not going to be any
development in the near future .
Mr . Klein stated that he thought he was , at this point , in a
position to speak . Mr . Klein stated that the Board has looked at this
project for some time now , really since May . Mr . Klein stated that we
do not have , at this point , any engineering drawings that would help
us make any more of an informed decision . Mr . Klein commented that
the problem with the Michael property is that he is at the bottom of
the slope and , thus , soggy . Mr . Klein stated that it would seem to
him that with proper drainage on the Berggren property his [ Michael ' s ]
situation would be better . Mr . Klein stated that , from Mr . Lovi ' s
suggestion , the culvert across Compton Road would make everyone a lot
happier , but he was not sure , given what we have observed , whether a
• contour map would help as much as general drainage and how it is
calculated . Mr . Klein stated that he thought it was a solvable
problem . Mr . Klein stated that , as far as the septic goes , we have to
defer to the Health Department for our septic systems . Mr . Klein
stated that the Board is allowed by the regulations to grant
preliminary approval , subject to appropriate engineering documenta -
tion , which really may not change materially what has been presented .
Mr . Lovi , noting that this project has been considered for
several meetings , stated that he would like to make sure that the EAF
review has been completed . The Secretary read from the Minutes of May
21st as follows * " Chairman May stated that he believed the Board
could speak to the EAF at this time , but he did not think it could
take care of the subdivision without some language with respect to
open space . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought the proposal has been
talked about quite a bit and suggested that Mr . Berggren should go
back to his surveyor or engineer and come back with preliminary plans .
Mr . Lovi suggested that Mr . Berggren meet with him a couple of times
in the interim and they could work out appropriate language for the
subdivision and the open space aspect . Mr . Lovi , commenting that as
long as the Board sees no problem with this concept , suggested that at
the time of the public hearing to consider preliminary subdivision
approval , the Board could act on the EAF . . . " Mr . Lovi read from the
Short EAF , speaking of density and noting that the one - and - one - half
acre lots were more than double that which is required by the R30
zoning designation . Mr . Lovi spoke of public water stopping at
• L ' Auberge on Danby Road and suggested that if that were extended some
of the comment would be reduced if water were extended . Mr . Lovi
stated that he stood by his recommendation on the EAF .
Planning Board 21 October 29 , 1985
Chairman May asked the Board to turn to the matter of the EAF .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Bakers
RESOLVED , that , with respect to the proposed 7 - lot subdivision of
the lands of Robert and Theresa Berggren , the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board accept and hereby does accept the Short Environmental Assessment
Form as presented , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
determine and hereby does determine a negative declaration of environ -
mental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Barbara Schultz :
WHEREAS , the owner / subdivider , Robert Berggren , has presented a
sketch plan and related environmental assessment information to the
Planning Board at several meetings with several public hearings at
• which the Board considered the concerns of the neighbors , and
WHEREAS , the Planning Board received Memoranda from the Assistant
Town Engineer concerning the drainage characteristics of the site , and
WHEREAS , the owner / subdivider , Robert Berggren , has presented a
Preliminary Subdivision Plat showing the Stage I of his proposed
seven - lot subdivision as three building lots , the remaining lands of
which are labelled " Lands for Future Development " , and , a parcel shown
for Open Spaces
NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for
this subdivision as described on the large Survey Map , presented at
Public Hearing , this date , October 29 , 1985 , for Preliminary Subdi -
vision Approval , entitled " 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 , signed and sealed by Allen T . Fulkerson and Thomas G . Miller ,
said Map showing : a . Stage I - - 3 - Lot Subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 , plus , one
lot reserved for Open Space . [ Lot No . 1 for
Berggren , 2 . 26 acres , Lot No . 2 , 1 . 54 acres ;
Lot No . 3 , 1 . 48 acres , Open Space Lot , 1 . 47
acres . ]
• b . Area for Future Development , 9 . 79 acres
( includes future 60 ' wide road ) - - four lots
shown by dotted lines .
Planning Board 22 October 29 , 1985
• c . Name and location of abutting property
owners .
d . Proposed Future 60 ' wide road [ cul de sac ] ,
Schembri Drive .
e . Drainage Areas ; Drainage Directions [ red with
arrows and yellow with arrows ] .
f . Locations for two new 18 " pipes and one new
12 " pipe .
g . Portion of U . S . G . S . Map showing " pond " in
red ,
and , further
RESOLVED , that Final Subdivision Approval will be contingent upon
certain satisfactory materials being presented to the Planning Board ,
in addition to what has already been mapped , metes and bounds being
presently shown , as follows . - Contour intervals of not more than two
feet ,
- All site utilities ,
- Culverts ,
Drainage features ,
- Direction of flow of all water
courses ,
Calculation of drainage area above
point of entry for each water
• course entering or abutting the
tract ,
The drainage plan as prepared by a
licensed engineer should show all
the point grades within the
drainage courses on the site ,
- The culvert across Compton Road and a
drainage swale on the north side of
Compton Road , if required .
By way of discussion , Chairman May pointed out that the developer
cannot put in the culvert without approval .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the Robert and Theresa Berggren subdivision duly closed
at 8 : 25 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
A 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 327 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
• 53 - 1 - 16 . PAUL IACOVELLI , OWNER / SUBDIVIDER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
` Planning Board 23 October 29 , 1985
• matter duly opened at 8 : 25 p . m . , and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr .
and Mrs . Paul Iacovelli were present .
For the record , the following documents were before the Board .
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed and signed by
Paul Iacovelli under date of October 9 , 1985 [ Part I ] , and as
reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of
October 9 , 1985 , [ Parts II and III ] with the following
recommendation : " I do not believe that this project , as
presented , will have a significant impact on the environment . I
recommend a determination of negative environmental
significance . "
2 . Survey Map , entitled " No . 327 Coddington Road , Showing Proposed
Division , 0 . 6 ± Acre Total Lot , Lot 97 " , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins
County , New York , dated August 27 , 1985 , signed and sealed by
Clarence W . Brashear Jr . , L . L . S .
3 . Two Draft Resolutions prepared by Mr . Lovi , under date of October
11 , 1985 , one with respect to the SEAF , and the other with
respect to the proposed subdivision .
Chairman May welcomed Mr . Iacovelli and asked him to tell the
Board about his plans . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he would like to
• subdivide the property at 327 Coddington Road , Mr . Iacovelli stated
that he was ready to build a house - - two units - - and he would occupy
one of the units .
Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he had any comments on this
proposal . Mr . Lovi stated that the property has somewhat over 300 ' of
frontage , and the lot to be subdivided would have 102 ' of frontage and
the depth would be between 186 ' and 197 ' . Mr . Lovi pointed out that
the principal issue which is unusual about this property is that the
survey map shows two houses on the lot and two houses on one lot is
prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance , Mr . Lovi noted that the lot that
would be subdivided would be a legal lot and would not have a house on
it , but would have one built as Mr . Iacovelli has stated . Mr . Lovi
stated that he was not sure of the occupancy of the present house ,
# 327 , or the second house on the property , adding that , as he had said
in his EAF , provided those issues can be resolved , he saw no adverse
impact .
Chairman May asked Mr . Iacovelli what the back house was . Mr .
Iacovelli stated that one family lives in there - - his daughter and
her husband and one child . Chairman May noted that it had the same
number - - 327 .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Iacovelli when it was built . Mr .
Iacovelli stated that the little house was built first - - 1946 - - and
• the big one was built in 1947 .
Mr . Lovi stated that the frontage for the remaining parcel - - the
i
Planning Board 24 October 29 , 1985
larger - - would be on the order of 200 ' or so . He stated that these
houses were not constructed in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance
because there was not any ordinance at the time of their construction ,
adding , however , there is enough land for these two dwelling units
plus the proposed one to be constructed on the subdivided lot .
Mrs . Langhans questioned what the difference was between the
" Deed Line " and the " Line of Occupation " . Mr . Iacovelli replied that
when the surveyor picked that up , he said it was a little piece of
unknown property which he feels is there . Mrs . Langhans wondered how
Walker and Gerard felt about it , with Mr . Iacovelli responding that he
did not know .
Mr . Carmine Gerard , 103 Hickory Place , spoke from the floor and
stated that he would have to check to see if it is like his map . Mrs .
Grigorov commented that it does not really affect the proposal . Mrs .
Langhans stated that Mrs . Grigorov was right , adding that she was just
curious . Mrs . Schultz commented that South Hill is full of that sort
of thing .
Mr . Tim Faulkner , 334 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he lived across the street . Mr . Faulkner stated that , as
of right now , in the main house , there are nine people , and in the
other house , three , adding that last year , there were eleven people in
there . Mr . Faulkner stated that , by subdividing that lot and adding
two more units , there would be too many people for the size lot that
• is there . Mr . Faulkner expressed his concern about anything that
added to the traffic , and other things that correspond with that area ,
and as far as the area was concerned , there was no way that that
should be permitted .
Speaking to Mr . Iacovelli , Chairman May noted that he had said
there was a family in the back house , and , speaking to Mr . Faulkner ,
stated that he had said three persons . Mr . Iacovelli stated that
there was a family of three , his daughter ' s , in the little house and
there were nine people in the big house which is a three - unit
structure .
Mr . Philip Proujansky , 333 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor ,
and stated that his property was contiguous to Mr . Iacovelli ' s
property . Mr . Proujansky stated that this property is currently a
multi - family property in an R15 zone that is in there on a
non - conforming basis . Mr . Proujansky stated that , although the
Iacovellis take great care to maintain the property as a good
multi - family use , the nature of the area is single family , even though
some people have apartments . Mr . Proujansky stated that it was his
understanding in areas where there is a non- conforming use , there
cannot be any approval for anything to extend that non - conforming use .
Mr . Proujansky stated that it was his understanding that R15 meant
primarily single or two - family uses and by further subdividing that
lot , it is creating further greater density on the parcel . Mr .
• Proujansky , noting that currently there are four units on that lot ,
stated that it seemed to him that without a variance , adding that the
code calls for a variance for any extension , this proposal cannot be
approved .
Planning Board 25 October 29 , 1985
• Mr . Lovi stated that he had , just now , briefly discussed this
situation with Town Attorney Barney . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr .
Proujansky had raised an interesting point , and added that he ,
frankly , could not give the Board an answer as to whether this is an
extension of that use . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought the Board
could deny the subdivision if it felt that the land use was intense
enough and , then , it would be up to the landowner to pursue . Mr . Lovi
commented that occupancy was an important issue .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Iacovelli when it became three
units . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it was built that way , adding that
it was always three units .
Chairman May stated that it would appear to him that subdivision
would be extending a non - conforming use .
Town Attorney Barney stated that it was , indeed , an interesting
point . Town Attorney Barney drew the Board ' s attention to Section 67
of the Zoning Ordinance , and read aloud , as follows : " Reduction of
Lot Area . Whenever a lot upon which stands a building is changed in
size or shape so that the area and yard requirements of this ordinance
are no longer complied with , such building shall not thereafter be
used until it is altered , reconstructed or relocated so as to comply
with these requirements . The provisions of this Section shall not
apply when a portion of a lot is taken for a public purpose . "
• Mr . Lovi stated that , until this time , he did not know this was a
three - unit building and he would like to have his recommendation for a
negative declaration on the Environmental Assessment rescinded .
Mr . Franklin Butler , 332 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor
and stated that he had only been there for a little time , however , he
knew that that area of Coddington Road has been the scene of many
accidents , speeding cars - - one death - - and one other involving
students and alcohol .
Mr . Faulkner stated that , also , the School Bus Stop is right in
front of the property , which is a serious problem which this would
only compound .
Chairman May offered that , in fairness , with respect to
Coddington Road , interjecting that we could get an opinion from our
Town Engineer , he suspected this is an underutilized road .
Chairman May stated that the Board has had a withdrawal from the
Town Planner on the EAF , so he would think the Board was not in a
position to deal with it . Chairman May asked the Board what its
pleasure would be as far as the property is concerned . Mrs . Grigorov
commented that she thought the Board had not really heard what Mr .
Iacovelli was proposing . Mrs . Schultz , noting that he would like to
build a two - family home and live in it , stated that she thought the
• Board needed legal advice as to what to do . Mrs . Grigorov stated that
she did not want to rule it out , however .
Planning Board 26 October 29 , 1985
• MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and
hereby does adjourn the matter of consideration of preliminary
subdivision approval for Mr . Paul Iacovelli ' s proposed two - lot
subdivision at 327 Coddington Road to November 19 , 1985 , at 7 : 30 p . m . ,
at which time said Planning Board will have an opinion from the Town
Attorney as to its ability to act on said subdivision proposal .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Paul Iacovelli
subdivision proposal duly adjourned at 9 : 54 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR
PHASE IV , COMMONLAND COMMUNITY . PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
58 . 1 - 1 - 126 . HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS , OWNER / DEVELOPER ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 55 p . m . , and read aloud from the Notice of
• Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr .
and Mrs . Weisburd were present .
For the record , the Board was reviewing the following documents .
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and completed by
Jerold M . Weisburd , President , House Craft Builders , Inc . , under
date of October 17 , 1985 [ Part I ] , which described the Project as
follows : " Construct a new Town service rd . as shown on attached
plan # 6 -R . Cross section of road shall be to standard Town
spec . , profile to be as indicated on Dwg . Omit previously
approved service rd . " [ Question # 5 ] , and describing the location
as " On existing City of Ithaca R . O . W . located adjacent to 1471
Slaterville Rd . " [ Question # 6 ] , and stating that the action
involves " Approval and permit from N . Y . S . D . O . T . [ Question # 10 ] ,
and further stating that " The original approval by the Planning
Board included a preference for this location vs . the location
adjacent to 1421 Slaterville Rd . [ Question # 11 ] , and , as reviewed
by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of October 18 ,
1985 [ Parts II and III ] , as follows :
Part II :
" A . The Action does NOT exceed any Type I threshold .
B . The Action will NOT receive coordinated review .
Cl . The grading and development will be substantially identical
to the project granted Final Approval 2 / 1 / 83 . There will be no
changes in the number of residences or buildings . Insofar as the
• orientation and construction of the new buildings will require
less site preparation , the potential for erosion is reduced
somewhat . However , there will be a greater percentage of the
Planning Board 27 October 29 , 1985
area devoted to parking . The location of the second access road
was discussed and approved at the time of the original
environmental assessment and subdivision approval .
C2 . The natural drainageways will be preserved and protected
from erosion by riprapping where necessary . However , the space
designated on the original plan for a cluster garden has been
partially replaced by parking lot . In addition , the cluster
center has been eliminated . This may put pressures on existing
gardens and centers elsewhere in the project .
C3 . No adverse impact expected .
C4 . There is an intensification of the land use if measured in
terms of increased parking spaces ( 18 , increased to 23 ) , carport
spaces ( 10 , increased to 11 ) , and the greater floor size of the
buildings to be constructed . This greater intensity can be
mitigated by the retention of the previously mapped community
garden and the provision of a cluster center .
C5 . No change expected other than that previously estimated by
the original environmental assessment and subdivision approval .
C6 . The cumulative reduction of garden space and the omission of
cluster centers will put a cumulative pressure on existing garden
and meeting facilities in the other clusters . This impact may be
mitigated by the retention of garden and cluster centers in each
phase .
C7 . The new buildings are not earth bermed , but it has been
previously determined that this change will not have a
significant impact on the quantity of energy used . "
Part III :
Box checked indicating that the proposed action WILL NOT result
in any significant adverse environmental impacts .
Reviewer ' Recommendation :
" The environmental impacts identified above are caused by the
plan change which eliminates a planned community garden of
approximately 2500 sf . and by the elimination of a cluster
center . Though an argument can be made that the larger units to
be constructed in this phase will have their own laundry
appliances and the need for a common laundry will be reduced , I
do not believe that the cluster center should be eliminated
completely . Instead , I recommend that two parking spaces north
of # 89 be eliminated and the previously planned garden be fenced
and prepared . A smaller cluster center , perhaps with only a
single washer and dryer , could then be placed adjacent to the
garden , between the parking lot and unit # 88 . If these elements
are preserved in the subdivision plan , then I do not believe that
the remaining changes to the environment are significant and I
recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance . "
2 . Drawing entitled , " Commonland Community , Phase IV " , House Craft
Builders , Inc . , dated October 16 , 1985 , showing " Cluster ' G ' ,
" Westfield " , 14 units , and showing the proposed service road and
City R . O . W .
3 . Planning Board Minutes , February 1 , 1983 , pages 16 through 19 .
Chairman May welcomed Mr . Weisburd to the meeting and asked him
Planning Board 28 October 29 , 1985
• to tell the Board about his plans .
Mr . Weisburd appended the drawing to the bulletin board entitled
" Commonland Community Phase IV " , dated October 16 , 1985 , and stated
that , essentially , we are looking at this Cluster " here " - Cluster " G "
[ Westfield ] . Mr . Weisburd also displayed part of the original map for
Commonland and , using that , oriented the Board and the public as to
what had been and was happening . Mr . Weisburd stated that the project
was essentially complete from " here " to " here " [ indicating ] . Mr .
Weisburd stated that his main reason for coming here tonight had to do
with the Service Road . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that the Planning
Board had approved that secondary service road for " here " [ indicating
an area near Mrs . Clausen ' s property , 1421 Slaterville Road ] going up
to Slaterville Road . Mr . Weisburd stated that , at that time , the
Board expressed a preference for the road not to be there , but to be
through " this " point " here " [ indicating ] , next to the " old " fruit
stand [ " Marion ' s " , 1471 Slaterville Road ] on the existing City right
of way . Mr . Weisburd , recalling that , at that time , they were not
sure they had the right to do that , stated that , however , it turns out
that they have authority ; they have that right . Mr . Weisburd stated
that Mr . Fabbroni has expressed the desire to have the road moved as
shown on drawing which the Board members have .
Chairman May noted that this road is part of the City ' s entrance
to the area . Mr . Weisburd agreed and pointed out the profile of the
service road as shown on the drawing . Mr . Weisburd noted the 15 %
grade and pointed out that Mr . Fabbroni still prefers that .
Mr . Weisburd , noting that the Cluster itself , Cluster " G " ,
Westfield , is not actually very different from what had been proposed ,
pointed out that there is exactly the same number of units - -
four buildings - - with " this one " going from a five - plex to a
four - plex , and " this one " going from a two - plex to a three - plex
[ indicating ] . Mr . Weisburd stated that the drainage is identical .
Mr . Weisburd stated that the units are similar to the units
constructed in the last phase . Mr . Weisburd displayed an advertising
poster for Commonland Community , entitled " The Country Townhouse " with
seven large photographs on it of the units , inside and outside , the
walking areas , and the porches . Mr . Weisburd stated that the units
are bigger than what they had before , adding , but there has been good
demand for them . Mr . Weisburd stated that the general arrangement in
" Westfield " would be the same as in " The Meadows " and " Round Rock " .
Mr . Weisburd noted that they did not include a garden in the plan the
Board members have before them , however , he did sketch it in " here "
[ indicating on the plan on the bulletin board ] . Mr . Weisburd stated
that , generally , when people move in , they are happy to build the
garden where they want .
Chairman May asked about the cluster center and what has been
removed . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that they removed the cluster
center in the last one - - " The Meadows " , adding that , originally , the
• units were much smaller and did not contain laundry facilities , and
further adding that the newer ones do , individually , and with the last
of these , because of that , they would not add additional expense onto
Planning Board 29 October 29 , 1985
• the house to have a cluster center ; that would be redundant . Mr .
Weisburd stated that the Community Center is still on the drawing
board ; it has been built , but not turned over , adding that that is the
facility which was promised to serve the Community as a whole . Mr .
Weisburd stated that the cluster center , initially , was to serve only
the cluster that was immediately around it . Mr . Weisburd commented
that this only affects the current cluster , adding that , of course ,
they would be telling people that it does not include the cluster
center .
Chairman May asked where the Community Center was , with Mr .
Weisburd pointing it out on the drawing on the bulletin board [ near
" The Meadows " ] .
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 , noting that when Mr . Weisburd originally presented Commonland he
talked about 124 units , and further noting that his plans have
changed , asked how many units he now has planned . Mr . Weisburd stated
that they have not changed that at all . Mr . Multari asked if there
were still to be 124 . Responding , yes , Mr . Weisburd explained how
there had been one roof before , but now they are turned so each unit
has a separate roof . Mr . Weisburd explained just how the roof was
• turned , adding that the total number of units is exactly the same .
Mr . Multari , commenting , as you built your new road and as you
cross what was that right of way , stated that there is quite a change
in grade where the top of the new road is in comparison to the
existing road , adding that it drops off sharply . Mr . Multari asked
how that was going to be handled . Mr . Weisburd stated that this is
currently not a road ; it is a City right of way . Mr . Weisburd
explained that , if " this " [ indicating ] were kept as a service road and
" this " [ indicating ] were not a service road , the City would use the
new Town road , adding that , on the other hand , the City would use
" this " [ indicating ] . Mr . Multari referred to a path . Mr . Weisburd
stated that it would have to be a path , adding that , if it were a
service road , they would have to put in a culvert . Mr . Weisburd
commented that , if they do this service road , what they would do , as
you can see in the profile , is that they would have to cut out a fair
amount of material " here " [ indicating ] , but the material then would go
up to Slaterville Road . Mr . Weisburd spoke of 75 feet of 3 % slope
from which to pile on to Slaterville Road - - in essence , any material
in your way . Mr . Weisburd stated that they have not done this without
the approval of the Town .
Mrs . Grigorov wondered about the City and asked if they will
approve . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was sure they will , adding that
if they have a Town road , that should satisfy them , and further adding
that they have , in the past , moved another right of way - - two times
• - - with no problem .
Mr . Paul L . Hartman , 132 Pine Tree Road , wondered why Mr .
Fabbroni wanted a 15 % grade . Mr . Lovi stated that the service road
Planning Board -30 October 29 , 1985
• that Mr . Weisburd is speaking of , when it was discussed , was to be an
entrance - only service road , adding that it was meant as an emergency
entrance between two properties owned by Mrs . Clausen , Mr . Lovi
stated that this service road would be very narrow . Mr . Lovi stated
that the Town wanted to reserve this option in the last instance if
there were no other way to develop a second entrance , however , it has
been established that a road can be built over the City right - of - way .
Mr . Lovi stated that it is understood that there is a steep slope at
the top and a shelf at the bottom , however , it is also understood that
this road would be serving , at most , 1 / 3 of the property . Mr . Lovi
stated that during the winter Town trucks would plow the Abbey Road
entrance first and would then come back and pick up the secondary road
much later .
Mr . Roland Marion , LaFayette , New York [ 1431 Slaterville Road ] ,
spoke from the floor and asked Mr . Lovi where he got the 1 / 3 ratio .
Mr . Lovi stated that approximately 1 / 3 of the development remains to
be built , adding that what he was saying was that 1 / 3 of the units
would be closer to that exit . Mr . Lovi explained that , with two
exits , he was making the assumption that the units nearest to any
particular exit would use that exit , and , since 1 / 3 of the units are
nearer to the new access road than to the Abbey Road intersection , he
was assuming that they would use that exit .
Ms . Leslie Dotson , 35 Penny Lane , spoke from the floor and stated
that she was the Secretary of the Commonland Community Homeowners '
• Association . Ms . Dotson stated that one of the concerns that they had
at their last Board meeting , which was yesterday , was the construction
of what is replacing the cluster center . Ms . Dotson stated that they
were concerned that they might freeze , adding that , with respect to
" Round Rock " and " The Meadows " , it does not look like there is any
heat in there . Ms . Dotson stated that even if they are insulated ,
there is no heat , and they are concerned because it is the Homeowners '
Association which has to deal with this once it is deeded over to it .
Ms . Dotson stated that , other than that , the Association did not have
any problem with having the cluster center taken out for this
particular cluster because it is close to the Community Center , so ,
they could have meeting space .
Mr . Weisburd stated that the building at Round Rock is not
finished , but the building at " The Meadows " does have heat and is
insulated , adding that there is electric heat in there , mostly below
grade . Ms . Dotson asked if there were a thermostat , to which Mr .
Weisburd replied , yes . Mr . Weisburd stated that they have never held
the attitude that once something was deeded over it was totally out of
their hands . Mr . Weisburd stated that , obviously , it would be a
disaster to have the central pipe system freezing . Mr . Weisburd
explained that everything in there was almost identical to existing
cluster centers , adding that there were no problems ; they were like
houses .
• Ms . Dotson stated that another concern she had was the fact that
the plans which were available in the Planning Office did not show
where the ' gardens were ' going to be in this particular cluster
Planning Board 31 October 29 , 1985
• [ Westfield ] . Ms . Dotson stated that there has been a real problem
with gardens being shoved around from pillar to post . Ms . Dotson
stated that some people would want to have input into where the
gardens should be , but , the worst place seems to be it , and , there is
no water for the garden because the pipes are closed off . Ms . Dotson
stated that they were told by the House Craft representative at the
last meeting that they would be informed as to when the water lines
were going in in a particular area - - where the garden space was going
in . Ms . Dotson commented that , from what Mr . Weisburd was saying now ,
it did not look that way . Ms . Dotson stated that , if you cannot have
water , you might as well cut out the garden . Ms . Dotson stated that ,
also , they were told that House Craft would not provide an exterior
water pump in the garden . Ms . Dotson stated that she felt , in
consideration of the cost savings that were going to be achieved by
not building the cluster center , Mr . Weisburd could provide that
simply at the time of its going in .
Mr . Weisburd stated that , actually , they are not saving anything
relative to the cluster center , adding that the units are much larger ,
and further adding that perhaps there could be if the sizes were
reduced . Ms . Dotson , responding , okay , stated that if there were a
cluster center there would be water to the gardens , that is , if the
cluster centers were near the gardens . Referring to the garden matter
Mr . Weisburd stated that they are suggesting a location over " here "
[ indicating ] . Mr . Weisburd stated that they did not put in a water
hydrant , adding that they have put in four of them this year -- there
• are two " here " and two out " here " at the extremes of it [ indicating ] ,
and further adding that any garden is not too far from a hydrant , and ,
in this case , one unit . Mr . Weisburd , commenting that the location of
the hydrant is not that significant in terms of cost , but , they are
dealing with an unknown , and , if the hydrant were over " here " by the
garden [ indicating ] and you say - - " Hey , I cannot wash my car ! "
but , over here you can run a hose , stated that he did not know if that
were the kind of detail the Planning Board would want to deal with .
Mr . Klein asked what the size of the garden was . Mr . Weisburd ,
commenting that the gardens are not fully utilized , stated that he was
happy to work with people in terms of the hydrant , and he was happy to
see the gardens the size they would want them to be .
Town Attorney Barney asked if there had been any attempt by the
developer to develop the gardens . Ms . Dotson stated that they were
told that they could pay for this .
Ms . Paula Dougan , 17 Penny Lane . spoke from the floor and stated
that at the point in time when the water lines were laid out that was
where the Homeowners ' Association , could say - - " Yes , we do want water
lines extended to a garden . " , and it was her understanding that that
was at the Association ' s cost .
Mrs . Claudia Weisburd , commenting that she was the House Craft
• representative referred to , stated that the gardens were not specified
as coming with water ; what was specified was the provision of a fenced
garden . Mrs . Weisburd stated that they do have outside water sources ,
Planning Board 32 October 29 , 1985
• adding that the location was up for grabs , and further adding that
they have been putting that near the carports because it seems that
that is where people want them . Mrs . Weisburd stated that what she
does say is , if we locate a hydrant someplace and not at a garden ,
and , if they want an additional water line to the garden , that would
be a Homeowners ' expense .
Chairman May , speaking to Ms . Dotson , stated that he thought the
public airing of this problem could probably lead to your handling it
at your meetings . Ms . Dotson stated that it was important to her
because of water . Chairman May stated that he thought the developer
has indicated a willingness to cooperate .
Ms . Dougan stated that the developer has always been very
cooperative , but , she felt it was important to have this on the public
record .
Mr . Bill Petrillose , 29 Penny Lane , spoke from the floor and
talked about where the water connections were which are presently in
the cluster centers . Mr . Petrillose stated that his concern was
two - fold - - the way they are set up now , the chances of looking at
them , if there were a leak , would be difficult , and , - - could there
possibly be a water sensor alarm installed ?
Chairman May stated that he thought that was an item to sit down
• with the developer about .
Mr . Petrillose stated that he also agreed with Mr . Weisburd that
this Cluster is close enough to the Community Center so they do not
need a cluster center , but , if it were farther , there should be
something . Mr . Petrillose stated that in " Spring Hill " the cluster
center has a lot of positive results .
Mr . Klein asked how big they were . Mr . Weisburd stated that they
were 18 ' x 24 ' , and added that the Community Center is not functioning
as a Community Center at this point which will make a big change ,
noting that it is much bigger .
Mr . Lovi , noting that different people have made different
points , stated that there have been changes in this plan from what was
proposed . Mr . Lovi pointed out that , in the new plan , there will be
one driveway from Penny Lane the previous plan showed two
driveways . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the amount of parking has been
increased on the order of 250 - - there were 18 parking spaces in the
original , and , right now , he counted 23 . Mr . Lovi noted that there
were ten carport spaces on the original ; he now counted 11 . Mr . Lovi
stated that the parking is taking up somewhat more area than
originally shown .
Continuing , Mr . Lovi stated that , as to the gardens , he thought
that the location shown on the plan on the bulletin board was a good
• location . Mr . Lovi stated that , however , from a planning standpoint ,
he was less comfortable with the elimination of the cluster center .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that these centers were part of what the Planning
Planning Board 33 October 29 , 1985
• Board approved . Mr . Lovi stated that the centers were a . part of each
cluster and fit in with a concept of community . Mr . Lovi commented
that , on the matter of optimum solar orientation , the evidence is that
the percentage of heat attributable to solar energy will not be
significantly affected by the shifts , and , in his judgment , the
aesthetic benefits were worth the tradeoff .
Mr . Lovi , commenting that there have been certain trade - offs
between the developer and the Planning Board , posed the rhetorical
question as to how the project has been changed . Mr . Lovi stated that
the design of the units themselves has changed ; the units are larger
and more expensive , there is now a more attractive facade ; the
buildings are certainly more varied on the site , the builder has moved
away from earth berming - - more insulation has been added to protect
the exposed plumbing , the orientation of the site has more texture .
Mr . Lovi stated that he would caution the Board , and the
developer , against moving away too much from that which was
distinguishing about the project in the beginning . . Mr . Lovi , allowing
that the units are bigger and that they are selling very well , stated
that it , however , is still not a conventional subdivision . Mr . Lovi
pointed out that there is still to be maintained an amount of common
facilities . Mr . Lovi stated that all the new units have washers and
dryers , and , these units are reasonably close to the Community Center ,
but , he would recommend that the record show that as we proceed to
" Cluster H " and " Cluster I " , some provision be made for a common
meeting area even if it were to be a cluster center without washers
and dryers . Commenting that folks can finger paint or do what they
want to do , Mr . Lovi stated that he believed these facilities are in
keeping with the original community concept of the project .
Mr . Weisburd stated that in regard to the cluster center , he
would certainly entertain that idea over " here " [ indicating ] . Mr .
Weisburd stated that it would also be a good idea to see how the
Community Center works , pointing out that it will be owned by the
community . Mr . Weisburd stated that , yes , while it is true that they
have moved away from a strict " south " orientation , they are still
" southerly " . Mr . Weisburd described how the porches go together , and
spoke of an attractive " streetscape " creating a very nice neighborly
feeling . Mr . Weisburd stated that , with regard to the question of
affordability , that was something he had always been very concerned
about . Mr . Weisburd expressed the need for government incentives to
keep housing affordable , without which this is a tough problem . Mr .
Weisburd stated that units they sold to the first owner for $ 35 , 000
are being re - sold for $ 44 , 000 or more , although they , themselves , did
not want to do that , adding , so , they went to a larger market . Mr .
Weisburd offered that , without the clout of government too , there are
limiting factors - - you cannot insure equal affordability . Mr .
Weisburd spoke of there being room for government to have a very
active role in affordable housing . Mr . Weisburd spoke of the units
ranging from $ 50 , 000 to $ 78 , 000 , and stated that this is still very
• much below the average housing price .
Ms . Dotson stated that something else that has been a concern to
the Board [ Homeowners ' Association ] , which was discussed fairly
Planning Board 34 October 29 , 1985
• generally and not as specifically as she will bring up , is that Lois
Lane drains down on the east side into " East Meadows " . Ms . Dotson
stated that the drainage plan initially was , frankly , totally
inadequate . Ms . Dotson spoke of drainage into the cluster center for
" East Meadows " , stating that it flooded out several times and had to
be cleaned out by the Association . Ms . Dotson stated that the matter
was officially addressed by House Craft ditching . Ms . Dotson stated
that the problem they have is with the way the ditch , which looks
about a foot or so deep with straight sides , is right in the middle of
a residential area . Ms . Dotson stated that she considered it a
hazard . Ms . Dotson stated that it is their liability ; it is deeded to
the homeowners . Ms . Dotson stated that when they brought up this
issue at their meeting , the question was - - " Do we have the right to
make specifications before something is deeded to us so we do not get
something unsafe ? " Ms . Dotson stated that they were told that they
had no choice - - it was deeded over automatically . Ms . Dotson stated
that the only recourse , as she understood it , was that it had to
conform with the offering plan , however , the offering plan does not
say anything about specifications for a drainage ditch . Ms . Dotson
stated that she did not think the Board should have to pay for
something that is a sub - development issue .
Chairman May stated that he thought that was a problem to be
addressed by the developer and the Homeowners ' Association . Ms .
Dotson stated that , since we do not know that drainage ditches are
going to work , she wanted to say that specifications for drainage
should be on this plan .
Mr . Weisburd stated that , first , as for the cluster center that
did have problems , they did put drainage in , adding that they cleaned
up several times , and further adding that , actually , they , personally ,
were not there - - " Bill " did it . Mr . Weisburd stated that we are all
obliged to get all drainage to work . Mr . Weisburd stated that they
put in an entirely new sub - terranean drain , adding that a lot of water
came out . Mr . Weisburd stated that he believed they have the problem
solved , adding that they are very much concerned about that . Mr .
Weisburd stated that they do not say - - " It is yours , we wash our
hands of it . " Mr . Weisburd stated that , secondly , some of the
drainage problems are existing because you try to put in grass and it
does not take , adding that he would like to point out that , for every
instance where someone sees a problem , there is $ 25 , 000 held in escrow
for problems that they do not deal with , and , none of it has been
touched .
Chairman May stated that he thought this is probably a normal
situation that can happen , and suggested that by getting together it
can be resolved .
Chairman May asked Ms . Dotson if things were okay about the
cluster center . Ms . Dotson stated that what the Homeowners '
Association has agreed on is that they do not have a problem with no
• cluster center in this one [ Westfield ] .
Mr . Roland Marion read aloud from prepared notes , as follows :
" My mother is a grantor of the Right of Way under consideration . I
Planning Board 35 October 29 , 1985
. spoke with Mr . Fabbroni during the early considerations of how
Commonland roads would connect with Slaterville Road . The
perpendicular steep upgrade approach of the original plan - - not
implemented - - was denied as being a problem due to steepness of
approach . It was suggested that a level approach was mandatory for
safety and that the additional fill required to build up a level
approach would significantly aggravate the existing grade problem with
a perpendicular approach as it was planned at the time . I am pleased
to note that the Board and Mr . Weisburd have evolved an existing
entrance to Rt . 79 which is level . It made good sense to not create
another Burns Road type of hazard . You will note , however , that the
originally defended straight approach was apparently found to be less
desirable than a more gradual climb across the slope , that is , more
parallel to Route 79 , as was suggested to the developer in the
presence of the Board and as the existing entrance has been
constructed , It seems fortunate that Mr . Weisburd had sufficient
frontage at the existing entrance to allow such an improvement . I am
concerned that he has no such freedom in the case under consideration .
I think that he should avail himself of the opportunity to purchase
enough frontage to provide a safe entrance , in view of the proximity
of the entrance from the Blatchley side of Rt . 79 . In our earlier
discussion , Mr . Fabbroni assured me that , if the Right of Way under
consideration was used , it would be for fire - fighting equipment access
and possibly for exit from Slaterville Road , but definitely not as a
two way street . I agreed at the time that , as a downhill exit from
Slaterville Rd . , the 15 % grade was not a formidable problem . However ,
• as an entrance to Slaterville Rd . , the grade is an entirely different
question . I believe that a better approach is highly desirable ,
especially since the real estate is available . In my mind , the other
alternative is for the Board to keep the road located as now proposed ,
but ONE WAY ONLY ! "
Mr . Marion stated that he would add that Mr . Weisburd is dealing
with difficult soil .
Mr . Weisburd stated that his own feeling on the road , really , was
that he did not have a preference . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was
happy to stick with " this " one [ indicating ] , adding that , through Mr .
Fabbroni , the Town expressed a wish for " here " [ indicating ] . Mr .
Weisburd noted that this is going to be a Town road and if they want
to do that - - fine .
Mr . Hartman , noting that Blatchley has not been talked about yet ,
asked if there would be a conflict with that road from Slaterville
Road when adding that one with this one .
Mr . Weisburd stated that he was primarily interested in having
" this " [ indicating ] approved at this time , adding that , if the Town
wanted to consider a service road at a later time , he would be happy
because he was not particularly anxious to build a service road at
this time , but he will ,
• Mr . Lovi stated that this access road , over the City right of
way , is the Town preference . Mr . Lovi stated that they have discussed
Planning Board 36 October 29 , 1985
• it with Mr . Jonson , Mr . Lovi stated that it should be remembered that
this road is very much a secondary access to the project , adding that
the primary access is , and will remain , Abbey Road . Mr . Lovi stated
that approval of " this " intersection has to be granted by the State
Department of Transportation . Mr . Lovi commented that the situation
with Mr . Jonson across the street is the same situation Mr . Weisburd
faced with Abbey Road .
Mr . Marion reiterated that there is real estate available which
would increase the distance between these two roads .
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 55 p . m .
Chairman May asked the Board to turn its attention to the Short
Environmental Assessment Form and noted that Mr . Lovi had recommended
a negative declaration . Chairman May stated that , as to the other
comments , he would hope they were going to be resolved internally .
Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he were in agreement that the cluster
center be dropped . Mr . Lovi responded that , if the Homeowner ' s
Association and the developer are in agreement , he would agree .
Chairman May commented that he thought the matter of the gardens ,
could be handled internally .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead
Agency in the matter of the environmental review of the proposed
revisions to the Final Site Plan for Phase IV of Commonland Community ,
determine and hereby does determine that the proposed action will not
result in any significant adverse environmental impacts , based on the
information provided in the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated
October 17 , 1985 , reviewed October 18 , 1985 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May stated that , now , the Board needed to address the
site plan , and reminded the members of the changes , pointing out the
increase in parking from 18 to 23 - - a net increase of 5 ; the increase
in carports from 10 to 11 - - a net increase of 1 ; one driveway cut
instead of two , a five - plex had become a four -plex , and a two - plex had
become a three - plex , with the net number of buildings remaining the
same .
Mrs . Langhans asked if the Board were also considering the access
road in this or just the revisions . Chairman May responded , either
way , adding that if the Board were more comfortable with the
• revisions , less the access road , he believed it could be deferred .
Mr . Lovi wondered , if the Board were deferring it , if there were
Planning Board 37 October 29 , 1985
• more information that it needed . Chairman May noted that the question
was asked if we could defer it .
Mrs . Schultz iterated the proposition that the request for the
change in the site of the road has nothing to do with the changes in
the cluster , Mr . Weisburd replied that they were totally independent
- - just happened to come at the same time , adding that it was a thing
to service this cluster , Mrs . Schultz reiterated that these changes
are not precipated by this road change , with Mr . Weisburd responding ,
right .
Mrs . Schultz stated that she thought a lot of the things that had
been discussed could be internally resolved . Mrs . Schultz stated that
the need for parking can be documented by marketing . Mrs . Schultz
stated that she did not have a great deal of problem with the
five -plex becoming a four - plex , or with the two - plex becoming a
three - plex , noting that there is no problem with property lines and
that sort of thing ,
MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that approval of
the proposed revisions to the Final Site Plan of Commonland Community ,
Phase IV , a portion of Parcel No . 6 - 58 . 1 - 1 - 126 , be granted , that is ,
an increase in parking from 18 to 23 - - a net increase of 5 ; the
• increase in carports from 10 to 11 - - a net increase of 1 ; one
driveway cut instead of two , a five -plex becoming a four - plex , and a
two -plex becoming a three -plea , with the net number of buildings
remaining the same , the elimination of the cluster center for the
particular Phase IV , Westfield , Cluster " G " , all as shown on Drawing
entitled " Commonland Community Phase IV , dated October 16 , 1985 ,
reviewed by said Planning Board at Public Hearing this date , October
29 , 1985 , however , not to eliminate the garden , the garden to be
placed upon mutual agreement of the developer and the Commonland
Community Homeowners ' Association ,
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote ,
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker ,
Nay - None ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , to defer
consideration of the siting of the access road as requested by the
developer for consideration by said Planning Board , pending receipt of
further information ,
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote ,
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker ,
Planning Board 38 October 29 , 1985
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Mr . Weisburd , commenting that he must apologize to the Board ,
stated that he had promised Mr . Cartee he would ask this and he
forgot , so he will now . Mr . Weisburd presented a sketch to the Board
and stated that they have been getting permits in a group , but , since
carports are built on demand , they are handled separately after the
permits are approved . Mr . Weisburd stated that somehow or other they
built three bays without a permit .
Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Weisburd was entitled to three
carports ; he wants four . Mr . Cartee stated that he was talking about
" The Meadows " .
Mr . Weisburd stated that they have built three with the permits
they have this year .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby
does grant approval for the addition of a fourth carport to the site
plan for " The Meadows " in accordance with the sketch submitted to said
Planning Board this date , October 29 , 1985 .
• Mr . Lovi , protesting that the Board could not do this at this
time , stated that it was a change in the Final Site Plan and , so ,
would have to be heard at a Public Hearing called for that purpose .
Mr . Weisburd stated that , regarding carports , it was never his
understanding that if they increased the number of carport spaces it
would be under site plan review , it has not been so in the past
not as far as specific quantity , since they are on an optional basis .
With the Board indicating its agreement , Chairman May withdrew
his Motion .
It appeared that both the matter of the road siting and the
matter of the carport would be considered at another meeting of the
Planning Board .
Chairman May declared the matter of the revisions to the Final
Site Plan for Phase IV , Commonland Community , duly closed at 11 : 15
p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
A FIFTY -LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION ON 32 . 2 ACRES . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - L39 . 21 IVAR JONSON , DEVELOPER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
• matter duly opened at 11 : 16 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs .
Albern and Jonson were present .
Planning Board 39 October 29 , 1985
• For the record , the Board members each had before him / her a copy
of each of the following documents , received with his / her Agenda .
1 . Completed Long Environmental Assessment Form [ Part I ] , dated
October 17 , 1985 , signed by Ivar R . Jonson , 7 -page Form , plus
comment page with respect to Questions # 3 , 17 , and 43 , plus one
page describing two proposed Restrictive Covenants ,
2 . Review of Long Environmental Assessment Form [ Part II ] by the
Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of October 21 , 1985 , as
follows :
°1 TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE : Ivar Jonson , Honness Lane , 50 - lot subdivision
Impacts on Land
1 . There is a small potential environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site . This conclusion is based
upon the following facts :
a ) the average slope across the area to be subdivided is
• approximately 7 . 7 percent . This slope was determined by the
use of a scale on an interim print and will be determined
with greater precision by a field survey .
b ) the average depth to the water table in the subdivision is
less than 3 feet . This fact was determined by checking a
Townwide depth to water table map prepared by the Tompkins
County Planning Department . The accuracy of this map is for
parcels of at least 25 acres in size .
MITIGATION : Particular building sites in this
subdivision will have to be considered on an individual
basis to determine whether a high water table will
require additional foundation drains .
c ) The bedrock , Genesee Group and Tully Limestones , lies
between 2 and 10 feet from the surface . This fact was
determined by checking a Townwide depth to bedrock map . The
accuracy of this map is for parcels of at least 25 acres in
size .
MITIGATION : Particular building sites in this
subdivision will have to be considered on an individual
basis to determine whether a shallow depth to bedrock
will require additional site preparation .
d ) The construction of this subdivision will continue for more
than one year and involve more than one phase or stage . The
potential large impact on the site results from open
construction sites being left barren for an extended period
of time . The denuded site is more susceptible to soil
• erosion and loss of topsoil .
MITIGATION : The phasing plan should be implemented so
that no land is left disturbed and unvegetated at the
Planning Board 40 October 29 , 1985
• end of a construction season . After construction , all
disturbed areas should be regraded and revegetated . A
landscaping plan specifying species and sizes of all
plantings should be prepared and filed with the
subdivision plat .
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 .
Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected by
this project . This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) The Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage prepared
by the Tompkins County Planning Department does not indicate
that there are any protected streams which cross this
property .
b ) The Townwide map of protected wetlands prepared by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation does not
indicate that there are any wetlands on , adjacent to , or
affected by this project .
4 . There are no non - protected water bodies which would be affected
• as a result of this project . This conclusion is also based upon
the following facts :
a ) This project will not result in a 10 percent or greater
increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of
water . This is because there are no existing bodies of
water on the site .
b ) This project will not create any new bodies of water .
5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality . This
conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) The buildings will be connected to the public water and
sanitary sewer system . The existing water supply and
sanitary sewage system can handle this expected usage .
b ) The subdivision is not located on or adjacent to a
groundwater aquifer . This fact is based upon an examination
of a Townwide map of groundwater aquifers prepared by the
Tompkins County Planning Department and included as part of
the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan .
c ) This project will not require a discharge permit from the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation .
6 . This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow and
surface water runoff . This conclusion is based upon the
following facts :
a ) The property has an average slope of between 5 and 8 percent
which slopes continuously to the southwest . The subdivision
• plan indicates how the drainage will be partitioned and
channelled across the development .
b ) A swale will be graded along the southeast border of the
Planning Board 41 October 29 , 1985
• development to keep drainage from the properties which front
on the lower Towerview Drive loop from spilling over onto
neighboring properties on Route 79 .
c ) It is the plan that , to the extent possible , all natural
drainageways will be preserved .
d ) The culverts across Pictureview Drive should be increased to
a minimum of 18 inches in order to handle the expected flow .
e ) Surface drainage will be carried down the hillside along
natural drainageways and roadside ditches where it will be
intercepted by the roadside ditch along Slaterville Road and
carried off in the natural drainage system to the Six Mile
Creek .
Impact on Air Quality
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact on air
quality . This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) These buildings will be built to State Code insulation
requirements and , because of modern improvement in home
construction , should be more thermally efficient than the
average home in the Town of Ithaca . This increase in
thermal efficiency will reduce demand for energy use for
home heating , with some marginal but cumulative effect on
air quality .
b ) The project will not induce more than 1 , 000 vehicle trips
• per hour .
c ) There will be no incineration of refuse on the site as a
result of this project .
d ) The developer has indicated that none of the houses will be
constructed with wood stoves . Furthermore , because of the
level of insulation to be provided , it is expected that few
stoves will be purchased by subsequent owners .
Impact on Plants and Animals
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant or
animal which will be adversely affected by this project . This
conclusion is based on the following facts :
a ) An examination of maps prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department describing Game Habitats , Unique
Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions
indicates that there are no species listed on the New York
or Federal list using the site as a habitat .
b ) The maps cited above indicate that this project will not
result in the removal of any critical or significant
wildlife habitat .
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on non - endangered
or non - threatened species of plants and animals . This conclusion
is also based on an examination of maps prepared by the Tompkins
County Planning Department describing Game Habitats , Unique
• Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions .
Impact on Visual Resources
r
Planning Board 42 October 29 , 1985
• 10 . The project will have a small to moderate impact on views ,
vistas , or other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character . This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) This area is presently an open field lying interior to
building lots which front on Slaterville Road , Pine Tree
Road , and Honness Lane . These homes are likely to view the
development of this tract as a change in the open space
which they are accustomed to seeing in their backyards .
b ) The present R15 zoning designation which applies to this
tract permits one or two - family homes in residential
subdivisons of this type .
C ) The floor area ratios of the conventional lots are estimated
to range from 11 . 7 to 13 . 3 percent . The floor area ratios
of the duplexes are estimated to range from 11 . 1 to 22 . 2
percent .
e ) The floor area ratios for all existing , adjacent properties
on Honness Lane , Pine Tree Road , and Slaterville Road range
between 1 and 15 . 2 percent , with an average of 7 . 4 percent .
The average lot for these adjacent properties has more than
twice the acreage required for an R15 zone ( 31 , 994 sf ) .
f ) The height of these buildings is approximately 24 feet . On
the basis of an average slope of 7 percent , the scenic views
to the west from Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road should not
be significantly obstructed by this development .
• Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic , pre - historic or paleontological importance . This
conclusion in based on the fact that the parcel to be built upon
is presently open land and it is unlikely that the land itself
contains any artifacts of pre - historic or paleontological
importance . This judgment is based upon the evidence that a
considerable amount of building and development along Honness
Lane to this time has not produced evidence of any
paleontologically significant artifacts .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have a positive impact on the quality or
quantity of existing open spaces and recreational opportunities
in the community . This conclusion is based upon the following
facts :
a ) A parcel of land with 550 feet of frontage on Slaterville
Road and roughly 230 feet deep will be dedicated as open
space .
b ) This space may be developed in the future as a Town Park and
is in a good location , both for the use of this subdivision ,
the preservation of the natural drainage system , and the
limiting of additional curb cuts on Slaterville Road .
C ) The 20 foot access path to this open space parcel also
• serves as a drainage and sewer utility easement .
d ) The developer is also planning to transfer an L- shaped
parcel containing approximately 1 . 5 acres to the Trinity
Planning Board 43 October 29 , 1985
Lutheran Church . This transferred parcel will serve as an
open space buffer between the church and the single - family
homes to be built on lots # 9 and # 40 and the duplex lot on
# 10 .
e ) The developer is providing the Town with a bikeway easement
between the single family lots on parcels # 4 and # 5 which
will provide a convenient connection to the existing bikeway
between Honness Lane and Ellis Hollow Road .
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project may have a significant impact on the existing
transportation system . This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the entire subdivision is estimated to generate a total
additional traffic load of 400 trips per day . This total is
assumed to be evenly distributed between the two access points to
the subdivision . A marginal increase of 200 trips on Honness
Lane by 1990 represents an increase of 26 . 5 percent over the 1980
average daily total . A marginal increase of 200 trips on
Slaterville Road by 1990 represents an increase of 4 . 5 percent
over the 1980 average daily total .
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the community ' s
sources of fuel and energy . This conclusion is based upon the
following facts :
a ) All homes to be developed will exceed the insulation
requirements of the NYS code .
b ) Even if built to the most energy - efficient standards , the
number of homes could have only a marginal , though
cumulative , effect on the community ' s overall energy use .
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors , glare , noise , vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project . This
conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) This project is a residential subdivision for which all
dwelling units are to be connected to the public sewer
system .
b ) The amount of window area per dwelling unit is approximately
30 sf . for the front elevation and 160 sf . for the rear
elevation . Seven single family homes on the north side and
five duplexes on the south side of Sunnyview Lane would have
the most direct solar orientation . Because of the sloping
topography , any glare associated from these units would not
be visible to the neighborhood or immediate vicinity .
c ) There will not be any heavy equipment or machinery not
associated with construction or site preparation which will
remain on the site following completion of the project . The
• amount of noise and vibration is therefore expected to be no
greater or lesser than that associated with other
residential subdivisions in the Town .
A
Y
Planning Board 44 October 29 , 1985
• d ) There are no high voltage electrical devices associated with
this development and electrical disturbances are not
associated with residential construction of this type .
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public health and
safety . This conclusion is based upon the fact that the
construction of one and two family houses has been determined by
the Town Board to be a permitted use which will not adversely
affect the public health , safety and welfare . The buildings in
this devlopment will be constructed in conformance with the New
York State Life Safety Code and will be inspected by our Building
Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no significant adverse impact on the
growth and character of the existing community . This conclusion
is based upon the following facts :
a ) The homes will be comparable in size to those in the
existing community . The average living area in adjacent
properties is 1 , 371 square feet of living space per dwelling
unit . The average living area in a home in the proposed
subdivision is roughly 1 , 800 square feet .
• b ) The amount of gross lot area per dwelling unit is comparable
with other clustered subdivisions in the immediate area .
Commonland Community will be developed as 124 units on 45
acres , with an average density of 15 , 808 square feet per
dwelling unit . The proposed subdivision would be developed
with a total of 85 units on 32 . 2 acres , for an average
density of 16 , 501 square feet per dwelling unit . Both
subdivisions are well in excess of the permitted density in
an R15 zone without cluster development , which could be as
high as 7 , 500 square feet per dwelling unit .
c ) A clustered development of duplexes and single - family houses
is more in keeping with the character of the adjacent
community than would a development which used three , four ,
five , and six - plexes . For example , the effective density
within the " neighborhoods " at Commonland Community , because
of the use of multi - family buildings , can be as high as
6 , 700 square feet per dwelling unit . Buildings of this size
and these effective densities , would be out of scale in a
neighborhood where the average density is on the order of
26 , 660 square feet per dwelling unit .
18 . There has been public controversy concerning the project at this
time . This conclusion is based upon the following facts :
a ) The project was presented to the Planning Board on September
3 , 1985 and September 17 , 1985 . At those meetings , members
of the immediate community expressed general concerns about
• the character and quality of the development and its
prospective impact on the neighborhood .
b ) The Planning Board and the Town Board have considered an
• Planning Board 45 October 29 , 1985
• amendment to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance which would
establish " duplexes " as a permitted use in R9 , R15 , and R30
districts . This amendment was tabled at the October 7 , 1985
meeting of the Town Board pending further study and a
recommendation by the Planning Board ,
REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATION :
This project is a Type I action according to Local Law # 3 , 1980 .
Given the expected impacts which this project appears to have on the
environment , I recommend that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be made . This recommendation is based upon the
preceeding information and the following facts :
Project Classification : Because this project will result in more than
30 new residential units to be connected to public utilities at the
time of completion , it is classified as a Type I Action according to
Local Law # 3 , 1980 .
Minimum Gross Area : The project has a total of 32 . 2 gross acres of
land . The acreage is in excess of the five acre minimum required for
clustered subdivisions .
Zoning : The land is zoned R15 , for which one and two family dwellings
are permitted uses . Clustered subdivisions are permitted in an R15
• district .
Open Space Reservation : The cluster subdivision requires the
subdivider to reserve an open space parcel of at least 10 , 000 square
feet . The park shown on the sketch plan is 2 . 8 acres , or roughly
122 , 000 square feet . The site exceeds all minimum frontage and size
requirements . The park is accessable by a 20 foot right -of -way
between lots # 23 and # 24 .
The park site slopes to the south and will be fenced from Slaterville
Road on the lower border . A park of this size , shape and topography
would be suitable for low- intensity recreational uses such as play
structures and picnic areas . A connection to the existing Circle
Greenway trail system through this park would be appropriate .
The developer is also transferring an open space parcel of roughly 1 . 5
acres ( 65 , 340 square feet ) to the Trinity Lutheran Church . In
addition , a bikeway easement will be provided from Sunnyview Lane to
the existing bikeway from Honness Lane to Ellis Hollow Road . The open
space dedications total 193 , 340 square feet , ( 4 . 4 acres ) which
represents 13 . 7 percent of the gross lot area of the subdivision .
Number of Permitted Dwelling Units : Each lot of the 50 - lot
subdivision is normally permitted to be developed with a two - unit
dwelling . As a result , 100 dwelling units could be clustered on the
parcel . The developer is proposing to build 15 single - family , and 35
duplex dwellings for a total of 85 dwelling units . The cluster
regulations restrict the developer to no more than 3 . 5 dwelling units
per gross acre . This restriction does not apply in this case because
Planning Board 46 October 29 , 1985
112 dwelling units could be built on this 32 . 2 acre site at a density
of 3 . 5 units per gross acre .
Lot Sizes : To determine the number of permitted dwelling units , the
developer has prepared a subdivision plan which meets all the
requirements of the subdivision regulations . All blocks are less than
1 , 500 feet in length . The lots in this plan meet all the lot size
requirements of the R15 residential district .
Unbuildable Areas : After referring to the Comprehensive Plan , soil
maps , USGS topographic maps , and the Phase II sketch plan for the
Blatchley subdivision , I believe that all of the lots shown on the
present subdivision plan are buildable .
Neighborhood Concerns : I have no information which indicates that
this subdivision would be substantially and materially injurious to
the use and enjoyment of present owners in the neighborhood . A
concern has been raised that a clustered subdivision , particularly
clustered duplexes , would be objectionable to existing landowners . It
has been demonstrated that the size , value , and other characteristics
of the proposed development are not significantly different from what
presently exists , either in the immediate vicinity , or in the general
neighborhood .
The significant difference between the existing homes in the
neighborhood and the proposed development is in the amount of land per
dwelling unit . Since land costs are a presently a significant
component of total building cost , the principal way to bring down the
cost of housing without sacrificing construction quality or amenities ,
is to reduce the amount of land associated with each dwelling unit .
Orderly Development : This subdivision would develop the balance of
the open land presently available in the area bounded by Honness Lane ,
Pine Tree Road , and Slaterville Road . As a result , the orderly
development of this area is is related to the orderly development of
this subdivision .
The second question is whether this development would be in harmony
with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood .
Considering the neighborhood within 1000 feet of this development ,
there are :
a ) one and two - family homes along Honness Lane , Pine Tree Road , and
Slaterville Road ;
b ) Eastwood Commons , a condominium development of single family
homes ;
c ) Commonland Community , a clustered development of single family
homes ;
In this context , the developer ' s intent to build a mix of attached and
detached one - family dwellings on this site does not appear
unreasonable . At this time , the detached one - family homes are
proposed to be built primarily on the northern and eastern lots of the
development . Attached one - family homes would be built on the
remaining parcels . At present , there are seven two - family dwellings
on the lands adjacent to this development .
• Planning Board 47 October 29 , 1985
• Traffic Conditions : The proportion of attached and detached
one - family homes has been stated and their location has been
identified in greater detail . It has been determined that the
marginal percentage increase in daily traffic on Honness Lane and
Slaterville Road are within acceptable boundaries . Though the
estimated increase in traffic on Honness Lane represents somewhat more
than a 25 percent increase over the 1980 count , it is the case that
this development removes the remaining developable land on Honness
Lane . It is unlikely that the traffic load on Honness Lane would
increase significantly in the future .
Water and Sewer System : The entire subdivision will be served by
public water and sewer . The public utility system can handle the
expected increase in use . Approval of the utility plan by the
Tompkins County Health Department is required . A full utility plan
will be reviewed by the Town Engineer and Planning Board prior to
Final Subdivision Approval ,
Site Planning , Design and Landscaping : Building designs , locations
and landscaping will need to be reviewed when the final plans are
developed . A landscaping plan should indicate planting size , species ,
and location for the project as a whole and a detail sheet for a
representative lot .
Restriction of Unrelated Persons : The Planning Board may place
restrictions on the preliminary and final subdivision restricting the
number of unrelated persons who may be permitted to live in this
subdivision . If the property were developed as 50 one or two - family
houses , our Zoning Ordinance would permit no more than 3 unrelated
persons per building , for a total of 150 unrelated persons for the
property as a whole . Allocating that number to the 85 dwelling units
gives an integer value of two ( 2 ) unrelated persons per dwelling unit .
This is a reasonable standard for it allows each unit to be occupied
by no more than two unrelated persons , or permits a family to take in
a single person as a boarder , roomer , or lodger .
Streets . All streets are shown with 60 foot rights - of -way . The
preliminary plan shows street names . There is more than 300 feet
between the center lines of highway intersections . All streets
intersect at right angles . Curb radii of 25 feet and all sight
distances are acceptable . The cul - de - sac , " Sunnyview Lane " , is less
than 1000 feet , as required . The Slaterville Road intersection will
need to be approved by the New York State Department of
Transportation .
Solar Access : This parcel has good solar access and the general
orientation of the streets , blocks and lots does not compromise it .
Passive solar construction and superinsulation techniques have been
proven to be extremely effective in reducing yearly heating and
cooling costs . These reduced living costs make passive solar and
superinsulated homes a good investment and contribute to the
• development ' s long - run affordability .
Storm Drainage : The developer should prepare a drainage report to
Planning Board 48 October 29 , 1985
• accompany the Final Subdivision Plan . This report should describe :
a ) the areas to be drained by each roadside ditch ;
b ) the volume of flow ( in ft3 / sec . ) for each drainage area ;
c ) the total volume of flow for the subdivision ;
d ) the required section for each waterway and culverts
e ) a surface grading plan for a typical lot ;
f ) a typical waterway cross - section .
Reviewer ' s Name : Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner
Lead Agency Chairman : Montgomery May , Planning Board if
3 . Preliminary Subdivision Plan , entitled " Proposed GrandView
Subdivision by Ivar Jonson " , [ Drawing Title , " Lot & Drainage
Plan " ] , [ Drawing Number 11 , dated October 18 , 1985 , prepared by
William F . Albern , P . E . , Consulting Engineer , showing 50 proposed
lots ( 15 conventional homes ; 35 duplex homes = 85 units
[ permissible units : 32 . 2 ± acres x 3 . 5 - 112 ] ) ; Route 79
( Slaterville Road ) ; Honness Lane ; proposed Park ; proposed roads
- - Pictureview Drive , Sunnyview Lane , Towerview Drive , Westview
Lane , " Bikeway " ; Topography ; Water ; Sewer ; Storm Water Typicals ;
RipRap ; all abutting neighbors ; Typical Road / Drainages Typical
Site Arrangement , Notes ; Culverts ; etc .
Messrs . Jonson and Albern appeared before the Board . Mr . Albern
appended a large , colored , copy of the proposed Preliminary
Subdivision Plan to the bulletin board ; Mr . Jonson stated that the
proposal is for 35 duplexes and 15 conventional single family homes .
Chairman May , noting that the Board members each had received
copies of the pertinent documents with his / her Agenda , asked Mr .
Jonson if he had anything to add . Mr . Jonson stated that there really
was not much more to add since they have been here so many times
before . Mr . Jonson noted that they had filled out an EAF Long Form ,
Mr . Peter Nickles , 551 Elm Street Ext . [ 137 Honness Lane ] , spoke
from the floor and , speaking to Mr . Albern , asked about drainage . Mr .
Albern , indicating on the Subdivision Plan , stated that the drainage
was shown in blue .
Mr . Lovi stated that he had discussed the drainage with Town
Engineer Fabbroni , and one of the comments he had about the drainage
was that the culverts under Pictureview Drive were shown as 12 " . Mr .
Lovi stated that he felt those should be increased to a minimum of
18 " , and , as part of the phasing plan , that the developer submit a
drainage study that shows the expected flows and expected
cross - sections of the ditches . Mr . Lovi , noting that Mr . Jonson ' s
Engineer had shown a typical plan , stated that the Town Engineer felt
we should have a cross - sectional area , similar to what was asked of
Mr . Berggren .
• Mr . Albern indicated on the plan and noted that Mr . Lovi was
talking about three culverts , adding that they will calculate the flow
requirements .
Planning Board 49 October 29 , 1985
• Mr . Douglas Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
asked if Lots 3 through 7 were the lots on Slaterville Road . It was
noted that these were the lots south of Honness Lane , draining toward
Slaterville Road ,
Mr . Albern stated that the reason he talked about 12 " culverting
was that the State Highway is dedicating 18 " for Route 79 , adding , if
the State says 18 " is okay for Route 79 , he just thought 12 " would be
okay for here .
Mr . Lovi suggested that Mr . Albern determine if the drainage
improvements should be put along the back lot line of the lowest row
of lots , adding that this was a matter discussed with Mr . Fabbroni ,
Mr . Albern pointed out where the driveways were . Mr . Lovi suggested
that he and Mr . Albern and Mr . Fabbroni could talk further about this .
Mr . Lovi stated that , in general , the drainage plan was good ,
adding that , at present , the water drains across the parcel , and
noted that this plan partitions the drainage into several smaller
channels . Mr . Lovi stated that drainage will be less likely to
concentrate in any one location , however , we would like to see a
typical grading plan for a lot as part of the final subdivision
approval .
Dr . Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and stated
• that she would like to ask about the prospective impact of this
project . Commenting that she had brought this up before , stated that ,
at the present time , they do have Eastwood Commons which is increasing
its number , and , there is only three hundred feet between that and the
proposed outlet on Honness Lane . Dr . Mondy spoke of increased traffic
on State Street and described how it takes five minutes of trying to
get onto State Street , Dr . Mondy stated that she questioned these two
outlets on Honness Lane - - one from Eastwood Commons and this one
and , in addition , they have a Church on Honness Lane , Dr . Mondy
stated that a very serious problem exists , as far as transportation is
concerned .
Mr . Joseph Multari , 1430 Slaterville Road , spoke from the floor
and quoted from Page 17 , Paragraph 7 , of the Subdivision Regulations
[ Article IV , Section 231 : " There shall be a minimum of 600 feet
between intersections on primary thoroughfares . . . " Mr . Multari
further quoted the definition of " Primary Thoroughfare " [ Page 121 - -
" A highway that provides for fast or heavy traffic of considerable
continuity and that is or will be used primarily as a traffic artery
for interconnection between areas of concentration . This includes ,
but is not limited to , federal , state and county highways . . . " Mr .
Multari stated that " this " [ indicating ] road that goes onto
Slaterville Road is much less than 600 feet than the road just
discussed . Mr . Multari stated that there was another thing which he
would like the Board to consider , and quoted from Page 23 [ Article V ,
Section 33 , Paragraph• 1 ] - - Buffer Zone Requirement - - . , . The Planning Board may requi "re a buffer at least forty ( 40 ) feet The
between the edge of the pavement of any public road in a clustered
subdivision and any adjoining property . . . " Mr . Multari stated that
L
Planning Board 50 October 29 , 1985
• his happened to be an " adjoining property " , and there is a road
proposed less than 40 feet from his property . Mr . Multari quoted from
Page 22 [ Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 4 , Sub - Paragraph a ) ]will such a development be substantially and materially injurious to
the ownership , use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or
neighborhood ; " Again , pointing to the proposed road [ Towerview Drive ]
abutting his property , Mr . Multari stated that it was injurious to his
view and his safety . Mr . Multari stated that this road would go right
by his bedroom .
Dr . Mondy stated that she had the same situation .
Mr . Multari , referring to Pine Tree Road where Mr . Jonson built
three houses , stated that , before he built those houses , he had pulled
out three cars and , since then , a car has slid off the road . Mr .
Jonson stated that he asked the County Highway Department to put up a
guard rail but they would not .
Mrs . Grigorov asked Mr . Multari where his property was . Mr .
Multari pointed out his property on the Subdivision Plan and spoke of
a total of 84 feet . Mr . Multari stated that they are asking for a
60 - foot right of way , and pointed out that his property line will be
about 25 feet from the edge of the road . Mr . Multari stated that he
was requesting that the Board consider the 40 - foot requirement ,
especially since the " road " had been originally shown as a building
• lot - - 1432 Slaterville Road ,
Mrs . Lucia Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
asked Mr . Jonson if he could clarify what he meant by 35 duplexes .
Mr . Jonson pointed out the sketch in the upper left hand corner of the
Subdivision Plan on the bulletin board and noted that the lots are
bigger than regular single family ones . Mrs . Armstrong asked if Mr .
Jonson were talking about basements , with Mr . Albern , responding , no ,
and adding , side by side . Mrs . Armstrong asked if the development
would be according to R15 , with Mr . Albern responding , no , Cluster .
Mr . Nelson Stillwell , 128 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that there would be a road up by his bedroom , adding that he
was wondering about cars and traffic , since , with all these duplexes ,
there must be a tremendous amount of cars involved .
Chairman May noted that the proposal is for 85 units , and pointed
out that cluster is the same as R15 . Mr . Stillwell commented that
this is entirely different from Eastwood Commons which is privately
owned .
Mr . Klein asked Mr . Albern what the actual yield would be under a
conventional subdivision plan . Mr . Albern stated that it would be 106
units , and , under cluster , it would be 112 at 3 . 5 units per acre . Mr .
Albern noted that they are only utilizing 85 .
• Mr . Lovi , noting that there have been some concerns raised about
traffic , stated that , in the EAF , on the basis of comparisons with
residential neighborhoods in the Northeast , he had estimated 400 trips
•Planning Board 51 October 29 , 1985
per day , evenly distributed with 200 trips on Slaterville Road , 200
trips on Honness Lane , Mr . Lovi stated that the percentage increase
in traffic on Slaterville Road is very small and the percentage
increase on Honness Lane would be on the order of 25 % when this
project would be fully built out , however , it should be remembered
that this project would exhaust most of the developable land in this
area , although there could be some in Eastwood Commons , therefore , the
prospective increase on Honness Lane , when one talks about standards
for that road , is within a normal range . Mr . Lovi offered that , with
other development on the north side of Honness Lane , one does not
know . Mr . Lovi pointed out that , although the relative impact of this
project on Honness Lane will be greater than on Slaterville Road , both
impacts will be within a normal range .
Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the
floor and , posed as a question , stated that lots 35 and 36 would be
duplexes . Mr . Albern responded , yes . Mrs . Raffensperger , commenting
that she was curious , stated that , in looking at the plan and the way
the duplexes are proposed to be laid out , she wondered how it would be
possible to put them there without coming very close to the adjoining
properties . Mr . Albern , indicating on the subdivision plan on the
bulletin board , noted that he had shown 90 ' [ Lot # 35 ] to 100 ' [ Lot
# 361 , adding that you only go back 25 ' to 30 ' to get to the back line .
Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she would ask the Planning Board to
consider whether or not those lots are appropriate for duplexes .
• Mr . Multari wondered if the Board members were aware that the
Town Board is having a meeting on December 9th to consider duplexes .
It was indicated that they were .
Mr . Paul L . Hartman , 132 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and
asked if the residents were going to be liable for drainage , adding
that the area was pretty soggy . Mrs . Schultz responded , no , adding
that the developer is diverting a lot of it with those ditches . Mr .
Peter Nickles commented that " he " [ unidentified ] was talking about
1 , 000 feet up , and added that it is still possible for there to be
drainage problems . Mr . Hartman commented , so , we do not have to worry
about it . Mr . Jonson stated that the drainage will get better after
development .
Dr . Mondy , commenting that she could not argue with Mr . Lovi
about the average of cars , stated that she could not believe it , and
added that with this 300 feet , and with " this " , plus " this " , plus the
church , it was bound to be a prolem . Dr . Mondy stated that it was one
thing to average Honness Lane but another thing to average this small
part of Honness Lane ,
Ms . Christine Stratakos , 124 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor
and expressed her concern about 200 trips per day which would mean
five trips per unit , per day . Mr . Multari expressed his concern about
tunnel vision and spoke of 200 cars here , 200 cars there , 300 there ,
and pretty soon you have 11000 trips a day . Chairman May stated that
that really was not true ; we have legitimate traffic studies ; we have
very extensive traffic surveys , so you add an amount to what you have .
Planning Board 52 October 29 , 1985
• Mrs . Armstrong wondered if Chairman May were speaking of the traffic
survey done in 1980 , with Mr . Lovi responding , yes , his review was
based on the 1980 count for Honness Lane .
Discussion followed with respect to traffic counts . Dr . Mondy
pointed out the importance of the time of day when counts are made ,
and asked if thought had been given to that . Dr . Mondy stated that
she moved to Honness Lane in 1982 and she has noticed a tremendous
increase in the amount of traffic since then . Chairman May commented
that , with the construction on Slaterville Road going on , there is an
unusual situation . Dr . Mondy offered that , even without that , the
increase has been tremendous .
Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi what the design criteria for Honness
Lane was . Mr . Lovi stated that that was a difficult thing for him to
explain simply , adding that he could have Mr . Fabbroni explain in more
detail . Chairman May responded that that was good .
Mr . Armstrong spoke from the floor and stated that the thing that
they have been talking about steadily is the legal aspects and how the
legal aspects fit this particular development . Mr . Armstrong stated
that the unfortunate thing with development , even though it be cut
down from 53 pieces of land to 50 , is that what you are getting into
are the words that were heard about Eastwood Commons - - words such as
density and community , when , in fact , what is happening is that you
are changing the whole nature of an area by adding 35 duplexes and 15
private homes , and doubling the houses in the area and increasing ,
tremendously , the number of duplexes in an area that is basically
private residential . Mr . Armstrong stated that traffic is going to be
a problem ; drainage is going to be a problem , but these are relatively
minor when you change the character of a whole neighborhood .
Mr . Klein asked if Mr . Armstrong knew the number of homes in the
neighborhood , with Mr . Armstrong responding , 21 , and adding that he
did not know the number on Pine Tree Road , Mr . Klein asked if Mr .
Armstrong knew , of those on Honness Lane , how many have apartments .
Mr . Armstrong replied , about 7 . The Secretary recalled the two
apartment buildings owned by , she thought , Hunna Johns [ 138 Honness
Lane - 5 units ; 142 Honness Lane - 4 units ] . Mr . Armstrong commented that
they were non - conforming .
Mr . Lovi , commenting that he would like to get at part of this
question , stated that , insofar as impact on the adjacent community is
concerned , he looked at all the properties which are immediately
adjacent , that is , contiguous , to this property . Mr . Lovi stated that
he studied these properties using a variety of measurable criteria ,
information available in the tax rolls , at the assessor ' s office , and
other sources and , from that , he was able to make a series of
generalizations and observations . Mr . Lovi stated that some of the
houses that are there , are there because of low money cost -- they
were built in the 150s , ' 60s , and 170s , and are built on much larger
• lots . Mr . Lovi stated that the average size of a lot adjacent to Mr .
Jonson ' s property is 32 , 000 square feet , although some of these
parcels are smaller , but some are very large . Mr . Lovi noted that
Planning Board 53 October 29 , 1985
most of these lots were subdivided , a lot at a time , at a time when
land costs were much lower . Mr . Lovi stated that these " older " lots
should be compared to the proposed subdivision where each one of the
houses will be a separate single family house , with no accessory
apartment . Mr . Lovi pointed out that seventy of the houses will have
a " 0 " lot line , and the average acreage per unit in this proposed
subdivision is in excess of 16 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Lovi stated that ,
although it is true that these units are half the acreage of adjacent
lots , it should be taken into account that the houses that were built
in the later ° 60s and 170s , were built on smaller lots and are two
unit dwellings , and , therefore , the acreage range for building lots in
the community , both one - and two - family , are comparable ; they overlap .
Mr . Lovi stated that , for the units adjacent to this property which
have houses , the ratio of livable floor area to lot acreage is in the
same range as the proposed houses . Mr . Lovi offered that it is not
economic to build those types of houses nowadays , so , one of the
reasons for cluster is to refigure in order to bring down the average
cost of land per unit . Mr . Lovi commented that this subdivision is
one approach ; Commonland is another ; both are in the neighborhood of
15 , 000 square feet per unit . Mr . Lovi , noting that Commonland put 124
units on 45 acres and this subdivision proposes 85 on 32 . 4 acres ,
stated that the bulk of the present development is more in keeping
with the existing neighborhood , adding that five - or six - plexes such
as are at Commonland would be out of place on this hillside .
• Mr . Armstrong stated that land cost was proportionate to costs at
the time . Mrs . Armstrong stated that Commonland and Eastwood Commons
are both in the area , and added that this proposal would be increasing
the density in this very same area .
Chairman May stated that he would like to point out one of the
things which relates to density is that cluster cannot increase the
density over what can be done on a conventional grid pattern .
Chairman May stated that this density , here proposed , is much less
than what could be built there , as permitted by the zoning ordinance .
Mr . Lovi , stated that , as the Board knows , the R15 zoning
district permits two -unit homes on 15 , 000 square foot lots , that is ,
7 , 500 square feet per unit is permitted by right . Mr . Lovi , noting
that this subdivision is a cluster plan , stated that each unit in this
development has more than 16 , 000 square feet per unit , which is more
than twice that which would be required in a conventional subdivision ,
the density being less than half . Mr . Klein pointed out that ,
according to Mr . Lovi ' s review of the EAF , the average unit would have
about 1 , 800 square feet . Mr . Jonson stated that that would be the
maximum , including the garage . Mr . Klein noted that what was being
talked about was an 1 , 800 square foot house on a 60 ' x 150 ' lot
essentially . Mr . Lovi stated that he had been referring to the lot
area per unit .
Mr . Nelson Stillwell , 128 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
• asked why the entrance was not over near Wildflower Drive . Mr . Lovi ,
pointing out that this land was formerly owned by Mrs . Blatchley ,
stated that she came in for an 8 - lot subdivision in 1983 , which was
J
� • y
Planning Board 54 October 29 , 1985
. approved , and which restricted the land that this developer has to
work with . Mr . Lovi stated that , with the first phase of this
subdivision , the 8 building lots and roadway shown preclude any
movement of the roadway for this present development . Mr . Lovi
pointed out that there is a driveway that goes from the Gospel
Tabernacle Church , but it does not go south to Slaterville Road . Mr .
Lovi noted that the 60 - foot roadway intersecting with Honness Lane ,
shown on this plan , was a part of the Blatchley subdivision which this
Board approved . Mr . Lovi also pointed out that an alternative access
area on Slaterville Road is the 500 ' of frontage to the west of the
Bangs ' property which is adjacent to Mr . Multari , adding , however , a
road there would be at the expense of the park location and the grade
of the road would not be improved . Mr . Lovi commented that any
relocation would only shift the problem from one person to another
person .
Chairman May commented that it was , also , too close to Honness
Lane . Mr . Roland Marion stated that , however , you do buy separation
from the other proposal the Board heard tonight [ Commonland , Phase
IV ] .
Mr . Lovi , commenting that we have to make the best of the cards
we have been dealt over the years , stated that he concurred with the
Town Engineer , this is the best entrance .
• Dr . Mondy spoke from the floor and asked if consideration had
been given to the road by the Lutheran Church joining into that area .
Dr . Mondy described the traffic pattern and pointed out that such a
spot would broaden that 300 - foot span . Dr . Mondy asked if this could
be considered as one of the exits . Mr . Albern pointed out that the
developer does not own it . Mr . Lovi stated that the Curtis Ufford
property also blocks it off . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town has worked
a lot with the developer on this proposal and this is the least
impacting environmentally .
Dr . Mondy asked if the Church had been approached about this
possibility , asking further , if this had been closed off . Mr . Jonson
stated that he talked to the Church , adding that it is not possible .
Mr . Jonson stated that he talked with them about trading the land , he
worked with them for two months ; walked the land ; it just did not
work . Mr . Jonson stated that the best plan is this way , adding that
this plan is much better than that approved for Mrs . Blatchley ,
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 12 : 15 a . m . and asked
the Board to turn to the matter of environmental review , noting that
the Board had the Long EAF before it .
Mr . Lovi stated that there was one change which he would like to
make on Page 5 of his review - - # 12 ( e ) [ " The developer is providing
the Town with a bikeway easement between the single family lots on
parcels # 4 and # 5 which will provide a convenient connection to the
existing bikeway between Honness Lane and Ellis Hollow Road . " ] . Mr .
Lovi stated that , after discussion with Mrs . Blatchley , it became
evident that a bikeway in that place would be difficult . Mr . Lovi
J
Planning Board 55 October 29 , 1985
• stated that that should be dropped . It was also pointed out that
reference to the bikeway on page 8 of Mr . Lovi ' s review [ Reviewer ' s
Recommendation - - fifth paragraph , " Open Space Reservation " - - " In
addition , a bikeway easement will be provided from Sunnyview Lane to
the existing bikeway from Honness Lane to Ellis Hollow Road . " ] should
also be dropped .
Mrs . Langhans pointed out that there was , also , some question
about lots number 35 and 36 . Mr . Albern suggested that the Board let
them settle that during final design stage , adding that it appeared
that that was a valid point and something that can be settled on final
plans , and , further adding the suggestion that the Board let them try
to work it .
Chairman May allowed as how this was a " Good Job " .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead
Agency in the matter of environmental review of the proposed GrandView
Subdivision , accept and hereby does accept the Long Environmental
Assessment Form [ Part I ] with attachments thereto , as completed ,
signed and submitted by the developer of said proposed GrandView
Subdivision , Ivar R . Jonson , under date of October 17 , 1985 , and as
reviewed and recommended upon [ Parts II and III ] by the Town Planner ,
• Peter M . Lovi , under date of October 21 , 1985 , with Item # 12 ( e ) , " The
developer is providing the Town with a bikeway easement between the
single family lots on parcels # 4 and # 5 which will provide a
convenient connection to the existing bikeway between Honness Lane and
Ellis Hollow Road . " , deleted from said Review [ Part II ] , and also with
the following sentence deleted from the third paragraph of the
Reviewer ' s Recommendation [ Part III ] , under Open Space Reservation :
" In addition , a bikeway easement will be provided from Sunnyview Lane
to the existing bikeway from Honness Lane to Ellis Hollow Road . " , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Planning Board determine and declare
and hereby does determine and declare a negative declaration of
environmental significance in accordance with the Reviewer ' s
Recommendation , dated October 21 , 1985 , as hereinabove amended .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May asked that the Board now turn to the matter of the
site plan .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
iRESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby
does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the GrandView
Planning Board 56 October 29 , 1985
• Subdivision , 32 . 2 ± acres , 50 lots , clustered and located on Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 2 , 37 . 2 , 39 . 14 , 39 . 15 , 39 . 16 , 39 . 17 ,
and 39 . 18 , as proposed and presented by Ivar R . Jonson at Public
Hearing held October 29 , 1985 , and as shown on drawing entitled " Lot
and Drainage Plan , Drawing No . 1 , Proposed Grandview Subdivision by
Ivar Jonson " , dated October 18 , 1985 , upon condition that a
satisfactory site plan be submitted to the Planning Board for the
utilization of proposed Lots No . 35 and 36 therein , and upon further
condition that an area map also be provided showing local
intersections of the roads in the vicinity of the subdivision , and
upon further condition that all requirements for Final Subdivision
Approval as set forth in the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations be
met .
Mr . Klein suggested that an additional requirement for final
approval be the inclusion of elevations for the proposed houses .
Discussion followed with respect to whether or not such inclusion was
necessary for all the potential dwelling structures , and , whether or
not the Cluster Provisions of the Subdivision Regulations [ Article V ]
require elevations . Mr . Jonson expressed his concern for such an
additional requirement , particularly as it may pertain to single
family homes .
Mrs . Schultz SECONDED Mrs . Langhans ' MOTION .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Klein .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Mrs . Raffensperger asked if it had been said that the entire
subdivision did not fall under the Cluster aspect of the Subdivision
Regulations . Chairman May responded that what he thought was said was
that the regulation of exterior elevations is not under Cluster . Mr .
Lovi explained that there may be several varieties of duplexes and Mr .
Jonson will show these to the Planning Board but he will will not end
up tied down to " Model All on " Lot V and " Model B " on " Lot Y " , so , if
someone wants to pick from this " menu " for his or her particular lot ,
there is that choice available . Town Attorney Barney stated that what
is being said , basically , is that we are waiving exterior ruling on
single family homes . Mr . Jonson stated that what he was saying was
that a person comes to him and says , " I want vinyl siding . " - - and
another person says , " I want wood . " - - so , what do I do ? Mrs .
Raffensperger stated that Cluster does give the Planning Board the
right to regulate the views and vistas , adding that her only concern
is with the single family homes which are now the closest to this
which will , perhaps , lose their views , and further adding that the
Board has given up the right to regulate this for those very houses it
• was trying to protect . Chairman May , commenting that Mrs .
Raffensperger ' s point was good , stated that what the Board was trying
r
r
yrY Planning Board 57 October 29 , 1985
• to say was that it was not as concerned about the exterior look of a
home .
Chairman May declared the matter of the consideration of
Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 - lot clustered
Grandview Subdivision , Ivar Jonson , developer , duly closed at 1 : 00
a . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 29 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 1 : 00 a . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .