HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-04-04 F118)
TOWN OF ITI-AC C
Date
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clowk
APRIL 4 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular Session on
Tuesday , April 4 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Montgomery May , James Baker ,
Robert Miller , Stephen Smith , Robert Kenerson , Virginia
Langhans , William Lesser , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) ,
Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George R . Frantz ( Assistant
Town Planner ) .
f
ALSO PRESENT : Celia Bowers , Bruce Brittain , Harriet B . Brittain ,
Douglas B . Brittain , Paul B . Booth , Elizabeth Fabbroni ,
Yolanda C . Garza , James H . Fenner , David M . Axenfeld ,
Gene Ball , Ann Clarke , Webb & Margaret Fiser , R .
Grippi , Bruce Rich , G . W . Dengler , Doria Higgins ,
Douglas Pokorney , Scott Lucas , A . M . Chambliss , Peter
Trowbridge , Edward Austen , Katie Herson , Patricia
Williams , Kristie Hotchkiss , Joseph A . Burns , Barbara
A . Blewitt , Les Reizes , John Whitcomb , Krys Cail , S .
Grippi , Rich Armstrong , Richard Varn .
• Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m .
and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on March 27 , 1989 , and March 30 , 1989 , respectively ,
together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice
upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion ,
upon the Tompkins County Department of Public Works , upon both the
Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Clerk of the
Village of Trumansburg , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as
appropriate , on March 29 , 1989 .
Chairman Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State ,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control .
NON-AGENDA ITEM
Copies of Mr . Frost ' s March 1989 Report of Building / Zoning
Activities was distributed to each of the members of the Board .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
TERMS OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO A " DOUBLE ROW OF
EVERGREENS TO BE PLANTED BY CORNELL NORTH OF LOTS 1 through 6 " , AS
NOTED ON THE FOREST HOME HIGHLANDS ( FAIRWAY DRIVE ) FINAL PLAT DATED
12 / 3 / 85 , REVISED 12 / 6 / 85 , APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON 12 / 17 / 85 .
• JAMES H . FENNER , HEAD PROFESSIONAL , CORNELL UNIVERSITY GOLF COURSE ,
APPLICANT .
Planning Board - 2 - April 4 , 1989
• Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 39 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Fenner addressed the Board and stated that the initial
problem with the subdivision was with protection of the houses . Mr .
Fenner said that the tee area would be realigned , and by placing a 6 '
high fence with walk - through 3 ' inside the property line it would stop
bouncing and rolling balls from entering the neighboring property .
Mr . Fenner stated that , to place a double row of trees on the line
would mean that the balls would have to be picked up by hand , along
with mowing or cutting the area by hand , noting that that would be a
burden . Mr . Fenner said that he has talked with Ralph Varn , the
developer and he concurred that the fence would be a satisfactory
solution to the hazard . Mr . Fenner offered that the driving range has
been restricted to iron clubs only . Mr . Fenner stated that he felt
the value of the properties would be higher if the property had a view
of the golf course .
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Bruce Brittain of 135 Warren Road addressed the Board and read
aloud a statement . [ Statement attached as Exhibit 1 . ]
Betty Fabbroni of 127 Warren Road spoke from the floor and stated
that she owns 4 lots on Fairway Drive , and her residence is 127 Warren
Road . Ms . Fabbroni [ indicating on map ] noted that Lot # 6 faces the
golf course , and that she also owns Lots No . 7 , 8 , and 9 . Ms .
Fabbroni stated that she prefers not to have the trees , because she
prefers the open view .
Kristie Hotchkiss of 408 Winthrop Drive approached the Board and
stated that she owns a lot on Fairway Drive and felt that it would not
be in the best interest of the property to plant the trees . Ms .
Hotchkiss stated that she owns Lot No . 4 .
Town Planner Susan Beeners offered that , at the present time ,
there are existing homes on Lots No . 1 , 2 , 3 , and 5 .
Richard Varn , developer of the properties , spoke from the floor
and stated that he still owns Lot No . 1 . Mr . Varn commented that he
would rather not have the trees planted .
Chairman Grigorov wondered what kind of fence was being
discussed . Mr . Fenner replied that it is a 1 " X 3 " welded wire , 6 '
high fence , 4 " X 4 ' posts , and set in concrete .
Yolanda Garza of 10 Fairway Drive approached the Board and stated
that she owns Lot No . 5 , and does not want trees planted .
• Douglas Brittain addressed the Board and stated that he does not
live on Fairway Drive , he lives at 135 Warren Road , Mr . Brittain
Planning Board - 3 - April 4 , 1989
• remarked that he felt a 6 ' high fence would not stop any ball that is
aimed for a house . Mr . Brittain said that , if Cornell wants to easily
gather balls without going underneath trees , they are perfectly free
to install a fence on the northern side of the buffer zone , adding ,
there was a fence there , but it was taken down . Mr . Brittain ,
remarking on enforcement , noted that he would suggest the following :
a . Delay enforcement as has been done for the past several
years .
b . Perhaps a law should be passed that Cornell would pay for
damage done by golf balls .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at
7 : 54 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Virginia Langhans stated that the open space was given in lieu of
a park , adding , it really does not serve the development as such , it
serves Cornell . Mr . Fenner said that the direction of the driving
range has been moved .
Mr . May , directing his comment to Mr . Fenner , wondered if there
were some reason why the agreement with the Brittains has not been
complied with . Mr . May referred to the Exhibit 1 , April 15 , 1984
• letter from Attorneys Adams , Theisen & Nash , addressed to Prof . W .
Lambert Brittain. . Mr . May wondered if the signs were put up , as per
the agreement . Mr . Brittain answered , no . Mr . Fenner stated that the
signs have been put up , but they get stolen periodically . Mr . May
wondered what the Town ' s liability would be if someone were hurt or if
someone ' s property was damaged by a golf ball . Att orney Barney
responded that ' he thought it would be pretty remote . Attorney Barney
offered that if Cornell were chasing the golfer , then the Town ' s
response could be to chase Cornell , as they are the ones creating the
situation . Ms . Langhans commented that it has been .four years since
the original request for the trees .
Mr . Lesser wondered if there was any authority , if the
requirement should be rescinded , to demand that , indeed , the driving
range remain re - oriented and limited to iron clubs . Att orney Barney
offered that if Cornell was going to do away with the trees , then some
conditions should be imposed .
Ms . Langhans , directing her comment to Mr . Fenner , wondered how
many balls have landed in backyards on the other side of the fence
since it has been realigned . Mr . Fenner answered , not many .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
• WHEREAS :
Planning Board - 4 - April 4 , 1989
• 1 . This action is the consideration of a request for modification of
the terms of final subdivision approval with respect to a " double
row of evergreens to be planted by Cornell north of Lots 1
through 6 " , as noted on the Forest Home Highlands ( Fairway Drive )
Final Plat dated 12 / 3 / 85 , revised 12 / 6 / 85 , approved by the
Planning Board on 12 / 17 / 85 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review , and for which the Town Planner , on April 4 , 1989 , has
recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review , make and hereby does make a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of a request for modification of
the terms of final subdivision approval with respect to a " double
row of evergreens to be planted by Cornell north of Lots 1
through 6 " , as noted on the Forest Home Highlands ( Fairway Drive )
Final Plat dated 12 / 3 / 85 , revised 12 / 6 / 85 , approved by the
Planning Board on 12 / 17 / 85 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on April 4 , 1989 ,
made a negative determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on April 4 , 1989 , has
reviewed the request for modification and other application
submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine the
following .
a . There have been no objections to the request for modification by
• the residents of Lots 1 through 6 at the subject subdivision .
Planning Board - 5 - April 4 , 1989
• b . The potential impacts of stray golf balls which were originally
proposed to be mitigated through the planting of a tree buffer
are now substantially mitigated through the re - orientation of the
golf driving range .
AND FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval to
the requested modification of the terms of final subdivision approval ,
as proposed , conditioned upon the following .
1 . That Cornell maintain the re - orientation of the driving range to
reduce the likelihood of stray balls entering the yards of Lots 1
through 6 .
2 . That Cornell limit the clubs used on the driving range to irons
only .
3 . That Cornell agree that . this modification may be rescinded in the
future if , in the judgment of the Planning Board , an undue number
of balls are landing in the yards of Lots 1 through 6 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
• Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Grigorov declared the Consideration of a Request for
Modification of . the Final Subdivision Plat for Forest Home Highlands
duly closed at 8 : 10 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED
5 , 000 SQ . FT . COMMERCIAL BUILDING , WITH PARKING AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY ,
FOR CANNON RECREATION AND SPA OF ITHACA , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON A
2 . 016 ± ACRE PARCEL PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM PARCEL NO .
6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 21 FOR WHICH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL , WITH
CONDITIONS , WAS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON MARCH 71 1989 , LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . EARLAND AND ROBERT MANCINI , OWNERS ; DAVID
AXENFELD , APPLICANT .
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 11 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Axenfeld approached the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Mr . Axenfeld stated that he is proposing a 5 , 000 sq . ft . building
to house a swimming pool company , as well as a tenant lawn and garden
• store , or a sporting goods store . Mr . Axenfeld noted that there would
be a septic system , driveway , and 25 parking spaces - two of which
will be for handicapped persons . Mr . Axenfeld said that there would
Planning Board - 6 - April 4 , 1989
• also be a loading dock . Mr . Axenfeld added that the reason the
driveway is so long is because of the elevation being so much
different between the street and where the building is actually
proposed , adding , in order to get the 10 % grade , the driveway had to
be changed a little more than was expected . Mr . Axenfeld noted that
the well would be to the left of the proposed building , which is on
the other side of the septic system . Mr . Axenfeld ' stated that there
would be six outside lights consisting of three in the front , one on
each side , and one in the back , commenting that the lights would be
high - pressure sodium , 150 watts . Mr . Axenfeld noted that there would
also be two lights to light up the display area , which would be of the
high - pressure sodium type , on an angled light , and set on a 20 ' pole .
Mr . Axenfeld offered that a 4 ' high chain link fence would be around
the display area , with an 8 ' gate for access . Mr . Axenfeld commented
that there will be a brick - front structure out front with a planter ,
and a sign above that .
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman Grigorov
closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 16 p . m . and brought the matter back to
the Board for discussion .
Virginia Langhans wondered about the size of the actual sign .
Mr . Axenfeld responded that the actual sign would be 5 - 1 / 2 feet in
width and 4 feet in height .
• Robert Miller wondered what variances were being asked for .
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that the area is zoned
Light Industrial , adding that the variances Mr . Axenfeld is going to
request from the ZBA are the required variance of 150 ' front yard
set -back , and the 50 ' rear yard set - back , adding , the proposed
building is approximately 140 ' from the road . William Lesser wondered
if the display area was considered a structure . Robert Kenerson
commented that if a driveway is considered a structure , then a display
area of this type should be considered a structure . Town Planner
Susan Beeners offered that she thought of this situation as being
rather ambiguous , as far as determinations from the Zoning Officer ,
and as to whether those are structures , and also whether the
prohibition against outdoor storage in Light Industrial Districts is
likened to this type of a display area , commenting that she thought
this would be something the ZBA would have to determine . Mr . Frantz
noted that the display area is approximately 75 ' from the right - of -way
to the edge of the fence around the display area .
Ms . Langhans asked about a display area in a Light Industrial
Zone . Mr . Frantz responded that he had consulted with the Zoning
Officer , Andrew Frost , and he indicated that it is allowed . Mr .
Lesser stated that , personally , he is wary of an outside display of
this fixed and permanent type of display , adding , it seems to him that
it would be very likely if one gets into that , then it would continue
on down the remainder of the strip . Mr . Lesser said that , in his
• opinion , two swimming pools with a fence around them , with a 20 ' high
light pole is a very obvious outside display . Mr . Axenfeld stated
that both of the pools can actually be removed with a backhoe and
Planning Board - 7 - April 4 , 1989
• filled in . Mr . Axenfeld said that it would be permanent while he
occupied the building . Mr . Lesser , inquiring about the purpose of the
display , wondered if Mr . Axenfeld was trying to attract the traffic on
Route 13 to his business , or were the pools being used as models for
customers . Mr . Axenfeld replied that the pools would be used as
models . Mr . Lesser wondered , if the pools are used as models , would
it be possible to relocate them so they are not so clearly visible
from the road . Mr . Axenfeld answered , that could be done , but with
the elevations he did not know where they could be located . Mr . May
stated that it seemed to him that the pools were permanent structures .
Chairman Grigorov asked about the landscaping . Mr . Axenfeld
responded that there would be grass in the front of the building with
a concrete walkway , adding that all the other areas would also be
grass , along with some shrubs in the front , and commenting that he
does not want trees blocking the visibility of the store .
Virginia Langhans asked if the pools would have water in them .
Mr . Axenfeld answered , yes . Mr . Lesser wondered when the area would
be illuminated ; would it just be during store hours , or would it be
lighted permanently over the display area . Mr . Axenfeld responded
that the illumination would be on a timer , probably in the summertime
from 9 : 00 p . m . to 10 : 30 p . m .
Mr . Lesser wondered where the tenant would be occupying the
• building . Mr . Axenfeld [ indicating on map ] stated that it would be on
the left where the " blue " is at the very top . Ms . Beeners wondered
where the sign would be located for the tenant , with Mr . Axenfeld
commenting that the tenant would have a portion of the main sign .
Mr . Lesser said that his preference would be to move the display
area back so that it would appear , visually , as if it were essentially
close to or integrated with the structure , and not have a 20 ' high
light pole illuminating it . Mr . May remarked that where the display
area is located it gives a more balanced appearance to the lot .
Ms . Beeners stated that the lights would be a yellowish antique
color . Ms . Beeners wondered if the lights could be slightly downcast
and not shining to the street , but something that would direct the
light down for security purposes . Mr . Axenfeld responded , yes , adding
that the one light pole by the handicapped area could be eliminated .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a
• proposed 5 , 000 square foot commercial building , with parking and
outdoor display , for Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca ,
proposed to be located on a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel proposed to be
Planning Board - 8 - April 4 , 1989
• subdivided from Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , located on Elmira Road
( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its intersection
with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13A ) , for which Preliminary
Subdivision Approval , with conditions , was granted by the
Planning Board on March 7 , 1989 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review .
3 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review , make and hereby does make a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a
proposed 5 , 000 square foot commercial building , with parking and
outdoor display , for Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca ,
proposed to be located on a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel proposed to be
subdivided from Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , located on Elmira Road
( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its intersection
with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13A ) , for which Preliminary
Subdivision Approval , with conditions , was granted by the
Planning Board on March 7 , 1989 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on
April 4 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on April 4 , 1989 , has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form , site plan , and
other application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
• That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval to
the site plan as proposed , with the following conditions :
Planning Board - 9 - April 4 , 1989
1 . The grant of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of
Appeals .
2 . Approval of driveway entrance location and design by New York
State Department of Transportation .
3 . Approval of final landscape plans by Town Planning staff .
4 . That there be no additional buildings approved for the site
without full consideration of the provision of a second means of
access into the site .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - Lesser .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of Site
o Plan Approval for Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca duly closed at
8 : 44 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED " INDIAN CREEK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY " , FOR
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 23
AND A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 32 WITH ACCESS
ONTO TRUMANSBURG ROAD , 69 ± ACRES TOTAL , INTO A 60 - UNIT SINGLE - OR
TWO- FAMILY ATTACHED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , AN 80 - UNIT RETIREMENT
CONDOMINIUM/ COOPERATIVE , AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE . CMH ASSOCIATES ,
OWNER ; HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT .
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 45 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Scott Lucas , developer of the Indian Creek Retirement
Community , addressed the Board and stated that the Town Board had
voted to create a Special Land Use District to enable the project to
move forward . Mr . Lucas offered that the project is a retirement
community , and in the language adopted by the Town Board , occupancy
will be restricted to residents over 54 years of age , adding , there
are substantial restrictions on rentals , which the developer is quite
comfortable with , noting that the expectation is that the units should
be occupied by their owners , and hopefully , the restrictions will keep
speculators and investors from buying units , as that is not the
developer ' s objective .
Continuing , Mr . Lucas stated that the site plan , as presented
tonight , is essentially the site plan that has been viewed at the
previous two meetings of the Planning Board . Mr . Lucas stated that
• the main structure , which houses the 80 apartment - style units has been
changed a little bit , in response to concerns that were raised at the
Town Board meeting , and also concerns on the developer ' s part , about
` Planning Board - 10 - April 4 , 1989
• the size of the building , adding , they have been struggling with a way
to make the building less monolithic , and less linear , commenting that
they have added some directional changes in the building , although the
size of the footprint ( square footage ) remains the same . Mr . Lucas
said that the detached units are in the same configuration .
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
A voice from the back of the room wondered where the project was
located . Mr . Lucas answered that it was on the west side of
Trumansburg Road , 1 / 2 mile beyond the Tompkins Community Hospital ,
adding that it is the prior Babcock property . Mr . Lucas offered that
the project consists of 140 units on a acre portion of the 160 - acre
parcel owned by the Babcocks .
Rosalind Grippi , of 423 E . Seneca Street , spoke from the floor
and wondered [ pointing to map ] what the structure was on the south
end . Mr . Peter Trowbridge , Architect for the project , responded that
that was the community gardens .
Doria Higgins , of 2 Hillcrest Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that she wanted to bring the Board ' s attention to two aspects
of the negiota. tions between the Town and Mr . Lucas , commenting that
• she thought this needs clarification and / or rectification . Ms .
Higgins read from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 . ]
George Dengler , of 250 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and
wondered what sort of senior citizen housing this was going to be ; are
there going to be any security provisions , provisions for food , and
bus provisions ? Mr . Dengler offered that he has viewed some of these
projects , and was considering moving to something like this , but he
felt it was very , very expensive . Mr . Lucas stated that there would
not be nurses or doctors on hand , as it is not a home for people who
are in need of substantial medical care . Mr . Lucas offered that he
was working with the Hospital to develop a contract and provide an
array of services that include security , grounds maintenance , snow and
trash removal , and also to have available for people who want to
purchase them , services like meals , housekeeping , and it is intended
to have a transportation service as part of the package , such as a
mini -bus . Mr . Dengler wondered what it would cost per month . Mr .
Lucas responded that the Hospital should be consulted , because they
are the ones who are going to put the prices on the services ,
commenting that in other places meal services tend to run
$ 200 . 00 - $ 300 . 00 per month , which includes preparing the meals , serving
the meals ,. and clean - up . Mr . Lucas said that all the units are
two- bedroom units with full kitchens , with the detached units being
duplex and single - family - style units , adding , the units in the larger
building are all two - bedroom apartment - style units with single floor
is
structure . Mr . Lucas stated that it is certainly true that he hopes
to make a profit on the project . Mr . Lucas noted that his goal was to
have the housing supportable for people who currently live in homes
Planning Board - 11 - April 4 , 1989
that no longer suit them , and noted that his hope would be that people
would be able to , essentially , sell the homes they live in now , and
use that money to live at the retirement community . Mr . Lucas stated
that it is not low income housing , but he does recognize the need for
low income housing in nearly every community . Mr . Lucas stated that
he had a couple of comments regarding the site - one being that for
low income people the subject site is very far from town , commenting
that low income housing tends to be successful near the core areas of
communities where a variety of services are available , not just
shopping , but social services . Mr . Lucas noted that the other issue
which he thought needs to be raised was the fact that he has had
ongoing discussions with the Town about the developer paying a
substantial portion of the cost of the infrastructure , such as
improving the water system , and sewer system in West Hill , adding ,
those are substantial costs , and they are willing to look at those ,
but there is a trade - off , one cannot add substantial costs and then
have the housing be available to people of moderate or modest means .
Mr . Lucas offered that it is a zero sum game , one can either cut
expenses to the bone , which means the Town bears the cost of the
infrastructure , or the project can support the cost of the
infrastructure , or the project can go away , which is an option that
the Planning Board has available to them . Mr . Lucas said that his
sense is that , while he does not address all of the needs in the
community at the current time , they do address a significant need , as
he does not see anyone else providing housing of this type . Mr . Lucas
stated that Cornell , as near as he can tell , is still flirting with
some kind of retirement component at the Savage Farm , adding , when and
how that would resolve itself remains to be taken care of , as the
people in Cayuga Heights can judge a lot better than he can . Again ,
Mr . Lucas stated that he was trying to address one need out of a
number of needs that the community has .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at
8 : 55 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Mr . Trowbridge offered that the four units discussed at the last
Planning Board meeting are shown on the current revised site plan .
Virginia Langhans wondered if the water and sewer extended that
far out , or will there be an extension . Ms . Beeners responded that
there would be an extension , adding that the extension is actually
something that has been planned by the Town for a number of years ,
commenting , an agreement is being reached with Mr . Lucas that part of
that cost would be shared by his project and , indeed , he would be
putting in about half of the watermain extension along Trumansburg
Road , from the Professional Building .
Chairman Grigorov wondered about higher taxes being caused , by
development . Ms . Beeners answered that she thought that matter has
been referred to the Planning Consultant .
• Ms . Beeners inquired as to whether the Fire Department has
approved the plan . Mr . Chambliss of HOLT Architects responded that a
LI Planning Board - 12 - April 4 , 1989
• meeting would be held with the Fire Department officials on Thursday
afternoon , April 6 , 1989 , commenting , a preliminary meeting had been
held , at which time the fire officials viewed the project plans .
Attorney Barney stated that he has a problem in terms of
subdivision approval of this particular plat , adding that he was not
quite sure what it is that approval is being requested for , in terms
of a subdivision . Attorney Barney noted that the buildings were
numbered in terms of subdividing , but wondered what was being sold or
offered to an individual . Mr . Chambliss responded that as to the
detached units , each duplex represents two dwelling units , and as to
the attached buildings , each numbered rectangle represents two , with
80 being the total number of units . Attorney Barney stated that under
the Town Subdivision Regulations dimensions are needed . Ms . Beeners
offered that , in trying to work out what is a rather unusual type of a
subdivision , it is the developer ' s intention to refer to some of the
diagrams within the application itself which show the typical
dimensions of the units and their typical locations . Ms . Beeners
stated that some of the notes on the plan do need to be made a little
more accurate so one knows what drawings are being discussed .
William Lesser wondered about land being offered with the units .
Mr . Trowbridge answered that there is not land associated with the
duplexes , one is basically buying the interior shell of a building .
Attorney Barney wondered if the entire project was all condominium ,
• with Mr . Trowbridge answering , yes ; it is not fee simple , it is
similar to other projects in the Town where one would be buying the
sheetrock and everything on the interior . Mr . Trowbridge offered that
what is being sold is a condominium unit without land , adding , each
unit has been numbered and located in a fixed location . Attorney
Barney remarked that the units do not show any dimensions of where the
units are located on each lot , and asked Mr . Trowbridge to point out
on the map how many feet from the north line of the property line is
Unit # 6 . Mr . Trowbridge indicated that that unit is not related to
the property line , and the road is fixed in space and the road is a
horizontally aligned road , and each unit is stationed along the road ,
it is not fixed to the property line . Monty May commented that as a
condominium , there has to be a Homeowners ' Agreement which the
Planning Board has to review , prior to preliminary review . Ms .
Beeners stated that she had advised the developer to present a summary
of the pertinent parts of the condominium arrangement and , indeed ,
restrictions for tonight ' s meeting , adding , a summary was appropriate
to inform the Planning Board , but additional information would be
appropriate for final subdivision approval . Monty May stated that for
a condominium the Homeowners ' Agreement has to be very explicit and
approved by the Attorney General , Town Board , etc . Ms . Beeners
offered that the Planning Board has normally looked at it to find out
what the substance was going to be , rather than seeing the whole 400
pages , which is normally something the Town Board takes up , but noted
it is up to the Planning Board ' s discretion whether there is anything
in the Subdivision Regulations on this . Attorney Barney wondered what
• was going to happen with the open space . Ms . Beeners stated that
minimum yard set - backs are presented , along with typical ` dimensions
for units and their placement within the big building are shown on the
Planning Board - 13 - April 4 , 1989
• diagrams , adding , there is an attempt to have notations on the
drawings to refer to those diagrams . Ms . Beeners stated that it was
correct in that each unit is not specifically dimensioned to a
property line . Attorney Barney noted that the subdivision that is
probably most comparable to the one in question , in some respects , is
Eastwood Commons , commenting that , for instance , when one looks at the
Eastwood Commons subdivision maps they have detailed , by dimension ,
that the actual typical building , but not every building , is this way ,
a certain number of feet , spaced from the outside wall along the north
line is 20 feet , south 30 feet , and east 15 feet , or whatever it works
out to . Attorney Barney stated that he does not see the detailed
dimensions on the subject plan that is before the Board . Mr .
Trowbridge remarked that it is the scale at which the proposed project
is being developed , and noted that there is some question about
phasing at some final subdivision approval stage . Mr . Trowbridge
noted that the developer is before the Board for a preliminary site
plan approval for the entire site , and as they come back for final ,
the developer would be looking at a particular phase of the project ,
which will get into greater detail . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the
developer is looking to the Board for some direction in terms of
preliminary site plan approval , commenting , the next time would be for
Phase I of final site plan approval , with a much tighter dimensional
drawing . Mr . Trowbridge stated that he thought the issue was
primarily one of scale . Mr . Trowbridge stated that he was asking the
Board for some kind of clarification as to what level of resolution
the Board requires for preliminary site plan approval .
• Chairman Grigorov wondered if there were something about the
Homeowners ' Agreement . Ms . Beeners referred to a letter addressed to
her from Scott R . Lucas , dated March 27 , 1989 , which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 3 . Mr . May noted that Mr . Lucas agreed with the age
restriction , but felt that was a long way from the Homeowners '
Agreement , or even a synopsis of it . Ms . Beeners commented that the
rental restriction should be noted , along with the proposed tree
cutting restriction that no trees over 3 " would be cut from the buffer
zone , as the Planning Board had requested .
Chairman Grigorov wondered if it was usually a requirement to see
the Homeowners ' Agreement in final form , before the preliminary
approval . Attorney Barney responded that , not necessarily the final
form , but it seemed to him that the Planning Board had generally seen
the Declaration of Condominium and Certificate of Incorporation and
the Bylaws . Mr . Lucas commented that one of the constraints in the
Local Law was that before the Declaration was filed with the Attorney
General , it would be provided to the Town Board for the Town Attorney
to review . Mr . Lucas wondered if it was a requirement to show the
Attorney General ' s approval on the declaration , because it cannot be
secured until the Town officials act .
Mr . Lucas stated that he certainly wants to be helpful and
provide the information that is needed . Mr . Lucas said that he has
• constructed a couple of other condominiums and he has never been asked
to provide the whole package of documents at the present level of
inquiry . Mr . Lucas commented that he has a funny feeling when he
Planning Board - 14 - April 4 , 1989
• leaves tonight , wanting to be helpful , but still not being clear what
it is the Planning Board is asking of him . Mr . May remarked that , as
far as he knew the Homeowners ' Agreement has got to be approved and
recommended by the Planning Board to the Town Board . Ms . Beeners
responded that that has not been her recollection , even though she was
not meaning to disagree , but does remember seeing a table of contents
which was enhanced to show what the contents were , that was submitted
prior to final subdivision approval for Deer Run , adding , she does not
recall seeing anything like a full - blown document form at the time of
any preliminary approval . Mr . May offered that the one he was
thinking about is Eastwood Commons , and as he remembers , that came
before the Planning Board , two , maybe three times for revisions before
it was ever approved . by the Planning Board , and passed on to the Town
Board , in a great deal of detail . Attorney Barney stated that the
subdivision requirements , at the preliminary stage , call for
restrictive covenants , if any , which in his opinion is the Declaration
of Condominium . Attorney Barney stated that he thought the Planning
Board needs to know , or would want to know just exactly how this would
be governed . Attorney Barney noted that the developer would govern it
for a while , but there is usually a provision for a transition to the
association , and ultimately the association takes over , commenting
that he felt the Board did not need , at this juncture , a detailed
completed , final version of the Declaration of Condominium , but there
should be a pretty good idea of the direction the developer would be
going in . Mr . Lucas said it would be helpful if the Board could
provide him with a memo outlining the information needed all at once ,
so that he would not be coming back and disappointing the Board .
Attorney Barney offered that , before preliminary subdivision approval
is granted , the Board has to have a pretty good detailed idea of the
plans as to the operation of the Homeowners ' Association . Mr .
Trowbridge , asking for clarification , wondered what exactly , other
than having each unit dimensioned from some benchmark on the site ,
what additionally is needed on the plan ? Attorney Barney responded
that , at a minimum , typical dimensions of a building . Mr . Trowbridge
wondered if the architectural drawing dimensions had to be shown on
the plan versus having them as an attachment to the report . Attorney
Barney stated that the normal place for the precise dimensions is one
of two places - some framework or some form that can be read ,
reviewed , and accepted by the County Clerk , adding that it can be
attached to the plan , or as part of the Declaration of Condominium .
Mr . Trowbridge mentioned that a preliminary road profile is being
requested , not a location of road until final subdivision . Ms .
Beeners stated that the notations on the plan do not adequately refer
to the conceptual building diagrams . Ms . Beeners stated that she
understood there was a proposed public road that was to
be shown a
little bit to the west of the roadway reservation , to show what the
developer is proposing to be public road versus the private road . Ms .
Beeners said that she did not think there was adequate dimensioning to
connect layout , where the big building is in space , and additionally ,
the developer should show , instead of 30 detached duplex units , it
might be more appropriate to say that equals 60 dwelling units . Ms .
• Beeners noted that there has been some difficulty , as far as the
architectural part of the project , in moving along into a lot of
design development while the developer needs to have some preliminary
Planning Board - 15 - April 4 , 1989
• approvals in hand , commenting , with some better cross - referencing of
the diagrams and the types of ways the developer is showing , or
locating , that the attached dwelling units in the big building would
be laid out in floor plan , and also showing how a typical unit would
be located within a building , would be sufficient for preliminary .
William Lesser wondered if the phases were generally shown on the
preliminary , and then when there is a request for the final , the final
is by phase . Chairman Grigorov stated that there would be more detail
for the first phase . Chairman Grigorov remarked that the detail of
the plan would not change the Homeowners ' Agreement . Mr . May offered
that the Homeowners ' Agreement really defines the project as a
condominium .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by James Baker :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval of the proposed " Indian Creek Retirement Community " be and
hereby is adjourned until May 2 , 1989 at 7 : 30 p . m . , pending the
submission of a preliminary plat satisfactory to the Town Planner ,
Town Engineer , and Town Attorney , along with submission of the
• Certificate of Incorporation , the Homeowners ' Association By - laws and
Restrictive Covenants , or Declaration of Condominium , and , the
submission of a proposed road name and approximate road dimensions for
the Planning Department to review and make recommendation .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Grigorov announced , for everyone ' s information , that the
above MOTION constituted Notice to the public that the above Public
Hearing is adjourned until May 2 , 1989 at 7 : 30 p . m . , and the Public
Hearing will be re - noticed in the Ithaca Journal .
Chairman Grigorov declared the " Indian Creek Retirement
Community " matter duly adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS
FOR THE PROPOSED " CAYUGA LAKE ESTATES " CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED
TO CONSIST OF 60 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS AND PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED EAST OF
ORCHARD HILL ROAD AND WEST OF N . Y . S . RT . 89 , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO . 6 - 22 - 2 - 2 . 2 , - 2 . 9 , AND 6 - 21 - 1 - 5 , 65 . 9 ± ACRES TOTAL ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . EDWARD J . MCARDLE AND LESLIE N . REIZES ,
• OWNERS ; DAVID A . MCARDLE , APPLICANT .
Planning Board - 16 - April 4 , 1989
• Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Maps were appended to the bulletin board .
Ann Clarke addressed the Board and stated that at the last
Planning Board meeting the developer was directed to clarify a number
of points on the conventional plat to support the application for the
cluster provision . Ms . Clarke remarked that the items the developer
was specifically asked to address related to two 60 - foot rights - of -way
alignments , one opposite Happy Lane , and the other opposite the Fiser
property , which actually is landlocked from DuBois Road . Ms . Clarke
noted that the other item the developer was asked to address and
clarify was a 10 % set - aside for recreational purposes , which is
required in a subdivision plat , adding , that land is proposed to be
located [ indicating on map ] " here " , along the NYSEG right - of -way , and
" here " again , along the NYSEG right - of -way , totalling 10 . 5 % set- aside ,
noting that the requirement is 10 % . Ms . Clarke stated that the other
thing the developer offered in support of the cluster proposal was a
detailed sketch as to what the crossing of the stream to the north of
the property would look like , and also a clarification or sketch of
what the individual typical lot grading might look like . Ms . Clarke
commented that , to answer questions or concerns regarding some of the
little drainage swales that now meander across the property , the
• developer has provided a detailed schematic of the stream crossing ,
adding that it would basically be a culvert with a concrete wall , and ,
in trying to make it less obtrusive , it is proposed to be embedded
with rip - rap that would be a guide rail , and wood posts along the
bridge or abutment . Ms . Clarke noted that , in terms of individual
site drainage , " this " typical is one of the lots that now has a small
drainage swale travelling through it , commenting that , what is
proposed is , during the grading or site preparation for the unit ,
there would actually be grading around the house in such a manner that
" this " swale would be intercepted and redirected down to the roadside
ditches . Ms . Clarke said that the calculations on all of the drainage
that have been supplied for the cluster plat are based on this type of
an approach where " this " drainage swale is redirected to an existing
swale or a proposed swale along the roadside . Ms . Clarke stated that
the Board had before them a revised plat that indicates 55 lots ; the
roads are laid out with two crossings , and , with the northern stream ,
there is a 10 . 5 % set- aside of recreational land to the Town ; the cul
de sacs are roughly 750 feet long and meet the Town ' s basic
requirement of a maximum of 1 , 000 lineal feet for a cul de sac , noting
that 60 - foot rights - of -way have been provided for Happy Lane and the
Fiser property . Ms . Clarke stated that , at 55 lots , the developer has
a potential number of units of 110 , adding , the developer is proposing
a 60 - lot cluster single - family deed restricted subdivision .
Montgomery May asked about the size [ pointing to map ] of the
culvert crossing the stream . Ms . Clarke answered that that has not
• been sized yet , but the intention is that it would be designed backing
up from the size of the culvert downstream at the old railroad
crossing , ( the NYSEG right - of - way ) , adding , all of the water that
Planning Board - 17 - April 4 , 1989
• would normally pass through that culvert could pass through it , and
the culvert would be sized according to the Town Engineer ' s guidelines
so that there would not be a restriction of water at that point . Mr .
May responded that that is not the problem , the problem is the trash
it picks up , noting , that whole thing would wash through pretty quick . .
Ms . Clarke commented that , if there is an alternate design , they would
be glad to discuss it with the Town Engineer ,
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Rich Armstrong , of 14 Orchard Hill Road , wondered where the
cluster exits . Ms . Clarke answered that there are two access points
one is at Orchard Hill Road , and one is at Route 89 , on both plats ,
the conventional and the cluster , adding , the design of the roads in
both instances is intended to not encourage through traffic from Route
89 to Orchard Hill Road and DuBois Road . Mr . Armstrong commented that
Orchard Hill is a subdivision in which most of the lots are three to
4 - 1 / 2 acres , with a variety of restrictions , yet with the proposed
plan Mr . Armstrong felt it disrupts the character of the neighborhood
that is emerging . Mr . Armstrong stated that he is concerned about
water and sewer , commenting , having built his own house last year with
some help from a local contractor , he went through the problems of
trying to secure all the permits , and get the water and sewer . Mr .
• Armstrong stated that he has to question whether the Town is prepared
for the size of the proposed development . Mr . Armstrong offered that
he saw- children riding bikes on Orchard Hill Road , and wondered what
kind of impact the development would have on families in the
neighborhood , with children riding bicyles , things that attracted him
to that neighborhood . Mr . Armstrong said that he has owned his
property for two years , and built his home last year , commenting , had
he known the size and magnitude of the proposed development , he
probably would have thought otherwise about building his home .
George Dengler , of 250 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and
expressed a concern about traffic in the area , and wondered if anyone
had viewed the cluster housing on Woolf Lane . Mr . Dengler said that
he has a road built next to his property line that carries as much
traffic now as DuBois Road does . Mr . Dengler stated that he felt
Woolf Lane looks like a small city .
Krys Cail , of 337 DuBois Road , approached the Board and stated
that one thing she had noticed with Orchard Hill Road being the main
access is that there is an area that has very bad sighting along
DuBois Road , which is sort of where Indian Creek Road comes into it ,
and there is a dip down before there is a dip back up . Ms . Cail
stated that , as she understood it , the County would eventually be
fixing the alignment with Route 96 , but noted that in the area right
before there are actually some warning signs , it dips down , and it is
very difficult to see . Ms . Cail commented that in the eight years she
• has lived on DuBois Road there has been an increase in traffic since
the Biggs Complex has been used for current uses , as a lot of people
come out that back way , adding that she felt it was pretty hard to
Planning Board - 18 - April 4 , 1989
sight along that line , and further adding that she wondered about the
increased traffic in that particular area . Ms . Cail mentioned that
the dip was just past Orchard Hill Road , but it will make traffic in
that particular area real confusing . Ms . Cail stated that , if , in
fact , Orchard Hill Road is going to be access for -the 60 dwellings ,
she wondered whether it would be required to upgrade that stretch of
DuBois Road , either to add fill so that there is not a dip in
sighting , or some other means , to be sure that would adequately handle
it . Ms . Cail offered that , also , as far as the cross section of the
crossing of what people in the neighborhood tend to refer to as
gorges , they are way beyond what she would call a swale . Ms . Cail
remarked that if one takes a look at the current railroad bed , it
gives one a pretty good idea of the size of embankment that would have
to be built to cross over some of them . Ms . Cail offered that , the
farther up the ridge , the less the embankment . Ms . Cail stated that
in some areas the drop- off is 20 - 25 feet . Ms . Cail .felt that the way
the land goes up and down is really profound , particularly those areas
along the steep banks , down toward Route 89 . Ms . Cail commented that ,
at some point , there should be some real clear engineering studies
done to be sure things are going to hold out , especially after they
have been deeded to the Town . Ms . Clarke responded that , first of
all , the number of units proposed for the site is within the zoning ,
there is no request for an increase in density . Ms . Clarke noted
that , in terms of Orchard Hill Road , the access proposed to Route 89
is proposed so that Orchard Hill Road is not used as the one and only
access , adding , the design of that entrance to the State highway would
have to be engineered , and approved by the DOT , commenting that the
developer has had preliminary discussions with DOT , and they have
indicated that they thought that could be accomplished . Ms . Clarke
stated that she was not referring to " this " as a ravine , she was
referring to little swales on the side .
Rosalind Grippi , of 423 E . Seneca Street , appeared before the
Board and stated that she was also concerned about the traffic on
Orchard Hill Road , noting that she plans to build a house there . Ms .
Grippi remarked that the last time the developer was asked about
finding access on Happy Lane he objected because of the traffic inflow
into the development from Happy Lane , commenting that the same
circumstance now applies to Orchard Hill Road . Ms . Grippi wondered
what consideration the Planning Board is giving to the problems that
this is going to raise on Orchard Hill Road for the houses presently
located there . Also , Ms . Grippi wondered if any aspect of the project
would be voted on tonight , with Chairman Grigorov responding - we will
have to wait and see .
Bruce Rich , of 253 DuBois Road , addressed the Board and stated
that the area in question is very fragile , as far as the amount of
topsoil , noting , heavy equipment on there would wash a lot of the soil
down to the Lake , and there would be a barren rock slide . Mr . Rich
wondered about fire apparatus along that area . Ms . Clarke responded
that the roads are as laid out and proposed to be designed to meet
• Town standards for roads to be dedicated to the Town , noting that
emergency equipment could pass on those roads . Ms . Clarke stated that
some additional work has been done on the soils , and submitted , for
Planning Board - 19 - April 4 , 1989
• the file , a copy of a Request for Proposal that was sent out last week
to three firms in the area to do test borings and soil investigation
on the site to help the developer determine what type of special
considerations are needed in the final design . [ Copy attached hereto
as Exhibit 4 . ] Ms . Clarke stated their concern was that they were
really looking for some sort of preliminary approval from the Board so
that they can pinpoint where those borings would be , for the proper
alignment and proper location for the road design , typical units , and
the utilities .
Celia Bowers , of 1406 Trumansburg Road , addressed the Board and
stated that she was very , very concerned about people bringing in
heavy equipment dislodging stones , in that there could be severe
run - off onto Route 89 , adding that she thought this would be a real
traffic hazard . Ms . Bowers also wondered what was going to happen to
the little concrete containments that have been called ravines and
swales , if there happens to be an enormously heavy rain . Ms . Bowers
said that , if these are relatively small there would be chance that
these would be knocked away , as houses were , on that very site , in the
1930s . Ms . Bowers stated that she felt there was a real safety hazard
with this site in building the proposed number of houses .
Joseph Burns , of 1089 Taughnnock Blvd . , approached the Board and
stated that his land abuts the site in question on the northeast
corner , adding that he has been a resident in that area for more than
• twenty years . Mr . Burns , indicating on the map , pointed out his
property . Mr . Burns remarked that he has accepted development on the
west side of the Lake as inevitable , and understood that the sites are
legal within the adopted Zoning Regulations . Mr . Burns stated that he
has three concerns , and basically they are all a matter of how to
lessen the impact , at the present time , on the residents of the Town
of Ithaca . Mr . Burns noted that the three items are : traffic , Town
finances , and environmental impact . Mr . Burns noted that he lives on
Taughannock Blvd , and has two young children , adding that he thinks
the road is extraordinarily dangerous ; traffic moves rapidly ; the road
is narrow , and he does not think 60 - 100 cars taking left - hand turns
are needed , because the contours are very , very steep , and one is just
not going to glide up there at 50 mph ; people will have to stop ; cars
will be passing , and he noted that his poor children would be out on
the highway , adding that he does not like that at all . Mr . Burns
stated that he thought the issue was whether or not Orchard Hill Road
and Indian Creek Road are currently set up in a situation in order to
handle the heavy traffic load that is anticipated . Mr . Burns stated
that , as to Town finances , and as he sees it , it is essential that , if
this development is to be built , the developer should contribute , in
fact , pay fully , for water and sewer , noting that he thought it is not
up to the current townspeople to pay for such things . Mr . Burns said
that the last issue was the environmental impact . Mr . Burns ,
referring to the steep slopes , stated that that issue is especially
critical between the railroad bed and Route 89 , Mr . Burns offered
that anyone who has done a little bit of engineering knows that
• run - off increases as a very steep function of velocity , and if one
denudes that land in order to put in the home sites , then there would
be an erosion problem , commenting that the topsoil would run off into
Planning Board - 20 - April 4 , 1989
• the southern end of the Lake , and the Lake , at that point , is
relatively shallow , the flow at that end of the Lake is not very
substantial . Mr . Burns stated that he can foresee lots of silting ,
and lots of fertilizer in that end of the Lake , adding , at the present
time the amount of plant growth in the southern end of the Lake is
very substantial , and there is a question of whether or not one has
Lake frontage or a swamp in front of you . Mr . Burns stated that he
could not see how having 100 extra residents up on the hillside
fertilizing their lawns is going to help all the rest of the Town
residents that live along the Lake . Mr . Burns stated that he grants
that the spot is precious ; the land is beautiful , and noted that he
could understand why people would want to live there , but does not see
any reason to destroy it just so people can live on a nice site . Mr .
Burns stated that he felt it was essential that the Town preserve
most , if not all , of the strip of land along the side of the Lake
between the NYSEG right - of -way and Route 89 .
At this point , Chairman Grigorov stated , for the record , that six
members of the Planning Board did spend several hours on Sunday
afternoon , April 2 , 1989 , with Mr . Frantz and Ms . Beeners , walking the
land in question .
Ms . Clarke stated that she did agree with Mr . Burns in that the
site is a very precious site , and does have some unique
characteristics that need to be preserved , noting that was why the
• developer was before the Board for a cluster proposal . Ms . Clarke
stated that the developer is proposing to cluster most of the units on
the southwestern portion of the site , which has been evaluated to
contain very little , or no , forest or vegetation of any merit , adding ,
an analysis of the vegetation has been done on the site . Ms . Clarke
noted that , where the cluster comes in they would like to retain the
majority of the natural vegetation , protect the soil , and protect the
area from erosion . Ms . Clarke commented that the road layout has been
done to minimize disturbance of those vegetated areas , and the lot
lines have also been laid out to minimize the impact . Ms . Clarke said
that the plat , as it is shown through " this " area , has a restricted
set - aside that is 70 feet wide " here " , and goes down to 40 feet wide
" here " , commenting that no clearing , whatsoever , can take place . Ms .
Clarke noted that all of " these " lots , # 7 - # 45 , essentially starting
" here " , and going all the way through the site , adding , lots # 42 - # 46 ,
have been deed restricted , or are proposed to be deed restricted , with
no more than 50 % of the site being allowed to be cleared . Ms . Clarke
offered that the intent is very much to preserve the existing natural
character of that site , to protect the soil that is there , and to
protect the vegetation . Ms . Clarke noted that it is anticipated , in
the final drawings , that a very detailed erosion and sedimentation
control plan would be done , and the developer recognizes that the Lake
is a sensitive water body with a classification that needs to be
protected . Ms . Clarke stated that the developer has already checked
with the DEC , noting that Indian Creek and " this " stream in the ravine
to the north are not protected streams , there are no permits required
• by the DEC , and the developer does not need to have a water quality
certification , but they do want to have an erosion and sedimentation
control plan in place , because they will be violating standards if
Planning Board - 21 - April 4 , 1989
• additional sediment creates turbidity in the Lake , and it is traced to
the proposed project . Mr . Burns wondered if the developer was liable
to suit , with Ms . Clarke responding , the developer is liable to
penalties from the DEC if it is proven that the project violates the
water quality standards of the Lake . Mr . Burns wondered about the
people who live along the creek . Ms . Clarke stated that their intent
is to protect that stream and make sure there is not erosion and
sedimentation leaving the site , through whatever engineering methods
need to be established , adding that that plan would be reviewed by the
Town Engineer , and would be in the final drawings before the Board .
Ms . Clarke stated , in terms of the traffic , the estimates of maximum
hour vehicles from the site would be 60 vehicles , and , given the fact
that there is a Route 89 exit and an Orchard Hill Road alignment to
DuBois Road , the developer is estimating about a 50 / 50 split , so the
maximum total number of vehicles on Orchard Hill Road would be 30 , and
the maximum number of vehicles going out on Taughannock Blvd , would be
30 . Pointing to the map , Ms . Clarke stated that " this " intersection
with Taughannock Blvd . is going to have to be designed and reviewed by
the DOT , remarking that it is entirely possible that , in that design
and within that vicinity of the intersection , improvements will have
to be made to State Route 89 to allow traffic to enter and exit the
project safely . Ms . Clarke said that the above is within the DOT ' s
realm ; the developer has their specifications , and they will be able
to design to meet the DOT ' s safety requirements .
Krys Cail , of 337 DuBois Road , wondered how the erosion control
• program would operate , if , in fact , all of the staff people for the
project are in Florida or Chicago . Ms . Clarke responded that the
erosion control plan she was referring to , which the developer
explained to everyone at the last meeting , was that his proposal was
to go in and put in all the improvements , such as the water and sewer ,
at his expense , and construct the roads . Ms . Clarke stated that
individual requirements for a building lot requires that each site ,
and building plan , have to be approved by the developer as in the
Homeowners ' Association agreement in the deed restrictions , adding ,
the homes have to be designed by a licensed architect , and in each one
of those instances , if the Board so wishes , the developer can have
typical erosion and sedimentation control schemes that would have to
be followed on independent lots , noting that that is a fairly common
practice by developers . Ms . Clarke stated that during the
construction period of the roads and the utilities , the developer will
have a representative on site , making sure that it is being built in
the proper manner , and to specifications . Ms . Clarke stated that
there would still be oversight when people are doing excavations for
individual lots , through the Homeowners ' Association and the
Agreement . Ms . Clarke offered that that would be done by a licensed
plan , and if those plans are not followed , then there is recourse .
Ms . Clarke stated that she thought the Town was also involved in this ,
in that if there is a condition on the plan to provide those , then the
Town also has the enforcement capability .
• Edward Austen , of 255 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that his property borders the property in question . Mr . Austen
pointed out to the Board that the streams coming down through there ,
Planning Board - 22 - April 4 , 1989
• and since the Woolf Lane development has been put in ,, the amount of
water coming through the creek , to the north , has almost doubled ,
adding , it is raising a problem with him , as there is a lot of silt
coming down , and it will end up down " here " . Mr . Austen offered that
nothing has been done on the Woolf Lane development about curtailing
the amount of flow coming off there . Mr . Austen stated that there is
a problem in two places : the stream , and a,lso . . the road ditch
presently under the road . Mr . Austen felt that another water source
was being developed , remarking that he would like to make real sure
this was taken care of , as well as " this " property down " here " ,
because there is going to be a big problem on Taughannock Blvd . Ms .
Clarke responded that the drainage calculations and design for the
project , although preliminary , a final would be submitted . Ms . Clarke
said that the developer , by design , is going to retain the amount of
run - off from the site to the current rate of run - off in its
undeveloped state . Mr . Austen stated that he did not know how one can
contain what someone else is dumping . Ms . Clarke answered that they
would contain the run - off from the proposed site , and that will also
be reviewed by the Town Engineer , commenting that , if there is a flow
that is significant coming through that , then it will have to be
calculated in the design of the culvert , as Board Member Montgomery
May pointed out . Mr . Austen pointed out that this has been a real dry
winter , and the only run - off now has been a little light rain , but a
lot of water is flowing .
• George Dengler , of 250 DuBois Road , again approached the Board
and stated that the run - off Mr . Austen was talking about comes right
down the side of his land . Mr . Dengler stated that he could attest
that the run - off is absolutely mud . Mr . Dengler offered that Mr .
Ciaschi ' s answer was to stake a few bales of hay , which , during a
heavy thunderstorm last summer , proceeded to build up , and with a
sudden rush of water plugged up all the lines under the road , adding
that the lines under the road are half full of mud now . Mr . Dengler
remarked that he is suffering from erosion , and is thinking about
sueing somebody for taking three feet of his land .
Bruce Rich , of 253 DuBois Road , again appeared before the Board
and stated that he lives right next door to Mr . Austen , having
purchased the house in 1973 , commenting that this is the first year
that he has been getting water in his cellar . Mr . Rich remarked that
he has discussed the matter with Assistant Town Engineer , Erik
Whitney , and he indicated that a Town backhoe would be sent up to dig
in front of the house , and find out what can be done about stopping
the drainage to the house .
Celia Bowers , of 1406 Trumansburg Road , again addressed the Board
and stated that she had just received a call from a West Hill resident
complaining about a water problem . Ms . Bowers remarked that the
caller was wondering what kind of legal procedures can be taken .
Krys Cail , of 337 DuBois Road , again spoke from the floor and
• stated that she lives on the downhill side of DuBois Road , and just to
give one a sense of how much engineering on paper can sometimes work ,
and sometimes not , the County actually changed a drainage ditch under
Planning Board - 23 - April 4 , 1989
• DuBois Road near her house , commenting , they essentially took it from
the area to the north of her house and put it in the area to the
south , and actually flooded her home . Ms . Cail offered that the
County returned and restructured her entire driveway . Ms . Cail said
that bedrock is very close to the surface .
Joseph Burns , of 1089 Taughannock Blvd . , again spoke from the
floor and commented that he agreed there is a severe drainage problem
between the railroad bed and Route 89 , because the slopes are so
steep . Mr . Burns wondered if it were true that the lot size is twice
the required lot size , so that sometime in the future all the lots
could be split . Chairman Grigorov answered , no , it is not true .
Ms . Clarke , referring to the trees , stated that it is a deed
restriction that would go with the land , unless all of the holders of
that deed restriction decide to release it , noting that they have
offered to the Town that they also be named in that restriction , so
they could enforce it if they so chose . Ms . Clarke stated that there
is a discussion right now , on the Board ' s part , about what clearing
means , which will be defined . Ms . Clarke noted that there is also a
discussion on the caliper of the tree that is meant not to be taken
down , which is somewhere between three , four , or six inches , adding ,
that was not finalized at the last meeting . Ms . Clarke offered that
that would be included in the legal description of the clearing .
• At this point , Chairman Grigorov stated that the Public Hearing
would be closed at this time , but would be reopened , if necessary , for
other comment before there is any kind of a vote . Chairman Grigorov
closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 10 p . m . and brought the matter back to
the Board for discussion .
Mr . May stated that the comment has been made that the proposed
plan meets the present zoning requirements . Mr . May stated that , to
the best of his knowledge , the cluster subdivision ordinance requires
that a conventional site plan be developed to determine the number of
lots . Mr . May remarked that he understood this was what was done ,
however , the crossing of the ravine with the lots , etc . , has not been
considered acceptable , as far as a determination of lots , commenting
that he found the whole project to have an excessive number of lots .
Ms . Clarke responded that the crossing of the ravine was a point that
the developer tried to consider in the cluster , in reducing the number
of crossings on the ravine , adding , that crossing can be done in a
sensitive manner , and can be engineered to be safe . Ms . Clarke
wondered , on what basis , in the regulations , the Town is saying that
it cannot be crossed . Mr . May responded that it does not make sense
economically , or environmentally , which he felt would be the principle
reason , and noted that , while he could certainly agree that , given
enough dollars , it can be crossed , he does question whether it can be
crossed environmentally sensitively , regardless of the dollars .
Attorney Barney remarked that the conventional plan is supposed to
show buildable lots , commenting that six or seven of the lots with the
is
ravine running through the middle are not really buildable
topographically . Ms . Clarke replied that there are buildable portions
on all of those lots , where one could get more than adequate building
Planning Board - 24 - April 4 , 1989
• area within the required set - backs in the zoning , without interfering
with the ravine . Attorney Barney stated that he was not so sure he
agreed with that . Mr . May noted that , in all fairness , and he was
only speaking for himself , under no circumstances would he vote for
the crossing of that ravine the way it is shown . Ms . Clarke wondered
if there were a crossing that was acceptable , with Mr . May replying
that he thought it was entirely possible , but from looking at the
current plan he did not see one in the cluster proposal . Ms . Clarke
asked if the Town Engineer had reviewed the plans and determined that
this is not possible by engineering standards .
Town Planner , Susan Beeners , stated that she thought what was
being dealt with here is a situation involving things with enough
money pumped into them by the developer to build , and then requiring
enough money by the Town to maintain in the long run , and , perhaps ,
even replace , and especially involving the amount of construction that
would be necessary for one of those ravine crossings . Ms . Beeners
said that there is certainly the ability to engineer anything , but she
thought that the real feeling , with those expenses of site
development , was , is the intent of cluster really being met , that
being to economize on infrastructure , as well as a number of other
points , which are roughly stated in the Town policy of the Subdivision .
Regulations , and then back in the cluster development section . Ms .
Beeners wondered , if that were a summarizing at all of what she
gathered was the feeling of the Board , and with there being a great
• amount of site expense to develop this , is it really meeting the
intent ? Ms . Clarke wondered if it were being suggested that a
conventional plat would be a better way to go . Chairman Grigorov
responded , - no , the Board is thinking of a different way of clustering ,
which would use the land better . Ms . Clarke offered that the
developer ' s intent in laying out the roads was to reduce the cost and
disturbance on the site from any conventional layout that could be
developed , adding , a conventional layout can be designed , and can meet
Town standards , commenting that it is not the developer ' s intent to do
that , they do agree that portions of the site should be preserved , and
they would prefer to approach it from a cluster aspect . Ms . Clarke
said that the developer has tried to accommodate that with the scheme
before the Board .
Mr . May stated that there is no question that the project can be
clustered in a nice way on the site , however , in his opinion , there
are far too many units , and the number has been exceeded from that
under the conventional plan . Continuing , Mr . May noted that , since
non - buildable lots are shown , the cluster subdivision regulation
specifically mandates that the developer not exceed the number of
units in a conventional subdivision . Ms . Clarke remarked that they
are not exceeding 110 units , which , potentially , could be built on the
site , the proposal is for 60 units , noting that , even if the six lots
north of the ravine were to be dropped on a conventional plat , they
would be well within the permitted density on the site . Assistant
Town Planner George Frantz noted that there are other problems with
• the conventional plat ; one major problem the Board is concerned with
is the fact that all the plans for the development are treating , in
reality , streams , either year - round or intermittent streams , as
Planning Board - 25 - April 4 , 1989
• drainage swales . Ms . Clarke replied that they are not designated as
streams , as she had checked with the State . Virginia Langhans
wondered if Ms . Clarke had been on the property , with Ms . Clarke
answering , no . Mr . Frantz offered that reality says they are streams .
Mr . May suggested that Ms . Clarke walk the site , with Ms . Clarke
responding that she intends to . Mr . Frantz stated that the streams
form definite ravines , and very deep ravines at the lower end of the
site . Mr . Frantz noted that last week , before the rain began , the
streams were flowing , and of course , they were flowing even more since
the past rains , adding , on the conventional plat , lot # 8 has a stream
flowing through the area where a house would go , and adding , the same
goes for lots # 12 , # 39 , # 42 , # 48 and # 53 . Mr . Frantz said that that
was a problem with a conventional plat , in that the above - noted lots
cannot be considered buildable lots , because of the stream flowing
through where the house would be placed . Ms . Clarke responded that
the stream would not be flowing through , given the proposed drainage
pattern and the drainage plan for either the conventional or the
cluster provision . Mr . May stated that there was no way that a stream
could be diverted in some of the lots . Virginia Langhans said that
some of the streams were 4 - 5 feet deep , and 10 feet across . Mr . May
said that they were talking about 30 feet deep and 50 feet across the
top . Ms . Langhans mentioned that , where Bear Paw Lane meets Falling
Water Drive on the cluster plan , there are two small gorges that must
be 25 feet deep , and they sort of come together to form one ,
commenting , that is exactly where the intersection is , and it looks
• like a big island . Chairman Grigorov stated , walking where the roads
have been planned , they got the feeling that they were not planned
actually looking at the land . Mr . May asked if the person who laid
out the plan had actually walked the land , with Ms . Clarke responding ,
yes , every bit of it . Chairman Grigorov stated that she could not
imagine anyone putting the roads where they are proposed . Robert
Miller stated that , in his opinion , there were too many units being
planned for the property . Stephen Smith offered that , given the
surrounding neighborhood , the land is much more conducive to an estate
layout of very large lots . Ms . Clarke responded that estate layouts
would have very high development costs , and maintenance of the roads ,
for the density , which is something the developer understood .
Mr . May stated that the project , as laid out , has got extremely
high road and utilities costs . Ms . Clarke said that is the reason for
a request for the geotechnical studies , to find out specifically what
the requirements would be . Ms . Langhans remarked that she would be
interested in seeing the test borings , because some of the water was
right on bedrock . Ms . Clarke stated that they were not really in a
position to do the borings until they have some sort of a concurrence
as to what the road layout would be . Chairman Grigorov said that the
Board cannot assure the developer where the roads can be until there
is more information . Ms . Clarke said that would be recognized on the
final plat that there may need to be some revisions based on that
examination . Chairman Grigorov offered that there are other
possibilities for the land , which was discussed on Sunday , while the
• six members were walking the land , as to modifying the plan in a way
that would be beneficial , environmentally especially , and also for the
Planning Board - 26 - April 4 , 1989
• developer , at much less cost in road building , by a combination of
large lots and small lots , for instance .
Susan Beeners wondered if it would be appropriate to run through ,
very quickly , what the concerns are . Mr . Frantz [ indicating on map ]
stated that " these " are the streams identified on the lot , which
appear to be year - round or intermittent streams in noticeable ravines ,
of which some are relatively shallow toward " here " [ pointing to the
uphill or western portion of the tract ] , but they are long - standing
stream courses . Indicating on the map , Mr . Frantz pointed out the red
dash , which indicates the building set - backs of lots # 8 , # 12 , # 39 ,
# 42 , # 48 , and # 53 especially , where there are some questions , noting
that as far as lots # 3 , # 14 , # 20 , and # 35 go , they are probably okay ,
adding that lot # 41 is a question simply because he was not sure
whether it was an active stream or not . Mr . Frantz stated that , in
addition , lots # 27 , and # 28 do not meet the minimum lot dimensions for
R - 15 . Mr . Frantz stated that on the cluster plat the streams are of
major concern , and the proposal for dealing with the drainage , upon
review , appears , basically , to be treating " these " as swales , and
diverting the water out of them , and " this " one and " this " one would
go down to " this " culvert , to " this " stream , then down . Mr . Frantz
said , of course , that basically diverts much of the drainage from
" this " area into " this " culvert , and then underneath Taughannock Blvd .
Ms . Clarke stated that she believed it was being intercepted again ,
and then brought down to Indian Creek , with Mr . Frantz agreeing that
• there is some coming down " here " , in fact , on lot # 35 it is shown as
the detail . Mr . Frantz stated that staff has a lot of concern about
the magnitude of the proposed diverson , and whether or not it is
really an appropriate action . Mr . Frantz noted that in the cluster
plan , lots # 3 , # 6 , # 50 , # 32 , # 35 , # 41 , and # 46 have buildability
problems . Mr . Frantz stated that , if anything , the Board needs more
detail as far as " this " intersection goes [ Bear Paw Lane and Falling
Water Drive ] , adding , on " this " map it looks to be approximately 15 - 20
feet deep , yet there is no provision for getting " this " stream
underneath to Falling Water Drive , Mr . Frantz stated that he realizes
this is a preliminary sketch plan , adding that the Assistant Town
Engineer , Erik Whitney , has looked at it , and he [ Mr . Frantz ] has also
spoken to Steve Blust , Engineer for the project . Mr . Frantz commented
that , again , Mr . Whitney ' s position is that it is , from an engineering
standpoint , feasible to do . Ms . Clarke wondered , under what kind of
specs . Mr . Frantz responded that , in Mr . Whitney ' s discussion with
him , he felt that if there were going to be a culvert there , then it
has to be an extremely sturdy culvert built to , probably , State DOT
specifications , with a 100 - year , or so , lifespan . Mr . May offered
that it would probably be 20 feet in diameter . Ms . Clarke offered
that there is a large culvert at the other end . Mr . Frantz commented
that there are concerns about the protection of the woodland , and ,
basically , the site is proposed to be divided roughly in two , from a
rough line in " this " area , north , for approximately 1 / 3 of the parcel ,
which is the area of woodland that is 40 years old or older ,
commenting , " this " area is 100 years old or older , also in " here " , and
• some along Indian Creek , adding that " this " large area up " here " is a
60 - 70 year undisturbed forest . Mr . Frantz offered that , in order to
better preserve that woodland , more of the development should be
Planning Board - 27 - April 4 , 1989
• pulled out of that area , and down into " this " area [ pointing to the
southern 2 / 3 of the tract ] . Mr . Frantz mentioned the 50 % restriction
on clear cut , noting that , even with the 50 % restriction , he did not
believe that that is adequate . Ms . Clarke interjected that there are
roughly 17 acres that would be protected under that . Mr . Frantz
mentioned that under the 50 % provision there are about 10 acres that
could be cleared , but again , he thinks that is excessive and would
have a greater than what he really believes necessary impact on the
woodland area . Mr . Frantz offered that one idea discussed was ,
instead of the 500 limit , a specific square footage limitation in the
area of about 12 , 500 square feet , which is roughly a 125 - foot diameter
circle , which would allow , of course , room for a house , 20 - 30 feet of
yard around it , and a driveway access , but again , preserve much of the
wooded area . Ms . Clarke noted that the developer did consider having
a square footage that would be allowed to be cleared , adding , the
problem with that is that maybe someone does not want to have a
cleared area by their house ; maybe they want their house set in the
woods , but want a cleared area for a pool , or something of that
nature , commenting , if one gets as specific as to say - - you get this
much square footage , and , in terms of a percentage cover , she thought
that something could be worked out in a discussion on how the
protection is increased , noting that she just wanted to express to the
Board the developer ' s concerns in putting a square footage number on
it , in that she felt there should be a little more flexibility than
that . Mr . Frantz responded that he thought , in that case , it would
• work , because the homeowner would have a choice , in that a house with
a footprint of 2000 square feet would give 10 , 000 square feet , which
would give them a 10 , 000 - foot backyard , or put the house in the
middle .
Ms . Beeners stated that the above covers the main gist of what
has been reviewed , adding , " Outlot B " is not considered to be open
space , but a larger deterrent , as far as developability , seems to
center around [ indicating on map ] " this " ravine , and whether , in the
hypothetical plat , the Town would accept two heavy duty culverts
" there " and " there " . Ms . Beeners , pointing to the map , stated that
" these " are the ones she considered to be the most serious ones , and
would the Town , in a conventional situation , even consider accepting
those , and could they be built economically ? Ms . Beeners commented
that Mr . Whitney indicated to her that to replace those kinds of
things one has to close the road off , and replace the entire
structures , commenting that that brings in some additional
questionability about accepting these as conventional lots . Ms .
Beeners offered that there are some trade - offs with that , in that in
the cluster plat , if a crossing " here " were eliminated , there would be
absolutely no vehicular access to the park ; there would only be
seasonal access by pedestrians , perhaps by a rustic bridge . Ms .
Beeners noted , in thinking about that , either it be a primitive park
with no vehicular access into it , with careful restrictions and
signage , or accept having vehicular access on one crossing , and ,
perhaps , a reduction in the number of lots . Ms . Beeners wondered why ,
• what is to be developed within the mature woodland , must be on much
larger lots than what is shown , and get into using a much smaller
thing that would really represent cluster where it does appear to be
Planning Board - 28 - April 4 , 1989
• feasible to develop . Ms . Beeners said that the developer indicated
there was a market for $ 55 , 000 . 00 lots in Ithaca , and that was the
reason for the proposal . Ms . Beeners offered that there has not
really been a great weighing of whether or not that was really meeting
the intent of cluster as it is spelled out in the Subdivision
Regulations . Ms . Beeners wondered if there could be two - unit
buildings - - an accessory apartment with the main unit - - a duplex
type of arrangement , or a different housing type that could be used in
the areas that are more suitable for development . Ms . Beeners offered
that Ms . Clarke had mentioned some things like the DOT road approval ,
and possible need for improvements on Route 89 , noting , the way the
SEQR process is structured more information is needed , before a
preliminary plat consideration can even be made . Ms . Clarke responded
that they cannot produce that unless they know what the alignment of
the road is , commenting , DOT requires very detailed specifications as
to the design , before they will even review . Ms . Beeners wondered if
the project engineer could propose what could be done there . Ms .
Clarke replied that they have given the DOT " this " , which they have
indicated could be built , and they sent back the legal size
application form with a request for $ 325 . 00 and a set of detailed
plans . Ms . Clarke stated that she did not know how much flexibility
they have with DOT , at this point , without an alignment , as it is
difficult to prepare or provide a design , but perhaps she could get
something more specific to say it can be done within their guidelines ,
or within their specifications . Ms . Clarke wondered if that was what
• the Board is looking for ; that they could issue a permit on it based
on their requirements . Ms . Beeners said that she knew it was
difficult because of the permit business , but felt that some idea is
needed as to what the ultimate design would be , and what DOT would
require . Ms . Beeners suggested that , perhaps , more work could be done
by Mr . Blust and maybe Fred Grout , of the DOT office in Ithaca , could
give some additional input , noting , however , that it would probably be
at the Town Engineer and the Planning Board level to approve that .
Mr . Frantz , noting another issue which has not been raised was
the access to the park site as proposed . Mr . Frantz stated that they
have been on the site , and felt that this end of Falling Water Drive
was not a feasible access point , given the 30 - 40 foot depth of the
ravine , and the approximately 100 - foot width of the top . Mr . Frantz
stated that , originally , they thought the access point from Orchard
Hill Road would be attractive , however , the plus / minus 60 - foot right
of way is all within the ravine , with no way to put a trail there .
Ms . Clarke replied that she was sure there is a design of that
crossing by which the developer could provide access for some
maintenance vehicles , not cars , to get into the park , but at least to
allow access across the ravine , and to allow Town maintenance vehicles
to be in there , adding , there is a 30 - foot reserve strip on lot # 13 ,
and noting that she was sure a design could be worked out for those
lots that would allow reasonable vehicular access to the park , adding
that the developer would be glad to work with the Board on that
design , as they understand the Board ' s point . Mr . Frantz noted that
• one option that was looked at , and again this is tied into a
replatting that would remove some of the density from " this " area
[ pointing to the area of lots # 8 - # 13 ] , and relocate it " here " , would
Planning Board - 29 - April 4 , 1989
be to actually move the cul de sac down , and reduce its length by
approximately 100 feet or so , put a lot at the end of it , and then a
triangular piece " here " [ pointing to lot # 111 , on the corner , which
would also allow a gravel - type park access road to go at a diagonal to
the terrain and maintain somewhat of a 10 % grade , and then have lot
# 13 be extended all the way to # 14 . Ms . Clarke responded that the
only concern she would express from - the developer ' s aspect is that
which would be from a future homeowner ' s perspective , in that it would
be better to have that type of access on the outside of a lot or on
the perimeter of a lot , rather than running down between the middle of
two potential building lots , commenting , that may get into a situation
where people may not want the Town trucks running down there . Ms .
Clarke felt that , one way or another , those could be rearranged , but
it should be borne in mind that what has been discussed is the expense
of that culvert , and in order to run something across that ravine and
build it to the specifications that everyone is going to want to build
it to , they then would need to have a basic number of units on the
other side of the ravine , and that is the trade - off that Ms . Beeners
mentioned about providing access to the park . Ms . Clarke stated that
the developer also anticipated that access to the park would be gained
by the proposed pathway along the NYSEG right - of -way , adding , that is
long - term , but at some point that would also be an access to the park ,
because none of them are assuming this is going to be a park with
pavilions and ballfields . Ms . Clarke stated that they recognize
access needs to be provided , noting that she thought the other cul de
• sac could be shortened so as not to provide an access .
Virginia Langhans stated that she would like to save the
developer the money and not have him put any lots across the gorge .
Chairman Grigorov mentioned the pump station , and the bridge , noting ,
it would all be wild , then the density could be increased up in the
fields . Ms . Beeners stated that the park site could then be kept as a
natural area , commenting that the NYSEG right -of -way would make a good
way to get in , and it would have to be a driveway access , or a pick - up
truck access . Ms . Beeners remarked that , as a reserve , it could be
held without public facilities developed until those become more
apparent , but there would be a need to make it a functioning park ,
with some parking spaces and vehicular access . Stephen Smith wondered
what sort of problems there would be if that were a park , and there
was no emergency access , with Ms . Langhans responding , that is why it
is a nature reserve , rather than a park . Ms . Clarke asked if the
comments made tonight were in written form , so that she could secure a
copy . Robert Miller stated that he did not think this plan would be
acceptable to the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners offered that these were
comments which were prepared and mailed out prior to the field trip by
some of the Planning Board members , along with her and Mr . Frantz .
Ms . Langhans , along with Mr . May , offered that Ms . Clarke could get
the comments from the minutes of the meeting . [ Comments attached
hereto as Exhibits 5 and 6 . ] Ms . Langhans stated that she would like
lots # 58 , # 59 , and # 60 also addressed , those being the lots from Route
89 up to the NYSEG right - of -way , noting that she would prefer to have
• no development there at all , as the access to them is crazy - one has
to come up this steep slope , which cuts diagonally through lot # 58 ,
then there is a little tiny driveway in the back that services them .
Planning Board - 30 - April 4 , 1989
• Robert Miller mentioned that that is way below the railroad track .
Ms . Clarke stated that the driveway was designed in a 20 - foot width
which meets the requirements for now , for the Town . Ms . Langhans
stated that she considered them sub - standard lots . Mr . May stated
that it depended on the slope of the land whether or not one could get
an emergency vehicle around there , noting it would certainly have to
be looked at by the Fire Department , Ms . Beeners stated that ,
currently , that is a separate parcel which has been appended to the
larger parcel , and it is R- 15 as opposed to R- 30 . Stephen Smith
mentioned the size of lots # 59 and # 60 , in that they were not the size
in the original plat , with Ms . Beeners responding , right now it is a
large non - conforming lot , and , with a road developed [ indicating ori
map ] " here " , it would have the frontage that would make it conform as
one lot , but the property parcel is about 144 feet deep by 300 - 400
feet long , so it is about 6 feet short of the 150 - foot R- 15 depth
requirement . Ms . Beeners stated that , if a building permit is
requested to build a house on that lot , then it might be subject to
the ZBA . Attorney Barney stated that if it was a legal non - conforming
lot they would be entitled to a building permit on one lot . Ms .
Clarke offered that the lot fronts on Route 89 , but they were not
proposing access on Route 89 .
At this point , Chairman Grigorov asked if everyone on the Board
had commented on the matter as much as they wanted to .
• Mr . Frantz stated that , from a staff standpoint , he would like to
see the density reduced , somewhat , from the green area indicated on
the upper portion of the appended drawing , adding that the lots , even
though this is being referred to as a cluster development , are still
quite large , adding that he measured them and lot # 27 is in the range
of 27 , 500 square feet or so ; lot # 18 is in the range of 47 , 000 square
feet , lots # 35 , # 36 , # 37 and # 38 , which are some of the smaller lots ,
are in the range of 24 , 000 - 25 , 000 square feet , and lot # 48 is about
23 , 000 - 24 , 000 square feet . Mr . Frantz stated that he thought there
was room for some slightly more condensation of lots in order to get
more lots in the area where there is not mature woodland . Ms . Beeners
offered that that would still be subject to a lot of drainage
management . Chairman Grigorov remarked that there would certainly be
less interference with the stream . Mr . Frantz mentioned pulling back
the Orchard Hill Road cul de sac , reducing its length to put a lot at
the end of it , which he noted was a way of gaining access to the park .
Mr . Frantz , [ indicating on map ] said , since " this " [ pointing to the
proposed ± 60 - foot -wide access strip ] really is not a feasible access
point , it might be worthwhile to look at , also , pulling " this "
[ Orchard Hill Road ] cul de sac back .
Ms . Beeners wondered if the consensus of the Board was that there
should not be a ravine crossing extending Orchard Hill Road . Virginia
Langhans stated that she would vote for that . Chairman Grigorov
stated that she would certainly prefer that . Ms . Beeners also
wondered about the fact that the park land be kept as a preserve with
• any access to it to be developed at a later time , with Ms . Langhans
offering that , at the moment , the NYSEG right- of -way would be used as
an access . Attorney Barney stated that , from a Town Attorney
Planning Board - 31 - April 4 , 1989
• standpoint , he does not want to take a landlocked piece of land for
the Town , and he felt some provision has to be made for access from
somebody that has the power to give the access , the Town does not want
to go out and exercise its eminent domain rights to get on the piece
of property . Ms . Langhans offered that it could be deeded to the new
land trust , with Attorney Barney responding , that is pie in the sky ;
it does not meet the 10 % set -aside for the Town , if that is where the
concern lies, but it could be done . Mr . May stated that it would have
access through the NYSEG right - of -way . Attorney Barney wondered who
owns the NYSEG right - of -way , with Ms . Langhans answering , probably
NYSEG . Ms . Clarke stated that NYSEG would grant them an easement to
cross the right - of -way , noting that that cannot be secured until an
alignment for the road is intact . Attorney Barney commented that , to
be realistic , if that is where the set - aside is going to be , some
provision should be made for at least minimally deeding access to the .
Town , adding that , if it is the Planning Board ' s determination to not
have a crossing of some sort across the gorge , that is okay , but there
should be at least the potential for the Town , at some time in the
future , should they be so inclined , to get to that property . Ms .
Langhans mentioned a pedestrian crossing . Mr . Lesser mentioned a
20 - foot right - of -way leading to the gorge . Attorney Barney said that
it could be shown as noted at the present time , but with the
understanding that the Town may or may not elect to build some sort of
device to get over there . Attorney Barney noted that he was concerned
from a legal standpoint , and , at some point , he wants to be able to
• say , if necessary , that the Town can go there . Mr . May noted that it
depends on the road alignment in the new design . Ms . Beeners
mentioned that that could be a minimum 25 - foot strip , back between
several pie - shaped lots around a cul de sac . Mr . May stated that from
his standpoint , he does not want to see the crossing at the " Y " ,
noting that , somehow or another that road alignment has to also be
changed . Chairman Grigorov stated that there should not need to be
that much road in a cluster . Mr . Frantz stated that the difference in
the cluster is about 15 % less road ; the conventional measures
approximately 6 , 600 lineal feet of roadway , and the cluster measures
approximately 5 , 700 lineal feet . Mr . Frantz commented , if the
Planning Board desires to not have that Orchard Hill Road crossing
with the culvert , then it would be better to have a cul de sac there ,
and a 20 - foot right - of -way into that area , north , instead of having
one at the end of Falling Water Drive . Ms . Beeners stated that that
probably would work , as this is a sticky place , as far as trying to
plat it out , because she had viewed the area . Ms . Beeners wondered if
the message from the Board was that this type of crossing , where two
streams are being involved in close proximity , should be avoided . Mr .
May noted that there are actually three spans required .
Mr . Frantz mentioned the intersection at Bear Paw Lane and
Falling Water Drive . Ms . Langhans replied that that needs to be
redesigned . Chairman Grigorov stated that there seems to be cul de
sacs right where the little stand of big trees are . Mr . Lesser stated
that it sounded like considerable work has to be done . Robert Miller
• mentioned less density and redesign . Mr . Frantz wondered if the
alignment of the streets , other than the intersection at Bear Paw and
Falling Water , were okay , adding , for instance , the intersection with
Planning Board - 32 - April 4 , 1989
• Route 89 . Chairman Grigorov wondered what the Board felt about that .
Mr . May responded that he thought the Route 89 intersection could be
done , with Chairman Grigorov stating that she did not see any better
alternative for that . Ms . Langhans offered that , if the developer
would be going for more clustering in the open field area , which is
toward the southwest , then the roads would change . Mr . May stated
that it looked to him as though the project engineer really tried to
lay the proposal , basically , on a conventional plat , i . e . , saying , we
will have a little less density up there , and we will call this
cluster . Mr . May stated that he personally felt it needs to go back ,
and basically start over again , commenting , there are certainly great
economies to be realized by not making some of those crossings , and ,
to make compound crossings the way it is shown , gives one questions as
to how much thought really went into it . Ms . Clarke stated that she
believed part of the thought that went into it is a different
definition of what a stream is , and the fact that the engineer went on
the site , and he still did not consider that those entities were
streams , and that one crossing , if she is correct , was to be diverted ,
it was not intended that those three areas go under that intersection ,
the drainage would have actually been diverted so that there were two
culverts under the intersection . Mr . May responded that when he sees
a 20 - foot depth , 4 - foot across the bottom , running a good foot deep at
this time of the year , and if the developer is familiar with this area
at all , then that can be a lot of water . Ms . Clarke stated that she
was just offering that for a point of clarification . Ms . Langhans
• stated that she felt everyone cares a little bit more about the
environment . Ms . Clarke commented that she hoped that was not saying
more than the developer does , or more than they do in trying to make a
layout . Ms . Langhans stated that it looked as though the developer
had not been on the land , with Ms . Clarke answering , he has , and has
tried to comply with the drainage , the woodlands , and all of the other
factors in providing a layout . Ms . Langhans remarked that she thought
the developer has been very sensitive to the woodlands ; it is the
drainage that she thought stood out , mentioning the crossings of the
road of the really quite deep ravines . Mr . May noted that there are
cul de sacs in locations where some of the prettiest trees on the land
are , which would mean , obviously , total clearing of the prettiest
trees on the entire parcel . Ms . Clarke wondered if one could actually
tell , specifically , where that cul de sac was , in relation to a stand
of trees on the parcel , with Ms . Langhans responding , yes , when there
is a topo . Mr . May stated that they might have been off 20 feet , but
did not think it was a lot more than that .
Mr . Frantz stated that the proposed drainage easements have been
looked at , and he really thought it is better to forego the proposed
drainage easements as shown on the site plan , because , again , they are
looked at as being natural water courses , adding that he did not think
the Town should be burdened with maintaining streams , which could
happen under the easements . Ms . Clarke wondered if Mr . Frantz was
referring to the 50 - foot easement along Indian Creek , Mr . Frantz
answered , no , it is shown on the proposed drainage areas and flow
• patterns , and it is even shown on the preliminary plat . Mr . Frantz
stated that there were a number of 20 - foot drainage easements . Ms .
Clarke responded that they were proposed swales , and they have to be
Planning Board - 33 - April 4 , 1989
• restricted somehow from development . Mr . Frantz commented that the
one going through lot # 17 is , at the present time , a natural running
stream in a small ravine , noting , it is the same as on lots # 15 and
# 21 . Ms . Clarke stated that she did not believe that there was an
intent to dedicate the drainage easements to the Town , but maybe those
easements are there to preserve those courses , and to make sure that
there is no development in that area . Mr . Frantz responded , okay .
Attorney Barney wondered who gets the benefit of the easement . Ms .
Clarke replied that she guessed all of the people who owned property
in the development , which would be upstream . Mr . Frantz mentioned
that the one in lot # 3 is a relocated swale and a 20 - foot drainage
easement , commenting , that is , perhaps , what prompted him to think
that these would be , somehow , drainageways , which , if the homeowners
did not maintain them , then the Town may be held responsible for going
in there at Town expense . Ms . Clarke wondered , if one proposes a
subdivision and there are constructed swales , how are they protected
on a plat that is normally before the Board , so that they are not
developed and can retain their ability to . . . . . . Att orney Barney
interjected that what has been done is one way of doing it ; there are
some instances where the Town wants a drainage easement , when they are
concerned about a particular area , where the Town wants the ability to
go onto the land . Ms . Clarke wondered if it was acceptable to make an
easement , but just make sure that the Town is not mentioned . Mr .
Frantz answered , yes , and again , the Town is distinguishing between
constructed drainage swales and what we believe are natural stream
• forces . Ms . Clarke remarked that she understood there was not an
interest in having an easement along Indian Creek , adding , there was a
50 - foot reserve strip along Indian Creek , Mr . Frantz remarked that
drainage easement would be the wrong term ; it would be more buffer .
Mr . May wondered if the Town needed a management easement along Indian
Creek , with Attorney Barney replying that he did not think so ; a
buffer or dedicated open space would be better . Ms . Beeners stated
that she did not think the Town wanted that one . Ms . Beeners stated
that it should be recognized , concerning Indian Creek , that that is
being considered as a possible unique natural area , at the present
time , by the EMC , commenting , it is on one of their lists to be
checked out . Ms . Beeners noted that it appeared to her , in looking at
the plan , and what they were attempting to do , as far as a buffer with
no easement , that a restrictive covenant on those affected lots would
probably be the best way to manage that area , and the northern woods
was probably a more important part to try and preserve as park . Ms .
Clarke wondered if the proposal for Indian Creek is one that would be
acceptable , as long as it was not named as a drainage easement ,
adding , there should be a reserve within which no development could
take place , with Ms . Beeners answering , yes . Mr . Frantz mentioned
that , perhaps as part of the natural area easement , a section in the
covenants could indicate that there be no cut , or clearing , within
50 - feet of Indian Creek .
Ms . Beeners wondered if the Board wanted to adjourn the matter
until there is an additional alternative plat submitted , or were they
• asking for a couple of alternatives to weigh the possibilities of
reduced density on the entire site , versus increasing the density in
the white area shown on the plan , which is , possibly , going to have
Planning Board - 34 - April 4 , 1989
• some special erosion type concerns . Ms . Beeners wondered if the Board
was looking for the developer to provide some alternatives that would
show what some of the costs and benefits are . Robert Miller commented
that he felt density should be reduced on the whole site . Chairman
Grigorov stated that she thought progress has been made . Stephen
Smith mentioned the . fact of compacting it , and having all kinds of
developers coming in building a house here and there without any
control of erosion . Ms . Clarke said that there would be control in
terms of the architectural review . Mr . Smith said he was talking
about run - off and monitoring .
At this time , Rosalind Grippi , of 423 E . Seneca Street , spoke
from the floor and stated that it seemed to her that since this was a
recognized wildlife wintering area , it would be appropriate to leave
an area inaccessible on this particular land .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
MOTION by James Baker , seconded by Montgomery May :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and
hereby does adjourn the review of Cayuga Lake Estates sine die , to
allow time for the developer to present additional information .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , May , Langhans , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
Chairman Grigorov indicated that , for everyone ' s information , the
above MOTION constituted Notice to the public that the Public Hearing
is adjourned without date , it will be re - advertised and notices
mailed .
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the review of
preliminary plat application submissions for the proposed Cayuga Lake
Estates duly adjourned at 11 : 15 p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : Planning Department Report
At this time , Town Planner Susan Beeners reported on a concept
plan that she had received for another subdivision . Ms . Beeners
commented that she was asked by the designers of " Rose Hill
Subdivision " if there was any possibility that they could proceed into
some kind of preliminary subdivision consideration . Ms .. Beeners said
that she was informed the developers have hired a landscape architect ,
along with presenting a more accurate topo map . Ms . Beeners stated
that the new plan does not have the boxy look of the previous plan .
Indicating on the appended map Ms . Beeners pointed out that the
connection between " these " two roads has been eliminated . Ms . Beeners
offered that she had talked with the designer about the roads , and he
suggested that there could be a phasing to only allow coming in about
Planning Board - 35 - April 4 , 1989
N 1 , 000 feet , and possibly having an emergency access road that the
developer would construct , and later be a public trail built over
" here " . Mr . May mentioned that the developer was told that he had to
have access to the adjoining properties . Ms . Beeners stated that
there is a possibility providing access to the adjoining property
" here " . Ms . Beeners said that , as far as fire safety , the developers
know they have to sprinkle the buildings . Ms . Beeners offered that
all the open space would be privately owned by a Homeowners '
Association , Ms . Beeners noted that a 25 - foot strip would be reserved
in which a Town trail could be constructed . Ms . Beeners stated that
she would report back to the developers as to the concerns of access ,
and the private park land issue , adding that she would also tell them
to come before the Board with a sketch plan .
AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD VICE
CHAIR .
At this time , Board Member Robert Kenerson stated , for the
record , that he did not think it really fair to the Planning Board and
to the members involved , to have the Town Board playing a little
politics with the appointment of Chairman to the Planning Board . Mr .
Kenerson stated that he felt it was quite clear that it was a
political move , commenting that it is not fair to Carolyn Grigorov , at
this stage , and certainly not fair to Montgomery May .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board elect and hereby
does elect Mrs . Virginia Langhans as its Vice Chairman for the year
1989 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Langhans .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Grigorov declared the April 4 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 30
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
SUMAIiARY OF IEFORMATION RELATIVE TO PLA C &i R1 T OF TREE
NORTH OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 IN FOREST HOME HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION
1 . The &gineer ss Report read at the Final Subdivision Approval for
the Forest Home Highlands Subdivision statess "Cornell will main-
tain the Open Space and develop a buffer of trees and fencing to
protect home sites from the driving range " ( p . 5 of minutes of the
Planning Board meeting held Dec . 17 , 1985 , attached ) . The approved
final plat for this development similarly shows a double row of
evergreens to be planted by Correll , north of lots 1 through 6 . It
is apparent that the Cornell Golf Course would now like to back out
of its commitment to the planting of these trees . It should be
remembered , however , that the Planning Board decided that the open
Space requirement for this development would be best satisfied by
establishing a buffer zone between the driving range and the rear
yards of lots 1 through 6 ( see D . 5 , minutes of the Planning Board
meeting held Dec . 17 , 1985 ) . This buffer zone was not established as
a convenience for Cornell , and it was not intended to serve as an
extension of the driving range . Rather , its purpose was to protect
home sites from the driving range .
2 . Apparently , the Cornell golf course agreed to install trees and fencing
in the buffer zone in exchange for obtaining the title to this land .
This agreement is referred to (but not spelled out ) on D . 6 of the
minutes of the Planning Board meeting held on Dec . 17 , 1985 ( attached ) ,
where John Hertel stated that Cornell had written him a letter agreeing
to this arrangement . The Town of Ithaca does not have jurisdiction
EXHIBIT 1
P . 2
over a contract between two private parties . If Cornell does not live
up to its part of the bargain , the contract becomes null and void , and
ownership of the land presumably reverts to the estate of :fAr . John
Hertel . Thus , the Forest Home Highlands development would not have
its requisite open space . Perhaps the developer could then purchase
this land from the estate of Mr . Hertel , or designate other land within
the development as the open space required .
3 . It is my understanding that the Cornell golf course intends to restrict
the use of wooden drivers and to slightly realign the driving range in
order to reduce the likelihood of golf balls being hit into adjoining
home sites . Although this seems prudent , there is no guarantee that
this plan is going to be either effective or permanent . Mr . Fenner has
resigned effective sometime this summer , and I understand that any
policies which Mr . Fenner institutes could be easily changed by any
subsequent Head Professional . Transitory policies are no substitute for
legally enforceable long -term solutions .
In addition to being temporary , the golf course ' s proposed modifications
are also of unknown effectiveness . If the Board is willing to give
Cornell the benefit of the doubt , they should test the effectiveness of
these alternate measures . Perhaps enforcement of the planting of the
trees could simply be postponed until eithers
a ) the alternate proposals have proven ineffective ( if , say , five
or more balls go into the yards of adjacent home sites ) , OR
b ) one or more adjacent landowners request that the trees be
planted .
is It is also possible that more than two rows of trees would be necessary
in order to adequately protect the home sites .
EXHIBIT 1
p • 3
4 . If the Board does decide to stand by its earlier decision and therefore
deny the Request for Modification , perhaps it would be wise to stipulate
a completion date for the planting of the trees , and a penalty if this
date is not met . I do not mean to be pessimistic , but past experience
has indicated that the golf course can sometimes be slow to act on its
commitments . In 1984 , the Cornell golf course was directed by Associate
University Counsel Thomas Santoro to plant trees on golf course
property along the northern boundary of our property at 135 Warren Road ,
in order to screen our house and yard , to some extent , from incoming
shots from the tenth tee ( see copies of letters by Bowman and Santoro ,
attached. ) . It has been five years , and still no trees have been planted .
Perhaps a deadline would help to encourage a more timely compliance
than this .
Respectfully Submitted ,
B ce Brit air
135 Warren Road
April 4 , 1989
•
EXHIBIT 1
• Planning Board - 5 - December 17 , 1985
Nthe Warren Road crossing at a 20 inch steel pipe culvert recently
installed by Tompkins County . Positive drainage from foundation
footer drains to natural swales or swales shaped along lot lines and
roadside ditches are most important . Old agricultural field tile
should be terminated at surface ' swales being shaped or be removed
where alignment is through a building site to prevent excessive ground
water from coming up against the foundations . The land is generally
sloping in three directions to the west along the new road , to the
southwest , and to the southeast . The largest area any roadside
culvert would have to drain ( along the south boundary of Brittain ) is
approximately 4 acres which in a 20 minute 2 inch rainfall could flow
approximately 5 - 6 cfs which an 18 inch CMP or equivalent could easily
accommodate at 1 % grade . Driveway culverts need not exceed 15 inch
CMP as each would drain a very small area . The new road culvert at
Warren Road would be an elliptical 13 inch x 22 inch equivalent or an
18 inch round culvert to allow sufficient cover . Drainage paths are
shown on the subdivision map . The area south of the new road just
east of Warren Road will be filled to channel water along the road
ditch rather than through the neighboring property . With the land
relatively flat little erosion is anticipated and that during
construction can be filtered by hay bales , filter dams , etc .
Traffic . Thirteen lots could on the average generate 130 vehicular
trips per day . With present use- of Warren Road under 4000 AADT , the
additional trips are a minor addition and the new total significantly
less than its probable capacity of 10000 - 14000 AADT . The same
conclusion is true of the peak hour traffic which is roughly 10 % of
daily totals . Visibility in both directions at the new intersection
with Warren Road is excellent .
Land Use . Residential use is ideal for this location as residences
border on the west and south , Cornell Plantations borders on the east ,
and the Cornell golf course borders on the north . Cornell will
maintain the Open Space and develop a buffer of trees and fencing to
protect home sites from the driving range .
( sgd . ) Philip L . COX NYSPE 52271 "
Chairman May asked if there were any further questions .
Mr . Bruce Brittain , 135 Warren Road , spoke from the floor , stated
that he had a question about the open land , and asked what the purpose
of that was . Commenting that Mr . Brittain was talking about the park ,
Mr . Lovi stated that , at the time of the preliminary subdivision
review , it is common in proposed subdivisions to set aside an area of
land - - 10 % - - as open space dedication . Mr . Lovi stated that they
calculated that and concluded , as a consensus of the Board , that the
best place , rather than a park per se to set set aside an area was as
shown as a buffer for the Correll gc f course . Chair. --ian May noted
that it is to ae conveyed to Cornell University .
• Mr . Isadore Blumen , 122 Warren Road , spoke from the floor and
asked what Cornell will do with that land . Attorney Henry Theisen
stated that they will keep it open and undeveloped . Chairman May
EXHIBIT 1
Planning Board - 6 - December 17 , 1985
• pointed out that they are planting trees , etc .
Mr . Lambert Brittain stated that he just wondered if Cornell has
agreed to this , with Mr . Hertel responding , yes , adding that they have
written a letter agreeing to it , however , the transfer has not
occurred . Mr . Brittain asked if this approval were based on that ,
with Chairman May responding , no . Mr . Brittain asked if the houses
that are being put in were to be single or double , adding that they
have not heard anything about the type of house . Mr . Varn responded
that they will all be single family homes , 1 , 800 square feet and up ,
$ 175 , 000 . 00 and up , adding that , according to the Town , they are
allowed " grandmother " apartments , so , if somebody buys the single
family house , they could do that . Mr . Brittain stated that that means
that thirteen lots equals twenty - six families equals twenty - six cars .
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 05 p . m . and turned
the matter over to the Board for discussion .
Mr . Klein wondered if it were necessary- to waive anything on the
cul de sac where the lots do not meet the exact frontage requirements .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that the lots - meet : the requirements at the
setback . Chairman May offered that the Board could consider a waiver .
Chairman May noted that the Board did deal with the environmental
issues at the time of preliminary approval and stated that at this
point the Board is looking at a very nice set of finished drawings
• which are very complete . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he has
reviewed the proposal and approved all aspects , to which Mr . Lovi
responded , yes .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby
does grant Final Subdivision Approval to " Forest Home Highlands " , a
13 - lot subdivision at 130 Crest Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 66 - 3 - 3 . 2 , as shown on map entitled , " Forest Home Highlands , Final
Subdivision Plat " , dated December 3 , 1985 , revised December 6 , 1985 ,
developed by Varn Bros . Constr . Co . , survey by C . Brashear , L . S .
38194 , waiving the requirement for 100 feet of frontage for Lots No .
6 , 7 , 8 , and 9 , at the end of the cul de sac , finding that the strict
application of the specifications and provisions of this regulation
will cause unnecessary and significant hardship and practical
difficulties , and determining that neither a significant alteration of
the purpose of subdivision control is made , nor the policy enunciated
or implied by the Town Board in adopting. this regulation is impaired ,
and further
RESOLVED , that no building permit shall be issued until the
developer shows that a stamped copy of the Final Subdivision Plat is
on file in the office of the Tompkins County Clerk .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Schultz , Baker .
Nay - None .
EXHIBIT 1
• ADAMS , THEISEN & NASH
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
301 THE CLINTON HOUSE
HENRY W. THEISEN 103 WEST SENECA STREET
RALPH W. NASH ITHACA, NY 14850 ARMAND L. ADAMS
1911 - 1983
STEPHEN M. BOWMAN 607-272.3442
April 25 , 1984
Prof . W . Lambert Brittain
135 Warren Road
Ithaca , New York 14850
Re : Brittain v . Cornell University Golf Course
Dear Professor Brittain :
On April 24 , 1984 , I met at the golf. course with Tom
Santoro from the University Counsel ' s Office and Jim Fenner , the
club professional , to discuss your problems with golfers and golf
balls intruding on your property .
The University has agreed to take the following steps to
improve the situation .
1 ) Place a sign on the 10th tee ( the sign has
already been ordered ) informing golfers that
your property is private and not to look for
balls landing in your yard .
2 ) Place signs on the edges of your property
informing golfers that your yard is private
and not to search for errant balls .
3 ) Plant some trees along your northerly property
line to screen your yard , to some extent , from
incoming shots from the 10th tee .
The University maintains its position that it is not
responsible for last summer ' s broken windshield . As we have dis -
cussed previously , with changing personnel and changing attitudes
at the University , the policies of the past regarding broken windows
on your property are not present policies . As always , the individual
golfer is responsible for damages caused by his shots , but I realize
it is usually difficult or impossible to identify a particular culprit
and hold him responsible . As a practical matter , you might investigate
buying insurance coverage for the glass in your houses and vehicles .
•
EXHIBIT 1
•
Re : Brittain v . Cornell University Golf Course Page 24 / 25 / 84
By copy of this letter to Mr . Fenner and Mr . Santoro , I am
confirming my understanding with them as to the steps to be taken to
minimize the Problems you have had in the past .
Please give me a call to discuss these matters .
Very truly yours ,
ADAMS , THEISEN & NASH
i
St,0 a Bowman
• SMB / dh
CC * Thomas Santoro , Esq .
University Counsel ' s Office
Mr . James Fenner
Cornell University Golf Course
is
EXHIBIT 1
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Office of the ■ F= CEI v t FJ ( 607 ) 256- 5124
University Counsel and Edmund Ezra Day Hall
Secretary of the Corporation "! � % ; . : Ithaca, New York 14853
ADAMS a THE]
Apra 01984
Stephen M . Bowman , Esq .
ADAMS THEISEN & NASH
301 The Clinton House
103 West Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York 14850
Re : Brittain complaints
Dear Mr . Bowman :
I am in receipt of yours of April 25 , 1984 , regard -
ing the above and wish to hove you convey to your client
certain clarifications .
With respect to the placement of signs and the
planting of trees , I presume it is understood that Cornell
will place signs and trees on its property , not on your
client ' s . I would strongly recommend that your client con -
sider placing signs on his own property as well ( for which
he would be responsible ) if he judges this to be a problem .
Quite frankly , this is something he could and probably
should have done all along to improve the situation .
As Jim Fenner reported to you when we met on the
24th , the 10th hole has been there since 1941 , long before
Professor Brittain ' s houses were built . Notwithstanding this
fact , Jim Fenner has ' agreed to the accommodations of planting
trees and placing signs as a neighborly gesture . I hope that
your client will accept it in the spirit in which it is of -
fered .
By copy of this letter , I am asking Jim Fenner to
take note of these clarifications and to assure that both
trees and signs placed by the University are placed on its
property , not on the property of others .
Very truly yours ,
Th as Mead Santoro
ssociate University Counsel
TMS : crd
• cc : Jim Fenner
EXHIBIT 1
/! itatement of Doria Higgins before Town of Ithaca Planning 3oard
April 4 , 1989
r
Y I would like to bring to your attention two aspects
of the nebotiations between the -town and the Lucas Retirement
Community Developer which I think need clarification and / or
rectification .
h
:l, 1 . The first issue concerns the income level of
prospective residents in that community . Although a number of people
have expressed support of this project on the grounds that it will
offer moderate income housing to the elderly , tha fact is that them
lij is absolutely no commitment whatsoever in writing from the
; developer as to economic status of residents .
r i I would like to suggest that you make a condition of yoga =
I app � oval of this site planthatthere be a commitment in writing from the
J
and opar to make his units affordable to people of moderate income
and nopafully some affordable to people of low income .
2 . I find the language in the re zoning document
I1 concern .Idd the arovision of water and sewage to the retirement
community distressingly oven and vague . As a person who lives and
works in Ithaca , on West Hill , I object to the town providing servicez,
to out of town developers which result in . . local residents paying
higher taxes for loss of open space and environmental beauty .
I re 'iuest that your approval of the Lucas retireTent
co �amunity plan be contingent on promise in writing from the develore =
that he will _ pay , or t46 he provision . of water and sewage to his de.ve o - � =
. ii • , Mr . Lucas ,may . be a man of good. . will : and a social worker . . but this . is .
i clearly. a . business investment for him - - one on which he expects to
make a profit . I do not wait his profit to come out of . my oockat i0.
the form of higher taxes to pay for services to his development .
. In co %nclusion I . woulc . . like to, publicly protest.
re oning of agricultural land to residential uses at a time when
the town is compiling a comprehensive plan . I think it most unforture � a
timing and one that casts doubts _ on the usefulness- of the . planni no
process 1n .the 701don . of Ithaca . " v._ . ,
EXHIBIT 2
47
L ,
1
67�
CMH Associates
BOX 441 / BOOTHDAY HARBOR, MAINE 045381 (207) 6634US
March 27 , 1989
Susan Beeners , Planner
Town of Ithaca
1.26- . East . Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York 14850 a
Dear Susan :
IBM writing as a follow -up to our last meeting and to
y „ intentions 11 . 11concerning the restrictions on
. restate m .
ownership /. occupancy in the " I '" di Community .
. . . i.ntend , to. .. follow the requirements detailed in the local law . - -
adopted by the Town Board resiticting ' occupancy to - persons over ., . .
age fifty four who are owners or relatives of : the . owner . I will
also observe the restrictions limiting rentals Ctwelve . oF thirty
six and / or twenty four of sixty months ) .
These restrictions were discussed prior to their adoption and
are consistent with my goal of the units being owned by their I
occupants . i
I . hope that this letter will be of use . Feel free to contact
i
me if yQu need any additional information .
Sincerely ,
Cott R . Lucas
•
EXHIBIT 3
Consultants in Management and tivalth
G. rl T* "0No
r. ?�1� •�w �Ny
; i
' CLARK ENGINEERS
•
March 319 1989
Northstar Drillings
Attn : Jeff. Thew
Po Box 67
Courtlan , NY 13045 .
Re : Request for Proposals
Geotechnical Investigation
Cayuga Lake Estates
Ithaca , New York
Gentlemen :
This letter is written to solicit proposals for an geotechnical
investigation in the grown of Ithaca , New York * like purposes of the
investigation are to define the geotechnical design requirements for the
construction of improvements ;
1 . Roadways & Utilities .
• a .,, pavt-.ment design -criteria . including ... frost protection ;
b . engineered fill requirements ;
c . pavement underdrain requirements & ground water conditions ;
d . out and fill slope stability ;
e . depth to rock and description of rock relative to e.%Tpected
excLavation techniques ;
f . erosion protection . .
Residence Construction
a . typical allowed foundation bearing pressures ;
w h . groundwater conditions relative to basement construction. v
It
Eiiel.osed is a - Preliminary Plat of the proposed single fw1kily residential
- subdjvision ' . showing . preliminary locations of 14 borings . The l,or :
locations can " be altered somewhat • in • the field to adapt to - local conditions
as necessary for Vou to safely conduct -the work . You will be responsible
J'or safely conducting the investigation , .for locating the borip9s and Jor ,
determining the ground surface elevation at the borings .
No problems are anticipated in obtaining landowner permission for access to
the site . Bulldozing of access roads will not be rxnriitted without the
landowner ' s r• ior permission and then only to minimum extent necessary along;
pr•ot;osed roadways . It is anticipated that at a minimum the investigation
w:i1 .l include
16 Split spoon sampling at a maximum 2- 1 / 2 ft . intervals with Standard
• penetration test ;
2 . Water content and unconfined compressive strength tests of all cohesive
soil samples ;
EXHIBIT 4
Consulting Engineers
Clark Engineers MW , Inc . 205 Muller Road Washington , Illinois 61571 309 - 444 - 8464
f w, • MECHANICAL • STRUCTURAL • SURVT YING
March 31 , 1989
Page 2
3 . Visual and unified classification of soil samples ;
4 . Ground water level observations . during boring and 24 hours after
corupletion ;
5 . Atterburg limit testing of representative samples of soil ;
6 . Standard Proctor dry density - testing and CBR . testing of at least two
typical available fill materials $
7 . UPS shipment of jarred soil samples to this office following testir .
The exploration and testing results together with design recoumendations are
to be presented in a written report . Five copies of the report are to be
shipped to this office .
The minimum depth of exploration will be until rock is encountered ( no rock
coring is required ) or tothe deeper. of : a ) 10 ft . below proposed street
grade or. b ) 1 ft . below the proposed sewer flowline or c ) 10 ft . below
existing ground . The anticipated corresponding end of exploration
elevations are .
Boring DcDloration To .
1 - 7"19Op
2 748
3 727
4 695
i 5 711
i 6 674
7 720 _
8 677
9 638
10 - 680
11 615
12 580
13 . 538
14 493
•
EXHIBIT 4
•
March 31 , 1989
Page 3
Your input regarding the scope of work is invited . Please submit your price
proposal and anticipated schedule for completion to this address by Friday ,
April 14 . The project will proceed upon Town Planning Board approval of the.
Preliminary Plat to be presented at the April 4th meeting . We request that
you hold your proposal open until June . l5th to allow for possible delays in
the approval process .
If there are arty questions , please calls
Very truly yours ,
C F: ENGINEERS MWMW , INC .
Steve Blust
PJL/SRB : lc
Ence
cc : file . 5107 . 10
_ . • . David A . McArdle , developer
Leslie Reizes
Ann Clark
Down of Ithaca " . :
EXHIBIT 4
. 1 .
j
• CLARK ENGINEERS
LIST . OF ADDRESSES
P . S . I . , Pittsburg Testing Lab Div
Attn : Peter Bloomquist , Div . Mgr .
6159 E . Molloy Rd .
E . Syracuse , NY 13057
Empire Soils Investigations
Attn : Mary L ' Amoreaux
105 Corona Ave .
Groton , NY 13073
Northstar Drillings
Attni Jeff Thew -
• PO Box 67
Courtlan , NY 13045
i
a
EXHIBIT 4
Consulting Engineers
Clark Engineers MW, Inc. 205 Muller Road Washington , Illinois 61571 309 - 444 - 8464 —
ry, VIL • MECHANICAL • STRUCTURAL • SURVEYING
I
• PROPOSE12 CA Ge LAS ESTATE
Comments on Preliminary Plat Submission for April 4 , 1989 . . ,
Planning Board
Please also refer to comments of • March , 7 , 1989
Open Space
There is no feasible access to the proposed " Outlot A " as
shown on the plat . Access from the . proposed Falling Waters
Drive would be blocked by the + / - 30 ' deep ravine . Access
from he—proposed - extension of Orehara H111 Read would not
be possible due to the steep slope of the ravine sides ,
which make construction of any means - of - access unfeasible .
Staff suggests that access to the . proposed park site be
provided from the end of the Orchard Hill Road cul - de - sac ,
as extended , using a portion of the area taken by lot 11 or
lot 12 where a park access . road and parking area could be
combined with access to the proposed Pump Station # 1 in its
presently proposed location or as it might be relocated .
The area along the ravine currently proposed as an access
point should then ' be incorporated into adjoining lots . Deed
covenants to protect the ra�iie sides and- rim can be used to - -
• ' protect the ravine and stream corridor . : ' Minimum setbacks
from the rim of the ravine , , similar to those implemented in
the deed covenants for the Southwoods . subdivision , may be
appropriate .
Proposed " Outlot4B" is not considered approporiate for
inclusion as public open space , but only for the proposed
sewer facility .
ll nsity . Conservation of Woodlaadl Wildlife Areas
In order to conserve more fully the more mature woodland
covering the northern + / - •01 / 3 of the site and reduce
potentially adverse environmental impacts , the lots in that
area of the project should be enlarged . This would reduce
the number of homes and amount of disturbance to the natural
environment . Within the group . comprising lots 8 through 13 ,
elimination of two lots and the enlargement of the remainder
is recommended . Within the group comprising lots 19 through
26 , elimination of two lots , and the enlargement of the
remainder is recommended .
Because access to the proposed Outlot A from the proposed
Falling Water Drive and extension of Orchard Hill Road is
not feasible , both roads could be shortened and the
cul - de - sac pulled away from the edge of the ravineAif the
platting of lots 7 to 13 and 19 to 26 is revised .
EXHIBIT 5
• In addition the proposed " Natural Area Easement " for lots 7
to 35 and lots 42 to 46 outlined in the proposed deed
covenants and restrictions should be strengthened . The area
of dwelling lots from which living . trees and shrubs can- be
removed should be revised downward from the 50 % proposed to
a maximum limit of - 12 , 500 square feet per lot , especially on
the . 20 lots ( lots # 7 to 17 , 19 to 26 , 32 ) which are covered
by mature woodland , ( 40 year old or older undisturbed
forest ) and those lots adjacent to Indian Creek , Under the
proposed 50 % ceiling , an average of approximately 24 , 000
square feet of living trees and shrubs could be removed from
these lots or a. combined total of approximately 14 . 3 acres .
The 12 , feet limit would , reduee t e -amount of
disturbed area within these lots to approximately 7 . 5 acres .
Adoption of the 12 , 500 square feet . limit on removal of
living trees and shrubs on the abovementioned lots , combined
with modification of the plat within the mature woodland
portion of the tract to eliminate four lots would reduce the
total amount of disturbance within the woodland that covers
the northern 1 / 3 of the site from approximately 10 acres to _.
approximately 5 . 5 acres : We believe that this reduction in
amount of site disturbance would substantially mitigate the
potentially significant impacts of . the proposed development
on the areas of mature woodland and along Indian Creek . .
• Lots 27 and 28 on the " Conventional ' Layolit are not legal
lots under Town of Ithaca Zoning requirements - for R- 15
districts . Neither lot meets the minimum 150 feet
requirement for lot depth , and cannot be used in determining
site density .
inagg
A number of . watercourses which flow through the project area
appear upon field inspection to be .established intermittent
or - year round - streams -. Preliminary - review of proposed _ .
drainage plans , including diversion of these streamg ,
indicates that revisions to , the drainage plans may be
necessary . Of special concern is the diversion of some .of
these streams and of much of the drainage . from areas west of
the site into the stream in the ravine on the north side of
the site . This stream is a " Classified " stream ( though not
" Protected " ) per the New York State Department - of
Environmental Conservation .
Staff recommends that the proposed drainage easements
( through lots 3 , 6 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 32 , 34 , 42 , and
43 ) be eliminated , Responsibility for maintaining the
involved watercourses , a number of which are the
intermittent or year round streams identified above , should
rest with individual property owners . Protection of these
EXHIBIT 5
istreams may be better accomplished through deed covenants
which would restrict disturbance in the vicinity of them .
C ilv _ r . Desian Detail
Design of the fill and culvert proposed for Orchard Hill
Road should be reconsidered . Staff has some concerns
regarding the gradient of the proposed culvert , as well as
provisions for stream velocity and , energy dissipation at the
culvert outfall which should be address . The stone riprap
embedded in concrete as proposed , while attractive , may have
– — --limited–durabi ity and should be reconsidered .
�Sil�ring�
Soil •borings should be conducted and test results submitted
to Town engineering staff prior to any further environmental
review or to Preliminary . Subdivision Approval by the
Planning Board .
Due to the number of� roads in the' Ithaca Post" Office service
• area that begin with "lake" il , an alternative to " Lakeview
Court " as a street name should be found .
Clustered Development
The proposed plat modifications discussed above may assist
in mitigating potential impacts of development on this site .
Th6' - Planhing Board should - -al'so consider whether the, .
objectives of cluster development , . particularly as stated in
Article . I , Section 2 and Article , V - of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulat-ioris would: , be met . -
EXHIBIT 5
s
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Erik Whitney Asst . Engineer
PLANNING - DO M MTG . 4 /4 /89
CAYOGA LAKE ESTATES :
1 ) Ravine crossings :
From an engineering standpoint building roads
across these ravines is very possible . In the
Town we have 33 crossings over these same ravines
along Taughannock . Blvd . ( N . Y . S . Rt . 89 ) and
approximately .an equal number - across the old rail
bed .
Since most of these crossings entail con-
siderable earthwork , erosion protection measures
and , . therefore , expense , the Planning Board should
consider the following very carefully ,
a . D_ esian lifer The design life of these ,
crossings . should be somewhere in the
Y neighborhood• of ' 100 years + , because at
some time : in the future the Town will
have to replace them at its own expense .
b . Maintenance Our Highway dept . willahave
.... .: .
at a minimum , the additional tasks of
periodic inspection and routine clearing
of debris from these crossings to prevent
blockage , . . . . t
w. .
c . , Drainage Easements: The . Town .should be
very careful , in ' . accepting responsibility .
for any of these drainageways outside of
our roadway rights of way . There are other
regulatory and legal controls in place
to insure that private owners do not
obstruct or divert these watercourses ,
The Town could run up a large bill
keeping these streams " pretty " between
all these private residences .
2 ) Additional. -Provisions :
The developer should provide the
r Town engineering department with design
calculations as well as plans in critical
areas to be determined by the Town Engineer .
EXHIBIT 6
__:'":b7;:..^it i .a .arr w'_ _ • w e - 1� 1, .'•.... s•+1'A¢4 �q w 9.. it i -�.Tr'.arl= �+...� s - ' _.._. _"x° �_ �". _
q.r 'L1.1F _ • 9 �„ J.y ^ r}P+!• -'� .�; � w S 4 - C �'-' > ..'OC
,�,K �. k i -xca yTP 'Sa.n._ 4Cni f � � -` ���. "�', • 1- V
. :yf " r v - S � _♦ � •.r- T' „�� �i• ov r Y . a... u. _ Fy .JL ,
Cr .. .., T•* .mow, + .. .'Y,y�T-�.-y�� .sn v f L�{. may., _ m
C'�' L � " '�f ` .: :' n _• r ! � ✓fir • Ye! p � e r-. 1 4 -+
_ .
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING%
}' r-
s-
- BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC
THE
HEARING TUES. , APRIL 4, 1989
IT� AC4kJOURNALBy direction of the Chairman
r of the Planning Board, NOTICE
�� . IS HEREBY GIVEN, that ' Public
Hearings will be held by'fhe
Planning Board of the Town of
Ithaca on Tuesday April. , 4,
r � , 1989, in Town Hall , 126 East
tr is Cm."' , Seneca Street, Ithaca; N. Y. , 'alt -
the following times and on the
following matters:
` _ 7: 30 P. M. Consideration of 6
DSL^ ^ � y � fes:".., rd "JOfGS
a- - V ; > . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . _ . _... . .. . . ___ e _ Request forModificationof
the terms of Final Subdivision
r,� � Approval with respect to` '
� = ii �'S , ! -_ z �! 1 t✓: L 24 :SCS. Q0U�i *)' AzWJ rwe 1&Z"Mcm)z Iz ;; "double row of evergreens to
be planted by Cornell north of
Lots 1 through 6", as noted on
f C the Forest Home Highlands
mit �' 3! .. _ .. - -- - __.-• --. - . --- •-- • - --- - - • -- . ._ . ._ . .... _. ... . ._. ` _. ..
the
Drive ) : Final Plat
of Tai IrsieA TOL?a � S J}J�1C fxw z - to � � :tit
doted/6/85, 1 approved rbyt the ,
2
_ . _ F. _.. P P• . ++Z '_. Planning Board on 12/17/85.-
James H. Fenner, Head Pro-
fessional, Cornell . University
= a' L.3'.II '. �' D+,LI^. t;
of iwwhi "b t:a &=ex &d is ! bt
v :. _ _ Golf Course, Applicant. : : :
7: 45 P.M. Consideration of
1sZ :��, L $ILL pav1t_ Site Plan Approval fora tial
pro-
41Y)o � ._.- _ . ..� . . _.._ .- .•.._._�__ _,_�.•.,• osed 5,000 ft. commercial
p sq
building, with parking . and
Ot
outdoor display, for Cannon
aYtY _ Q Recreation and Spa of Ithaca,
"' - " "' - - - --•• •• - •-•-• proposed to be located. on ,a
2. 016 plus/minus acre parce11
. proposed to be subdivided
.. .- - - . . . _. . . - ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . _ _ . . . .. . .. . . . . . . - .... . .. . .. .. . . _ .. _ - -. _ ... - . . _ ..._ . -. - - from Parcel No. 6.33-3-2. 2, for
which Preliminary Subdivision'
Approval , with conditions,'
t �L► � L`- L" S� C . S _ _ D : _ Y U-L! pC 1L• E r • _-•__• _ . was granted by the Planning:
Board on March 7, 1989, Light.
R Industrial District. Earland and
7
C � Robert d Axenfed,Mancini,
I
8:00 P. M. Consideration of
Q�-� Preliminary Subdivision. . Ap-
- - - • c .ate -`-- • _ proval with respect to the pro-
. _
posed "Indian Creek C Retire-
ment Community". for .the
1
C _ � _ t� !^ C fN'• 'C � ; fir • t ' r � J `. proposed subdivision of Town
- ' ' ' � " "" - "- " - " of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1
/ 1 -23 and a portion of Town of
D;r
9 Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1 -
- - ' - ' " - ' - = • --• • • • 1111• 32 with access onto Trumans-
burg Road, 69 plus/minus
acres total, into a 60-unit sin-
,- gle- or two-family attached
- - - .l�.r_ _. ._ ._ . ... .... .. . . . . .._.—_____ clustered subdivision, on 80-
x0rc:wy 'LLb , unit retirement condominium-
/cooperative , and public
JEAN i � � v � . open space. CMH Associates, .
� Owner ; HOLT Architects,
Notary Public; �ta -a Of i� P. W (Or1<C Agent.
8 : 30 P. M. Review of Prelimi- I
;. No. 40/ 4 �I 0 nary Plat application submis-
sionsor the proposed "Coyu
Qualified in Tc PII( ins Count,,/ go
ga Lake Estates" clustered
subdivision, proposed to Con
Commission expires May 31 19 . .� sist -oftsingle-famity lots
and propci , w uc--tucarea
east of Orchard Hill Road and
west of N. Y. S. Rt. 89, on Town
- of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-22-. .
2-2. 2, -2. 9, and 6-21 -1 -5, 65.9
_
plus/minus acres total, Resi-
dente District R-30. Edward
McArdle and Leslie N. Reiz, ' .
Owners; David A. McArdle, ' {_
_ -• Applicant. T
Said Planning Board will at
- said times and said place hear.
all persons in support of such -
matters or objections thereto...
Persons may appear by agent
or in person. ' I
Jean H. Swartwood .
Town Clerk
273- 1721
March 30, 1989