Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-01-03 FILED TOWN � OF ITHAC�A(� � Datesl�deT v • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING , BOARD Clerrc •3 JANUARY 3 , 1989 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , January 3 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , Robert Miller , Robert Kenerson , Virginia Langhans , William Lesser , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Robert Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) . ALSO PRESENT : Francis Paolangeli , David Herrick , Beth Mulholland , Gene Ball , Jean & Bill McMinn , Janet Stevenson , Hoyt Benjamin , Albert Wright , James Stevens , Larry Foor , G . Armbruster , Roger Sovocool , Esq . DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO TOWN BOARD TIE VOTE , DECEMBER 30 , 1988 , ON REAPPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN FOR 1989 Attorney Barney - It piqued my curiosity when that happened as to what follows from that , and so I went back and I looked at the Town • Law . The Town Law is quite explicit in saying that in Section 272 that the Town Board shall designate a member of said Planning Board to act as Chairman thereof , or on failure so to do , the planning board shall elect a chairman from its own members , so I just bring that to your attention and indicate that I think that since the Town Board failed to act that the Planning Board can select its own Chairman . I think it has to be with the understanding that should the Town Board at some point in the future act to designate somebody then that designation would take precedence , but in the interim I think you are well within your rights to elect your own Chairman . I have to say , Carolyn , I went on and looked a little further and I don ' t see any authority for the Town Board to select a Vice - Chairman , we have been doing it for a hundred years and you do these things without looking , but they do them year after year after year , and of course I quite frankly , when I went to the Town Board meeting had no idea that there was going to be any kind of a split vote as it turned out to be - so I really had not looked into the matter at all , but subsequently I have , so at this juncture I think you could proceed in a variety of ways , but probably the way that would make the most sense is to elect a chairman . Carolyn Grigorov - Do you know what the Town Board was expecting us to do ? Attorney Barney - I think that if you ask three members of the Town Board they might have said one thing , and if you ask the three other • members they might have said something different . I really don ' t know . Planning Board - 2 - January 3 , 1989 • Robert Kenerson - That ' s today . Carolyn Grigorov - Do you hear what they are saying Bill , about the law . William Lesser - No , I ' m afraid I missed that . Caroly Grigorov - If the Town Board ' fails to appoint a chairman , then the Planning Board can appoint their own chairman , according to Town Law . Robert Miller - The Planning Board what ? Virginia Langhans - If the Town Board fails to appoint a chairman we can appoint our own chairman . Carolyn Grigorov - We can elect a chairman , elect or appoint ? Attorney Barney - It ' s not even can , it ' s shall . The word is mandatory , the Town Board shall designate a member of said Planning Board to act as chairman thereof , or on failure so to do , the Planning Board shall elect a chairman from its own members . Carolyn Grigorov - So , if it ' s mandatory then we should be electing a chairman . Attorney Barney - I would think it would make sense to . Carolyn Grigorov - I would open the nominations . Robert Kenerson - I would nominate the past Chairman , Montgomery May to be Chairman of the Planning Board , Robert Miller - I ' ll second . Carolyn Grigorov - We have a nomination into second . Are there any other nominations ? James Baker - I move the nominations be closed . Carolyn Grigorov - All those in favor . Attorney Barney - Want to discuss it a little bit ? William Lesser - I just wonder what , I guess that ' s within our rights , I just wonder does the Town Board not have a right to come and . . Carolyn Grigorov - He said that they could appoint somebody at some time if they wanted to . William Lesser - If they don ' t like it can they come and appoint • somebody here , is that what could happen if they don ' t accept this vote ? Planning Board - 3 - January 3 , 1989 Attorney Barney - Well , they don ' t have to accept it , whatever your vote is you have a chairman to act as chairman until the Town Board by its action appoints , if they choose to , a different chairman . I think the practicalities of the situation are at the moment that that ' s not likely to happen until there is a seventh member appointed to the Town Board , but I don ' t want to " forecast how people would continue to vote . Carolyn Grigorov - Is there any more discussion of the nominations ? All those in :favor say Aye . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , May , Langhans , Miller , Kenerson , Lesser . Opposed - None . It ' s unanimous that we have re - elected Mr . May as chairman . Attorney Barney - In view of the questionable jurisdiction of the Town Board to appoint a Vice - Chairman I think it might be appropriate for this Board to also confirm or take action on a Vice -Chairman so that there isn ' t any question about . . . . Robert Kenerson - Our previous action is not . . . . Attorney Barney - Your previous action was a nomination , and a recommendation to the Town Board , which the Town Board followed in the instance of the Vice - Chairman . As I look at the law , I don ' t see any authority on the Town Board ' s part to make that designation , so I would suggest it might be worthwhile . Robert Kenerson - I would move that Carolyn Grigorov be appointed the Vice - Chairman of the Planning Board . Virginia Langhans - I ' ll second it . Montgomery May - We have a second . Discussion . [ None . ] All those in favor say Aye . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Miller , Kenerson , Lesser . Opposed - None . Unanimous . Chairman May - Do you want me to go ahead and take the meeting at this point . Attorney Barney - I think that the Board suggested that , I don ' t make those decisions . Chairman May - Thank you all . • Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Planning Board - 4 - January 3 , 1989 Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 27 , 1988 , and December, 29 , 1988 , respectively , together with the Clerks ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , upon the Clerk of the Town of Dryden , upon the Finger Lakes Region of the NYS Office of Parks , Recreation , & Historic Preservation , upon both the Clerk and the Acting Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on December 28 , 1988 . NON-AGENDA ITEM : A copy of Mr . Frost ' s [ Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ] December 1988 Report of Building / Zoning Activities was distributed to each of the members of the Board . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 15 , 500 SQ . FT . LOT FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 801 LOCATED AT 1345 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND CONTAINING AN EXISTING DWELLING , - AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION -OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 AND OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 7 , - 10 . 2 , AND - 11 INTO SIX LOTS OF 22 , 050 SQ . FT . TO 87 , 400 SQ . FT . EACH WITH ACCESS TO SLATERVILLE ROAD . FRANCIS J . PAOLANGELI , • APPLICANT . ( ADJOURNED FROM DECEMBER 6 , 1988 . ) Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 42 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . David Herrick of T . G . Miller & Associates approached the Board and displayed for the Board members maps of Mr . Paolangeli ' s property . Mr . Herrick commented there were three issues brought up at the December 6 , 1988 Planning Board meeting that needed additional study . Mr . Herrick noted that the three issues were : 1 . The aspect of clustering . 2 . Concerns over parking associated with the proposed walkway that -the developer is looking to provide to the Town . 3 . A concern that the adjoining neighbor , Mr . Sweet , had regarding drainage . Mr . Herrick noted that Mr . Paolangeli has reconciled the discrepancy regarding the boundary lines concerning the McMinn property . Mr . Herrick stated that the subdivision plat has been • modified to show what would be the final line between the parcels . Mr . Paolangeli [ indicating on map ] noted that " this " line was moved five feet " this " way and " this " line was moved five feet " this " way . I Planning Board - 5 - January 3 , 1989 • Mr . Herrick , referring to the cluster concept , stated that , basically , all the developer is asking for is a waiver of the requirement that a second dwelling cannot exceed 50 % square footage of a primary dwelling . Mr . Herrick noted that there is an interest , he [ Mr . Herrick ] being one , in developing a side by side duplex on Lot # l . Mr . Herrick said that that was the only aspect of clustering that was being requested . Mr . Paolangeli , referring to the garages , stated that the Restrictive Covenants have been modified for at least one vehicle per living unit , and noted that ample off - street parking would be provided . Mr . Herrick stated that the two garages would be constructed at one end of the structure . Mr . Herrick said that the developer is trying to maintain a single family appearance with a common front entrance . Mr . Herrick stated that the developer would provide an abundance of open space , noting that with the increased size in lots Mr . Paolangeli is interested in Lot: # 5 , which is a two - acre parcel . Mr . Herrick remarked that all of the lots are within R- 15 zoning , but are quite a bit in excess of the 15 , 000 square foot requirement . Board Member Robert Kenerson asked about the public parking for access to the park land in the back . Mr . Herrick stated that , basically , the developer does not want any parking on Winner ' s Circle . Town Planner Susan Beeners noted that the Six Mile Creek Study Committee recommended that there only be a limited number of entrances to the Six Mile Creek area , with one of them actually being , generally , the location that Mr . Paolangeli is proposing for the trail . Ms . Beeners stated that an additional statement was that public parking for gorge use should be maintained only at Van Natta ' s dam . Ms . Beeners noted that , in discussions between Assistant Town Planner George Frantz and Beth Mulholland ( Circle Greenway ) , it was felt that at the present time , the intent should be that this would be a neighborhood trail , with fairly low- key signage , and that no parking would be developed at this time . Board Member Virginia Langhans commented that it is a public street . Mr . Paolangeli commented that the nature of Winner ' s Circle is not the typical street , as it will be blacktop with concrete gutters , thus limiting the ability to park because a portion of one lane would be blocked . Mr . Paolangeli offered that there would be adequate parking for guests because the parcels of land are large enough . Ms . Beeners noted that it was her recommendation that the proposed 15 - foot wide strip shown on the plan for the Town walkway be re - labelled for , maybe , Town of Ithaca recreational purposes . Ms . Beeners stated that , if parking along that road becomes a real problem , as far as people using it to get down to the reservoir , then the Board could address it at that time by either going with a no parking ordinance specifically for that section of street , or working something out with the City of Ithaca that might include an • arrangement whereby their gorge ranger or other enforcement agencies would actually monitor what parking was developed there . Board member William Lesser commented that that does not sound really equitable Planning Board - 6 - January 3 , 1989 because , if the number of access places has been limited , and parking is limited , the people who are within walking distance of that access that is being made a major recreation area , it would be largely inaccessible to a good portion of the people who might want to use it . Ms . Beeners :stated that the intent of the Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee , is to really channelize any type of access where parking would be needed to � the Van Natta dam area parking lot . Mr . Frantz mentioned that the trail is a very short segment of the entire Circle Greenway system . William Lesser wondered who would be using the trail , other than the residents . Mr . Frantz replied that he thought it would be mostly neighborhood residents . Ms . Langhans wondered if there would be any other entrance in that area , with Mr . Frantz responding that a few people park on Penny Lane and use the City access . Ms . Beeners stated that , eventually there would be Grandview Park parking , and the Church parking lot , which is used occasionally , as well . Ms . Langhans commented that she had the feeling that when people find out this is an entrance they will park all around . Mr . Paolangeli stated that the intent of the walkway is for people who would not abuse the system and use the trail . William Lesser noted that the point that is being raised is that there :is to be only one access road within a fairly wide area there to make it into a location that really allows no parking . Ms . Beeners wondered if it would be appropriate , and this would hold for both the trail and parking area , not to develop either , until such time as there was an appropriate agreement with the City relating to the City having easements to come • out of the reservoir , up across the Sweet land to Winner ' s Circle , and also some kind of a satisfactory agreement on the enforcement of any type of parking that was developed . Ms . Beeners noted that it had been discussed that the trail could certainly be graded , but should not be surfaced , and should not be used as an official trail until there are the appropriate easements through the Sweet property to complete the trail . Ms . Beeners remarked that she had pictured the Sweet easement as being something that the City would pursue , and that the right - of -way through the Paolangeli property would probably be something where the Town would grant an easement to the City for its use for the purpose of the Circle Greenway , Ms . Mulholland of the Circle Greenway spoke from the floor and stated that she had talked with Dr . Sweet and he voiced no objection , whatsoever , to people using his property for the trail . Chairman May stated that Dr . Sweet has informally granted the right - of -way for people to walk on it for quite a number of years ,. Ms . Mulholland offered that she lives on Penny Lane and added that last year there were never more than two cars parked on Penny Lane on a warm Sunday . The Board held a brief discussion concerning cars parking on Route 79 , Ms . Langhans wondered what happened to the idea of going down through Edna Clausen ' s property , as the trail was supposed to go down that way . Ms . Beeners stated that in place in the approvals of the service road is the reserve of the right in the future , if it was deemed appropriate , to designate a trail along the Clausen section , • adding , it was the opinion at the time that , perhaps , something going westward off Commonland Crescent might be a way to get into the reservoir . Ms . Beeners offered that she had brought the matter up to Planning Board - 7 - January 3 , 1989 • the Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee , and they were not terribly thrilled with having any additional access other than , essentially , this present proposed access . Chairman May stated that another point of discussion was limiting the number of side by side houses . Chairman May wondered what the developer came up with as being a reasonable limitation . Mr . Herrick responded with , Lots # 1 , 3 , and 4 . Carolyn Grigorov wondered about clustering . Mr . Herrick answered that a subdivision can be a combination of cluster and conventional , if it is designated to be that way . Mr . Herrick stated that he and Mr . Paolangeli had discussions with Dr . Sweet regarding the proposed location and method of getting run - off from the highway down to where it exits the property . Mr . Herrick stated that Dr . Sweet is not pleased with the location as it has been proposed . Mr . Herrick remarked that prior to development on subject site run - off did come off the highway at about the same location as it does now , adding , it meandered its way across open pasture land , down to where it exits the property . Mr . Herrick commented that the developer has possesion of a topo survey that was prepared in 1964 for the original owner , Mr . Guidi , which locates an intermittent stream in about exactly the same location as the developer has shown . Mr . Herrick stated that , again , it ran across open pasture land . Mr . Herrick noted that the developer is proposing to put in a conduit to get it to where it exits the property . Mr . Herrick noted that , to minimize the effects of erosion that might be created by a point discharge , the developer has provided some drop inlets , which will , essentially , minimize the potential of water to build up velocity and cause erosion on Dr . Sweet ' s property . Mr . Herrick also noted that at the end of the piping , before it exits the property , the developer has put in approximately 20 feet of rip - rap material , and Mr . Paolangeli would be willing to extend that rip - rap down into Dr . Sweet ' s ditch for a certain distance , whatever is required , to minimize the erosion . Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt stated that he believed the engineers and Mr . Paolangeli have done the proper designs in handling the storm water drainage , noting , they have kept not only the route of the water through the subdivision but also the relative areas of run - off are kept very closely to the formerly existing areas of run - off . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that careful measures have been taken to slow the velocity of the water as it exits the property . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions . Attorney Roger Sovocool appeared before the Board on behalf of Dr . Sweet . Attorney Sovocool stated that he did not think Dr . Sweet has had a chance to view the topographical map . Attorney Sovocool noted that Dr . Sweet indicated that sketches of the site show a ditch as confining the culvert water across the property prior to reaching his Planning Board - 8 - January 3 , 1989 property . Attorney Sovocool commented that Dr . Sweet has lived at his present residence since 1949 . Attorney Sovocool [ indicating on map ] stated that the present proposal is to take water from the culvert and dump it right about " here " . Attorney Sovocool remarked that Dr . Sweet thinks it should go [ pointing to map ] over " here " to an existing creek which adjoins the property right in the corner of the six - acre piece . Attorney Sovocool noted that Dr . Sweet is pleased with the plan as it is developing ., except he is still worried that the water from " this " culvert , now being directed in the huge pipe , and also being collected from both sides of the roadway , would all be concentrated in one point , thus creating a new stream . Attorney Sovocool stated that Dr . Sweet proposes to separate the street drainage from the new street , separate that from the water coming down out of the culvert . Attorney Sovocool said that Dr . Sweet is suggesting to bring the water down the same existing pipe , then as it gets down to " this " corner , just let that water dissipate across the ground and find its own way , which would spread it out in sort of a swale , instead of directing it to one point , then the street drainage carried off across the street , and then dropped down into the creek . Attorney Sovocool noted that then there would be! two sites that the water would enter the Sweet property instead of all coming down in one large pipe and being dumped at one point . Attorney Sovocool stated that it was hard to view today what 10 - 20 years from now the concentrated drainage would be . Attorney Sovocool commented that Dr . Sweet was worried the drainage would only increase over the years , noting , once the pipe is in and directed to one point , it would only become a bigger and bigger problem . Attorney Sovocool offered that Dr . Sweet thinks most of the drainage appears to be toward the northwest and the natural drainage [ indicating on map ] down " this " way . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he has looked at the drainage pretty extensively , and noted that the proposal by Dr . Sweet was presented to him [ Mr . Flumerfelt ] today , January 3 , 1989 , requesting that Dr . Sweet would like the drainage routed to the south corner of the property . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the old existing drainage way is a very well developed drainage way . Mr . Flumerfelt pointed out that because of an increase in run - off one might immediately think of a retention pond . Mr . Flumerfelt commented that this is one place where a retention pond should not be built , because it is quite far down in the drainage basin . Attorney Barney stated that there is a general principal that the owner of a parcel of land cannot funnel surface water to run off in a different direction . Mr . Herrick stated that the original run - off is about ten cfs for the development . William McMinn of 1351 Slaterville Road spoke from the floor and confirmed that he and Mr . Paolangeli have worked out the property line survey . Mr . McMinn requested that the consideration of cluster be kept to a minimum of 1 - 3 lots , and not made the entire project . Robert Kenerson responded that it would be lots 1 , 3 , and 4 . Mr . McMinn offered that he felt this was a first class operation . Planning Board - 9 - January 3 , 1989 There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 41 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 15 , 500 sq . ft . lot from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 , located at 1345 Slaterville Road and containing an existing dwelling , and further , Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed clustered subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1. - 8 and of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 7 , - 10 . 2 , and - 11 into six lots of 22 , 050 sq . ft . to 87 , 400 sq . ft . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department and the New York State Department of Transportation are involved agencies in coordinated review . 3 . The Town Planning Deparment has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action , subject to the further requirements of project approval . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . At this point , William Lesser asked Mr . Paolangeli if he could clarify No . 15 in the proposed Restrictive Covenants . Mr . Lesser stated that it sounded to him that as long as you [ Mr. . Paolangeli ] own a piece of property there , you can change these things any way you choose , commenting , it is only after you no longer own it that it requires a 75 % approval by the owners . Mr . Lesser remarked that it does not say what happens if you [ Mr . Paolangeli ] want to change it and no one else is in agreement . Mr . Lesser felt that there should be some clarification . Attorney Barney stated that he thought Mr . Lesser had a valid point , even if it is put in the Restrictive Covenants , the Restrictive Covenants could be changed more or less at will . Attorney Planning Board 710 - January 3 , 1989 Barney stated , for the record , that his office represents Mr . Paolangeli in some of his many matters , but does not: represent him in connection with the application before the Board . Attorney Barney stated , with respect to the Restrictive Covenants , he would suggest some language in them that if they are relied upon to maintain a particular ambience , and so forth , that in addition to Mr . Paolangeli ' s approval of the restrictions , they have to be approved either by the Town Board or the Planning Board . Mr . Lesser responded that that sounded appropriate . Chairman May wondered if the proper place to do this would be in the covenants or in the resolution , with Attorney Barney responding , both , because that is a significant enough item that it should be reflected right in the Planning Board resolution . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 15 , 500 sq . ft . lot from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 , located at 1345 Slaterville Road and containing an existing dwelling , and further , Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed clustered subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 and of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 7 , - 10 . 2 , and - 11 into six lots of 22 , 050 sq . ft . to 87 , 400 sq . ft . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on January 3 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at a public meeting on December 6 , 1988 , and at Public Hearing on January 3 , 1989 , has reviewed the proposed subdivision and the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the proposed clustered subdivision , the alternate Conventional Subdivision Plat , the Engineer ' s Report , and the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approvals to the subdivisions as proposed , with the following conditions : 1 . Approval of proposed roads , open space , and other public facilities by the Town Board prior to consideration of Final Subdivision Approval , 2 . Approval of proposed restrictive covenants by the Planning Board and the Attorney for the Town as a requirement of Final Subdivision Approval , such covenants to include provisions requiring Planning Board approval of any amendments to same . D Planning Board - 11 - January 3 , 1989 • 3 . Approval of the final site drainage and revegetation plan by the Town Engineering and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits . 4 . Approval of the final intersection design by the New York State Department of Transportation . 5 . Only Lots 1 , 3 , and 4 may have side - by - side , duplexes constructed on them subject to approval of a site plan and schematic architectural plans and elevations for any such duplexes by the Planning Board prior to the issuance of any building permits for such dwellings , such approval to be denied unless the exterior appearance of the duplex is that of a single - family residence with a single front entranceway and with any garages to be located on only one side of the building . 6 . The proposed footpath , if accepted by the Town Board , shall not be surfaced but shall be reserved for future pathway purposes if suitable arrangements can be made for appropriate connections across the Sweet premises . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Winner ' s Circle " Subdivision duly closed at 9 : 06 p . m . Mrs . Grigorov excused herself from the meeting at this time and left the building . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITHa RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 , 800 SQ . FT . WAREHOUSE FACILITY FOR THE CORNELL CAMPUS STORE , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE APPLE ORCHARDS AREA OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPROXIMATELY 11300 FEET SOUTH OF NYS ROUTE 366 AND 11800 FEET WEST OF GAME FARM ROAD , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 . CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER ; ALBERT WRIGHT , AGENT , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 07 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Albert Wright , representing Cornell University , approached the Board and stated that he was before the Board requesting Site Plan • Approval and Special Use Permit for a replacement facility that Cornell University wishes to build for a warehouse for the Campus Store . Planning Board - 12 - January 3 , 1989 At this point , Mr . Wright introduced Mr . James Stevens of Streeter Associates , Inc . , and Mr . Larry Foor of Haskell , Connor , Frost & Foor . Mr . Stevens appended a map of the project to the bulletin board . Mr . Albert Wright indicated on the map exactly where the proposed structure would be located . Mr . Wright offered that the structure is a pre - engineered , single - story steel structure with a steel roof and steel siding . Mr . Wright stated that there would be a mezzanine within the structure that will house some small amount of office functions for inventory control , but basically it is to store books , sweatshirts , and things that are sold at the Campus Store , Virginia Langhans wondered where the storage was located at the present time . Mr . Wright answered that there are two facilities at the end of Cornell Quarters , noting , there is a quonset but building which has a connecting loading dock with a gable roof building . Mr . Wright stated that the quonset but would be demolished and the other warehouse building would be renovated as part of subject project . Virginia Langhans wondered if there was a central receiving for the two buildings , with Mr . Foor responding that there is receiving in both of the buildings . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present: wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 11 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . William Lesser wondered about the use classification which is noted as C4 . 2 Moderate Hazard Storage , Mr . Wright responded that it is a New York State Building Code Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code designation , which deals , primarily , with tightly packed cartons of paper goods and things of that nature . Attorney Barney wondered if the building would be sprinklered . Mr . Wright answered , yes , it is not required by New York State Code , but , of course , it is by the Local Ordinance , and it is covered by the Ordinance . Mr . Lesser asked about the height of the building . Mr . Foor responded that it is 29 feet to the highest point . Attorney Barney offered that the maximum is 30 feet from the lowest point of exterior grade to the highest point on the building . Mr . Wright stated that Cornell University would be sure and comply with that or secure a variance if needed . Robert Kenerson mentioned the fact that more and more buildings were being constructed in subject area , and wondered about the matter of roads . Mr . Wright stated that a master plan has been developed for the area , although not formalized , but a conceptual look has been reviewed . Planning Board - 13 - January 3 , 1989 • There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a Request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the construction of a 14 , 800 sq . ft . warehouse facility for the Cornell Campus Store , proposed to be located in the Apple Orchards area of Cornell University , approximately 1 , 300 feet south of NYS Route 366 and 1 , 800 feet west of Game Farm Road , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on January 3 , 1989 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form • and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action , subject to certain mitigation measures . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the • Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval for the proposed Campus Store Warehouse be approved . Planning Board - 14 - January 3 , 1989 There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the Cornell University warehouse facility for the Cornell Campus Store duly closed at 9 : 29 p . m . PUBLIC HEARINr0 CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 13 , 300 ± SQ . FT . WAREHOUSE / OFFICE FACILITY PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON 1 . 4 ACRES ON FIVE MILE DRIVE ( NYS ROUTE 13A ) , APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH ELMIRA ROAD ( NYS ROUTE 13A ) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 . HOYT BENJAMIN AND JERRY STEVENSON , OWNERS , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Hoyt Benjamin addressed the Board and stated that subject property was the prior Michael Hannan parcel , and noted that it had previously been before the Board . Mr . Benjamin stated that when it was the Hannan property he had received approval from the Planning Board , and then went before the Zoning Board of Appeals where approval was also granted . Mr . Benjamin stated that he and Mr . Hannan , at the time , were involved in another project so they did not commence work immediately on the project . Mr . Benjamin offered that in July of 1988 work was stopped by the Sprinkler Ordinance . Mr . Benjamin said that it was very difficult to plan a sprinkler for the building because it is not on public water , adding , there is no watermain there yet . Mr . Benjamin offered that in the meantime he had discussed the situation with Mr . Stevenson about coming in on the project . Mr . Benjamin stated that what has finally happened is that Mr . Hannan is not interested in finishing the project , and he has made an agreement to sell the property , as it exists , to Mr . Benjamin and Mr . Stevenson . Mr . Benjamin stated that he and Mr . Stevenson would like to change it slightly from the original boxy proposal that was proposed last year . Mr . Benjamin remarked that Mr . Stevenson did not see any reason to go with any more high steel or engineered long - span trusses , adding , there are seven frames that exist at the present time . Mr . Benjamin commented that the new plan includes using only those seven frames . Mr . Benjamin stated that to make the project economically efficient , the storage for Mr . Stevenson was designed low [ indicating on map ] , and his [ Mr . Benjamin ] space was designed high . Mr . Benjamin commented that the proposal would involve approximately 1200 - 1300 more square feet than what was proposed in the original application . Planning Board - 15 - January 3 , 1989 Chairman May commented that the lot purchased by Mr . Benjamin and Mr . Stevenson was a total of 458 feet at the back lot line , adding that the side lot line was 284 feet . Mr . Benjamin noted that the lot encompasses a small section of land across the street , and added that Mr . Mancini took a right - of -way out of the parcel he sold to Mr . Hannan , Mr . Benjamin stated that when he and Mr . Stevenson take title to the property , they will approach Mr . Mancini and ask him if he would , on paper , draw his right - of -way to correspond with their northern border . Mr . Benjamin said that the right-of - way does not correspond with the road that exists , adding , it does not mean anything other_ than somebody noted it on paper 15 or 20 years ago . Mr . Benjamin stated that an additional 20 feet would be added to the narrowest part. of the lot from the road right- of - way , commenting , that is not a public road . Mr . Benjamin , pointing to map , stated that " this " 40 - footset -back was granted in a variance a long time ago , and added that the other variance was too . Mr . Benjamin stated that the existing building has not been changed , commenting that all he tried to do was lessen the cost a little bit by bringing the height of what is not there yet , down . Mr . Benjamin remarked that he was given a height variance for 36 feet at the November 18 , 1987 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting , Mr . Benjamin stated that the 36 - foot height is not needed throughout the whole building , as Mr . Stevenson does not need it for his business . Mr . Benjamin noted that he can use the 36 - foot height because his storage is stacked up . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak . Gertrude Armbruster of 850 Five Mile Drive spoke from the floor and expressed a concern about junk being on the subject property . . Mr . Benjamin stated that it is in the contract with Mr . Hannan that all the junk has to be picked up and removed from the property within 90 days of the closing , which is supposed to be next week . Ms . Armbruster also expressed a concern about the increase in traffic . Mr . Benjamin responded that there would not be an increase in traffic . There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 03 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . Chairman .May stated that , obviously , there is a great deal of concern about -the junk , and there has been a lot of discussion on the matter . Chairman May wondered if the height variance had expired . Ms . Beeners responded that there needs to be clarification of what the actual height is from the lowest point to the highest point . Ms . Langhans asked about the variance for the sprinkler . Attorney Barney stated that since the 36 ' variance had been obtained there is now a local law that has been adopted that , if one • does not build or exercise the privilege granted by a variance within a year after it has been secured , then it automatically dies . Planning Board - 16 - January 3 , 1989 • Attorney Barney commented that the question that surfaces is whether that applies to variances that were granted prior to the local law . Chairman May commented that since the proposal is going before the ZBA anyway regarding the sprinkler ordinance that it would be wise to ask for a clarification or restatement of the variance . Attorney Barney suggested that Mr . Benjamin broaden out his application to the ZBA for variances , not only from the sprinkler ordinance , which obviously Mr . Benjamin is concerned with , but also for a reaffirmation of the prior variances . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 13 , 300 ± sq . ft . warehouse / office facility proposed to be located on 1 . 46 acres on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) , approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Elmira Road ( NYS Route 13 ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed project . 3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for the proposed project . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the .Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review of the revised site plan , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed action . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 13 , 300 ± sq . ft . warehouse / office facility proposed to be • located on 1 . 46 acres on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) , approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Elmira Road ( NYS Route 13 ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 . Planning Board - 17 - January 3 , 1989 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on January 3 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on January 3 , 1989 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated December 27 , 1988 , and the site plan , building plan and elevations for the proposed project , and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the revised site plan for the proposed South Yard warehouse as presented , conditional upon the following : a . Receipt of any required variances regarding side yard , rear yard , and height from the Zoning Board of Appeals . b . All debris including scrap iron to be removed prior to issuance of any building permits . c . No outside storage of any materials except storage of operational motor vehicles actively used in the construction business , or supply business , which are to be located only on paved parking areas . d . All exterior site lighting shall be downcast to minimize impact on the adjoining property owner . e . Approval of the building color by the Town Planning Department . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of Revised Site Plan Approval for the proposed " South Yard " Warehouse duly closed at 10 : 03 p . m . DISCUSSION ITEM : At this time , the Planning Board discussed its schedule of meetings for 1989 . It was the consensus of the Board that the meetings commence at 7 : 30 p . m . with the intention of adjournment at 10 : 00 P . M . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its Schedule of Meetings for the year Planning Board - 18 - January 3 , 1989 1989 , such meetings to commence at 7 : 30 p . m . with the intention of adjournment at. 10 : 00 p . m . REGULAR MEETING SECOND MEETING January 3 , 1989 January 24 , 1989 February 7 , 1989 February 21 , 1989 March 7 , 1989 March 21 , 1989 April 4 , 1989 April 18 , 1989 May 2 , 1989 May 16 , 1989 June 6 , 1989 June 20 , 1989 July 3rd & 4th are Holidays July 18 , 1989 August 1 , 1989 - - - - - - - - - - - September 5 , 1989 September 19 , 1989 October 3 , 1989 October 17 , 1989 November 7 , 1989 November 21 , 1989 December 5 , 1989 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - There being no further disussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . NON -AGENDA ITEM- At this point , Board Member William Lesser wondered what steps would be taken to fill the Planning Board vacancy . Chairman May stated that , as of this moment , Mr . Karl Niklas ' resume is the only one that has been received by the Planning Board . Chairman May stated that due to a quorum consideration candidates for the Planning Board vacancy would be interviewed on January 24 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p . m . with an Executive Session to follow at 8 : 00 p . m . AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING CONSULTANT SELECTION . Robert Kenerson , a member of the Comprehensive Planning Sub - Committee , along with Virginia Langhans , stated that the Planning Board representatives attended every meeting . Ms . Langhans commented that the vote at the Comprehensive Planning meeting for Stuart I . Brown Associates , Inc . was a unanimous vote . Ms . Beeners offered that there was a telethon conducted , and all references were checked . Mr . Kenerson stated that he felt the Committee did an excellent and thorough job . Mr . Kenerson offered that three firms had been interviewed . Ms . Langhans stated that one thing interesting about the fee from Stuart I . Brown Associates , Inc . was that his fee included all costs , e . g . , personnel , overhead , profit , mileage , copying expenses , phone charges , adding , the other firms did not include such • charges . N • Planning Board - 19 - January 3 , 1989 Mr . Eugene Ball of 1317 Trumansburg Road , also a member of the Comprehensive Planning Sub - Committee , spoke from the floor and commented that: D . J . Parrone of D . J . Parrone & Associates , P . C . , was a native Ithacan , and added that at least he has Ithaca ties . There appearing to be no further comments on the recommendation , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board accept and hereby does accept the recommendation of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee to said Planning Board that the firm of Stuart I . Brown Associates , Inc . , affiliated with D . J . Parrone and Associates , P . C . , be hired for comprehensive planning services , and further RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the firm of Stuart I . Brown Associates , Inc . be hired for such comprehensive planning services according to the specifications outlined in the proposal from said consultants as reviewed by said Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . At this point , Ms . Beeners stated that , for the Planning Board ' s information , the Town Board will consider the Planning Board ' s recommendation regarding the above on January 9 , 1989 , and also will consider , hopefully , permitting the release of funds for the initial two -week phase of the Consultant ' s work , during which time there would be interviews with various people and agencies , and also refining what the work program was going to be , commenting , after the end of that two weeks the Consultant would make a recommendation as to what the more refined work program should be , and then at that time is also the time when the Contract would be executed . Board Member Robert Kenerson stated that he and fellow Board Member Virginia Langhans were pleased to have represented the Planning Board on the Comprehensive Planning Sub - Committee . APPROVAL60F MINUTES - June 21 , 1988 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 21 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as presented . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Planning Board - 20 - January 3 , 1989 Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 16 , 1988 MOTION by James Baker , seconded by Robert Miller : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of August 16 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans . The MOTION was declared to be carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 15 , 1988 MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Robert Kenerson : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of November 15 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as presented . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Kenerson stated that Mrs . Bryant had done a good job on the Minutes . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the January 3 , 1989 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •