Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-11-17 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date a 1/4 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk NOVEMBER 17 , 1987 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , November 17 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) . ALSO PRESENT : Peter D . Novelli , Helen Torchia , Peter Torchia , Hugh Howarth , Dick Matthews , Mary Eldridge , Johann W . Gebauer , Elizabeth R . Blackman , Florence Wrisley , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Bill Petrillose , Joseph Jeraci , Charlotte Bosworth , Edward M . Bosworth , Mildred Brammer , Lucille Schmieder , Frank Hornbrook , Steven F . Sommer , Ernest Buchanan , E . L . Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , Herbert N . Monkemeyer , Lisa Melfi , Mr . and Mrs . Peter R . Capalongo , Donald Seifert , Phiroze Mehta , Forrest Sanders , Alicia Lewkowicz , Thomas J . Kline , John Whitcomb , Myrtle J . Whitcomb , Michael Jones , Edward , D . • Jones , Barbara J . Jones , Roger Sayre , Robert Lieberman , Dr . Edward E . Hart , Jane DeGraff , Karl Niklas . Vice Chairman Grigorov 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 November 9 , 1987 , and November 12 , 1987 , respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Resident Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicant on November 11 , 1987 . FIRE SAFETY NOTIFICATION Vice Chairman Grigorov informed all the persons present of the location of the exits and the exiting regulations in case of fire and the sounding of the fire alarm . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS , ARTICLE I , SECTION 61 GENERAL PROCEDURE , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Planning Board - 2 - November 17 , 1987 • Referring to the packet which each Board member had received containing a proposed amendment to the subdivision regulations , as well as proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance , Town Attorney Barney stated that this material was submitted to the Town Supervisor , but needs to be reviewed and recommended upon by the Planning Board , adding that these proposals had come out of the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Referring to the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations , :Down Attorney Barney offered that the feeling was that if you had a subdivider who was given approval previously with conditions and has not lived up to the conditions , the Town would like a little leverage to say that that subdivider is not going to be granted any further subdivision approval in the Town of Ithaca until he or she has complied with those conditions . Mr . Klein commented on the wording of the proposed amendment in the use of the word " subdivider " . Mr . Klein wondered about a situation where partners may have been involved in a prior subdivision . Town Attorney Barney responded that , originally , the draft had indicated " subdivider or any person affiliated with such subdivider " , and , at that time , he had wondered about where that affiliation might stop , and whether he wanted to get into trying to define who might be affiliated . Town Attorney Barney offered , as a for instance - - if someone does something individually and the next time there is a different subdivider coming in , and stated that the feeling of the Codes and Ordinances Committee was to try this for a while and if people begin to try and duck around it by coming in in a different shape or different form , then we could , perhaps , go back and amend this paragraph . Town Attorney Barney stated that this is really a policy decision , however , he could come back with some language , if the Board wished it so , and include corporations , partnerships , brothers , sisters , mothers , fathers , and spouses . Mr . Klein wondered if subdivider might be broad enough even if they were only a limited partner . Town Attorney Barney responded that in the limited partnership :Law , a limited partner is not supposed to be the management of the limited partnership . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and asked if there were any further questions from the Board . There being none , Vice Chairman Grigorov asked the Town Attorney to read the proposed resolution aloud . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wished to make a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This Action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to Amendment of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , Article I , Section 6 , General Procedure . • 2 . Pursuant to SEQRA , this is an Exempt Action which requires no further environmental review . Planning Board - 3 - November 17 , 1987 • 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 17 , 1987 , has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found it to be a desirable and appropriate amendment to the Subdivision Regulations , which have been amended from time to time since initial adoption on March 24 , 1956 , and further , has heard no objections to the proposed amendment . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that Article I , Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , which Section is entitled " General Procedure " , be amended by renumbering Subparagraph 6 of said Section to be Subparagraph 7 , and , that a new Subparagraph 6 be added to read as follows : " 6 . Notwithstanding any other provisions of these regulations , the Planning Board may refuse preliminary or final subdivision approval to a subdivider as long as the subdivider is in default in the performance of any actions required of him pursuant to law or pursuant to conditions imposed in connection with a previously approved subdivision in the Town of Ithaca . " There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . The Board, now turned to the review of certain proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Codes and Ordinances Committee , Town Attorney Barney reviewed all of the proposed revisions with the Board [ 3 pages ] . Mrs . Langhans stated that the proposed rewording of front yards , side yards , rear yards , courts , spaces between buildings , buffer areas , landscaping , fencing and screening , defines these items more specifically . Town Attorney Barney noted that , at the present time , there is no buffer area requirement in multiple residence districts , adding that the Committee did make buffer areas more uniform in all the districts . Ms . Beeners offered that there appeared to be a need for a 30 - foot buffer area consistency in all the districts , adding that earth berms were added also for possible screening . Town Attorney Barney stated that the proposed amendment with respect to side yards was a major change because we are dealing , again , with a multiple residence district and it is presently unclear as to what the required side yard is in a multiple residence district . Town Attorney :Barney offered that it may be the average of the height • of the two adjacent structures with no minimum or maximum set , however , the feeling was that in a multiple residence district you could have buildings as close as 15 feet and still be reasonable . I Planning Board - 4 - November 17 , 1987 • Referring to the proposed amendment of Section 56 of the Zoning Ordinance , Town Attorney Barney stated that , presently , that section provides that if a building is 75 % or less destroyed it may be restored in six months . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Chairman of the Codes and Ordinances Committee , Henry Aron , questioned whether there should be a 75 % limitation and whether six months was too short a time period . Town Attorney Barney offered that the Committee commented that if the building were restored and it was a non - conforming use , the owner should be able to reconstruct that building in the same location , adding that the consensus was to extend the time limit to one year with additional time to be sought through the Board of Appeals . Referring to the proposed amendment of Section 68 , Town Attorney Barney noted that the change was to add the phrase , " except a multiple residence district " . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board is a little concerned about the implication that you can have more than one " principal " building on a lot in a residence district , adding that there should be another provision indicating , specifically , that there cannot be more than one principal building on an R- 9 , R- 15 , or R- 30 lot , and further adding that that will be reviewed and reported on at a later date . Dr . Lesser wondered if that was still limited by the amount of lot that can be occupied by structures , with Town Attorney Barney replying , yes , it is limited , addingthatit is also limited because of the way the Ordinance reads one - family dwellings , or a two family dwelling , and commenting that the logical interpretation is that it is one principal building per lot . There appearing to be no further discussion on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance , Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the matter at 7 : 44 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING_ : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 43 , - 4 . 44 , - 4 . 451 AND - 4 . 46 , 2 . 29 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED ON TROY ROAD AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH EAST KING ROAD , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " B " , FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER , RICHARD L . ATKINS , OWNER / DEVELOPER , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Peter D . Novelli , Consulting Engineer for Mr . Richard L . Atkins appeared before the Board and appended a large map to the bulletin board . Mr . Novelli stated that Mr . Atkins was unable to attend the meeting tonight and read aloud a letter , dated November 15 , 1987 , from Mr „ Atkins to the Planning Board , as follows . • ,, . . . RE : Request for Re - zoning Land from R- 15 to Business " B " in the Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 5 - November 17 , 1987 • I • have been working with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Staff since July 1987 . At that time we offered a 43 , 000 square foot , two - story shopping center at the intersection of King and Troy Road in the South . Hill section of the Town . After careful review , the Planner made opinions and recommendations that said proposed project would be too large for that small an area . The Board Members concurred with the Planner ' s opinion . The results of that August 4 , 1987 meeting were forwarded to my office . After reviewing all concerns , we reduced the Plan to a one - story , 16 , 650 square foot building , and requested a Meeting before your Board . We were heard on September 1 , 1987 . Still , there were some concerns as to traffic , size , egress and whether attention should be directed to the Danby Road area since commercial zoning already exists . At the conclusion of the Meeting , we indicated that we would return , yet again , to address these matters . Since that time , we received permission from Attorney Domenic Urciuoli to submit a Site Plan for the vacant commercial lot on the North [ sic . , South ] West corner of Danby and King Road intersection ( letter enclosed ) . We also purchased property located at 106 King Road [ West ] from Walker Smith , which is the last available land on South Hill with commercial zoning . On September '7 , 1987 we requested from the Planner to be heard before the Board for reconsideration of our site for a shopping center . The Planner did tell us that a smaller center would better serve the area and that we should resubmit a revised Plan no later than September 15 , 1987 to be on the Agenda for October 6 , 1987 . Subsequently , we were informed that our date was continued until November 17 , 1987 because of previous backlog of work . In our communication to the Planner dated September 15 , 1987 requesting a Zone Reconsideration ( letter enclosed ) , we requested a Public Hearing because we have further reduced our building project size to 14 , 820 square feet , as well as changed the entrance area as per concerns . Finally , we now feel that we have properly addressed ourselves with due respect to all considerations and it is now appropriate for the Board to approve our Zone request . Project Engineer Mr . Peter Novelli is making this presentation on our behalf because prior commitments would not permit us to be in attendance . With kindest regards . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Richard L . Atkins President THE ATKINS HOUSE " Mr . Novelli stated that the map before the Board represents a revised plan and pointed out that the project had been significantly down - sized from that first presented by Mr . Atkins in August . Mr . Novelli noted that it started out at 43 , 000 square feet , two - storied , • with tuck - under parking , and , in response to the concerns , it has been reduced to 14 , 820 square feet , one - storied , with tuck - under parking . Mr . Novelli noted that this would definitely be within the height Planning Board - 6 - November 17 , 1987 • restrictions in the area . t, Indicating on the map , Mr. . Novelli pointed out a section which was in the earlier plans and which has been abandoned . Mr . Novelli stated that the traffic plan has been revised slightly such that there is no exiting onto Deer Run Drive , but onto Troy Road and East King Road . Again indicating on the map , Mr . Novelli remarked that the exit onto Troy Road will be about 400 feet from the East King Road / Troy Road intersection and the exit onto East King Road would be over 200 feet from that intersection . At this juncture , Mr . Novelli stated that Mr . Atkins ' presentation with respect to the public hearing on the Business " C " property at 106 West King Road has been abandoned for the time being because the project is not feasible since the lot survey showed the property to be a little smaller than the developer thought so the project cannot be fitted into the property as proposed . Mr . Novelli stated that Mr . Atkins is interested in combining the parcel with the Salino property which is contiguous to his , commenting that in their discussions with the Planner it seemed logical that that parcel should be combined with the adjacent two parcels - - one on the corner which is Ziebart , and the Salino parcel - - which would make it a lot more functional rather than trying to put a shopping area on the single parcel of land . Returning to the matter at hand , Mr . Novelli stated that they have studied the various impacts of the subject proposal relative to . drainage , aesthetics , traffic . Mr . Novelli stated that , regarding drainage , the high water table can be 1 foot to 2 feet below surface during wet weather which they do not feel is a problem as they will use sub - drainage as is utilized successfully on other projects . Mr . Novelli stated that they are proposing a retention basin in " this " strip of land [ indicating ] so that any excess flow from the site during a rain storm would be retained before it is discharged into the public ditches . Mr . Novelli stated that a preliminary design was done and it is feasible to retain water from the site , noting that it is the same as was done in the Deer Run Subdivision . Regarding the aesthetic impact , Mr . Novelli stated that the height had been a concern as it was , originally , 55 feet from the lowest point to the highest point „ adding that they tried to design the building to run with the slope which is approximately 6 % - 7 % , and further adding that one story has been eliminated and the roof profile will be brought down so that it will be within the Town ' s 30 - foot height limit . Mr . Novelli stated that , as you look downhill from King Road East , one story will be visible , the downhill side will be two - storied for the tuck - under parking . Mr . Novelli noted that , as for visual impact , there will be berms and plantings on all four boundaries and within the parking area which will screen the development . Mr . Novelli stated that the proposed building will be wood - sided , primarily one - storied , with concrete piers supporting the open air tuck - under parking space „ Mr . Novelli stated that , with the earlier proposal , estimates were made that 30 trips per hour maximum would be generated by the development , however , that has been reduced somewhat because • the commercial space has been down- scaled from about 37 , 000 square feet , two - storied , to less than 15 , 000 square feet , one - storied . Mr . Novelli stated that they do not feel that that is a significant impact Planning Board - 7 - November 17 , 1987 • on these roads because presently the average daily traffic count on Troy Road is 436 vehicles per day and on East King Road it is about 480 . Mr . Novelli stated that the capacity of both of these roads which , he pointed out , are County roads , following Standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials , would be well in excess of 2 , 000 vehicles maximum per hour . Mr . Novelli stated that an additional 30 to 90 vehicles , depending on whose figures you use , they do not feel , is going to be significant compared to the capacities of the roads . Mr . Novelli commented that the traffic generated by the Atkins ' proposal is small in comparison with other approved developments such as Deer Run , ButterField , and the lots that were approved several years ago for Troy -King Heights , for a total development of over 300 units . Mr . Novelli noted that landscaping details , specific architectural components , and lighting would all be addressed during final site plan approval . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to comment . Mr . Bill Petrillose , 168 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that to the best of his knowledge Mr . Atkins did not approach him or anyone else as to this proposal . Mr . Petrillose expressed his concern with traffic during the winter months . Mr . Petrillose stated that there is a need for a community - type shopping center on South Hill , and presently there is land zoned for this type of use on South • Hill . Mr . Petrillose stated that if this proposed zoning change is passed , it has far - reaching implications for homeowners and developers in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Petrillose submitted the following statement for the record . " 1 . ) I have several comments . I will try to make them brief . 2 . ) To the best of my knowledge Mr . Atkins has not approach [ ed ] me or other adjacent land owners prior . Does he have something to hide by not soliciting comments prior to comming [ sic . ] to the Board ? 3 . ) I believe there is a need for a community corners type shopping center for the South Hill area . Presently we do have land which is zoned for this type of use on South Hill . 4 . ) I would like to request the Board [ to ] take into consideration the traffic flow and conditions of the intersection of E . King and Troy road . Especially during the winter months . 5 . ) This proposed zoning change if passed , has far reaching implications for Home -Owners and Developers in the Town of Ithaca . It ' s up to the Board to decide which signal they should send to the community . ( sgd . ) Bill Petrillose 168 Troy Road " Mr . Dick Matthews , 380 East King Road , spoke from the floor and voiced his concern with traffic . Mr . Matthews stated that he would like to see this area stay residential . Mr . Joseph Jeraci , 112 Ridgecrest Road , spoke from the floor and asked about the traffic count and the impact of the vehicles during a snow storm since the intersection of East King Road and Troy Road has Planning Board - 8 - November 17 , 1987 . quite a grade . Mr . Robert Lieberman , Nelson Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was representing a number of families that were unable to attend this meeting . Mr . Lieberman wondered if more shopping is needed in Ithaca . Mr . Lieberman stated that his objection has to do with all that will happen in the future with this proposal , such as an " Elmira Road " type of thing . Dr . Edward E . Hart , Updike Road , spoke from the floor and commented about all the asphalt and the changing of the character of the neighborhood . Mr . Phiroze Mehta , 102 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and asked what sort of shopping center is being proposed . Mr . Novelli responded that there may be a small grocery store , a restaurant , a few professional offices - - possibly a dental clinic - - along the same lines as Community Corners , only smaller . Mr . Mehta wondered if there were a need for a shopping center , with Mr . Novelli replying that , with the additional , already approved growth in the area , a shopping center will be a service . Mr . Thomas J . Kline , 145 Ridgecrest Road , spoke from the floor and expressed his concern that there has been a tremendous amount of building proposed for the South Hill area in recent years and a lot of • it in this particular area . Mr . Kline stated that Deer Run is going to have a significant impact on that neighborhood . Mr . Kline expressed his concern about the amount of rental properties in the area . Mr . Kline stated that he wished to go on record as opposing this project . Mr . Ernest Buchanan , 213 East King Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was opposed to a shopping center as people living in the area are used to going downtown and can continue to do that . Ms . Mildred Brammer , 249 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and asked about the square footage of the project , with Mr . Novelli responding , 14 , 820 square feet . Ms . Brammer referred to the feasibility study and stated that there is not much feasibility if you are saying , maybe we will have a grocery store , possibly an office , adding that she did not think a feasibility study could be made on maybes . Ms . Mary Eldridge , 259 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she is a professional school bus driver and is concerned with increased traffic in the area . Mr . Frank Hornbrook , 142 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and expressed his concern about drainage , stating that it will run on his property . • Mr . Michael Jones , 112 East York Street , spoke from the floor and stated that he is a landscape architecture student at Cornell . Mr . Jones spoke of the ecological impact of such a shopping center , Planning Board - 9 - November 17 , 1987 • stating that it is a large parking lot ; there would be a tremendous runoff , and the amount of asphalt is tremendous . Mrs . Florence Wrisley , 202 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she has lived at 202 Troy Road since 1942 . Mrs . Wrisley stated that she bought her land from LaGrand Chase Sr . and there is a stipulation in the deed which states that on her property she would not be allowed to have any roadhouse , eating establishment , or that any alcoholic beverages shall be sold on her property without Mr . Chase ' s consent . Ms . Jane DeGraff , 151 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she had a safety concern and also a traffic concern . Mr . Karl Niklas , 1005 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and inquired about the criteria for rezoning . Mr . Slade Kennedy Jr . , 227 East King Road , spoke from the floor and voiced his concern regarding increased traffic . There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the public , Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 21 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . Ms . Beeners stated that the Planning Board has to look at making • a recommendation to the Town Board as far as the zoning is concerned , adding that it is not only a recommendation regarding the environmental assessment but also the determinations which are cited in Section 78 of the Zoning Ordinance having to do with need , character of the neighborhood , and the Town ' s development plan . Ms . Beeners stated that , with respect to the Board making those determinations , Mr . Atkins did supply a letter citing what he considered the need in that area and indicating that within a one - half mile radius of the site are the 180 units for Deer Run , 120 units for ButterField , and no existing commercial zones . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Atkins also cited vacant land which is at the corner of East King and Troy Roads , and additional vacant land on East King Road between Troy and Coddington Roads , as well as the existing houses on Ridgecrest Road . Ms . Beeners stated that there are about 300 to 350 units that are either existing or approved , the majority being ones that were just recently approved . Ms . Beeners commented that , with respect to the figures which Mr . Atkins has presented for a half - mile radius , there would have to be a two - units per acre saturation of that acreage within that half - mile radius . Ms . Beeners offered that that is something that is very difficult to predict at this time , that is , that we would ever have that amount of growth , when it has been only in the last couple of years that the area has experienced the development growth we are seeing now . Ms . Beeners stated that , as for establishing whether there is a need , she felt that the information which was provided for that location insofar as the need for a shopping center is concerned , could have been a little more complete , • for example , a market study would have been helpful . Ms . Beeners offered that , assuming that there is to be a neighborhood shopping center , it could be something , ideally , that could serve a half - mile Planning Board - 10 - November 17 , 1987 • to a mile radius , and that would be something that would be within walking distance , or a very short drive , at an appropriate scale and in the right location , to specifically serve the neighborhood and not to bring in outside traffic . Turning to the matter of a comprehensive plan of development for the Town , Ms . Beeners stated that what is presently contained in the zoning is a small triangle zoned Business " A " - - at Rogan ' s Corner at the corner of Danby and Coddington Roads - - with Rogan ' s existing 2 , 500 - square - foot store on three - quarters of an acre with another approximately 2 , 500 - square - foot store having just been approved for pizza and a laundry . Ms . Beeners pointed out that on the northwest corner of Danby Road and West King Road , including Ziebart , is land - - about one and four - tenths acres - - that has been zoned commercial , that is Business " C " , for twenty years , with some slight modifications , since the 1968 zoning map . Ms . Beeners offered that if the West King Road parcel within that Business " C " zone which Mr . Atkins has acquired , and the Salino parcel , were to be combined or were to be developed in a coordinated manner , maybe something could be developed that would not affect the R - 9 neighborhood immediately adjacent to that commercial zone on the north and west . Ms . Beeners pointed out that the Hayloft Barn Apartments , on Danby Road , are also located in a Business " C " zone of about 6 acres for which no immediate plans are known . Ms . Beeners stated that on the southeast corner of King and Danby there are currently about 8 acres zoned Business " C " • which include about 6 acres of single or two - family , owner - occupied houses . Ms . Beeners stated that opposite that 8 acres are about 13 acres of vacant land zoned for Business " C " uses and an acre of Business " D " for gas station use , adding that this land is adjoined to the west by a fairly large multiple residence district , with R- 15 behind that . Ms . Beeners stated that the original plan for that particular southwest corner included , in addition to the multiple , the Business " D " , and the R - 15 , about 150 , 000 square feet of shopping and , she believed from looking at the record , that the intention may have been for that Danby Road / King Road intersection commercial to serve about a two mile radius of South Hill , which is just about what we would have in the area to save people from having to go into town . As an aside , Ms . Beeners spoke of the scale of East Hill Plaza and adjoining commercially - zoned lands which contain about 250 , 000 square feet of retail and office space on about 32 acres . Ms . Beeners stated that as for the feasibility of development of the vacant lands located at the Danby / King intersection that are zoned for Business " C " uses at this time , that is something that is ongoing and information will have to be supplied by any applicants who may come in . Ms . Beeners offered that , from preliminary investigations that we have done of the existing vacant land , except for possibly rezoning to residential some homes adjacent to Johnny ' s Super Service site , it appears that the remaining vacant land that is zoned commercial would be feasible for development with proper design . Dr . Lesser stated that he was in attendance when Atkins ' Sketch • Plan Review came before the Board on September 1st , and his recollection of that meeting is that Mr . Atkins ' response was extremely selective and very self - serving . Dr . Lesser stated that at Planning Board - 11 - November 17 , 1987 • least three members of the Board said very strongly at that time that they felt there really was no - justification at this point in rezoning to Business " B " in a residential zone . Dr . Lesser stated that Mr . Atkins comes back at this point and makes some very modest changes in this area by downsizing the project and claims that he has met the concerns of the Board and almost implies that we owe him a variance in this area . Dr . Lesser stated that he felt very strongly that the central issue here is a question of rezoning in an area that has been zoned single or two family residential and the question of need is uncertain and suspect other than to certainly impact on the neighborhood which , he felt , would be very substantial . Dr . Lesser stated , for the record , that he was opposed to this project . Mr . Klein. stated that his recollection of the September meeting was the same as Dr . Lesser ' s , commenting that he had had to study to revised plans for quite a while to see where they were revised . Mr . Klein stated that he was opposed to this project , and that 96B ( Danby Road ) is certainly more in accordance with the comprehensive plan . Ms . Beeners offered that , while we do have this commercial land that is already zoned as such , it is over one and one -half miles from the King / Troy :intersection to that location , so , if you wanted to send you child to the store or walk to get a quart of milk she would think that the concept of having a very small neighborhood shopping area which might have some type of a convenience store done in cedar shakes , maybe a doctor ' s office or two on a very modest scale , should be kept as a possible idea in the future , considering the development that is both underway , planned , and zoned for this area . Ms . Beeners stated that she was not saying that this is something that should necessarily be done right now at this particular point because of this particular proposal , but it is good planning practice , and an accepted planning concept , that if we did have the level of growth that we might have at an unforeseen period , that type of small neighborhood shopping center- could be appropriate . Dr . Lesser countered that , if you have a level of development like that , you are going to have traffic lined up on roads you would never let your kid on anyway , or many of these roads certainly , adding that they have no sidewalks with no provisions for sidewalks in this area . Dr . Lesser stated that he thought that movement by foot along this road , as pointed out , is uncertain now , and , with the kind of density that you are talking about , he thought it would really be out of the question for anybody - - for adults , it would be uncertain , for children , it would not be appropriate at all . Ms . Beeners offered that it is a long - range concept , adding that it could be assumed that certain necessary improvements , by the time a need has been established for a small scale shopping area , would have been attended to in concert with the process of any possible future development of the area . Vice Chairman Grigorov pointed out that what is being discussed is a situation under which the first criteria would come into effect . Mr . Klein stated that , when the neighborhood comes in and requests the convenience store , hewill entertain it . Planning Board - 12 - November 17 , 1987 Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that a recommendation needs to be made on this proposal presently before the Board . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that , legally , a rezoning determination is made by the Town Board . Speaking to Mr . Novelli , Town Attorney Barney asked whether Mr . Atkins would want the Town Board to consider the rezoning , with Mr . Novelli responding that , from his own perception , Mr . Atkins did not get a " thumbs down " the last time he was before the Planning Board , adding that , however , he will convey the message of the feelings of the Board to him . Vice Chairman Grigrov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the proposed rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 43 , - 4 . 44 , - 4 . 45 , and - 4 . 46 , 2 . 29 ± acres total , located on Troy Road at its intersection with East King Road , from Residence District R- 15 to Business District " B " , for the purpose of developing a neighborhood shopping center , Richard L . Atkins , Owner / Developer , be denied , said Planning Board finding that : 1s there has not been a demonstrated need for the proposed rezoning , and 29 the rezoning , as proposed and at the scale proposed , would constitute a drastic alteration in the character of the neighborhood , and 3e the proposal for commercial development in this particular area is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town of Ithaca . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote , Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the Atkins ' rezoning request duly closed . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 , 000 - SQUARE - FOOT , THREE - STORE , SHOPPING CENTER ,. PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A BUSINESS " C " DISTRICT AT 106 WEST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 39 - 1 - 16 . 2 , 0 . 25 ACRES TOTAL . RICHARD L . ATKINS , OWNER / DEVELOPER , Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that the Public Hearing in the Planning Board - 13 - November 17 , 1987 above - noted matter had been cancelled at the request of the owner / developer , pending negotiations with adjacent property owners . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF A 3 . 67 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 341 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 53 - 1 - 14 , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " B " , AND , CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 41 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND AN AREA PROPOSED FOR DEDICATION AS A TOWN PARK , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED BACKLOT OF CODDINGTON ROAD NEAR SPRUCE WAY , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 42 - 1 - 9 . 2 , 79 . 61 ACRES . MRS . GENNARO RAPONI , OWNER , RICHARD L . ATKINS , DEVELOPER . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that the request for consideration of the above -noted matters has been withdrawn at this time , at the request of the owner , Mrs . Lillian Raponi , pending further review of same with Mr . Atkins . NON -AGENDA ITEM_ : MINOR CHANGES TO FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT - - DEER RUN PHASE I .T. Ms . Beeners stated that there had been a minor dimensional change to the Final Subdivision Plat for Deer Run , Phase I -A , from that which had been approved by the Board on July 7 , 1987 , and also , the road name , " Deer Run Drive " , has been changed to " White Tail Drive " , both Ochanges having been approved by the Town Engineer . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the changing of the road named Deer Run Drive to White Tail Drive , subject to the approval of the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster Coordinator , and further RESOLVED , that said Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the two - foot change to one lot line dimension ; all as shown on map submitted to and reviewed by said Planning Board this date , November 17 , 1987 . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PLANNING BOARD VACANCY Vice Chairman Grigorov announced that Chairman May had asked her to remind the members of the Board to be thinking about the need for a replacement for the Planning Board seat vacated by Edward A . Mazza , Esq . Vice Chairman Grigorov suggested that a replacement could be Planning Board - 14 - November 17 , 1987 • from almost anywhere in the Town except the East Hill area . It was agreed that the Board will report on this matter at the next meeting - - December 1 , 1987 . DISCUSSION - GULLEDGE SUBDIVISION - FOREST HOME Mrs . Langhans inquired about the status of the proposed James L . Gulledge two - lot subdivision at 228 Forest Home Drive which the Board had discussed in June [ June 16 , 1987 ] . Ms . Beeners stated that she had advised Mr . Gulledge to contact George Bayer , President of the Forest Home Improvement Association who has expressed interest in the progress of the application . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Gulledge ' s request for subdivision is tentatively scheduled for some time in the next three months or so , adding that she was not making any definite scheduling for anyone until she actually has appropriate papers in hand since she has to have adequate time for review . DISCUSSION OF TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATION ON THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD , Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that she has been the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Representative to the Tompkins County Planning Board for a very long time - - several years , in fact . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she would now like to pass that job on to someone else , and asked the Board members to indicate their interest in serving the • Town of Ithaca on the County Planning Board to Chairman May , ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the November 17 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 00 P . M . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .