Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-11-19 l EXCERPT from the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of November 19 , 1985 . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , David Klein , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Landscape Consultant ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilman Robert Bartholf , Edna Clausen , Helen Engst , Attorney Wesley E . McDermott , Paul Iacovelli , Virginia Iacovelli , Robert Cotts , Milton Zaitlin , Robert J . Smith , Peter Gergely , Kinga M . Gergely , Anne Kugler , George C . Kugler , Philip Proujansky , Edward Pesaresi , Fenwick T . ( Tim ) Faulkner , Franklin F . Butler , Jerold M . Weisburd , Claudia Weisburd , William Petrillose , Linda J . Louko , Fred T . Wilcox III , C . J . Gerard . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 38 p . m . and , because of the large number of persons present from the public , read aloud the Fire Safety Notification as follows : " Fire exits are located in the places I am now indicating [ indicating two ] . In the event of a fire , you will be notified by the loud sound of the fire • alarm . If notified , please move in a calm and orderly fashion to the nearest exit . Thank you . " Chairman May accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 11 , 1985 and November 14 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants , on November 12 , 1985 . 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 Adjourned Public Hearing ( from October 29 , 1985 , in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mrs . Iacovelli were present , as was their Attorney , Wesley E . McDermott , Chairman May reminded the Board members that the October 29th Public Hearing had been adjourned in order that the Planning Board could receive an opinion from the Town Attorney as to its ability to • act on Mr . Iacovelli ' s subdivision proposal . Chairman May stated that the Town Attorney has presented the requested opinion which the Board had just received . The Secretary distributed copies of the following Planning Board 2 November 19 , 1985 • letter , and Chairman May gave everyone time to read it . " November 19 , 1985 Too The Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca Reo Proposed Two Lot Subdivision by Paul and Virginia Iocavelli [ sic . ] on Coddington Road Ladies and Gentlemeno You have asked our opinion as to whether the proposed subdivision by Paul and Virginia Iocavelli ( ' Iocavelli ' ) [ sic . ] may be legally accomplished in view of the existence of two principal buildings on the proposed remaining lot - -one building containing three dwelling units and the other building containing one dwelling unit . In preparing this memorandum we have assumed that the existence and occupancy of these buildings represent valid non- conforming uses ( i . e . , were in existence prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca in 1954 ) . I understand there is some question as to whether that is true , but for the purposes of this letter we are assuming it to be correct . We have done a substantial amount of research and have found no cases in New York or elsewhere directly in point . Thus we are giving you our best judgment of the potential outcome of any litigation on • this matter but cannot say with any degree of certainty that the outcome we suggest is substantially more likely than a different outcome . There simply is not sufficient law to make an informed opinion . The operative provisions of the zoning ordinance are sections 54 and 67 . Section 54 reads as follows : ' Alterations . No non- conforming building or use shall be extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . ' Section 67 reads 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 . ' Based upon our reading of the statute and the cases it is our opinion that the subdivision as presently proposed by Iocavelli [ sic . ] • would be in violation of the zoning ordinance . A review of the survey map dated August 27 , 1985 discloses that Mr . Iocavelli ' s [ sic . ] present lot has approximately 300 feet of frontage along Coddington 1 Planning Board 3 November 19 , 1985 • Road and approximately 301 . 5 feet across the back lot line . However , when the new lot is removed from the existing lot , it will leave a lot with approximately 200 feet of frontage on Coddington Road and a back lot line of 159 . 5 feet . On this reduced lot there will be in existence four units . As the Board is aware multiple dwellings are not permitted in an R- 15 zone . However , two family dwellings ( subject to certain additional requirements ) are permitted . If conventional two family buildings were in place , each of the buildings would require a lot with a minimum width of 100 feet and a minimum depth of 150 feet . Thus , in conventional construction in conformity with the ordinance , in order to have four units one would normally have to have two lots with a total width of 200 feet and depth of 150 feet . Since the remaining lot suggested by Iocavelli [ sic . ] will have a width of less than 200 feet in the rear , it is our belief that this effectively renders the existing uses even less in conformity to the zoning ordinance or , conversely , can be construed as an improper reduction of the lot area and an extension of the existing non - conforming use . A more difficult question is presented if the proposed subdivision is restructured so that the new lot has a width of 100 feet and a depth of 150 feet , and the remaining lot a width of 200 feet and depth of 150 feet . At this moment it is impossible to determine from the existing survey map whether or not such a subdivision is possible . Since such a proposal is not now before the Board it is our recommendation that the Board not take any action on such a proposal until a proper survey map has been prepared showing • all of the dimensions , including the frontage dimension , of the remaining lot as well as all of the dimensions of the proposed new lot . If such a proposal were put before the Planning Board , it is impossible to predict the outcome of a court decision . It is quite possible that either approval or denial by the Planning Board could be sustained if subjected to a legal challenge . We hope the foregoing is of use to you . Very truly yours , ( sgd . ) John C . Barney " Speaking to Mr . Lovi , Chairman May asked if he had information he wanted to give the Board on this matter . Mr . Lovi stated that he had nothing to add to Mr . Barney ' s letter . Mr . Lovi stated that he agreed with what he was saying , adding that it would be good planning practice . Chairman May stated that it would appear that , first of all , the Board has a recommendation that it not take any further action on this until the Board has a new survey map giving the Board additional information and , further , that Mr . Iacovelli may wish to change " this " line for the new lot such that he would have 100 feet of frontage and 150 feet of back lot . • Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the survey map before the Board right now does not have 150 feet on the back , it has 142 feet . Planning Board 4 November 19 , 1985 • Town Attorney Barney noted that this leaves the other lot with about 159 feet of width at the rear . Town Attorney Barney commented that if there were no houses on this parcel at all and Mr . Iacovelli asked for a subdivision , it could be subdivided as three lots - - 100 ' x some 175 ' - - at least , more than 150 ' . Town Attorney Barney stated that the way the parcel is presently constructed , unfortunately , there are already four units involved , non - conforming in a way not proportionate to , from his information , any subdivision which should , at a minimum , leave a lot of sufficient size , normally , that would be required . Town Attorney Barney stated that this particular proposed subdivision does not do that , adding that Mr . Iacovelli has , perhaps , enough frontage at the road , but there is inadequate width at the rear . Town Attorney Barney stated that if Mr . Iacovelli wants to pursue this , the only reasonable way is to have a redrawing of his proposed subdivision to have a lot at least 200 feet . Town Attorney Barney stated that , absent the information from a surveyor , he thought the Planning Board was not able to act . Town Attorney Barney stated that , the second part of this matter , if that is done , is that he did not know what a court would do since there was nothing he could find - - even in the lower courts - - as to whether the court would consider that as an enlargement of a non - conforming use . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Iacovelli subdivision request . • Mr . Robert J . Smith , 107 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and stated that the Town Attorney was not sure what a court would do with respect to the issue of the subdividing of a non - conforming use . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that , for purposes of this discus 'ion , we are assuming non - conforming . Town Attorney Barney stated that 200 feet by 150 feet equals two R15 lot on which you could have two independent buildings , adding , if that were done , the question is are you extending a non - conforming use . Mr . Smith thanked Town Attorney Barney . Chairman May wondered if the Public Hearing should be closed , commenting that he believed it will be a new issue . Mrs . Langhans stated that she thought so , also . Town Attorney Barney suggested that the Board consider denying the proposed subdivision as presented here without prejudice to applying for a new subdivision in a different configuration . MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 16 , presently known as 327 Coddington Road , into two lots as presented by Paul Iacovelli at Public Hearing on October 29 , 1985 , and at Adjourned Public Hearing on November 19 , 1985 , and as shown on Map entitled " Survey Map , 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 . , without prejudice to applying for a 1 Planning Board 5 November 19 , 1985 • new subdivision in a different configuration , if Mr . Iacovelli chooses to do so . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Philip Proujansky , 333 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and , asking for clarification as to what the Town Attorney is recommending , stated that he is denying the subdivision as proposed , but the implication seems to be that if the lot is reformed to have 200 feet for one lot and 100 feet for the other , there would be compliance and there would not be an extension of the non - conforming use . Chairman May stated that he believed the Town Attorney means that at that point it is something that the Planning Board can look at . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was saying that at that point he would be prepared to argue the sustaining of either an approval or a denial by the Board . • Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the presently proposed Paul Iacovelli two - lot subdivision duly closed at 7 : 55 p . m . Nancy M . uller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . February 26 , 1986 . • FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date�� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerl: , ��1%�_ _»MM� NOVEMBER 19 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , November 19 , 1985 in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , David Klein , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Landscape Consultant ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilman Robert Bartholf , Edna Clausen , Helen Engst , Attorney Wesley E . McDermott , Paul Iacovelli , Virginia Iacovelli , Robert Cotts , Milton Zaitlin , Robert J . Smith , Peter Gergely , Kinga M . Gergely , Anne Kugler , George C . Kugler , Philip Proujansky , Edward Pesaresi , Fenwick T . ( Tim ) Faulkner , Franklin F . Butler , Jerold M . Weisburd , Claudia Weisburd , William Petrillose , Linda J . Louko , Fred T . Wilcox III , C . J . Gerard , George Haskup , Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 38 p . m . and , because of the large number of persons present from the public , read aloud the Fire Safety Notification as follows : " Fire exits are located in the places I am now indicating [ indicating two ] . In the event of a fire , you will be notified by the loud sound of the fire alarm . If notified , please move in a calm and orderly fashion to the nearest exit . Thank you . " Chairman May accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 11 , 1985 and November 14 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants , on November 12 , 1985 . 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 Adjourned Public Hearing ( from October 29 , 1985 , in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mrs . Iacovelli were present , as was their Attorney , Wesley E . McDermott . • Chairman May reminded the Board members that the October 29th Public Hearing had been adjourned in order that the Planning Board could receive an opinion from the Town Attorney as to its ability to i Planning Board 2 November 19 , 1985 act on Mr . Iacovelli ' s subdivision proposal . Chairman May stated that the Town Attorney has presented the requested opinion which the Board had just received . The Secretary distributed copies of the following letter , and Chairman May gave everyone time to read it . " November 19 , 1985 To : The Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca Re : Proposed Two Lot Subdivision by Paul and Virginia Iocavelli [ sic . ] on Coddington Road Ladies and Gentlemen : You have asked our opinion as to whether the proposed subdivision by Paul and Virginia Iocavelli ( ' Iocavelli ' ) [ sic . ] may be legally accomplished in view of the existence of two principal buildings on the proposed remaining lot - -one building containing three dwelling units and the other building containing one dwelling unit . In preparing this memorandum we have assumed that the existence and occupancy of these buildings represent valid non - conforming uses ( i . e . , were in existence prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca in 1954 ) . I understand there is some question as to whether that is true , but for the purposes of this letter we are assuming it to be correct . • We have done a substantial amount of research and have found no cases in New York or elsewhere directly in point . Thus we are giving you our best judgment of the potential outcome of any litigation on this matter but cannot say with any degree of certainty that the outcome we suggest is substantially more likely than a different outcome . There simply is not sufficient law to make an informed opinion . The operative provisions of the zoning ordinance are sections 54 and 67 . Section 54 reads as follows : ' Alterations . No non- conforming building or use shall be extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . ' Section 67 reads 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 . ' • Based upon our reading of the statute and the cases it is our opinion that the subdivision as presently proposed by Iocavelli [ sic . ] Planning Board 3 November 19 , 1985 would be in violation of the zoning ordinance . A review of the survey map dated August 27 , 1985 discloses that Mr . Iocavelli ' s [ sic . ] present lot has approximately 300 feet of frontage along Coddington Road and approximately 301 . 5 feet across the back lot line . However , when the new lot is removed from the existing lot , it will leave a lot with approximately 200 feet of frontage on Coddington Road and a back lot line of 159 . 5 feet . On this reduced lot there will be in existence four units . As the Board is aware multiple dwellings are not permitted in an R- 15 zone . However , two family dwellings ( subject to certain additional requirements ) are permitted . If conventional two family buildings were in place , each of the buildings would require a lot with a minimum width of 100 feet and a minimum depth of 150 feet . Thus , in conventional construction in conformity with the ordinance , in order to have four units one would normally have to have two lots with a total width of 200 feet and depth of 150 feet . Since the remaining lot suggested by Iocavelli [ sic . ] will have a width of less than 200 feet in the rear , it is our belief that this effectively renders the existing uses even less in conformity to the zoning ordinance or , conversely , can be construed as an improper reduction of the lot area and an extension of the existing non - conforming use . A more difficult question is presented if the proposed subdivision is restructured so that the new lot has a width of 100 feet and a depth of 150 feet , and the remaining lot a width of 200 feet and depth of 150 feet . At this moment it is impossible to • determine from the existing survey map whether or not such a subdivision is possible . Since such a proposal is not now before the Board it is our recommendation that the Board not take any action on such a proposal until a proper survey map has been prepared showing all of the dimensions , including the frontage dimension , of the remaining lot as well as all of the dimensions of the proposed new lot . If such a proposal were put before the Planning Board , it is impossible to predict the outcome of a court decision . It is quite possible that either approval or denial by the Planning Board could be sustained if subjected to a legal challenge . We hope the foregoing is of use to you . Very truly yours , ( sgd . ) John C . Barney " Speaking to Mr . Lovi , Chairman May asked if he had information he wanted to give the Board on this matter . Mr . Lovi stated that he had nothing to add to Mr . Barney ' s letter . Mr . Lovi stated that he agreed with what he was saying , adding that it would be good planning practice . Chairman May stated that it would appear that , first of all , the Board has a recommendation that it not take any further action on this until the Board has a new survey map giving the Board additional information and ® further , that Mr . Iacovelli may wish to change " this " line for the new lot such that he would have 100 feet of frontage and 150 feet of back lot . Planning Board 4 November 19 , 1985 Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the survey map before the Board right now does not have 150 feet on the back ; it has 142 feet . Town Attorney Barney noted that this leaves the other lot with about 159 feet of width at the rear . Town Attorney Barney commented that if there were no houses on this parcel at all and Mr . Iacovelli asked for a subdivision , it could be subdivided as three lots - - 100 ' x some 175 ' - - at least , more than 1501 . Town Attorney Barney stated that the way the parcel is presently constructed , unfortunately , there are already four units involved , non - conforming in a way not proportionate to , from his information , any subdivision which should , at a minimum , leave a lot of sufficient size , normally , that would be required . Town Attorney Barney stated that this particular proposed subdivision does not do that , adding that Mr . Iacovelli has , perhaps , enough frontage at the road , but there is inadequate width at the rear . Town Attorney Barney stated that if Mr . Iacovelli wants to pursue this , the only reasonable way is to have a redrawing of his proposed subdivision to have a lot at least 200 feet . Town Attorney Barney stated that , absent the information from a surveyor , he thought the Planning Board was not able to act . Town Attorney Barney stated that , the second part of this matter , if that is done , is that he did not know what a court would do since there was nothing he could find - - even in the lower courts - - as to whether the court would consider that as an enlargement of a non - conforming use . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Iacovelli subdivision request . Mr . Robert J . Smith , 107 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and stated that the Town Attorney was not sure what a court would do with respect to the issue of the subdividing of a non - conforming use . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that , for purposes of this discusion , we are assuming non - conforming . Town Attorney Barney stated that 200 feet by 150 feet equals two R15 lot on which you could have two independent buildings , adding , if that were done , the question is are you extending a non - conforming use ? Mr . Smith thanked Town Attorney Barney . Chairman May wondered if the Public Hearing should be closed , commenting that he believed it will be a new issue . Mrs . Langhans stated that she thought so , also . Town Attorney Barney suggested that the Board consider denying the proposed subdivision as presented here without prejudice to applying for a new subdivision in a different configuration . MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 16 , presently known as 327 Coddington Road , into two lots as presented by Paul Iacovelli at Public Hearing on October 29 , 1985 , and at Adjourned Public Hearing on November 19 , 1985 , and as shown on Map • entitled " Survey Map , 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 Planning Board 5 November 19 , 1985 Clarence W . Brashear Jr . , L . L . S . , without prejudice to applying for a new subdivision in a different configuration , if Mr . Iacovelli chooses to do so . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Philip Proujansky , 333 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and , asking for clarification as to what the Town Attorney is recommending , stated that he is denying the subdivision as proposed , but the implication seems to be that if the lot is reformed to have 200 feet for one lot and 100 feet for the other , there would be compliance and there would not be an extension of the non - conforming use . Chairman May stated that he believed the Town Attorney means that at that point it is something that the Planning Board can look at . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was saying that at that point he would be prepared to argue the sustaining of either an approval or a denial by the Board . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the presently proposed Paul Iacovelli two - lot subdivision duly closed at 7 : 55 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PHASES III AND 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 7 : 55 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Town Attorney Barney stated that back in 1979 , he believed , Mr . Weisburd was in with an application for a subdivision on what is known as the Inlet Valley Land Co -Operative and , at that time , after what appars to be a great deal of study and reflection , the Planning Board on July 17 , 1979 , authorized approval but with a number of conditions . Town Attorney Barney stated that among those conditions was the requirement of filing with the Town Clerk a copy of an approved Offering Plan by the Attorney General , Town Attorney Barney stated that when land is sold , under certain conditions , an Offering Plan , it appears , is needed and , indeed , it was discussed at some length . Town Attorney Barney stated that what is not clear is whether there was some sort of Offering Plan filed with the Town , but what is clear is that no approved Plan was filed , indeed , the Attorney General has never approved an Offering Plan relative to the Inlet Valley Land Co-Operative . Town Attorney Barney stated , notwithstanding that , the Town officials , particularly because of a lack of a prescribed method Planning Board 6 November 19 , 1985 of communication between the Planning Board and the Zoning Officer , six permits over 1979 , 1980 , and 1981 were issued and people constructed homes . Town Attorney Barney stated that this problem was brought to the attention of the Town within the last week or so and we discovered that all these permits were issued in error - - not in compliance with the conditions . Town Attorney Barney stated that one permit was issued just a week ago and , upon discovering it , a letter was sent , he believed today , revoking that permit until the conditions are met , or , an application to the Planning Board to modify or alter those conditions is entered . Town Attorney Barney stated that , in any event , the Building Inspector / Zoning Officer is not in a position to issue any permits for that subdvision . Town Attorney Barney stated that we have heard through the bank that financed the Inlet Valley Land Co - Operative that the Attorney General is now requiring that there be a conversion of that from a Co -Operative to some other format , and it has been suggested that there can be no sales at Commonland Community until there is satisfactory resolution of the problem . Town Attorney Barney stated that he tried to call the lady at the Attorney General ' s office and he could not get through to her . Town Attorney Barney stated that he has not been able to independently confirm that , adding that he got that as second or third hand information . Town Attorney Barney stated that he brought all this to the attention of the Board , adding that he was not sure whether , until that is clarified , to proceed with another development until we get that squared away . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was open to 0 hear from Mr . Weisburd . Mr . Weisburd stated that this evening is the first evening that he has been made aware of any such actions . Mr . Weisburd stated that no one has told him at all what Town requirements have not been met , how they have not been met , nor given him any time to respond . Mr . Weisburd stated that he has given documents many times , three or four weeks in advance , so there was plenty of time to discuss . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was somewhat disturbed that this entire issue has come up in a totally unannounced way before the Board . Mr . Weisburd stated that the issue , whatever it is , that needs to be discussed tonight , is the issue before the Board which is the service road and , frankly , he did not care whether it is " there or there " . Mr . Weisburd stated that he has been working with the Attorney General over the past weeks and he [Weisburd ] has a copy of a letter which reflects that he [Weisburd ] is going ahead with revision of the Offering Plan to her satisfaction . Mr . Weisburd stated that there has never been any correspondence or indication whatever that they wish to encroach upon Commonland . Mr . Weisburd stated that he certainly would ask for evidence of such a thing . Town Attorney Barney stated that he appreciated that and that is why he called her . Mr . Weisburd asked Town Attorney Barney how this came to his attention , with Town Attorney Barney responding , by way of a letter from a resident of the Town . Mr . Weisburd asked if the letter said that , with Town Attorney Barney responding , that that • information came from calls to the bank . Town Attorney Barney stated that he did indicate that he wanted to hear it from the horse ' s mouth , that is , from the lady in New York , adding that he was happy to Planning Board 7 November 19 , 1985 communicate with Mr . Weisburd , Mr . Weisburd stated that he would be more than happy to discuss these issues when they have been brought before him , which they have not until this moment . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was not a lawyer and he was not sure what due process is but he did not think this is it . Town Attorney Barney stated that there has been no pre - judging . Mr . Weisburd stated that a pre - judgement has been made , adding that he was served a letter tonight . Town Attorney Barney noted that the letter relates to the Inlet Valley Land Co -Operative , Mr . Weisburd stated that this is not on the Agenda , adding that he has been denied any opportunity to address that issue , and further adding that an action has been taken . Town Attorney Barney stated that the action taken is to protect the Town and the Planning Board . Mr . Weisburd spoke of the building permit which had been issued on November 6th , 1985 . Town Attorney Barney spoke of the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of July 17 , 1979 and , noting that Mr . Weisburd had a copy , commented that to feign ignorance was inappropriate . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was not feigning ignorance . Town Attorney Barney noted that on Page 3 of the July 17 , 1979 Planning Board Minutes , it is indicated that a copy of the Offering Plan and approval by the State Attorney General or proof of exemption will be filed with the Clerk of the Town . Mr . Weisburd stated that all of that part has to be read . Mr . Weisburd read . " Copy of offering plan and approval by State Attorney General or proof of exemption from requirement of approval , all when obtained . " Mr . Weisburd stated that it does not say when it shall be obtained . Mr . Weisburd stated that it also says further on on Page 3 : " It is the determination of the Planning Board that its approval of the Subdivision and the issuance of any building permit should not be construed to mean that any plan offering to sell or lease any interest in the property in the Subdivision has been approved by the State Attorney General ( if in fact such approval is required and the Corporation is not exempt from such requirement ) , or that it has been approved by this Board , or that all other applicable requirements of law have been met . It should also be made clear that approval of the Subdivision does not mean that the streets in the Subdivision meet Town specifications or that such streets will be accepted by the Town . Any applicant for a building permit should be made aware of the foregoing . To this end , the Building Inspector , in consultation with the Town Attorney , shall develop a concise statement substantially embodying the foregoing and other related matters which shall be contained in or attached to any building permit which is issued . . . " Mr . Weisburd commented that he received a permit on his house with full knowledge . Town Attorney Barney inquired if there were a requirement that one sells either with exemption or with an offering plan . Mr . Weisburd responded that we are not talking about that ; we are talking about a permit . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that this was done in 1979 - - six years ago . Mr . Weisburd stated that this is not an Agenda item ; we are talking about the service road for Commonland . Chairman May stated that , unfortunately , they have become connected and it seems inappropriate for the Board to continue at this time . Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the Board , adding that he would bow to the opinion of the Town Attorney . There were no other Planning Board 8 November 19 , 1985 • comments . Chairman May offered that the Board is not addressing the Commonland issue tonight , that is , any kind of revisions , because the issues have been connected . Town Attorney Barney offered that , at the moment , we are unsure exactly on Commonland and the status of Inlet Valley until we get some clarification from the Attorney General , adding that it is not a question of denial or not doing something . Mr . Klein wondered if the Town Attorney meant to consider the approval for Commonland , with Town Attorney Barney responding , no , Inlet Valley , and adding , that the types of development are somewhat similar . Mr . Klein stated that he did not see the connection here , quite , and asked what the connection was . Town Attorney Barney responded that , apparently , some of the people at Inlet Valley bought at a point when interest rates were quite high and wish to refinance at today ' s more modest rates and they are finding it difficult to do so because there has not been this filing with the Attorney General ' s office , and , if that is the case , it seemed to him relevant to Commonland because of the filings that are necessary . Mr . Klein pointed out that the Board has approved Commonland , with Town Attorney Barney commenting that only two phases were approved . Mr . Klein stated that all four phases have been approved . Mr . Lovi concurred , stating that all four phases have been approved including " this road in this place " . • Mr . Lovi stated that the issue before the Planning Board - - the planning issue - - is the service road which he thought the Board really could get at tonight because there is the time available and because it is something really in the interests of the Town . Mr . Lovi stated that the developer is really pinned between two locations , adding that , whatever the legalities and whether they exist or not , the Planning Board has given final site plan and final subdivision approval . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board could , perhaps , consider an amendment to that subject to any legal action taken by the Board . Chairman May stated that he had no problem with that if the Town Attorney had none . Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not . Mr . Lovi stated that he would really like to talk more about the detail drawing that was before the Board on October 29th and which was approved except for the road which was adjourned to this meeting . [ Drawing G - R , entitled , " Commonland Community Phase IV " , House Craft Builders , Inc . , dated October 16 , 1985 , drawn by JW . ] Town Attorney Barney stated that , as he read the Public Hearing Notice it is the consideration of revisions to the final site plan for Phases III and IV . Town Attorney Barney referred to the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of February 1 , 1983 , page 10 , item # 16 , and read aloud , as follows : " this approval shall be subject to approval of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions by the Town Board , and by the State ' s Attorney General or other State agency having . jurisdition and no building permits shall be issued until such approval has been obtained except that if the developer encounters an unreasonable delay in obtaininq such approvals from the State , the Planning Board 9 November 19 , 1985 • developer may apply to the Planning Board for such building permit and the Planning Board may deny such application , or grant the same , in its sole discretion , with such conditions as the Planning Board may impose . . . " . Town Attorney Barney proceeded to read items 17 , 18 , and 19 , also on page 10 , as follows : " 17 . The Developer agrees that no Covenants and Restrictions , By - laws , or other rule or regulation of the Homeowners ' Association shall at any time be less restrictive than the requirements of this Approval or any other applicable law , statute , ordinance , rule or regulation of the Town or any of its boards , and this Approval , or any amendment thereof , shall be incorporated in and be made a part of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and shall be referred to by suitable provision in the By - laws of the Association , and 18 . along with other requirements of State Law , the Covenants and Restrictions shall be referred to in the deeds conveying title to the units and , the full Covenants and Restrictions shall be furnished to all buyers prior to said conveyance , and 19 , all of the above requirements relate to and are added to the plans and specifications contained in the project drawings last revised and submitted to the Planning Board February 1 , 1983 ; '° . Town Attorney Barney , commenting that there appears to be no light as to an offering plan , asked Mr . Lovi if he had found any reference to an offering plan . Mr . Lovi responded that there was none that he could find , adding that the approval talks about covenants and by - laws . • Town Attorney Barney stated that , to get off dead center , he did not have any qualms about going on with what has to be done about his road , but , perhaps , something could be added to the resolution with respect to this matter with consideration of any additional conditions that might be appropriate . Chairman May wondered if Town Attorney Barney was implying no final decision be made . Town Attorney Barney stated that , as to the road , the Board could make the change as it decides but the decision on that is not going to preclude re -opening it after additional information . Mr . Cartee asked if the Board would like to re - address the fourth carport at " The Meadows " . Mr . Lovi agreed , adding that that was part of what was discussed at the last meeting . Mr . Weisburd stated that , from his understanding at the last meeting , there were two items left after the resolution of Phase IV approval - - two outstanding issues - - the relocation of the service road and the other item was an additional carport , as per the owners ' request , in " The Meadows " . Mr . Weisburd appended the original plan for Commonland on the bulletin board and stated that he would speak first of the road and appended the detail drawing to the board . Mr . Weisburd showed where Honness Lane is and where the service entrance is . Mr . Weisburd stated that the Town Engineer ' s preference and , he thought , the Board ' s preference , is that the service road be moved " from here to here " which would put it " here " [ the City right of way ] by the old fruit stand . Mr . Weisburd pointed out the alignment with the City access road . Mr . Weisburd stated that one of the things that came up last week was that Ivar Jonson is proposing a subdivision " in here " and that his road would be coming down , he thought , less than Planning Board 10 November 19 , 1985 100 feet from where that service road would intersect with Route 79 , Mr . Weisburd stated that , for his own purposes , as mentioned , it makes no difference whether it is " here or here " , but , he would say , personally , that it may be a problem , in terms of conflict of traffic here , so , he would keep it as a service road with limited access and utilize a chain and a sign , but in an emergency , the traffic could be divided . Mr . Weisburd talked about where the grade is 15 % and noted that there would be no way to bring it up differently , that is , no way under normal Town specifications . Mrs . Langhans wondered what the grade was down by Mrs . Clausen ' s property , asking if that would be within the Town specs . Mr . Lovi stated that he had spoken with Town Engineer Fabbroni and both he and Mr . Lovi have discussed the matter and feel that if the road were relocated from its existing location to the proposed location that it would be prefereable to have it maintained as one -way in and no through traffic . Mr . Lovi suggested that , if the Board wished to restrict it further by , say , " do not enter " signs at both ends of it , it could consider that . Mr . Lovi offered that the Board could effectively restrict it to the City right of way and emergency vehicles only . Mr . Lovi offered that the one way in , noting that that is the way the present road is mapped , or service vehicles only , could be acceptable , and stated that , of the two , the Town could live with any of them . • Mrs . Langhans asked if it would be a single lane and Mr . Klein added , narrow . Mr . Lovi responded that if it were one way in , it would be 20 feet . Chairman May stated that the thing is if it is going to be plowed , or for any kind of maintenance , it would have to be built to Town standards . Mr . Lovi agreed , adding that it could be done to Town standards but does not need to be 28 feet until you want a two - lane road . Mrs . Claudia Weisburd stated that the Homeowners ' Association has discussed this informally and , although she did not speak for them , the feeling she has gotten has been that they would like that to be as restricted as possible . Mrs . Weisburd stated that people are concerned that , if there were a traffic jam on Slaterville Road , people would zip in there . Mrs . Weisburd commented that one of the sign needs of the project is " private " roads [ Town roads ] . Mr . William Petrillose , 29 Penny Lane , spoke from the floor and stated that his main concern was that it was not a two - lane road , adding that he saw Judd Falls Road , and described the entranceway that he would prefer for the people in that area and the traffic pattern in that section , stating that he would like to see ingress such that one - third of the traffic is coming in , and also he would recommend making " that " intersection a four -way stop , with yield signs " there " . Mr . Lovi explained that Mr . Petrillose was referring to the intersection of Lois Lane , Abbey Road , and Penny Lane . Chairman May offered that that would involve Town Board action , not Planning Board . action , he believed . Mr . Petrillose thought that he should write a letter to the Town . Planning Board 11 November 19 , 1985 • Chairman May asked if there were any further comments . There were none . Chairman May pointed out that the Board members would all remember that the original road splits Mrs . Clausen ' s property and that was also one of the concerns of the Town . Mrs . Langhans , commenting that she did not know how the road is going to be made one -way , stated that there is a road there and people will use it . Mr . Klein stated that he thought one -way ingress would do it . Mr . Lovi noted that it would be no wider than what would have been between Mrs . Clausen ' s property . Mr . Weisburd stated that he thought that that was to be narrow . Chairman May noted that the right of way was 50 feet . Mr . Lovi mused that that is more like 20 feet of pavement . Mrs . Langhans inquired if Mr . Lovi felt that 100 feet between this and Jonson ' s would be sufficient . Mr . Lovi responded that it was certainly better , adding that when Jonson ' s proposal is reviewed , the Board may want to consider , perhaps , a parallel consideration of ingress also . Chairman May commented that that cuts down on interference . There being no further comments from the public , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 35 p . m . , and asked if there were any further questions from the Board . • Town Attorney Barney asked if the bays were to be taken up , with Mr . Weisburd responding , yes , but the bays are not in this phase in which the service road is . Mr . Weisburd stated that the carports in question are in " The Meadows " - - Phase III ; the service road discussion had to do with Phase IV . Chairman May invited Mr . Weisburd to go ahead and tell the Board about them . Appending a colored drawing to the bulletin board , Mr . Weisburd stated that this is the section of the map approved by the Planning Board , that is , Section " F " , " The Meadows " . Mr . Weisburd stated that this area " here " [ indicating ] was to be open parking with a carport at this end , and , what we are talking about now is a three - bay carport at this end . Mr . Weisburd stated that they have been building carports on a " per order " basis . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that this does not increase the parking , it covers the parking area with a carport . Mr . Weisburd stated that , in any case , the location of it is as indicated on " this " drawing [ indicating ] . Mr . Weisburd stated that he felt , aesthetically , it kind of encloses this space and gives a courtyard feeling . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that the center line is a grassy knoll with a light in it . Mr . Weisburd stated that the addition of a carport on the other end , if anything , enhances it , adding that , obviously , the people who live there want it because they are the ones who want the carport . Chairman May inquired as to what the three red rectangles were on the colored drawing . Mr . Weisburd explained that they are carports • that were approved in the original . It was noted that there was no drawing in the record at this time . Planning Board 12 November 19 , 1985 Mr . Lovi stated that at the last meeting , he raised questions about the carport being approved because it was not at public hearing . Mr . Lovi stated that he had no problem ; it has been reviewed , and it is up to the Board . Mr . Lovi stated that the one aspect of this change which he disagreed with , adding that he could not find any support for it in the record , is the statement that the carports are being built on demand . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not mind if the Planning Board wants to specifically take that up and relieve Mr . Weisburd of the burden of coming in every time , however , there could be an increase in the amount of bulk which a good eye could see . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought that if the statement that carports are built on demand be allowed to go unchallenged , the Board could get into a situation where it is asked to ratify something already built . Mr . Weisburd apologized , stating that he misspoke , adding that he meant to indicate that if a person who did not have a carport wanted one , it could be built . Mr . Weisburd stated that he had no intention to " build on demand " . Mr . Weisburd stated that anything they build is subject to getting a building permit and to Mr . Fabbroni ' s discretion as to whether it requires further review , adding that in this case it does , in the past it has not . Mr . Lovi stated that he withdrew his objection , adding that he did not have a problem . Chairman May commented that the Board addressed that at the last meeting and there was no intent like that . • Mrs . Langhans asked how the parking is in general , wondering if the people have specific spots for them , or , do they just get the nearest one to them . Mr . Weisburd stated that the carports are reserved and the homeowner pays extra , adding that , as for the open spaces , in some cases the residents have done that themselves - - reserved spaces . Mr . Weisburd spoke of one area where parking is tight , noting that the Board removed parking near Penny Lane , and stating that he spoke with Mr . Fabbroni and they have tried to make up that . Mr . Weisburd reiterated that there is one tight area in " Spring Hill " because they lost six to eight spaces at the last minute . Mrs . Langhans wondered if this is a way for people to always reserve a spot for themselves for weather and a place to park guests . Mr . Weisburd stated that the residents do have the power to have reserved spaces if they wish . Mr . Petrillose spoke from the floor and asked , in " Spring Hill " , what the means are for a person to see if there can be more parking . Mr . Weisburd stated that he talked with Mr . Fabbroni about more parking for " Spring Hill " . Mr . Weisburd stated that one person bought a carport in " Round Rock " . Mr . Weisburd mused that the place where the original parking was is still an option . Mr . Lovi noted that the Board had not acted on the EAF at the last meeting because it was specific to the road and the carport is exempt . • Chairman May stated that a Short EAF had been completed and reviewed with a recommendation for a negative declaration made by the Planning Board 13 November 19 , 1985 • Town Planner . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the review of the proposed construction of a new service road for Commonland Community , as shown on Plan G - R , on the existing City of Ithaca right of way located adjacent to 1431 Slaterville Road , approve and hereby does approve the Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . • Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May asked if the Board wished to consider the site plan revision . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May : WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the proposal for the relocation of the approved service road of Commonland Community , such relocated service road located in alignment with the City access road adjacent to 1431 Slaterville Road , and WHEREAS , it has been discussed making it a one -way - in to Commonland constructed to the same standards as the previously mapped service road , with " no entry " signs at the intersection of this service road and Penny Lane , facing toward Penny Lane , in accordance with the road as previously mapped in another location on the approved site plan , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the relocation of the service road for Commonland Community as was shown on the Final Subdivision Plan of Commonland Community approved on February 1 , 1983 , as shown on Drawing G - R , entitled " Commonland Community Phase IV " , dated October • 16 , 1985 , and as discussed at Public Hearing on November 19 , 1985 , such relocated service road to be located on top of the right of way owned by the City of Ithaca and adjacent to property at 1431 Planning Board 14 November 19 , 1985 • Slaterville Road . Said service road shall be constructed and built to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent and shall be a one -way , entrance only , with appropriate signage to that effect , and FURTHER RESOLVED , by said Planning Board , that this grant of modification of the Commonland Community Final Site Plan does not preclude the Planning Board from making additional requirements at a later time should information developed warrant them . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the location of a three -bay carport to serve Units 77 , 79 , and 85 , " The Meadows " , Commonland Community Phase III , as requested on application for building permit dated November 19 , 1985 , and as shown on drawing attached thereto . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the revisions to the final site plan of Commonland Community duly closed at 8 : 59 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 30 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION ON 7 . 1 ACRES AT # 921 AND # 925 - 35 MITCHELL STREET AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE REZONING OF SAID PARCELS FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS 60 - 1 - 3 AND 60 - 1 - 4 ; WILLIAM DOWNING , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 00 p . m . , and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board on November 20th has scheduled a special Board meeting and one of the items on their Agenda is to consider scheduling a public hearing to consider this matter . Mr . Lovi stated that the one matter to give the Town Board in this matter is to guide the Town Attorney in preparation of the legal • notice , with discussion of the subdivision being as usual . Chairman May offered that the Planning Board would deal with the preliminary subdivision aspects and the Town Board will be lead agency as far as Planning Board 15 November 19 , 1985 • zoning with the Planning Board making a recommendation . Mr . George Haskup appeared before the Board and stated that he was representing Mr . Downing in this matter . Several drawings were appended to the bulletin board . Mr . Haskup generally located the project on an air photo , indicating the Cornell Quarters and Mitchell Street heading due east . Mr . Haskup showed the parcel using a survey map of the Beatrice C . Reddick property , dated July 15 , 1969 , and stated that it used to be an orchard . Mr . Haskup pointed out the rear of the parcel which is on the public bikeway . Mr . Haskup stated that the parcel in question is a 7 - acre parcel with over 200 feet on Mitchell Street , Mr . Haskup noted that the parcel is 700 or 800 feet deep heading south toward the bikeway . Mr . Haskup now turned to the drawing on the board which set forth a standard subdivision layout showing 16 lots , as required under the Subdivision Regulations . Referring to the drawing showing the clustered plan , Mr . Haskup stated that what they are proposing is a thirty unit clustered subdivision . Mr . Haskup noted that the center of the parcel has a small ravine with a small stream . Mr . Haskup described a common green space in the middle and a one - way loop . Mr . Haskup described carports or garages with each unit . Mr . Haskup indicated an existing house , 921 Mitchell Street , and stated that that existing house would be renovated and included in the development . Mr . Haskup stated that it is proposed to develop a small pond " here " • [ indicating ] in the center of the project and to gain access to " this side " [ indicating ] of the lot which he described as quite deep . Mr . Haskup described a dam with culvert to get across to the other side . Mr . Haskup described the housing type as townhouse units with those on the slope being two -and - a - half to three storied , but generally being two story townhouses . Mr . Haskup spoke of the use of covenants and restrictions and pointed out that this would not be student housing ; the units would be owner -occupied . Commenting that the Board was probably familiar with the Savage Farm , Mr . Haskup spoke of people retiring as the type of market which would be a significant component of the project . Mr . Haskup spoke of the project as being similar to Commonland and similar to Eastwood Commons nearby down the bikeway . Mr . Haskup noted again that there are thirty units proposed and they would like to start with " this " particular cluster on " this " side and see how it goes [ indicating ] , with future development on the south side . Mr . Haskup described guest parking with at least two spaces per cluster . Mrs . Langhans asked if she were correct in stating that one road is proposed going back . Mr . Haskup stated that that was correct , adding that there would be a turnaround , for snow plows , etc . , and noted the road going out and back again . Mr . Haskup pointed out that the grade is significantly steeper on " this " side [ indicating ] , and also pointed out an old railroad easement . Mr . Haskup stated that they are proposing placing the road on the easterly side of the • property . Chairman May asked if the proposal was for a private road , with Planning Board 16 November 19 , 1985 • Mr . Haskup responding , yes , and adding that the land is completely surrounded by Cornell University . Chairman May commented that the Koppers ' property is across the street and to the west 300 to 400 feet . Discussion followed with respect to water and drainage . Mrs . Langhans wondered why the request was being made for the rezoning of the land to R9 , asking if it were in order to get more units . Mr . Haskup stated that the land is so difficult there that R9 zoning with a variance for a thirty - foot road in " that " space is really necessary . Mr . Lovi pointed out that , under the Cluster Regulations , a thirty - foot buffer is required and no structures may be built in that buffer . Mr . Lovi stated that , because this property is long and narrow , if you put a 30 - foot buffer you take approximately 30 % of the property which ends up as a buffer , so , it is not , strictly speaking , a variance in Zoning Board of Appeals terms , but this would be a waiver pursuant to the section in the Subdivision Regulations which allows the Planning Board to waive parts of the regulations subject to the Board ' s notifying the Town Board that it is doing so . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that this would also apply to the other side . Mr . Haskup noted that there would be gardens and carports and spoke , also , of thirty feet on " this " side [ indicating ] . Mr . Haskup stated that Mrs . Langhans was right , adding that it is on both sides . • Mr . Haskup stated that they want some woods in the center as a courtyard . Mrs . Helen Engst , 211 Cobb Street , spoke from the floor and stated that she would like to comment on the pond . Mrs . Engst stated that that sounds like an excellent idea for that particular spot because at one time that culvert was closed up and Cornell opened it up on demand and it is open now and would be kept open . Mrs . Engst stated that she could see a pond very nicely in that area . Chairman May asked Mr . Haskup if he had checked with the Fire Department about getting vehicles back in there . Mr . Lovi stated that 20 feet is okay , with Chairman May responding , not for fire equipment . Mr . Haskup stated that they are looking for a general approval , but with these qualifiers , adding that he thought the Chairman was right in that a truck might have a hard time in there . Mr . Klein asked what the contours on the map were , with Mr . Lovi responding , 10 - foot intervals , adding that the details are in 2 - foot intervals . Mr . Klein asked about incorporating the road with the dam . Mr . Haskup stated that that was not on their property , adding that if they could negotiate with Cornell University that would be fantastic . Discussion followed with respect to a " triangle " of land and about discussions with Cornell about obtaining the triangle . Mr . Haskup discussed the many problems associated with the contours of the land . • Mr . Haskup described units in the range of $ 110 , 000 . to $ 130 , 000 , describing them as similar to the top end of Eastwood Commons . Mrs . Planning Board 17 November 19 , 1985 Langhans wondered about such expensive homes right next to the electric plant . Mr . Haskup stated that it is quite beautiful once you are in there , describing the woods as beautiful and deep , as well as the proximity to East Hill Plaza , the P & C , Cornell University , and the Health Club . Chairman May stated that he wondered if it would be appropriate to have this adjourned to give the Planning Board an opportunity to look the site over . Mrs . Grigorov wondered what the Town Board was going to do . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board wants to set a public hearing and the Town Attorney needs to draft a legal notice and what the Board needs to say is , yes , it is a cluster ; a recommendation is not needed ; the Board may say - - no way - - and the Town Board will get that in December . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board needs to know the direction that this proposal is going , that is all , with limited action this evening . Mr . Haskup stated that , in order to produce this project , they would have to do working drawings this winter with construction in the Spring and , if there were longer delays , they would have to abandon the project . Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Haskup if that were a threat , adding that it sounded like it , with Mr . Haskup responding , no , it was a fact . Mr . Haskup stated that there are paths cut on the property and you go behind the house where there is a nice path . Mr . Haskup stated that the site is all muddy and described barbed wire and a • rustic fence , a garden , and a land fill for Cornell . Chairman May stated that there are a sufficient number of questions that he would not be willing to do anything without seeing the land . Chairman May asked whether or not the Board wished to recommend to the Town Board , Mrs . Grigorov offered that it was an interesting use of that land , adding that it is a difficult place , but pretty . Chairman May stated that the emergency vehicle situation concerned him . Mr . Cartee stated that he had received a call from John Majeroni of Cornell Real Estate who could not attend this evening because he was out of town . Mr . Haskup , noting that all of the reviews are subject to the Town Engineer , stated that what they are asking is , is this an appropriate thing for the Town to be thinking of and is it technical under the law . Mr . Lovi stated that it would be premature for the Board to go out and look at the site because that would be presuming the land was rezoned . Mr . Lovi stated that what Mr . Haskup appeared to be saying is that if it is not scheduled it will not be rezoned and this plan is not relevant . Mr . Lovi noted that there will be further hearings in more detail , but the action that requires the setting of a public hearing by the Town Board is the rezoning and that is the more appropriate thing to consider . Mrs . Langhans offered that the Board could certainly say that it is considering it and not making any recommendation at this time . Mr . Lovi stated that he had talked with Mr . Newell , of Downing Associates , and with Mr . Downing and they have • indicated that at R30 it is very difficult to develop more than six or seven , or even tops , eight , which would permit 16 units , adding that the geometry of the site does not allow you that many lots . Mr . Lovi Planning Board 18 November 19 , 1985 • stated that with the land , as presently zoned R30 , it is difficult to conventionally subdivide this parcel and meet all the requirements of the subdivision regulations and get more than five or six , maybe seven , with a 60 - foot access . Mr . Lovi stated that if it were R15 you might be looking at nine or ten lots , adding that their preference was for the higher number of the R9 . Mr . Lovi pointed out that they have mapped in , as they Board can see on one of the diagrams , three alternatives if zoned R9 . Mr . Lovi noted that in his review of the Long EAF he had indicated that he felt that three of those 16 lots are , in his opinion , unbuildable , that is they are really not buildable lots in a conventional plan , and that , therefore , the overall number of units could be 26 - - 13 times 2 per lot , so , one of the questions that we can come down to is considering what the actual number of lots which could be arrived at - - 26 or 30 or some reasonable number . Mr . Klein offered that the land as it is laid out is almost impossible to subdivide , that is , the front is buildable , the middle is the drainageway , and the third is buildable but supported by the drainageway . Discussion followed with respect to discussions with another builder , perhaps , as a high rise with all of the building on the front third and not getting into the question of the drainageway . Discussion followed with respect to the one - quarter acre pond and with respect to the glorious view . Mrs . Engst described odors attributed to the pond , adding that , however , nobody complains . Chairman May asked if he had a motion , adding that he would propose adjourning the Public Hearing to December 3rd for further consideration . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public Hearing in the matter of the consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for a 30 -unit clustered subdivision at 921 and 925 - 935 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 3 and 6 - 60 - 1 - 4 and consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the requested rezoning of said parcels from Residence District R30 to Residence District R9 , be and hereby is adjourned until December 3 , 1985 , for the purpose of giving the Planning Board the opportunity to walk the land and to look at it , and , at such December 3rd Hearing to consider a recommendation for the rezoning of said land to R9 and to consider said subdivision as a cluster proposal . Discussion followed with respect to the needs of the Town Board for its December 9th meeting . Mr . Klein stated that the developer is talking about the possible rezoning to R9 but , as he read the cluster regulations , he could not approve 30 units , adding that it would make more sense to go to multiple residence . Mr . Lovi stated that they • talked about that and he had advised Mr . Downing ' s office to prepare the proposal as R9 in that multiple has a considerably higher number of units . Mr . Lovi pointed out that R9 has no 3 . 5 units per acre Planning Board 19 November 19 , 1985 . density cap . Mr . Lovi stated that if you were in a multiple residence zone , there is no reason you could not cluster and certainly more than 30 units could be proposed . Chairman May responded , but not necessarily approved . Mr . Lovi agreed , adding that also there would be no need for a cluster plan , and further adding that the cluster regulations are somewhat different for R9 , for instance , as in Section 31 . Mrs . Grigorov expressed her concern about the Planning Board being unable to demand cluster in R9 . Mr . Lovi explained that with a cluster proposal in an R9 zone , then all the powers of the Planning Board are in place , rather than an apartment house in multiple . Mr . Klein noted that , in looking at the waiver section , the Board has the right to waive certain specific conditions . Chairman May mused that he was not sure that the number of units that can be there can be waived . Mr . Klein stated that he agreed that the Board has more control under cluster . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov , Baker , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Downing proposal duly adjourned until December 3 , 1985 . • GENERAL DISCUSSION Chairman May stated that he would be unable to attend the December 3rd Planning Board meeting . Chairman May designated Mr . Klein as the Planning Board representative to the December 9th Town Board meeting . Chairman May stated that he would represent the Planning Board at the December 31st Town Board meeting . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the November 19 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •