Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-04-18 a fltID TOWN Of ITHACA Date„ , TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk2 APRIL 18 , 1989 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , April 18 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 . East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , Robert Kenerson , Robert Miller , Stephen Smith , Montgomery May , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Sally Olsen ( Town Engineer ) , ALSO PRESENT : Paul B . Booth , Walter Barrick , Daniel Bower , Clare Hinrichs , Nancy Ostman , Tom Richard , Alex Blackmer , Jim Ainslie , Eugene Ball , Frank Liguori , Richard F . Pendleton , Ann Pendleton , Paul Richards , Josephine Richards , John Hirshfeld , Joseph Bylebyl , Carl Sgrecci , Richard Perry , Attorney Shirley K . Egan , Margaret Fabrizio , Attorney Richard P . Ruswick , Celia Bowers , Tom Niederkorn , Bob Wesley , Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting . . AGENDA ITEM : DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE FALL CREEK AS A NEW YORK STATE RECREATIONAL RIVER . Margaret Fabrizio approached the Board and asked if anyone had any general questions regarding the designation of Fall Creek , Virginia Langhans wondered if the designation would be accepted if Beebe Lake were included . Ms . Fabrizio responded that she thought so , because Cornell has such a complete management plan for that Beebe Lake area , also Cornell is committed to dredging practices in Beebe Lake , which is not for flood control , adding , if it is not for flood control then that is not an allowed use . Ms . Fabrizio appended a map to the bulletin board , and stated that the Village of Cayuga Heights would not be involved in the final boundary . Ms . Fabrizio commented that this proposal is not the kind of thing that happens overnight , but felt it was important to identify Fall Creek as a community resource , and to put some long - term planning into place for it . Ms . Fabrizio noted that many of the regulations will overlap with current zoning practices . Ms . Fabrizio said that this issue deals with a potential recreational designation . Ms . Fabrizio remarked that she is hoping to meet with the individual municipalities , along with Cornell , over the next couple of weeks . • Robert Kenerson wondered about the matter of being able to cross such a reserved area with roads . Ms . Fabrizio responded that a road { Planning Board - 2 - April 18 , 1989 • cannot be put in closer than 500 feet within the proposed boundary , adding , it is stipulated that one would try to cross it as perpendicularly as possible . Ms . Fabrizio offered that the Commissioner of Planning , Frank Liguori , has contacted DEC specifically about the northeast connector . Virginia Langhans asked about the lots on The Byway and Forest Home Drive , Ms . Fabrizio answered that the proposal was drawn just up over the bank in that section . Montgomery May wondered about the homeowners ' deeds that back up to the creek . Ms . Fabrizio offered that Thomas Jorling , Commissioner of the DEC , has been informed that if ' local municipalities ask that they be given the power to administer the various acts concerning the administration , it is looked upon very favorably . Town Planner Susan Beeners wondered if Ms . Fabrizio had mentioned the City of Ithaca committee , which Mayor Gutenberger was thinking of establishing , to the Planning Board , Ms . Fabrizio stated that she hoped each municipality would read over the material and pull together all their concerns . At this point , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that he had arrived late for tonight ' s meeting , and wondered about the status of the application . Ms . Fabrizio said that the application has been submitted and is being reviewed . Ms . Fabrizio noted that some • amendments were being made , one of them being that the dams were not included along that section , and one rare plant was left out . Ms . Fabrizio said that she was looking for support from all the municipalities . Ms . Langhans mentioned that the application was submitted before the Towns , and Cornell , were contacted . Ms . Fabrizio responded that she had contacted Cornell before the submittal , commenting that there were serious time constraints involved . Ms . Fabrizio said that this designation , if it is granted tomorrow , does not mean that the City cannot build a hydro -power plant , because the City already has all of the forms that they need to build a hydro -power plant , adding , any kind of existing uses are built into this legislation . Ms . Fabrizio commented that what Common Council would need to do , ultimately , would be to let its license expire on the hydro - power development , then this legislation would kick in to effectively keep out future hydro - power developers , but , because there is a time constraint with the City ' s license expiring , this could be a fairly lengthy process as it has to get through the State Assembly and State Senate . Ms . Fabri io stated that she knew that the State legislators would rather have the support of all the municipalities . Ms . Langhans wondered what would happen if the Town of Dryden , the Town of Ithaca , and Cornell , decide that they do not want this . Ms . Fabrizio answered , then it becomes much more complicated , but did not know , maybe it would be dead , or maybe fight harder . Mr . , Frantz , directing his comment to Ms . Fabrizio , offered that the Town of Ithaca has embarked on a major study of its regulations , l ' Planning Board - 3 - April 18 , 1989 • possibly going into a Comprehensive Plan , and addressing such issues as how to better protect Fall Creek . Ms . Fabrizio responded that the Town is not going to come up with something that is going to specifically protect Ithaca Falls . Mr . Frantz stated that the Town is interested in the portion of Fall Creek that is within the Town . Ms . Beener,s asked Ms . Fabrizio to explain why Common Council endorsed this without fully knowing what the interim boundaries might involve , adding that this is based on a phone call with Mayor Gutenberger , and while he reported that there was an endorsement by Common Council of the section within the City , and some kind of an encouragement that the other municipalities support it , she wondered how that could have happened , when several days later he reported that , - " Oh , we just found out that Cayuga Heights is involved in the interim boundary area . " Ms . Beeners asked if the implications have been fully evaluated as to the interim boundary area . Ms . Fabrazio responded that she thought Common Council members have looked at the regulations , and they know what happens during the interim period , adding that she did not think Common Council viewed a map in terms of the Cayuga Heights section . Ms . Fabrizio does not feel that that is that significant , although Common Council knew it was one - half mile starting from the mouth of the creek , and going up through Monkey Run . Ms . Beeners offered that she felt DEC needs to explain , in that it appears it could be anywhere from 90 days , or up to a year that the interim boundaries may be in place . Ms . Fabrizio said that the DEC has indicated , very specifically , that they would give a guarantee • that the boundary would be set by a certain date . Attorney Barney wondered , procedurally , if the application goes in , does it indicate proposed interim boundaries . Ms . Fabrizio responded that the interim boundaries would be one -half mile , so it would be automatic . Ms . Beeners commented that to establish the permanent boundaries is when the DEC would begin the Environmental Review process as the Lead Agency , and that is the time when all municipalities would have 30 days to concur , after it was voted on in the Legislature , and with no benefit of public hearing . Ms . Fabrizio offered that there are over 2000 miles of waterway in New York State that are included in this designation , and although a lot of it is in the Adirondacks much of it is also in very urbanized places , and people do live with this legislation . Board Member Stephen Smith wondered if there had been any feedback from Cornell , as they own most of the property . Ms . Fabrizio answered that she had been talking with Cornell , but has not talked with them in a few weeks , adding that she would be talking with them again as soon as possible . Attorney Shirley Egan , of the Cornell University Counsel ' s office , approached the Board and stated that she and Ms . Fabrizio met a couple of weeks ago . Attorney Egan stated that she likes to think of it as Cornell ' s request that Beebe Lake was left out , which , of • course , is the point where the creek intersects the Cornell Campus , Attorney Egan said that a lot of the concerns were relieved , but Cornell is still approaching this extremely cautiously . Attorney Egan Planning Board - 4 - April 18 , 1989 • noted that the regulations apply just simply to recreational rivers , which is the least restrictive of the three categories , and is probably the category that Fall Creek would fall under , because of its proximity to roadways and other built -up areas . Attorney Egan stated that it is very much a set of regulations that contemplates agricultural and single - family residential uses . Attorney Egan mentioned the criteria for issuance of permits , which should be a whole lot easier than getting a variance . Attorney Egan stated that she is very concerned about the possibility of stifling , not just for some - short term goal for preventing hydro - power , but into the next century . Attorney Egan said that she is concerned that it might be very difficult to secure permits and variances , adding that she is concerned as a citizen who is concerned about hydro- power , in the future of energy for this country . Attorney Egan offered that the hydro - power is federally licensed , not State licensed . Paul Booth , of the Forest Home Improvement Association , spoke from the floor and stated that , while he thought there is good intention here , he is a little leery of putting in place regulations where there are so many questions still left open . Mr . Booth mentioned questions such as limitations on use and boundaries being left up in the air until after the designation is made . Mr . Booth stated that he has trouble supporting something he cannot address publicly until after the fact . • Richard Pendleton , a Forest Home resident , addressed the Board and stated that he has lived on Fall Creek the last 65 years . Mr . Pendleton spoke about floods and the erosion that has happened along Fall Creek , Mr . Pendleton said that he is not against the designation if the property owners rights are preserved , adding that he is very uncomfortable with turning something over to the DEC . Celia Bowers , of 1406 Trumansburg Road , spoke from the floor and stated that , although she liked the concept of protecting a river , she very much supports the building of the hydro- power plant, commenting that she thinks one has to give up some things in this world , and clean power is a very , very important resource . Frank Liguori , County Commissioner of Planning , spoke from the floor and stated that if one is really concerned as to what this law really does and what the designation really does , something has to be filed with the DEC indicating that the whole Town is being studied . Mr . Liguori remarked that this designation is not unlike the State designating an historic building . Mr . Liguori offered that when the designation is made it becomes an overlay zone on top of the existing zoning , it takes precedent over the existing zoning . Attorney Ruswick spoke about repair and replacement . Attorney Ruswick said that the regulations provide that any lawfully existing use may be maintained , repaired , or replaced , as long as it is in the same location , and the same scale as the original structure . • Ms . Beeners offered that there are management practices already in place , such as the trail system . Ms . Beeners said that her main Planning Board - 5 - April 18 , 1989 • concerns are the lack of provision for public input before it all gets into gear at the State level , and the tremendous encumbrances that there might be with the interim boundary . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the discussion on the above - noted matter duly closed . MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Montgomery May : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that a statement / report be filed with the DEC informing them that a Comprehensive Study is being worked on , along with a request to be placed on their mailing list . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Smith , Baker , Langhans , May , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Ms . Beeners announced , for the benefit of everyone present , that the designation of Fall Creek as a New York State Recreational River will be an Agenda Item for discussion of possible recommendation to . the Town Board relative to the Planning Board ' s view of the matter . The discussion will be held at 8 : 30 p . m . , May 2 , 1989 . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED " ROSE HILL SUBDIVISION " , 100 RESIDENTIAL LOTS , 50 TOWNHOUSE UNITS , PLUS OPEN SPACE , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON MECKLENBURG AND WEST HAVEN ROADS ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 . JOSEPH BARRICK , LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT , INC . , APPLICANT . Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Dan Bower , of Hunt Engineers , approached the Board and stated that he was before the Board representing Lakeside Development , Inc . Mr . Bower appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Bower remarked that the developer has been in the process of coming up with a concept plan for several months . Mr . Bower indicated that one of the concerns from the last meeting was the east / west connector road , noting that that has been eliminated from the present plan . Town Planner Susan Beeners mentioned the maximum 1000 - foot cul de sac . Ms . Beeners wondered where the location of Phase I and II is anticipated at this time . Mr . Bower [ indicating on map ] responded • that " this " would be a cut - off phase , adding that until this next phase is done there would not be another outlet . Mr . May said that the cul de sac cannot exceed 1000 feet . Mr . Bower stated that that Planning Board - 6 - April 18 , 1989 • would be for a permanent dead - end cul de sac , " this " would be a phasing line , not a permanent dead - end cul de sac . Ms . Beeners inquired about the prior construction of Phase II in that either the entire road all the way back to Route 79 would have -to be constructed or would there be any possibility that what is shown as a possible trail route could be built to the types of specs which could take an emergency vehicle . Mr . Bower responded that that is certainly a possibility as that possibility eliminates drawing traffic through " this " particular portion of the development , adding , we could put a gravel base in and at least make that an emergency access . Attorney Barney commented that the liklihood of a bond or some kind of security would have to be faced that that would , indeed , be constructed . Attorney Barney offered that the cul de sac over 1000 feet , even in the phases , is not permitted- ; once one goes beyond 1000 feet , there has to be a secondary means of access to the area , even on a temporary basis , particularly if one is coming in with final site approval in phases . Mr . Bower noted that , if they could bond by phase , and then bond ahead for the connection part , that would be acceptable , commenting , this would not be needed for the first phase ; it would be only at the point of hitting the 1000 - foot cul de sac . Mr . Bower noted that the next issue was the set- backs that are associated with R- 30 zoning , which become less meaningful in a cluster development . Mr . Bower said that the set - back restrictions governing R- 30 are 30 - foot frontage , 40 - foot side yard , and 50 - foot rear yard , commenting that those measurements are , obviously , too restrictive for one - half acre lots . Mr . Bower said that the developer has not iron -clad anything , but they are looking at the possibility of something in the nature of 25 feet for frontage , 15 feet for side yard , and 30 feet for rear yard . Mr . Bower stated that the developer wants some flexibility with the building envelopes because of the size of the lots . Ms . Beeners offered that the project , if it is following the mechanism that , indeed , the Planning Board has seen , and may see again , an exercise of what a conventional plat looks like to determine density . Ms . Beeners stated that this is submitted as a cluster plan , and the developer is asking that the typical R- 30 yard requirements be waived under cluster to permit what is being proposed . Mr . Bower responded that Ms . Beeners ' comment is exactly what the developer is looking at . The Board members agreed with Ms . Beeners ' comment . At this point , Mr . Bower mentioned building heights . Mr . Bower said that with the proposed hillside - type development , the peak height is somewhat restrictive , but in an area where flat roofs were more prevalent , it would not be . Mr . . Bower [ indicating on map ] wondered if a variance could be sought , particularly in reference to " this " area , and in support of that , noted that the developer has preserved a wooded area . Mr . Bower stated that he felt the development was in a marginal area when discussing 30 feet in height , it is in an area where a lot of the buildings are around 34 - 35 feet in height . Mr . May stated that he certainly agreed with Mr . Bower in that he thinks the Zoning Ordinance is overly restrictive , but , unfortunately , he did not think the Planning Board can do anything about it ; that is a ZBA 0 issue . Planning Board - 7 - April 18 , 1989 • Ms . Langhans wondered , concerning the townhouses , what kind of height Mr . Bower was talking about . Mr . Bower responded that , typically , they all are on somewhat of a slope , and he is talking about 32 - 34 feet , which would be three stories . Att orney Barney stated that the area requirements could be modified , and he felt that the implication from that would probably also be to modify the height . Chairman Grigorov , referring to the height , said that she would hesitate to say definitely that that would be done . Attorney Barney agreed with Chairman Grigorov . Chairman Grigorov stated that there was a safety concern about the pond being near the trail . Ms . Beeners offered that there will be a grade difference between the trail and the pond . Mr . Bower stated that , basically , they would be creating some more berm area . Ms . Langhans asked who would maintain the pond , with Mr . Bower answering , that would be part of an association , adding that all of the lands would be maintained by an association . Ms . Beeners expressed her view in that there is a lot of open space for a Homeowners ' Association to maintain . Mr . Bower responded that if it became too great a task for the association to maintain , then certainly the association would have the right to offer it to the Town . Robert Miller wondered what was decided about the height . Chairman Grigorov responded that the developer would try to conform with the 30 feet . Mr . Bower said that they will look over the plans , and if there is a problem they will submit some elevations . • Town Engineer Sally Olsen wondered about the 100 - foot reserve strip that is reserved , if the Town decides to do so in the future , to construct a road . Ms . Olsen stated that it looks as though it is cutting through properties No . 92 - 95 . Ms . Olsen inquired if it would connect into the existing winding road . Mr . Bower [ indicating on map ] responded that that is an existing easement ; it is not a reserve strip past " this " point , adding that there would be restrictions about building on " these " lots out of the easement of the power line . Ms . Langhans , directing her comment to Mr . Bower , wondered if the developer was going to sell individual lots or construct homes on the lots . Mr . Bower responded that right now it is proposed to be a combination of both . Walter Barrick , developer of the project , commented that there have been suggestions on changing the project name . Mr . Barrick offered that one of the suggestions was " City Lights " . Mr . May remarked that he believed there was a business named City Lights located on West Hill . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the " Rose Hill Subdivision " Sketch Plan duly closed . • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED " SHALEBROOK " DEVELOPMENT , 1138 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 11 . 2 , 152 ± ACRES TOTAL , PROPOSED TO Planning Board - 8 - April 18 , 1989 • CONSIST OF A FIRST -PHASE 21 - LOT SUBDIVISION , WITH TOT LOT , ON 30 ± ACRES , WITH POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON THE REMAINING ACREAGE . RICHARD AND JO PERRY , OWNERS ; THOMAS NIEDERKORN , AGENT , Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Thomas Niederkorn , Agent for the project , approached the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the Perrys have approximately 150 acres of land , which is bordered on the south by the line between their land and the Ceracche property , bordered on the north by Bundy Road , bordered on the east by Trumansburg Road , and bordered on the west by a natural property line . Mr . Niederkorn said that Williams Brook runs through the center of the property . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the intent of the Perrys is to develop the entire parcel , for residential purposes , some time in the future . Continuing , Mr . Niederkorn said that the first intent is to build the first phase , which is approximately 30 acres located in the northwest portion of the property , adding that it is an area that is wooded on the west side , and the east half of the 30 - acre parcel is a field . Mr . Niederkorn commented that a land use plan had been presented at the last meeting for the entire area , which suggested • that the portion of the field just above the farmhouse could possibly become some sort of a retirement community . Indicating on the map , Mr . Niederkorn stated that a road could come from Bundy Road where there is a right - of -way to the north , going across the Perry property , across Williams Glen , back up to the south , and tying in somehow to Mecklenburg Road , Mr . Niederkorn said that , in addition , the developer is considering a connection , somehow , to a larger road connection to the west of the Perry parcel . Mr . Niederkorn said that the proposed connection is with Hopkins Road on the north , and West Haven Road on the south . Mr . Niederkorn said that the developer , at this time , has no idea whether it would be a good idea or suggestion , but the developer thought it would , perhaps . accommodate some kind of long - range future movement of traffic on a collector - type of road that would go up to Hayts Road , then possibly into DuBois Road , Mr . Niederkorn pointed out on the map the location of the new West Hill Fire Station , along with the Tompkins County Hospital , Mayer School , Nursing Home , and the apartments . Mr . Niederkorn commented that the first plan showed a large lot development , with a cul de sac that came in off [ indicating on map ] " this " spine road , and swung around to the south , adding , there were two problems with that - one being the cul de sac was longer than was permitted by the Subdivision Regulations , not when the entire road system was constructed , but , initially , when " this " portion was constructed . Mr . Niederkorn said that the second concern was that the Planning Board wanted the • developer to consider a cluster arrangement , commenting that the developer proceeded with a cluster arrangement proposal . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the first thing the developer did was to draw a Planning Board - 9 - April 18 , 1989 • conventional subdivision so they would have some idea of how many units could be built , as per the 15 , 000 square feet per dwelling unit . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer is proposing 50 units on the 30 acres , with about three acres of park area , and 3450 lineal feet of roadway . Mr . Niederkorn said that 20 of the units are situated in the woods , and 30 units outside the woods . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the minimum lot size varies from 9000 square feet , which is the smallest one , up to about 17000 - 18000 square feet . Mr . Niederkorn said the developer has gone through the excerise of developing a cluster plan , but it is not the plan they want to propose , because , for a number of reasons , it is not what they want to build . Mr . Niederkorn noted that , by clustering , the developer has 20 dwelling units in the woods on smaller lots , but because there are more of them they are going to be , in fact , using up more of the wooded resource than the plan the developer really wants to propose . Mr . Niederkorn stated that , secondly , the land left over that is outside the woods does not , right now , have any particular advantage in terms of making this a desirable neighborhood , or making the units more saleable . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the third point was that the developer is a bit concerned that smaller lots , even though smaller lots in this case do not really result in a savings of roads , and therefore , the cost per lot is about the same as a conventional , because he felt smaller lots would be less appealing to people who , perhaps , have a larger choice of smaller lots in the Ithaca area than the type of thing the developer is trying to propose , commenting that , • from an economic point of view , it does not make any sense for the developer to go to smaller lots , when , in fact , the developer wants to build bigger lots , adding , the developer also feels that it would tend to destroy more of the natural wooded area , and the savings as to the cluster design are practically non - existent . Chairman Grigorov wondered if there was a reason for clustering in the woods . Mr . Niederkorn responded that the woods are the most appealing , and enhances the marketability . Mr . Niederkorn said that the overall position has been that the total acreage would eventually be developed , adding that the developer would consider the whole thing , in fact , it has been prior stated that the entire acreage would be ultimately considered a cluster . Mr . Niederkorn noted that there are places , which have been indicated on the drawing , how townhouses , if that happens to be something that is desirable at the time , could be placed going down " this " hill , and they could also be placed over on the other side . Mr . Niederkorn said that when one would look at the whole 150 acres instead of just the first phase , one would see that , in fact , it was a cluster , that there were some areas that would be saved . Indicating on map , Mr . Niederkorn noted that the advantage of just saving " this " sliver of woods is something the developer does not see , at this point . Mr . Niederkorn said that the developer thinks he can save more of the woods as a feature ; as a natural resource , it will not be publicly accessible and publicly owned , but more of the woods would be saved if the developer goes to the larger lots rather • than the smaller lots . Mr . Niederkorn offered that , to ignore the woods as a sales feature , is to ignore something that is crucial in the success of the subdivision . Ms . Bee ners mentioned that the woods Planning Board - 10 - April 18 , 1989 • had a long history of being used as a woodlot , adding , there are portions of it that appear to have been logged , and there is a lot of space in between the large trees so it does make it fairly easy to site houses . Mr . Niederkorn stated that , if the developer thought the Town was interested in having the woods as some sort of publicly accessible space , then that would be another thing , but it does not seem to be a reasonable consideration , so the owner would like to take maximum advantage of this resource in the sale of his lots . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the subdivision was designed to eliminate the cul de sac , and considered the possibility of having some sort of emergency exit until such time as the final road system was in place , but he did not feel that that was appropriate as no one knows how long that would be . Mr . Niederkorn said that the cul de sac has been re - designed and there is a loop road , so that , in the first stage , at least , Riley Drive would come in , and would complete a loop , which would be two ways in and two ways out . Mr . Niederkorn [ indicating on map ] said that he felt it was important , in the long run , for the Town to work out its major circulation system for " this " portion of West Hill , and then the developer would accommodate their minor local road system to it . Mr . Niederkorn , mentioning the 30 acres , said that there is less road length in the present design , 21 houses instead of 50 , the minimum lot size is 37 , 500 , which is 2 - 1 / 2 times what the zoning would . require , and noted that there are nine dwelling units located within the wooded area . Mr . Niederkorn pointed to the map and indicated potential future single - family attached , or townhouse kind of development , which would be clustering , single - family detached housing , and an area at the top of the hill in the southwest portion , which , at some future time , could become a recreation area . Continuing , Mr . ` Niederkorn stated that the developer would like the Sketch Plan to incorporate the presented kind of design , with 21 lots , and with the idea of a small Tot Lot along Williams Glen . Montgomery May stated that the project looks nice , and all the Board Members agreed with Mr . May , Mr . Niederkorn noted that the developer ' s schedule would be to proceed with the preliminary drawings and design on the basis of tonight ' s meeting . Ms . Beeners , directing her comment to Mr . Niederkorn , wondered what the road expectation would be like next to the Tot Lot , Ms . Beeners asked how the road grade would correspond to the Tot Lot . Mr . Niederkorn [ indicating on map ] said that the road would be located approximately " here " , adding , there probably would be a large culvert at " this " point , and would probably be raised to reduce the grade on both sides , going down into the brook , and there would be an embankment going down into the Tot Lot , so that the road would be • higher . Ms . - Beeners recommended that it be looked at to make sure there is some provision for safe access , whether it be pedestrian , or vehicular traffic . Attorney Barney inquired about the dedication of Planning Board - 11 - April 18 , 1989 the Tot Lot , Mr . Niederkorn replied that the intent is not to dedicate the Tot Lot , at this point , to the Town . Attorney Barney asked , in terms of creating the road , what would be dedicated to the Town in the first phase ? Mr . Niederkorn answered that in the first phase the dedication to the Town would stop [ pointing to map ] at " this " point , so " this " would be the Town road , adding , the Tot Lot , at this stage , would be privately owned . Attorney Barney offered that in doing the restrictive covenants , it would be useful also to talk about the prohibition against subsequent subdivisions . Chairman Grigorov wondered about the dedication of open space . Mr . Niederkorn replied , at this point , the developer does not plan to do anything , but will suggest that by approving this sketch plan , basically , the whole idea is being approved , and will be looking at a major dedication at the top of the hill . Mr . Niederkorn noted that there is also the provision of the " in lieu of " provision . Ms . Langhans asked about the number of acres , with Mr . Niederkorn answering , " this " is 30 acres and " this " is about 15 acres . Attorney Barney offered that this is a nice plan , but should not be taken as approval of what goes on in anything other than the 30 acres . Mr . Niederkorn responded , in that case , the . developer would request that the money contribution in lieu of land would be considered in this particular case . Mr . Frantz mentioned the Tot Lot area and the road embankment , in that the embankment may offer the opportunity for a pedestrian underpass to connect the Tot Lot with areas on the east • side of the road . Mr . Niederkorn agreed with Mr . Frantz , Chairman Grigorov indicated that the Planning Board members would like to view the land before the preliminary approval . Mr . Perry , developer of the land , stated that he would like the members to view the land . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the proposed " Shalebrook " Development Sketch Plan Review duly closed . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED " HACKBERRY LANE " SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 5 NEW LOTS , WITH CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE , AT 144 COY GLEN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 31 - 1 - 3 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THOMAS RICHARD AND CLARE HINRICHS , OWNERS ; COY GLEN ASSOCIATES , APPLICANT . Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Richard addressed the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Richard [ indicating on map ] said that the site , in general , is along the bottom of Coy Glen Road , and abuts Five Mile Drive . Mr . • Richard added that the area , for quite a while , was used as a road , adding that the area has largely re - grown in the last 30 + years , and there are remmants of the road that had existed . Mr . Richard Planning Board - 12 - April 18 , 1989 mentioned that he and his wife own a larger parcel that is outlined on the map , and which consists of about 45 acres , commenting that they had purchased the property from Cornell Plantations about 5 years ago . Mr . Richard stated that when he purchased the property there were a number of restrictions which Cornell Plantations placed on the deed , including a restriction of the maximum number of dwelling units on the entire parcel , which was noted as 10 units . Mr . Richard offered that he built a home for himself , and proposes to build five more down in the corner where there is Town water and sewer available . Mr . Richard noted that it is an R- 30 zone which would permit more homes , but they are only constructing five . Mr . Richard stated that the Hackberry trees seem to be concentrated along the perimeter of the property , which is the stream bank . Mr . Richard said that to minimize the number of stream crossings through that area , the developer proposes to construct the road, to get past that , and also to cross the small stream that runs along Coy Glen Road , then set the houses off the cul de sac . Mr . Richard mentioned that Cornell . Plantations owns a fairly major natural area behind the subject property , and which runs along Coy Glen Creek , commenting that that area , currently , does not have any road access , as his property cuts off the road access that was originally there . Mr . Richard offered that he is proposing a deed of a 25 - foot wide road right - of -way for Cornell , in order for them , and visitors , to get into the natural area . Robert Miller mentioned that he had visited the site today , and • noted that the topo looked very rough . Mr . Richard responded that he hoped that was not the case , but noted that the section where Lot No . 2 is located has a fairly large mound that would have to be leveled . Ms . Beeners stated that , instead of doing the 10 % open space dedication , the developer is proposing the combination of deed restrictions on the lots . Ms . Beeners wondered if a conservation easement would be granted . Mr . Richard replied that he was somewhat flexible on that ; the proposal is to use a deed restriction as a covenant , to restrict that area of land , i . e . , in terms of language , that no cutting of trees larger than 6 " diameter would be permitted , and no cutting of Hackberry trees , as well as no structures within that area . Ms . Langhans stated that on other developments the cutting of trees has gone down to 3 " . Mr . May wondered how big the Hackberry trees were . Mr . Richard answered that they range ; there are quite a few that are 3 " in diameter or so , and some that are 13 " - 15 " in diameter . Robert Miller wondered how deep the gully was where the developer plans to put the road . Mr . Richard responded that the gully depth varies ; the location where it is proposed to cross it has a poured concrete slab which was used as a haul road , and it is only 3 ' - 4 ' below the adjacent grades , commenting that farther down it goes to about 10 feet , and farther uphill , it is maybe 20 ' - 30 ' below the road . Attorney Barney pointed to the map and wondered what the island was in the middle of the circle . Mr . Richard answered that , • basically , the developer is trying to keep as many trees there as possible , and that happened to be a nice area . Ms . Beeners said that the Highway Superintendent , John Ozolins , and Town Engineer Sally Planning Board - 13 - April 18 , 1989 Olsen would comment on this . Ms . Beeners offered that she has started a practice of forwarding road matters immediately to Mr . Ozolins , adding , from conversations , this appears to be one of his preferred kinds of things to appear in the middle of a cul de sac , because it does make it easer for maintenance . Attorney Barney asked if the Town would own the island , and if so , would it be part of the dedication of the road , with Mr . Richard answering , yes . Mr . Kenerson wondered if all the lots had been checked for frontage and set - back requirements . Ms . Beeners replied that , yes , the lots look fine in that respect . Ms . Beeners inquired about the proposed road access that will be deeded to Cornell , in that would it be something that the developer would be improving , or would Cornell be improving it ; would it be open to the public and would it be advertised to be open to the public . Mr . Richard responded that , in terms of the improvements , the developer is hoping that that falls fairly close to the old haul road . Nancy Ostman , of Cornell Plantations , stated that , in terms of access , all of the Plantations ' natural areas are open to the public , but they are not advertised . Ms . Beeners wondered if there was any benefit provided , with Ms . Ostman replying , one would have to say , no . Ms . Ostman stated that if anyone ever comes to the Plantations and asks for directions to any natural area , then the information is given to them with the understanding that they will treat it well , noting , the Plantations has never refused directions to anyone . Ms . Ostman said that the directions are not kept secret , but they are not advertised . • Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Attorney Shirley Egan , of Cornell University , wondered if the land which the subject road is supposed to give access to is otherwise land- locked . Attorney Egan responded that there is a legal access into the property across the Richard / Hinrichs property , it is just the right to cross , and there is also the right to go in on the road that goes to their houses , so it is not totally land- locked in that sense , but neither does it have a road ; if Cornell were to try and develop it there really is not a way to do so . Attorney Barney said that is what he was worried about , in terms of planning for the Town of Ithaca , the plan is probably to hold it forever wild , but on the other hand , in terms of good planning , if the land is land - locked now , some provision should be made for the possibility that some time in the future someone might , including Cornell , want to develop it for some purpose . Attorney Barney noted that if it is limited to 25 - feet of access , then it is not adequate . Ms . Langhans wondered how one could build within a conservation area . Ms . Beeners stated that this is a Critical Environmental Area , and it appeared to her that Cornell ' s property is not land - locked at the present time ; it is just hard to use it , but the access is there . Ms . Beeners said that half of the site , where the housing is proposed , is within the CEA , and is the only one the Town has , adding , all that really means is that the project would have to be reviewed as a Type I Action . Ms . Beeners offered that a Long Environmental Assessment Form • had been submitted to her , adding that there are really no other requirements except to review it as Type a I action , commenting , it does appear that in the beginning there had been some problem getting Planning Board - 14 - April 18 , 1989 input from Plantations , especially in regard to botanical impacts . Ms . Beeners offered that the site is a real mixed bag because of the gravel material that was there before . Attorney Barney wondered if Attorney Egan thought the Cornell piece was not technically land - locked . Attorney Egan replied that it is not technically land - locked . Attorney Barney wondered if it has frontage on a road , with Attorney Egan answering , no , it has access . Attorney Barney wondered what kind of access . Attorney Egan responded that there is access over another road . Chairman Grigorov asked if it was the top end of it . Ms . Ostman said that Cornell ' s area does not go that far up . Mr . Richard stated that , originally , Cornell had about 90 acres of which he purchased about half , and in discussions with them on how much to buy , a property line was developed about 50 ' - 100 ' away from the lip of the gorge to provide a good visual barrier , but Coy Glen Gorge is very steep in certain parts , and Cornell ' s property is , basically , a strip fairly narrow on the north side of that gorge , so that road access for most of that property does not mean a whole lot . Ms . Ostman interjected with , not unless one would permit building in a gorge , adding , the earlier discussions have indicated that that is not one of the things that the Town would particularly encourage . Attorney Barney stated he did not mean to suggest that the Town would do that , commenting , if one looks at how a piece of land is subdivided today , what impact would it have on land 50 years from now , noting that it cannot be overlooked that there should be some access . Ms . Beeners wondered , if it was approved in this fashion , with a condition that no building permit for a dwelling be issued for the Cornell • property . Mr . May wondered if one would envision that this would not be a residence of any kind , but it might be some kind of an educational facility . Ms . Ostman stated that Cornell is in the process of being gifted property farther up the Glen , commenting , if there were to be an educational facility , that is on Coy Glen Road , and Cornell would have access . Mr . Smith asked if that would adjoin the current property , with Ms . Ostman answering , no . Ms . Ostman offered that Cornell has been trying , for three years , to buy a continuous strip along the Glen , which is why , in fact , they sold the property to Richard / Hinrichs . Attorney Barney wondered if a restriction could be put on the 25 - foot access , and increase it enough to have 60 feet , in other words have a " no build " area 15 ' on either side of the 25 ' right - of -way , and have side yards begin at that point . Ms . Beeners said that an alternative would be to go through the cluster process , in effect , and show how many lots they can conventionally plat on the land , then have a waiver of the frontage requirements , and have that actually shown as a right - of -way . Mr . May , directing his comment to Attorney Barney , stated that , why not just let the minutes show that Cornell University , the owner of the adjacent land , did not want the additional right - of -way , as that , it seemed to him , would take the Town off the hook completely . Attorney Barney referred to the Subdivision Regulations , Section 23 , No . 2 , Page 16 , which states : " The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of the principal streets in adjoining subdivisions or for their proper projection when adjoining • property is not subdivided , and shall be of a width at least as great as that of existing connecting streets or the minimum highway widths established here . As a general rule the right- of - way of streets shall Planning Board - 15 - April 18 , 1989 not be less than sixty ( 60 ) feet . The street arrangement must provide for reasonable access from adjoining property that has not been subdivided . " Ms . Langhans wondered if the Hackberry trees were in one specific spot . Mr . Richard responded that the trees outline three sides of the parcel . Ms . Ostman said that they are partly on the south side of the parcel , because they are also on the Catholic Cemetery property . Ms . Ostman offered that a Hackberry tree can grow as tall as 70 ' - 75 ' feet . Chairman Grigorov wondered if the conservation easement could be used as the open space . Ms . Bee ners replied that that could be done , but one has to realize there are deed restrictions as far as limiting clearing on lots . Mr . Kenerson wondered if the main Coy Glen creek was on the subject property , or is it on the cemetery property . Mr . Richard said that it is on the cemetery property and on Cornell property . Robert Miller , directing his comment to Mr . Richard , asked Mr . Richard if he was the developer and the owner . Mr . Richard answered that he and his wife , Clare Hinrichs , are the owners , and Alex Blackmer is a partner in the development . Mr . Miller remarked that the property looked like a very difficult piece of property to develop . . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Hackberry Lane Subdivision Sketch Plan Review duly closed . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 7 , 1989 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March 7 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Miller , Smith , May . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . AGENDA ITEM : Planning Department Report Ms . Beeners , along with the Board members , held a discussion on the request for rezoning of some South Hill properties , from R- 9 to R- 15 . MOTION by Montgomery May , seconded by Virginia Langhans : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the referral of the r Planning Board - 16 - April 18 , 1989 consideration of rezoning properties on South Hill wait until such time as the consultant has had an opportunity to evaluate the present Comprehensive Plan and future Comprehensive Plan , and the impacts thereon . Board Member Robert Miller asked , why just South Hill ? Mr . May responded with , because that is what the letter asks for . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Miller , Smith , May . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . At this time , Ms . Beeners announced to the Board members that Norbert Schickel would probably be coming back before the Board to discuss the walk -way ,. as to whether he should still be required to provide a walk - way or not . Ms . Beeners stated that she had asked Mr . Schickel to submit a proposal in writing , or a summary of what is happening , because it seemed to her that it was something that is re -visited quite often . Mr . May offered that everyone should go up and look at the new houses , and compare them to the old ones . Robert Kenerson wondered about Cornell Quarters . Ms . Beeners replied that they will be before the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 19 , 1989 for a reconsideration of the Special Approval , now that the Sprinkler requirement is understood by everybody not to be proposed . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Grigorov declared the April 18 , 1989 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .