HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-05-02 FRW
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date 1—ed'
Cier imv&* &d/ft
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MAY 2 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , May 2 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Vice - Chairperson Virginia Langhans , James Baker , Robert
Miller ,
Montgomery May , Robert Kenerson , Stephen Smith , William
Lesser , George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Susan C .
Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Sally S . Olsen ( Town Engineer ) , John
C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Scott Lucas , David Herrick , A , M , Chambliss , Peter
Trowbridge , J . S . Ainslie , E . H . Ball , Karl Niklas ,
Edward J . Cobb , Celia Bowers , L . Bonanni , Myrtle & John
Whitcomb , Attorney Shirley K . Egan , Lisa E . Blackwell ,
Nancy Ostman , Rosalind Grippi , Kinga Gergely , Bill
Hilker , Pam Sackett , Margaret Fabrizio ,
Vice -Chairperson Langhans 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 April 25 , 1989 , and April 27 , 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 ,
as appropriate , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of
the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning ,
and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on April 26 ,
1989 .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State ,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control .
PUBLICNHEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 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 , 66 . 7 ± ACRES TOTAL ,
INTO A CLUSTERED CONDOMINIUM RETIREMENT SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF AN
80 - UNIT BUILDING , 60 DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE - OR TWO- FAMILY ATTACHED
STRUCTURES , AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE , CMH ASSOCIATES , OWNER ; HOLT
ARCHITECTS , AGENT ,
Vice - Chairperson Langhans declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 38 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Lucas addressed the Board and stated that when the proposal
was before the Board at a prior meeting there was a discussion of the
information concerning the restrictions on the occupancy , ownership ,
i
Planning Board - 2 - May 2 , 1989
and use of the units . Mr . Lucas said that it was mentioned at the
meeting that a table of contents , or something similar , would be
appropriate , adding , CMH finally decided to provide the complete set
of condominium documents to the Board . Mr . Lucas stated that one item
in the document needs to be deleted from one line , which regards the
cutting of trees in the buffer zone , commenting , that will be made
before the final copy is submitted .
Mr . Lucas offered that the design has been redone by the
architects , with additional legends in identifying information . Mr .
Lucas stated that all of the units are intended to be condo units ; the
detached dwellings will be sold as condo units , and not as fee simple
lots , adding that the whole 140 units are condos , and the property
would be owned in common by the owners ' association .
Vice -Chairperson Langhans noted that this was a Public Hearing
and asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45 p . m . and
brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans announced that the Public Hearing would
be closed for the moment , but would open it again , if the need arises .
Robert Ken erson wondered if the sewer hook - up across Route 96
would be alright , as far as the Town engineering is concerned . Town
Engineer Sally Olsen stated that a permit would have to be secured
• from the State DOT to cross the road . Mr . Trowbridge said that CMH
has been in touch with the DOT .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that it should be noted that
arrangements are built into the Local Law , as far as the formulation
of an agreement , prior to any building permit issuance , related to the
provision of water / sewer to the site , because there will be some
easements needed to get through the Poyer and Tilitz properties to the
subject property , commenting that Mr . Lucas has agreed to contribute
about $ 300 . 00 per unit for upgrading the sewer below the Hospital
line . Ms . Beeners noted that , with the affects of providing water ,
there are some arrangements as well that would allow for some
different contingencies , and noting that the current plan probably
being that Mr . Lucas would be constructing around 1400 - 1600 feet of
watermain along Trumansburg Road , at about half of what it would take
to reach the subject project . Ms . Beeners stated that that type of an
extension has been in the Town ' s plans for at least a couple of years .
Ms . Beeners stated that staff is reasonably satisfied that there will
be a fair agreement reached , as far as both of those items go .
Mr . Kenerson wondered if the water pressure would be adequate .
Ms . Olsen responded that CMH is proposing to build a hydropneumatic
pump station . Mr . Ken erson also wondered if that would be a pumping
station that CMH would own , keep , and dismantle when the Town pressure
increases enough so that it is not needed . Mr . Herrick offered that
it is proposed that the hydropneumatic system would be constructed
0 somewhere around the present intersections with DuBois Road and
Trumansburg Road , adding that the system would be designed to Town
1
Planning Board - 3 - May 2 , 1989
standards and deeded over to the Town , if that is what is required ,
for Town maintenance . Mr . Herrick stated that that short section of
line from the intersection , up to the project , would provide benefits
to the residents , plus to the project itself . Mr . Kenerson asked
about the anticipated timing of the phasing . Mr . Lucas answered that
CMH anticipates , at the present time , to begin construction next
spring , adding , CMH is looking at a year for the first phase . Mr .
Lucas offered that the plan is to build the first phase once a number
of the units are sold , commenting that CMH wants to do it that way ,
because they want to get the construction completed fairly quickly .
Mr . Kenerson asked about the completion of both phases . Mr . Lucas
responded that the plan is for four years , depending on the economy ;
it could turn out to be five or six years . Mr . Kenerson , directing
his comment to Mr . Lucas , wondered how far CMH was going to go with
the installation of utilities in Phase I . Mr . Lucas replied that the
tentative plans are to front - load as much of that cost as they can .
Mr . Lucas stated that their expectation is , basically , the first phase
would pay for all of the improvements to the infrastructure .
Ms . Langhans mentioned that it is not expected to construct any
of the roads until the spring of 1990 . Mr . Lucas responded that that
was his expectation .
Mr . Smith , directing his comment to Mr . Lucas , wondered about the
current anticipated cost . Mr . Lucas stated that he did not want to be
disingenuous , he knows what the goal is , but wants to be cautious , as
• he noted the first time CMH was before the Board , adding , if he said a
number was their goal , then somehow that becomes a guarantee . Mr .
Lucas said that there are certain things that he has no control over ;
Mr . Babcock has not stepped forward to cut the price of the property
to CMH , and a one percentage point swing in interest rates essentially
contributes about $ 1 , 000 . 00 in cost , one way or the other , noting that
he does not have control over that . Mr . Lucas offered that in 1988
the average sale price of a home in the Town and City of Ithaca was
$ 981r800 . 001 adding , over the last three years property values have
been increasing on an average of 13 . 8 % , and if that trend holds up for
1989 the average price in 1989 will be somewhere around $ 112 , 400 . 00 ,
commenting , he believed that CMH has to be very close to that number ,
or the market would chase them away . Mr . Lucas offered that his
expectation would be that CMH would bring some units to market below
the average cost in the community , and there will be some units above
the average cost in the community . Mr . Lucas stated that he cannot
say what the average cost would be in 1990 , but felt that the
$ 110 , 000 . 00 - $ 115 , 000 . 00 range is probably a realistic estimate .
Mr . Lesser asked about the anticipated unit owners assessment for
common expenses of the association . Mr . Lucas responded that , for
this project , it is important to understand that there are two
components to that ; one is a discretionary component in that what is a
fixed component like a typical condo fee . Mr . Lucas said that the
fixed component would include all the customary condo expenses : common
• area taxes , maintenance , security , and it probably will include some
transportation component , or at least some portion of that insurance
for the common area spaces . Mr . Lucas stated that he thought it would
1
Planning Board - 4 - May 2 , 1989
probably come out somewhere around $ 150 . 00 - $ 200 . 00 per month . Mr .
Lucas offered that the other costs for things such as housekeeping
within the individual units , for meals , and for personal care
services , which would be provided by the Tompkins Community Hospital ,
adding that he is not directly involved in any of those transactions .
Mr . Lucas offered that the typical prices in other developments like
the subject proposal consist of the main meal being on the order of
$ 250 . 00 - $ 300 . 00 per month , the housekeeping for 2 hours a week tends
to run about $ 150 . 00 per month . Mr . Lucas offered that his guess
would be that , if someone moved in and purchased a heavy array of
services , then the charge for that would be in the vicinity of $ 700 . 00
per month .
Mr . Lesser wondered if there were procedures set up for the
election of the executive board . Mr . Lucas responded that he assumed
it would be by majority vote , each unit representing one vote .
Attorney Barney mentioned that during the first three years , or
until 75 % of the units are sold , whichever ends earlier , then after
that period of time it is elected by a vote of 510 of the unit owners
present at a meeting , however , a quorum is only 30 % , so ,
theoretically , 16 % of the unit owners could elect all five members of
the Board . Mr . Lucas offered that , just as an observation , and based
on his own experience , there is often a disinclination of older
residents to be as active in these Boards , as would be the case in a
condominium development with younger people , adding , one of the
• reasons for having a hospital involved is that they can be perceived
as a more stable person to be sort of a business agent . Mr . Lucas
said that hospital personnel tend to have motives that are relatively
benign and socially oriented . Mr . Lucas offered that what will
happen , initially , is that the Hospital will contract on behalf of the
association to provide a service package , adding that that contract
will be time - limited , probably because it is important for the
Hospital to have an incentive and to recognize that , if they do not do
a capable job and a job that is satisfactory for the unit owners , then
the option exists within a realistic timeframe , 6 years or so , for the
owners association to go out and look for someone else to provide that
service .
At this point , Vice - Chairperson Langhans asked if there were any
more questions .
Susan Beeners stated that , as she understood it , in the phasing
of the duplex units ; CMH is intending not to leave the Town with an
inordinately long cul - de - sac . Mr . Trowbridge stated that CMH would
never exceed the Town ' s limit . Ms . Beeners stated that the Planning
Board does note that there is a demarcation that is shown on the plan ,
as far as where private and public roads would end , and there is a
median strip provided within the entrance road known as Shadblow
Drive , which the Board feels would pretty well mitigate impacts of
running about 300 feet over the 1 , 000 foot cul - de - sac minimum . Ms .
• Beeners stated that she also would assume that , with the buffer
planting at the pond , CMH could add such things as Hawthorns as an
additional type of a barrier . Ms . Beeners stated that she is just
Planning Board - 5 - May 2 , 1989
concerned that as CMH moves into a final site plan context that
appropriate disincentives for public wandering off into the pond area
will be provided .
Ms . Beeners , commenting on the road names , mentioned that CMH
does acknowledge that they have changed the names so that it is not
Indian Creek Drive , which the Board felt might be ambiguous in the
time of a fire emergency . Ms . Beeners wondered if CMH had thought
about things that might be a little easier for use , such as Shadbush
Drive and Redwood Drive .
Ms . Beeners stated that a discussion was held between staff and
the designers about open space , adding , as the Board recalls , the
southern subdivision on Hayts Road was withdrawn . It was withdrawn at
a time when the Indian Creek Natural area was somewhat seen as a
shared open space feature common to both projects . Ms . Beeners noted
that she sensed that there is a concern , and it is reflected in the
draft resolution at the end , that there be some kind of
acknowledgement at any time of future development of that subdivision
that , indeed , there was a little more than 10 acres proposed to be
dedicated to the Town as part of this 66 acre retirement community .
Ms . Beeners stated that she knew the Planning Board cannot give any
type of an open space credit , but she felt that was something that
should be considered .
Ms . Langhans noted that there was discussion about the 6 acre
• Indian Creek natural area . Mr . Trowbridge responded that there is a 4
acre Town Park near Route 96 and with the 6 acres , it makes a total of
10 acres all together . Mr . Trowbridge mentioned the two parcels with
a 20 - foot wide right- of - way for a trail that connects the two .
Ms . Beeners mentioned building materials , in that Lane Chambliss
of Holt Architects talked about typical building materials . Mr .
Chambliss stated that it is mentioned in the first written report of
the text .
Mr . Lucas stated that for the large building CMH expects to use
verticle and diagonal siding , and the detached units will be shingle
or clapboard , adding , his assumption is that people will want some
differentiation of their individual homes .
Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Mr . Lucas , mentioned
that the declaration of by - laws makes reference to an act on a few
things , which he thought were derived from Maine rather than New York .
Mr . Lucas responded that the declarations are from a similar project
that was constructed in the State of Maine . Mr . Lucas stated that CMH
has retained a New York attorney to smooth out all the language and
references to New York State real estate so that it conforms to New
York standards , before it gets submitted to the Town Board and the
Attorney General .
• Town Engineer Sally Olsen brought it to everyone ' s attention that
the Town is in the process of developing new road specs , adding that
there is not an anticipated date when the specs will be finished and
Planning Board - 6 - May 2 , 1989
approved by the Town Board , in fact , the proposed project may be
subject to the new specs . Ms . Olsen mentioned the fire access codes ,
in that she had noticed a couple of discrepancies , but nothing major .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans noted that this was a Public Hearing
and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Rosalind Grippi , of 423 E . Seneca , Street , spoke from the floor
and stated that she had a concern about how the mechanism for upping
the water pressure would be housed . Mr . Herrick , of Holt Architects ,
responded that it is an underground package that is similar to the one
that the Town installed on Woolf Lane , Mr . Herrick offered that the
structure itself is completely contained , has a cover on it , and would
be covered over by soil , something like a manhole .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Vice - Chairperson Langhans closed the Public
Hearing at 8 : 10 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for
discussion .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Vice - Chairperson Langhans asked if anyone were prepared to
offer a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
• WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 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 , 66 . 7 ± acres total , into a clustered condominium retirement
subdivision consisting of an 80 -unit building , 60 dwelling units
in single - or two - family attached structures , and public open
space .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed subdivision and site plan .
3 . The Town Planner 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 in the
environmental review of this Type I action , make and hereby does make
a negative determination of environmental significance for the action
• as proposed .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Planning Board - 7 - May 2 , 1989
Aye - 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 Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 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 , 66 . 7 ± acres total , into a clustered condominium retirement
subdivision consisting of an 80 -unit building , 60 dwelling units
in single - or two - family attached structures , and public open
space .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , on May 2 ,
1989 , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
proposed subdivision and site plan , has made a negative
determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 2 , 1989 , has
• reviewed the preliminary subdivision and site plan and other
application materials for this project .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project
as proposed , with the following conditions :
a . Compliance with all pertinent requirements , including compliance
with the requirements set forth in the Local Law adopted by the
Town Board on March 13 , 1989 , establishing Special Land Use
District No . 6 .
b . The approval of the location of roads , open space , and other
public facilities by the Town Board prior to any consideration of
final subdivision and final site plan approval .
c . The approval of proposed declarations , covenants , and by - laws by
the Town Board .
d . Submission of an agreement with respect to the maintenance of the
proposed pond for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney
prior to the issuance of any building permits .
e . A preliminary street address system shall be determined by the
• Zoning Officer prior to final plat approval .
FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED :
Planning Board - 8 - May 2 , 1989
That the Planning Board will fully consider the presently planned
dedication of the 6 - acre Indian Creek Natural Area in any possible
future subdivision of the remaining lands of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 32 by the same developer .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Langhans , May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans declared the matter of the
Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site
Plan Approval for the proposed " Indian Creek Retirement Community "
duly closed at 8 : 14 p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : PRESENTATION WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED REZONING OF CERTAIN
PARCELS ON DANBY ROAD , WEST KING ROAD , AND STONE QUARRY ROAD FROM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . KARL J . NIKLAS ,
AGENT ,
Vice - Chairperson Langhans opened the discussion on the
above - noted matter at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as
noted above .
• Mr . Karl Niklas addressed the Board and stated for the record
that his name is Karl J . Niklas , and he resides at 1005 Danby Road .
Mr . Niklas stated that the rationale for the petition presented
tonight comes about from the recognition that the Town is currently
pursuing the Comprehensive Master Plan . Mr . Niklas commented that he
and his neighbors feel that what the Town needs , of course , is a
current Zoning Map that adequately reflects the use of the plots of
land within the purview of the Town . Mr . Nicklas said that the
signators to the petition essentially own property which is either
developed or intended to be developed by the owners , at the level of
R- 15 , therefore , looking at the current map , which designates the
properties as R- 9 , in a sense , is potentially misleading , particularly
in terms of an overview of the Comprehensive Plan in the Town of
Ithaca . Mr . Niklas stated that he , and his neighbors , recognize the
need for R- 9 zoned properties in the Town , but they want to encourage
everyone to see that the properties that are on that petition are ,
essentially , as of now , developed with the density of R - 15 in mind ,
adding , those properties which have no structures on them are
dedicated to a density of R- 15 by the owners who put their signatures
on the petition . Mr . Niklas stated that they feel , by pursuing the
rezoning , and getting it officially on the Town Zoning Map , it would
be most useful to people like Stuart I . Brown & Associates , and also
to anyone who is looking at the Town , in terms of where properties are
legitimately and currently developed at the level of R- 9 .
At this time , Vice - Chairperson Langhans asked if anyone on the
Board had any comments .
Planning Board - 9 - May 2 , 1989
Robert Kenerson offered that the Town just rezoned the area where
Mr . Niklas ' house , and where the strip is located , from MR to R- 9 .
Mr . Niklas agreed that some of those properties were MR .
Monty May stated that it seemed to him that the timing of this
request is rather inappropriate , as the Town is looking at a new
Comprehensive Plan , and a whole new look at what is happening on South
Hill , adding that he thought it would be far more appropriate to wait .
Mr . May said that he would have a great deal of concern about the time
that the staff would have to spend on the request , as there is an
awful lot of work in putting this together . Mr . Niklas commented that
they are not requesting that this be rezoned immediately , they simply
are drawing it to the Board ' s attention , in fact , the cover letter
from Mr . Niklas , dated March 21 , 1989 , pointed out that they would
like to have this as a collateral action with Phase I of the
Comprehensive Plan . Mr . Niklas offered that he thought this was an
appropriate time to consider this at the moment , because these parcels
of land are developed at the level of R- 15 , yet , if one looks at the
map , it is showing R- 9 , adding that he thought it is somewhat
misleading . [ Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 1
Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Mr . Niklas , stated that
he thought the problem was that there was a similar situation on Five
Mile Drive with 40 - 50 parcels of land involved , and the Town felt that
because of the size of the project it was really appropriate to have
• an Environmental Impact Statement , which the Town staff did . Attorney
Barney noted that an Environmental Impact Statement should be looked
at , if not accomplished , for this request . Mr . Niklas responded that
he saw the point and agreed that while not knowing the full amount of
labor involved he could very well imagine , commenting that what he
meant to say was that they were drawing the matter to the Board ' s
attention now , so that when someone looks at the current map it is
highlighted to see the properties , maybe unofficially , not as R - 9 but
as R- 15 . Attorney Barney stated that , in terms of what Mr . Brown and
his group come up with , obviously , they should look at the current use
as opposed to what might have been planned . Mr . Niklas offered that
all of the information regarding the request had been sent to Stuart
I . Brown Associates . Mr . Niklas stated that at some point they would
like the rezoning to be official , but they are certainly not trying to
exert any pressure that it be done " immediately " , commenting , he was
not sure what kind of timeframe would be appropriate . Mr . Niklas
stated that he would like some sense of the timeframe that the Board
thinks is legitimate .
Mr . Kenerson , responding to Mr . Niklas , stated he would think
that when there is a Comprehensive Plan , then there would be something
to react to . Mr . May offered that the Town would know more when the
consultant comes back with the information . Attorney Barney stated
that the Comprehensive Plan is being done as openly , as publicly , as
humanly feasible , and still accomplish something . Attorney Barney
stated that he did not get a sense that there is any urgency in the
sense that there is any proposed development coming in that would be
utilizing the R - 9 configuration . Mr . Niklas replied that , if
anything , the whole point is to validly represent the properties that
Planning Board - 10 - May 2 , 1989
already exist , to future developers in the neighborhood , so that they
can see where the current density and the future density on the
subject plots of land would reflect on R- 15 , rather than R- 9 .
Attorney Barney stated that any rezoning that occurs would not apply
to previously platted lots . Mr . Niklas agreed with Attorney Barney .
Mr . Niklas said that it is just the properties of the owners who have
signed the petition that he is really concerned about , adding that
they were not trying to influence , at least at this juncture , the
zoning of pieces of property that are not represented by the owners on
the petition , adding , it is an entirely democratic objective .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that the subject area is one
that does have some interesting environmental constraints . Ms .
Beeners offered that there has been past correspondence related to
possible wetlands , which actually are not mapped , but there are some
drainage problems that run through the lower portions near Stone
Quarry Road . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought it would be
appropriate that this be something that does get tabled for the
moment , and until it can be put into a work program for the
Comprehensive Plan Phase II consideration . Ms . Beeners mentioned that
there are some very interesting deer populations in there , including
some Albino deer . Ms . Beeners offered that this is also an area which
probably exemplifies established single and two - family homes near
Ithaca College , commenting that it is an area where there are
pressures related to occupancy and the needs of the student
population . Ms . Beeners stated that she saw it as being one area that
is very well recorded , not . only by this petition , but also by some of
the comments that were received since August 1988 , which were related
to a number of the natural areas , and how one would achieve some
compatibility between the student housing and established areas . Mr .
Niklas mentioned the Light Industrial zone area , which part of that
property has now been purchased by Ithaca College , adding that the
South Hill neighbors he has spoken to sort of feel that that zoning ,
at least officially , is peculiar , now that it is owned by the College .
Mr . Niklas said that it is almost opposite the entrance to the
College , adding that they would like to see some formal
reconsideration of its zoning to adequately reflect how that property
might be used in keeping with , essentially , a college community .
Mr . Niklas remarked that he would like to go away with a feeling
of what cue could they take to then come back to the Board with the
petition . Attorney Barney responded that a good cue would be the
legal notice of the Planning Board calling for a meeting , and keep an
eye on the Comprehensive Planning system . Mr . Niklas said that he had
formally requested a text that will be presented at the next public
meeting from Stuart I . Brown Associates , and also requested that the
text be available five working days before the public meeting , so that
the neighborhood associations can read it , digest it , and attend the
public meeting with information . Mr . May commented that there is a
question whether the Board Members would have it five days before the
meeting .
Vice -Chairperson Langhans asked if there were any other comments .
There being none , Vice - Chairperson Langhans declared the matter of the
Planning Board - 11 - May 2 , 1989
proposed rezoning on Danby Road , West King Road , and Stone Quarry Road
duly closed at 8 : 31 p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE FALL CREEK AS A NEW
YORK STATE RECREATIONAL RIVER .
At this point , Town Planner Susan Beeners referred to a draft
letter , written by her and addressed to Mr . Thomas C . Jorling , dated
May 2 , 1989 . [ Draft letter attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . ]
Ms . Beeners stated that the letter ' s intent , basically , was
saying that it was the Planning Board ' s consensus that it was a little
premature for any kind of an endorsement of the application . Ms .
Beeners said that if there were any modifications to the
above -mentioned letter she would be glad to hear what they might be .
Ms . Beeners stated that she would have the opportunity to take it to
the Town Board on Monday , May 8 , 1989 . Mr . Kenerson wondered if it
would come from the Town Board to the Commissioner , not the Planning
Board . Vice - Chairperson Langhans offered that it could be done two
different ways , there could be an endorsement of Ms . Beeners ' letter
with revisions as the Board sees fit , or there could be a vote of the
Board Members .
Vice -Chairperson Langhans stated that there should be some sort
of resolution endorsing the letter , so that it can be forwarded to the
Town Board . Ms . Beeners noted that Margaret Fabrizio had contacted
her today , May 2 , 1989 , and she has a few comments about possible
other informational meetings .
Ms . Fabrizio approached the Board and stated that what she was
essentially asking for at the last meeting was not a yes or a no from
the Board , but simply a designation of people who would be able to
talk with the Fall Creek Conservation Committee about the issues , and
report back to the Board . Ms . Fabrizio said that she wants to
facilitate discussion , and again she stated that , although final
boundaries are not set until after public hearing , this is the
opportunity right now for public comment , as the FCCC sees it . Ms .
Fabrizio commented that the FCCC was trying to be as open as possible
with all the municipalities and the property owners involved . Ms .
Fabrizio offered that , this week alone , there are several meetings
scheduled , including one with residents in Forest. Home , Cornell
University , and the League of Women Voters , commenting , after the
scheduled meetings , FCCC will plan a major meeting that would involve
representatives from all the municipalities , and . will be co - sponsored
with the City .
Ms . Fabrizio reported on another important piece of information ,
in that the FCCC has begun to investigate the possibility of
eliminating , altogether , the interim boundary period , adding , it looks
like it might be a workable idea , but it needs more research : Ms .
Fabrizio stated that no Environmental Impact Statement is required ,
• commenting that she thought some information may have been given at
the last meeting that SEQR was required . Ms . Fabrizio stated that ,
apparently , any act of the Legislature is not subject to SEQR , so
Planning Board - 12 - May 2 , 1989
there would not be any additional significant waiting period , but it
does have to go the 30 days after property owners have been notified ,
and it also has to be put into the Environmental Notice Bulletin ,
. adding , she has been informed by the DEC that those take care of the
SEQR requirement .
Continuing , Ms . Fabrizio mentioned the Comprehensive Town
Planning in that , again , she wanted to mention the time constraint
that the FCCC is working with . Ms . Fabrizio stated that the City has
to begin construction of a Hydropower Plant by September 1991 , or
their license expires , adding that she has been told by a City Planner
that they need a lead time of at least 18 months , which would put them
to March 1990 , when they would be deciding - yes we build , or no we do
not build . Ms . Fabrizio said that this legislation could take some
time to get just into the legislative process . Ms . Fabrizio stated
that there is really a very serious time constraint , and asked that
the Board recognize that . Ms . Fabrizio commented that , waiting for
perhaps a year or more for the Comprehensive Plan to be in place would
just be beyond the time to help the FCCC in terms of stopping
development at Ithaca Falls .
Ms . Fabrizio mentioned a brief note about hydropower . Ms .
Fabrizio stated that , as everyone knows the FCCC started off with
hydropower as their main objective , adding , at that time , they called
themselves Citizens Against Hydropower at Ithaca Falls . Ms . Fabrizio
• said that they are not against hydropower , but they believe that there
are many other things that the City and the University could be doing .
Ms . Fabrizio also stated that they think that not every natural
resource is there for energy consumption , adding , five million dollars
buys an awful lot of energy , and in terms of energy conservation five
million dollars would buy twice as much energy as could be gotten from
hydropower from Ithaca Falls , Ms . Fabrizio stated that , for the above
reasons , the FCCC really feels that this is a valuable community
resource , and it does not belong to the Town or the City , it belongs
to the community . Ms . Fabrizio offered that there are a lot of people
in the Town of Ithaca who support the designation .
At this time , Ms . Fabrizio distributed copies of a memo to the
Board Members . [ Memo attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . ]
Mr . Lesser , directing his comment to Town Planner Susan Beeners ,
wondered if he understood correctly that most of the support for the
Hydropower Plant was coming from several people on the City council .
Mr . Lesser asked if there is any private interest any longer ? Mr .
Lesser stated that he knew the City originally had taken the option to
prevent private interests from becoming involved . Ms . Beeners
responded that she could not really comment on that area , except that
she has heard from some people that it was their opinion that this
mechanism would not be something that would stop hydropower . Ms .
Fabrizio stated that the FCCC has been told repeatedly by the DEC that
this will effectively stop hydropower development , adding , obviously ,
the City , before they could possibly let their license expire , would
need to have more technicalities worked out on paper . Ms . Fabrizio
said that they would not be continuing their efforts if it would not
Planning Board - 13 - May 2 , 1989
• stop hydropower development . Ms . Fabrizio , commenting on the relation
to the people on the Council , stated that Ben Nichols had been a main
proponent on the hydropower development , and he has since become
convinced that most people in the City do not want to see hydropower .
Ms . Fabrizio stated that they spent many months exploring other
options to try and protect the site , and there simply are not any .
Attorney Barney wondered who owned the Ithaca Falls . Ms .
Fabrizio replied that Cornell owns most of the property down there .
Ms . Fabrizio stated that the Town of Ithaca has the smallest segment ,
which is about 1 - 1 / 2 miles .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
Board , Vice - Chairperson Langhans asked if anyone were prepared to
offer a motion .
MOTION by Montgomery May , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that an
endorsement of Ms . Beeners ' letter be sent to the Town Board for their
action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Langhans , Baker , Miller , May , Kenerson , Smith , Lesser .
• Nay - None .
Ms . Fabrizio wondered if the Town Board would be the group to
designate representatives . Attorney Barney responded that the Town ' s
position , with respect to designation , would be that it would be a
Town Board decision .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans asked if there were any other comments .
There being none , Vice - Chairperson Langhans declared discussion of the
proposal to designate Fall Creek as a New York State Recreational
River duly closed at 8 : 40 p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Ms . Beeners , commenting on the Comprehensive Plan project , stated
that it is expected Mr . Brown would be scheduling a meeting with the
Comprehensive Planning Sub - Committee sometime during the last two
weeks of May 1989 . Ms . Beeners reported that Mr . Brown and Mr . Brand
are still waiting for the minutes from the last two sub - committee
meetings , even though she had assured them there was not anything new
covered .
Ms . Beeners mentioned that all the Board Members had received an
invitation to a " Charette " session on South Hill presented by Auble
Homes . Ms Beeners offered that a " Charette " is an intensive work
session . Ms . Beeners offered that it is intended to be a work session
• combination data and information session , where input from many , many
_ people in the community , including the various boards of the Town , is
to be sought . Ms . Beeners stated that , from her perspective , she
Planning Board - 14 - May 2 , 1989
would like to stress that any comments coming out from that kind of a
" Charette " , any kinds of informal endorsements of ideas or whatever ,
by representatives of the Town , should not , in any way , represent a
commitment , commenting , Auble Homes would have to go through the whole
public hearing process for anything that they want to do , and the
" Charette " should not be anything that would undermine that .
Ms . Beeners , reporting on the student assistance this semester ,
stated that the Planning Department has a Grad student who is
interested in working , actually , in looking at Fall Creek , as well as
Cascadilla Creek , Ms . Beeners noted that the student is interested in
taking a look at what the features / land use environmental constraints
are along through that area , and also looking at what possible
different kinds of conservation mechanisms there would be . Ms .
Beeners stated that the Planning Department considers that somewhat
timely with discussions about the Fall Creek area . Ms . Beeners stated
that the Town Board would be the Board , hopefully , that would
authorize the employment of the graduate intern . Ms . Beeners offered
that this will not be a Cornell Tradition condition , it would be
another type of . a thing where there would be matching funds from
Cornell . Assistant Town Planner George Frantz offered that it is a
Graduate Summer Fellowship , whereby Cornell will be contributing
$ 1 , 000 . 00 , the Town will be contributing $ 1 , 000 . 00 , and it will be for
a 10 -week period , 20 hours per week on the part of the student . Mr .
Frantz stated that it is not a fulltime or full summer job , but the
Planning Department thinks it is enough of a chunk of time that
something could be accomplished . Mr . Kenerson asked about the creek
analysis . Ms . Beeners stated that the creek analysis of various ones
in Ithaca was proposed to be the basic essence of the student study .
Ms . Beeners commented that it also has some applications to any
additional natural land regulation that might be placed . Ms . Beeners
offered that , additionally , the Planning Department would also have a
Cornell Tradition Undergrad who would be helping the Planning staff
carry on with the Comprehensive Planning efforts . Mr . Kenerson
wondered if the staff was using students to create maps . Ms . Beeners
responded that Mr . Frantz had been very helpful in selecting a
Landscape Architect student who has a good amount of experience and
excellent graphics , adding , the student should be able to pull
together all the maps that are upstairs in the corner . Mr . Kenerson
wondered when the aerial was going to be put back up in the Board
Room . Ms . Beeners responded that that is a project that Michael
Ocello is working on .
Mr . Kenerson wondered if there was anything in the works for the
Planning Board to have a non - working session sometime . Ms . Beeners
replied that she would go along with whatever the Board directs .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans stated that she thought the Stuart I . Brown
presentation would be a whole meeting in itself . Ms . Beeners stated
that it would be nice if the Board could have one of the two meetings
a month not be devoted to project issues . Ms . Beeners stated that
there are some legal constraints involved when an application is
• submitted , as to the timeframe for acting on it .
Planning Board - 15 - May 2 , 1989
• Mr . Lesser , directing his comment to Ms . Beeners , wondered if she
had any perception about how rapidly development is likely to proceed
on some of the approved subdivisions . Mr . Frantz replied that the
number of building permits issued this year would be the best
indication of development . Mr . Frantz offered that there was quite a
decrease in the number of actual building permits issued for homes in
1988 , adding that he thought in 1987 it was in the vicinity of 180
dwelling units , because it includes Multiple Residence , adding , in
1988 it was 130 or 135 . Vice - Chairperson Langhans offered that Mr .
Lucas , of the Indian Creek Retirement Community , stated that he was
not going to break ground until he sees what the needs are .
Ms . Beeners offered that there was an interesting situation on
rezoning applications . Ms . Beeners mentioned the Kyong proposal in
that there will have to be some kind of decisions made and Mr . Brown ,
the Planning Consultant , would recommend on determining the need for
commercial development on West Hill . Ms . Beeners mentioned the
rezoning application of Mrs . Rumsey on East Buttermilk Falls Road .
Ms . Beeners stated that Ms . Rumsey has requested that the Quonset Hut ,
where the Cable Craft Co . is at the present time , plus her Bed and
Breakfast , the two properties which adjoin the Buttermilk Falls
parking lot , be rezoned to Business . Ms . Beeners commented that ,
right now , the application is not complete enough for her to do
anything with it , adding that there has also been some interest from
Eddydale Market . Ms . Beeners stated that the Town is enforcing zoning
as best they can with a rather ragged staff .
Mr . Lesser commented that the Cornell University future parking
plans make mention of 500 car spots somewhere near Judd Falls Plaza .
Ms . Beeners replied that she had told Cornell if they wanted to build
this summer they had better come in and get on the docket . Ms .
Beeners said that she has not seen the plan , she has only heard it , as
it has been somewhat publicized at different times . Ms . Beeners
stated that it is proposed as a 500 -car parking lot to the north of
East Hill Plaza , and right behind the Eastern Artificial Insemination
building . Ms . Beeners noted that when she had talked with Mr . Wendt ,
Director of Transportation , at Cornell University , they were trying to
decide whether the entrance should be off Judd Falls Road opposite
Maple Avenue , or connected into Summerhill Lane , adding that she
thought the Maple Avenue entrance was preferred . Vice - Chairperson
Langhans stated that she thought it would be best to have two
entrances , otherwise it would be an awful log jam . Mr . May offered
that 500 cars , plus the busing , would certainly affect the Ellis
Hollow elderly housing .
Vice - Chairperson Langhans mentioned the north / south connector in
that right now it is going down Caldwell Rd . , and then branching
off . . . Mr . Kenerson interjected that Caldwell Road does not solve
anything ; one has to reserve the integrity of a place like Forest
Home . Ms . Beeners stated that she had suggested to Cornell , City , and
County planning staff , that , perhaps , it would be worth trying to
• encourage the County Reps , and other representatives , to carry on the
momentum that the transportation survey started , where there was a
joint funding of a consultant to do the travel survey , commenting
Planning Board - 16 - May 2 , 1989
• that , perhaps , there could be some kind of joint funding of a
consultant to look at all of the routes , such as the environmental
assessment needed , and the social implications , etc . Mr . Lesser
mentioned the traffic patterns of the parking lot . Ms . Beeners
responded that Mr . Wendt , of Cornell University , will be advised on
May 3 , 1989 that the request is a Special Approval Use , and will
require both Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals approval .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS OF LOT
DIMENSIONS WITH RESPECT TO TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 - 4 - 15 ,
- 16 . 1 , - 16 . 2 , - 17 , - 181 - 19 , - 201 - 211 AND - 221 LOCATED IN THE AREA OF
KENDALL AVENUE , WITH SAID LOTS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN THE NAME OF THE
LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY , AS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK ON JULY 12 , 1895 , AND WITH SAID LOTS PROPOSED TO
BE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED " BOUNDARY SURVEY MAP , KENDALL
AVENUE AREA " , BY JOHN S . MACNEILL JR . , P . C . , DATED APRIL 20 , 1989 .
LOUIS BONANNI JR . , J . & L . BUILDERS , JAMES HILKER , RALPH THORPE ,
MICHAEL AND ELEANOR WINSHIP , PAMELA E . SACKETT , AND LAWRENCE E .
IACOVELLI AND JOHN ELMO , JR . , OWNERS ; PAMELA AND STEPHEN SACKETT ,
AGENTS ,
Vice -Chairman Langhans declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Ms . Pamela Sackett addressed the Board and introduced Mr . Willis
• Hilker as one of the adjacent property owners , along with one of the
other property owners , Mr . Louis Bonanni Jr .
Ms . Sackett stated that , basically , the situation is that there
are a number of lots on Kendall Avenue , and [ indicating on map ] added
that she used to own " this " house right " here " . Ms . Sackett commented
that actually she owned all the land between " here " and here " . Ms .
Sackett said that she had her property surveyed a number of years ago ,
commenting , each time there was a fifty - foot lot it was surveyed ,
adding that last summer she decided to sell her old home and divide
the middle lot in half , at which time she came before the Planning
Board , noting that 25 feet was added to each side . Ms . Sackett stated
that , after she sold the home , and just after constructing her new
home , another survey was done , not by the company she used , which is
MacNeill , but done by Miller , who is , or was , the Town surveyor .
Vice - Chairman Langhans responded that she did not think Mr . Miller was
ever the Town surveyor . Ms . Sackett stated that Mr . Miller prepared a
survey map for the Town in 1979 , which Susan Beeners , Town Planner ,
had showed to her and was in the Town files . Ms . Sackett said that
the Miller survey showed stakes for the roadway for the extension of
Kendall Avenue .
At this point , Mr . Hilker appended a map of the Kendall Avenue
area to the bulletin board .
• Vice -Chairman Langhans wondered if Ms . Sackett was saying that T .
G . Miller just re - surveyed the lot next door , and while they did that
they put up stakes for the road . Ms . Sackett answered , no , those
Planning Board - 17 - May 2 , 1989
stakes were put up a long time ago , adding that she did not know
whether that was about the same time when the water and sewer was put
in down through " here " . Ms . Sackett stated that some discrepancy came
about , and at that time , Miller and MacNeill got together and tried to
work it out , commenting that probably Mr . Hilker could explain it
better , so that she was not misrepresenting anything .
Mr . Hilker stated that when the Miller survey was done for the
Town it did not match up to the MacNeill survey , adding , a
representative from MacNeill said that he had not had the railroad
right - of -way maps to review , and consequently the survey maps did not
match at that time . Mr . Hilker noted that Miller and MacNeill got
together and determined where the railroad right - of -way and the road
were located , which keeps all the lots the same . Mr . Hilker offered
that when Miller did it , all the lot lines stayed the same on the west
side of the road , and when Kendall Avenue was surveyed in , it made a
difference in the length of the lots that are before the Planning
Board tonight . Mr . Hilker remarked that , in making them longer , they
become larger lots , but it makes them a little shorter on the frontage
by 3 - 5 inches . Mr . Hilker stated that , at the original set- back of
the plat that was prepared by the Ithaca Land Development Company ,
there is still the same amount of feet . Ms . Sackett interjected that
it is due to the radius of " this " road that make the lots narrower and
longer . Ms . Sackett said that Mr . Stockwood , an associate of Mr .
MacNeill , found all the monuments , whether they be railroad or by
Miller , that were set for the road , noting , he was just following
those things , and , actually there is more footage in the lots , so they
are really bigger lots . Indicating on map , Ms . Sackett commented , if
one wants to take " this " point right " here " and bring " these " back ,
they still would be 50 - foot wide lots . Ms . Sackett said that the
concern was that all the other people down through " here " have a
grandfathering clause that indicate " these " lots are legal lots for
building . Mr . Bonanni stated that the footage is a little greater in
the back , from the proposed road site , back , and to the end of the
lot , there is a difference of probably 19 feet in depth . Ms . Sackett
stated that , if that line were taken right across , they would still be
50 feet wide . Ms . Sackett stated that she was still affected because
she had - originally given " these " people a deed , but there is some
confusion now , with all the other stuff going on , that perhaps she has
not given them something proper . Ms . Sackett [ pointing to map ] stated
that it is really affecting everybody from " here " on down . Ms .
Sackett stated that it does not really affect Iacovelli , and did not
exactly know why his name was on the Notice of Public Hearing ,
Mr . Hilker stated that the reason for appearing before the
Planning Board was because , if title were to be transferred to the
lots as platted , then nothing matches surveys any more , as they have
already started using the survey of Kendall Avenue on the Miller map
as the boundaries . Attorney Barney wondered where that was happening ,
with Mr . Hilker responding that Iacovelli is set to that map .
Attorney Barney wondered if the Miller map was ever filed at the
• Tompkins County Clerk ' s office . Mr . Hilker answered , evidently not ,
but that is where the surveys are being used now . Attorney Barney
stated that he did not think so . Mr . Hilker stated that Miller is the
Planning Board - 18 - May 2 , 1989
main survey in the area , and he has it staked out , and they are all
using it . Attorney Barney commented that they may be using the
survey , but they are not using this road survey . Attorney Barney
noted that this map is a preliminary map , marked preliminary , and was
prepared for the Town back in 1977 , which was at the time the Town was
looking at what they were going to try and do with respect to Kendall
Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue in terms of paving , etc . , because they
are unopened roads at this juncture , adding , nothing further ever
occurred , the map was never , to his knowledge , finalized , commenting ,
to say there is a conflict between the Miller map and the MacNeill map
is not quite accurate , because the Miller map , until it is signed ,
sealed and delivered , is not really a valid map . Mr . Hilker responded
that he agreed with Attorney Barney , but Miller has that map in their
files , and they understand that those are the monuments that are
correct , adding , whenever they do a survey they go through those
monuments now . Robert Kenerson commented that the map was being
treated as an official map , with Mr . Bonanni remarking , if that is the
case , then when the Town goes to pave it they will be off - grade , with
Attorney Barney noting that that is entirely another discussion . Mr .
Hilker offered that what it boils down to is that Miller recognizes
those monuments on that preliminary map as the actual monuments , and
where things should be , adding that when they do surveys it is done to
those monuments , regardless of the map . Monty May commented that he
did not see how they do that if there are deeds . Mr . Hilker remarked
that deeds do not give metes and bounds . Attorney Barney , directing
his comment to Mr . May , stated ° that the deeds go back to the 1895 map ,
noting that most of the deeds are Lots # 101 , # 203 , etc . Mr . Hilker
stated that one could deed by lot number yet , but if one deeds by lot
number , and someone else deeds by the survey , then there would be a
court case .
Vice - Chairman Langhans asked what MacNeill used . Ms . Sackett
answered that they came back and took the monuments that Miller used .
Ms . Sackett offered that that is what the map is all about . Ms .
Sackett noted that all of us through [ indicating on map ] " here " are
happy to accept this , and ready to sign an agreement , but no one will
sign it , because they do not want to lose the grandfather clause . Ms .
Sackett stated that , presently , " these " are building lots and the
residents do not want to lose that right . Mr . Hilker stated that
everyone wants to straighten out a discrepancy that he felt would
cause trouble for • years , and if it is not staightened out , then
eveyone knows and when someone buys a lot they know what they are
buying . Mr . Hilker remarked that , as it stands right now , there are
two standards on that area . Robert Kenerson stated that it sounded
like a legal problem to him . Ms . Beeners wondered if Mr . Hilker had
checked with Mr . Stockwood , from MacNeill , about Note 1 indicated on
the survey . Ms . Sackett responded that she had called him and he said
that he got it from Miller ' s office , noting that she then called
Miller ' s office and he said - what they do is give the customer a
survey , and it is up to the customer to file it in the Court House ,
Ms . Beeners inquired as to how Mr . Stockwood could write that it is a
• filed survey map . Mr . Hilker answered that that is erroneous , but
that was from Miller ' s office . Mr . Kenerson mentioned that it is not
filed in the Clerk ' s office . Ms . Sackett offered that it is just like
Planning Board - 19 - May 2 , 1989
when she gets a survey made - she does not have to file it with the
Town if she does not want to . Mr . Hilker said they are waiting to
make sure that everything is agreeable , before they do the final . Mr .
Kenerson mentioned maintaining the grandfathering of the 50 - foot lots .
Ms . Sackett stated that , again , it is just a matter of a few inches
per lot , yet , even though it is just a few inches , the lots have still
gained in size . Mr . Kenerson mentioned having a saleable piece of
property , which they do not have . Mr . Hilker responded that they do ,
but it would have to be on the old plat , adding that that does not
make sense , since the plat has already proven to be erroneous . Ms .
Sackett stated that she did not feel this was a a legal matter ,
because all the involved parties agree . Mr . Kenerson stated that the
solution has to be done through recordings , etc . Mr . Hilker stated
that they were told they had to get the approval of the Planning Board
to make the change . Ms . Sackett offered that they have a lawyer who
is going to write up the agreement , and it will be filed . Board
Member Smith remarked that it was being matched with the Kendall
Avenue right - of - way , which is official , commenting that he thought it
would be easier to change the right -of - way , with Mr . Hilker noting he
would not disagree with that . Ms . Sackett stated that either way they
are happy , as long as they can keep the grandfathering clause . Mr .
Hilker stated that there is a space about " this " big between the
platted lots and the right - of -way that tapers to nothing as it goes up
to " that " end , noting that that is where the problem is . Mr . Hilker
stated that there is a slight skewing of " these " ' lot lines here , which
• varies ininches .
Vice -Chairman Langhans noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Vice - Chairman
Langhans closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 45 p . m . and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion .
Attorney Barney wondered what the 8 . 2 dimension was on the west
side of Ms . Sackett ' s first lot . Mr . Hilker responded that there is a
space on it between Iacovelli ' s and Sackett ' s property of
approximately 8 feet , which , according to any survey , belongs to no
one , adding , what happened was , in order to keep the lot lines
coinciding with what was already there on the original plat , it ended
up with an extra 8 feet , which can be deeded over , or agree that
Iacovelli gets it or , with Ms . Sackett interjecting that is only
until after the subject matter is taken care of , as she needs the 8
feet , if that does not work . Mr . Hilker stated that , if no one wants
to claim that , and if Iacovelli wants it after this is filed , he can
have it , noting , if this is not agreeable , then Ms . Sackett has to
keep it with her property .
Mr . Kenerson inquired as to what should be done in this matter .
Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Ms . Sackett , noted the map
that was brought in for the subdivision a year or two ago , and asked ,
where does it show the line between your property and the Iacovelli
property . Ms . Sackett [ pointing to the map ] noted that it actually
• would be the light colored line , and at the present time , she owns the
_ 8 feet . Attorney Barney , referring to the Winship parcel , wondered
if , at the time of the subdivision , that was part of Ms . Sackett ' s
Planning Board - 20 - May 2 , 1989
0
land , with Ms . Sackett responding that she owned all the way from
[ indicating on map ] " that " point to where Iacovelli owns . Ms .
Langhans wondered if Ms . Sackett owned the Winship lot , with Ms ,
Sackett answering , no . Ms . Sackett said that her survey has always
been the [ pointing to map ] " dark " lines , but according to the Miller
survey it is the light lines , and her lot should be shifted over 6 - 8
feet . Ms . Sackett remarked that she was correct with the present map ,
which she had presented to the Board in 1988 . Attorney Barney ,
referring to the subdivision , wondered if anything would be done to
take care of the 8 - foot discrepancy . Ms . Sackett responded , if
everyone agrees that the dark lines are her lines , then Lawrence
Iacovelli and she would get together and deal with [ pointing to map ]
" this " part right " here " , or else give it to Lawrence , whichever way
is proper , once we have agreed to this . Attorney Barney stated that
the problem he has , right now , is that Ms . Sackett is asking the
Planning Board to approve a plan which is going to create an 8 - foot
lot . Ms . Sackett wondered if the 8 feet would go to Lawrence , with
Attorney Barney answering that he did not know . Attorney Barney noted
that the problem was that Ms . Sackett was showing a map with an 8 - foot
strip of no -man ' s land on it , adding that he thought that should be
resolved , either Ms . Sackett ' s lot gets larger or . . . Ms . Sackett
interjected that what she and Lawrence would like to do is to actually
split it , commenting that she does not care if he gets the whole
thing , adding , she meets code just the way it is , with the 175 feet
and approximately 120 feet deep . Attorney Barney wondered what was
• going to happen with the rest of Kendall Avenue that has not yet been
paved . Mr . Hilker stated that Orson Ledger has his lawyer drawing up
an agreement concerning the expenses of the abutting property owners .
Ms . Sackett said that she does not know anything about it , as she does
not own past the pavement any more . Mr . Hilker stated that he thought
that had been in the mill for some time , commenting that he thought
Ms . Beeners had been informed . Ms . Beeners stated that there have
been occasional inquiries about building a road , and noted that her
recommendation , every time , has been to go by Town Law , and submit a
petition . Mr . Hilker said that the petition should have been drawn up
months ago , and it has been dragging , but that is another issue
entirely . Mr . Hilker noted that the intention was to get those roads
in . and done like they should be , adding , it should have been done
years ago . Ms . Beeners stated that the road construction aspects are
something that are rather detached or divorced from what is being
looked at tonight . Vice - Chairman Langhans remarked that , if they go
ahead and have this agreement to go by this , then the road line is
more or less set . Mr . Hilker noted that it is to where T . G . Miller
states the road line should be . Vice - Chairman Langhans said that ,
effectively , the line is being set for the road . Mr . Hilker said that
it is established on the preliminary map . Mr . Bonanni stated that
this would be the same as what they proposed right " here " , because
this is what is being discussed . Mr . Kenerson commented this should
be resolved , with Mr . Hilker agreeing , because if it is not , then
there would be variances and changes involved . Mr . Hilker noted that
they were not in violation . Vice - Chairman Langhans stated that
• perhaps this might be the time to expedite the platting of the road ,
or concur that where T . G . Miller has the marks that that is where the
road is going to be , because once one changes all the lots , then it is
Planning Board - 21 - May 2 , 1989
pretty well set that that is where the road is going to be . Mr .
Kenerson stated that , if deeds were drawn , then it is fixed . Vice -
Chairman Langhans stated that , from an engineering standpoint , she did
not think it would change that much . Attorney Barney , directing his
comment to Vice - Chairman Langhans , offered that what can . be done , if
Vice - Chairman Langhans was so inclined , is approve the modification of
the Ithaca Land Company Map , as to " these " lots shown [ indicating on
map ] " here " , adding that he and Ms . Beeners had discussed it , and
there were some conditions they thought should be in before the course
of resolving the issue . Vice - Chairman Langhans wondered if it was too
early for a resolution , with Attorney Barney responding , no , the
resolutions have the conditions built into them . Mr . Kenerson stated
that he could move the SEQR .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Vice Chairman Langhans asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Approval of Modifications of
lot dimensions with respect to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No .
6 - 54 - 4 - 15 , - 16 . 1 , - 16 . 2 , - 17 , - 18 , - 19 , - 20 , - 21 , and - 22 ,
• located in the area of Kendall Avenue , with said lots originally
platted in the name of the Lands of the Ithaca Land Company , as
filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk on July 12 ,
1895 , and with said lots proposed to be modified as shown on map
entitled " Boundary Survey Map , Kendall Avenue Area " , by John S .
MacNeill Jr . , P . C . , dated April 20 , 1989 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed modifications . The Zoning Board of
Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in any
possible variances with respect to the proposed modifications .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 2 , 1989 , has
reviewed the application submissions for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of the proposed plat modifications , make and
hereby does make a negative determination of environmental
significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Langhans , May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
• Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Planning Board - 22 - May 2 , 1989
William Lesser wondered if this would affect other lots , or is
this issue just limited to this particular group of lots represented
here . Attorney Barney stated that , as he indicated , it does affect
the Iacovelli - Elmo lot , and the lines , as shown on the map , now create
an 8 - foot no-man ' s land , adding , one of the conditions in the proposed
resolution is that the Planning Board be provided with a revised map
that goes one lot farther over to Iacovelli , picks it up and shows
what the new boundary on that is going to be . Ms . Beeners stated
that , with the understanding , though , that there is this survey map of
the portion of the Iacovelli - Elmo land . Ms . Beeners noted that , right
now , Iacovelli - Elmo parcel is 6 or 7 of the former lots . Attorney
Barney remarked that all one needs to worry about is the lot
immediately next door , which would be the one that . . . Ms . Sackett
interjected and wondered if the Board wanted it attached to one great
big map . Attorney Barney replied that it should be on one map , but it
could be shrunk a little bit , as 120 is a pretty large scale . Mr .
Hilker commented that he thought one of the conditions would be that
they had the agreement between them , and the agreement includes that
strip to be given to one or the other , or split , whichever the case
is . Attorney Barney responded that he did not think the Board cares ,
but it should be attached to one lot or the other . Mr . Hilker agreed
with Attorney Barney . Vice - Chairman Langhans mentioned getting rid of
that 8 - foot strip and incorporating it some way or other into the
adjoining lot . Ms . Sackett commented that Lawrence Iacovelli
telephoned her a couple of nights ago , and he seems to be happy with
• what is being done .
Mr . May wondered if a motion was in order . Mr . Hilker asked Mr .
May if he was going to read the proposed resolution . Mr . May replied
yes , with Mr . Hilker stating that he has not seen it . Mr . Hilker was
supplied with a copy . Mr . Hilker stated that they need something that
states .that this change would not interfere with the grandfathering of
the lots . Attorney Barney inquired as to what grandfathering , and
what lots . Mr . Hilker commented that they were grandfathered to be
buildable lots now . Attorney Barney noted , if this plan is approved ,
they are buildable lots , period . Mr . Hilker wondered , under which
regulations , the current regulations or the regulations that have
existed ? Attorney Barney noted that under the regulations one has to
conform with all the regulations . Mr . Bonanni wondered if the
grandfathering clause would be affected . Vice -Chairman Langhans
stated they would not have the width , and instead of 50 feet , it would
be 49 . 5 feet . Ms . Sackett stated that it was her understanding that
the ZBA does not want to see them , as they feel the Planning Board can
handle it . Attorney Barney stated that the lot is 50 feet , which is
already a sub - standard lot , and reducing the frontage , not very much ,
but nevertheless , it is 37 / 100th of a foot , adding , that now is ,
basically , a change in a non - conforming use which requires the ZBA
approval . Attorney Barney remarked that he did not think that there
would be a terrible difficulty in getting their approval , but ,
obviously , he cannot commit the Board to what they would do . Attorney
Barney noted that , legally , Ms Sackett would have to appear before the
• ZBA . William Lesser wondered what happens if approval is not granted
by the ZBA . Attorney Barney responded that the subject resolution ,
which is conditioned on that , is no longer valid and -they are back to
Planning Board - 23 - May 2 , 1989
the original grandfather clause , and also back to the original
dimensions as stated on the Ithaca Land Company map . Mr . Lesser
commented they would be no worse off than they are . Ms . Sackett
stated that she would be worse off , at that point , if that is not
done , because the Winships claim that she has not given them something
proper , and because of T . G . Miller ' s survey , part of her driveway will
be owned by Mr . Winship . Indicating on map , Ms . Sackett pointed out
the driveway by the shaded house , commenting , it is not exactly where
it really is on the map , adding that her driveway is really right
along " this " line . Ms . Sackett said that if this is not agreed to ,
then she has to take that extra footage for herself , which means she
has to have an excavator come back in , and move everything over five
feet in the front , and 8 feet in the back . Attorney Barney wondered ,
if Ms . Sackett ' s line goes over , would Mr . Winship ' s line also shift
over six feet , and would there be a problem with zoning and a few
other things , if , in fact , the fine runs through the corner of his
house . Ms . Sackett responded , yes , the line would run through the
corner of his house , but that is not the thing he is complaining
about , he is complaining . . . Attorney Barney suggested that someone go
back to Mr . Winship and suggest that if he really wants to make a
federal case out of it , he might have to move his house . Ms . Sackett
replied that that is true , adding , his lawyer does not think he is
terribly bright in this either , but , basically , that is what he is
complaining about . Ms . Sackett said that she just sold a house
[ indicating on map ] " here " , but she had to put a large sum of money
• into escrow to tell the people who are buying " this " house from her
that she was sure that this would all go through , commenting that she
thought Attorney Coleman had discussed the matter with the proper
officials of the Town . Ms . Sackett said that Mr . Winship put an
affidavit against the deed on " this " house , which puts a blot on the
title , and in order for her to sell it she had to put a large sum of
money into escrow , commenting , if this does not go through , either
with the Planning Board or the ZBA , then she has to pay for an
excavator to come in , a new survey to be done - if she uses T . G .
Miller it will cost about $ 1 , 000 . 00 to get the 8 feet over " here " .
Attorney Barney commented that it seemed to him that Ms . Sackett has
recourse against a lot of people , not the least of which is the
surveyors that are arguing about this . Ms . Sackett agreed with
Attorney Barney , but commented on how the courts work , which may take
years , and she does not have a lot of money .
Attorney Barney suggested that , as far as the Planning Board is
concerned , they can approve or not approve it as they see fit .
Attorney Barney said that in a modification of a subdivision it is his
legal advice to the Planning Board that the ZBA needs to consider the
dimensional variation on the frontage . Attorney Barney commented
that , whether Ms . Sackett did everything according to hoyle when she
bought and sold is not the Town ' s problem , the Town ' s problem is now
to do what they need to do in accordance with their own regulations .
Ms . Sackett stated that she did everything she was supposed to . Ms .
Sackett said that the thing that really drives her crazy is that every
• time she got a lot she went and had a survey , paying a couple of
hundred dollars each time , and then when she sold the house she had to
do another survey . Attorney Barney stated that he felt the sense of
Planning Board - 24 - May 2 , 1989
the Planning Board is that they should deal with it the way they would
deal with any similar issue .
At this point , Mr . Hilker , referring to the proposed resolution ,
asked for an explanation of condition " d " . Attorney Barney replied
that the only thing the Board seems to have is the old Ithaca Land
Company Map , and noted that Kendall Avenue , to a point , has apparently
been paved down to Ms . Sackett ' s property , and , obviously , from that
point out it has been used as a public road , but there is no deed or
title , or anything other than the fact that the map has simply been
platted . Mr . Hilker wondered where it would come from , with Attorney
Barney noting that his initial reaction is that it would come from the
Ithaca Land Company , but Ithaca Land Company is probably long since
defunct , and it is just , quite frankly , something that has to be
looked into and find out who has it , and if no one has it , then it is
probably the Town Board ' s decision as to whether they want td exercise
some eminent domain rights to clarify the title on it . Mr . Hilker
stated that he sort of felt that they have already exercised those by
virtue of having put the water and sewer in there . Mr . Kenerson
offered that there should have been something done at that time . Mr .
Hilker said that the water and . sewer is already there , and that could
not have been done without exercising those rights . Attorney Barney
remarked that it depends , as he did not know what the basis for that
was , as he was not there . Attorney Barney stated that they could have
gotten easements from the people who own the lots . Mr . Hilker said
• that the lots do not go into the road right- of -way ; there are no
easements there . Ms . Sackett offered that the water was not on her
property ; it was on the outside . Attorney Barney wondered , with the
extension of the lots , would it pick up the water and sewer ? Ms .
Sackett answered that it maybe would pick up the water , but not , the
sewer , the sewer is definitely in the middle of the road . Mr . Hilker
offered that the lots never encroached , even on the original map , onto
the road right - of -way , they always sold by lot , not by center of road .
Attorney Barney said that a subdivision is being created , and they
want buildable lots ; the law says that one cannot build unless it is
on a road , adding , we do not know that the lots are on a road , because
we do not have title to that road ; all we have is a map from 1895 ,
which shows a road being there , and the reason for the condition being
put in the approval today , is because this Planning Board cannot say -
we grant you the right to subdivide and sell those lots unless we are
satisfied , or we delegate to somebody who will satisfy themselves that
there is title that exists for that road . Mr . Hilker replied that he
understood that , but the thing that bothers him is getting easements
from the property owners ; they do not have anything to give , because
they never had anything in the road . Attorney Barney stated that he
said that , in reference to the water and sewer lines , he did not know
what Walter Schwann or what the Town did back in 1950 , or whenever
they put the water and sewer lines in , if indeed , they put them in the
roadway , which he does not know that they did for a fact , or how they
got title to it ; there very well may have been somebody around at that
time that could give title for the Ithaca Land Company , there may have
• beenpeople that gave easements from the lot owners ; he does not know
what they did , adding , he cannot sit here and tell this Planning
Board , today , that there is a clear title here , or that the Town owns
Planning Board - 25 - May 2 , 1989
this unopened road . Attorney Barney stated that he did not think the
Town does , he does not think there is anything of record that gives it
to them , in which event the mechanics have got to be worked out as to
how to deal with it , and that is a Town Board issue , not really a
Planning Board issue , adding , that is . why if they approve it , if they
choose to , it is subject to condition " d " . Mr . Hilker , referring to
condition " e " in the proposed resolution , mentioned that as it stands
now , other roadways similar to this have been given building permits
on open roads , because it is a grandfathering clause , commenting , " e "
would disenfranchise them from that same provision that has been given
to other subdivisions in the Town , adding , this is the one thing that
we ask not to be taken away - - the grandfathering that is on the lots
at the present time . Attorney Barney responded that he did not think
there was grandfathering to the extent that one can build on it ,
unless there is a dedicated road . Mr . Hilker said that in the exact
same situation , building permits have been issued on one other
subdivision that he knew of . Mr . Hilker offered that the subdivision
is up toward the Ulysses Town line . Mr . Hilker stated that he does
not know the name of the subdivision , but it is noted in a letter he
has , which is at home . Mr . Hilker noted that the developer of the
subdivision had appeared before the Planning Board , and authorization
was granted to build on those lots . Attorney Barney replied that
there is a variance procedure that one can go through under Town Law
Section 280 - a , adding , Mr . Hilker would have to go through that same
variance procedure now in order to build . Attorney Barney noted that
• Mr . Hilker is asking for a modification to a subdivision , and does not
think that can be done , as there is a problem with the road , and the
problem has to be addressed , commenting that people should be put on
notice that one cannot build on what is , basically , an unimproved
road . Mr . Hilker stated that that is exactly what he means ; they can
come __ be_fore the Board on a road that has not been improved and ask for
that variance from the ZBA , with Attorney Barney noting that that was
correct . Mr . Hilker mentioned that when something goes on record that
that cannot be done , then that probably prohibits the granting of the
variance , as he has , seen these things before , in that five years from
now it is misinterpreted as to what the intent was .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Approval of Modifications of
lot dimensions with respect to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No .
6 - 54 - 4 - 15 , - 16 . 1 , - 16 . 21P - 17 , - 18 , - 19 , - 20 , - 21 , and - 22 ,
located in the area of Kendall Avenue , with said lots originally
platted in the name of the Lands of the Ithaca Land Company , as
filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk on July 12 ,
1895 , and with said lots proposed to be modified as shown on map
entitled " Boundary Survey Map , Kendall Avenue Area " , by John S .
MacNeill Jr . , P . C . , dated April 20 , 1989 .
• 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed modifications . The Zoning Board of
Planning Board - 26 - May 2 , 1989
Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in any
possible variances with respect to the proposed modifications .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 2 , 1989 , has
reviewed the application submissions for this action .
4 . The Planning Board has , on May 2 , 1989 , made a negative
determination of environmental significance for the proposed
modifications .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Approval to
the proposed modifications as presented , subject to the following
conditions :
a . Submission of an amendment to the above - referenced " Boundary
Survey Map , Kendall Avenue Area " showing the Iacovelli - Elmo
property , for approval by the Town Attorney .
b . Submission of a property owners agreement accepting the plat as
shown , suitable for recording in the Office of the Tompkins
County Clerk , for approval by the Town Attorney .
c . Granting of any variances or authorizations , if required , by the
• Zoning Board of Appeals .
d . Approval by the Town Attorney of the existing status of title to
the portions of Kendall Avenue adjacent to the involved lots , or ,
if the Town Attorney determines title is insufficient , conveyance
to the Town of Ithaca of such portions of Kendall Avenue by
appropriate instruments of title .
e . Subject to the provisions of Town Law Section 280 - a and other
applicable laws and regulations , no building permits shall be
issued for construction on any of the involved lots without road
frontage until road title status is clarified , and until the
necessary roadway is constructed and approved for dedication to
the Town .
f . Amendment of the proposed boundary survey map to show the
dimensioned width of the road , prior to signing of the map by the
Planning Board Chair and prior to filing of said map in the
Office of the Tompkins County Clerk .
g . Amendment of Note # 1 on said boundary survey map to delete
reference to the Miller map as being filed .
h . Correction of Note # 2 on said boundary survey map to refer to the
correct date of the Carl Crandall map entitled " A portion of D . L .
& W . Railroad Lands - South Hill at Ithaca , N . Y . "
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Planning Board - 27 - May 2 , 1989
• Aye - Langhans , May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Langhans declared the matter of Consideration of
Approval of Modifications of lot dimensions in the Kendall Avenue Area
duly closed at 11 : 28 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Vice - Chairperson Langhans declared the May 2 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 30
Pam *
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
,l
•
1005 Danby Road
Ithaca , NY 14850
March 21 , 1989
Dear Member of the Town Board ;
The individuals .whose names :appearon the enclosed . petition - — - - — — - -
request that their properties be . rezoned fran R9 to R15 . For your
; ;o .. �, p:��1 re .
next
Cory . Y.. forIsyiveito
the signature of the owner . Also , a map , highlighted in yellow, shows
the relative positions of the properties to be rezoned . You will
notice that all the homes are on - South Hill , most are contiguous in
either bands or groupings , and- that each property is owner-oo pied ,
have no houses , or have a rental home . It is anticipated that others
within our community - ray wish for a similar rezoning Some property
owners live . out of state ,, and could not be reached . We are in the
process of commu i
icating with them .
The primary reason for this request is that my neighbors feel our
homes are more representative of an R15 zoning , particularly in light
of our - institutional neighbor , Ithaca College , which is R15 R30 . - Not
everyone reads the legals , and many were surprised to learn they owned
R9 property . This petition is timed with reference to the 4phase one of
the . coup ive plan . We feel that our cmmu city needs to establish
its identity to our Town Planners as an area of family residences , not
eonaneraial or business enterprises for which it seems to have a
reputation . My neighbors and I believe .we must act soon and that this
request asks for a formal recognition of our ccmmmity and its
character . We ask for your support and would be pleased to answer your
questions .
Since
Karl J . Niklas
cc : Stuart Brown Associates
Ronald Simpson
EXHIBIT 1
•
DRAFT _LETTER_QN_PROPOSED_FALL_CREEK_RECREATIONAL_RIVER
DE.SIGNA_TIQN
Planning Board , May 2 , 1989
Drafted : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
TO :
Mr . Thomas C . Jorling , Commissioner
N . Y . S . Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany , N . Y . 12233
Dear Mr . Jorling :
With respect to the proposal by " Citizens Against Hydropower
at Ithaca Falls " for State Recreational River designation of
portions of Fall Creek in the City of Ithaca and Towns of
Ithaca and Dryden , the following comments are being
submitted to you , as reviewed by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board .
• In general , while the concept and _ objectives of the proposed
L recreational river designation show some merit , many
concerns have been raised by involved landowners at recent
Planning Board reviews of the proposal with respect to the
effectiveness of the designation and its compatibility with
local land use planning . Given intensified local
comprehensive planning activity , it is recommended that no
endorsement of the proposed designation be made without a
full exploration of the need for the supplementing of
localized regulation .
The Town of Ithaca is currently undergoing an intensified
comprehensive planning effort ,. and has hired a planning
consultant to evaluate and make recommendations on all
elements of Town comprehensive planning , including a
statement of goals and objectives drafted by the Planning
Board . Open space conservation is a vital element among the
general long range objectives endorsed by the Comprehensive
Planning Subcommittee .
Phase I of the current comprehensive planning update
is expected to be completed this summer . The work of later
phases could include the development by the Town of its own
additional mechanisms for preservation and conservation
along Fall Creek and other important local waterways .
Cornell University itself is . currently involved in campus
master planning activities including the planning for
facility expansion and the further designation of
conservation corridors along Fall Creek to supplement
existing conservation management policy . Cornell
Plantations currently manages most of the lands abutting
EXHIBIT 2
•
Fall Creek within the proposed State river area as a
preserve .
The land abutting Fall Creek in the Town is zoned for low
density residential use . No commercial or industrial uses
are permitted . Educational uses are permitted only upon
Special Approval .
Any proposed new development by Cornell , which is the
largest landholder in the Town adjoining Fall Creek , is
subject to Special Approval review by both the Planning
Board ( site plan review ) and by the Zoning Board of Appeals ,
which must consider the appropriateness of the use as well
as the site plan . Public Hearings and environmental review
are conducted by both of these boards .
The use of a variance mechanism to regulate educational uses
under the proposed river designation appears to be neither
justifiable nor appropriate , given the large land holdings
of Cornell , existing University conservation management , and
current area - wide planning activities .
The record of projects reviewed by the Town of Ithaca shows
a strong commitment to the preservation of open space and
the protection of neighborhoods . Clustered development has
been part of Town Subdivision Regulations since and is
used for almost half of . all residential subdivisions . The
Town ' s Flood Plain Management Ordinance , as well as existing
N . Y . S . D . E . C . regulations for protected streams , are
additional existing regulations pertaining to Fall Creek .
Given current local planning efforts , it does not presently
appear that the proposed State designation would be
compatible with area planning goals and objectives . It is
preferable that existing local land use mechanisms be
supplemented locally to achieve those protections which may
be necessary for Fall Creek .
Very truly yours ,
Susan C . Beeners
Town Planner
cc :
Vernon Husak , N . Y . S . D . E . C .
Assemblyman Martin Luster
Senator James Seward
EXHIBIT 2
w
TO: TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FROM: FALL CREEK CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
DATE: May 2, 1989
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the April 18th meeting about the Fall Creek Wild, Scenic and
Recreational River proposal submitted to the DEC by the Fall Creek Conservation Committee. As I
- - mentioned at the meeting, we are in close-communication-with-DEC staff-and-are-in the process of making----
technical amendments to our proposal (i.e. the location of dams, expanded descriptive information for each
section, etc.). Our main task ahead involves facilitating discussion with involved municipalities and
property owners ._ We currently have meetings scheduled for the coming week, including talks with the
League of Women Voters , Cornell University, and the Forest Home Improvement Association.
Additionally, updated information has been given to the County Planning and Economic Development
Committee and the Soil and Water Conservation District.
We would appreciate the Town's cooperation with this matter and in recognizing the urgency of this
situation. It is obviously complex and will not be possible without the cooperation of all concerned. Mr.
Frantz questioned our time constraint at the April meeting; .I'd like to elaborate on that again. The city must
begin construction by September of 1991 or the FERC license will expire. A lead time of at least 18 months
is required for a project of this kind which means that a decision to build or not must be made by the City
Common Council by about March of 1990. Considering the amount of time this could take to get into
legislative session, we feel it is imperative to keep this process moving. I have been informed by Ms.
Beeners that town comprehensive planning will not be completed for another 1 - 1 1/2 years. A designation
after that time would be useless to us in regards to keeping hydropower out, since as I've said, the city
would need to begin construction by that time. The city will not let its license lapse without an effective
designation in hand. We are asking that review of this designation not be put on hold until Town
comprehensive planning is voted into action. Rather, we would like to request that the Town Planning
Board or the Town Board immediately designate . memberswho will help .assess this designation and be
. responsible for communicating town concerns to us as well as updates of the proposal process to the Board.
We will be scheduling a meeting, in cooperation with the city, for municipalities and property owners for
mid-late May. The Director of the NYS Rivers Program will be invited and it will be essential to have Ithaca
Town representatives attend. It is our hope that designated members, if not all of you, will attend.
The proposed designation area that would fall within the Ithaca Town borders covers an approximately 1
and 1/2 mile stretch of Fall Creek
On two other items of note:
First, we have discussed the possibility of eliminating the interim boundary period althogether with
Assemblyman Luster and the DEC. This appears to be a workable idea but needs further research. We will
keep you informed as this idea progresses.
Secondly, we been informed by DEC that acts of the legislature are not subject to SEQR. To clarify this
point: NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS LEGISLATION.
Notice to affected property owners and a thirty-day waiting period and notice in the Environmental Notice
Bulletin arg required. These steps will not add a significant waiting period to this stage of the process.
(This is relevant because Ms. Beeners reported at your last meeting that SEQR was required and would add
significant time to an interim period.)
Again, I'd like to say that though the final boundaries are set by public hearing after the designation has been
voted on in the state legislature, we are suggesting that now is the time for the Town and other municipalities
and property owners to meet for discussion and possibly suggest tentative boundary changes. The Fall
Creek Conservation Committee will consider submitting reasonably amended boundaries to the
Commissioner long before the legislative vote; we expect these amendment suggestions to come out of our
discussions over the next few weeks.
We believe it is time for long-term conservation planning to protect and enhance a community resource as
rich and vital as Fall Creek We hope that as you continue to review the designation and its regulations that
you will join with us and the many others in the city of Ithaca and in the Town of Ithaca, as well as many
other neighboring communities, who support this protection effort. We thank you for your attention to this
matter.
EXHIBIT 3
ATFI D A 10M. CW W&LJCATION e
tA
T . IT JOURNAL.
_ - -. .... ... . . e
" : . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC
=3Z DINT'- t:.Lt be r=ides im lthAc&, County Ln .o,+ rwe ifQrmaja LDa HEARINGS TUESd . MAY 2, 1989
By di of the Chairman
of the PlanningBoard, NOTICE
tw ba, ii . eI . _ ._ �__�._.___.�----- - _ ..- .._. _..
IS HEREBY GIEN, that Public
-- -- - - - Hearings will be held by thej
Planning Board of thTown of
TSU ITSA_ CA jOLT.Nwry. s Pr 4 ber►Tpapw P'7Dt- Ln P•1�3�.a . . - . - 1t989ain acTowun Hall, 126 esEasday, Mat .
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at
the following times and on the ( .
i: ci Lau thal.- iDotizc- of whicb the annexed t L &u6. _ - following matters:
-- - 7: 30 P. M. Consideration . of
Preliminary
1�T; , ,,� rovolinand preliminary Ste
�t Poz list esti. in 1 Li i p po
p.p
. . -- •--- – - – Plan Approval for the ro-
�' I posed "Indian Creek Retire-
ment Community", for the
—\ _ .._ • _�l`J_ _ __, •_- ____-- - - ___, • _, • --••_ •- _--_ -• 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 Trumans-
burg Road, 66. 7 plus/minus
�?. t�t � ! L,! r � •• -. '� . � n�. Or S '�1 � _ � � . µ-� O : ti, [ acres total , into a clustered
- _
condominium retirement sub-+
division consisting of an 80-,
1 unit building, 60 dwelling
}: . 0. _. _ . - . . . . . . _ . .9. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . - _• __ --- _ . ._ . .. . . . -• - __- • - -. . .. f� - . 0 1. • units bin single-or two-family,
attached structures, and pub=
lic open space. CMH Asso
_ . .... .. . . . . . . . . � �— dates, Owner; HOLT Ar-4_ ..
chitects, Agent.
ration
•S'_ ':^ � : SK',^= c
Approval lofCModfecations of
L ^ ... _ I+ e�i C.b �•- lot dimensions with respect to
• Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No.
6-54-4- 15, - 16. 11 - 16. 2, - 17, :
_ . . _ . . .. . . . . . . _ •._ _ - - 1 18, - 19, -20, -21 , and -22, lo ,
Gated in the area of Kendall
Avenue, with said lots origi l
- _. —.. _. . . .. .. - .. _. ._. . . --- Hally platted in the
am` of,
the Lands of the a and
Company, as filed in the Of-'
-' JEAN - rC' KL fice of the Tompkins County
? NYork Clerk on July 12, 1895, and
i\lOtary Public, tit Ce\•V with said lots proposed to be'
C
- " = modified as shown on map'
NO. 4E . 1U entitled "Boundary Surveyi
QUai ! fed In I Cmpkins County Map, Kendall Avenue Area",
by John S. MacNeill Jr. , P. C. ,
- - Commission expires May 31 , 19 . .
. .---. - - -
ate April 20, 1989. Louis Bo
panni Jr. , J 8 L. Builders,
, .•. . -. _ -. . .. - . .. . . . . . James Hilker, Ralph Thorpe, f
Sackett a dlnLow- 1
,..- -
• Michael an
Pamela E.
-
,. . . . : rence E. lacovelli and John !
Elmo, Jr. , Owners; Pamela ' .
.. .:- -
- - and Stephen Sackett, Agents.
Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place hear
s - - all persons in support of suchl -
t _ matters or objections thereto.
µ
Persons n person . appear by agent
_s.. = .=t•- z+ . , _ - . . .. . . . -,. -' --- - - - - - Jean _ -
- e Swartwood
H
Town Clerk
_ .
273- 1721
e'. .•: s . . , April 27, 1989