Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-07-05 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA • Date � �0 " 'TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD C Cler 4t loin JULY 5 , 1988 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , July 5 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , . at . 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Robert Miller , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov [ arrived late ] , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , ALSO PRESENT : Pamela E . Sackett , Stephen E . Sackett , David Fine , Karl Niklas , Lydia Hillman , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Myrtle Whitcomb , John Whitcomb , Ed Cobb , Daniel Schaaf , Edward Bosworth , Charlotte Bosworth , Walter J . Wiggins , Charles Franzese , P . E . , Walter Barrick , Joseph Barrick , Christopher McVoy , Chairman May declared the meeting . duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the �— Ithaca Journal on June 28 , 1988 and June 30 , 1988 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property under discussion , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicant on June 29 , 1988 . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 0 . 143 ACRE LOT , LOCATED AT 183 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 54 - 4 - 201 INTO TWO EQUAL PORTIONS , FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR CONSOLIDATION WITH TWO ADJOINING LOTS . PAMELA SACKETT , OWNER / APPLICANT . Chairmen May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Sackett approached the Board and stated that there are three 50 - foot lots , which are adjacent to each other and owned by the Sacketts . Mr . Sackett stated that they want to divide the lot , which is in the center , including dividing half of that lot into each of the remaining lots . Mr . Sackett noted that the lots would be 75 - foot frontage lots , rather that 50 feet . Chairman May wondered if the applicant had anything proposed for the vacant lot , with Mr . Sackett answering , yes , at some point they would be putting up a residential home . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who had any questions or comments . Planning Board - 2 - July 5 , 1988 • Susan Beeners , Town Planner , noted that the undeveloped lot would have full frontage on a Town road , adding that the existing dwelling is about three feet shy of being on a public road , noting that a variance was granted for construction of that dwelling . Ms . Beeners stated that this clarifies that the subdivision meets the zoning requirements . Virginia Langhans asked Mr . Sackett when they built their house , with Mr . Sackett responding , about three years ago . Chairman May questioned where the actual pavement ends for Kendall Avenue , Mr . Sackett , indicating on the map , stated that he believed that it ended on the edge of 185 Kendall Avenue , and added that both the ' center lot and the undeveloped lot have frontage on the road . There appearing to be no further questions or comments , Chairman May closed -the Public Hearing at 7 : 42 p . m . , and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . Virginia Langhans wondered if the variance granted was for construction of a house on a lot that was not on a public highway , with Mr . Sackett answering , yes . Mrs . Langhans noted that the house was 6 . 7 ' to the lot line , with Mrsa�,.Sackett responding that that was also a variance , as it was only �a 50 - foot lot . Mrs . Sackett explained that until about a year ago she never owned the other two lots , adding that the lot she owned was a narrow lot , and consequently , had to place the house the wrong way on the lot to get it in there . Robert Miller wondered if there would be 75 feet frontage on each lot , with Mr . Sackett answering , yes . Chairman May commented that , at this point , the house will have a very slight amount of frontage . Virginia Langhans stated that she did not see any problems , adding that it was an improvement . There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This Action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 0 . 143 acre lot , located at 183 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 20 , into two equal portions , for the purpose of their consolidation with two adjoining lots , Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 21 and 6 - 54 - 4 - 19 . 2 . This iS an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been legislELtively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review „ 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance . ;• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : Planning Board - 3 - July 5 , 1988 • That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted Action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This Action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 0 . 143 acre lot , located at 183 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 20 , into two equal portions , for the purpose of their consolidation with two adjoining lots , Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 21 and 6 - 54 - 4 - 19 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on July 5 , 1988 , has reviewed the following material : Short Environmental Assessment Form . " Lands of Pamela E . and Steven Sackett " , dated October 20 , 1987 , by John S . MacNeill Jr . , P . C . , amended by the applicant to show the proposed subdivision line . " Lands of Pamela E . and Steven Sackett " , dated June 17 , 1988 , by same surveyor , showing the proposed consolidation of a portion of old lot 214 with old lot 213 . " Lands of Pamela E . and Steven Sackett " , dated June 17 , 19881F by same surveyor , showing the proposed consolidation of a portion of old lot 214 with old lot 215 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein • proposed conditioned on the subdivided parcels being consolidated with the adjoining 50 - foot lots . Planning Board - 4 - July 5 , 1988 • Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Sackett proposed subdivision duly closed at 7 : 45 p . m . ADJOURNED 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 COURT' S AT " LA TOURELLE " , SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT N0 , 1 , 1150 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 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 " FOR RECEPTIONS AND SIMILAR EVENTS , WALTER J . WIGGINS , OWNER / APPLIC:ANT . [ ADJOURNED FROM MAY 17 , JUNE 7 , AND JUNE 21 , 1988 . 1 Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman May invited Mr . Wiggins to address the Board . Mr . Wiggins appended a large map to the bulletin board . • Mr . Wiggins stated that it was his understanding that Thomas Niederkorn _-and Susan Beeners had a meeting and made a slight change in the configuration of the parking designated , in the event there is an additional building constructed . Mr . Wiggins noted that it appeared that the entranceway to the northern parking lot had been changed . Ms . Beeners stated that the change was made to make sure that the parking for the building addition on the north side conform to the 30 - foot yard requirement , which is actually in the original Local Law No , 3 - 1984 , Ms . Beeners stated that the applicant has proposed to add additional parking spaces for the project , and noted that that was detailed as an attachment to the EAF . Ms . Beeners noted that one of the corrections to the EAF is that the traffic generated should be 800 - 1200 trips per day , adding that that is using the traffic engineering standards . Ms . Beeners stated that when one considers the capacity of Route 96B , the amount of traffic that could be generated by this facility is still really not significant . Ms . Beeners stated that in the event of any future expansion of the Inn , to add another 45 units , there should be a careful look at the driveway leading in , to see whether that really would be able to handle that additional traffic . Ms . Beeners did not think that that was something that the Board should recommend improvements of , at this time , e . g . , widening the driveway . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Wiggins proposes to add about 27 new parking spaces to accommodate the existing uses . Ms . Beeners noted that , according to the Zoning requirements for parking , there is a total estimated need of 108 spaces . Ms . Beeners stated that she felt , to be consistent with the • zoning , to request 38 new parking spaces , adding that that parking could be located just to the north of the fire access lane , along the side , it could also be built into that expanded parking for existing Planning Board - 5 - July 5 , 1988 • development , which is shown to the west of the existing barn , or possibly could be put into that parking for building addition area . Ms . Beeners stated that there has been some concern about gradualism , as far as a facility such as this , growing along in what might appear to be an unplanned state , but it appears to Ms . Beeners that , as long as there is some strict compliance with the requirments in the law , one really has to acknowledge that the Master Plan for this area has evolved over time , and added that when La Tourelle was first established in 1986 there were some uncertainties as to whether or not the Inn would really make it , was there the market to support it , would it have to remain as a fairly low - key , e . g . , Bed and Breakfast type of place , or would there really be a market to sustain it . Ms . Beeners felt that with the revised Site Plan , and with a strict compliance with the rules for the Special Land Use District , and with final Site Plan Approval for any new structures or other features that might be constructed , there would not be any great significant impact . Ms . Beeners stated , to her knowledge , there have not been any complaints made about the general operation of the Inn . Chairman MEiy asked Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , if he had had any complaints . Mr . Frost responded that the only item that has come up is when there is a big gathering , and cars are parked on Route 96 , Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the La Tourel .le request . No one spoke . Mr . Wiggins wondered , as shown on the plan , about removing the existing Poplar trees . Mr . Wiggins noted that those six Poplar trees were spectacular , and he did not want to remove them . Ms . Beeners responded that the Poplars are nice now , but are going to be rather short lived . Ms . Beeners noted that that is one area where some new evergreens were shown , adding that she had some slight doubts about whether there should be that many evergreens that close to the entrance , because it might reduce some of the visibility , especially of the sign . Ms . Beeners commented that she was not thrilled , either way , with those trees being in the vicinity of the Poplar area . Mr . Wiggins again stated that he did not want to remove the trees unless there was some logical reason to do so , with Ms . Beeners remarking that plans would have to be made for that possible future decline . Mr . Wiggins stated that when the trees die they will be taken down - there would be no problem with that . Ms . Beeners noted that the proposed plan shows plantings for , essentially , looking at buffering future long - range types of improvements , and felt it would be wise for the applicant to get in all that is possible , as they then would be established . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Wiggins if that was his intention . Mr . Wiggins noted that he would be happy to do it in the Fall . Chairman May stated that he felt one evergreen was really blocking the sign , as one comes from the south . Ms . Beeners stated that she would willing to meet with the landscape contractor or with Mr . Wiggins to discuss some adjustments at the entrance . Mr . Wiggins offered that that would be fine with him . Planning Board - 6 - July 5 , 1988 • Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 03 p . m . and asked for questions or comments from the Board . Chairman May stated that the Town Board is the Lead Agency and the Planning Board is making a recommendation to the Town Board , Chairman May asked Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , if he were in agreement with everything that was indicated on the new Site Plan , with Mr . Flu:merfelt responding , yes . Virginia Langhans referred to a letter addressed to the Town Planning BoZLrd and Staff , from Bill Lesser , dated June 27 , 1988 . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ] Mrs . Langhans stated that she , somewhat , agreed with Mr . Lesser regarding gradualism , although she is not opposed to the development as it has turned out . Mrs . Langhans noted that she could see in the beginning where one could not project how it was going to proceed , commenting that it just gradually evolved . Mrs . Langhans stated that she did not have any objections , although she would not want to see all the Town ' s developments proceed in this way . Mr . Wiggins responded that he would hope that the Planning Board would note that each time there has been a change it has been to assist in the development , overall , and has not been detrimental to the community , commenting that , in his opinion , it has added something each time for the benefit of the community . Mr . Wiggins offered that it has been hard to know exactly how that plan should be best used , noting that less than teen years ago it was recommended by the Board to have a trailer park on the site . Mr . Wiggins stated that the community ' s concepts of what is good , changes . Mr . Wiggins commented that he thought the project would grow as a quasi resort kind of location that is compatible with the area around it . Chairman May stated that he was sort of inclined to think that the gradualism is good , because in this kind of a project , in trying to do a marketing study and really knowing what one is going to have , initially , is quite difficult . Chairman May commented that this is not to say that gradualism is good in all projects , noting that he was only addressing this particular project . Mrs . Langhans stated that there are some neighborhoods where some sort of a project is approved that fits in with the general neighborhood , and if there was gradualism there , the neighbors would be upset . Chairman May stated that he remembers very well the discussion about how the rooms at the Inn might be rented , if it did not go as a Country Inn . Mr . Wiggins responded that the Inn was designed to be able to be converted to an apartment complex . There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : • WHEREAS : Planning Board - 7 - July 5 , 1988 • 1 . This Action is the Consideration of a Request for Modification of Local Law No . 3 - 1984 and the Consideration of a Revised General Stie Plan pertaining to " La Tourelle " Special Land ' Use District No . 1 , located at 1150 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 . 2 . This is a Type I Action for the which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency for environmental review . The • Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Tompkins County Planning Department are involved agencies in coordinated review . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance subject to certain mitigating measurer set forth in the proposed local law amending Local Law No . 3 - 1984 , and to other measures recommended in Part II -A of the environmental review . 4 . The applicant has agreed on July 5 , 1988 to comply with said mitigating measures . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as an involved agency in coordinated review , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that a negative determination of • environmental significance be made for this Action . 2 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine , after hearing the proposal for modification of the aforementioned Local Law , that a . there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location , b , thE! existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected ; ce the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town. Board approval of the Revised General Site Plan for the District, and that Local Law No . 3 - 1984 be amended as set forth in the local law amending Local Law No . 3 - 1984 . 4 . That thE! Planning Board , in making such recommendations to the Town Board , also recommend and hereby does also recommend the following : a . That the landscaping and 38 additional parking spaces . required by the Planning Board , as reviewed on July 5 , 1988 , be installed prior to October 31 , 1988 . i Planning Board - 8 - July 5 , 1988 • b . That , in order to maintain the concept for this Special Land Use District as originally established by the Town Board , no signage advertising the " La Tourelle " dining facilities be permitted within view of Route 96B . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Miller . Nay - None , Abstain - Klein . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the La Tourelle matter duly closed at 8 : 11 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO DAY CARE FACILITIES , AND TO THE CLARIFICATION OF VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AND PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO YARDS , LOTS , BUFFERS , BUILDING HEIGHT , AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS) PROVISIONS , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT' TO DEFINITIONS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO BUILDING HEIGHT . • Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 14 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of . Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . 1 . Amendment Set # 2 - Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit Day Care facilities in Residential , Business and Industrial Zones . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . ] Susan Beeners , Town Planner , stated that over the past year there have been some changes in the Social Services law , making it such that a municipality cannot prohibit Day Care facilities in that municipality . Ms . Beeners offered that the Codes and Ordinances Committee held a discussion , largely based on a lot of input from Home Day Care providers who were a little scared off on the lengthy process for Nursery Schools requiring Zoning Board and Planning Board Special Approval , as these people only wanted to have a place for six to eight children. Ms . Beeners noted that the proposed amendments represent the Town ' s attempt to try and establish different scales of Day Care facilities , which are more in keeping with the classifications of Day Care by the State and County Social Services Departments . Ms . Beeners noted that , essentially , in Zones R15 , R30 , and R - 9 , the homes with eight children or less would be permitted as accessory uses , provided that they were licensed or certified by the State DSS or the County DSS . Ms . Beeners stated that it was felt by the Codes and Ordinances Committee that that number eight would really be six in full day time care , with two additional only in part day time care . Ms . Beeners offered that the extensive review process that is needed in order to become certified or licensed , includes character checks , site visits by one of the DSS staff , and also 0 Planning Board - 9 - July 5 , 1988 • includes fire inspection by the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , Andrew Frost , adding that the above would be sufficient as far as determining the suitability of the home for that number of children . Ms . Beeners commented that there was some discussion about whether there would be some problems with having eight children on a lot , in a Day Care situation , such as with parking . Ms . Beeners stated that. her recommendation was that the licensing and certification inspection procedures would probably be sufficient . to cover that size group , commenting , homes of that size usually require staggered arrivals and departures , because the Day Care attendants want to greet the children in person , so that there would not be a sudden eight. children arriving in eight separate vehicles at one time , and noting there would also be car - pooling . Ms . Beeners commented that a significant impact was not seen as far as allowing up to eight children . Ms . Beeners offered that other changes made include setting up for Group Family Day Care Homes . Attorney Barney stated that Group Family Day Care Homes was defined by the Social Services Law as allowing as many as 12 , under certain circumstances - two pre - school , two after school , and eight during school , noting it was kind of a convoluted definition , but was also the one definition in the Social Services Law which states that a local municipality may not prohibit Group Family Day Care Homes in residential districts , adding that the feeling here was to comply with that part of the State law , commenting that a provision should be inserted stating that it is subject to Special Approval by the Zoning Board of • Appeals , which presumably would entail looking at the same types of considerations that are looked at with any other Special Approval , e . g . , character of a neighborhood , impact , traffic , etc . Ms . Beeners stated that the Group Family Day Care Homes would be Zoning Board of Appeals Special Approval items generally in the basic residential districts , adding that , if it was a Day Care Center which would be something larger than that , then that would require the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals . Ms . Beeners noted that in regard to a Mobile Home Park district , three children or less would be an automatically permitted accessory use without any Board review , adding , anything more than that would require either Zoning Board or Zoning Board and Planning Board review and approval . Ms . Beeners noted that Day Care Centers were added , in Business Districts and Light Industrial Districts , with Special Approval by the Zoning Board and the Planning Board review . Ms . Beeners offered that what is gained is the flexibility for the smaller centers , adding that there appears to be a great need for eight children or less in a local neighborhood . Chairman. May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who had any comments on the Day Care , and Group Day Care changes to the Ordinance . Mrytle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and noted that there was discussion at the last Town Board Meeting regarding the proposed Local Law for Sprinkler Systems , and some discussion on • Day Care . Mrs . Whitcomb wondered about the quantity of children that were permitted , and asked if that was consistent with the quantity discussed tonight . John Barney , Town Attorney , responded that he Planning Board - 10 - July 5 , 1988 • would have to check , noting that it was debated , and would be reported back at the next meeting . Attorney Barney stated that Day Care Centers , which are the large group , have to have Sprinkler Systems , both prospectively and retroactively . Attorney Barney commented that the focus on retrofitting is more designed to sleeping facilities . Mrs . Whitcomb noted that her only concern was that there be consistency . Attorney Barney noted that from a Zoning standpoint the consideration is a little bit different than from the Life Safety aspect of thE� sprinkler , commenting , in this situation the concern is with density , traffic , and occupancy . Mrs . Whitcomb remarked that the decisions could be totally different concerning the two issues , with Attorney Barney responding , yes , the considerations are not quite the same . Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 24 p . m . and asked for quE! stions or comments from the Board . Chairman May commented that he felt the changes were good , but had a question about dropping off the children , because he could see a number of areas where people might be parking in the street to drop off children ,, noting that the weather , etc , is a concern . Chairman May stated that he also felt that someone needs to be aware of that hazard , commenting , he did not think the DSS cares about that concern , as that is not part of their consideration . Attorney Barney • responded that the DSS is concerned with the overall safety of a facility , but: they would not look at the overall traffic flow in the same way as a Planning Board , noting that the concern would not be totally ignored . Attorney Barney stated that the DSS wanted the Town to make the Town Zoning Ordinance parallel , as much as possible , with both the DSS levels of care and the definitions . Virginia Langhans stated that , in her opinion , there could be problems in :residential areas , e . g . , the house next door all of a sudden becomes a Day Care Center with eight children . Attorney Barney stated that there would be no review process at the Town level with eight or under , commenting , the only review process would be through the New York State Department of Social Services or the County Department of Social Services , adding that the NYSDSS or the County DSS must certify or license the facility if attendance is more than three . Virginia Langhans noted that most residential houses have a driveway that comes in and out perpendicular to the road , and there could be a problem with cars arriving and departing , if the times were not staggered in a residential area . Ms . Beeners stated that it would be possible to add a parking requirement , with Mrs . Langhans responding , one would certainly not want cars parked in the front lawn . Chairman May mentioned , as a prerequisite of Day Care , a provision for providing off - street parking would be in order . Attorney Barney offered that the problem is defining that in a way that Andrew Frost , BI / ZEO , can determine whether they have it or not . Ms . Beeners stated that , alternatively , the Town could require that • parking not tie permitted in a front yard , which is what is required now for various Special Approval Uses that are in a typical residence district , commenting whether there would be off - street parking based Planning Board - 11 - July 5 , 1988 • on the number of employees , or one space per two children , adding that would mean four spaces off - street . Chairman May wondered how many adult supervisors were required for eight children in a Day Care Center , with Ms . Beeners answering , two adults . David Klein offered that it may be safer and more convenient to have some drop - off space , but in a residential neighborhood there is the possibility of larger than normal parking areas , adding that that is a more permanent visual impact than the occasional car pulling off the street . Attorney Barney stated that the people who represent the Day Care facility operators were very encouraging to keep the regulation to a minimum , because they do go through the DSS , and they really wanted to minimize the " roadblocks " that are put in front of people who are trying to start up a Day Care Center , Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that she felt it would be nice if there could be some kind of a Mini Site Plan Approval , which could be donE! with certain criteria established for a Family Day Care Home with eight children or less , adding , if it were required that a Site Plan be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer showing that a turn - a - around for cars can be provided outside of the front yard for vehicles to depart might be one possibility . Ms . Beeners offered that unless there was specific criteria she was not sure that that would be something that Mr . Frost could act on . Virginia Langhans stated that all the sites are so different , and to have one typical would be impossible . • There bE! ing no further questions or comments concerning proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with respect to Day Care Facilities , Chairman May asked for a motion . MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit Day Care Facilities in. Residential , Business and Industrial Zones be approved , it being the consensus of the Board that such amendment would have a beneficial impact in serving Day Care needs in such zones . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . 2 . Amendment Set # 1 - Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to clarify various definitions and provisions . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . 1 Attorney Barney stated that there were a number of areas over • the last couple of years that have surfaced as problem areas relative to either interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance , or at the Planning Board level :in trying to figure out whether a subdivision does or Planning Board - 12 - July 5 , 1988 does not meet the requirements , e . g . , lot size , adding that he felt the Klondike proposal is probably one that comes to mind . Attorney Barney posed. the question , how do you measure lot width and lot depth ? Attorney Barney noted that the current Zoning Ordinance presently reads that lot width and depth shall be measured from the set - back line , commenting , this is contrary to how the Board has really been measuring these things in the past , as lot depth is certainly not measured from the set- back line , it is measured from the highway line . Attorney Barney offered that lot width has been measured different ways at different times , depending on what is foremost in peoples ' minds . Attorney Barney stated that the above is one example of a number of areas where an attempt has been made to try and set out in specifics what is supposed to happen . Attorney Barney stated that he would skip over Section No . 28 , which is a clarification in the Multiple Residence Zone as to whether one can go to twice the height to set up side yard requirements and to put in a minimum side yard of at least 15 feet between buildings . Attorney Barney noted that there is a question , and has been a question , as to whether there can be more than one principle building on any lot , adding that the proposed amendment to Section 68 clarifies thE� way the Ordinance has been interpreted , noting that it specifically states there cannot be more than one principle building on any lot in any residential zone , with the exception of Multiple • Residence Zones , Attorney Barney referred to Section 4 , and commented that that section is the definitions of depth , and specifically provides that the depth of a lot is measured from the street line , and the rear lot line , adding that a lot only need meet the depth requirement at one point , perpendicular to the road line . Attorney Barney offered that he felt this was a kind of convulated way of saying - take our R- 15 zones and the lots are supposed to have 15 , 000 square feet , the traditional thought is that they are 100 feet in width , aiad 150 feet in depth , adding that some people have interpreted that as meaning one has to be able to fit 100X150 feet on a rectangle lot . Attorney Barney stated that when a number of subdivisions were viewed that the Planning Board had approved , there were a lot of them where that has not been the case , e . g . , in a cul de sac there is a narrowing down in front of less than 100 feet of frontage , and, a fanning out in back , where you may or may not have a total depth constant of 150 feet . Attorney Barney noted that in discussions with the Codes and Ordinance Committee there was a lot of give and take and the question was - how much of the lot should meet the depth requirement , noting that the conclusion was that it only had to be at one point , and the real control on lot size should be the square footage , so that one could have a long narrow lot , or a short fat lot , but in either event there had to be at least 15 , 000 square feet a. n an R- 15 zone , or 30 , 000 square feet in an R- 30 zone . Attorney Barney stated that for depth purposes one can have a triangular shaped lot that has frontage of 300 feet , and at one point be 150 feet in depth , commenting , as long as the total triangle had • 15 , 000 square feet it would meet the requirement . Planning Board - 13 - July 5 , 1988 • Attorney Barney stated that height is another area where there have been a series of difficulties , as to what does height mean . Attorney Barney noted it was eventually concluded that for enforcement purposes , it was easier to measure from an objective point , regardless of whether someone has piled a lot of dirt up against the house or not , to the top of the building . Attorney Barney stated that , after looking at a number of different definitions , height would be determined by measuring from the lowest floor in contact with the ground surface to the highest point of the building , commenting that , included in the definition of floor was the floor of a crawl space , a slab , or any similar type of arrangement . Attorney Barney commented that Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , could go into a building and note the floor , make measurements , and state whether or not the height requirement is met . Attorney Barney stated , in conjunction with that , because it would throw a lot of the buildings out of the normal height limits , if that definition is used , as opposed to a couple of other definitions found in various places , the height limit has been increased to 34 feet . Chairman May stated that he was really surprised that the height is now defined to the chimney or antenna , noting that he felt it was not an increase , but a decrease . Attorney Barney responded that Chairman May was correct in a sense that protuberances have now been picked up , whereas before those were allowed to extend beyond the height . Chairman May remarked that a typical antenna would be a minimum of 15 feet in height off a roof , • commenting that a chimney would be a minimum of two feet , plus a cap on many of them , for a total of at least three feet . Attorney Barney responded that he did not think that concerned the committee too much , adding that the feeling was , going the 34 feet would be adding four feet to the height , and not to add on top of that any additional items that go beyond the limit . Attorney Barney explained , the sense was , if an antenna was four feet , six feet , eight feet , or two feet , it really is part of the height of the building . Attorney Barney stated that there is nothing prohibiting anyone from coming to the Zoning Board of Appeals , demonstrating a hardship , and being able to secure a variance . David Klein stated that he totally agreed with Chairman May . Mr . Klein noted that , per prior discussions , 34 feet made some sense with the revised definition , as it gives the designers some reasonable flexibility , but noted that if the chimney , antenna and other protuberances were included it was his feeling that it puts a whole artifical limit on what one can do . Mr . Klein offered that when a building is proposed , the chimney may be on the outside wall , or at the ridge , adding that he was not just talking about a fireplace chimney , but perhaps from a heating appliance , where it may wind up at the gable , as opposed to the lower end , which would cause some kind of silly manipulations in order to comply . Mr . Klein stated that he felt there would not be much of a case to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals , and ask for a hardship . Attorney Barney stated that a 34 - foot chimney is a pretty high chimney . Mr . Klein noted that ,, as some of the sketches have illustrated , if one had a two - story house on a sloping site , with a walkout basement , and • a reasonably pitched roof , the chimney could conceiveably exceed the 34 feet , depending on where it came out of the sloped roof . Attorney Barney stated. that in most of the definitions he had reviewed they Planning Board - 14 - July 5 , 1988 • went to an absolute height on any object coming out of a building , adding , that is not across the board , it can be found either way , but the majority are presently leaning toward absolute limits , rather than having limits with exceptions . Mr . 6Klein stated that he felt one of the confusions was that a lot of people look at the New York State Building Code , and they define height in their way , adding , the Town of Ithaca Code has no relationship to it , noting that this has , on more than one occasion confused people coming in . Attorney Barney responded that to a certain extent that is the case . Andrew Frost mentioned thin. discussions held in the past about building heights , and comparing different roof pitch levels , it was always measured from the ridge of the roof , with Chairman May agreeing . Chairman May stated that there has never been a discussion , that he is aware of , where the chimney or antenna , or anything else was ever included . Andrew Frost stated that there is a section in the Zoning Ordinance which refers to horizontal projections being exempt from going into a sideyard . Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road wondered about measuring from the ground with :respect to height . Attorney Barney responded with , the distance measured from the surface of the lowest level , ( floor of a crawl space , basement floor or slab , or other floor , even if below exterior grade level ) in contact with the ground surface to the highest point in a parenthetical roof , chimney , antenna or other protuberance; on the top of a building . Chairman May stated that • someone in the Town of Ithaca built an unusual structure on posts , with parking underneath , and the first floor , of course , was never in contact with the ground . Attorney Barney stated it does not matter whether it is soil , it specifically states from the surface of the lowest level . Virginia Langhans commented that a crawl space is open . Attorney Barney did not think there would be any difficulty with Chairman. May ' s comment . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , noted that with all the hills in Ithaca , there might be structures that might be stepped in construction down the hillside that might not extend more than 10 or 12 feet above the contour of the land , but be in violation of the height definition , with Attorney Barney agreeing . Attorney Barney said that there would be exceptions no matter what definition there is , adding that that is what the variance process is for . Attorney Barney stated that there has been clarification as to what a building is , and there also has been clarification as to what a structure is , so that the structure comes within the height , set - back , etc . , requirements . Attorney Barney said that paved parking areas have also been included in the term structure . Attorney Barney noted that provisions are set for establishing the 34 feet overall height restrictions in the various zones . Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road spoke from the floor and wondered if all structures shall conform to height would be eliminated in the Preamble , with Attorney Barney answering , no . Mr . Niklas wondered • what the rationale was concerning the abrupt increase of not exceeding two - stories [ 34 feet ] on the roadside . Attorney Barney responded , in addition to that , the ambiguity as to what is the Planning Board - 15 - July 5 , 1988 ONroadside depends on the construction of a cul de sac , whether uphill or downhill from a roadside , noting that the thought was to try and get into a position where the Board could look at a project , and say , yes , you comply , or no , you do not comply . Attorney Barney commented that enforcement at the present time is very difficult . Attorney Barney noted that the absolute limit is 34 feet . Andrew Frost wondered if one needed a building permit to put in a driveway , with Attorney Barney responding , yes , probably . Attorney Barney noted that there is no height limitation in an Agricultural Zone for agricultural buildings . Attorney Barney said that the buffer area requirments have been updated in several of the zones , and enlarged what the buffer was to consist of in several of the zones . Susan Beeners noted that the main change was increasing the buffer area from 25 feet to 30 feet between those districts , and any other districts , such as an Agricultural District . Attorney Barney noted that the definitions of sizes of lots were made somewhat more specific , and also designed to try and take into account the possiblility of cul de sacs , and the like . Attorney Barney noted that what is basically being stated is that the frontage of the actual street line can be reduced , as long as the 100 feet is at a point 50 feet from the street line . Attorney Barney stated that there has been discussion as to what a single family dwelling is , or may be . Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road commented that 34 feet measured • to a height of a chimney or TV antenna would be a relatively smaller building than a building or a structure that would be measured to the peak of its roof at 34 feet . Attorney Barney stated that there would be a public hearing on this matter at the Town Board meeting . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 10 p . m . and turned the matter over to the Board for discussion . David Klein wondered , where in the present Zoning Ordinance is it noted that there is a limitation of two - stories . Chairman May responded that there are several places where it is noted , adding that Section 28 , No . 5 indicates " Height : All structures shall conform in height with other structures in the vicinity ; provided howeever , that no structure shall exceed 2 stories on the road side . " Mr . Klein wondered if that was Multiple Residence . Mr . Klein wondered if one could build a three - story house , as long as it was 34 feet . Attorney Barney answered , yes , from any side , as long as it does not exceed the height of adjoining buildings in the vicinity of Multiple Residence . Mr . Klein commented that in R15 , R30 , Cluster , or any of those , one could literally have the entire building three stories above ground . with Attorney Barney noting , if one meets the building code requirements . Attorney Barney noted that the construction would have to be of masonry exterior . Mr . Klein stated that he was more or less comfortable with the 34 foot height , but • wondered whether the door is being opened to a lot of three story buildings . Chairman May stated that he did not see how , as he noted Planning Board - 16 - July 5 , 1988 the height has been reduced . Chairman May stated that he , personally , cannot accept the height as it is written , commenting that he felt it was in violation of the FCC Dish Ordinance . Attorney Barney responded that he would check on Chairman May ' s comment . Chairman May stated that he felt the 34 feet really picked up the discrepancy by taking the lowest level in contact with the ground , rather than average height , noting that he saw that as a reduction from many , many structure heights at the present time . Attorney Barney stated that this format has been presented to the Codes and Ordinances two or three times , adding that this language has been virtually identicial from all the discussions at the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Chairman May stated that it has never come before the Planning Board with the chimney and antenna issue . Attorney Barney stated he was in agreement with Chairman May , Virginia Lanqhans commented on the Tower that the Chamber of Commerce wishes to construct for identification purposes only . Chairman May responded that that would be a 34 - foot limitation , as it would be part of the structure , Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road offered that , if the height is increased to 34 feet without specifying levels , the density of people could , essentially , be increased by 33 % in a Multiple Residence , which for a fairly large Multiple Residence project could be a substantial number of people . Attorney Barney noted that , virtually , all of the Multiple Residence structures in the Town are three - stories , noting that they are two - stories on the roadside , but basically they are three - story buildings . Attorney Barney stated that there are building code restrictions that apply as well , which are different definitions , but the net effect of them is that with most woodframe construction there is never going to be more than two livable stories , and maybe one - half of a basement . Susan Beeners stated that the lot coverage would be decreased by buildings , which is one of the great advantages of multi - story Multiple Residence . Attorney Barney stated that there is a control on density , commenting , in a Multiple Residence Zone one has to conform to so many units per acre . David Klein stated that , obviously there has been a lot of effort put into this , and was not sure he had a particular solution , but felt there were some gaps . Mr . Klein noted that he was concerned about the 34 feet , without tying it to two - stories , commenting that , everyone is assuming construction would be frame , noting that in a Multiple Residence , or even in a Cluster building it could very easily go to masonry exterior walls . Mr . Klein said that , in his opinion , this was not something terribly unusual , but if one is dealing with tracts of land that do not have lots ' of housing around , where does one start saying - general conformance with the structures in the vicinity . Attorney Barney wondered if , when discussing definition of story , is something one - half in the basement and one - half out considered a story . Attorney Barney stated that he thought the Building Code defines it as a story if it is more than • 15 % above grade , but then one may wind up with a situation where , it is permitted to have three - stories if the basement is more than 50 % out of grade , but it cannot be more than 80 % out of grade , because now there are three - stories on a slab , and the stories have to be Planning Board - 17 - July 5 , 1988 • reduced . Attorney Barney noted that it begins to get very convaluted as how to handle the limitation , if stories are thrown in against an absolute height requirement . Attorney Barney noted that the present Ordinance permits a building 30 feet in height , and if it is built four feet down into the ground , with average grade of four feet up , there can be three - stories , such as a basement or subgrade area , and two - stories on top , which would still make the 30 - foot requirement . Attorney Barney mentioned that stories did not really help that much , in terms of resolving the issue , and indeed , the effort in terms of trying to define it was more difficult , and add more ambiguities back into an Ordinance which has enough , and which the whole effort here is to try and take some out , adding that the end result was not to try to get too worked up over stories , and go with something fairly simplistic , :nevertheless , that Andrew Frost with a tape measure can determine whether there is compliance or not . David Klein stated that he could see Clustered Subdivisions coming in , with basically three - story high units totally above grade . Attorney Barney commented that Cluster does not concern him very much , because the Planning Board has very broad regulatory powers with respect to aesthetics . Attorney Barney stated that if someone comes in with a three - story Cluster , and it is something that is aesthetically pleasing , and fits the area , he was not sure there was anything wrong with it , noting that if it is not aesthetically pleasing , or does not fit the area. , then the Board can simply say no . Attorney Barney noted that the only area that might have a problem would be Multiple Residence , but there is a Site Plan Review when the zone is created , as part of the rezoning process . David Klein wondered if story had been defined , with Attorney Barney answering , no , not in this group , that was left: for another day . Attorney Barney stated that corollary proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations deletes story as a basis , and goes to the absolute 34 - foot limitation , so there was really no need to define story because it was not being used anywhere as a definition . David Klein commented that the Monkemeyer project was rejected because it was not , in the Planning Board ' s view , two - stories , although he was two - stories in accordance with the State Building Code . Chairman May responded that Mr . Monkemeyer exceeded the 34 feet in several areas , noting that the roof line was over the 34 feet . There being no further questions or comments concerning proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with respect to amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to clarify various definitions and provisions , Chairman May asked for a motion . MOTION by David Klein , seconded by James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that amendments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to clarify various definitions and provisions be approved , with the recommendation that Number 5 , Article 1 , Section 1 , be changed to exclude chimneys , antenna , and • other similar items . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Planning Board - 18 - July 5 , 1988 • Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Ken erson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . 3 . Amendment Set # 3 - Resolution amending the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Ithaca . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . ] Attorney Barney stated that the first definition in the proposed resolution is to have building height defined in the Subdivision Regulations -the same way as in the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance . Attorney Barney referred to the definition of Basement and Cellar . Chairman May stated that , since story has been taken out , why is that section needed . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , responded that story does remain in the Subdivision Regulations , noting that keeping the definition of story as it is in here does not really seem to make too much of a difference , at this point , as it does not seem to be terribly relevant to the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance , or to these proposed basement , cellar , and building height definitions in the Subdivision Regulations . Chairman May stated that he had difficulty with the statement , " A basement , or cellar shall be counted as a story for the purposes of height regulation . " Chairman May remarked that this statement does not make sense to him . Attorney Barney responded that it makes sense to -him , because in each instance it is a dwelling , and habitable space . • There was a question as to why Basement and Cellar were left in . Ms . Beeners stated that it was correcting the language in the two definitions that were before the Board at tonight ' s meeting . Ms . Beeners commented that the intent of those two items is that basement would be one - half of its height above the average level of the ground , and cellar is one that half of its height is below . Attorney Barney noted that the other change would be to put the height at 34 feet . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were any questions or comments from the public . Ed Cobb of 1005 Danby Road wondered if there could be a binder put in the document stating that , if the house was on a slab it would be considered lower . Attorney Barney stated that the 4 - foot increase was to offset what would be lost by going into the basement , which is the genesis of the 4 - foot differential , however , as it was being discussed the sense was that measurement would be to the top of the chimney , at that point , rather than exclude chimneys . Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman Mayclosed the Public Hearing at 9 : 37 p . m . and asked for questions or comments from the Board . Virginia Langhans wondered if it would be in order to put • something in the document concerning a slab , noting that , when building on a slab , one can get three stories . Attorney Barney offered that , in his opinion of definition , everyone means a slab at Planning Board - 19 - July 5 , 1988 • grade , but the instant " at grade " is mentioned , the possibility has been created that the grade can move to either obviate or meet the definition . Attorney Barney stated that , personally , he would rather leave it at the very simple 34 feet from whatever that bottom floor ISO Attorney Barney noted that the Building Code deals with woodframe construction , which is 99 % of the construction in this kind of area , is going to control the building right . Attorney Barney commented that , most people who build on a slab are not building a three - story home . There being no further questions or comments concerning certain proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations with respect: to definitions and provisions related to building height , Chairman May asked for a motion . MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that consideration of certain proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations with respectto definitions and provisions related to building height , be adjourned , pending the handling of the Zoning Ordinance at the Town Board . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Miller , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of consideration of proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations duly closed at 9 : 43 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED " ROSE HILL " CONVENTIONAL AND CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , WEST HAVEN AND MECKLENBURG ROADS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -• 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 . JOSEPH BARRICK , LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT , INC . , APPLICANT . Walter and Joseph Barrick were present , along with- Mr . Charles Franzese , P . E . , of Hunt Engineers and Architects . Mr . Franzese appeared before the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Franzese stated that the purpose of tonight ' s presentation is to seek a concept approval of this project . Mr . Franzese remarked that the developers are not proposing any variances to the existing regulations , in fact , lot sizes proposed exceed the R- 30 requirement . Mr . Franzese :noted that the west portion of the project is in an R- 30 • zone , and the very eastern part , along West Haven Road , adjacent to the intersection of Route 79 , is R- 15 , which will be developed as though it were R- 30 , adding that this significantly decreases the Planning Board - 20 - July 5 , 1988 • number of lots available to the developer . Mr . Franzese stated that the project would be phased to allow the construction of lots 1 - 23 which are west of West Haven Road , adding , these parcels can be serviced through existing utilities , including the water distribution „ Mr . Franzese commented that , once Phase I is completed , then Phases 2 - 4 would be constructed off Route 79 intersection and developed pretty much separately from the initial phase . Mr . Franzese , indicating the phases on the map , noted that • the only significant change to the map is that Lot # 23 would be included with Phase I . Mr . Franzese stated that the local Department of Transportation office has been contacted regarding the impact on the proposed intersection on Route 79 , adding , the final design on actual intersection geometry has not been done , but as long as the necessary stopping site distances are provided , and all the other general requirments are met , the DOT has no objection . Mr . Franzese stated that all individual lot access has been eliminated to West Haven Road , noting that all direct driveways have been eliminated , and a buffer zone has been provided between West Haven Road and the development . Mr . Franzese commented that there has been discussion with the FirEs Department as to fire protection for Phase I . with the possibility of installing a dry hydrant and pond . Mr . Franzese offered that the pond is a current pond , and over the course of development , would be increased in size to hold the storm water retention . Mr . Franzese commented that the open space requirements have been exceeded , including additional buffer zone areas , which • could be used. , as needed , to help manage storm water run - off from the parcel . Mr . Franzese noted that all the open areas and buffer areas , with the exception of the far western one and the central one , are located very strategically , and what would normally be discharge areas for storm water drainage to allow the development to collect additional run - off and control it before it discharges off the site . Mr . Franzese offered that the School District has been contacted , and there are no problems with the increased number of children that would be generated with a project this size . Mr . Franzese noted that the long - term phases of fire protection would be handled through the expansion of the water district , which is another matter . Chairman May wondered if it was the developer ' s intention to have all the road system dedicated to the Town , with Mr . Franzese responding , yes , eventually . Chairman May noted that there were a number of very narrow fronts on cul de sacs , etc . Mr . Franzese stated that the most critical road frontage [ pointing to map ] is down " here " in the area of Phase I , noting that those lots are zoned R - 15 . Chairman May commented that Lot # 16 appears to be pretty narrow . Mr . Franzese commented that the lots with narrow frontage are wooded lots . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , stated that , at any rate , with a little adjustment of the property lines , the requirement could be met . Virginia Langhans asked about Lot # 23 , with Mr . Franzese answering , the depth would meet it at " this " end , and narrows down to the far western border . Mr . Franzese offered that most of the lots are almost 315 , 000 square feet . Mr . Barrick stated that there 100 • lots on 98 acres , which would be an average of one acre per lot . Chairman May wondered if Lot No . 23 was over 30 , 000 square feet , with Mr . Franzese answering , yes . Planning Board - 21 - July 5 , 1988 • Ms . Beeners asked if there would be any program for active recreation in any of the open areas . Indicating on the map , Mr . Franzese stated that there is one proposed fenced - in playground " here " , adjacent to the pond site , adding , there is a more natural playground area in the townhouse section . Ms . Beeners wondered if the open space in general would be retained by residents here , or would the developer consider dedicating it to the Town . Mr . Franzese responded that , with the exception of the recreation building in the r townhouse area , most of the open areas are targeted for physical separation from existing residential areas , as well as to be used , as needed , for drainage retention , adding , if they are used for drainage retention itis important that those areas be maintained . Mr . Franzese commented that it would be to the advantage of both the residents of the subdivision , and the Town in general , to maintain those drainage areas . Ms . Beeners suggested that some access be required into the DeGraff property , which is to the south , adding that that property is essentially unsubdivided at this time . Ms . Beeners noted that in the southwest corner there are about nine acres to be retained by Eddy Hill Inc . , but wondered if that was landlocked . Mr . Barrick responded that that property was sold to the adjacent property owner . Attorney Barney asked when the property was sold , with Mr . Barrick responding , April 1988 . Chairman May wondered how it was sold . Mr . Barrick answered that he had no idea , it was not part of the deal made with him . Chairman May stated that if there is anything that has been sold off this property , a subdivision • is needed , before anything happens with the " Rose Hill " project . David Klein asked about the subdivision from the farmhouse . Attorney Barney asked who owned what concerning the property . Mr . Barrick responded that Eddy Hill , Inc . still owns the entire farm , and the plans are to close on the property in a few weeks . Mr . Barrick stated that his contract applies specifically to 177 acres . Chairman May commented that the developer is putting the cart before the horse , as Eddy Hill , Inc . needs subdivision approval before this project is legitimate . Mr . Barrick stated that the complex of townhouses will be a community in itself , and will include 50 units of townhouse units with three to six units per structure , adding that these units will be sold , not rental units . Chairman May commented that it appears to be in excess of 1000 feet limitation for a cul de sac . Mr . Franzese stated that there are two accesses into the townhouse area off the proposed dedicated road , with a short cul de sac at the southern end . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , noted that one of the major things to be considered in this project is the water supply , not only pressure , but also quantity . Mr . Flumerfelt commented that much of the land lies above the elevation that could be served from the present West Hill water tank . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that a booster pumping system has to be considered versus possible participation in a new storage tank on West Hill , Mr . Flumerfelt also stated that the capacity of the City of Ithaca Cliff Street pumping station has to be • looked at , because those pumps are presently running a high percentage of the time . Robert Kenerson wondered about sewer service . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that , at the present time , a new Planning Board - 22 - July 5 , 1988 sewer system is being installed on West Haven Road , which will be accessible to this area . Virginia Langhans wondered if it was anticipated to have a new water tower in this area , with Mr . Flumerfelt responding , it will be coming in the near future . Virginia Langhans , along with Carolyn Grigorov , and Chairman May commented that the proposed project was in a beautiful area . Ms . Beeners wondered , conceptually , how the Board felt about the project . • Ms . Beeners offered that it is quite a large development , and there are intentions to try and phase it so that possible impacts can be taken care of . Ms . Beeners offered that one of the nice features about the project is a provision of a buffer zone along West Haven Road for drainage purposes . Ms . Beeners also noted that the proposed townhouse complex would be pretty much isolated from the existing homes . Virginia Langhans commented that the playground area in the townhouse complex would not be open to the public , adding that the only open playground area that would be conceivably Town use would be the one by the big pond . Mr . Franzese responded that the developer would be willing to expand on that in the other open areas . Chairman May stated the concept was nice , but before proceeding any further felt that Mr . Flumerfelt should review the water situation . Virginia Langhans wondered about the possibility of a road connection through to Elm Street . Mrs . Langhans asked about the length of that connection . Ms . Beeners answered that it would be • about a thousand feet . Ms . -Beeners stated that there is a private road about 400 feet from the open area to the southeastern most open area . Mrs . Langhans wondered if the private road would be wide enough to lend itself to being remade into a Town road . Ms . Beeners stated that she assumed that provision for that might be something that should be required in the event the Homeowners ' Association were to go under , and the road would have an adequate 50 - 60 feet of right - of -way to be dedicated over to the Town . Mr . Barrick wondered if there were any chance to secure a conditional approval concept plan based on findings necessary through Mr . Flumerfelt , e . g . , water pressure , etc . Chairman May responded that Sketch Plan Review is an informal discussion , with no approval granted . Attorney Barney offered that a Preliminary Plat requires a Public Hearing . Chairman May mentioned that a subdivision of lands had to be accomplished before a Public Hearing can be scheduled . Mr . Barrick stated that he would approach Eddy Hill , Inc . David Klein wondered if there was a major overhead electric line . Mr . Franzese answered , yes . Chairman May commented that there is a restriction of building underneath the right- of--way . Virginia Langhans again noted it was a beautiful site , with a nice view . Chairman May asked if there any other comments . There being • none , Chairman May declared the matter of the " Rose Hill " Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 10 : 20 p . m . Planning Board - 23 - July 5 , 1988 ADJOURNMENT I Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the July 5 , 1988 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 21 p . m . Respectfully submittted , Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary . Town of Ithaca Planning Board . Cornell University New York State ('allege of Warren Hall Agriculture and Life Sciences Ithaca, NY 14853 - 7801 I AIM . : Ilcpartmrnt of ' Agricultural Economics MEMO To: Town Planning Board and Staff From: Bill Lesser Date. June 27 , 1988 Re: Wiggins - Proposal I regret I will be out of town on July 5th and unable to participate in the discussion of the Wiggins request. I have no concerns about the "tennis bubble" but do balk at the other aspects of the proposal. What is being sought, as John Barney correctly identified, is permission to build a resort. If the proposed changes in the Special Land Use District are accepted it will be difficult to prevent the complex from growing into a full hotel and sports complex. I do not feel the stated need for the changes - the inconvenience to guests of walking to the restaurant for a drink or the $ 30 cost of a special liquor license • warrant the request. In this I see neither hardship nor need. What I do see is gradualism - the initial request for a minimum use even when on the face of it, its practicality and profitability is questionable. Then comes a request for an extension of use into something quite different from the initial proposal. I do not believe the `bed and breakfast' use category is an appropriate one to initialize the current course of events. Nor do 1 believe in such gradualism and , if present, I would have anticipated voting against the requested extension of use. I hope this is of use when you make your own decisions. W 3 EXHIBIT 1 i ( AMENDMENT SET # 2 ) (Please Use this Form for Filing your Local Law with the Secretary of State) o not Text doslit dle el talgilven as amended ,cs or underlining to IDndicateinewdivamer� er being ' eliminated Tdx ITHACA OfTown ......•......:..........•............... (,oval Law No. Of the year 19 88..... AM13NDING THE TOWN . OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT DP1Y . CF. FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL , BUSINESS AND IDTDUSTRIAL•„�O�T�,�,,,•,•,. Alocal law ..............................•.................................(iti:aKiiiiej ...........................................................,.......... TOWN BOARD ............................................. of the . .................... the .............................. Be it enacted by •• ••••••••••••••••••"”"""" ""'(N.me d LealetstlVe neJfl ITHACAas follows : Town XV29i 9 The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of . Ithaca as readopted , amended , and revised effective February 26 , 1968 , and subsequently amended , be further amended as follows : le Article I , Section 1 , is amended by adding four new isions 40 , 41 , 42 , and 43 reading as Subdivisions , to be Subdiv follows : 1140 . A ' day care home ' is a facility , home , or other establishment , other than a school , at which day care IS; provided for hire for up to three children under the ag'e of sixteen years . • 410 A ' group day care facility ' is a facility , home , or other establishment . licensed by the New York State Department of Social Services orI certified by the Tompkins County Department of Socia 1 Services , other . than a - school , at which day care is provided for hire for more than three , but no more than eight , children under the age of sixteen years . 42 , A; '. group family day care home ' ' shall have the definition set forth in Section 390 of the Social Services Law of the State' of New ( York , Subdivision 13 ( a ) . and shall be licensed by the New York State Department of Social Services , or I certified by the Tompkins County Department of Social Service: . 43 . A ' day care centeris a facilitIy , home , or other establishment licensed by ' the New York State Department of Social Services or certified by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services , at which day care is provided for hire , and which is nota school , day care home , group day care facility , or group family day care EXHIBIT oZ. Gf9['j`( i ( additional s ace is needed . lease nttnclt slteeis of the same size as this and number each) I. 1 home . " 2 . Section 3C is amended by adding three more subdivisions to be subdivisions 4 , 5 and 6 , reading as follows : " 4 . Day care homes . 5 . Group day care facilities and group family day care homes upon special approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 , Subdivision 7 . 6 . Day care centers upon special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 , Subdivision 7 . The application for such approval shall be referred to the Planning Board and no final action shall be taken until the Planning Board has approved the site plan for the center ' and submitted its report or has failed 'to so act within 30 days of receipt of all required information . " 3 . Section 4 , Subdivision 4 , is amended to read as follows : 114 . Public library , public museum , public , parochial or private school , nursery school , day care center , fraternity or sorority houses , . . . " 4 . Section 4 is further amended by adding two more subdivisions to be subdivisions 18 and 19 readiig as follows : " 18 . Day care homes and group day care facilities . 19 . Group family day care homes upon special approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 Subdivision 7 . " 5 . Section 1 1 , Subdivision 4 , is amended to read as follows : 114 . Public library , public museum , public , parochial and private schools , day care center , nursery school , and any institution of higher learning including dormitory Accommodations , upon special approval . . . " 6 . Section 1 1 , is further amended by . adding two new subdivisions , - to be subdivisions 11 and 12 , to read as follows : " 11 . Day care homes and group day care facilities . 124 Group family day care homes upon special approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 Subdivision 7 . " 7 . Section 18 , Subdivision 4 , is amended to read as follows : " 4 . Public library , public museum , public , parochial and private schools , day care center , nursery school , and any institution of higher learning including dormitory accommodations , upon special approval . . . " 8 . Section 18 is further amended by addiri'g two additional subdivisions , to be subdivisions 17 and 18 , to read as follows : " 17 . Day care homes and group day care facilities . 18 . Group family day care homes upon special approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 , Subdivision 7 . " O9 . Section . 27 is amended by adding three new subparagraphs Page 2 EXHIBIT • to be subparagraphs 41 5 , and 6 reading as follows N . Day care home or group day care facility . 5 . Group family day care home upon the special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the same 'manner as if said building was located in a Residence District R30 . " 6 . Day care center upon special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 , Subdivision 7 . • The application for such approval shall be referred to the Planning Board and no final action shall be taken until the Planning Board has approved the site plan for the Center land submitted its report oar has failed to so act within 30 days of receipt of all required information . " 10 . Section 36 is amended by adding a new subdivision , to be subdivision 5 , reading as follows : " 5 . Day care centers upon special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Section 77 , subdivision 7 . The application for such approval shall be referred to the Planning Board and no final action shall be taken until the Planning Board has approved the site planlfor the center and • submitted its report or has failed to so act within 30 days of receipt of all required information . " 11 . Section 43 is amended by adding a new subdivision , to be subdivision 5 , reading as follows : 5 . Day care centers upon special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant toSection shall beubreferred bdivision Ito the application for such approval Planning Board and no final action shall be taken until the Planning Board has approved the site plan for the center and submitted its report or has failed to so act within 30 days of receipt of all required information . " In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a, court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity . This law shall take effect ten days after its publication , pursuant to applicable provisions of law . • Page 3 EXHIBIT AMENDMENT SET, # 1 (Plense Use this Form for Filing your Local Law with the Secretary of State) Text of do nicoi�ius a italics or underlining to iiven as. amended & Do not ndicateinew Include being eliminated an ITHACA80446*49040900000 of Town 1111 of the year 19 88.....: LocalLaw No. .....:....................... ............................ . N OF ITHACA. ZONING . ORDINAL4CE TO CLARIFY AMENDING THE TOW VARIOUS. DEFINITIONS AND PROVISIONS A localIaw .......... ..........:.. ..................:............. .....'... (insertt41a) ............. OWN BOARD . ..................... I ....................... ...... ........ of the .. ......... ................ . the t- .............................................. . iell" i" Body) Be it enacted by cr+.me .......... ...... ... as follows • ITHACA XAWof ................ ........................................... To wn The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted , amended , and revised effective. February 26 , 1 9 68 , and subsequently amended , be further amended as follows : 1 . Subdivision 2 of Section 28 is amended to read as follows : " 2 . Yards. and Courts . Front Yards = Not less than fifty feet . Side Yards - Not less than the height of the nearest • structure , or fifteen feet , whichever is greater . Rear Yard . Not less than twice the heigh of the nearest structure or thirty feet , whichever 'is greater . I Courts - Shall be completely open on one side , with a width not less than the height of the tallest opposite structure and a depth not more than one and one - half ' the width . " 2 . Subdivision 3 of Section 28 is hereby amended to read as follows : 3 . Spaces Between Buildings : The distance between any two than the average height of both , structures shall be no less � . or twenty feet , whichever is greater . " 3 . Section 68 of . said Ordinance is amended to read as follows : " Other than SECTION 68 . More than one . building on a lot . i in a multiple residence district , there shall not be more EXii tB ch sesheets of tl► e same size as� this and number each)" >� tg( lf additional space is needed , lease 1 � r than one principal building on any lot in any residential district . When there is more than one principal building on a lot in any district , except a multiple residence district , the space between such buildings must be at least equal to the sum of the side yards required by such buildings or the sum of the rear and the front yards as the case may be . " 4 . Article I , Section 1 , is hereby amended by adding a new subparagraph to be subparagraph 4 - a reading as follows : " 4 - a . The ' depth ' of a lot shall mean the distance between a point on the street line and the rear of the lot measured perpendicularly from the street line . A lot need meet the minimum depth requirements set forth in this Ordinance at only one point and, not uniformly throughoutithe lot ' s entire width . " 5 . Article I , Section 1 , is hereby amended ) by adding a new subdivision , to be subdivision 4 - b reading as follows : 114 - b . ' Height ' as it relates to a building means the distance measured from the surface of the lowest level ( floor of a crawl space , basement floor ,) slab , or other floor , even if below exterior grade level ) in contact with the ground surface to the highest point ( roof , chimney , antenna or other protuberance ) on the top of the building . ' Height ' as it relates to a structure otherl than a building means the distance measured from the lowestllevel or portion of the structure ( slab , base , cellar ) in contact with the ground surface to the highest point at ithe top of the structure . " 6 . Article I , Section 1 , is hereby amended by adding a new subdivision , to be subdivision 5 - a reading as folllows : 115 - a . A ' building ' is any . structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and intended for shelter , housing , protection or enclosure of persons , animals or property . " 7 . Article I , Section 1 , subdivision 28 is ' amended to read as follows * i " 28 . A ' structure ' is anything that is i constructe or erected , on the ground or upon another structure or building . ' Structure ' also includes anything that is constructed or erected underground and projects up to the ground surface or I above , or anything that is constructed or erected wholly underground other than utility lines , septic and water systems , or other similar types of underground construction i wholly ancillary to a principal building or structure on the premises .. ' Structure ' also includes constructed parking 11 • spaces . The term structure includes a building . 8 . Section 4 , . Subdivision 17 of said Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows : i 1 " 17 . In Residence Districts R9 , no structure shall be ' erected , altered , or extended to exceed thirty - four ( 34 ) feet in height . " i 9 . Section 11 , Subdivision 10 , is hereby amended to read as j follows : 1110 . In Residence Districts R15 , no structure shall be erected , altered , or extended to exceed thirty - four ( 34 ) feet in height . " i I • 10 . Section 18 , Subdivision 16 , is hereby amended to read as follows : " 18 . In Residence Districts R301 no structure I EXHIBIT 3 mm� r 7 .QI vr ' • rLi dl, rii , , r rrJel ; rr , .:"n •. ,. fr > .• r ., ' . ... , :q . . . r . . t . kkI. r ` 1 • shall be erected , altered , or extended to excied thirty - four ( 34 ) feet: in height . " i 11 . Section 28 , Subdivision 5 , is hereby amended to read as follows : 115 . Height : All structures shall conform in height with other structures . in the vicinity , provided , however , that no structure shall exceed thirty - four ( 34 ) feet iin height . " 12 . Section 37 ,. Subdivision 3 , is hereby amended to read as follows : " 3 . Height : All structures shall conform in height with other structures in the vicinity , provided , however , that no structure shall exceed thirty - four ( 34 ) feet iin height . " 13 . Section 44 , Subdivision 4 , is hereby , amended to read as follows : 4 . Height : No structure shall exceed one story above the lowest exterior grade level or twenty - five ( 25 ) feet in height , whichever is lower . " 14 . Section 50 of said Ordinance is hereby amended by • adding a new Subdivision 7 reading as follows : 117 . Height : No structure shall exceed thirty - four ( 34 ) feet in height except by Special Approval from the Board of atter been ' referred to the Zoning Appeals after the m Planning Board for recommendation . 15 . Section 51 , Subdivision 3 is hereby amended to read as follows : f1districts , non - agricultural struc - 3 . In agricultural dist , no 1 ture shall be erected or extended to exceed thirty - four ( 34 ) l feet in height . " 16 . Section 29 of said Ordinance is amended by renumbering fsubparagraph 5 of said section to subparagraph 7 and inserting { two new subparagraphs , to be subparagraphs 5 and 6 reading as I follows : j " 5.. Buffer, Areas . No structure shall be placed nearer than 30 feet from any other district including any other residence district , agricultural district , industrial district , or business district . A strip at least 10 feet wide , within such buffer area , shall be suitably planted to screen a multiple residence district from present or future i residences , or a suitable screening fence shall be erected . • " 6 . Landscaping , Fencing and Screening . Inadditionto the landscaping , screening , fencing and buffer requirements set forth above , additional landscaping , fencing , screening , or earth berm may be required to be provided in ' any area where { the proposed multiple . residence development or accessory facilities would create a hazardous condition or would j detract from the value of the neighboring property if such landscaping , fencing , screening or berm were not provided . " 1 17 . Section 38 of said ordinance is amended by deleting subparagraphs 5 and 6 and inserting new subparagraphs 5 and 6 to read as follows : i 115 . Buffer Areas - and Screening : No structure shall be 1 placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district and • 30 feet from any other district . A strip at least 10 feet wide within such buffer area shall be suitably planted to screen a Business District from present or future 1 Page 3 t EXHIBIT 3 I _ vn®irn.nu�rnimirrm�na� • residences , or a suitable screening fence shall be erected . No waste or refuse shall be placed outside any building in a Business District except under the following conditions : An area common to all businesses , or a separate area i for each business shall be reserved at the rear of the structure or structures . These areas shall contain bins , or jother receptacles adequate to prevent the scattering of waste and refuse , and shall be planted or fenc d so as to be screened from the public view . Such area and receptacles shall not be located in the buffer area set forth above . No refuse shall be burned on the premises . " 6 . In addition to the landscaping , screening , fencing and buffer requirements set forth above , additional landscaping , fencing , screening , or earth berm may be required to be provided in any area where the proposed sti! ucture or use would create a hazardous condition or would detract from the value of neighboring property if such landscaping , fencing , screening , or berm were not provided . " � I 18 . Section 45 of said Ordinance is amended by deleting the existingsubparagraphs 5 and 6 and inserting nserting two new i subparagraphs , to be subparagraphs 5 and 6 reading as follows . 115 . Buffer Areas and Screening : No structure shall be • placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district or I nearer than 30 feet from any other di strict . � A strip at least 10 feet wide within such buffer area shall be planted or suitably fenced so as to screen the light industrial i district from present or future residences . " 6 . . In addition to the landscaping , screening , fencing and buffer requirements set forth above , additional landscaping , fencing , screening , or earth berm may be required to be provided in any area where the proposed structure or use y would create a hazardous condition or would detract from the value of the neighboring property if such I landscaping , fencing , screening , or berm were not provided . i' 19 . Section 50 of said Ordinance is amended by deleting subparagraphs 5 and 6 and inserting two new subparagraphs , to be subparagraphs 5 and 6 reading as follows : 115 . Buffer Areas and ' Screening : No structure shall be placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district or nearer than 30 feet from any other districtsl A strip at j least 10 feet wide within such buffer area shall be planted or suitably fenced so as to screen the Industrial District 1 from present or future residences . I • 6 . In addition to the landscaping , screening , fencing and buffer requirements set forth above , additiona !1 landscaping , fencing , screening , or earth berm may be required to be provided in any area where the proposed structure or use would create a hazardous condition or would detract from the j value of neighboring property if such landscaping , fencing , i screening, or berm were not provided . 20 . Secti �� n 9 of the Ordinance is amended to read as follows : " SECTION 9 . Size And Area Of Lot . Lot sizes and areas in Residence Districts R9 shall meet the following minimum requirements : I 1 . When no public water or sewer is available , Ii • ( a ) minimum lot area shall be at least 1 5 , 000 square feet , and i Page 4 EXHIBIT 3 III 1I iiiiiiiiii IN 11111111111111 illilillillll!m�iimimml=1 i I i I ( b ) minimum width at the street line shall be 60 feet ; and ( c ) minimum width at the maximum required front )and set - back ( 50 feet from the street line ) shall e 100 feet ; and ( d ) minimum depth shall be 150 feet . 2 . When public water or sewer is available ( a ) minimum lot area shall be at least 12 , 000 square feet ; and ( b ) minimum width at the street line shall be 60 feet ; and ( c. maximum required front) minimum width at the a q yard set back line 50 feet from the street line ) shall be 80 feet ; and ( d ) minimum depth shall be 120 feet . 3 . When both public water and sewers are available • ( a. ) minimum lot area shall be at l least 9 , 000 square feet ; and ( b ) minimum width at the street line and at the maximum required front yard set - back ( 50 feet from the street line ) shall be 60 feet ; and ( c ) minimum depth shall be 120 feet . , 21 . Section 16 of said Ordinance is amended to read as follows : " SECTION 16 . Size Of Lot . Lots in Residence Districts R15 shall meet the following minimum requirements : 1 . Minimum lot area shall be at least 15 , 000 square feet , and 2 . Minimum width at the street line shall be 60 feet; and 3 . Minimum width at the maximum front yard setback line ( 50 feet from the street line ) shall be 100 feet ; and 3 . Minimum depth shall be 150 feet . 22 . Section 23 of said Ordinance is amended to read as • follows : " SECTION 23 . Size Of Lot . Lots in Residence Districts R30 shall meet the following minimum requirements : 1 . Minimum lot area shall be at least 30 , 000 square feet ; and 2 . Minimum width at the street line shall .be 100 feet ; and 3 . Minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line ( 60 feet from the street line ) shall be 150, feet ; and 4 . Minimum depth from the highway right of wayshallbe 200 feet . • 23 , Section 77 of said Ordinance is amended by adding a new subdivision 9 to read as follows : I Page 5 i EXHIBIT 3 I f • 9 . Unless work has commenced in accordance with the variance or special approval given by the Board of Appeals within one year from the issuance of the building permit authorizing such work , not only the building permit but the variance or special approval shall expire and the permis - sible users and construction on the property shall revert to those in effect prior to the issuance of such special approval or variance . " 24 . Subdivision 1 of Section 4 of said Ordinance is amended to read as follows : " 1 . A One Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be occupied by not more than 1 ( a ) an individual , or ( family ?B ) a Y . or ( c ) a family plus up to two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants , or ( d ) three individuals , boarders , roome s , lodgers , or other occupants . " • 25 . Subdivision 1 of Section 11 of said Ordinance is amended to read as follows : " 1 . A One Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be occupied by not more than ( a ) -an individual , or ( b ) a family , or ( c ) a family plus up to two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants , or ( d ) three individuals , boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants . " 26 . Subdivision 1 of Section 18 of said Ordinance is I amended to read as follows : " 1 . A One Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be occupied by not more than ( a ) an individual , or ( b ) . a family , or • ( c ) a family plus up to two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants , or ( d ) three individuals , boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants . " 27 . Section 72 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following : " Where minimum lot sizes are specified in this Ordinance , to the approval o the same shall be subject pp f the Tompkins . County Health Department or any successor '; agency , and if such Department or successor requires larger lots to comply with the County Sanitary Code , the requirements of such Department or successor shall govern . •I In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the I ; Page 6 EXHIBIT , n remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity . This law shall take effect ten days after its publication , pursuant to applicable provisions of law . • • Page 7 EXHIBIT ' ( AMENDMENT SET # 3 ) sUBREG2 . RES ,. ITHACA 2 , 6 / 28 / 88 4 : 25pm r RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA WHEREAS , the subdivision regulations of the Town of Ithaca were adopted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on March 24 , 1956 and � approved by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca o n March 24 , 1956 ; and WHEREAS , said subdivision regulations have been thereafter amended from time to time ; and WHEREAS , it is deemed desirable and appropriate to further amend such subdivision regulations in the manner hereinafter set forth , NOW , THEREFORE , it is RESOLVED , that the definition of " building height " contained in Article III , Section 20 of the above - mentioned subdivision regulations is amended to read as follows : " Building Height . The distance from the surface of the • lowest floor ( floor of a crawl space , basement floor , slab , or other floor ) even . if below exterior grade level ) in contact with the ground surface to the highest point ( roof , chimney , antennae or - other protuberance ) on the top of the building . " and it is further RESOLVED , that the following definition contained in Article III , Section 20 of the above mentioned subdivision regulations are amended to read as follows : " Basement . A story partly underground but having at least one - half of its height above the average level of the adjoining ground . A basement , or cellar shall be counted as a story for the purposes of height regulation . Cellar . A story partly underground but having at least one - half of its height below the average level of the adjoining ground . A basement or cellar shall be counted as • a story for the purposes of height regulation . EXHIBIT . i sUBREG2 . RES , ITHACA 2 , 6 / 28 / 88 4 : 25pm I and it is further j RESOLVED , that Article V , Section 32 , subdivision 6 of said subdivision regulations be amended by changing the maximum height from " thirty ( 30 ) feet " to 34 feet in height . " • i 2 EXHIBIT • RECENT HEIGHT_ VIA IANCES AND WAIVERS ( 1986 / 87 ) : s . b . 1 / 2 0 / 88 RESIDENTIAL : Eastwood Commons Phase III : 30 ' waived , max . 35 ' permitted. . Black Oak Lane : 30 ' waived : max . 42 ' permitted . Deer Run : ' j Stage 1 : :max . 38 ' 1 " on 2 center units of Bldgs . 2 and 4 . Max . 34 ' on 2 center units of Bldgs . 1 and 3 . Stage Iae max . - 32 ' on Bldg . 7 if the driveways exceed 7 per cent slope . Max . 34 ' on Bldgs . 6 ana 8 if the slope measured from building front - to back exceeds 4 feet . NONRESIDENTIAL : Ithaca College School of Communications : variance granted for 30 ' max . height . Montessori School of Ithaca , East King Road : variance • granted for 43 ' high bell tower . Cornell Equitation facility , Pine Tree Rd . : variance granted for 37 ' maximum height ) Cornell Plantations Service Building , C aldwell Road : variance granted for 36 ' maximum height ( partly a 2 - story bldg . ) South Yard Warehouse , Five Mile Drive ( M . Hannan ) : variance granted for 36 ' maximum height ( 1 - story bldg . , Lt . Industrial Dist . ) Anderson Moving and Storage , Elmira Rd . : variance granted for 28 ' maximum height ( 1 - story bldg . , Lt . Industrial Dist . ) New Residential Ha11 , 1-thaCEOV ,College : 38 ',fee'trri'i,x . 'ht. ;gran'te'd 3 / 2388 for stax towers and roof pilot . .• 71 4 . . . \ [ NI +r r+ . i. ! t fir' , . r • l�i ti 1 . tr( ,�r1� � li 11�, �T1�}� � l��t," t ` \ r + f. �i , Ir � J1 r i r C r r / '! Jr } / C + I yil\ + • Jrt + t1f � rr . t ti 't I YI + ✓< r i ): 1iSr' � fl t1 J + ' Y1, • ' at r: + l ' i r 1 . , � a Jr 1 t r t t ' + r\ r r 1 r $:41' 5 ! . � � +l 1 � r ' � rr \ 1 + S11 4 4t .. 1 'rrr I I }' r ', j tJ . a �S<!lf f./t r {a•,' } 3 � . : � � r ) t 1 , r . . rl ,r, , p l`�' ` i1r ..y[ . .i � '. \ 1n. 1 �f .,: A � , ' li{• � d Y` rF li .j, r'}. 1 r.��l : y` , tirt { .,�sY ( (11. +�Q ( -:j��.' \ . ( 'S� �+`t I.• 1{�y, A. �lt.t . i r"Iilr 1 r .,� } I,II . '(M1 �i!- P 45 "`'' ' h{��M' �J `C Y�� �M��'�,, p���� � ,�y � •�;+± jJ �'{r q �•, {t((j rl 1 y , fYJ , 5 r - ,) 4 1 �, ;�• ) ) � ;'. !�'IN gM1 .f � �''1j 1^I(7�'� + i . �+k� Jdl ,`S t1 tir { 7 ) yip r /1.�• r P i f r � ( ` S •.l✓{ \I ��'i 1'�iy' f��: rl (� � �• •'i„ t + i 'y l^ t\r'T, fJr 5. 1 ri 11 ; V� (tf t:A` ,4,r t . ria rl��')`>>fi`Y11' �1�1+ '� P 7 '' 'S y \ +4i , it i1'+., 'ER�� t ` iy t k� � ♦ t \ ,V •. ' \�� { . � �. �. � ; � ` �`1 - i' ti - l� + r 1 S lr t L At r.r f =rr Ir .+M.f?:'l .l" pr � , 1. •t 11r 1 ( v °t'1., y .12 1 + c { olt 4J tr + , ' } - . . t� :l l. . ` ai �' r, y ' r ^ ' � +�t .�ir��.� ., �. i.w . . . It It It } Y� r % • tom + l 4r rJ n i X. tr + EXH`I '• r ` �+ 's r1 1 r \+ �?' '• 1 . rdt r ': a. 1 N a ,, , l . .. r \ s �3 - ► f � 5� 8 r3 l") *11b ti S 41 2 I I Z M !N 71 ii m ii IN l ii ii 11 _. . _ ---- _ l- - --- ---- - - - -- smin , p ctE 027 , I . 2Are C=o \ 00000 — AgeJet -- 2 11 1 r i 2 OKIa 'b N A0570t E>+J r'' moon A ^ A OOP EXHIBIT �j/ r ( AMENDMENT SET # 3 ) SECTIONS WITHIN ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO BE REVISED o - Art icle III , Seat ion 20 : Basement A storey partly underground but having a least f one -half of. its . height above. the average level of i the -adjoining ground . A basement or cellar shall be . counted as a storey for the purposes of height regulation .- Building Height The distance from the lowest point at grade to the highest poi.nt of the roof , excluding chimneys , antennae , lightning rods , and similar appendages . Cer:!' A storey partly underground but having more than one -half of its height above the average level of the adjoining ground . A basement or cellar shall be counted as a storey for the purposes of height regulation . Article V , Section 32 , Chapter 6 : 6 . No more than six semi -detached , attached , or multi - storey dwell - ing units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one struc - ture , nor shall that structure be more than three storeys high , including the basement or cellar . Distances between structures in the clustered subdivision shall be no less than thirty ( 30 ) feet. No building shall be more than three storeys . In any i event , no building shall be more than thirty ( 30 ) feet in height . EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUSUCATION THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN NOHACA PLANNING ' ,Sbdt a{ KtiD lUarkr T1� k � — ` ntIV , 0 : BOARD, TICE OF PUBLIC ] HEARINGS, TUESDAY, JULY 5, j (t 19M -. YILt h".�.L�2� . _ �no' . . . . . being dull sworn , deposes B direction of the. Chairman _ . .. . . . . of the Planning Board, NOTICE ,y IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public: }•sth and sa , at he resides in Ithaca, County and state aforesaid and Hearings will be held by the ., Planning Board of the Town o, Ithaca on Tuesday, July * 51 ' 1988, in Town Ha , 126 East tbit be is • - - "N -- - • - • - • • • - --• • • - • • -- - - • . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . .. Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y. , al the following times and on the of T� ITEAc + Jot-�� ,tL, a public newspaper printed and published following matters: 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice , of which the annexed is a tele 0. 143 acre lot, located at 183 Kendall Avenue, Town of Itha- `I CO •, was published in said a J Fj , co Tax Parcel No. 6-54-420, i! p paper . . . . . . .. . . the purpose two thadjoiningr ,licia- S.'1N� �_ . equal portion for ... _.... . .. .. . . . . . .. .... . .. .•--. . . -• -••- • --. . . .. . .... ... .. . _ . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . Pamela Sackett, Owner/Ap - , plicant. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of .a . Request for Modification of _ . .... . .. . . .. . . .. . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . ... . ... .. _ . . _. . . . . . . - - - . .. . . _. . . . . . . . I . . .. . . .. . ... .. . .• ••. . . _ . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .... . conditions imposed in the j September 15, 1987, Planning and that the Est ll . licaonfitih t: oSac' notice was on the 2 Board Site Plan Approval of an p � . .+.�� . . . . . .. . . . . . air structure enclosing two tennis courts at "La Tourelle", . i \ Special Land Use District No. I dfi}' of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . ✓ ,^..`e,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I9. . . 1 , 1150 Danby Road, Town of '. Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-17 4. 2, and further, Consider- ation of a Request for Modifi- 1 ' - " " cation of iota Law No. 3-1984 y pertaining to said Specials Subs 'bed and sworn to before me this Land Use District permit 1 , said - --•• • • -• • • •- •- -----• - • -- • • • • - . .. . • • • • • • da} request being to permit cook- ing operations and beverage service in "La Tourelle" for re- I - -- -- - - -- --- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - captions and similar events. I 9 Walter J. Wiggins, Owner/Ap- plicant. (Ad'IIourned from May + e� .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, June 7, and June 21 , . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1988. ) Notary Public . 8:05 P.M. Consideration 'of j certain proposed amendments JEAN FORD to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with respect to Day notary public State of New ypFk Care Facilities, and to the clor- i ification of various definitions ! and provisions with respect to I r No. 4654AW yards, . lots, buffers, . building �llfiffi ,d It41 ;(ompkins C.. Ounly height and other miurther- t neons provisions, and further; GO-rlmi,5sion expires Ma 31 191 �, consideration m certain pro- 1 y S posed amendments to thea Town of Ithaca Subdivision , .4 Regulations with respect to definitions and provisions re- toted to building height. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear 1 . 011 persons in support of such i matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Jean H. Swartwood a Town Clerk '+ 273-1721 'I. June 30, 1988 • L ' L� b :.r . . J