HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-04-07 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
® TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
APRIL 7 , 1987
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , April 7 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza ,
James Baker , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Robert
Kenerson , William Lesser , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) ,
Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town
Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer ) , Mary S . Bryant ( Recording Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Suzanne Yaple , John E . Ault , Mark H . Gardner , Ann
Leonard , Thomas Iurino , Martin B . Abbott , Nell Mondy ,
Douglas Armstrong , Evan N . Monkemeyer , Carol A . Macali ,
Christine M . Stratakos , Lawrence P '. Fabbroni , Stephen
P . Lucente , Rocco P . Lucente , Lady ' s Name ( illegible ) ,
Russ LaMotte ( FM93 News ) ,
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 March 30 , 1987 and April 2 , 1987 , respectively ,
together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion , upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield , upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the applicants
and / or agent , as appropriate , on April 2 , 1987 .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 3 ,
4 . 24 GROSS ACRES , LOCATED IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE ) ON SHEFFIELD ROAD AND BACKLOT OF
MECKLENBURG ROAD , INTO THREE LOTS , I . E . , TWO APPROXIMATELY ONE -ACRE
LOTS AND ONE APPROXIMATELY TWO - ACRE LOT , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN REGARD TO A REQUEST
FOR VARIANCE OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 23 , PARAGRAPH 2 , (MINIMUM WIDTH AND
DEPTH OF LOTS ) , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO
THE PROPOSED TWO - ACRE LOT WHICH IS PROPOSED WITH LESS THAN 150 FEET OF
FRONTAGE AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS
ON NOVEMBER 20 , 1985 , FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 ,
AND ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , ( USE REGULATIONS ) , OF SAID ZONING
ORDINANCE , SAID VARIANCE HAVING PERMITTED THE USE OF AN EXISTING
40 - FOOT BY 240 - FOOT STRUCTURE , PREVIOUSLY USED FOR POULTRY RESEARCH ,
FOR THE LIMITED STORAGE OF BOATS AND MOTOR VEHICLES , SUCH MODIFICATION
® BEING A REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL STORAGE OF
HOUSEHOLD GOODS , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE
Planning Board - 2 - April 7 , 1987
• XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , ( USE REGULATIONS ) , OF SAID
ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE USE OF AN EXISTING 40 - FOOT BY 80 - FOOT
STRUCTURE , FORMERLY USED AS A BARN AND LOCATED ON ONE OF THE PROPOSED
APPROXIMATELY ONE -ACRE LOTS , FOR THE STORAGE OF LUMBER AND SALVAGE
MATERIALS . BELCOR ASSOCIATES , LTD . , OWNER ; MARK H . GARDNER , BELCOR
REALTY , AGENT
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
May invited Mr . Gardner to address the Board .
Mr . Gardner stated that he was acting as Agent for Belcor Realty ,
and that Belcor Realty currently owns the 4 . 24 - acre parcel under
discussion . Mr . Gardner noted that there is a large , long , kind of
" industrial scale " chicken coop measuring 40 feet by 240 feet , with a
dirt floor , on the parcel , and also , there is a four - story , 40 - foot by
80 - foot barn on the parcel . Mr . Gardner stated that the barn was
designed as a traditional barn and later converted for use as a
large - scale chicken house with concrete floors . Mr . Gardner noted
that the long chicken house has been used for storage as long as
Belcor has owned it , about three years , and a variance was granted for
storage of cars and boats . Mr . Gardner stated that since then they
have , in fact. , leased it to Student Agencies and they have already
brought in their annual summer storage , adding that Student Agencies
• collects students ' belongings for storage over the summer months . Mr .
Gardner also added that there is a flurry of activity at this site in
the spring and fall , but most of the time it just sits under lock .
Mr . Gardner stated that what they are proposing is to bring the
variance up to date - - to what , in fact , it is being used for at the
present time , i . e . , storage of furniture , stereo equipment ,
mattresses , etc . In addition , Mr . Gardner stated that they are
proposing to split up the property to facilitate the proposed sale ,
which is imminent , of a one - acre lot . Mr . Gardner stated that Belcor
Realty chose the one - acre size for two separate lots on the west side
of this holding so that there could potentially be building sites .
The northerly of the two one - acre lots is a completely empty , plowed
field used for hay . Mr . Gardner stated that John Andersson , Director
of Environmental Health , Tompkins County Health Department , had
indicated in a letter to Belcor Realty that that parcel could be given
sewage approval and is basically usable as a building site as is . Mr .
Belcor noted that Belcor does not have any intention , at this time , to
sell land , but wanted to break the land up in a proper size so it
could some day be used for building . Mr . Gardner said that Belcor
would like to sell the southern one - acre lot now , and also the barn
that is currently used for storage to a very limited degree , and
secure a variance that the four - story barn could be used for storage
of salvage materials . Mr . Gardner stated that all materials will be
stored inside , completely secure and under lock , adding that , in fact ,
based on their relation with the previous owner , who is also a
neighbor , they would make a deed restriction to reinforce the zoning
• restriction that no salvage materials will be stored outside .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
Planning Board - 3 - April 7 , 1987
• there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the
Belcor requests .
Mr . John Ault , 1494 Mecklenburg Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that since these items have been stored in this facility there
has been a numerous amount of people going in and out on a regular
basis , getting stuck because the driveway is not suitable for driving ,
coming to his house , and hanging out in his carport . Mr . Ault said
that he had spoken to people at Belcor and they have failed to do
anything about. the problem . Chairman May asked who these people were ,
with Mr . Ault responding that they are students using the road to get
down to the chicken house . Mr . Gardner stated that he did not know
what the volume of traffic is for the driveway , adding that Belcor
leases it to Student Agencies and the building is theirs to handle as
they choose , and further adding that Belcor has not restricted their
access . Mr . Gardner stated that he would admit to two items which
need attention - - one item is to put gravel on the driveway to take
care of the mud , and the other is to have the driveway plowed on a
regular basis .
Mrs . Langhans asked if the chicken house was broken up into
stalls , that is , a rental garage . Mr . Gardner answered that it is one
continuous line , adding that the real function of Student Agencies is
to manage the flow of goods . Mrs . Langhans noted that the chicken
house was onlay supposed to have cars and boats in it . Mr . Gardner
• agreed that that was the current variance , adding that they have been
operating in violation of the variance , and further adding that there
are personal belongings stored in the chicken house now and no one has
a key - - Student Agencies manages everything .
Mrs . Gricgorov asked Mr . Ault , if the driveway were changed in
location , would that solve the problem . Mr . Ault responded , no , not
really , because the people who are supposed to meet incoming traffic
do not appear , and they come to his house to use the telephone . Ms .
Beeners suggested posting a no trespassing sign . Mr . Ault expressed
his view that Student Agencies has a business and a suitable driveway
should be provided by Belcor .
Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Gardner if he wanted to sell all three
properties , with Mr . Gardner responding , no , and adding that they want
to sell the southern of the two lots with frontage on Sheffield Road .
Mrs . Langhans wondered how the people would get to the one chicken
house if that property were sold . Mr . Gardner stated that they would
have an easement of necessity through that lot and , in addition , they
would stipulate in the deed that the buyer would be responsible for
maintenance of that part of that driveway . Mr . Gardner noted that the
lease with Student Agencies is due to expire on September 15 , 1987 .
Chairman May asked Mr . Frost if he knew of any zoning ordinance
violations , with Mr . Frost responding , no , adding that he would have a
question as to whether or not there is any flammable liquid or
• combustible material involved that might be relevant to the building
code . Chairman May proposed that Mr . Frost inspect the building .
Planning Board - 4 - April 7 , 1987
• Mrs . Grigorov noted that Mr . Gardner is asking for a variance to
continue something that has not been there so far .
Ms . Beeners asked if this were the kind of matter which would be
appropriate to take to the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the
Planning Board . Chairman May responded , not necessarily , adding that
he thought a staff appraisal of what is actually happening there would
be in order .
Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 50 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
Mr . Mazza stated , for the record , that he was withdrawing from
any and all participation in any discussions with respect to the
Belcor Realty matter due to possible conflict of interest .
Mrs . Langhans offered that it would be very difficult for Belcor
to sell the proposed lot with the idea that people would be coming in
and out .
Ms . Beeners suggested that this matter should go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals in order to have the use aspect cleared up , and then
come back to the Planning Board for subdivision consideration . Ms .
Beeners asked for Board input as to whether or not it would be
• appropriate to subdivide the land with two existing buildings with
some condition for future development of the barn property , and also ,
the one - acre lot on the north .
Mr . Klein stated that , in his opinion , the use was troubling ,
adding that he wanted to know if there were access back to the chicken
coop from the road , and further adding his concern as to whether 50
feet would be .suitable .
Dr . Lesser asked Mr . Gardner if the south lot were being offered
for sale with the possibility of buying out the right of way at some
future time . Mr . Gardner stated that Belcor debated whether to have a
termination of the easement as part of the value , adding , perhaps a
five - year limit on the easement as part of purchase at that point ,
then the inside lot , which Belcor would continue to hold after that
sale , would have to be developed , and noting that the orchard is level
and , in fact , higher than any of the surrounding land .
Mrs . Langhans inquired if , in the future , the potential buyer was
going to use the barn for storage , with Mr . Gardner responding , yes ,
adding , storage of salvage goods , and further adding that the
potential buyer is in the business of disassembling houses and likes
to save windows , etc . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Gardner if he
had a signed purchase offer for this lot , with Mr . Gardner responding ,
yes , contingent upon securing subdivision approval . Mr . Klein offered
that , in his opinion , the subdivision itself would not be so bad , but
• the business use would add an uncontrollable density . Mr . Klein
suggested that this matter be turned over to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for their determination of use .
Planning Board - 5 - April 7 , 1987
• There being no further discussion from the Board , Chairman May
asked if anyone cared to make a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the request
by Belcor Associates , Ltd . , for subdivision approval of the proposed
subdivision of: Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 3 , 4 . 24 gross
acres , located in an Agricultural Zone ( Residence District R- 30
Regulations applicable ) on Sheffield Road and backlot of Mecklenburg
Road , into three lots , i . e . , two approximately one - acre lots and one
approximately two - acre lot , be and hereby is denied , without
prejudice , such that the applicant may proceed to the Zoning Board of
Appeals with respect to the requested modification of existing use
variance and additional use variance , and further , that the applicant
may reapply for subdivision approval , without prejudice , subsequent to
a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals , with the Zoning Officer
reporting on the matter to both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Planning Board .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Mazza .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the proposed subdivision of the lands of
Belcor Associates , Ltd . , duly closed at 8 : 09 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING_ : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 3 ,
LOCATED AT 121 HONNESS LANE WITH FRONTAGE ALSO ON TERRACEVIEW DRIVE ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , INTO TWO LOTS OF 14 , 400 SQUARE FEET EACH WITH
DIMENSIONS OF 90 ± FEET , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING :BOARD OF APPEALS , TO PERMIT SUCH SUBDIVISION , IN REGARD
TO A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION
16 , PARAGRAPH 1 , ( SIZE OF LOT ) , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE , WHEREBY THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 100 FEET AND THE MINIMUM
LOT DEPTH IS 150 FEET , AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ( 15 , 000 SQUARE FEET ) .
DOUGLAS AND LUCIA ARMSTRONG , OWNERS /APPLICANTS .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Armstrong was present .
Mr . Armstrong appeared before the Board and stated that he was
requesting approval to subdivide his property and to make improvements
to a rapidly deteriorating garage structure . Mr . Armstrong explained
• that the reason for subdivision into the two lots was that for years
of living at 121 Honness Lane they had never had any building around
them , but in the last two years to the west of them there have been
Planning Board - 6 - April 7 , 1987
two duplexes built and on the east there is a single family unit plus
the road going into the Ivar Jonson development , and behind them are
85 units being constructed by Mr . Jonson , Mr . Armstrong stated that
the Jonson properties have marched right up to the south lot line .
Mr . Armstrong stated that , in order to shield their property from the
property behind them , he would like to move the garage 30 feet to the
west and 14 feet north . Mr . Armstrong stated that the proposal was to
have a three - car garage on the ground floor , 30 feet by 22 feet , and a
two -bedroom rental unit on top . Mr . Armstrong noted that the shed
behind the barn is used for garden equipment , etc . , and would be left
where it is . Mr . Armstrong stated that the barn and shed are in good
shape , but the garage , due to hydrostatic pressure caused by a pond
that was formerly on the property , broke the walls and the walls are
moving under the garage . Mr . Armstrong stated that he was planning on
placing the building on a concrete base .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
anyone from the public wished to speak to this issue .
Mrs . Christine Stratakos , 124 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor
and asked for confirmation that apartments were not going to be built .
Mr . Armstrong , commenting that in moving the garage there has to be
some return on the investment of improving the building , stated that
he is planning on a one - unit apartment .
Prof . Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
voiced her concern for the subdivision of this lot and referred to
Article IV , IZ - 15 Zone , Section 11 , paragraph 10 , of the Zoning
Ordinance , which states - - " In Residence Districts R15 , no building or
structure shall be erected , altered or extended to exceed thirty ( 30 )
feet in height . For purposes of this provision , the height of a
structure shall be measured from the floor in contact with the ground
surface . " Dr . Mondy asked if a contractor could build a mountain and
then construct a house 30 feet above that . Dr . Mondy stated that this
is what is happening in the two construction areas adjacent to the
Armstrong ' s and her [ Mondy ] properties . Dr . Mondy stated that she
felt her point should be clarified , adding , suppose this property gets
sold to someone else who decides to do something like Ivar Jonson has
been doing and like Eastwood Commons has been doing . Mr . Armstrong
stated that the building will be the same height as it is now , he is
simply replacing the basement .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Armstrong what the height of the
building is at the present time , with Mr . Armstrong responding that it
is very close -to 30 feet now , and adding that the new structure would
not be over 30 feet . Town Attorney Barney wondered if the building
would be moved onto an area that is lower than the present area . Mr .
Armstrong pointed out that the area in Design # 1 , Site Plan , shows a
concrete slab in front of the garage which , basically , is a completely
flat area , and is at the same level as at present . Town Attorney
Barney asked Mr . Armstrong if vehicles would enter the garage area
from Terraceview Drive , with Mr . Armstrong responding , yes .
Mrs . Langhans inquired if Mr . Armstrong would be using one of the
Planning Board - 7 - April 7 , 1987
• garage spaces , with Mr . Armstrong responding , yes .
Town Attorney Barney stated that it was his understanding that a
living unit was being proposed . Mr . Armstrong responded that that was
correct , adding , because the building is in bad shape , and further
adding that he could see no reason why Ivar Jonson would object to
improving an existing building . Mr . Armstrong stated , for the Board ' s
information , that in order to make the improvements he would have to
have some return on his investment , adding that it will cost about
$ 8 , 500 . 00 to build a new level and $ 3 , 000 . 00 to move the building on a
new base . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Armstrong if this building
is being occupied only as a garage at the present time , with Mr .
Armstrong responding , yes , adding garage and storage upstairs . Town
Attorney Barney wondered if Mr . Armstrong had considered just asking
for a variance . Mr . Armstrong stated that he had not , adding that the
reason for asking for the subdivision is that if they retire and
decide that they want to sell the property , adding this much cost to
the property which already is a fairly expensive piece of property ,
would limit that possibility . Mr . Armstrong stated that with the
improvements they have made on the house alone , they are hesitant to
add $ 40 , 000 more to the price of the house and lot . Mr . Armstrong
stated that they want the chance to subdivide the land , then sell it
individually when the house is sold .
Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that paragraph 3 , on page 2 , of Mr .
Armstrong ' s letter of March 23 , 1987 to the Planning Board , refers to
" . . . the barn , being re - positioned as per sketch # 2 , would act as a
buffer between Mr . Johnson ' s [ sic . ] project and our property . . . " Mr .
Armstrong stated that that should read " garage , being
re -positioned . . . " - - not the barn .
Chairman May asked if there were any other questions or comments
from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public
Hearing at 8 : 25 p . m . and turned the matter over to the Board for
discussion .
Chairman May offered that the discussion of moving soil is
possibly very :Legitimate , however , he did not see that it has anything
to do with this particular proposal . Mr . Mazza stated that the issue
before the Board is the subdivision of the property . Mr . Mazza
inquired as to the requirements for property on a corner . Ms . Beeners
stated that Section 24 , paragraph 5 , of the Subdivision Regulations
reads : " Corner lots shall be increased in size whenever necessary so
as to provide that any structure to be placed thereon shall conform to
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance . . . " Ms . Beeners stated that
there is a front yard for 121 Honness Lane and there will be a new
front yard for the remodelled garage on Terraceview Drive , Mr . Mazza
pointed out that the frontage on 121 Honness Lane is more than that
required , however , there is a deficiency with respect to depth , and ,
the proposed lot on Terraceview Drive has sufficient depth , but
insufficient frontage .
• Chairman May inquired as to the distance from the " deck " to the
proposed subdivision line . Ms . Beeners stated that the distance is 15
Planning Board - 8 - April 7 , 1987
• feet , adding that the rear yard requirement in R- 15 is 30 feet so a
rear yard variance would be needed , and further adding that there was
sufficient distance between the buildings so that did not pose a
problem in this case . Mr . Mazza noted that if there were ever
separate ownership and someone wanted to do something different with
the back lot - - the Terraceview Drive lot - - in restricting what an
owner of the Terraceview lot could do with the property , there would
be an encroachment on the rear yard setback on the 121 Honness Lane
house lot .
Dr . Lesser wondered if it were usual to treat a deck as if it
were a substantial part of the house , with Chairman May responding ,
yes , and adding that it is noted in the Ordinance as a permanent
structure .
Mr . Armstrong commented that his house fronts on Terraceview
Drive .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
® 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 3 ,
located at 121 Honness Lane with frontage also on Terraceview
Drive , Residence District R- 15 , into two lots of 14 , 400 square
feet each with dimensions of 90 ± feet by 160 ± feet , AND FURTHER ,
the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals , to permit such subdivision , in regard to a request for
variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph
i , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to one
lot with a depth of 89 ± feet and a width of 160 ± feet ( 14 , 240 ±
feet ) , and , with respect to the second lot with a width of 90 ±
feet and a depth of 160 ± feet ( 14 , 400 ± feet ) , whereby the minimum
lot width is 100 feet and the minimum lot depth is 150 feet , at
the front: yard setback ( 15 , 000 square feet net area ) , AND
FURTHER , the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , in regard to a request for variance of the
requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of said Ordinance whereby
the minimum rear yard depth is 30 feet .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for Environmental
review .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance , with the following conditions :
• a . The granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance of
the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of
Planning Board - 9 - April 7 , 1987
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the
subdivision of two lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net area
With lot dimensions of 90 ± feet by 160 ± feet , one lot with a
depth of 89 ± feet and a width of 160 ± feet and the second
lot with a width of 90 ± feet and a depth of 160 ± feet , and ,
the granting of a variance of the requirements of Article
IV , Section 14 , to permit a rear yard depth of 15 ± between
the existing house deck and the proposed subdivision line .
b . The provision of any easements for any joint use of the
driveway and the proposed garage spaces , subject to the
approval of the Town Attorney .
c . The provision of a final subdivision map , for approval by
the Town Engineer , prepared by a licensed surveyor or
engineer , and suitable for filing in the Office of the
Tompkins County Clerk .
4 . The circumstances on the subject property and on adjacent
properties represent a unique situation .
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 , with the
following conditions :
a . The granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance of the
requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of the Town
of Ithaca. Zoning Ordinance , to permit the subdivision of two
lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net area , one lot with a depth
of 89 ± feet and a width of 160 ± feet and the second lot with a
width of 90 ± feet and a depth of 160 ± feet , and , the granting of
a variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , to
permit a rear yard depth of 15 ± between the existing house deck
and the proposed subdivision line .
b . Conveyance to the Town of Ithaca of the easement rights for
garage access , as shown on the survey map submitted .
c . The provi :3ion of a final subdivision map , prepared by a licensed
surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County
Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Gric_rorov , Mazza , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert
Kenerson :
Planning Board - 10 - April 7 , 1987
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 3 ,
located at 121 Honness Lane with frontage also on Terraceview
Drive , RE� sidence District R- 15 , into two lots of 14 , 400 square
feet each. with dimensions of 90 ± feet by 160 ± feet , AND FURTHER ,
the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals , to permit such subdivision , in regard to a request for
variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph
1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to one
lot with a depth of 89 ± feet and a width of 160 ± feet ( 14 , 240 ±
feet ) , and , with respect to the second lot with a width of 90 ±
feet and a depth of 160 ± feet ( 14 , 400 ± feet ) , whereby the minimum
lot width is 100 feet and the minimum lot depth is 150 feet , at
the front yard setback ( 15 , 000 square feet net area ) , AND
FURTHER , the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , in regard to a request for variance of the
requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of said Ordinance whereby
the minimum rear yard depth is 30 feet .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative
determination of environmental significance , with certain
conditions .
• 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on April 7 , 1987 , has
reviewed -the following material :
" Survey Map , No . 121 Honness Lane " , dated September 16 ,
1986 , by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , amended for
April 7 , 1987 to show the proposed subdivision and
building relocation .
SEQR Short EAF ,
Appeals Form .
Proposal dated March 23 , 1987 , from Douglas and Lucia
Armstrong ,
4 . The circumstances on the subject property and on adjacent
properties represent a unique situation .
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 grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
• and Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein
proposed , with the following conditions :
Planning Board - 11 - April 7 , 1987
• a . The granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance of
the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the
subdivision of two lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net
area , one lot with a depth of 89 ± feet and a width of 160 ±
feet. and the second lot with a width of 90 ± feet and a depth
of 160 ± feet , and , the granting of a variance of the
requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , to permit a rear
yard. depth of 15 ± between the existing house deck and the
proposed subdivision line , with such granting being
recommended by the Planning Board .
b . Conveyance to the Town of Ithaca of the easement rights for
garage access , as shown on the survey map submitted .
c . The provision of a final subdivision map , prepared by a
licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the
Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Armstrong Subdivision
duly closed at 8 : 55 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE
PLAN FOR PHASE I OF " SPRINGWOOD " , LOCATED IN A MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
DISTRICT AT 1. 23 EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 43 - 2 - 8 , 15 . 15 ± ACRES , 25 UNITS HAVING BEEN APPROVED FOR SAID PHASE I
ON DECEMBER 10 , 1973 , WITH 8 UNITS HAVING BEEN BUILT AND 17 UNITS NOW
BEING PROPOSED . HERBERT N . MONKEMEYER , OWNER , EVAN N . MONKEMEYER ,
AGENT .
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 . Evan
Monkemeyer was present .
Mr . Monkemeyer approached the Board with a proposal for new
construction consisting of 17 townhouses , noting that the number of
units is remaining the same as was previously approved . Mr .
Monkemeyer staged that some modifications have been made , for example ,
one bedroom units to two bedroom units , dumpsters that were located in
the center hav(s been moved , the size of the traffic circle has been
reduced with an island in the center for access for fire vehicles ,
garbage trucks , snowplowing , etc . , and also included in the plan are
eight garages and a laundry center on the end . Mr . Monkemeyer pointed
• out on the map the site for a future pool , and noted that the open
space on the southern portion of the site is a recreational area which
will be left open . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that there are 54 spaces for
Planning Board - 12 - April 7 , 1987
• parking which amounts to a little over two spaces per dwelling unit .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were any questions or comments from the public . No one spoke .
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 15 p . m . and turned the
matter over for Board discussion .
Mr . Mazza stated that he was concerned about the distance between
units , pointed out that there appears to be 20 feet between Unit B and
Unit C , and 20 feet between Unit D and Unit E . Mr . Monkemeyer stated
that the distance has been extended to 24 feet , 30 feet , and 30 feet ,
respectively .
Mrs . Grigorov wondered if it had been approved by the developer
that he would contribute a pro rata share for water improvements . Ms .
Beeners stated that Town Engineer Flumerfelt , Mr . Monkemeyer , and she
had touched base on the matter . Ms . Beeners stated that she believed
Mr . Monkemeyer was willing to contribute a pro rata share of the cost
of providing the interim period increased water storage capability at
the Troy Road tank .
Mr . Monkemeyer disagreed , stating that if he remembered correctly
what was said was under the impression given that Phase I , 25 units ,
already under approval dating back to 1973 was grandfathered - in and
anything that would occur could only apply to the remaining lands to
be developed . Mr . Monkemeyer reiterated that the development on this
portion of the Monkemeyer lands has already been approved and that he
is just modifying the site plan . Mr . Monkemeyer also noted that the
water lines were on the property and the usage is as it was planned
and proposed before the Board prior to tonight ' s meeting . Mr . Mazza
stated that this was essentially correct , with one exception - - the
usage is the same in conjunction with the number of units , but the
usage could , arguably , be greater with more bedrooms and , presumably ,
more tenants .
Mr . Monkemeyer pointed out that the project is up and standing
and the permit is in place , with no expiration date . Town Attorney
Barney questioned what the permit was in place for , with Mr .
Monkemeyer responding , the Building Permit . Town Attorney Barney
stated that -the building permit is not for the proposed new
construction of 17 townhouses , adding that the permit was proscribed
to those units which were going to be built according to the original
plan , and was :issued on that basis . Town Attorney Barney noted that ,
presently , Mr . Monkemeyer has a fairly substantial modification of
that plan and that building permit would not be valid for that . Mr .
Monkemeyer suggested that the 17 additional units could be built as
one -bedroom units . Town Attorney Barney responded that 17 one -bedroom
units could be built in accordance with the original plan , but it was
his understanding that that is not what Mr . Monkemeyer wished to do .
Mr . Monkemeyer stated that in his opinion it is unfair , to begin with ,
that the Town should even consider putting such an assessment on top
of new development , especially when it is really the Ithaca College
community and other residents in the Town that benefit by the
projects being developed .
Planning Board - 13 - April 7 , 1987
• Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Monkemeyer if he were in agreement
with the condition that has been proposed and agreed to by all the
other developers on South Hill which consists of contributing a pro
rata share ofd the temporary facilities . Mr . Monkemeyer responded ,
certainly not , adding that the Town extends water and sewer to all of
its residents , and further adding that he felt this is outside of the
benefit district . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that it was his opinion that
the whole Town should pay for these water improvements on South Hill
as part of the Townwide water district .
Mr . Mazza asked about the magnitude of the cost which would be
borne by the developer . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the initial fee
would be $ 80 . 00 to $ 100 . 00 per living unit . Mr . Monkemeyer stated
that he would like to say , for the record , in fairness to himself and
his family , they have owned this property for forty years and paid the
bills for water and sewer dating back to 1966 .
Chairman May noted that Mr . Monkemeyer was the first developer
thus far who has voiced an objection to this condition . Mr .
Monkemeyer stated that he thought the proposed water situation should
be discussed on a Townwide basis , adding that he felt South Hill was
unfairly being singled out . Mr . Monkemeyer asked if this new
regulation has had a Public Hearing at the Town Board level . Chairman
May responded , no , adding that this is just an agreement with the
developers on South Hill , although the Board can recommend that this
• situation be deferred until Mr . Monkemeyer meets with the Town Board .
Mr . Monkemeyer pointed out that he wished to start construction .
Chairman May asked Mr . Monkemeyer again if he wished to accept
this condition . Mr . Monkemeyer replied that the Board could put a
condition on this , but , they may not accept it . Mr . Monkemeyer stated
that he would like to have the plan approved so he could continue
construction of " Springwood " . Ms . Beeners stated that this would be a
requirement of the process of developing . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that
he did not have any prior knowledge of this condition until he made
his proposal here , and asked the Board if they could approve the
proposal and he would discuss the matter with his father .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the condition requires an
agreement and It is fairly important to know whethere the Town gets an
agreement . Town Attorney Barney stated that he would not feel
comfortable with the Planning Board leaping off to a law suit over
this , so it would be wiser for the Planning Board to adjourn the
matter until such time as the Board has a feeling from Mr .
Monkemeyer ' s father , Herbert Monkemeyer , as to whether this is an
acceptable arrangement .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked
if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . David Klein *
• RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of the consideration of Site Plan Approval of a
Planning Board - 14 - April 7 , 1987
• Revised Site Plan for Phase I of " Springwood " , located in a Multiple
Residence District at 123 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 43 - 2 - 8 , be and hereby is adjourned until such time as further
information is, provided with respect to agreement as to shared cost of
providing interim period increased water storage or equipment
modifications at the Troy Road Tank site .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Ken erson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the revised site plan for
Phase I of " Springwood " duly adjourned at 9 : 37 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : SKETCH PLAN REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 26 - LOT
SUBDIVISION PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 BACKLOT
OF HANSHAW ROAD , EAST OF BIRCHWOOD DRIVE , BIRCHWOOD DRIVE NORTH , AND
PINEWOOD PLACE , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 5 , 38 . 15 ± ACRES . ROCCO P . LUCENTE , OWNER / DEVELOPER ,
Chairman May opened discussion on the above - noted matter at 9 : 40
p . m . Messrs . Rocco P . Lucente and Stephen P . Lucente were present , as
• was their Engineer / Surveyor , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ,
Mr . Fabbroni addressed the Board with respect to review of the
sketch plan and appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Lucente has developed all the area
east of Warren. Road since the mid - 1950s . Also , Mr . Lucente owns the
balance of the land in the northeast part of the Town of Ithaca and ,
specifically , the area east of Pinewood Place , north of the houses
that are on the north side of Hanshaw Road , west of Sapsucker Woods
Road and south of the Sanctuary still remains vacant and wooded . The
land is approximately 65 acres in size . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the
proposal presented tonight is a 26 - lot subdivision for one - or
two - family homes on a street that would be parallel and just east of
existing Pinewood Place . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the lot sizes are
all at least 15 , 000 sq . ft , and there are several that are well in
excess of that . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Lucente plans to build
his own home on proposed Lot # 1 . It was noted that the drainage in
the area is pretty much controlled by a creek , or brook , that flows
through and connects into the drainage system along Pinewood Place and
Birchwood Drive=_ . Indicating on the map , Mr . Fabbroni showed that the
" top " three lots would flow into Birchwood Drive North and then ,
eventually , that comes down to Pinewood Place to Maplewood Drive . Mr .
Fabbroni noted that the area is 1 % to 11 % , about as flat as a table ,
slanting down to the corner of Warren and Hanshaw Roads , with the
minimum grade on the two roads of J $ .
Chairman May asked Mr . Fabbroni if the 2J - acre park was granted
as a condition of the nine acres which have been built now . Mr .
Planning Board - 15 - April 7 , 1987
• Fabbroni answered , yes , adding that once " this " roadway is developed
out of this whole proposal , there will be dual access out the Hanshaw
Road by way of the right of way that comes out Sapsucker Woods Road ,
Chairman May asked if anyone else had any questions or comments .
Mr . Mazza wondered about the lots that go from 100 feet of
frontage back to 95 feet . Ms . Beeners stated that she believed it
would have to be demonstrated in an approved site plan that there
would be the appropriate width at the setback line . Mr . Mazza
inquired if a variance would be needed . Mr . Klein offered that rigid
lot sizes normally can be waived if the square footage is met .
Chairman May asked Mr . Fabbroni if there were a reason for making
proposed Lot # 26 175 feet , with Mr . Fabbroni responding , that it was a
corner lot , 30 , 000 square feet in size . Chairman May noted that 15
feet is needed on the back line , and asked for plans adjacent to Lot
# 26 going north . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there are three lots next
to # 26 , and by taking 15 feet off # 26 , making the three lots 160 feet
deep , then all the rest of the lots would conform .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There being
none , Chairman May declared the matter of the Lucente Sketch Plan
Review duly closed at 10 : 10 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MI19UTES - November 4 , 1986
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the November 4 , 1986 Meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 2 , 1986
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the December 2 , 1986 Meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Board - 16 - April 7 , 1987
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the April 7 , 1987 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 20 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•