HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-06-07 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date &&,w
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
JUNE 71 1988
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , June 7 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Robert Miller , Carolyn Grigorov ,
Virginia Langhans , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , David
Klein , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C .
Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town
Engineer ) , George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Andrew
Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Edward Bosworth , Charlotte Bosworth , Frank Eldridge ,
` Mary S . Eldridge , John G . Whitcomb , Myrtle J . Whitcomb ,
Suzanne Fullagar , Jean Brockway , Daniel Schaaf , Connie
K . Schaaf , Tammo Steenhuis , Kinga M . Gergely , Robin
Stedinger , Vida Caslick , Howard G . Andrus , Richard H .
Lance , Virginia L . Lance , Elizabeth E . Reed , Melanie
Pritchard , Carolyn Miller , Jim Linton , Alfred C . Eddy ,
Roger Sayre , Carolyn Richter , Ruth E . Johnson , Florence
S . Wrisley , Elizabeth R . Blackmer , Lawrence P .
• Fabbroni , Rocco P . Lucente , Jon Shaff , K . C . Bennett ,
Peter Grigorov , Paula Francese , Peter Francese ,
Christina C . Wu , Anita Estes , Aloma McElwee , Patricia
Cas l e r , Robert 0 ' B r i en , Ian Tynda 1 1 , John Novar r , M i m i
Ann Fisher , Gordon Fisher , Jose Amador , Evan
Monkemeyer , Elsie McMillan .
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 1n Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on May 31 , 1988 , and June 2 , 1988 , 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 Clerk of the Town of Danby , upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning , upon the Regional Manager of the Finger
Lakes State Parks , and upon the applicants and / or Agent , as
appropriate , on June 2 , 1988 .
FIRE SAFETY NOTIFICATION
Chairman May informed all persons present of the location of the
exits and the ---exxiting regulations--
- in case of fire and the sounding of
the fire alarm .
. NON - AGENDA ITEM
Planning Board - 2 - June 7 , 1988
Mr . Frost distributed to the Board copies of his May 1988 Report
of Building / Zoning Activities ,
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF
CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN THE SEPTEMBER 15 , 1987 , PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN
APPROVAL OF AN AIR STRUCTURE ENCLOSING TWO TENNIS COURTS AT " LA
TOURELLE " , SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO . 1 , 1150 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF A
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF LOCAL LAW NO , 3 - 1984 PERTAINING TO SAID
SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO . 1 , SAID REQUEST BEING TO PERMIT COOKING
OPERATIONS AND BEVERAGE SERVICE IN " LA TOURELLE " F70R RECEPTIONS AND
SIMILAR EVENTS , WALTER J . WIGGINS , OWNER / APPLICANT . [ ADJOURNED FROM
MAY 17 , 1988 , TO BE FURTHER ADJOURNED TO JUNE 21 , 1988 , AT THE REQUEST
OF THE APPLICANT . ]
Chairman May stated that the Applicant had requested that the
Public Hearing in the above - noted matter be further adjourned to June
21 , 1988 .
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and
hereby does adjourn the " La Tourelle " Public Hearing until June 21 ,
1988 , at 7 : 30 p . m .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
. Chairman May stated that this Resolution constitutes Notice to
the neighbors for the June 21 , 1988 Public Hearing for " La Tourelle " ;
there will be no mailing of individual Notices for that meeting .
JONES FARM PROPOSAL
At this time , Chairman May announced that the applicant has
requested that the Public Hearing with respect to the Jones Farm
proposal , scheduled for 8 : 00 p . m . , be adjourned sine die .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 , 1 . 75
ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 506 WARREN ROAD , INTO THREE LOTS , ROCCO P .
LUCENTE , OWNER ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Lucente was present , along with his Engineer , Lawrence Fabbroni .
Planning Board - 3 - June 7 , 1988
Mr . Fabbroni approached the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board . Mr . Fabbroni also presented , photographs of the
property to the Board .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the matter before the Board tonight was
one involving the need for Mr . Lucente to apply to the Zoning Board of
Appeals , basically , for a variance permitting him to subdivide and
build upon two lots to the rear of his primary residence . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that he had been informed that he should make the
presentation to the Planning Board , and noted that the prime request
was to build on other than a public street , with Mr . Lucente seeking a
variance of Section 280 - a of Town Law ,
Mr . Fabbroni noted that Mr . Lucente owns roughly 1 . 75 acres
" here " [ indicating on map ] , his primary residence is " here " , and
Warren Road , the Hanshaw Road intersection , and Christopher Circle are
" here " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that almost opposite Mr . Lucente ' s house
there is a private street called " Manor Street " , which has two houses
backlot from the lots along Warren Road . Mr . Fabbroni offered that
when the land was initially subdivided for Warren Road , " this "
right - of -way was left with some doubt as to what would access the
lands at the time , to the west , adding that it turned out later that
Christopher Circle accessed the lands to the west . Mr . Fabbroni noted
that the right - of -way remained and when Christopher Circle was
subdivided a reservation was shown for two lots at that time ,
commenting that , historically , that history goes back as far as 1959 .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that , at this time , Mr . Lucente is planning to
build a new home in the subdivision which was presented approximately
a year ago . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that Mr . Lucente wishes to
subdivide this large parcel into three lots . Mr . Fabbroni commented
on various options available to the applicant , one of which would be
to come before the Board with a traditional subdivision , one that
would serve two legal - sized lots off a small 400 - foot long cul de sac ,
however [ indicating on photographs ] , that is not what Mr . Lucente
desires to do . Mr . Fabbroni noted that he felt the above would have
more of an impact on the surrounding properties in general , in
particular the property to the north , as there are existing mature
landscape features on all of the land that can be worked with quite
easily off of an extension of an existing driveway which , generally
speaking , comes down in back of the existing home . Mr . Fabbroni
pointed to the appended 200 - scale aerial photo , which shows the drive
in back of that residence , as well as into thedriveway from the
front . Mr . Fabbroni noted that , in terms of changes on the site
itsel f , to access the two properties , If the Board were to al low the
subdivision and the service from the private drive , there would be an
estimated addition of a 40 - 50 feet extension of that driveway , and it
would serve the two properties proposed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the
lots in general would be approximately 20 , 000 square feet , exclusive
of the mutually shared right - of - way . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the
surrounding lots are generally 100 X 250 , adding that the zoning
district , R - 15 , is a 15 , 000 square foot zone , so 20 , 000 square feet
• would not be cutting to the minimum size lot , commenting that the lots
on Christopher Circle tend to be about the same size . Mr . Fabbroni ,
pointing to map , indicated Kay Street , and added that proposed Lot # 3
Planning Board - 4 - June 7 , 1988
would back onto the last house on Kay Street . Again indicating on
map , Mr . Fabbroni noted that a residence on Christopher Circle would
back onto proposed Lot 42 , adding that the proposed lot is almost
entirely surrounded by a hedgerow that is on the order of 15 feet high
and completely screens the property from the two residences to the
south - - one being on Warren Road and the other on Kay Street . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that there is another hedgerow that screens the lot
from the house on Christopher Circle , noting that the backyard has a
play structure
and the area at the very northern edge is really the
only area that has an opening , adding that , as one comes into the
driveway , there is a series of about nine or ten trees that separate
Mr . Lucente ' s property from Mr . Longo ' s property . Mr . Lesser inquired .
as to the width of Mr . Lucente ' s driveway , with Mr . Fabbroni
responding , twelve and one - half feet , adding that there is room for a
20 - foot driveway between the trees and the primary hemlock . Mr .
Fabbroni noted that proposed Lots # 1 and Lot 42 would separate where
the public sewer comes through and serves the property , adding that
. the sewer did not exist at the time the properties were subdivided on
Warren Road , and further adding that the sewer was put in subsequent
to the subdivision . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out Manor Street that is
almost directly across from the Lucente residence , and pointed out „
that that lane happens to be a 25 - foot right - of - way . William Lesser
wondered about the width of the lane , with Mr . Fabbroni answering that
he did not measure it , but it is narrower than the existing Lucente
drive , and felt just by vision i t was more on the order of eleven to
• eleven and one - half feet . Mr . Fabbroni noted that adequate sight
distance would be maintained in both directions concerning the Lucente
drive .
Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak .
Jon Shaff of 510 Warren Road spoke from the floor and stated that
one of the reasons the area has enjoyed an increase in value regarding
their homes is because people are concerned about their homes . Mr .
Shaff commented that he did not believe , sincerely , that the division
of this land would , in any way , aid in the increase of value and he
did not see any advantage to the division . Mr . Shaff stated that he
was not in favor of the subdivision .
Mimi Ann Fisher of 418 Warren Road approached the Board and
presented a petition regarding disapproval of the proposed Lucente
subdivision , which Mrs . Fisher proceeded to read aloud . [ Said
Petition attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 1
Mrs . Fisher stated that , first of all , the present character of
the neighborhood is stable , and the residents are concerned , not only
with what Mr . Lucente proposes , which is a common driveway and
privately owned housing , but according to the zoning laws Mr . Lucente
is allowed to put an apartment in each dwelling . Mrs . Fisher also
noted that each of the homeowners can take in two boarders , and
• therefore , there is the potential of at least six families or more
moving in on that property . Mrs . Fisher commented that she was led to
believe that if this project is approved , Mr . Lucente can then go to
Planning Board - 5 - June 7 , 1988
• the Zoning Board Board of Appeals and request that the road be made
public , and remarked that she felt that is why Manor Street was
mentioned . Mrs . Fisher stated that Manor Street is a deadend road ,
and there is no possibility of it going through to Muriel Street
unless someone condemns property behind it , adding that the same is
also true for going onto Christopher Circle . Mrs . Fisher stated that
the Wu property could be condemned and the whole thing could be made a
public road , going from Muriel Street to Christopher Circle ,
commenting that . this was all potential , but the residents are
concerned about the potential . Mrs . Fisher also stated she had been
told that there are no more sewer hookups being permitted , as the
lines are full . Mrs . Fisher wondered what Mr . Lucente proposed to do
from an ecological standpoint . Mrs . Fisher stated that , personally ,
she was not affected very much . Mrs . Fisher remarked that Mr .
Fabbroni mentioned that there is a hedgerow between Mr . Lucente ' s
property and the property south of his , which is her property , noting
that the hedgerow is on the Fisher property , and commenting that her
husband is in the process of clearing a great deal of it , and plans to
leave a buffer zone . Mrs . Fisher noted that , basically , Mr . Lucente ' s
land is cleared on her side , adding that there really is not the
hedgerow on the south side . Mrs . Fisher stated that Manor Street
serves not two houses , but four houses ( the Longs , Francese , Reed ,
Welch ) , and offered that all of the residents contribute to the
maintenance of that lane . Mrs . Fisher noted that the residents are
also concerned because , if the road is made public , taxes would pay
for that .
Gordon Fisher of 418 Warren Road spoke from the floor and stated
that there is a depth of concern in the local area regarding this
matter . Mr . Fisher pointed out that he had only three or four days
notice of tonight ' s meeting . Mr . Fisher stated that the residents had
nothing against Mr . Lucente , but the proposal is not favored . At this
point , Chairman May referred to the Petition and wondered about all
the surrounding lots being of equal size ( 1 . 75 acres ) . Mrs . Fisher
responded that the Petition indicates that all the lots are exceeding
the minimum size requirement of 100 X 150 feet . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that the lots are on the order of 25 , 000 square feet , 100 X 250 feet ,
noting that there are some smaller and some larger . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that the proposed lots are on the order of 20 , 000 square feet .
Elizabeth Reed of 503 Warren Road spoke from the floor and stated
that she lived across the street from the proposed road . Ms . Reed
pointed out that she chose the location very careful ly , and stated
that she had no idea that there was land behind one of her neighbors
houses that could possibly be developed . Ms . Reed commented that Mr .
Fabbroni gave a misimpression of the lots off of Manor Street , Ms .
Reed stated that she believed this was the old Hanshaw farm , with the
old original farmhouse , plus the barn in the back , the grannery across
from the barn , on a rather large piece of land that has been divided
into four lots , adding that her house was the one sold on Warren Road .
Ms . Reed stated that the lots on Manor Street are Marge and lovely .
• Ms . Reed commented that , if Manor Street is going to be used as a
model , in fact , the agurment would not be appropriate , because it is a
very different side of the street . Ms . Reed stated that she felt Mr .
Planning Board - 6 - June 7 , 1988
Lucente has a perfect right to subdivide , if that was part of the
variance that was allotted to him so many years ago , but did not feel
this was the question . Ms . Reed stated that this proposal should be
very carefully thought out , commenting that she gets very
uncomfortable when she hears people making comparisons about " this "
side of the street and " that " side of the street .
Pat Casler of 107 Christopher Circle spoke from the floor and
expressed a concern that Mr . Lucente does not turn the two properties
into multiple - family .
Howard Andrus of 113 Christopher Circle spoke from the floor and
stated that he has enjoyed privacy for 30 years , and commented , why
change it now . Mr . Andrus noted that there is a hedge between his
property and Mr . Lucente ' s , however , the hedge is deteriorating .
Peter Francese of 501 Warren Road spoke from the floor and stated
that his perspective was the fact that the land is being subdivided or
could be subdivided paled into insignificance in comparison to the
idea that either " this " street , where Mr . Lucente is proposing the
lane , or Manor Street would be turned into a Town road , adding that
that is an absolutely horrifying prospect to him . Mr . Francese stated
that he was disturbed that Manor Street even comes up in the
discussion , and noted that he has lived there for over 12 years , and
nothing has ever been mentioned about the lane becoming a Town road .
K . C . Bennett of 510 Warren Road spoke from the floor and stated
that she liked the open space , and does not want to look over and see
someone ' s back porch . Ms . Bennett commented that she has lived at 510
Warren Road for two years , and noted that when the house was purchased
she did not think there would be any more building in the area , and
added that nothing was mentioned about any more building . Ms . Bennett
felt that the proposal would destroy the character of the
neighborhood . Ms . Bennett also expressed a concern about the sewer
lines .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the developer did not say , at any time ,
that the preference was a public highway to serve the two lots , nor is
the developer trying to convince the Board to make Manor Street a
public street . Mr . Fabbroni noted that he would leave it up to the
Board to judge what the parallel is between Manor Street , and what is
being proposed , commenting that the developer thought it was quite
identical to the proposal . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the lots on Manor
Street may be 29 , 000 square feet instead of 25 , 000 square feet , but a
lot of the impression of the openness at the end of Manor Street has
to do with the backyards on Muriel Street that punch into the L - shaped
lots at the end of Manor Street , Mr . Fabbroni reminded the Board that
the discussion is on 20 , 000 square foot lots that are maturely
landscaped . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the prime reason for asking for
the exception is so the lots can stay maturely landscaped , and the
developer would not have to come back before the Board to propose a
• public highway 200 feet long , to serve two lots , with no real benefit
to the Town and surrounding neighbors , or the property under
discussion .
Planning Board - 7 - June 7 , 1988
• There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
public , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 11 p . m . and
brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Robert Miller asked about the distance from the house on
Christopher Circle to Lot # 2 , with Mr . Fabbroni answering , it is
approximately 40 feet .
At this time , Chairman May stated that Mrs . Christina Wu of 111
Christopher Circle could speak from the floor , as her property is
closest to Lot # 2 . Mrs . Wu stated that her backyard is the shortest
backyard in the neighborhood . Mrs . Langhans asked what the distance
was between the back of the house and the lot line . Town Attorney
Barney offered that the distance was about 30 feet .
William Lesser stated that he was sympathetic to the neighbors ,
and could understand how they appreciated a very attractive yard , but
he did not see any basis on which to deny Mr . Lucente the rights that
are awarded to him under the zoning regulations . However , Mr . Lesser
questioned the private vs . the publicly owned access . Mr . Lesser
wondered what the Town liability would be , if the Board should accept
private access rather than the standard required practice of building
a Town road that is acceptable to the Town . Attorney Barney responded
that there is a provision in Town Law which would require Mr . Lucente
to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a variance from
• constructing a road , noting , in other words , one violates the frontage
requirements , but it is allowed under certain circumstances for the
construction of a house not on a public road , under 280a of the Town
Law , and commented that enough access for emergency vehicles has to be
provided .
David Klein noted that the 1959 Survey Map shows the two back
lots with reserve . Mr . Klein wondered why the two lots are not shown
on the Tax Map . Mr . Klein thought , if this were an approved
subdivision it would show up as separate tax parcels . Ms . Beeners
responded that it was , perhaps , because that portion of the
subdivision was never filed . Ms . Beeners said that :she was unable to
find much information in the minutes about that subdivision , adding
that she thought it was approved at that time , however , since it was
not filed , unless there is something not known about the reserve notes
on those lots , that the 1959 subdivision is a moot subdivision .
Attorney Barney stated that , the mere fact it is denominated reserve ,
it was not denominated , presumably , as an approved lot at the time .
Mr . Barney stated that he did not recall , at that, time , what the
status of water and sewer was , adding , the fact it was marked reserve ,
it was not , at that time , approved as part of the Christopher Circle
subdivision , and the Board has jurisdicttion to determine whether a
subdivision is appropriate at the present time .
Virginia Langhans commented that the Board has turned down many
proposals before the Lucente proposal regarding lots not on a public
• highway . Mrs . Langhans wondered why subject proposal would be
different from the proposals prior to the Lucente issue . Susan
Beeners responded that there is not an alternate scheme shown where a
Planning Board - 8 - June 7 , 1988
• public road could be provided . Mrs . Langhans stated that she was
thinking of a lot off of Honness Lane where a house was proposed to be
constructed on one lot , and one of the big arguments was that it was
not on a public highway . Ms . Beeners noted that the main distinction
is that there are two alternate plans being presented , at this time ,
for subdividing , and one would essentially meet the requirements of
subdivision , and there was a 53 - foot road reservation , even though it
may not have been filed back in 1959 .
Mr . Lesser asked if there were any cases in which the Board has
granted permission to subdivide not on a public road . Mrs . Langhans
responded that permission was granted on Crest Lane . Mrs . Langhans
wondered if Mr . Lucente was actually going to use a 53 - foot road . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that Mr . Lucente wanted to show that it could be
platted as a traditional plat , but that it is clearly preferred to
just extend the existing driveway to serve two residences . Mr .
Fabbroni noted that it was somewhat of a unique situation in that the
driveway and the turnaround were developed in the back of the existing
house , as part of the use of that house .
Chairman May stated , assuming that the Town Board would accept
this as a Town road , then it would be a fully conforming situation .
Chairman May felt that it would be more desirable to not make it a
public road in this instance . Chairman May stated that he had
difficulty understanding how the subdivision could be refused , because
• it looks like a fully conforming situation . Mr . Klein asked if Lot 43
would be fully conforming . Ms . Beeners responded that Lot 43 would
have 100 feet of frontage on the cul de sac . Mr . Fabbroni noted that
the lot size would be 17 , 000 square feet . Robert Miller wondered if
any variances would be granted , with Mr . Lesser responding that there
would be for Lot 02 , in terms of frontage . Virginia Langhans wondered
about the sewer issue . Robert Flumerfelt answered that the Village of
Cayuga Heights has allotted the Town of Ithaca only 15 additional
sewer units , and noted that to his knowledge that has not been
increased , adding that he thought the 15 have been spoken for . David
Klein wondered about the sewer hook - up . Mr . Fabbroni said that it
would tie in down where the right - of - way is , adding that there would
be direct access from Lot # 2 to the sewer in " this " area and directly
adjacent to the house on Lot # 3 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was the
intention of the developer to hook up to public sewer , as the lots
cannot be developed on private systems . Robert Miller offered that
Lot # 2 requires a frontage variance .
David Klein stated that he was troubled by the two units , because
the Board has been fairly consistent where subdivisions have been
allowed that we. re not on public highways . Carolyn Grigorov mentioned
the homes being single family , and owner occupied , with Attorney
Barney noting that the Planning Board could recommend to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , if that Board were to grant the variance , that it be
conditioned on being single family houses . Virginia Langhans
mentioned the fact that , when the property is sold , the main house
• could go to the so - called landlord , and the other two houses could
become rental . William Lesser offered that he felt that the reality
of the situation up there is such that it would not be a problem ,
Planning Board - 9 - June 7 , 1988
• e . g . , a $ 150 , 000 . - $ 200 , 000 . house for rental . Mr . Lesser noted that
he felt it reasonable , if the Board accepts the proposal , or at least
recommends the situation of a private road , that the Board is granting
the applicant a substantial savings over the cost of building a road .
Attorney Barney stated that , if there is going to be a private road ,
the traffic should be minimized over the road , and therefore , one
could suggest single . family homes . Mr . Klein expressed his support of
Mr . Barney ' s suggestion .
At this time , Town Planner Susan Beeners referred to PART 11 -
Environmental Assessment - Proposed Lucente Subidvision , Warren Road .
Ms . Beeners stated that Cl
3rd sentence , should read : " In spite of an
offset of approximately 30 feet between the proposed new drive and the
intersection of Manor Drive with Warren Road , no significant safety
problems are expected because of the low number of lots proposed . "
Also , on Page 2 , D , which states : " No controversy is known or expected
at this time . " Ms . Beeners stated that , for the record , a petition
was received [ noted as Exhibit 11 at the Planning Board Meeting of
June 7 , 1988 , and read aloud to the public .
There appearing to be no further comments or questions , 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 Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 ,
1 . 75 acres total , located at 506 Warren Road , into three lots .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review of the proposed subdivision . The Zoning
Board of Appeals would act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of any variance request .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for this Action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for
review of the proposed subdivision , make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - Miller .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Planning Board - 10 - June 7 , 1988
• Chairman May asked Mr . Lucente how he felt about a limitation to
single family housing . Mr . Lucente responded that one of the houses
would be for his son , and his son wants to include an apartment in his
house . Virginia Langhans wondered if Mr . Lucente ' s present home had
an apartment , with Mr . Lucente answering , no , I have 3400 square feet ,
and it is possible that someone could , at some time , put an apartment
in the home .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This Action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 ,
1 . 75 acres total , located at 506 Warren Road , into three lots .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
proposed subdivision , has made , on June 7 , 1988 , a negative
determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on June 7 , 1988 , has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application submissions for this Action .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board waive and hereby does
waive certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purposes
of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by
the Town Board .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to the plat entitled " Variance Preferred
Subdivision on Commonly Shared Right of Way " , as submitted to and
reviewed by the Planning Board at said Public Hearing , June 7 ,
19881 with the following conditions .
a . Granting of . a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
construction on a private road under Section 280 - a of the
Town Law
and variance for the frontage requirement .
b . Approval by the Town Attorney of any necessary easements
with respect to common access and maintenance of the
proposed road , as a condition of any final subdivision
approval .
c . That construction on either of the new lots , because of the
desire to minimize traffic on a private road and because of
• the irregular and somewhat small lots , be limited to one
single family home on each lot .
Planning Board - 11 - June 7 , 1988
• At this point , Mr . Fabbroni stated that one of the houses on
Manor Street has an apartment . Robert Miller wondered what necessary
variances might come before the Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney
responded that the first variance has to be the one to authorize
construction off of a public road , which is 280a . Mr . Miller asked if
there would be any variances needed on the lot size , with Attorney
Barney stating that it depended on how it was structured , and aside
from the frontage requirement , Attorney Barney felt there was not any
deviation from the lot standards . Mr . Miller wondered why it was not
specific on the necessary variances in subject proposal . Attorney
Barney pointed out that condition " a . " " Granting of a variance by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for construction on a private road under
Section 280 - a of the Town Law , and variance for the frontage
requirement " , was very specific .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - ' May , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - Miller , Langhans ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Preliminary
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of three lots on the
Lucente property , Rocco P . Lucente , Applicant , duly closed at 8 : 49
• p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED " GRANDMOTHER SUBDIVISION " BEING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A
4 . 4 ± ACRE PARCEL FROM A 23 . 7 ACRE PARCEL WHICH WAS APPROVED TO BE
SUBDIVIDED OUT OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 51 - 1 - 3 BY THE
PLANNING BOARD ON APRIL 5 , 1988 . SUBJECT LAND IS LOCATED AT 611
CODDINGTON ROAD , NEAR TROY ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . RUTH E .
JOHNSON , OWNER ; PETER GRIGOROV , APPLICANT .
At this point , Board Member Carolyn Grigorov removed herself from
her seat at the Board table during the entire discussion on the
proposed " Grandmother Subdivision " .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 50 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Grigorov approached the Board and stated that he was seeking
approval for a subdivision on recently subdivided land . Mr . Grigorov
stated that an addition would be constructed onto an existing
building . Chairman May wondered if there was enough frontage , with
Mr . Grigorov answering , there is 320 feet of frontage " here "
[ indicating on map ] on Coddington Road . Mr . Miller asked about the
property line , with Mr . Grigorov responding , the property line is
" here " .
• Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak .
Planning Board - 12 - June 7 , 1988
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer
wondered where the 15 - foot side lot line was located , with Mr .
Grigorov answering , from " this " garage . Mr . Frost asked if there was
a residence in back of that garage , with Mr . Grigorov responding , no .
Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 53 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
William Lesser wondered about the term " Grandmother Subdivision " .
Mr . Lesser commented that nothing has been acted upon , and wondered if
that was just a name being used to designate subject proposal or does
it carry some particular meaning . Chairman May stated that
" Grandmother Subdivision " is the name of the subdivision . Town
Planner Susan Beeners pointed out that a Special Permit could be
looked at or some other feature to permit a second dwelling detached
from the principal dwelling on a lot for blood relations , and added
that the City has a three year renewable Special Permit . William
Lesser asked what happened after the three year expiration , as to
blood relations , with Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responding
that in some municipalities they are called " Echo Housing Units " ,
which are elder cottage housing units in which they are defined as
being temporary , and to be used for the duration of that person living
there , then to be removed from the property .
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 Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This Action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 51 - 1 - 3 ,
located at 611 Coddington Road , into two lots of approximately
19 . 3 and 4 . 4 acres respectively .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as the Lead Agency for
environmental review of the proposed subdivision .
3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this Action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for
review of the proposed subdivision , make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
Planning Board - 13 - June 7 , 1988
[ No Vote - Grigorov , having removed herself from her seat at the Board
table during the entire discussion and vote on the proposed
" Grandmother " subdivision . ]
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 Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 51 - 1 - 3 ,
located at 611 Coddington Road , into two lots of approximately
19 . 3 and 4 . 4 acres respectively .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
proposed subdivision , has made , on June 7 , 1988 , a negative
determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on June 7 , 1988 , has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application submissions for this Action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
• 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board waive and hereby does
waive certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such a 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
Subdivision Approval to the plat entitled " Grandmother
Subdivision " .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
[ No Vote - Grigorov , having removed herself from her seat at the Board
table during the entire discussion and vote on the proposed
" Grandmother " subdivision . ]
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Subdivision
Approval for the proposed " Grandmother Subdivision " duly closed at
8 : 59 p . m .
• PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR " SPRINGWOOD
PHASE II " , 40 MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED , LOCATED IN A MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 123 EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
Planning Board - 14 - June 7 , 1988
• N0 . 6 - 43 - 2 - 8 . 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 , along with his Architect , Mr . Jose Amador .
Mr . Evan Monkemeyer addressed the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he had been before the Planning Board
on December 15 , 1987 for a Sketch Plan Review concerning Phase II .
Mr . Monkemeyer offered that he was before the Board tonight to secure
Site Plan Approval for Phase II of the " Springwood " development on
East King Road . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that a number of drawings were
appended to the bulletin board , and that the top right hand corner
drawing was an overall site plan of the entire " Springwood " parcel .
Mr . Monkemeyer pointed out East King Road which is a County road , and
noted that " this " orients to the north , west , south and east . Mr .
Monkemeyer stated that the property is zoned Multiple Family , and it
is a 15 . 5 acre site , encompassing all these [ indicating on map ]
boundaries . Mr . Monkemeyer offered that the site , right now , in Phase
I , has some existing townhouses that are up , rented , and occupied ,
adding that there is some new construction going on in the first nine
units being built in " these " three buildings , as well as a laundry
• center and garage structure that is already completed on that portion
of the property . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that the Phase II development
that is being proposed would be a large structure in the form of a
crescent shape , totalling 40 residential units that would be tucked
back into the southeasterly corner , which is the highest point on the
property . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that the views would be oriented to
the north from the units to the west , and the rear units oriented to
the east and the south . Mr . Monkemeyer pointed to the larger plan
that showed the individual unit types , noting that the building is
broken down into two - bedroom flats and one - bedroom flats , adding that
the unit distribution would be 12 one - bedroom and 24 two - bedroom . Mr .
Monkemeyer commented that it was a garden style apartment building
which has 50 of its units handicapped accessible . Mr . Monkemeyer
remarked that the site plan has adequate parking to the front of the
units , providing for handicapped spaces , as well as orientation to
what is being called a small plaza area , leading on to a miniature
pool and recreation center that would be for the " Springwood "
community . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that also included on the plan is a
one story garage structure between the proposed " Springwood " building
and the East King Road area , adding that the garage structure is about
86 feet from the edge of the road right - of - way , and the building
itself is at the edge of the corner of the building , which is well
over 200 feet from the road area . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that there is
also a large greenbelt , which is being maintained from Phase I , and
which has a setback from East King Road of well over 100 feet , adding
• that that greenbelt is made up of natural vegetation , Conifer trees ,
and trees that are common to the area . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that that
greenbelt open space would be maintained as just a mowed strip of
Planning Board - 15 - June 7 , 1988
• land , and would give a nice setback and a lot of buffer . Mr .
Monkemeyer noted that the elevations , standing in the middle of " this "
plaza , looking at the various structures , it is opened up , because the
building is actually in U - shaped fashion . Indicating on map , Mr .
Monkemeyer remarked that " this " would be the center structure , and two
side structures . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that this showed an elevation
in comparison to the height of the structures from Phase I
construction of the two - storied " Springwood " loft and it is in
relation to the new construction proposed . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that
there are also various sections of the building , as proposed , with
entry in the bedrooms , sundecks , and living areas . Mr . Monkemeyer
noted that it was a two - story garden apartment with a basement design
that allows one to use the basement spaces . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that
most of the information on unit mix , density , parking spaces provided ,
and lot coverage , etc . , are included on the site plan .
Chairman May wondered about the height of the structures .
Virginia Langhans offered that the height was 35 . 6 feet at the low
point , and then in the middle it goes higher . Carolyn Grigorov
wondered if the height requirements were different for Multiple .
William Lesser stated that it appeared to him , the way the Town is
presently considering defining height , that the height was 41 feet
from the floor in contact with the ground to the highest point of the
roof , with Virginia Langhans commenting , yes , in the middle section ,
which is the highest point . Carolyn Grigorov remarked that that was
• below grade , but is still well over . Susan Beeners , Town Planner ,
stated that it was her understanding that the northernmost building ,
where a 31 - foot sideyard is shown , that that point is part of a
bedroom wing with a height of 37 feet . Ms . Beeners asked Jose Amador ,
Architect for " Springwood " , to clarify this . Mr . Amador said that
copies of the drawings should be referred to , where all the actual
building heights are identified , . and reminded the Planning Board that
the Zoning Ordinance , as written , is not very specific as to what the
actual building height is . Mr . Amador , in response to Ms . Beeners
question , stated that the actual height of the building from finished
grade to the top of that roof is only , effectively , 31 . 5 feet . Mr .
Amador stated that that issue is very unclear as to the way the Zoning
Ordinance is written , and they will be requesting a review concerning
that . Mr . Amador stated that Drawing 3A3 shows all the actual heights
proposed for the project . Attorney Barney wondered about the
requirement of two stories . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he did not
consider a basement a story . Mr . Amador stated that the New York
State Building Code does not consider a basement a story . Chairman
May commented that this is grade level . Again , Mr . Amador mentioned
that , if one goes back to the New York State Building Code , any space
that is beyond a certain limit under the finished grade and around
that space is higher than a certain distance , it is not considered a
story , and noted that that is the case here . William Lesser commented
except this is going to be occupied . Mr . Amador responded , yes , and
1f the finished grade 1s not higher than 4 feet around that living
area , then it is still a habitable space . William Lesser stated that
• it seemed to him that it was tough to say , on one hand that it is
habitable space , and on the other hand to say that it is a basement ,
adding that he found it hard to accept two definitions
Planning Board - 16 - June 7 , 1988
• simultaneously . Attorney Barney questioned whether the Mezzanine on
the top is not another story . Mr . Amador mentioned the Building Code .
Attorney Barney stated that the Board is not talking about the
Building Code , but about the Zoning Ordinance . Attorney Barney stated
that the Building Code has its own set of separate requirements ,
adding that , no way in this world are we ever going to be able to get
our Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code completely in sync .
Attorney Barney said that the Board is dealing with the Zoning
Ordinance and it seemed to him that the developer is showing a picture
of something that is really a four - story building . Mr . Amador
responded , yes sir , but since the Zoning Ordinance is not specific as
to what is allowed - what is a story and what is the specific height
required , we are going by the actual New York State Building Code ,
which has specific regulations . Attorney Barney stated that he looks
at things in this context , that if he has to defend the Board ' s action
in court , adding that he was having difficulty in his mind that if he
had to go to court he can get a judge to believe that this is no more
than two stories , in which event he then questioned why this Planning
Board should be asked to accept a proposal that is clearly more than ,
in his view , two stories . Mr . Amador wondered if the Planning Board
had , in its writing of the Ordinance , defined what is a story and what
is the maximum number of stories allowed in this specific zoning
district . Mr . Barney responded that it stated two stories , tops , on
the road side . Mr . Amador stated that there is a one - story garage
building on the road side . Mr . Lesser wondered if Mr . Amador meant
• between the building and the road , as he does not consider that to be
on the road side . Attorney Barney stated that that does not obviate
the requirement insofar as it relates to the road , and added that
anybody could get around that by building a one - story building , and
stating , now we have complied , then build a skyscraper seven stories
high . Mr . Amador wondered , in that sense , would it be up to the
Planning Board to make a judgment as to what is intended in the
writing of this particular requirement . Mr . Amador stated that the
project has been discussed in a series of preliminary meetings with
the Town Planner Susan Beeners . Mr . Amador stated that the concern of
the height was always an issue , but it was explained in the letter to
Montgomery May , Chairman of the Planning Board , and dated May 10 ,
1988 . [ Copy attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . 1 Mr . Amador noted that the
project as presented , is the result of their assumptions , and
realizing that the Planning Board is responsible for deciphering what
the Zoning Ordinance should be , how it should be enacted , and the
project was presented , as planned , for an interpretation . Mr . Amador
again emphasized that the requirements in a Multiple Residence
District , as far as height , are not very specific , and unless there is
something that they did not read , there is not even an actual
definition in the Multiple Residence Article for a Multiple Residence
area , where a specific height limit is set . Attorney Barney referred
to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VI , Page 21 , Multiple Residence
Districts , Section 28 , No . 5 which states : " Height : All structures
shall conform in height with other structures in the vicinity ;
provided however , that no structure shall exceed 2 stories on the road
• side . " Mr . Amador responded that he was familiar with that statement .
Mr . Amador stated that the developer ' s assumption was , the structure
that was on the road side was that garage building , and the developer
Planning Board - 17 - June 7 , 1988
• made it very clear at preliminary meetings that that was their
assumption . William Lesser responded that he did not recall that ,
with Mr . Amador answering , preliminary meetings with the Town Planner .
Ms . Beeners stated that she saw nothing in the Zoning Ordinance
to really advise , as far as what the policy was , because she did not
see any definitions of height or story , even though the Codes and
Ordinances Committee has been working on this for quite awhile . Ms .
Beeners stated that she went by what was in the book , and that was all
she was able to advise . Mr . Evan Monkemeyer stated that all he did
was just interpret the book , and design the project .
Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak .
Jean Brockway of 166 Ridgecrest Road spoke from the floor and
stated that her concern was that King Road was really getting
developed . Ms . Brockway remarked that there is a school down at the
bottom , and the speed limit is 55 MPH . Ms . Brockway noted that she
would like to see getting some kind of a more reasonable speed limit ,
as there are a lot of roads going out onto King Road , and especially
with the school . Chairman May responded that the Town Board has to
make an application to the County , because King Road is a County Road .
Chairman May stated that the County will ultimately take care of that .
• Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 17 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
Chairman May stated that there is a serious height problem and
also a serious problem on the number of stories .
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ,
stated that , in his opinion , if one was just looking at the Zoning
Ordinance , and a single lot house was proposed , this would be a
two - story house . Mr . Frost stated that he was a little confused as to
what was being talked about , noting that Attorney Barney suggested
four stories . Chairman May mentioned the Mezzanine . Mr . Frost stated
that the Mezzanine itself would not , necessarily , be considered a
story . Mr . Frost offered that there is a definition of story in the
Subdivison Regulations , but did not believe it would apply to this
particular application . Mr . Frost stated that he agreed that there
was no clear definition of story in the Zoning Ordinance itself , and
going on the basis of Building Code this would be a two - story
building , adding that the Mezzanine , depending on exact dimensions ,
could end up being a story , commenting that 1f the area of the
Mezzanine is less than 500 of the floor area of the floor below 1t ,
then it would not be considered part of the story . Mr . Frost said
that it may not necessarily be habitable space , but for all intents
and purposes in looking at the Zoning Ordinance for a Multiple
Residence District concerning height , it does not specifically state
• that it must be 30 feet , nor does it suggest it cannot be 40 feet .
Attorney Barney responded with , as a person responsible for legal
advice , he would be hardpressed if he were brought to court , supposing
Planning Board - 18 - June 7 , 1988
this Planning Board adopted and agreed , and said , we will accept this
proposal , and a taxpayer or resident brought an action in court and
said this is a four - story building , and added that he would feel
foolish standing up before a judge and saying - no judge , this is only
a two - story building . Attorney Barney noted that Mr . Frost may
interpret it in accordance with the Building Code , but we are not
dealing with the Building Code , we are dealing with the Zoning
Ordinance and Town legislation , not State legislation , and added that
if you have to go somewhere for an interpretation as to what is a
story , then you go to the Subdivision Regulations , if you have to look
at some other legislation of the Town , and that very clearly defines
that Mezzanine , among other things , as being a story , commenting that
he also thought it was an acceptable interpretation that , at the
lowest level , it is also a story . Attorney Barney stated that he
would be very , very hardpressed to take the position that Mr . Frost is
espousing . Attorney Barney responded that he was attempting to
rectify that with a very clearly explicit definition of what is
height , and indeed , that has been submitted or is about to be
submitted to the Planning Board for review .
Chairman May stated that he was having difficulty with a grade
level not being called one story . Andrew Frost responded that in the
Building Code it would state that , if the floor above is within seven
foot of the ground , then that becomes the first story , not a second
story . Mr . Frost stated that he was voicing his opinion as , number
• one , a Zoning Officer interpreting the Zoning Ordinance , and secondly ,
how the subdivision regulations apply to his enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance , adding that the definition of story in the Subdivision
Regulations references officially adopted Fire and Building Codes in
the State of New York , with Attorney Barney commenting , no , it
references a minimum distance , and specifically states that for the
purpose of these regulations , the minimum vertical distance between
any two floors having six feet constitutes a story , so if you look ,
you have 6 , 12 , 18 , 24 , and assuming you have six feet , Mr . Barney felt
these distances were more than six feet , they are more like seven or
eight feet . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that this is a typical garden
apartment building , of which there are literally thousands of
residential units in Tompkins County that are designed just like this .
Mr . Monkemeyer noted that one can exclude the Mezzanine , but there are
thousands of units that everyone of us have either lived in , or
visited in Tompkins County , that are built and designed just like
this . Attorney Barney responded that Tompkins County is one thing ,
and the Town of Ithaca is a different thing . Mr . Monkemeyer offered
that in the Town of Ithaca there is Candlewyck Apartments and
Warrenwood Apartments . Attorney Barney , referring to Candlewyck
Apartments , noted that , if you look at them from the roadside , one
can , at least , arguably say that they are two - stories from the
roadside , looking from the uphill side . David Klein stated that ,
except for the Mezzanine , these are not dissimilar to Summerhill , with
Chairman May responding that Summerhill Apartments are two stories ,
and are on a slab . William Lesser commented that he had extreme
• difficulty in interpreting these as being two stories , with Virginia
Langhans agreeing . Chairman May stated that , on the advice of the
Town Attorney , the Planning Board has little or no choice but to do
Planning Board - 19 - June 7 , 1988
• nothing . Chairman May noted that the applicant may want to withdraw
this proposal , as this might be the best move , at this moment . Mr .
Monkemeyer stated that the proposal is here , as presented , and if we
are going to do anything to the Mezzanine , which was just thrown in at
the last minute , and clearly meets the State Codes in terms of its
definition as not being a story , commenting that that is no problem
with him , but the building itself is no different, than any other
building that exists today in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Monkemeyer
noted that , as far as the building heights are concerned , there is La
Tourelle , which is in Local Law 03 , and has a building height of 55
feet , and added that his building height is clearly under that , noting
that La Tourelle is right in the same neighborhood . Chairman May
stated that La Tourelle was specifically named as an exception .
Chairman May asked Attorney Barney if it would be better for the
applicant to withdraw at this point , or would they be better off to
just have it denied on the basis of advice of counse 1 , or what have
you . Attorney Barney responded that it depends on what they want to
do , as he cannot tell Evan or his father how to proceed . Attorney
Barney stated that he had a great deal of difficulty with this , but
felt that there were two possibilities - one would be an application
for a variance for height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals ,
or , if the insistence is on proceeding on the plan presented tonight
for final site plan approval that , quite frankly , he did not think
there was any choice . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he would like to
proceed with the plan , and have the Planning Board make a decision .
• Carolyn Grigorov wondered , if the Mezzanine was not in there ,
would there still be a problem . Chairman May responded that the
Mezzanine was not the problem , it is the basement . Attorney Barney
remarked that , even if the Mezzanine was taken off , there is a terrace
that is shown here as being on the ground level off the exit of the
lowest level
and to try and c l a i m that that is not a story . . . . Mr .
Monkemeyer commented that the area the Board is calling . the basement ,
if you look at the site plan , is not the average grade around the
building , it Is just a terrace , it is o fire exit that leads one out
of the lower units to a courtyard area , adding that , the average grade
around the building , as shown on the map , is an average of four feet ,
and the grade is higher than the floor level all the way around . Town
Engineer Robert Flumerfelt stated that he felt the terrace was an
excavated area below the ground level , with Mr . Monkemeyer responding ,
yes , that is correct , it is where you can walk out on level surfaces ,
and allows you to exit on grade level .
William Lesser mentioned that the Board went through somewhat of
a similar discussion with Deer Run , although the height restrictions
are different , admittedly , and the Board noted that: they would not
refer to it as a story , because the lowest level , the level in contact
with the ground , was built up at the level of four feet , but the
developer agreed that there would be no access or exit at that level ,
and it is really not a floor , as the Board defines it .
• Mr . Amador stated that he was still confused about what portion
of the Zoning Ordinance the developer is not in compliance with , with
Chairman May answering , it is not a two - story building . Mr . Amador
Planning Board - 20 - June 7 , 1988
• wondered where in the Ordinance is the Board defining two - story .
Chairman May said that Mr . Amador granted it was not a two - story
building , and the Ordinance states that it will not be more than two
stories on the road side , and noted that that is as far as this Board
is empowered to go . Mr . Monkemeyer reminded the Board that the
presented plan is the same plan that was before the Board in December
of 1987 , and noted that it was the same plan , with no changes . Mr .
Monkemeyer noted that , at that time , there was never any question of
story , adding that he had proceeded with the plan in good faith .
Attorney Barney stated that he did not remember the plan as it was
presented tonight . Mr . Monkemeyer responded that the " All style truss
roof was not on top . David Klein noted Section 3A3 , which is Section
at Bedrooms , and remarked that the Board had viewed that particular
sketch . Mr . Klein commented that Warrenwood was built like the
proposed plan . Ms . Beeners stated that , as she recalled , Warrenwood
is three visible stories on the roadside . Chairman May noted that , at
this point , the Board has a recommendation from the Town Attorney that
this be denied , and added that Mr . Monkemeyer could go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance . At this point , Chairman May
recommended that any kind of a recommendation be deferred on SEAR .
There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman
May asked if anyone cared to make a motion .
MOTION by Montgomery May , seconded by William Lesser :
• RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby
does deny Site Plan Approval for Phase II of " SprAngwood " , as
presented , on the basis of the recommendation of the Town Attorney
because of the building being three stories , whereas a maximum of two
stories is allowed .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Miller , Lesser .
Nay - Kenerson .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Site Plan
Approval for " Springwood Phase II " duly closed at 9 : 35 p . m .
At this time , Chairman May announced to the public present that
the 8 : 00 p . m . Public Hearing on the Jones Farm Residential Community
has been adjourned , with no time or date set for another Public
Hearing ,
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF A 3 . 4 ±
ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 35 - 1 -- 10 . 1 , LOCATED ON
ELMIRA ROAD NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH ENFIELD FALLS ROAD , FROM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " B " , FOR EXPANSION OF
• EDDYDALE MARKET . ALFRED C . EDDY OWNER ; JIM LINTON AGENT .
Planning Board - 21 - June 7 , 1988
• Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Linton , Agent for Mr . Eddy , addressed the Board and stated
that , upon the suggestion of the Zoning Officer and the Town Planner ,
the Applicant is making this request . Mr . Linton said that Eddydale
has grown over the last few years , and more space is needed for two
purposes - one is to store and utilize the existing production . Mr .
Linton stated that Mr . Eddy was in the dairy business , but is
presently devoting more time to farming , so he needs more area to
store squash and pumpkins in the Fall . Secondly , Mr . Linton stated
that Mr . Eddy would like to have a few of the convenience store items
to sell as the customers are asking for them .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
anyone present wished to comment .
Elsie McMillan of 812 Elmira Road spoke from the floor and stated
that Mr . Eddy rents farm land from her family . Ms „ Mcmillan stated
that she did not have any quarrel with Mr . Eddy as a person , but does
have a quarrel with something that strikes her as spot zoning , in an
area , 1n her youth , which was an Agricultural zone . Ms . McMillan
stated that it was zoned residential , and the argument , at the time
zoning was adopted , was that no one wanted a lot of business around a
• State Park . Ms . McMillan commented that she felt if one parcel was
zoned business in the area , it would be just a matter . of time before
the whole area is zoned business . Ms . McMillan commented that she did
not think it was fair that one person in the area was zoned business ,
adding that , if that one parcel 1s zoned business ;, then the whole
stretch should be business . Ms . McMillan stated that she did not
think it was fair to spot zone .
Carolyn Miller of 823 Elmira Road spoke from the floor and stated
that she lives next door and felt there was real fear , if you live in
an area , and an exception is made , it seemed to open the doors and the
pressure is on for more changes . Ms . Miller was concerned about
protecting the integrity of the area . Ms . Miller commented that a
seasonal farm stand has changed to a permanent large storehouse , and
is open for business the entire year . Ms . Miller remarked that she
did not think customer requests were a basis for a zoning change .
Alfred Eddy , owner of the property in question , responded that farming
has been really rough , and instead of losing everything they got out
of the cow business . Mr . Eddy remarked that his main problem is that
more room is needed on the back side of the stand , adding that he was
not changing the area at all . Mr . Eddy mentioned that there are
onions , potatoes , and several other things in the aisles , where
customers have to walk . Mr . Eddy noted that he lost all of the winter
squash last year and some pumpkins , because they were stored in the
dairy barn . Mr . Eddy noted that before winter sets in , they need a
place to store these items . Mr . Eddy stated that it was very hard to
• farm and make any money , noting that this was his best chance . Mr .
Eddy stated that he was selling some of his land , but would keep a
Portion of land for farming . Mr . Eddy stated that. Ms . Miller has
Planning Board - 22 - June 7 , 1988
• 30 - 40 foot high trees between the properties . Mr . Eddy said that ,
basically , he would be selling the same items being sold now , but
might add a few other items . Mr . Eddy commented that he has had
inquiries from customers about offering a green salad for sale .
Ms . Miller read aloud , for the record , a letter to the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board , dated June 7 , 1988 , and signed by Mrs . David C .
Sprague and Mrs . Sybil S . Phillips , which is as follows :
" June 7 , 1988
817 Elmira Road
Ithaca , New York 14850
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Jean Swartwood , Town Clerk
In response to your notice of May 311, 1988 , pertaining to the
request by Alfred C . Eddy for a change of zoning on his property on
Elmira Road , ( adjacent to the property of Robert Miller ) , I wish to
register a protest on any change from the present zoning of Residence
District R 30 to Business District " B " .
The Eddydale Market as it exists at this time fits into the area
quite well . However , if the zoning were changed to Business District
• " B " it would allow an expansion which would definitely be the cause of
an undesirable change in our neighborhood . ( It would definitely
encroach on the privacy of the Robert Miller property which borders
the Eddy - dale property and would certainly be the cause of an increase
in traffic in our area . )
As I understand it the Business District " B " zoning would allow
Mr . Eddy to sell any and all products which he wished to handle in his
market . At one time during his early days with his market he was
disspensing barbecued chicken which caused much provocation among the
neighbors as it attracted many stray animals into the neighborhood .
Smoke odors noise . This was stopped after neighbors protested , but
with a business " B " zoning I have no doubt that this type of thing
might reoccur .
( I ' d like to add that ) I don ' t understand why the zoning in this
area should be changed to accommodate one property owner when that
property is situated among residential properties and I strongly
protest this action .
Very truly yours ,
Mrs . David C . Sprague
Mrs . Sybil S . Phillips
721 Elmira Road "
• Ms . Miller commented that , if the desire is just to construct a
30 - foot addition on the existing building , and continue the same kind
Planning Board - 23 - June 7 , 1988
of business , she wondered why Mr . Eddy is asking for 500 feet to be
rezoned for business . Ms . Miller inquired as to the long range plans
that Mr . Eddy has , mentioning a big shopping mall . Mr . Eddy again
mentioned the large tall trees between the two properties . Mr . Eddy
said that the 35 acres across the street belongs to the Treman Park ,
and Turback ' s is to the south . Mr . Eddy stated that he did not want
to build any shopping mall on the parcel . Mr . Linton , in response to
the 500 feet , stated that on the topographical map the land drops off
about 50 - 60 feet , straight down , adding , if we had only gone back 300
feet there would be 200 feet of land not being used .
Ms . McMillan stated that she believed Alfred Eddy is perfectly
sincere in stating that he is no longer in the dairy business , but
into produce marketing for vegetable crops . Ms . McMillan voiced her
concern about , perhaps , a new owner putting a gas station on the
property . Ms . McMillan felt that the Planning Board has to look at
the area .
Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 50 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
Town Planner Susan Beeners suggested that , perhaps , time should
be allowed for the Board to view the site . Ms . Beeners appended a
CLEARS map to the bulletin board , and pointed out the different land
• uses on Elmira Road . Ms . Beeners indicated on the CLEARS Land Use Map
where the Eddy parcel was located . Ms . Beeners pointed out that there
are some residences established within the Business " C " zone , and
added that the Light Industrial area is south of Turback ' s . Ms .
Beeners mentioned the Sheldrake Greenhouses , which are classified as
residential property , plus greenhouses , and they are zoned R - 30 ,
noting that they had received special permission for the greenhouses .
Ms . Beeners noted that the Sheldrake Greenhouses are seen as
commercial , the Eddydale Market , and Turback ' s are seen as commercial .
Ms . Beeners stated that she was not making any recommendations
tonight , but was showing that there is a real mix in the area , and
also there are some extreme limitations as far as what type of
development can occur . Ms . Beeners , indicating on map , pointed out
the flood plain . Ms . Beeners offered that the land behind Turback ' s
and , jin fact , the Babcock parcel , and the Eddydale parcel , if that
were demolished , could be developed with some acre lots , for
residential purposes , and added that the area is zoned R - 30 . Ms .
Beeners mentioned that there are extreme limitations , and also there
is a very very busy road . Ms . Beeners offered that the Eddydale
Market use could be strictly limited to what is proposed at the
present time , that being , if the Board could define a limitation on
the amount of convenience foods that would be made available , perhaps ,
drawing from the list in the proposal . Ms . Beeners suggested limiting
the expansion of the building , and also propose some limitations on
the use of the back land . Ms . Beeners also suggested to think about
the possibility of further commercial zoning in a very limited
• fashion , for instance , to bring Turback ' s more into compliance with
what its real use is , and also the same for the Babcock parcel . Board
Member Robert Miller wondered about his property , with Ms . Beeners
Planning Board - 24 - June 7 , 1988
responding , that is a very nice piece of property . Mr . Miller
inquired as to his property being commercial as well . Ms . Beeners
stated that she was not suggesting that at all , but was just trying to
point out that a mix does exist , commenting that the Eddydale site
plan could be required to show adequate buffering along that border .
Mr . Miller wondered about the new highway accessing the park . Ms .
Beeners [ pointing to map ] indicated that the new road would be
approximately " here " with the new park entrance " here " . Mr . Miller
stated that he would like to see a Highway Map . David Klein stated
that as he views t -he map , the commercial zones , in his opinion , end at
Calkins Road which is really a kind of definable boundary . Mr . Klein
commented that , as he remembers , Eddydale is still , essentially , an
Agricultural use , and it is not , in fact , a commercial zone at the
present time , adding that Mr . Eddy has been operating Eddydale as a
farm stand , and commented that he could understand expanding the
operation
but did not want to see the commercial pressures continue
out from the City all the way out into the Town , and added that he
felt that that is what you would be implying when you start creating
some more commercial zones . Mr . Klein noted that Turback ' s is a
unique situation as , obviously , it is a commercial use , and it sits on
an enormously big piece of property , adding that 1t 1s a beautiful
unique structure which is also a kind of interesting buffer between
Light Industrial . Mr . Klein stated that it would have to be a pretty
strong argument to consider expanding the commercial district ,
commenting that , long - term , we are really asking for a major kind of
visual impact change along that part of the Elmira Road , Mr . Miller
commented that there has been land for sale in the commercial area ,
and if Mr . Eddy had wanted to expand his business he could have
purchased the land , with Mr . Eddy responding , with what ? Mr . Miller
stated that Mr . Eddy purchased his present property when he knew it
was zoned R - 30 .
At this point , Chairman May noted that a motion for adjournment
was in order for further study on the proposal . Carolyn Grigorov
noted that Ms . Beeners suggested that the Board go out and view the
site . Chairman May responded that most of the Board has done that on
one or more occasions . Mr . Lesser stated that , if you do that , my
personal preference is along the lines of David Klein , but if some
proposals are made to the Board he did not think it was even viable
for the Board to consider sending Andrew Frost , Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer out to the site to decide what
products Mr . Eddy is offering for sale . Chairman May stated that a
farmstand has to have homegrown products on the premises . Mr . Lesser
stated that , at this point , he felt it hard to imagine that there
would be something that Ms . Beeners could uncover which would make the
proposal acceptable to him , commenting , he would like Ms . Beeners to
make him feel confident that it would be worth spending more staff
time , and more Board time on the issue . Mr . Lesser wondered what Ms .
Beeners might come up with , which would be acceptable , because ,
personally , he has a difficult time rezoning that business . Mr .
Lesser stated that it is close to a business now , but it is limited in
a way that Is tractable , adding that he would be amenable to an
extension or something like that , if it is required to expand storage
into colder months , but when you start adding other items he was not
P- 1-ann i ng ' Board - 25 - June 7 , 1988
• in support of that . Ms . Beeners stated that one thing , which Ms .
McMillan had mentioned , was to look at what the feasibility of
development of the other parcels to the south , as to whether one
should expect the established residences to stay in Business " C " , or
whether they should be possibily taken out of the Business rrCrr
designation . Ms . Beeners offered that there could be a dangerous
situation , as far as strip commercial development was concerned .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked
if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of Consideration of a Request for the proposed
Rezoning of Eddydale Market be and hereby is adjourned until June 21 ,
1988 at 8 : 00 p . m . , to allow time for further study of the matter .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein .
Nay - Lesser , Miller .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
• Chairman May announced that , for everyone ' s information , the
above MOTION constituted Notice to the public that the above Public
Hearing is adjourned until June 21 , 1988 at 8 : 00 p . m . , and there will
be no mailing of individual notices for that meeting .
Chairman May declared the Eddydale Market matter duly adjourned
at 10 : 08 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED 150 - UNIT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROJECT ,
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 1033 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS
N0 . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 AND 6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 21 APPROXIMATELY 30 . 5 ACRES TOTAL , JMS
REALTY CO . , APPLICANT ; HOLT ARCHITECTS , DESIGNERS
Chairman May opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at
10 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Mr . Robert O ' Brien , Architect from Holt Architects , appeared
before the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . O ' Brien stated that this was a proposal for a 150 unit
housing development on a site that is immediately south of Ithaca
College property , adding that it is currently zoned for Multiple
Residence .
At this point , Mr . O ' Brien turned the presentation over to Ian
Tyndall , Land Planner , from HOH Associates .
• Mr . Tyndall stated that the developer was concerned that there be
minimum impact on the neighborhood . Mr . Tyndall said that the
Planning Board - 26 - June 7 , 1988
• proposal is for long continuous buildings , with the biggest buildings
at the back of the site , and the smallest buildings along the street .
Mr . Tyndall offered that the buildings are a mixture of three and four
bedrooms units . Mr . Tyndall stated that there is a road system that
loops all the way around the outside , with two access points . Mr .
Tyndall commented that the parking consists of three cars for every
four bedrooms , which is a total of 450 parking spaces .
Mr . Tyndall said that drainage for the site would be taken care
of by conducting the water into a couple of retention ponds . Mr .
Tyndall stated that the total acreage is 30 . 5 acres , adding , with 150
units , the density is 4 . 9 units per acre .
Chairman May asked about the back building being three stories ,
with Mr . Tyndall answering , the building is two stories in the back on
the roadside parking area , and three stories [ indicating on map ] on
" this " side . At this time , Mr . O ' Brien stated that the building would
be two stories , plus a basement , which conforms to the New York State
Building Code . Chairman May stated the the Town does not recognize
the New York State Building Code , noting that in this example , it
would be the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations that would have to
be complied with . Mr . Tyndall said that the building height allowed
is 35 feet .
Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Ordinance is in the
• process of being amended , and the height definition is going to
change , offering that he thought the height definition would be a
straight footage definition measured from the floor in contact with
the ground , whether it is a basement , slab , etc . Attorney Barney
remarked that the measurement would be 34 feet in height . Mr . Novarr ,
developer of the project stated that there was not any plan to
subdivide or sell any lots , noting , it would be a major apartment
project , under single ownership .
William Lesser wondered about the kind of construction that was
envisioned , and the anticipated tenants for the apartments . Mr .
O ' Brien responded that the construction would be woodframe , masonry or
concrete basements , with three and four bedroom unite , for a total of
600 bedrooms in the project . Mr . O ' Brien stated that because of the
close proxmity to Ithaca College there would be student rental , and ,
of course , rental to others .
Susan Beeners wondered if , in the initial Sketch Plan Review , a
Town road should be required to be in that area of development .
Chairman May wondered if the Fire Department and the Sheriff
Department had viewed the plan , adding that he felt: this should be
done .
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , wondered if any trip
generation calculations had been done , as to the traffic count . Mr .
• O ' Brien responded that , yes , a study had been done by Champion
Associates of New Rochelle , New York .
Planning Board - 27 - June 7 , 1988
• Chairman May wondered about a back access to Ithaca College . Mr .
Tyndall responded that there is only a pedestrian possibility at the
present time .
Robert Kenerson wondered about the off - site drainage . Mr .
O ' Brien answered that the plan right now would be to have it run out
to Route 96B , but noted that it has only been looked at on a very
preliminary level by the engineers , and has not been designed yet .
Virginia Langhans expressed a concern about the density of 4 . 9
units per acre . Mr . O ' Brien responded that , under the present zoning
regulations , over 500 units would be allowed on 30 acres .
David Klein stated that his main concern with the project was the
perimeter of the buffer .
William Lesser noted that he would prefer that the buildings be
separated a little bit for buffering purposes . Mr . Lesser also stated
that he would like to look at the traffic evaluation .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There being
none , Chairman May declared the matter of the Proposed 150 - unit
Multiple Residence project Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 10 : 45
p . m .
At this time , Myrtle Whitcomb addressed the Board and announced
• that she had a letter regarding South Hill development , noting that
she would mail the letter to the Planning Board to have it available
for the June 211, 1988 Planning Board Meeting . Chairman May stated
that the June 21st meeting would commence at 7 : 00 p . m . to allow time
for the contents of the letter to be addressed .
DISCUSSION
At this point , Attorney Barney discussed the " KLONDIKE MANOR "
proposal . Attorney Barney noted that the proposal had a rather odd
shaped lot , with a fairly serpentine road running through it and
across a NYSEG right - of - way , to service four or five lots to the east
of the right - of - way . Attorney Barney stated that part of the Planning
Board ' s approval was the condition that a connection be made between
the new road and Juniper Drive , using that right - of -way as the vehicle
to accomplish that . Attorney Barney stated that NYSEG is not really
prepared to • allow any road construction along the right - of -way , but
they have not ruled out crossing the right - of - way , adding that NYSEG
has thought of someday installing a transmission line along the
right - of -way , which explains why they do not want to commit to an
extended use of the right - of -way for road purposes . Attorney Barney
stated that there has been quite a bit of discussion on the location
of the roads , and the matter has been submitted to the Town Board to
accept the location of the roads , noting that there has been quite a
bit of debate , not only at the Town Board level , but also with an Ad
• Hoc group , which has involved people from the community . Attorney
Barney commented that the tentative plan was to submit a resolution ,
for discussion , to the Town Board , which would accept the road
Planning Board - 28 - June 7 , 1988
. structure , minus the connection along the NYSEG right - of - way , with a
request , or perhaps , a requirement that the developer post a
$ 10 , 000 . 00 deposit with the Town , to be used , if possible , in the next
three years to obtain an outlet up over Kendall Avenue or Pennsylvania
Avenue , adding that there was no guarantee of securing that , in which
event the $ 10 , 000 . 00 would be returned back to the developer within
that three year period , noting that arrangements could be made either
through condemnation or voluntary transfer for a secondary exit , which
would mean ultimately , if that was not obtained
that the subdivision
would remain with just the single road in from Coddington Road .
Attorney Barney said that he and Town Planner Susan Beeners were asked
by the Town Supervisor , to bring this matter to the Planning Board ' s
attention to get their views , as the issue will go before the Town
Board on June 13 , 1988 .
David Klein offered that the neighbors did not really want that
road connection to Juniper Drive . Ms . Beeners stated that there would
be 15 lots , with no commitment to them being single family at the
present time . Ms . Beeners offered that there has not been a single
family requirement imposed by any Board as yet , on this subdivision ,
adding that it meets the R - 15 requirments , except for the excessive
road length , which is 280 feet longer than it should be as a cul de
sac , and also a couple of variances that are required on the south
side .
• William Lesser stated his preference would be that , considering
the sensitivity of the area , and some of the questions that have been
raised , etc . , he would like to see the Town Board , if they were going
to accept something which was even more favorable to the developer
than what was originally accepted , to propose some additional
limitations , such as landscaping plans .
At this point , Attorney Barney commented that it could be
communicated to the Town Board that the Planning Board could live with
the proposal .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the June 7 , 1988 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 20 p . m .
Respectfully submitted , `
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
4 1 .
! maca , New _York
s. it 4 Junet988
To the Town of ithaci and :rits constituent Boards, and .Committees having
? urisdiction in the following matter —
Was the undersigned sex oress our strong opposition to the proposed
viVwn jf i• ; , 'j . 7 . h .; ar �. Q : iVl,i . :' - ; i - - ; cot' Gr i 'j � �; a � f � acre ;
irJt � i an � ICGv � e: V rt :j (1 h, warren Ca (= n • Y� % �i1^ r i u �• � nlp G4' • h . > amP aC � � P ° '
v1VneC Or r , r, n , : F .
. rrr. r. r. . 1 r ♦ r r
vc � U j.i (' 1ri: it �• 1 .Y (1 T . TLIC i :J r. i � nj ! ri .v : IJ I.i : � V 11n 01
71i1. H �iC Oi� lC1 aiiC irl .]
n - V � U :
� t a 4t-i1 . •Y�r n ,Cr — n .. n r rri Pei ri :tip � f rr r. + ; � r. i Wh : n +N r, .
i ' • v • . r :� F. a rJ i I : .J t _ are
$ ; tub ?, :' on 1015 t Qf i fill
r7 i :iU feet jLr• an ri - 1 J zone , i n µ . UGF.•ri !. � Grp err ?. y i ' ; Cii +hw _ (leen Si Y
� '
family and owner - occupied for over 30 year Neighboring pleoperties have
onformed with and maintained that same character , with the result that the
Neighborhood has beer stable , relatively unchanginq , and esthetically and
acologlcal iy pleasant to live in . Residents of this area have bought and are buying
homes in this area in the faith that the neighborhood character would be
maintainer and that t `. e zoning laws would protect them from undesirable
encroachments .
Our • secondary concern , in the event the Town disregards our opoosition and
chooses . to permit the subdivision ; is two - fold , namely that
• it should be required that any buildings erected an the subdivided
portions of . subject . property be single - family ; owner - occupied dwellings and
noncommercial , and
access to any new buildings , which itself- must be ,regarded as a major
concern , , shall be only by shared access on a common driveway and there shall be
no construction and no maintenance of a public road for such purpose to be paid
for out of tax revenues. '
IO„
r
in sura , we feel that subdivision of the Lucente property will set an unfavorable
and irrevocable precedent leading to deterioration of neighborhood character and
diminishing of the value of the present , carefully maintained properties of this
area , .
We therefore request the Town of Ithaca
to Disapprove the proposed subdivision .
EXHIBIT 1
Petition to Town of Ithaca , page 2 of
i e Address T e I eDhono
257
----.
----�'�� ----- -s.:z- a Six
OF 1
Poe
`7 76g
�?� CIA 60 �zs�� 176 6
000)
r
we [Let
owl 64
00
_ top
- 000
� p "• G;% -; -t�,��� ESI -'� -u- -- :__ ° !prpjC
27c — ? 4(00
wy www
.20AO Ct4 / ,27,2
EXHIBIT 1
' } ¢�J$ ;
•i•J
Petition to Town of Ithaca , [, age 2 of 2
FSK � 7
• �� ,F / a Te eaihotte
.. ~• /
MOOT
..
OF
- - .��/�-------. --- --ice
M
J
_
� i t
i
I
I.
I
EXHIBIT 1
'1
Conslruc>ion and Development
&YRISE 1060 Danby Road
SSOCIATES Ithaca New yof '< 14850
(607) 272-3813
May 10 1988
Montgomery May
- Chairman , ' Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca New York 14850
Dear Mr . May :
Last December 16 1988 , our company received a preliminary sketch
plan approval from the Planning Board of the Town . of Ithaca for the
" SPRINGWOOD PHASE 2 " project . During the past months the original proposal
has been reviewed and developed in order to accomodate both the initial
. concerns of the planning board and our own changing perspective of the
project . Final drawings have been prepared to reflect these concerns
and copies of them accompany this letter . Therefore we respecfully request
the Planning Board of the Town : of Ithaca to review our request for both
• preliminary and final site plan approval for this project .
The final proposal consists of 40 rental units of one and two bedroom
flats , located at 123 King Road East , adjacent to the " SPRINGWOOD PHASE - 1 "
project . These dwelling units are organized in a " crescent " configuration
which defines the recreation area with pool to the north . The " crescent "
orients half of the dwelling units to the north and west providing them
with views of Cayuga Lake and West Hill . The other half of the units are
oriented towards the south and the east , taking advantage of the views of
the surrounding forest . The final site strategy providers for a building
footprint coverage of 11 . 5 less than half of the maximum required 30 % by
the Ordinance . This allows for the maximum utilization of the site area
for open space passive recreation and aesthetic enjoyment of - both the t
residents and the neighborhood .
During your review of the project , one issue will be self evident , the
question of what is the maximum allowable building height: for the project .
The project is within the limits of a Multiple Residence District , as
defined by Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca . In
section 28 item 5 of this article the height requirement is defined as
follows :
. . . HEIGHT : All structures shall conform in height: with other
structures in the vicinity : provided however that no structure shall
xceed two stories on the road side . "
EXHIBIT `
. 1
I
p Construction and Oeve4opment
/ RISE 1060 Oonby Rocd
SS®CIATES ithcca New York 14850
(607) 272-3813
This height requirement is obviously a qualitative guideline rather
than a quantitative one , and thus fails to provide a dimensional criteria
against which the project can be evaluated for compliance . This issue was
discussed with the Town Planner , Susan Beeners , in several preliminary
design meetings and she agreed that the ordinance is not specific enough
concerning this issue , since it doesn ' t identify a limit on the number of
stories nor a maximum building height dimension . In view of this conflict ,
and in order to define the height for the proposed building , we have
adopted the definitions of Part 705 , Section 705 . 1E of the Codes , Rules
and Regulations of the State of New York .
With these definitions in mind the proposed buildinc� was classified as
two stories with a basement and the maximum building height of 35 ' - 6 " , as
measured from curb level to the average height of the pitched roof area in
the living rooms . On the other hand the height measured from finished
• grade to the average height of the pitched roof is only 31 ' -6 " . In
comparison , the height of the tallest building of the adjacent " Springwood
Phase - 1 " project is 26 ' - 0 " as measured from finished grade to the highest
point of the roof . The effective difference between there structures is
only around 51 - 6 " . In order to minimize the impact of this difference , the
area of the proposed buildings with a height of 31 ' - 6 " IS sited 230 ' - 0 "
from the edge of the public road . To compliment this move a one - story
garage structure buffers the building from th*e road .
Other structures in the vicinity that exhibit similar heights , above
36 ' - 0 " from finished grade to the average height of the pitched roof ,
include the neighboring project " La Tourelle " on route 96 - B . Clearly these
quantitative differences in height are insignificant when one considers i
that they will not produce an adverse effect on the character of the
neighborhood . In view of this we firmly believe that the: height of the
building as proposed in the drawings is consistent , in a qualitative
manner , witn the intent expressed in the requirements set forth by the
current zoning ordinance . On the other hand , our office realizes that the
Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has the ultimate jurisdiction
regarding the interpretation of the zoning ordinance . Therefore we request
from your office a review of the issue in question .
EXHIBIT, 2
Construction and Development
SKYRISE 1060 Danby Road
i4SS®CIATES itr,aca New York 14850
(607) 272-3813
Another related issue concerning the project is the capacity of the
on- site drainage pond and its ability to handle the increased flow of
runoff . This retention pond was constructed last December 15 , 1987 by
Skyrise Associates as per a request from the Town Engineer . on April of
the same year . The design for the pond was performed by Mr . George
Schlecht , a professional engineer . The capacity for the pond was designed
assuming an . area of impervious surfaces far greater than the ones that
will exist on the site after the completion of " Springwood - Phase 2 " . Thus
the pond has right now more than sufficient capacity to service both , the
j existing Springwood units and the proposed Phase 2 .
1
We respectfully submit the " Springwood Phase - 2 " project f6r your
review and consideration .
Sincerely yo rs ,
i Evan N . Monkemeye
Agent
i
AM
1 .
'r
t
EXHIBIT W. 3
THE ITHACA JOURNAL
At'& D'f Kefu V=k, TanTkins Q1a=tp, SS.:
....... . :............... �.?:� :�'Z:t-'.�. being duly sworn , deposes
and says , that he resides in Ithaca, County and st"ate aforesaid and
thathe is ....._ 1........... .. .... ..... .. ... .. . .. ..... ... .. ... . .. . .. . .. .. .. . ... ... ....... .
of THE ITHucn JouRvA . a public newspaper printed and published
in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true
copy, was published in said paper .. _.... .� ZT. .. .... ... . ....... .............
._....... .......... . . .... ...... .. ... ..... .... ... .. ...... .... ...... .. . ... .......
.. . ...........6...................
t and that the first publication of said notice was on the ...., ....... ..
day of ......... ........... -`` . . ..... I9. ...Y- .10
. - �>J....... . .... .... ..... ............ ...........
SubsSriW and sworn to before me, this ..... ... ......... .... ........ . . . day
of TowW of Ithaca Tax Parcel
acre parcel "which was OP- No. 6-35- 1 - 10. 1 , located an EI- j
Proved to be subdivided out of mira Road near its intersection
of ........ .. ... .. .................1 19 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6-51 - 1 -3 6 the Planning with Enfield Falls Road, from
Y g Residence District R-30 to Busi-''t
Board on April 5, 1988. Sub- ness District "B for expon-
ject land is located at 611 Cod- sion of Edd dale Market. Al- ,'
. .... ...... ... . .. ........ . ..... .. ........ ............ ........ . .. ...... din ton Road, near Troy Road,
9 Y fred C. Eddy, Owner; Jim
Notary Public. Residence District R-30. Ruth E. Linton, Agent.
JEAN FO Johnson , Owner; Peter Grigo- Said Planning Board will at .
rov, Applicant. said times and said place hear ;
Npfary Public, State Of New Yogi- 7 : 55 P. M. Consideration of oil persons in support of such
No. 4654410 "Sprinite gion wood Approval
ill', f40 matters or objections thereto. i
9 Persons may appear by agent
multiple dwelling units pro- or in person. I
Qtaalifiec� in Tompkins County posed; located in o Multiple Jean H. Swartwood
EOFTlm15$ IOFl eX ires Ma Residence District at 123 East Town Clerkl
p 31 19 . _ King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax 273- 1721 I
'TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING cation of Local Law No. 3- 19841 Porcel No: 6-43-2-8. Herbert June 2, 1988
N . Monkemeyer, Owner; Evan
,.BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC pertaining to said Special " N. Monkemeyer, Agent.
HEARINGS, TUESDAY, JUNE 71 Land Use District No. 1 , said 8;00 P. M. Consideration of
1988 request being to permit cook- Preliminary. Subdivision Ap-
ty direction of the Chairman ing operations and beverage proval for Jones Farm Resi-
of the Planning Board, NOTICE service in "La Tourelie" for re- dential Community, proposed
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public ceptions and similar events. as a clustered subdivision to
-Hearings will be held by the Walter J. Wiggins, Owner/Ap- , consist of 43 single-family de-
4 Planning Board of the Town of piicant. (ADJOURNED from tached dwelling units and 79
Ithaca on Tuesday, June 7, May : 17, 1988, to be FURTHERPaired dwelling units, to be
1988, in Town Hall , 126 East ADJOURNED to June 21 , 1988, located at 250 Troy Road,
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at at the request of the Appli- backlots of East King Road and
She following times and on the cant. ) Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
`following matters: 7: 35 P.M. Consideration of Parcel No. 6-45-2- 14, 66. 5
:7:30 P. M. Consideration of a Subdivision Approval for the acres total , Residence District
'Request for Modification of proposed subdivision of Town R30. ButterField Associates,
'"conditions imposed in the of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-71 - Applicant; David C. Auble,
:September 15, 1987, Planning 1 -34, . 75 acres total , located Agent; Holmes Johnson Asso-
, =1
Board Site Plan Approval of an at 506 Warren Road, into three ciates, Land Planner. (AD-
:airstructure enclosing two lots. Rocco P. Lucente, Owner. JOURNED from May 17, 19881
'.tennis courts at "La Tourelle", 7 : 45 . P. M. Consideration of to be FURTHER ADJOURNED
'Special Land Use District No. Subdivision Approval for the sine die, at the request of the
;1 , 1150 Danby Road, Town of proposed "Grandmother Sub-. A )
Applicant
-Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-36- 1 - division", being the proposed 8j5 P. M. Consideration of a
4. 2, and further, Consider- subdivision of a 4. 4 plus or request for the rezoning of a
0
;`ation of a Request for Modifi- minus acre Parcel from a 23. 7 3. 4 plus or minus acre portion