Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-03-03 FM / TOWN OF I1149a Date 020 87 Clerk • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 3 , 1987 The Town. of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , March 3 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at '7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Eng :ineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Mary S . Bryant ( Recording Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : John E . Majeroni , Edward W . King , Esq . , Joseph Ciaschi , William S . Downing , Amy Shock , James C . Rogan , Ernest " Bud " McFall . Chairman May declared the meeting duly _ opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 23 , 1987 and February 26 , 19871 respectively , together with . the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon each of - the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , upon the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the applicants and / or agent , as appropriate , on February 24 , 1987 . NON -AGENDA ITEM Mr . Frost distributed to the Board copies of his February 1987 Report of Building / Zoning Activities , and copies of a Notice sent to owners of multiple dwellings in the Town of Ithaca regarding N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code requirements for existing multiple residence dwellings . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 20 -UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON 7 . 01 ACRES AT 921 MITCHELL STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 3 AND - 4 . JOSEPH CIASCHI , OWNER ; WILLIAM DOWNING , ARCHITECT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs . Ciaschi and Downing were present , as was Mr . Ciaschi ' s Attorney , Edward W . King . Attorney King appeared before the Board and stated that the proposal before the Board is a clustered subdvision proposed to be located on 7 . 01 acres of land at 921 Mitchell Street . Attorney King stated that before the Board is a revised plan of what the Board 1 Planning Board - 2 - March 3 , 1987 looked at in December of 1985 . Attorney King stated that construction will be in two phases , Phase I being eight new units and Phase II being 12 units total , i . e . , eleven new units , and one , the ninth unit , being the existing house at the northeast corner which will be improved both on the exterior and interior to become a part of this subdivision . Attorney King explained that the reason for keeping this existing house aside from Phase I of this proposal is that the rules and regulations of the Attorney General ' s office for Homeowners ' Associations , which the developer intends to have , require that no building be occupied at the time of submission . Attorney King stated that there are presently two tenants in this existing house , with the lease for the tenant on the bottom floor expiring on June 22 , 1987 , but , unfortunately , there is an option for additional months . Attorney King stated that this existing house is being considered as under Phase II , so , in the event the developer has to submit to the Attorney General and the Attorney General will not accept the plan with a tenant , even though it is short term , the developer could say that he will drop that momentarily , but that he is already committed and it will be under the Declaration to improve it and make it part of the subdivision eventually , and he will guarantee that it will be added by annexation - - should the developer have to go that route . Attorney King referred to the portions of the proposed Declaration of Black Oak Lane which the Board had received , and mentioned Articles I , VI , XII , XIII , XIV , and XV , noting particularly • proposed Article XIV which refers to use restrictions . Commenting that the homeowners ' association concept is based substantially on that at Commonland Community , Attorney King pointed out that , unfortunately , a lot of the language in their declaration contains reference to patios , adding that Commonland was apparently built with the idea that you get the lot with the house and only around the foundation , and the use of the patio . Attorney King pointed out that the developer of Black Oak Lane has proposed to convey the front and back yards with the building - - and patio does not apply . Continuing , Attorney King described a small creek in the middle of the 7 acres , and stated that the proposal is to dam this creek and create a pond , but that it not be a deep pond requiring substantial regulation by the State . Attorney King noted that the siting of the building clusters requires several waivers of the subdivision regulations , one being the 30 - foot buffer zone requirement to permit 25 feet between buildings and the west property boundary , another being the same waiver to permit the access road in the eastern buffer zone . Attorney King stated that , because of the topography of the land , the maximum building height would be 42 feet to the peak , and , there will be a separation between the buildings , the buildings being angled toward. each other , with 12 feet being the closest distance , requiring waiver of the 30 - foot distance between buildings requirement . Attorney King stated that the developer is asking for conditional approval so that the papers can be gathered together for submission to the Attorney General ' s office , and construction can • begin . Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if Planning Board - 3 - March 3 , 1987 • there were anyone present who wished to speak . Mr . William S . Downing , Architect for the project , spoke from the floor and stated that the proposed development is essentially what was presented at the Town Board final meeting in 1985 when the rezoning to R- 15 was approved . Mr . Downing noted that the number of units , as presented , meets the requirements of the Board and , in terms of the enthusiasm for the project , it is going to meet a real need in the community . Noting again that the requirements for the Planning Board have been met ,, Mr . Downing stated that the developer is asking for the same exceptions that were asked for before with the exception of the fact that the 30 - foot height restriction under the Ordinance would preclude having the basement out of the ground . Mr . Downing offered that the problem is that the ground slopes , and , indicating on the map , stated that the building is 19 feet to 20 feet from ground to eave on the front . Mr . Downing noted the probably very normal conditions throughout the Town , because of the hills , where you have a basement out of the ground in the back because of the slope , and there you might exceed the 30 - foot height requirement . Mr . Downing noted that the height from ground to eave on the lower side is a little over 28 feet - - 41 feet to the peak . Mr . Downing stated that the developer ' s only alternative would be to have unattractive flat roofs . Mr . Downing pointed out that on the front , or parking access side , of all of these units , the buildings are considerably lower than the maximum allowed and in excess on the backside . Mr . Downing stated • that the type of construction being used is frame with steel bar joists and a concrete slab , which will be fire resistant as far as fire from floor to floor . Mr . Downing noted that one of the characteristics of construction of that nature is that the floor height is greater than the depth of the bar joists , adding that this type of construction did add a bit to the height , but the investment will add a great deal to the value of this project . Mrs . Langhans asked if this type of cement floor is used only for the first floor , with the Mr . Downing responding , no , the second floor also . Town Attorney Barney inquired about the walls , with Mr . Downing responding that the walls are concrete block between units and the end walls are frame . Mrs . Langhans wondered about the 12 - foot distance between buildings instead of the required 30 feet , with Mr . Downing explaining that the parcel is only 270 feet wide and there was no other way to keep the buildings in an attractive relationship to the ravine . Mr . Downing pointed out that the geography of the site is such that there is quite a deep slope on each side of the pond [ indicating on the map ] , however , the building of that pond is an asset to the development , and the only way to make this an attractive setting is to line the units on either side , with the 12 - foot space between the buildings , and construct them as presented . Mr . Frost , noting that each unit in the building is separated by a wall , asked if the owner of each unit would own the land surrounding that particular unit . Mr . Downing stated that what is being offered • is a conventional townhouse with front yard and back yard , which the purchaser of the unit will own , and any land beyond that will be owned in common . Mr . Frost stated that his reason for inquiring about this Planning Board - 4 - March 3 , 1987 • is the matter of regulations for either one - and two- family units or multiple dwelling units . Chairman May asked if there were any more comments from the public , and , there being no response , closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 00 p . m . Chairman May turned the matter over to the Board for discussion . Mr . Mazza stated that his law firm has represented Joseph Ciaschi on occasion , :however , not in this matter , therefore , he did not feel he should abstain from participating in this matter because of that , but , if the Board felt otherwise , he would abstain . Chairman May stated that he respected Mr . Mazza ' s judgment and he did not feel Mr . Mazza needed to abstain for any discussions or vote . The Board members concurred . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Downing how wide the road which goes back to the second part of this project was going to be . Mr . Downing stated that it is going to be a 24 - foot conventional driveway , or private road , which will remain private . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Downing if the developer has checked with the Fire Department as to whether or not a fire truck could get through , with Mr . Downing responding , yes , they have , and adding that they did put in the required turnarounds according to Fire Chief Olmstead ' s specifications . Mr . Downing noted that the turnaround is in the parking area at the far end of the • project . Mr . Mazza wondered if there were going to be any lighting on the exterior of the buildings or in the parking areas . Mr . Downing stated that there would be a certain amount of lighting , as indicated by black dots on the map . Mr . Mazza inquired if there were going to be designated parking spaces for particular units or " first come first served " . Mr . Downing stated that each unit has a parking space on his property for two cars . Mrs . Langhans inquired about plans for garbage disposal . Mr . Downing stated that the homeowners ' association will contract for garbage disposal , whether it be a dumpster or pick - up at the curb . Mr . Mazza asked if the interior units which do not have garages already built for them , will have exclusive rights to build garages on the other sites , and will such be part of their deed . Mr . Downing stated that it will not be part of their deed , adding that the developer is holding that land available for the owner and , if they wish to contract for a garage , they will have that option . Mr . Mazza wondered what would happen if the first owner did not wish to have a garage , but a subsequent owner does . Attorney King stated that there would be sites where one or more garages could be built , and that would be worked in as units were sold . Chairman May noted that a concern would be if one of the owners has decided in the interim that he wanted a two - car garage , that there would be space . Mr . Downing agreed that there would be plenty of space . Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Downing if there were any spaces set aside in the back for units that do not have garages attached . Mr . Downing noted that immediately across the road there is parking and right behind that is a strip assigned for possible future garages , and added that there are • provisions for future garages on both the north and south side . Dr . Lesser asked Mr . Downing if the developer had received any Planning Board - 5 - March 3 , 1987 • communication from Cornell , since the property is surrounded by Cornell - owned lands . Mr . Downing stated that Cornell University officials have been advised of this project and have not expressed any objections . Mr . Kenerson stated that he had a concern with the pond , noting that there is quite a gulch . Mr . Kenerson asked where the catch basin started , with Mr . Downing responding that about 100 yards to the west is the railroad bed and it has a 21 - foot diameter culvert , and adding that the water runoff has now been diverted to some degree as there are two creeks on either side . Mr . Downing referred to the study prepared by Gary L . Wood , P . E . , Soil Specialist , for recommendations on the size of the dam on the site . Mr . Downing noted that the water at the dam would be approximately 9 feet deep , and further , 100 yards away there is another dam . Mr . Flumerfelt spoke about the process of reviewing the pipe sizes , etc . , on the drainage proposal , with Mr . Wood , who prepared the plans for the drainage on this project . Mrs . Langhans , referring to the Long EAF , Question # 10 [ Gross Building Size ] , pointed out that it indicates the number of floors as " 3 stories + basement " . Mr . Downing stated that it should read - - " three stories including the basement " . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Downing about the driveway coming off the parking lot to serve the existing house . Mr . Downing stated that , • essentially , -the idea is to renovate the house , orient it toward the development , and close off its access and driveway on Mitchell Street , Mrs . Grigorov , referring to Question # 36 on the Long EAF , expressed concern about trees . Mr . Downing assured the Board that there will be trees . Attorney King , noting the area at the southerly end of the parcel which is indicated at this time as an area which would remain undisturbed , asked if this were a requirement of the Board , and , if it is , could a tennis court be built there . Chairman May stated that if the developer wanted to do something like that , he would have to come back before the Board . Ms . Beeners was concerned about the area at the front of the parcel [ Mitchell Street ] as shown on the revised plan [ Sheet L - 3 , Survey of Parcel ] , just off the access road where there could be a " possible garage or parking area " . Ms . Beeners stated that there is no problem with the two garages that are shown on the site plan located behind the existing house , but she felt that there should be , in the future ,, a specific plan for a possible garage . Ms . Beeners was concerned about a garage with , possibly , a shed - type design , at the entrance to the project . Mr . Downing explained that to make provisions for future parking or garages , if the homeowners wanted them , is what: they are going to do , adding that they thought guest parking might: be useful , so , they labeled it " possible garage or parking area " . The Board members agreed that this should be taken off • the site plan. , and , in the future , if homeowners want such an area , the matter should come before the Board . Chairman May offered that the aesthetics of the entrance road are very important . Planning Board. - 6 - March 3 , 1987 Ms . Beeners pointed out that there should be a correction with respect to the various waivers , and stated that a buffer area is defined as an area without permanent structures , so a waiver of the buffer zone requirement on the eastern side to permit the location of the access road would be required . Mr . Mazza inquired as to a landscaping plan . Ms . Beeners stated that there are shade trees on the site , which are indicated on the site plan , an (i added that the site is considerably wooded . Mr . Mazza asked if each parcel would be surveyed off to each lot owner as it is conveyed , with Mr . Downing responding , yes . Town Attorney Barney stated that there should be some denomination on the lots by numbering them . Mr . Downing stated that on the final subdivision plan which will be filed the lots will be numbered . Mr . Mazza wondered if there were going to be a provision for project identification , such as a sign . Mr . Downing stated that a sign will be erected , and during the course of con . truction a temporary sign will be put up . There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This act .-Lon is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for a proposed 20 - unit Clustered Subdivision to be located on 7 . 01 acres at 921 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 3 and - 4 , which has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on March 3 , 1987 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for Environmental Review . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Tompkins County Health Department are potentially - involved agencies which are being notified of this action . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be found for this action , subject to the following conditions : a . Granting of certain waivers of the Subdivision Regulations . b . Approval of the final site improvement plans by the Town Engineer . c . Approval of the final pond design by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . d . Provision for drainage improvements which may be required aftE! r site construction has been initiated or completed . Planning Board - 7 - March 3 , 1987 • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance subject to the following conditions : a . Waiver of the 30 - foot distance between buildings requirement of Article V , Section 6 , of the Subdivision Regulations to require instead a minimum distance of 12 feet , as shown on the site plan . b . Waiver of the 30 - foot height requirement of Article V . Section 6 , to require instead a maximum height of 42 feet . c . Waiver of the 30 - foot buffer requirement of Article V . Section 33 , to require instead a minimum distance of 25 feet between buildings and the west property boundary , as shown on the site plan . d . Waiver of the 30 - foot buffer requirement of Article V , Section 33 , on the east side of the project , and to permit the location of the access road in the eastern buffer zone . e . Approval of the final site improvement plans by the Town Engineer . • f . That: provisions be set forth in any resolution of approval by the Planning Board which establish that drainage improvements may be required after site construction has been initiated or completed and which ensure that such improvements may be required . g . Removal of the indicated garage or parking area near the intersection of the proposed private drive and Mitchell Street , as shown on the map entitled " Black Oak Lane - Survey of Parcel - Sheet L - 3 " , dated March 3 , 1987 . There be _tng no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Gr _Lgorov , Mazza , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for a proposed 20 - unit Clustered Subdivision to be located on 7 . 01 • acres at 921 Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 3 and - 4 , which has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on March 3 , 1987 . Planning Board - 8 - March 3 , 1987 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , as Lead Agency for Environmental Review , has made a negative determination of environmental significance subject to certain conditions . 3 . The Planning Board on March 3 , 1987 has reviewed the following submissions : Long Environmental Assessment Form dated January 29 , 1987 . " Plat Plan upon which density for R- 15 Clustered Subdivision is based . " " Black Oak Lane " , by William Downing Associates Architects : " Site Plan " ( Sheet A- 1 ) . " Survey of Parcel - Diagram Showing Individual Ownership " ( Sheet L - 3 ) . " Utility Plan - Dam Detail " ( Sheet L - 1 ) . " Building Floor Plans , Sections , and Elevations . " Black Oak Lane - Environmental Matters " , prepared for William Downing Associates , by Gary L . Wood , P . E . , dated February 17 , 1987 . " Drainage Detail " , Sheet 1 of 1 , by Gary L . Wood , P . E . , dated February 16 , 1987 . " Declaration of Black Oak Lane " ( Table of Contents , Synopsis ) , Draft , dated February 26 , 1987 , including portions of Covenants and Restrictions . • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve in concept the " Declaration of Black Oak Lane " ( Table of Contents , Synopsis ) , Draft , dated February 26 , 1987 , including portions of Covenants and Restrictions . 3 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final. Subdivision Approval to this subdivision as presented on March 3 , 1987 , substantially as shown on a map entitled , " Black Oak Lane , Survey of Parcel , Sheet L - 3 " , dated March 3 , 1987 , subject to the following conditions : a . Waiver of the - 30 - foot distance between buildings requirement of Article V , Section 6 , of the Subdivision Regulations to require instead a minimum distance of 12 feet , as shown on the site plan . • b . Waiver of the 30 - foot height requirement of Article V , Section 6 , to require instead a maximum height of 42 feet . Planning Board. - 9 - March 3 , 1987 • c . Waiver of the 30 - foot buffer requirement of Article V . Section 33 , to require instead a minimum distance of 25 feet between buildings and the west property boundary , as shown on the site plan . d . Waiver of the 30 - foot buffer requirement of Article V , Section 33 , on the east side of the project , and to permit the location of the access road in the eastern buffer zone . e . Removal of the indicated garage or parking area near the intersection of the proposed private drive and Mitchell Street , as shown on the map entitled " Black Oak Lane - Sur%rey of Parcel - Sheet L - 3 " , dated March 3 , 1987 . f . Approval of the final site improvement plans by the Town Engineer . g . That: drainage improvements may be required after site construction has been initiated or completed , as subject to the determination of the Town Engineer . h . Approval of Covenants and Deed Restrictions by the Town Board prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy . i . Submission of a Final Subdivision Plan , suitable for filing . and conforming to all pertinent requirements of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of subdivision approval for Black Oak Lane duly closed at 8 : 35 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL , TOGETHER WITH CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , - 51 AND - 8 , LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF DANBY ROAD AND CODDINGTON ROAD , FROM BUSINESS DISTRICT " A " TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " B " AND " C " ( RESTRICTED TO RESTAURANT USE ) , WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS AT " ROGAN ' S CORNERS " , EACH 21048 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE , ONE TO BE USED AS A LAUNDROMAT , BEAUTY PARLOR , AND CLOTHING STORE , AND THE OTHER TO BE USED AS A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD AND • SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 37 , PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . JAMES ROGAN , DEVELOPER . Planning Board - 10 - March 3 , 1987 • Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Rogan was present . Mr . Rogan addressed the Board and stated that the first building would be built in two phases which would cover 1 , 024 sq . ft . for a laundromat , along with the pizza delivery business with seating for 19 people . The pizza delivery business is now located in the existing store . Mr . Rogan , at this point , informed the Board that the second building would be constructed at a later date . Indicating on the map , Mr . Rogan stated that there is ample parking for 23 cars , the delivery business is from 5 : 00 p . m . to 1 : 00 a . m , weekdays , weekend delivery is until 2 : 00 a . m . Mr . Rogan felt that the traffic flowed in and out of the site successfully - - without incident . Also , Mr . Rogan has found that several out - going customers use the back entrance , off Coddington Road , which eliminates 30 % to 40 % of the traffic from using the Danby Road entrance ., Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . Mr . Frost: stated that if the proposed building were to be a " Type 5 " construction - - wood frame - - Mr . Rogan could not mix the occupancy of a " C5 " , which would be the restaurant , with a " C3 " type occupancy , • which would the laundromat , therefore , he would have to upgrade the type of construction to mix the occupancy in that manner . Mr . Frost noted that , also , there might be a requirement for an additional fire wall based on fire areas since the building exceeds 2 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Frost stated that these details would have to be worked out upon permit application . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions by anyone . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 00 p . m . , and asked for questions or comments from the Board . Chairman May admitted that he was a little bit unsure about actually what action could be taken at this time since the application has deviated from what was published in the sense of going from two buildings to one building . Mr . Mazza noted that the Notice called for a rezoning , however , the draft resolution indicates a variance at this point . Ms . Beeners offered that what appeared in the public notice was not absolutely binding due to some new information that was submitted subsequent to the Notice going to the newspaper . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Rogan ' s plans were altered somewhat and the new information indicated that it was probably going to be a phased project . Ms . Beeners stated that , as a result of this , it became clear that the better approach would be to consider variance under those uses permitted in Business " A " , rather than a rezoning with restriction of • uses . Town Attorney Barney noted that the applicant is looking for site plan approval plus a variance to permit deviations from some of the Planning Board - 11 - March 3 , 1987 • requirements :in terms of side yard and also a variance as to type of use , because he is in Business " A " at the moment , and the uses proposed do not meet Business " A " requirements . Dr . Lesser offered that Mr . Rogan provides a service in the South Hill area , adding that a laundromat would expand that service and is much needed in the area . Commenting that the lot that is available there now is a bit tight to fit this amount of development in that area , Dr . Lesser stated that he found it difficult to see how automobiles can fit between the existing road that exits onto Coddington Road because of the rather short flat shelf and relatively steep embankment that goes up to Coddington Road , Dr . Lesser noted that the map does not indicate the amount of grading necessary to locate a second building . Mr . Rogan stated that , in terms of percentage of land use , there is enough land to build . Mrs . Langhans commented that the businesses which Mr . Rogan has planned for Phase I require the people to park , enter the premises , and stay for a fair amount of time . Mrs . Langhans thought that if there is seating for 19 customers , there could be the possibility of 19 cars parked for an hour or so and not opening up any parking for the laundromat . Mrs . Langhans inquired of Ms . Beeners where the "walkway " will be located , with Ms . Beenlers responding that in the original Rogan ' s Corners site plan approval there was a condition imposed by the Board that a 4 - foot wide walkway , with striping , be placed on the eastern side , basically , where the employee parking is located . Ms . Beeners stated that she • has had a discussion with Mr . Rogan regarding adding four feet of asphalt on thin. western side of that driveway to permit people to walk along that side . Chairman May pointed out that , with the grade there , it would be almost impossible to put it on the Coddington Road side , adding that originally the driveway was proposed as a 9 - foot to 10 - foot driveway . Mr . Rogan interjected that it is 15 feet . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Rogan if the walkway was going to be set off , separately , from the driveway , with Mr . Rogan responding that it will probably be part of the drive , but will be striped . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Rogan about the parking spaces between the driveway and Coddington Road , with Mr . Rogan responding that that parking will be on an angle . Mr . Mazza inquired of Ms . Beeners what the requirement is in this zone for side yard or rear yard , with Ms . Beeners responding that the northern end is the side yard , as it was a rear yard variance which was obtained for the existing store . Ms . Beeners pointed out that Mr . Rogan is seeking a variance of the 20 - foot side yard requirement to permit him to go down to ten feet , generally , between the proposed building and the property line on the north side . Ms . Beeners noted that a front yard variance would not be required for the Phase I building . Continuing , Ms . Beeners referred to a buffer area requirement in the ordinance - - " no structure shall be placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district . " - - and pointed out that the City of Ithaca line is along Mr . Rogan ' s northern property boundary , and , the South Side Fuel Co . property is in the City at the City line , and , Hudson Heights Apartments are there also . • Ms . Beeners stated that she felt there certainly was adequate distance between both of those uses and this proposed building to warrant a variance of that buffer requirement . Dr . Lesser wondered if such a Planning Board - 12 - March 3 , 1987 variance were allowed , would there be , in any way , a restriction of the use that the heating oil company could make of its open land . Ms . Beeners offered that she did not anticipate the oil company ever doing anything right along there . Mr . Mazza wondered what enterprises would remain in the existing business . Mr . Rogan replied that the sandwich and sub business will stay in the existing store ; the only part moving will be the pizza business with seating for 19 people , adding that the pizza business would open at 4 : 00 p . m . daily and terminate no later than 2 : 00 a . m ., Chairman May asked if there were any further comments or questions ; there being none , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion „ MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval , together with Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the proposed construction of one additional building at " Rogan ' s Corners " , located in a Business District " A " at the intersection of Danby Road and Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , - 5 , and - 8 . The building is proposed to be 2 , 048 square feet in size , and to be used as a laundromat and as a pizza delivery service with seating for up to 19 people , such proposal including a request for variance of the use requirements of Article VII , Section 32 , the side yard requirements of Article VII , Section 37 , paragraph 2 , and the buffer area requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , paragraph 5 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department , the New York State Department of Transportation , and the Tompkins County Highway Department are potentially - involved agencies which are being notified of this action . 3 . The developer had originally requested two buildings but has withdrawn , for the present , any request for construction of the proposed building adjacent to Danby Road , 4 . A negative determination of environmental significance has been recommended by the Town Planner , subject to the following : a . Approval of final grading and utilities plans by the Town Engineer . b . Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . • c . Construction of a 4 - foot paved walkway adjacent to the road pavement , on the west side of the driveway from Coddington Road , such walkway to be striped . Planning Board. - 13 - March 3 , 1987 • d . The requirement of site plan approval for any specified development or use of any further additional building . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board affirm and hereby does affirm the Lead Agency status of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the environmental review of this action . 2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for the proposed construction of one building in the northeasterly corner of the site and parking for employees and additional parking for 22 cars , subject to the following : a . Approval of final grading , drainage , and utilities plans by the Town Engineer . b . Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . c . Construction of a 3 - foot paved walkway adjacent to and one foot from the road pavement , on the west side of the driveway from Coddington Road . d . The pizza business be operated for a time period beginning • no earlier than 4 : 00 p . m . daily and terminating no later than 2 : 00 a . m . daily . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval , together with Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the proposed construction of one additional building at " Rogan ' s Corners " , located in a Business District " A " at the intersection of Danby Road and Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , - 5 , and - 8 . The building is proposed to be 2 , 048 square feet in size , and to be used as a laundromat and as a pizza delivery service with seating for up to 19 people , such proposal including a request for variance of the use requirements of Article VII , Section 32 , the • side yard requirements of Article VII , Section 37 , paragraph 2 , and the :buffer area requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , paragraph 5 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Planning Board - 14 - March 3 , 1987 • 2 . The Planning Board at a Public Hearing on March 3 , 1987 has reviewed the following submissions : Cover letter dated February 25 , 1987 . Long Environmental Assessment Form dated February 24 , 1987 . Map entitled " Site Plan - Rogan ' s Corner , Rte . 96 - B & Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca - Proposed Additional Development " , dated February 16 , 1987 , by R . A . Boehlecke , Jr . , Architect . 3 . The developer had originally requested two buildings but has withdrawn , for the present , any request for construction of the proposed building adjacent to Danby Road . 4 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board on March 3 , 1987 has recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for the proposed construction of one building in the northeasterly corner of the site and parking for employees and additional parking for 22 cars , subject to the following : a . Approval of final grading , drainage , and utilities plans by the Town Engineer . b . Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . • c . Construction of a 3 - foot paved walkway adjacent to and one fool: from the road pavement , on the west side of the driveway from Coddington Road . d . The pizza business be operated for a time period beginning no earlier than 4 : 00 p . m . daily and terminating no later than 2 : 00 a . m . daily . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board report and hereby does report its approval of the site plan as presented on March 3 , 1987 , and recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that variance of the use requirements of Article VII , Section 32 , the side yard requirements of Article VII , Section 37 , paragraph 2 , and the buffer area requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , paragraph 5 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be granted , subject to the following conditions : a . Approval of final grading , drainage , and utilities plans by the Town Engineer . b . Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . c . Construction of a 3 - foot paved walkway adjacent to and one • foot from the road pavement , on the west side of the driveway from Coddington Road . Planning Board - 15 - March 3 , 1987 • d . The pizza business be operated for a time period beginning no earlier than 4 : 00 p . m . daily and terminating no later than 2 : 00 a . m . daily . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Rogan ' s Corners expansion duly closed al: 9 : 35 p . m . DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO TWO - LOT SUBDIVISIONS . Chairman May , commenting that it looks like the Board is back at it again considering a recommendation on staff approval of subdivisions of less than three lots , asked the Board to proceed with discussion of the draft proposal , prepared by the Town Planner , Ms . Beeners , for amendment of Article II of the Subdivision Regulations with respect to " minor subdivisions " , i . e . , two - lot subdivisions . Town Attorney Barney offered that at the time of the previous draft much in the same vein , there might have been concern by the Board about successive two - lot subdivisions . Chairman May pointed out that • under the present draft , were such a subdivision approved by the staff and the Engineer , it would be reported to the Planning Board , and , if the staff saw an unusal or special problem with a proposed two - lot subdivision it would be brought to the Planning Board for approval . Chairman May expressed his faith in the staff to do that . All of the Board members concurred with Chairman May on this matter . Following discussion of the draft proposal before the Board , Chairman May MOVED and Dr . Lesser SECONDED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the following amendment to Article II of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to permit staff review and approval of minor subdivisions . ARTICLE II GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW Section 14 . :3ketch Plans and Pre -Application Information . 1 . The subdivider shall present a sketch plat and supporting data for purposes of informal review and discussion . The following information should be provided : a . General subdivision information outlining the existing • conditions of the site and the proposed development . b . A location map showing the relationship of the proposed subdivision to existing community facilities . Planning Board - 16 - March 3 , 1987 c . A plat showing in simple form the proposed layout of streets , lots , and other features of the proposed subdivision . d . A completed Town of Ithaca Short Environmental Assessment Form which should be completed and filed with the staff of the Planning Board at the time of sketch plat review . Section 14 -A . Minor Subdivisions . A minor subdivision is a partition of land into no more than two ( 2 ) building lots , plots , or sites for immediate or future use , sale , or transfer . Manor subdivisions are subject to all applicable regulations required of major subdivisions . The procedure for the approval of minor subdivisions is identical to that required of major subdivisions , with the following exception : The Town Engineer may , upon the favorable recommendation of the Town Planner , approve by endorsement minor subdivisions in residential or agricultural zones that require no rezonings , variances , special permits ; or other waivers , and are from a landowner who has not previously sought a previous two - lot subdivision . Even if a proposed minor subdivision meets the requirements for approval by the Town Engineer , the Town Engineer may , in his sole discretion , nevertheless , elect to refer the matter to the Planning Board for consideration and • approval . Whenever a subdivider desires to create a minor subdivision in a residential or agricultural zone , he shall present the subdivision to the Town Engineer and the Town Planner . A checklist of information to be included is given in Section 14 - B . If the Town Engineer disapproves the subdivision because it does not meet all the requirements set forth in these regulations for minor subdivisions , he shall refer the subdivision to the Planning Board . All minor subdivisions proposed for other zoning districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Board . All minor subdivisions approved by the Town Engineer shall be reported to the Planning Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting . After approval of theminor subdivision by the Town Engineer , the recording thereof and distribution shall be as provided for final plats . Section 14 - B . Requirements for Minor Subdivisions . The following :information shall be contained on a survey map of the property to be subdivided : 1 . Accurate locations and descriptions of all subdivision monuments . 2 . Border lines bounding the sheet , one inch from the left edge and one half inch from each of the other edges , all information , • including all plat lines , lettering , signatures , and seals , shall be within the border lines . 3 . Date of Plat . Planning Board - 17 - March 3 , 1987 • 4 . Direction of flow of all water courses . Drainage area above point of entry for each water course entering or abutting the tract . 5 . Exact boundary lines of the tract , indicated by a heavy line , giving dimensions to the nearest one -hundredth foot and angles to the nearest one - half minute , the traverse shall be balanced and closed with an error of closure not to exceed one to two thousand ; the type of closure shall be noted . 6 . Four dark: - line prints of the proposed plat . 7 . Identification of areas subject to flooding as indicated on HUD Flood Boundary Maps , Wetlands Maps or any other impairment to the health and safety of citizens within the boundaries of the proposed subdivision . 8 . Location and description of all section line corners and government survey monuments in or near the subdivision , to at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by true courses and distances . 9 . Location , name , and dimensions of each existing highway and alley and each utility , drainage , or similar easement , within or abutting the proposed subdivision . • 10 . Location of the property by legal description , including areas in acres or square feet . Source of title , including deed record book and page numbers . 11 . Lot lines , fully dimensioned , with lengths to the nearest one -hundredth foot and angles or bearings to the nearest one -half minute . 12 . Map Scale ( 1 " = 50 ' or 1 " = 1001 ) and North point . 13 . Name ( s ) and address ( es ) of the owner ( s ) . 14 . Name ( s ) and address ( es ) of the subdivider ( s ) , if the subdivider ( s ) is ( are ) not the owner ( s ) . 15 . Name and seal of registered land surveyor who made the boundary survey . Date of survey . 16 . Name of Town , County , and State . 17 . Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting the proposed subdivision , with plat book and page numbers . 18 . Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision , with plat book and page numbers . • 19 . Natural fE! atures within and immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision , including drainage channels , bodies of water , wooded Planning Board - 18 - March 3 , 1987 • areas , and other significant features . 20 . Surveyor ' s certificate . certificate signed and sealed by a registered land surveyor to the effect that : a ) the plat represents a survey made by him / her , b ) the plat is a correct representation of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the subdivision , c ) all monuments indicated on the plat actually exist and their location , size and material are correctly shown , d ) the requirements of these regulations and New York State laws relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied with . 21 . The original or mylar copy of the plat to be recorded and four dark - line prints , on one or more sheets . 22 . Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having non - parallel side lines , if required by the Town Engineer . The subdivider should also prepare the following information , where appropriate : 1 . Reference to any separate instruments , including restrictive covenants ,, which directly affect the land in the subdivision . 2 . Owner ' s certificate : certificate signed by the owner ( s ) to the effect that he / she ( they ) owns ( own ) the land , that he / she ( they ) has ( have ) caused the land to be surveyed and divided , and that he / she ( they ) makes ( make ) the dedications indicated on the plat . 3 . Mortgagor ' s certificate : certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor ( s ) , if any , to the effect that he / she ( they ) consents ( consent ) to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat . 4 . Tax and assessment certificate : certificate signed by the County Treasurer , and other officials as may be appropriate , to the effect that there are no unpaid taxes due and payable at the time of plat approval and no unpaid special assessments , whether or not due and payable at the time of plat approval , on any of the land included in the plat , and that all outstanding taxes and special assessments have been paid on all property dedicated to public use . 5 . Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the water supply and / or sewerage system . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Planning Board - 19 - March 3 , 1987 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 19 , 1985 MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of November 19 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the March 3 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 46 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , • Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •