Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-06-06 FILED TOWN OF ITHACW Date. ajzyu TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerkzj,042na 3 JUNE 6 , 1989 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , June 6 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , James Baker , Robert Miller , Robert Kenerson , Stephen Smith , Montgomery May , Sally S . Olsen ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) . ALSO PRESENT : David A . McArdle ( Cayuga Lake Estates ) , Rosalind Grippi , Salvatore Grippi , Eugene Ball , David C . Aub le , Sandy Rogers . Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 21 , 1989 MOTION by Robert Miller , seconded by Stephen Smith : • RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board {� Meeting of March 21 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , Miller , Kenerson , Smith , May . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : " CAYUGA LAKE ESTATES " , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 48 LOTS PLUS A 7 -ACRE PARK SITE , AND PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED EAST OF ORCHARD HILL ROAD AND WEST OF N . Y . S . RT , 89 , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 22 - 2 - 2 . 2 , - 2 . 9 , AND 6 - 21 - 1 - 5 , 65 . 9 ± ACRES TOTAL , RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R- 1501 R- 30 . EDWARD J . MCARDLE AND LESLIE N . REIZES , OWNERS ; DAVID A . MCARDLE , APPLICANT . Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at 7 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . McArdle approached the Board and appended two maps to the bulletin board . Mr . McArdle explained that the map on the right is the revised map which is being presented at tonight ' s meeting , and the map on the left is the previous plan . Mr . McArdle noted that the plan is being submitted tonight under a sketch plan , adding that some of the details that were shown on the original plan are not shown on tonight ' s plan as far as how to handle all the drainage and road grade {i comparisons , and further adding that , basically , because of road grades and other calculations the developer has made , the assumptions Planning Board - 2 - June 6 , 1989 would be basically the same ; they are just not noted on the revised map , commenting that it could be engineered out at the time of Preliminary Approval . Mr . McArdle remarked that major concepts , however , would be discussed tonight so he would not get involved with his above comments . At this point , Mr . McArdle referred to a letter composed by him and addressed to the Planning Board , dated June 2 , 1989 . [ Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ] Mr . McArdle said that the major changes are laid out so that , currently , it fulfills the R- 15 and R- 30 zoning on the property . Mr . McArdle , referring to the Cayuga Lake Estates Sketch Plan dated May 25 , 1989 , stated that No . 2 under NOTES should read " Lots 46 thru 48 are currently zoned R- 15 " . At this time , Mr . McArdle addressed the items noted in the referenced June 2 , 1989 letter Mr . McArdle said that the reason for the switch from cluster back to standard zoning was because some of the people on the Board and staff expressed some concern that , though the developer fell into the letter of the law as far as the cluster , the intent of the cluster provision was to have something more densely sited , not necessarily attached , type of housing leaving more open area , this did not fill • the intent , commenting , the present plan is now under the standard zoning plan . Mr . McArdle stated that , secondly , the problem arose because of density , noting that a lot of people argued the site was being too densely developed . Mr . McArdle noted that , currently , by adhering to the standard zoning , and making some of the lots larger , the developer has reduced the number of lots from the proposed 60 on the original plan to 48 , that being a reduction of approximately 200 . Mr . McArdle said that any further reduction in the density poses further problems , because to get the 10 % or less grade on the road , one , basically , has to construct a very winding road system that is taking advantage of the angles instead of going directly up the grade , adding , even though the developer would like to have shorter roads , which , obviously , would be less development cost , it is almost impossible to do that , commenting , because there are all those roads , there would be a lot more lots , and also because of the fact that the developer is planning the site as a sewered and watered subdivision . Mr . McArdle stated that it is really hard to make lots much larger than 3 / 4 of an acre or one acre . Mr . McArdle said that some of the lots are 2 acres , because the cost of running the sewer past the lots becomes prohibitive , because of the specs required by the Town , which are no different from anywhere else in the country , but they are very costly . Mr . McArdle remarked that if there were 5 acre lots involved , and besides the road issue , it would be very costly ; one is talking about $ 10 , 000 . 00 - $ 15 , 000 . 00 a lot improvement costs just to run the sewer . and water past them . Planning Board - 3 - June 6 , 1989 • Continuing , Mr . McArdle addressed the issue of drainage . Mr . McArdle noted that on the original plan , there were some areas that people expressed concern with , and because a lot of the Board members walked the site they were concerned about , the buildability of some of the sites . Mr . McArdle offered that the developer has increased the size of the lots , and has provided a considerable amount of area that even if none of the drainageways were changed , there is plenty of buildable space for houses . Mr . McArdle stated that the developer has allocated 5000 - 6000 square feet for the base of a house . Mr . McArdle stated that , in addition , after walking the site , again , 2 - 3 weeks ago and after some heavy rains , the developer tried to determine what the more significant of the drainageways are on the map , and , basically , the developer eliminated it down to the three biggest - one being the northern ravine , then there is a drainage area located , basically , through the center of the property that starts to pick up a lot of water , at least this time of year , and then , of course , Indian Creek . Mr . McArdle stated that what the developer has done , related to these things , is to try and put an easement on it , noting , this is not an easement in the sense that the Town has to maintain it , but in a sense to keep them from being dammed , changed , or in case something falls into them , then the lot owner or the Town could go in and eliminate the obstruction , and also to make sure that their beauty remains , e . g . , [ indicating on map ] " this " one is not as large as either one of " these " , but " this " one has steps , perhaps built by a farmer , and it gives a beautiful cascading effect of water going down . Mr . McArdle • offered that it would be a shame for the development , as well as for the Town , to lose that by someone cutting off the water supply , commenting that at least for the main majority of it , where it picks up all the water , the developer has put an easement on it so no one can obstruct it . Again , [ indicating on map ] Mr . McArdle said that with the roads going " here " the developer plans , of course , to put a culvert so the water would go under and continue through . Mr . McArdle commented that another problem which arose at the previous meeting was the issue of an intersection . Mr . McArdle mentioned the intersection at Bear Paw and Falling Water , which is located " here " on the map . Mr . McArdle remarked that the problem was perceived by some of the staff that because a lot of the ravines and creeks come together " here " , this would be a difficult one to engineer , not impossible , but one that - why did you put it here instead of somewhere else ? Mr . McArdle commented that , having walked the site , and having noticed that that probably would be a more difficult area than others to do it , the developer moved the proposed road up " here " where the intersection of Falling Water would be located now , and there are not the same problems as with three creeks coming together as there are no creeks in " this " area . Mr . McArdle mentioned the fact that some of the Board members , as well as the engineering staff , expressed concern with the developer trying to cross the northern ravine with a road to develop the lots on " this " side . Mr . McArdle stated that the developer has proposed to • not cross the ravine with any roads , but that the area north of " this " ravine is proposed to be deeded over to the Town as a park . Planning Board - 4 - June 6 , 1989 • Mr . McArdle stated that the above , basically , outlines the major changes between the two plats . Chairman Grigorov wondered about access to the park . Mr . McArdle responded that the developer has provided an access " here " , which is an ingress / egress easement that a road could be built in through there off " this " cul de sac , otherwise , through the NYSEG right - of -way , another easement , if necessary , could be put in between Lots No . 45 and No . 27 , adding that the intentions are not to make this a park with playing fields as it would not work that way , but to leave it as green space with a minimum access point , either off the NYSEG right - of - way , or through an easement , and it would be suitable for whatever maintenance that had to be done . Assistant Town Planner George Frantz wondered how one would build a road across a 20 - foot deep ravine , on a 20 - foot wide easement . Mr . McArdle answered that he did not think the intentions were necessarily such that a road would be built across it ; it would be more of an access point that , if one wanted to put a gravel road out to the ravine it could be done , or it could be something that someone might want to provide later , in the sense of a bridge footpath . Mr . McArdle said that he felt the easiest way to cross it would be to negotiate with NYSEG , which he did not think would be a problem , adding , the right - of -way , currently , is almost driveable . Chairman Grigorov wondered if one could get a vehicle onto that . Mr . Frantz noted that it is owned by NYSEG . Mr . McArdle said that one would be able to get a vehicle on it once the access road is put in . Virginia Langhans commented that there really • is not room to turn a vehicle around ; it would be more of a walking path , with Mr . McArdle stating that he did not see why , in the nature of this park , that that many vehicles would ever have to go back there . Mr . McArdle said that because of the grade and the trees he saw it as more of a green space open area , commenting that if the path ever becomes kind of a parkland trail , like it has been proposed , then it would be a nice area that possibily , at most , could have picnic tables , but otherwise maybe a sign saying " Nature Trail " , which would wind through the woods . Montgomery May wondered what kind of a footprint was proposed for Lots No . 27 and No . 45 for a foundation that would not encroach upon the gorge . Mr . McArdle [ indicating on map ] said that the footprint would be in " this " area . Mr . May remarked that it looks as though it would be awfully small , staying outside the 50 - foot set - back line , and also staying outside the gorge , adding , considerably smaller than is shown for Lot No . 8 . Mr . McArdle stated that the space is certainly big enough for a lot . Again , [ indicating on map ] Mr . McArdle noted that in " this " area " here " he was not saying that no one could build on it , and , by logic , most people would not build there , because there is a certain area that naturally falls off , and to get a foundation on it one would have to stay back from it . Mr . McArdle offered that the way the easement - was written , and which was submitted , is that , basically , in this area the drainage flow cannot be obstructed , e . g . , someone could not go into the ravine and build some kind of structure , • manmade or not , to dam it into a pool or anything else like that . Mr . May commented that the Board felt , at the last meeting , that there was a great deal of concern about anybody building up to the edge of the Planning Board - 5 - June 6 , 1989 gorge , much less over it . Mr . McArdle responded that he thought as far as whether someone could build or not , obviously , it would have to pass the building code . Mr . McArdle remarked that he did not think that many people would build up or across the ravine . Mr . McArdle said that if someone could prove to the building department that it was a good idea he would not deny someone , because that is one of the reasons why people would want to buy these lots , they would have a view of the ravine . Mr . McArdle [ indicating on map ] stated that there is no buildable site " here " , but they could build a house " here " or " here " . Mr . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , directing his comment to Mr . May ' s previous comment , stated that it does appear at the eastern edge of Lot No . 45 in the buildable area , that there is anywhere from 20 ' - 30 ' between the set - back line and the break in the contour lines , which , generally , signifies the edge of the ravine . Mr . McArdle responded with , at least that , adding that he sees about 50 ' in that area , based on the scale of 1 " to 100 ' . Mr . May stated that that means putting the foundation all the way back to the edge of the gorge , which does not seem to him to be a very wise thing to do . Chairman Grigorov wondered about the set- back from the front of the lot being 351 . Mr . Frantz replied that from the contour lines it appears to be the edge of the ravine . Mr . McArdle said that that is the narrowest , but there is a much larger area in the center to the southern boundary , without having any problems with side lot • requirements . Stephen Smith asked if there were any kind of Homeowners ' Association , Mr . McArdle answered that the original proposal included a Homeowners ' Association , but this being a Sketch Plan he did not re - submit that document , noting that , basically , the contents would adhere to the same requirements , in that there would be certain restrictions on fencing , and size of house . Mr . McArdle noted that there would be no public lands in the area at all . Mr . McArdle stated that the restriction as to the drainage easements would also appear in the Restrictive Covenants , Robert Kenerson wondered if Lots No . 46 , 47 , and 48 would exit on Route 89 , Mr . McArdle answered , yes , that is the way the developer planned it , but there could still be a road constructed on the back , adding , there could be a 20 - foot ingress / egress easement as shown on the map . Mr . McArdle offered that a discussion was held with the staff , and noted that it did not mean that Lots No . 46 , 47 , and 48 could not access down to Route 89 , it is really an alternative . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , mentioned that Lot No . 46 , 47 , and 48 would not consistently meet the requirements as far as lot depth for R- 15 zoning , adding that her comment was based on the dimensions that were supplied previously by the developer . Ms . Beeners said that a variance would have to be acquired to build more than one dwelling on the three lots . Mr . McArdle [ indicating on map ] stated that he has • talked with the current owner of " this " property , which is in a Trust , which Mr . Les Reizes controls . Mr . McArdle said that Mr . Reizes informed him that he has not yet determined the issue of the property , Planning Board - 6 - June 6 , 1989 • because there is some debate over where the boundaries are of the NYSEG right -of - way . Mr . McArdle offered that the lots are a couple of feet short , and Mr . Reizes felt that somehow someone got gypped out of a couple of feet of land . Mr . McArdle stated that he was proposing , currently , since this is a sketch plan , to keep the three lots , and if Mr . Reizes decides he cannot get three lots , as this is his parcel of land , or that he wants to pursue a variance , then that is another issue . Mr . McArdle added that one lot is about 2 feet off , and the other one is 3 feet . Mr . McArdle commented that if one notices on the map , Mr . Reizes ' debate is that , right in that area , for some reason , the NYSEG right - of -way dips in , adding that Mr . Reizes wondered whether that legal description was right or wrong . Mr . Kenerson asked Mr . McArdle if he were including the lots in his proposal , with Mr . McArdle answering , yes , if it is not fulfilled and Mr . Reizes wants to pursue it , then the developer would have to go before the ZBA for a variance on those lots , and if not , probably the proposal would be to keep one lot in that area , because one lot would fulfill it , and the road still going through . Mr . Kenerson wondered what that would do to the access on Route 89 . Mr . McArdle offered that there is no problem ; Mr . Reizes would just like to see as many lots , as this is his property , and he had proposed appearing before the Board on just " this " piece , if this were ever denied for any reason , then he still wants to develop his property . Mr . McArdle said that Mr . Reizes had originally laid out the property into five lots , with access directly onto Route 89 . Mr . McArdle said that Cayuga Lake Estates had entered a joint venture with Mr . Reizes saying that it made sense for . everybody , because his property is really not that desirable if you have to access that way , if there is no sewer and water , and it has to be taken across the street to have Cayuga Lake Estates construct a road across the property , which he agreed to , and have access for " this " lot this way , and also the road would be for the purpose of bringing the sewer and water back through the back of that lot . Mr . Kenerson wondered about the status with the State in order to access Route 89 . Mr . McArdle responded that the State does not have a problem with it , but they are waiting for the Town to give their okay for the subdivision , concept -wise , and also through the preliminary plat , so they can say : okay , this is where the road is , and if it can be engineered correctly then they will agree to it . Mr . McArdle noted that the State informed him not to contact them , or submit anything , unless the road that is being proposed would be there , because if it is moved , the same process would have to be repeated . Mr . McArdle said that the distance measurements were done , because the DOT wanted to know . Mr . McArdle stated that NYSEG has no problem , as to the right - of -way , of granting an easement for a road , but they would like to know , after the Town has decided , that the basic location for the road is okay . Mr . McArdle stated that this , of - course , would be before the final plat was approved and the road is dedicated , commenting , all of these issues would have to be resolved , or , if they are not resolved , obviously , there is a deadend , and everything has to go back to the beginning . • Mr . Smith asked about the utility site in the southeast corner , and who was going to own that . Mr . McArdle answered that the Planning Board - 7 - June 6 , 1989 • developer could continue to own it . Mr . McArdle offered that there are some difficulties " here " with the sewer system , basically because there is a bottleneck down " here " at the City . Mr . McArdle said that it has been worked out with the staff , and the staff is going to pursue it with the City , as to its use a holding tank facility , where it would be a gravity fed sewer system , to a holding tank that would let out the sewage during the low peak hours . Mr . Smith wondered , if something goes wrong in the storage tank device , who fixes it ? Attorney Barney replied that it is contemplated that it may be Town owned . Mr . McArdle offered that , to back up a little bit , when Robert Flumerfelt was the Town Engineer , and because of the bottleneck , he suggested , just off the top of his head , the sewage should be pumped up Orchard Hill Road to the other sewer line which does not have that problem . Mr . McArdle stated that , if that were the case , then there is the problem of putting in a number of pumping stations , which would be between four and five of them , adding , if there were four or five pumping stations that would be an added cost to the developer of about $ 20 , 000 . 00 a piece . Mr . McArdle stated that once Mr . Flumerfelt found that out , and that it would be worse for the Town because the Town has to maintain them , it did not make sense to pump uphill . Mr . McArdle said that the sewage would go into the line on the Cayuga Lake side of Route 89 , adding , the problem with that line , as he had noted before , was that there is a capacity problem at a pumping station where the line goes , which is at the Cass Park pumping station before the City Treatment Plant , commenting that , if in the middle of the day , or more • likely , the high time of the day is 5 : 00 p . m . or 6 : 00 p . m . , and the worry is that the capacity of the station would not be enough . Mr . McArdle stated that his proposal was that a holding tank would be installed so the material could be stored and then released at the non - peak hours . Mr . Kenerson wondered what was being done on Orchard Hill Road at the present time . Mr . McArdle responded that the sewer line on Orchard Hill Road does not go all the way down ; there are some houses that are still on septic systems . Town Engineer Sally Olsen stated that , as far as the sanitary is concerned , she did contact , as she had agreed , the City Engineer , about the capacity of the Cass Park pump station , and acquired his feelings toward any additional flows , especially significant flows in a 48 - lot subdivision . Ms . Olsen offered that , to say he was not open to the idea would be an understatement . Ms . Olsen said that the Cass Park pumping station and the force main that it feeds remains across the golf course , heading for the Waste Water Treatment Plant , are , as she was informed , all undersized , and not adequate for an additional flow of this size , and even with the delay tank - they were not interested in it . Mr . Kenerson wondered what the City suggested . Ms . Olsen answered with , to pump it up through the Hospital or through the line down the road , or if they wish to contribute toward the improvement of the pumping station . Mr . Kenerson said that it is not the pumping station , it is the line . Ms . Olsen said that it is not • only the pumping station , although that is part of it . Mr . Kenerson noted that they have to go from the plant to the pumping station with an adequate size line , with Ms . Olsen responding , right , it is , in Planning Board - 8 - June 6 , 1989 • their opinion , all undersized for this addition , certainly in the daytime , without a holding tank . Mr . Kenerson wondered what the solution was , mentioning the fact that it was noted that the holding tank , and going into the Cass Park pump station would not work . Ms . Olsen responded that the City is not open to the idea , and added that she did not know where that leads . Ms . Langhans mentioned that that puts a wrinkle in everything . Mr . McArdle said that the only wrinkle is that it makes , both to the Town , and to the developer , a considerable cost of getting up the hill , adding , he thought that it was in the best interests of everyone to convince the City there is some way around it . Mr . McArdle stated that , obviously , there is a cost involved in putting pumping stations in , and he would be willing to donate that money to the City to alleviate their problem , commenting , if the problem is $ 500 , 000 . 00 , then that is ridiculous . Mr . McArdle offered that the issue is , and he has looked into it , there is some difficulty if the developer is able to prove that this can work , then denying it , because the area , when the lines were put there , was taxed to put in the new sewer line . Mr . McArdle remarked that it is hard to say to someone when they have been taxed for a sewer line that they cannot use it . Mr . Frantz wondered if the parcel was actually assessed , with Mr . McArdle replying , supposedly it was . Attorney Barney stated that there are two levels of assessment ; the entire Town is assessed , but there is a nominal assessment on many of the lots where there is not direct sewer access . Mr . McArdle [ indicating on map ] said that there is direct sewer access on " these " • lots " here " on Route 89 . Attorney Barney stated that he did not think those lots on Route 89 would cause a problem . Mr . McArdle noted that , because of the subject subdivision being tied in to Route 89 , there is some access to some of this that can possibly go downhill , at least the three lots , if not more . Ms . Beeners offered that the parcel has no frontage on Route 89 , Mr . McArdle responded that his parcel has no frontage on Route 89 , but when the joint venture is entered into , this parcel is on Route 89 , Attorney Barney remarked that that does not convert the benefit , if any , to the parcels on Route 89 to the parcel being discussed tonight . Mr . McArdle said that the submitted subdivision has access on Route 89 . Attorney Barney replied , that may be , but noted that his point was that when this is submitted , there has to be plans for water and sewer that will work , commenting , if there is a problem engineering -wise , then it is up to the developer to come in with a plan , adding that he was not sure the developer had any vested rights with respect to the larger piece simply by merging it with a smaller piece . Mr . McArdle stated that his only point was that , working toward this , if the sewer issue does not go through , then the alternative would be to pump it up Orchard Hill Road , and the disadvantage to that is not one that cannot be engineered , it is just a matter of how many pumping stations would be put in , and how many would have to be maintained . Mr . McArdle commented that he does not see the subject area as an area where one would want to use septic systems . Mr . Kenerson wondered if , from the Town ' s standpoint , the sewage can be solved . Ms . Beeners replied that it could be pumped to the Hospital , pumped across to Happy Lane and up to the Hospital . Mr . • May stated that there is nothing that states the Town is going to accept those pump stations . Ms . Beeners responded , true , but the benefit of having a connection into the Taughannock Blvd . line is Planning Board - 9 - June 6 , 1989 • rather minimal to the Town , because now we can feed just about everybody into the Hospital sewer , which does need some upgrading , but there is a contributory type of mechanism now to get that upgrade done . Ms . Beeners questioned if there would be another possibility as to have the lots public watered , but with enough land area associated with them so that they could have septic systems that would operate . Mr . McArdle inquired as to what lot size would be acceptable . Mr . McArdle said that he thought it would be better to have a sewer system , because most people would rather be on a sewer line than septic , adding , if septic can work here , then fine , that cuts the development cost , the water can be run through cheaper . Mr . Ken erson thought that it was a minimum of one acre . Attorney Barney stated that the Town is concerned , of course , that the lots have to meet the zoning , adding that he did not think it was an acre requirment when one has public water , but 3 / 4 of an acre , and very dependent on the soil conditions . Ms . Langhans mentioned bedrock . Mr . McArdle wondered if , as to development in New York State , have modified septic fields been accepted , like multi - flow systems and other things . Mr . McArdle said that there are systems , like grinder pumps , where the effluent is chemically treated , or there are raised - bed septic systems . Attorney Barney said that a raised - bed system would be accepted . Mr . McArdle stated that it was his understanding that the law is , basically , for a sewer system , if the pumping stations are built by the developer , then the Town has to take • them . Attorney Barney responded , no , right about the time of preliminary plat approval , the developer presents , to the Town Board , a copy of the plat which shows the various public facilities , such as roads , sewers , water lines , and in this particular case , pumping stations , at which time the Town then looks at it and makes a determination whether they will accept them or not . Attorney Barney wondered how deep the rock was on the site . Mr . McArdle responded that it varies , and the developer has only done a small sampling because they did not want to get into that until there was some kind of agreement on the roads . Mr . McArdle said that there is rock right on some of the surface , along some of the creeks and other areas , and 800 of it is not existent for quite a distance down , adding , there is a lot of shale . Ms . Olsen , referring to the roads , stated that all the roads are at 10 % or less , except between Route 89 , and the NYSEG right - of -way which is 12 - 1 / 2 % . Mr . Olsen noted that the vast majority of the roads are at 10 % , with some heavy duty cuts , which are not going to fit within a 60 - foot right - of -way with ditches . Ms . Olsen pointed out a cul de sac that shows about a 4 ' cut on the center line of the road for the entire length of that little piece of road . Mr . McArdle stated that Ms . Olsen ' s comment was mentioned earlier , and the developer did not change the rights - of -way , as the developer is trying to secure an agreement for the road , but if the right -of -way has to be made larger to accommodate the engineering that would be done , then it • would be done . Ms . Olsen said that that was only the beginning of her point . Ms . Olsen noted that she also looked between Lot No . 6 and No . 10 , and if one were to go perpendicular across the road , and look at Planning Board - 10 - June 6 , 1989 • the contours , from one side of that 60 - foot right - of -way to the other there is about an 8 ' drop . Ms . Olsen [ indicating on map ] stated that the " red " line coming across is an 8 - foot drop between the 60 - foot right - of -way lines . Ms . Olsen commented on the roadway template which denotes the current highway specs . Ms . Olsen offered that it is 5 ' to the edge so " this " ditch is about 6 ' deep , then comes the additional problem of fitting a driveway on this . Ms . Olsen remarked that the NYSDOT standards will not allow a residential driveway in a rural area steeper than 120 . Ms . Olsen said that if an 8 ' drop across the 60 - foot right- of -way continues continuously it is already 13 . 30 , and one cannot fit in , as shown on the drawing , a 12 % driveway " here " and " here " , and have it get back up to ground level . Ms . Olsen said she did not know whether that would require basement garages , or just little landing pads on the edge of the shoulder , such as those on Route 89 for the houses that are depressed . Ms . Olsen stated that , for the only driveway access to a property she would not recommend making it steeper than 12 % , because then it is almost requiring the property owner to have a four -wheel drive vehicle . Mr . Frantz mentioned that it is adjusting the right - of -way in the area of Lot No . 13 , which is barely 200 ' deep , along with Lots No . 23 , 29 , 30 , and some of them barely 30 , 000 square feet , adding , if one takes more room for a right -of - way , then the lots do not meet the zoning requirments . Mr . McArdle noted that , obviously , the final plat would meet the zoning requirments . Mr . May commented that Lot No . 10 is barely 200 ' deep . Ms . Olsen commented that the stretch of road between Lots No . • 13 , and 23 is at 10 % . Ms . Olsen agreed with Mr . Frantz in that it would make the usable lot size smaller . Mr . Frantz , commenting on the above , stated that the Town wants to make sure that the developer is aware of the lot size , so that comments can be made at the time of the Preliminary Plat Approval , Mr . McArdle wondered if driveways should be shown on the Preliminary Plat , Mr . May commented that he thought the density was too high for this particular property . Mr . McArdle remarked - how can density be too high when the property is already zoned that way . Mr . May responded that he did not care what the zoning is , one has to look at what the topo is also , and noted that there is topo here that is limiting this , such as gorges , grade and etc . Mr . McArdle asked Mr . May what kind of density he would like to see . Mr . May answered that he did not know , he did not have any idea , but it is fairly obvious that there are lots which are problem lots . Mr . McArdle stated that , if Lot No . 23 does not work because the road has a bigger right - of -way , then it will have to come out , as well as Lot No . 24 , at which time Lot No . 22 will become larger . Mr . McArdle stated that unless there is some agreement , basically , on the layout , the developer cannot go in there and start doing any of the engineering , because the engineering is going to cost a lot of money , noting , if the layout is rejected , then a lot of money has been wasted . Mr . McArdle stated that he is constantly hearing comments as if he were putting too much density on the land . Continuing , Mr . McArdle stated that the point is : many of the lots are 2 acres , some are 2 - 1 / 2 acres , and some of the lots are 30 , 000 sq , ft . , because the developer felt that that works well . Mr . McArdle mentioned the fact • that when he first discussed the site with the staff , as to the density , there was a problem with roads , because it was assumed that because of the long cul de sac , there is a great need for safety Planning Board - 11 - June 6 , 1989 I • purposes to get a cut through to Route 89 or to Happy Lane , Mr . McArdle remarked that there is a lot of road system , and one has to try and get some density . Ms . Beeners wondered if the main problem with Happy Lane was the ownership . Mr . McArdle answered , yes . Mr . Frantz noted that another issue was the developer ' s interpretation of stream versus the Town ' s interpretation . Mr . Frantz remarked that Mr . McArdle had identified what he considered to be only three streams across the subject property . Mr . Frantz stated that he disagreed with that completely , adding that at the last meeting streams were identified that the Town considers are important . Mr . McArdle responded that there are waterways going through the site , they are buildable sites , but on the other streams there would be drainage ditches and roads constructed . Mr . McArdle mentioned the drainage ditch on Orchard Hill Road , Mr . Frantz replied that that drainage ditch is serving a stream that was there before Orchard Hill Road , Chairman Grigorov wondered if the developer was planning to divert the other streams , with Mr . McArdle answering , some of them are going to be caught , there is no plan to divert them . Mr . Frantz asked if this were the stream through Lot No . 31 , Mr . McArdle answered , yes , the stream increases as it flows down , and that is the reason for an easement . Mr . McArdle did not know if it was a year- around stream , and commented that when he was on the site in the Fall of 1988 it had no water , but in a typical rainfall year there probably would be water in it . Mr . Frantz stated that he had visited the site after a long dryspell and those were running streams . Mr . Frantz stated that the streams through Lots No . 44 , 30 , 31 , and 16 were running through long - standing well - developed ravines . Mr . Frantz stated that there is a very definite natural swale in the landscape caused by erosion by that stream . Mr . Frantz indicated that he has a 1954 aerial photo which shows the streams . Mr . McArdle stated that some of the water would be picked up by drainage ditches . Mr . Frantz noted that it was recommended to the Board that the streams not be diverted , but to put culverts in . Virginia Langhans mentioned Lots No . 28 , 29 , and 30 , noting that there is a stream running through Lot No . 30 . Ms . Langhans felt that the stream bisects Lot No . 30 , which would make it very difficult for a homeowner to construct a house on the lot . Ms . Langhans wondered if there could be 2 lots instead of 3 lots . Chairman Grigorov offered that this particular land is so beautiful and has so many difficulties to develop it , noting , that is why , in the beginning , the Board asked for a Cluster plan . Mr . McArdle said that the developer tried to work with the Cluster as best he could , but with a much more dense development , and economically , marketing studies will not work here , in this area , commenting , perhaps if the development were closer to Town , then it would work . Mr . Frantz noted that another question was whether or not the • park was really a usable piece of land for Town park purposes , as at its widest it is 250 ± feet at the west end , and narrowing down to 200 feet or less at the east end . Chairman Grigorov wondered if it was Planning Board - 12 - June 6 , 1989 • enough , as far as acreage was concerned . Mr . Frantz replied that acreage was no problem , but what could the Town do with a 250 ' wide linear park , and would that really provide adequate protection to the woodlands to the ravine . Chairman Grigorov wondered if the line of the park was too far from the ravine . Mr . Frantz responded that on the prior plan the park included at least the stream and afforded it some protection . Mr . Frantz remarked that the Town has to provide usable park space for the people in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . McArdle stated that , basically , everyone considered at the last meeting that the park would be a green space area that would allow for a provision not to have as much density , to allow for the hardwoods in the area , and to provide just extra green space in the community ; it was not something that was looked at as any particular use -as far as developing it as a park . Mr . McArdle stated that , if the intention is that it be developed as a park , then the developer will do something else . Again , Mr . McArdle referred to the last meeting in that it be , basically , a green space . Mr . Frantz responded with , usable green space . Mr . McArdle asked for a definition of usable green space . Mr . Frantz answered that the Town has to look at the fact that developers have purchased the property to the north in the Town of Ulysses , noting , it can be seen , in five years or so , houses backing up against this tract of land , and basically , there is a 200 ' wide corridor of woodland , and commenting whether or not that was appropriate . Ms . Langhans wondered if Lots No . 41 , 42 , and 45 would have to be fenced , commenting that the way the lots are situated , their property lines go on the other side of the ravine , adding , if the lots are not fenced • then everyone is going to think that that is part of the park . Chairman Grigorov wondered if that part of the land is needed for the lot . Mr . McArdle replied that the developer thought it would be a good amenity for the lot owners , marketing -wise , that they have the ravine in their lot . Mr . McArdle mentioned that there was a comment made as to the ravine being a public area , and the liabilities involved , depending on what the definition of a park is . Mr . McArdle said that it adheres to the requirements as far as the amount of land , but it can be changed , if the Board so desires . Mr . McArdle indicated that the northern area was selected because it has the best trees . Chairman Grigorov wondered if there was a limit as to the size of trees that could be cut . Mr . McArdle responded , yes , there is a restriction that on some of the lots where there is dense wood it is a 50 % requirement . Mr . Frantz wondered how a handicapped person would be able to utilize the park in the state that it is in , adding that handicapped accessibility provisions are increasing , expecially where a grant is concerned . Stephen Smith offered that it is rather difficult to have natural areas handicap accessible . Mr . Frantz wondered if the park was of any value to the public in its current form . Mr . Frantz said that he would rather see a shorter , but wider park . Mr . Miller commented , why have the park if it is not going to be used by many people . Mr . Frantz responded that it is green space , but also there is a possibility , at some point in the future , that the railroad bed may be developed as a recreation way . Mr . Miller wondered if it was being recommended that the developer give a wider • area . Mr . Frantz offered that the lack of handicapped accessibility greatly reduces the competitiveness of grants . Planning Board - 13 - June 6 , 1989 Mr . Kenerson wondered if the Town Board had a feeling , or a policy about the acquisition of these bits of land , adding that he knew the Codes allowed for 10 % to be required . Mr . Kenerson mentioned that in some cases the land is not acceptable , so there is the " in lieu of " option . Ms . Beeners referred to a letter addressed to her , from Harry Missirian of the County Planning Department , dated June 5 , 1989 . [ Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . ] Ms . Beeners said that she thought the contents of the letter would be within the scope of recommendations that the Town might expect from the Consultant Stuart I . Brown , Ms . Beeners suggested having , perhaps , some kind of appropriate natural area that would have no program at the present time , but have the right type of access and parking , so there could be some reasonable trail system developed in the future , or see that land somehow in just deed restricted private ownership . At this time , Mr . McArdle inquired about the driveway problems , and whether it should be shown on the map how it could be resolved . Mr . McArdle stated that he has never presented a preliminary plat where he had to draw in driveways , especially on a rural subdivision where there are no curb cuts the builders for the individual lots would put in the driveways . Ms . Olsen responded that she would not expect him to draw the driveways on the map , adding , it is , though , for the marketability of the lots , to let the potential buyers know exactly what they are getting into , and to make sure there is a workable driveway at each property . Ms . Olsen stated that it is something that the project engineer will need to investigate . Ms . • Langhans wondered about basement garages . Ms . Olsen responded that that would work . Ms . Olsen said that she would not expect driveways to be shown on the map . Mr . McArdle stated that he needs some direction . Chairman Grigorov asked about the road layout , with Ms . Olsen stating that she did not think any other road layout would work any better than the one presented . Ms . Langhans wondered what areas had a bad cut . Ms . Olsen replied that it is , primarily , between Lots No . 6 and 10 , where there is an 8 ' drop across , between Lots No . 14 and 22 or 13 and 23 , commenting , all along the eastern half , particularly the ones that are more northeast to southwest . Mr . McArdle noted for clarification that the developer intends to sell individual lots , as well as homes already constructed . Ms . Olsen noted that reducing the density would not really reduce the linear feet of road . At this point , Chairman Grigorov mentioned the problems that were discussed - usability of the park , stream and intersection diversion , deep cuts in the road , and sewer difficulty . Ms . Langhans stated that she felt the park could be left just the way it is , which is natural . Mr . Smith indicated that he would like to see the boundary , perhaps , moved back to the easement area . Mr . Smith stated that 50 lots were mentioned , and given the need for water and sewer , since it looks as if it may be an option to go to outside septic or pumping , what sort of density would be considered ? Mr . • McArdle answered that , basically , the requirments for perquability of the soil would dictate that . Planning Board - 14 - June 6 , 1989 • Mr . May , directing his comment to Attorney Barney , wondered if the width of the road could be a mitigating factor to increasing the length of a cul de sac , if it were made wider so that some of the problems were removed that are associated with length . Attorney Barney replied that that has been done in a couple of subdivisions , double entrances have been put in . Attorney Barney offered that the reason for a double access or the cul de sac was that , if there was a fire or accident blocking the road , it would not inhibit the ability to get to the houses . Mr . McArdle stated that he understood that . Mr . Frantz offered that on the present plan the 1800 ' is extended another 4001 , which brings it to a total of 22001 . Again , Mr . McArdle stated that he needs a sense of direction . Mr . McArdle said that he was willing to make changes , but only if he gets direction that the next time he comes before the Board the plan will work . Chairman Grigorov responded that the developer never really gave the Board what they asked for in the first place , which was a cluster subdivision . Attorney Barney stated that cluster housing , in the State of New York , can be required . Chairman Grigorov agreed with Attorney Barney . Mr . McArdle stated that , if cluster is required , he would like to be informed of that right now , as he would be willing to challenge the issue . Mr . McArdle said that it has been a year since the inception of the project , adding that he cannot develop something that would lose money , it does not make sense . Mr . McArdle said that , New York Law , Town requirement , or anything else , he could not see a cluster working on the subject land . Mr . McArdle • felt that a cluster plan would work much better closer to Town and with amenities , such as a school . Mr . May noted that Mr . McArdle has not provided something that the Board feels is appropriate for the land . Virginia Langhans stated that she would like to see the development on a sewer line , as she does not feel all of the land would work with septic systems . Also , Ms . Langhans suggested taking a few of the lots that have swales or streams going through them , make them larger , and eliminate a lot that has a stream going through the middle of it . Ms . Langhans stated that she did not think the developer would lose that many lots , maybe four or five at the most . Mr . McArdle wondered if that meant the waterways should be on a lot line , or just a bigger area . Ms . Langhans mentioned Lot No . 31 , where the stream goes right through the middle of it , commenting , that is quite a permanent one because there is an easement right below , noting that , perhaps , the lot itself could be larger and have three lots instead of four lots . Mr . May stated that he did not care whether it is on a lot line , but the developer has to eliminate some of the very steep grades into the lots . Mr . May felt that lower density , generally , would be better , which means larger lots . Chairman Grigorov wondered about a loop in the development . Ms . • Beeners answered that it would really depend on what density was being worked on . Ms . Beeners stated that , as she had mentioned earlier , there are some problems with Orchard Hill Road . Ms . Beeners added Planning Board - 15 - June 6 , 1989 • that in talking with some of the residents in the area of Orchard Hill Road , it is a very hard decision to weigh how much abuse by people from outside of the area there would be of a through - road connection down to Route 89 versus having that second means of access out , so that the new residents would not be traveling up Orchard Hill Road to DuBois Road , Mr . McArdle wondered if that meant there was some leeway , as it would cost him some money and time to try and lay this out without an access to Route 89 , Mr . Frantz offered that , with the loop concept and lower density , more of the woodlands would be saved , and , perhaps , 1 / 2 mile of roadway could be saved . Mr . Smith wondered if it would be feasible to look at eliminating the road that runs between Lots No . 30 and 31 , 21 and 22 . Mr . McArdle said that the project is seen as a one - unit subdivision , and the advantages are that there would be signage to give a feel that it is its own community , adding , there are some advantages to have an access [ indicating on map ] " here " , economically , only in the sense that it allows the subdivision to have its own identity on Route 89 , Mr . McArdle noted that he was just suggesting the loop as a possibility , as it seems like it can possibly work out . Mr . McArdle wondered if the Board was saying , adamantly , no , it cannot work out . Ms . Langhans noted that that was correct . Ms . Beeners said that it would require a waiver , based on some practical difficulties , and also the safety aspects would have to be considered . Mr . McArdle stated that he understood that the lots should be • made bigger so that the drainageways are either on the lot lines , or a 5400 square foot space maybe is a little too small , it should be bigger for a buildable area . Mr . McArdle asked if his above comment was correct , as far as most of the people on the Board . Mr . McArdle also stated that there seems to be some hesitation about the park , adding that he has heard it both ways , as to what it is . Mr . McArdle said that he does not want to draw the 7 - acre park a certain way , and if that is not what people see as a definition of a park , commenting , a park can be a green space , play lot , football field , swimming pool , etc . Mr . McArdle stated that he saw the park , and he thought some • of the Board did , as a green space to preserve some green area and forest in the Town , not so much a park that one puts on a map . At this point , Attorney Barney , referring to cluster housing , confirmed that the Town does have the right , according to Section 281 of the Town Law , that gives the Town the right to . compel a cluster subdivision . Mr . McArdle responded that he understood , but whether one compels or not compels , it can be determined differently by a court . Attorney Barney replied that , except the court usually is bound by NYS Legislation , there are a fair number of cases , and there is nothing unconstitutional about the requirement for cluster . Attorney Barney noted that cluster consists of creating larger open spaces , and putting the dwelling units closer together . Chairman Grigorov mentioned the park issue , and if the Board members would accept a 250 ' wide strip , 7 - acres in size , along the • north end of the parcel , and if it was the consensus of the Board that they want a park that tracks the rim , but then also permits some development across the gorge . Mr . May said that he , personally , would Planning Board - 16 - June 6 , 1989 never approve any road that goes over the gorge . It was the consensus of the Board that they would agree with Chairman Grigorov ' s statement on the park issue . Chairman Grigorov mentioned stream diversion and interruption . Mr . May stated that he did not care whether it followed the lot lines , as long as there is sufficient buildable space that does not encroach on an existing waterway . Mr . May defined the existing waterways as any of them that are well - defined waterways , commenting that , certainly , on Lot No . 31 there is a well - defined waterway . Mr . May said that he would like to see more space than the 5400 square feet . Attorney Barney noted that there is a stream that crosses over Lots No . 19 and 20 , which does not have quite the same apparent depth to it . Mr . May said that any stream with a typical grass waterway would not be of great concern , but any of them that have erosion that shows the specific path of the waterway would be a concern , and should be protected . Attorney Barney wondered if it would be acceptable if someone came in with an engineering plan that was satisfactory to the Town Engineer Sally Olsen , and to Assistant Town Planner George Frantz , showing that there could be some modification of the streams to move them along the boundary line by use of culvert and drainage ditches along the road . The Board members found the above acceptable . Mr . Smith mentioned the stream that runs through Lots No . 44 and 42 in that on the prior plan there was an easement for the drainageway , but it is not noted on the present plan . Mr . McArdle responded that there was some controversy as to how many easements were required . Attorney • Barney stated that the drainage easements have to be shown on the Preliminary Plat , Chairman Grigorov mentioned the deep cuts that are needed for the roads . Chairman Grigorov commented that that is something that really cannot be remedied . Ms . Olsen agreed with Chairman Grigorov , she was just bringing it up so that people were aware of it . Mr . May noted that wider roads are probably needed . Ms . Olsen responded that the right - of -way will have to be wider than 60 feet . Chairman Grigorov commented that the sewer problem has to be something that is just worked out . Mr . McArdle said that he would pursue the matter , because he thought it would be better for the Town if the sewer line was in the development . Mr . Smith wondered about the access easement to the park . Chairman Grigorov replied with , what is the use of an easement if it cannot be across the gorge . Mr . May said that one can walk across it . Mr . McArdle stated that he felt 20 feet was enough for that type of access . Attorney Barney stated that , from his standpoint , he would strongly suggest that that access be , if not wider where it comes off the cul de sac , certainly wider where it goes over the ravine , because if any construction is going to be done at all , and ultimately , if somebody decides , for handcapped , accessability , one wants to put a level run across there , 20 feet would not be adequate . Attorney • Barney suggested that it be shown as 30 feet off each of the two lots , and actually remain as a 60 - foot wide easement all the way across , not Planning Board - 17 - June 6 , 1989 necessarily as a constructed road , but shown as the ability for the Town to extend , if necessary . Chairman Grigorov mentioned density . Mr . Smith said that the park area would not affect the density at all . Mr . McArdle offered that he was working with the zoning as " X " on the site , noting that , obviously , the lots have to work under that zoning , but wondered if the thought is that the Board wants much less than the zoning requires . Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board has the authority to require larger lots than the zoning requires , if topography dictates that . Attorney Barney suggested that , in redesigning the lots , make the boundary lines run a little closer to the water courses . Ms . Langhans mentioned Lots No . 43 , 44 , and 45 in that , if the lot line was run along that courseway , then it would end up as two lots , instead of the three , adding that she felt this could be worked in two or three other places , and two things could be solved at one time - - lowering the density and also protecting the waterways . Mr . May offered that he felt this would make the lots much more attractive . Mr . Frantz , directing his idea to Mr . McCardle , said that in considering the loop , one possibility would be to incorporate some sort of emergency access up from Route 89 in a park site location . Mr . McArdle replied that the only problem with that , the advantage of not going through Route 89 would be that there are problems with variances . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the " Cayuga Lake Estates " Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 10 : 17 p . m . AGENDA ITEM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Ms . Beeners announced that she and Mr . Frantz would not be in attendance at the June 20 , 1989 Planning Board Meeting , Ms . Beeners wondered if the Board would be amenable to changing the meeting date from June 20 , 1989 to June 27 , 1989 . Mr . May and Mr . Miller responded that they would not be available for June 27th . Mr . Kenerson , Mr . Smith , Ms . Langhans , Mr . Baker , and Chairman Grigorov responded that the 27th would be fine . Ms . Beeners stated that Ron Brand , of Stuart I . Brown Associates , informed her , today , that he expects , and it would be subject to confirmation on June 7 , 1989 , that the draft report would be in the hands of the Comprehensive Planning Sub - Committee by about June 28 , 1989 . Ms . Beeners said that there was nothing that Mr . Brand could add as far as reasons why any of this is happening in such a delayed type of a state . Mr . May , directing his comment to Attorney Barney , wondered if time of the essence was made part of the consultant ' s contract . Attorney Barney replied that he did not have too much to do with the contract . Attorney Barney noted that the contract has a • timetable , but time was not of the essence . Attorney Barney commented that he was more worried , quite frankly , that the Town would have Planning Board - 18 - June 6 , 1989 difficulty living up to its side of the bargain on a timely essence than Mr . Brown would . Ms . Beeners commented on the memorandum addressed to the Planning Board , from the South Hill Community Association , dated May 21 , 1989 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit No . 3 . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought , referring to the memorandum , some assumptions were being made about the accelerated development approval process still continuing , and also noted that another misassumption was that the Auble projects would be railroaded right through in some fashion . Ms . Beeners noted that she had , along with the Town Engineer Sally Olsen , met with the Auble designers several times and informed them to present the right information , so that a sketch plan could be reviewed adequately . Ms . Beeners offered that there are some problems with the Chase Pond site , [ formerly the ButterField site ] as to whether or not it would require rezoning , because it does not neatly fit into cluster or multiple housing . Ms . Beeners noted that the designers suggested at the last meeting that they , perhaps , could secure seven or eight yard variances , adding that she had told them no . Ms . Beeners stated that she felt the Planning Board , as well as other Boards , have been very responsive since last summer when the concern regarding development arose . Ms . Beeners stated that she had attended a public information meeting last week at City Hall regarding Fall Creek , commenting that several Town Board members , along with Planning Board members , were in attendance . Ms . Beeners stated that there was a lot of discussion with a representative from the DEC , remarking that a good part of the discussion focused on whether or not the proposal would really stop hydropower , commenting that the general consensus was no . Ms . Beeners reported that there . were some Forest Home residents at the meeting who were worried about the encumbrances to what they had been doing routinely , noting that there are some encumbrances , but one of the key things on this whole project is that Margaret Fabrizio has not made clear to anyone , exactly what the proposed boundaries reflect as related to property ownership . Mr . Smith stated that what bothers him about the boundaries is that they still are tentative . Ms . Beeners commented that the designation has to be approved by the State Legislature without any benefit of public notification , adding , the public hearing and environmental review does not happen until the final boundaries are set . Mr . May commented that , , for all the investigation that was done , they did not determine that the federal government had issued three licenses . Ms . Beeners offered that there would be a public comment period at the Town Board Meeting on Monday , June 12 , 1989 . Ms . Beeners showed a map to the Board members that Lisa Rupp , summer work study employee for the Planning Department , has been working on , which is related to where the water and sewer service would be located in Inlet Valley . •` Ms . Beeners reported that Mr . Mancini is proceeding along with having someone do a sketch master plan of his entire property , as was Planning Board - 19 - June 6 , 1989 • required , before he does any more subdividing for Light Industrial use . Chairman Grigorov wondered about the South Hill Trail . Ms . Beeners responded that design details would be dealt with at the Town Board level on Monday , June 12 , 1989 . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Grigorov declared the June 6 , 1989 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 50 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • P. O. Box 64 St . Charles , Illinois 60174 (312) 584-6300 • DAVID A. MCARDLE June 2 , 1989 Planning Board Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Ithaca , New York 14850 Re : Cayuga Lake Estates Dear Board : Susan Beeners has requested .that I.:-Write, a letter outlining the major differences between the present concept . plan and the previous plan that you rejected on April 4 , 1989 . - In addition , Ms . Beeners asked • that I outline in writing why I -feel . this present concept . plan should be accepted . Cluster Plan : The Board suggested4 # at its last meeting that the intention of the Cluster Provision in your Subdivision Code was not being adhered to by our previous plan . We have addressed this by submitting the current plan under the existing zoning . e sit • The Board also expressed concern about the number of lots we proposed on our previous plan In the current plan we have reduced the number of lots to forty- eight ( 48 ) from sixty ( 60) , amounting to a twenty percent ( 20 % ) . reduction . The lots on our property substantially fulfill the basic zoning on . the property of R- 30 and R45 . Any further reduction in density does not make . planning or economic sense . First , the Board and the staff, have requested that we provide a second access to the proposed . subdivision and to Route 89 . To do this we have tocut through the property with a road �. system , basically , as the current plan lays out to provide for road EXHIBIT 1 • grades of less than ten percent ( 10 % ) . If we reduced - the number of lots we could not then significantly reduce the lineal feet of road , which means that a reduction in lots would be economically unfeasible . Secondly , large estate lots like those that currently exist on Orchard Hill Road do not make sense when a development is planned with sewer and water in contrast to well and septic . To pull the water and sewer lines through the property - is expensive and can only be justified if one can get something close to fifty ( 50) lots on our property . Drainage : In the previous meeting on April 4 , members of the Board expressed concern about drainage = 1. • with the town staff and engineer that if we get your approval of this plan we shall work with them and provide the necessary engineering for the roads , sewer , water and drainage , for a preliminary and final plat . It has been over a year since we submitted our first plan with the Board . We have constantly tried to work, with-,. . the Board and staff to improve our proposed subdivision . Our patience on this matter is waning . We feel we have addressed in our latest plan every major concern of the Board and staff. . P Very truly yours , . David A. McArdle Applicant for Cayuga Lake Estates Subdivision I i EXHIBIT 1 1 ,ffi,"AmA"'• shy Tompkins' .Co.unty DEPAR°TMEN:Tah PANNING Biggs Builditiig A, 301 Harris B e jDA Drive Ithaca, New, or , 4 s. Frank R. Liguori, P.E. Ile Telephone Commissioner of Planning (607) 2745360 June 5 , 1989 Susan C . Beeners , Planner Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , -NY 14850 RE : Sketch Plan Review , " Cayuga Lake Estates " Dear Susan : On your Town Planning Board agenda for Tuesday , June' 6 . there is the " Cayuga Lake Estates " Sketch Plan Review announcement . My interest . in :writing this letter is to point out a trend in the allocation of lands for park use which will eventually be all over Town . I am sure you have been considering the implications ( advantages / disadvantages ) of such requirements . Perhaps you have already considered the various options of park site eownership and maintenance . If the subdivision plan trend for allocation of park sites by developers continues , the Town ' s responsi4i ,lity may be .stretched beyond its capability to oversee the functioning of such sites . May . I encourage you to consider the following options . in your parks or subdivision plans : 1' . Consideration of ownership of such sites by immediate subdivision residents for which such dedication of land is required . Setting land aside for maintenance by the association . 2 . Consideration of payments in lieu of open space in areas of low density to further strengthen opportunities of open space - in higher density residential . areas . Given the abundance of - State Parks and the generous and high quality school playfields in Tompkins County , it would be prudent - not to extend such subdivision open space requirements in the Town more than what we ' have today ; or even introduce some retro — active measures to revert ownership and responsibility to local associations because in most cases these sites are exclusively used by the immediate subdivision residents . If a discussion of this matter to introduce such measures is timely let me know . Perhaps both Town and County planning staff members could meet and formulate a policy which you could bring. to your Board ' s attention for their consideration . Respe y , • • • • rry Missirian As ciate Planner / HAM : y s xc : Frank R . Liguori EXHIBIT 2 ro f SOUTH HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 233 Troy Rd . Ithaca , NY 14850 - 607-273- 7322 MEMC) R N 0 U M TO : Town of Ithaca Town Board , Planning Board , Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee , Planning Staff . FROM : South Hill Community Association RE : Development on South Hill DATE : May 21 , 1989 In May , ' 1988 the South Hill Community Association initiated a request for a moratorium on major development projects in the Town until a comprehensive plan was adopted . In August 1988 we withdrew the request after the Town agreed to hire a planning consultant to prepare a new plan . At the time we expressed reservations about the amount of time it would require to complete such a plan . Since large portions of West Hill and South Hill had already been purchased by developers , we feared that much of the Town would already be developed prior to the implementation of any new Town plan . Recent events have proven our predictions true . It appears David Auble has his own plan for South Hill . The Town ' s efforts lag seriously behind . It is obvious that the Town may be ill prepared to reconcile the developer ' s plans with its own . We have all discussed the need for new legislative " tools " to deal with increased development pressures . In light of Auble ' s ,proposals , how does the Town plan to .deal with the following concerns . 1 . A tremendous amount ' of new infrastructure will be required . - Who will initially pay for it and who will pay for future - maintenance ? Will uture -maintenance ? Will new roads and drainage systems be adequately designed ? Will the developer be assessed for impacts on roads , water and sewer systems and schools , or will the burden •. continue to fall on existing residents . ? EXHIBIT 3 2 . South Hill has traditional ) been an area f Y o moderately priced homes . Is the Town prepared to deal with the influx of new up- scale housing and its effect on existing residents ? How can we be assured that moderate income people can continue to live on South Hill ? Will new homes be " affordable " or will people of modest means be forced elsewhere ? Many existing residents prefer the rural atmosphere and do not want to live in a " village " . Will any consideration be given to their feelings or will their rights be trampled in the name of " progress " ? 3 . South Hill has always been prized ' for its beautiful vistas and large tracts of natural area . How will these be preserved ? Token " parks " and " greens " are poor substitutes for what we now enjoy . Buttermilk Falls , Eldridge Wilderness and South Hill Swamp - are extremely sensitive areas . What effect will an additional 3000 people have on these community treasures ? How will " visual impacts " for current residents be assessed and treated ? We commend the Town . Board and the Planning Board for their recognition of the need - for comprehensive planning in the .Town of Ithaca . The Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee deserves much • credit for its work in selecting the consultant planner and in identifying general objectives'. for the Town . However , thoughtful , informed decisions need to made now ; The Town cannot continue to delay policy decisionsl until the consultant planner ' s work is complete . That may take at least another year. . Yet , what comprehensive framework does the Town now have for informed decision making ? In retrospect , it appears that the neighborhood associations may have been premature in the withdrawal of their request for a moratorium . Exactly how does the Town - intend to deal with its current dilemma of espousing comprehensive planning in theory while being forced by developers to continue making piecemeal decisions in practice ? We , the undersigned officers of South Hill Community Association , strongly urge the Town to immediately adopt interim measures to deal with these problems of accelerated development . Mtle J . Whitcomb Peter Hillman President Vice President f /7 Jean Brockway. Y Charlotte Bosworth Secretary Treasurer EXHIBIT 3