HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-10-03 4
TOWN OF ITHAa
Date
rMWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD d , nNew"hon WNW
•
OCTOBER 3 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 3 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , James
Baker , Stephen Smith , Montgomery May , Robert Kenerson ,
William Lesser , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , George R .
Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Sally S . Olsen ( Town
Engineer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Harrison Rue , Gene Wilcox , Harlin Schock , Josephine
Richards , Paul Richards , Tom Niederkorn , Don Sweezy ,
George Schlecht , V . DelRosso , S . B . Canaday , Peter
Trowbridge , Chris Granozio ( WHCU ) , Mayfred Hirshfeld ,
Myrtle Whitcomb , Ron Simpson , Carl Sgrecci , Dick Perry ,
Ray Ackley , Ronnie Young , Nancy Ostman , Marty Newhart ,
Ted Bosworth , Ed Hallberg , Dennis F . Spencer , Kevin
Candee , David C . Auble , Attorney James Salk .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30
p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of " the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on September 25 , 1989 , and September 28 , 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 Clerk of the Town of
Danby , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the
applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on September 26 , 1989 .
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State ,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control .
NON-AGENDA ITEM
A copy of the September 1989 Report of Building / Zoning Activities
was distributed to each of the members of the Board .
PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION -OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF A
PROPOSED 528 SQ . FT . CLASSROOM ADDITION TO THE KINGDOM HALL OF
JEHOVAH ' S WITNESSES , 1201 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 36 - 3 - 1 . 1 , 2 . 41 ACRES TOTAL , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 , CONGREGATION
OF JEHOVAH ' SWITNESSES , OWNER ; HARLIN SCHOCK , AGENT ,
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as
g posted and published and as noted above .
Planning Board - 2 - October 3 , 1989
• Mr . Harlin Schock addressed the Board and stated that the
proposed is to construct an addition on the north side of the building
which would be a continuation of the roof line , with no structural
changes . Mr . Schock said that the addition would make more of a
square building which would be exactly as the south side . Mr . Schock
stated that , basically , the purpose of the addition is to enlarge the
women ' s room and the men ' s room , and for a classroom .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 43 p . m . and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special
Approval , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 3 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , of a proposed 528 ± sq . ft .
. classroom addition to the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah ' s Witnesses ,
located at 1201 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 36 - 3 - 1 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board
N
s an involved agency in coordinated review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 3 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
i . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
2 . That the Planning Board , in making its recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the
following :
• a . There is a need for the proposed use in thero osed
location , p p
w
Planning Board - 3 - October 3 , 1989
• b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
Special Approval of the proposed addition to the Kingdom Hall of
Jehovah ' s Witnesses be granted .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION , was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the
Kingdom Hall addition duly closed at 7 : 45 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF ROAD DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED
" SHALEBROOK " SUBDIVISION , AT 1138 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 11 . 2 , 152 ± ACRES TOTAL , FOR WHICH A SKETCH PLAN WAS
• REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON APRIL 18 , 1989 , AND WHICH IS
PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A FIRST- PHASE 21 - LOT SUBDIVISION , WITH TOT LOT ,
ON 30 ± ACRES , WITH POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE ON THE REMAINING ACREAGE . RICHARD AND JO PERRY , OWNERS ;
THOMAS NIEDERKORN , AGENT ,
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted
matter at 7 : 46 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
At this point , Board Member Lesser commented on the letter
addressed to Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov , and Town Planner Susan
Beeners , dated September 23 , 1989 , from Richard A . and Mary Louise
Perry , Mr . Lesser noted that the letter seemed to express some
uncertainty with what the function of a Sketch Review is . Mr . Lesser
stated that it is an effort on the Board ' s part and on the Perrys '
part to streamline the process , but it in no way limits or commits the
Board to anything . Mr . Lesser added that it should not be taken as an
approval , or disapproval , of the plan that is presented . Mr . Lesser
felt that the role of Sketch Plan is a little bit misinterpreted as
having more authority than it really does . [ Letter attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 . 1
Mr . Carl Sgrecci approached the Board and stated that he is a
son - in - law of Mr . /Mrs . Perry , Mr . Sgrecci offered that he resides at
1130 Trumansburg Road . Mr . Sgrecci stated that it was his
understanding that the Perrys have been trying to get back on the
• Agenda with a preliminary plat for the Shalebrook development project ,
adding , the issue now is the magnitude of traffic that the proposed
Riley Drive should carry . Mr . Sgrecci said that they had originally
A
• Planning Board - 4 - October 3 , 1989
• proposed what they saw as a village street , which would , basically ,
carry traffic to and from the homes involved , and probably something
in the neighborhood of 25 - 30 mph type of traffic load . Mr . Sgrecci
said that he understood there is some concern about whether or not the
proposed Riley Drive should be a larger highway that would somehow
ultimately connect to a more extensive road system , going from Route
96 by the Tompkins Community Hospital , and then farther south to Five
Mile Drive . Mr . Sgrecci noted that the issue had been discussed at
the Sketch Plan level back in April 1989 , but they felt that type of
highway was being considered for another location farther west of the
Shalebrook development .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that as she understood it , no one is
trying to change the position of the road , but to have a higher level
design criteria , which would allow traffic to flow at a higher speed .
Town Engineer Sally Olsen stated that , for a road to be safe at
30 mph one can have reasonably sharp curves , and reasonably sharp
vertical curves also . Ms . Olsen noted that the proposed Riley Drive
is expected to connect into a system where it would be more of a
collector - type road .
At this point , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz held up a
1959 road net -work map . Mr . Frantz offered that , at that time , there
were two road connectors on West Hill , one beginning approximately at
• the corner of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road , and going straight
south to Elm Street , Mr . Frantz noted that there was another one
starting at DuBois Road , coming via Hopkins Road , then swinging
southeast to the intersection of West Haven Road and Mecklenburg Road ,
and down to Coy Glen Road . Mr . Frantz pointed out , for everyone ' s
information , the Perry Farm . Mr . Frantz offered that the present plan
concept would start just south of the Mayer School driveway entrance ,
curve up through an existing right - of -way where Riley Drive is
currently proposed , then continue down through the Perry property .
Mr . Frantz [ indicating on map ] stated that , as " these " areas develop
the road would be continued through to Elm Street . 0and at some point
in the future , the City has discussed a possible joint - project , Mr .
Frantz said that it is not seen as a Route 96 type arterial , or any
sort of state highway , it is seen as functioning as a connector road
similar to Warren Road and Triphammer Road ; streets which carry
predominately automotive traffic . Mr . Frantz stated that the Town is
looking to design a road now , so that in the future the road can
handle the type of traffic that Warren Road and Triphammer Road are
handling now .
Mr . Sgrecci said that when one talks about a road that will ,
perhaps , not see a beginning and ending point for another 20 years ,
and the Board wants to make provisions now for gentler curves , he
wondered what the Board had in mind in terms of what impact that would
have on the different types of Town specifications for the
construction of the road that is being proposed at the present time .
• Ms . Olsen stated that it is expected that the road be built to the
current highway specs . Mr . Frantz offered that the Town sees it as
being a Town Road . Mr . Sgrecci stated that reference had been made to
Planning Board - 5 - October 3 , 1989
• a 45 mph speed limit on the road , commenting , the Board is talking
about a change in the way the road curves . Mr . Sgrecci stated that he
is concerned about the cost and the type of construction , with Ms .
Olsen responding , that would not be any different ; it would be just
the same roadway section for Riley Drive as it would for the road to
the west . Mr . Sgrecci asked about the Williams Creek crossing , in
terms of the type of bridge . Ms . Olsen replied that it would not be
any different . Mr . Frantz offered that the road would be designed to
the standard specifications ; it is just the hortizonal and vertical
alignments . Mr . Sgrecci said that their fundamental concern was
changing the nature of what they are trying to create in the
community , which is the fact of losing a neighborhood street . Mr .
Sgrecci mentioned Route 96 traffic . Mr . Frantz offered that the State
said that they were not going to build a new Route 96 . Mr . Frantz
commented that , when it is operated under the assumption that there
would be a new Route 96 , it could be seen as siphoning off regional
traffic , down off West Hill , through the City , and out to wherever it
is going , adding , without a new Route 96 in the works , if there cannot
be a connection down into the City , or at least down to Route 89 , from
the Hospital area , then it has to be viewed as what does it mean for a
direct connection all the way through . Mr . Frantz remarked that he
thought the issue of the direct connection from the Hospital area down
to the Valley has to be made as part of the Comprehensive Plan
process .
• Mr . Sgrecci said that he felt there has been a delay , in terms of
securing preliminary plat approval for the project , because the Board
has some reservations about approving the proposal until it is known
what to do about the road . Mr . Frantz commented that he thought it
should happen from Route 96 to Mecklenburg Road , and thus , the 45 mph
specifications should be required , as proposed in the resolution . Mr .
Frantz stated that the proposed project could go forward at this time ,
without having resolved what is going to happen south of Mecklenburg
Road . Mr . Sgrecci wondered if there were other alternatives
available to the Perrys so that they could maintain a small , low
traffic community .
Virginia Langhans stated that she did not think the Board should
lose the opportunity that is presented before the Board . Ms . Langhans
commented that Ithaca has lost a lot of ground by not planning roads
years ago . Mr . May stated that he very much agreed with Ms . Langhans .
Mr . Frantz offered that the project can still go forward and still
keep the type of development that was orginally envisioned .
Vic DelRosso of 138 Bundy Road spoke from the floor and stated
that he hoped the Board was not spending too much time and taxpayers '
money on the road . Mr . DelRosso noted that he is opposed to the 45
mph road .
Mayfred Hirshfeld of 122 Bundy Road spoke from the floor and
stated that she was opposed to the 45 mph road . PTs . Hirshfeld
• commented that she was concerned about the safety feature .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that someday there will be a lot of traffic
on the road , whether or not it is designed properly for it .
- Planning - Board - 6 - October 3 , 1989
Mr . Kenerson asked about the major change in what is proposed .
Ms . Olsen responded that the curves would have to be straightened out ,
and some of the lots would have to be rearranged .
Mr . Sgrecci again wondered about any alternatives .
Mr . Thomas Niederkorn spoke from the floor and commented ,that he
thought the Perrys would have to go back and start the design process
again ; obviously , they would not have to start from zero , but would
have to start pretty much from the beginning . Mr . Niederkorn said
that the realignment of the road would be a serious concern .
Stephen Smith , directing his comment to Ms . Olsen , wondered what
the life expectancy of a road is . Ms . Olsen responded that it depends
on what kind of maintenance problems there are , but the average life
expectancy of a road would be 50 - 70 years before it would need
re - construction , with 10 - 15 years for repaving .
There appearing to be no further questions , Mr . Sgrecci stated
that the Perrys would come back before the Board with a new plan .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the discussion of road design for
the proposed " Shalebrook " subdivision duly closed at 8 : 35 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND FINAL
• SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I OF THE PROPOSED " CHASE POND "
DEVELOPMENT , SAID PHASE I PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 36 LOTS WITH 36
PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 6 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS , AND 7 ±
ACRES OF OPEN SPACE , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR PHASE I PUBLIC UTILITIES . THE OVERALL PROJECT RECEIVED
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL ,
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS , ON SEPTEMBER 5 , 1989 , AND CONSISTED OF 119
CLUSTERED DWELLING UNITS IN ATTACHED AND DETACHED CONFIGURATIONS ON
23 . 03 ACRES LOCATED ON EAST KING ROAD NEAR RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 311 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT .
DAVID C . AUBLE , OWNER ; BUTTERFIELD ASSOCIATES I , APPLICANTS .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Maps were appended to the bulletin board .
Mr . Peter Trowbridge approached the Board and stated that there
were really three parts to the presentation tonight .
Mr . Trowbridge commented that the first part has more to do with
the process , adding that the second part has to do with a number of
plan revisions that have been worked on with the Town staff . Mr .
Trowbridge said that the third part is really a clarification of the
number of issues in the Planning Board Proposed Resolution of October
3 , 1989 . Mr . Trowbridge remarked that the first issue is not related
to the plan , but to the process , commenting that , as one can see from
the letters addressed to Susan Beeners and Members of the Planning
Planning Board - 7 - October 3 , 1989
• Board , dated September 15 , 1989 and September 22 , 1989 , ButterField
Associates have been working with the Town staff to look at Final
Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval . [ Letters attached
hereto as Exhibit 2 . 1 Mr . Trowbridge stated that it was advertised as
a Phase I only , commenting that that was a surprise to the developer ,
because all the correspondence and discussion with Town staff pointed
to the entire property .
Mr . Trowbridge said that one of the issues in looking at the
entire site , rather than a portion , was that with a Homeowners '
Association it is imperative that there be a consideration for all the
open space , rights -of -way , common utilities , the roads , because that
will be looked at as a comprehensive scheme for the HOA . Mr .
Trowbridge said that more utility work would be required than just the
Phase I , as shown on the map . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the
developer is clearly asking for the Phase I Approval tonight , which
has been advertised , and discussed in the resolution , but the
developer would certainly like some kind of guarantee from the Board ,
since the work has been submitted to staff , approved , and reviewed
numbers of times , that ButterField Associates would be on the next
Agenda for the plan in its entirety .
Mr . Trowbridge said that the last point was in regard to the
Proposed Resolution , as to the objections the developer has in several
of the issues . Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Trowbridge knew that
• the Town Planner Susan Beeners , who is actively involved in the
project , was not going to be present tonight , and , consequently , she
is not here to respond to any of the comments . Attorney Barney stated
that he recommends that the Board not tamper with the Proposed
Resolution ; if the developer wants the final approval , then it will
have to be taken with the stated conditions in the Proposed
Resolution , - and probably any others that are proposed , rather than
argue about them . Attorney Barney stated that , otherwise , it can be
adjourned until. November , when Ms . Beeners can indicate the reasons
she wanted certain conditions .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Nancy Ostman , of Cornell Plantations , spoke from the floor and
wondered about the Homeowners ' Association , in that she was not clear
whether it is a mandatory organization now . Attorney Barney replied
that it will be clear . Ms . Ostman was concerned about the protection
of the South Hill Swamp . Ms . Ostman wondered about the pet issue , as
there was an agreement with Bill Manos , the former owner , and the
Board approved previously that there would be no pets on this site .
Ms . Ostman remarked that at the Preliminary Site Plan Approval there
was going to be one pet , now it looks like there are going to be two
pets . Ms . Ostman stated that she wanted to make it . real clear that
the Prairie Warbler is still on the site ; she saw it and heard it this
• Spring , commenting that it goes on and off the buffer , and is right
behind the pond . Ms . Ostman stated that she felt that protecting this
rare species is important . Ms . Ostman stated that she would prefer
Planning Board - 8 - October 3 , 1989
• that there were no pets on this site . Ms . Ostman commented that two
pets seemed excessive to her . Ms . Ostman said that her final concern
was with the play area , as she felt the density was too high . Ms .
Ostman stated that she realized there is a buffer , and a lot of open
space , but it is not play space .
At this time , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz , directing his
comment to Ms . Ostman , stated that he happened to be looking at
Peterson ' s Bird Guide regarding the Prairie Warbler , Mr . Frantz
remarked that it was his understanding that the Prairie Warbler is not
native to this area ; it is native . . farther south and east of here ,
adding that , actually , maybe the reason it is here is because it is
actually expanding its range . Mr . Frantz asked Ms . Ostman if she
could give the Board more details . Ms . Ostman responded that , no , she
could not , she was not an expert on birds , but her understanding was
that it is rare locally . Ms . Ostman stated that it was her
understanding that its habitat was contracting . Ms . Ostman said that
she could not address that , but would be happy to have someone who
can , inform the Board . Ms . Ostman stated that it was her
understanding that the Prairie Warbler was native to this area .
Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Attorney Salk , wondered
what area is now going to be considered the common area to be conveyed
to the Homeowners ' Association . Attorney Salk responded that it would
be the whole pond park area , the center green , and the little park to
• the right [ pointing to map ] . Attorney Barney mentioned that anyone
who buys a unit is obliged to become a member of the HOA .
Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road addressed the Board and stated
that there are a number of covenants and restrictions that have been
deemed important , either to the neighborhood association , to the
Cornell South Hill Swamp , to the developer himself , or from the
Planning Board` . Ms . Whitcomb wondered how the covenants and
restrictions that have been deemed important are protected ; how easily
they may be changed . Chairperson Grigorov replied that it would be a
3 / 4 vote of the homeowners . Attorney Barney offered that it would
have to be approved by the Town Board , or the Planning Board , of any
change , regardless of what the other requirements may be . Ms .
Whitcomb wondered if , in that case , would there be a public hearing
type of sceniaro ? Attorney Barney answered that he did not know if
there would be one necessarily , he thought that the fact of the matter
was that there ' probably would be a public hearing , because it usually
comes in in the form of a modification of a site plan . Attorney
Barney noted that if it was at the Planning Board level there would be
a public hearing , but if it is at the Town Board level it is not
inconceivable that it might happen without a public hearing .
Ms . Nancy Ostman wondered about some of the restrictions on the
property that were part of the Town law previously , adding that she
would feel more comfortable if they remained part of the Town law .
Ms . Ostman said that there are some changes that would be much more
• difficult to make than others . Attorney Barney responded that the
approval , no matter how it comes about , of the Declaration of Bylaws ,
does not alter the Local Law ; that takes in a legislative act so that
Planning Board - 9 - October 3 , 1989
• to the extent there is something more restrictive in the Local Law
that applies , that would continue to apply .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 9 : 25 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
At this time , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that
his understanding of the process for the proposed project was that it
is a two - step approval process . Mr . Frantz said that the developer is
seeking Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I tonight , and , in
addition to ' that , Final Site Plan Approval for that Phase .
Continuing , Mr . Frantz mentioned that the developer would like , in
November , the Consideration ofFinal Subdivision Approval for the rest
of the project , ' but not the Final Site Plan Approval .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
• and Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I of the proposed " Chase
Pond " development , said Phase I proposed to consist of 36 lots
with 36 primary dwelling units and up to 6 accessory dwelling
units , and 7 ± acres of open space , and further , Consideration of
Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I public utilities .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for Subdivision and Site Plan
review , on September 5 , 1989 , made a negative determination of
environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 3 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed final subdivision plans , final site plan
and proposed phasing plan , and other application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT I'S RESOLVED :
1 . That the ,, Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the
provisions of Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of
Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , to permit the attachment of more
than six dwelling units , to permit a distance of less than 30
feet between units , and to permit a proposed future bus stop
within the buffer area as shown on the Final Plat and Final Site
Plan , having determined that such waiver would represent neither
a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control ,
nor an impairment of the policy enunciated or implied by the Town
• Board in adopting the Subdivision Regulations .
Planning Board - 10 - October 3 , 1989
• 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I of
the proposed " Chase Pond " development , said Phase I proposed to
consist of 36 lots with 36 primary dwelling units and up to 6
accessory dwelling units , and 7 ± acres of open space , and
further , Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I public utilities ,
subject to the following conditions and requirements :
a . Approval of the " Proposed Declaration of Covenants ,
Conditions and Restrictions for Chase Pond Community
Corporation " , the " Proposed Certificate of Incorporation for
Chase Pond Community Corporation " , and the " Proposed By - laws
for Chase Pond Community Corporation " , including provision
for compulsory contributions for control and management of
the open spaces , by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance
of any building permits , and by the Town Board prior to the
issuance of more than twenty - two ( 22 ) building permits , the
developer understanding that if the Town Board fails to
approve same the initial twenty - two permits may be revoked .
b . Approval of the final site drainage plans by the Tompkins
County Highway Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits .
c . Submission of a letter of credit in an amount sufficient to
assure the satisfactory completion of site improvements for
Phase I , and submission of a phased improvements schedule ,
approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of any
building permits for Phase I , the amount of such letter of
credit to be approved by the Town Engineer , and the form of
the letter to be approved by the Town Attorney .
d . The roads proposed for dedication to the Town , and those
roads proposed for private ownership , shall be constructed
in accordance with Town of Ithaca specifications unless
modified with the consent of the Town Engineer and Town
Board .
e . Prior' to the issuance of any building permits , the developer
shall obtain the approval of the Town Engineer for the final
site development construction drawings for all of Phase I
including final road , water and sewer plans , profiles , and
specifications , and drainage improvements .
f . Construction of temporary two -way access roads in the
vicinity of the easternmost and westernmost proposed alleys
in Phase I , or , in lieu of such temporary two -way access
roads , that the proposed Blackmer Way and Whitlock Way be
extended as far as the proposed Underwood Place and Newhart
Place , and that those roads or sections of roads be
constructed with an all -weather surface to specifications
• approved by the Town Engineer .
Planning Board - 11 - October 3 , 1989
• g . Prior to the issuance of any building permits , the landscape
plan and schedule shall be approved by the Town Planner ,
including , but not limited to , satisfactory plantings in the
easternmost area of the proposed open space adjacent to the
later - phase IV - a units , and the design and installation of
plantings and fencing near the proposed pavilion .
h . Prior to the final approval for additional dwellings
subsequent to those proposed for Phase I , the schedule for
completion of the buffer plantings along the east and west
property lines of the site shall be approved by the Planning
Board .
i . No structures shall be permitted within the proposed buffer
areas except for the proposed future bus stop , which shall
be subject to final site plan approval by the Planning
Board .
j . Execution of an easement in a location subject to final
approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner for public
trail access prior to the issuance of more than 22 building
permits for Phase I .
k . Submission of " as -built " plans showing as - built improvements
including utilities , drainage structures , and roadways for
• Phase I and any other subsequent phases , prior to any final
approvals for other proposed final site development after
Phase I .
1 . The final subdivision plat to show Phase I and to be
otherwise in a form satisfacroty to the Town Planner and
Town Attorney before signature by the Chairperson of the
Planning Board .
m . Compliance with all pertinent conditions of Local Law No .
3 - 1983 and Local Law No . 3 - 1987 , and associated Resolutions
as the same may be amended from time to time .
n . Common areas be conveyed to the Homeowners ' Assocation to
occur upon transfer of title of first lot .
FURTHER RESOLVED :
1 . That , pursuant to Article V , Section 34 , of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations , pertinent to the regulation of exterior
characteristics , the Planning Board may , in the review of any
application for Final Subdivision Approval for each proposed
Phase , regulate the exterior characteristics of any proposed
sturctures or uses in order that the development shall be , in the
judgement of the Planning Board , compatible with the surrounding
community .
• 2 . That , in the granting of certain approvals herein , including the
approval of water and sewer plans for an area larger than that
Planning Board - 12 - October 3 , 1989
• area occupied by Phase I final site development , the Planning
Board is not encumbered in its ability to require modifications
to the subdivision plan. and site plan for any additional lots or
dwelling untis proposed to be constructed subsequent to those of
Phase I .
3 . Prior to any final subdivision or final site plan approval for
Phases subsequent to Phase I . the adequacy of the proposed
recreational facilities for the residents of the development
shall be subject to further review and consideration by the
Planning Board , including the potential need for a children ' s
play area , among other considerations .
FURTHER RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board finds that the owner would reasonably
require a period of 12 months , estimated to commence and complete
the construction of Phase I improvements on the project , and
would require 48 months to complete all Phases of the project .
2 . That any building permit issued subsequent to the granting of
final approval for this project may be revoked or modified at the
option of the Town Planning Board if construction of Phase I has
not been , substantially commenced by March 15 , 1990 , or
construction of Phase I has not been substantially completed by
• March 15 , 1991 .
At this gime , Mr . Lesser stated that he had objected to the
original proposal , because in his judgment the visual density was out
of character with the rest of the South Hill community , adding that ,
since that has not changed in this instance , he would also be voting
against the resolution .
Mr . Frantz' stated that he did receive a report from the County
Planning Department - zoning review pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and m ,
adding , they , essentially , have looked at the traffic generation
potential of the project , based on their analysis . Mr . Frantz offered
that it was noted by the County Planning Department that service on
East King Road would be maintained at level of service " C " , which is
adequate service after completion of the Chase Pond project , as well
as service on the other two roads ; those roads being Coddington Road
and Route 96B . Mr . Frantz offered that they do add , however , the
level of service on Route 96B at East King Road is a little less than
" C " , which may need some mitigating measures , i . e . , improving
shoulders or adding a traffic signal at the intersection . Mr . Frantz
commented that the CPD said traffic should be monitored so that
mitigating measures may be introduced at the proper times , namely ,
when level of service deteriorates to " D " or less . Mr . Frantz stated
that the CPD based the analysis on apparently all additional
residences permitted since mid - 1988 on East King Road , Mr . Frantz
stated that his assumption was that the County Planning staff has
• taken into consideration not just Chase Pond , but also Chase Farm ,
Deer Run , Southwoods , etc . Mr . Frantz offered that the second concept
by the CPD was that the cluster concept , of course , increases its
Planning Board - 13 - October 3 , 1989
• public transit potential , which is good , adding , their only concern is
that the turning radius for ingress and egress on Whitlock Way be
checked to make sure that a bus would be able to turn off King Road
onto Whitlock Way , Mr . Harrison Rue responded that they did look at
the plans with the Ithaca Transit office . Mr . Frantz remarked that
the CPD stated that the proposal , as submitted , will have no
significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state
interest , therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the CPD , and
the Board is free to act without prejudice .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Ken erson , Smith .
Nay - Lesser .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I of
the proposed " Chase Pond " development duly closed at 10 : 11 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
PROPOSED PHASE III - a AND FOR THE PROPOSED TETON COURT PHASE OF THE
" DEER RUN " CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , LOCATED BACKLOT OF THE INTERSECTION
OF TROY AND EAST KIND ROADS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
• 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , PHASE III - a IS PROPOSED TO
CONSIST OF 21 LOTS ON WHITETAIL DRIVE AND SARANAC WAY , AND THE TETON
COURT PHASE IS PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 12 LOTS . PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A MODIFICATION OF PHASE III , 54 UNITS , WAS
GRANTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON JUNE 27 , 1989 , AND PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TETON COURT PHASE WAS GRANTED BY THE
PLANNING BOARD ON MARCH 17 , 1987 . DEER RUN INVESTORS , L . P . , OWNERS ,
EDWARD A . HALLBERG , APPLICANT .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 12 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
11
Mr . Tom Niederkorn addressed the Board and stated that the only
change that has been made from the Preliminary Plat has to do with the
piece of land on the south side of the Deer Run property , and which
gives access into the Chase Pond area .
Mr . Niederkorn commented that the final approval for Teton Court
cannot be requested tonight , because the developer was not able to get
the plat drawing survey completed in time for the Town Engineer to
check .
Mr . Niederkorn stated that the Covenants and a typical
landscaping plan for the lots had been submitted to the Board . Mr .
Niederkorn mentioned the island in the road , adding that the island
• and the final plat would be coming in at a later time . Mr . Niederkorn
stated that the Town Board did not reject the island ; they asked who
was going to maintain it , commenting that the resolution that was
Planning Board - 14 - October 3 , 1989
• passed noted that it was going to be maintained either by the adjacent
owners , by the Homeowners ' Association , or the Town .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the Public who had any comments or
questions .
Myrtle Whitcomb , of 233 Troy Road , mentioned the four - acre park ,
and the triangular seven acres that was probably going to go to
Cornell . Ms . Whitcomb also mentioned a NYSEG right - of -way . Mr .
Niederkorn [ indicating on map ] pointed out the four -acre parcel that
is adjacent to , Troy Road , and which is going to the Town . Mr .
Niederkorn pointed out the seven - acre triangular area that will be
part of the 40 acres up " here " , and which will go to Cornell
University , adding , the Town can , at some point in the future , if it
wants it , get a one - acre site for a water tank . Mr . Niederkorn
pointed out the NYSEG easement . Ms . Whitcomb wondered about the
20 - foot easement and whether that is the trail connection through
Chase Pond . Mr . Niederkorn answered , yes .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 10 : 25 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Virginia Langhans wondered if the NYSEG right - of -way was used as
• part of the acreage for the four - acre park . Mr . Niederkorn answered ,
yes .
William Lesser wondered about the number of pets allowed in the
project . Mr . Hallberg offered that there would be one pet , but if
someone moves in and has two pets he would certainly not ask them to
destroy one pet . Mr . Hallberg added that , if someone moves in with
two pets and one pet dies it would not be replaced .
Mr . Kenerson asked about zero lot line houses . Mr . Hallberg
replied , no , not in the true sense ; there would not be any zero lot
line homes . Ms . Langhans asked about the distance between the
structure and the sideyard lot line . Mr . Niederkorn said that the
more critical measurement is the 30 - foot minimum between structures ,
with a maximum height of 30 feet . Mr . Hallberg offered that all of
the buildings from the street side will look like one - story buildings ,
even on the uphill lots .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
• for the 'proposed Phase III - a of the " Deer Run " clustered
subdivision , located backlot of the intersection of Troy and East
King Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 , Residence
Planning Board - 15 - October 3 , 1989
• District R - 15 , said Phase III - a proposed to consist of 21 lots on
Whitetail Drive and Saranac Way ,
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as lead agency for environmental review , on March
17 , 1987 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance for the proposed original preliminary plat for the
site . On June 27 , 1989 , the Planning Board made a negative
determination of environmental significance for the proposed
revised plat for Phase III .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 3 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed final subdivision plans and other
application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
i . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the proposed Phase III - a of the " Deer
Run " subdivision , subject to the following conditions :
a . Approval by the Town Board and Town Attorney prior to the
issuance of any building permits of the proposed deed
restrictions for Phase III .
• b . Prior to any final subdivision or final site plan approvals
for phases subsequent to Phase III , such later phases
including Marcy Court and the final subdivision of lands
proposed for conveyance to Cornell University , there shall
be a review by the Planning Board of the proposed public
open space access as modified from the plan as preliminarily
approved by the Planning Board on March 17 , 1987 , including
the provision of an easement or right of way for potential
future public trail access along or parallel to the NYSEG
right of way , and the potential for public access along the
easement from Teton Court , and within the open space to the
north; of Teton Court .
c . Submission of a letter of credit in an amount sufficient to
assure the satisfactory completion of site improvements for
Phase III - a , prior to the issuance of any building permits
for Phase III - a , the amount of such letter to be approved by
the Town Engineer and the form of the letter to be approved
by the Town Attorney , unless said improvements are fully
completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer .
d . Compliance with all requirements of approval of prior phases
of the " Deer Run " subdivision .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
• Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Ken erson , Lesser , Smith .
Nay - None .
Planning Board - 16 - October 3 , 1989
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of
Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Phase III - a of the " Deer
Run " clustered subdivision duly closed at 10 : 45 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairperson Grigorov declared the October 3 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 15
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
•
SHALEBROOK DEVELOPMENT CORP .
1138 TRUMANSOURG ROAD
ITHACA, NY 14850
•
September 23 , 1989 .
Ms . Carolyn Grigorov , Chairperson
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Ms . Susan Beeners
Town of Ithaca Planner
126 E . Seneca St .
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Carolyn and Susan :
We are writing to share with both of you our frustration
with the planning process as it relates to our proposed Shalebrook
development . By way of background , we want .to be sure you are
aware of why we proposed the development and the various processes
we went through , long before we ever approached the Town of Ithaca
for project approval .
We purchased the farm from Professor Riley in 1950 and have
made our livelihood from it by raising crops and milking cows for
nearly 40 years . The farm always has been , and continues to be
• our major asset , which we expected would provide us with some form
of income during our retirement years . We started planning for
that retirement over two years ago when we sold our dairy herd and
began deciding how best to turn the farm into some kind of an
annuity for us .
We have had many opportunities to sell the farm to developers ,
but we have strong feelings about this land , and we realized that
once we did sell , we would lose control of what happened on the
property . Therefore , we decided to develop the property ourselves ,
thus ensuring that it would be done in an environmentally conscious
manner . To that end , we engaged Tom Niederkorn to design a low
density development on approximately one - fifth of the farm . We
felt this approach would allow us to become comfortable with the
development process on a small scale and also permit us to. continue
farming on the remainder of the farm as - long as our health permitted .
Long before we presented our sketch plan to the Town of Ithaca ,
we shared it with our neighbors - people who have enjoyed the rural
setting we have maintained and who have also tolerated the various
smells and other inconveniences of having a farm across the road .
They have been very good to us over the years and we wanted to be
sure our plan for the future was compatible with what they wanted
in their neighborhood . Their response was overwhelmingly positive .
Then , last January , we presented our sketch plan to the Plan -
. ning Board , which requested that we go back and consider a higher
EXHIBIT _l
Page 2
Letter to Carolyn Grigorov and Susan Beeners
density cluster housing concept for the property and also recon -
figure the road layout because of a concern over the length of a
cul - de - sac . We felt the latter point was valid , but the concept
of a cluster plan in light of our objectives and those of our
neighbors was inappropriate . In any case , we did what was asked
of us and returned to the Planning Board in April . At that time
we received sketch plan approval of the revised plan .
Based on that approval , we engaged a surveyor and an engineer
to perform their respective services so we could receive Prelimi =
nary Plat approval . We also consulted with unsolicited interested
buyers and developed proposed covenants for the property , which
include an architectural review board and restrictions that will
protect the creek and trees on the various lots . We have also
expressed a willingness to deed an improved recreational area over
to the Town .
After all of these efforts , we have been unable to get back
on the Town . Planning Board agenda for nearly three months because
of an unresolved concern about whether our proposed Riley Drive
should be a 45 mph collector road or a 30 mph neighborhood street
as was originally conceived . We feel the former is totally con -
trary to the very nature of what we are trying to create . Fur -
• thermore , if this was an issue , we believe it should have been
raised at the sketch plan review so it could have been resolved
before we invested in the engineering and surveying efforts needed
for preliminary approval .
It appears we cant move ahead with our project until the
road issue is settled , and frankly , we are not sure that we should
proceed as the developer if a high speed collector road will be
required . We have received several expressions of interest from
families who would like to build in this area as early as next
spring . We - must move ahead expeditiously on our plans so those
who are relying on us for . home sites can do the same .: Therefore ,
we request that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board address and
resolve this issue at its October 3 , 1989 meeting .
Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely ,
. Richard A . Perry
• Mary Louise Perry
xc : Noel Desch
Tom Niederkorn
EXHIBIT 1
,
LawOOCAPa amCH1YaCTUR [1 PLAMP4000 UROa 9 DEZ01 0d
September fly , 1959
Ms . Susan lBeeners , Town Planner
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14550
P YK
REO, Chase Pond Final Site Plan
Dew Susan :
baa`
i
We are transmitting to you the Chase Pond Site Plan to be
submitted to the Planning Board for Final Site Plan Approval .
4 The following list identifies those changes made to the plan
between the Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan . Most of the
changes are changes in dimensions between buildings . These
changes reflect the fact that we now have actual architectural plans
available, and the plan is based on these building plans . In most
cases , this has resulted in an increase in the distance between
buildings (earlier plans were more conservative since we didn ' t
have the benefit of architectural plans ) . Changes to the plan
® include the following :
t All Type II Townhouse units , and Type IVa and. IV
Side - Pard units have been redrawn to reflect actual
current architectural plans .
J
A . . The overall length along the street of Type II
Townhouses has been reduced by 6 , increasing
the distance between end units and the streets .
s
Be All end units of Type II Townhouses require a
connected garage regardless of whether the garage
is a Carriage unit . 4
C Surface parking for Type II Townhouses has been
shown adjacent to the garages .
Y) Approximately PP y (4) options for the Type IV and
Type IVa units will be available to the buyer. The
site -plan reflects actual architectural plans for one
100 31P
EXHIBIT 2
M�.
4
345 MFC' KI F iRilDr_ on n t T Ll A , . ; ,
Chase Pond-Final Site Plan
page 2
. Al tions
•
of the options . 1 options are consistent with
building separation requirements noted on site -
plan .
E Side-yard units in the first block adjacent to King
Road have been shifted from the east to the
west side of the lot to take better advantage of
views . The exception to this is the side-yard unit
adjacent to the alley . Units are NOT shifted to view
into the alley .
F. While the side -yard units have been shifted as
described in E above , their garages have remained
in place . This has been done to create a more
useable backyard , to allow views into the backyard ,
and to reduce the area of pavement .
2 . The median along "B Road " has been removed to facilitate
better circulation and fire access . Trees in the median
strip have been. relocated to the east side of the street .
1 • 3 . " A Road " has been widened from 24 ' to 281
.
4 . The sidewalk , street trees , and on - street parking along
" G Road " have been relocated to the south side of the
street to serve the greater density of units on this side .
i
5 . The double row of trees on the west side of the Green has
been reduced to a single row . The second row has been i
relocated to the east side of "D Road " . This was an
aesthetic decision .
6 . Street names have been selected and are reflected on the
site - plan .
7 . Further consideration has been given to the development
of the park . The park is conceived as a passive, strolling
park with opportunities for informal recreation . It is
anticipated that the primary use of the park will be for
walking , viewing , and sitting by the pond . Some picnicing
and informal play is also anticipated . The fitness trail has
• been replaced with a walking/jogging path . Benches will
be located along the path . ' The play field is left open
EXHIBIT 2
Chase Pond-Final Site Plan
page 3
41
to permit frisbee , soccer, volleyball, etc . Additional
•
landscaping in the park will be limited to maximize
views . A small pavilion of traditional architectural style
is proposed as a resting place and for viewing .
Preliminary sketches are attached illustrating the design
intent for the pavilion and walking path . The
proposed lawn seed specification is also attached . The
pathway , seating , and lawn will be installed as part
of the first construction phase .
Your time and consideration in reviewing this project is
appreciated .
Sincerely ,
t
eter Trowbridge ]
a
c : Harrison Rue
x
EXHIBIT 2
rrr
Y _
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
•
September 22 , 1989
i p
Susan Beeners and Members of the Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: CHASE POND
Dear Susan and Members of the Planning Board :
Enclosed is the final Chase Pond Site Plan for your review . We are
seeking Final Site Plan and Subdivision Approval for the entire
property with construction to occur in phases as shown on the
Phasing Plan . The parcel consists of 108 single family lots and 3
parcels of parkland totaling 7 . 3 acres of open space .
The first construction phase will include 18 attached townhouse:
units , 18 single family sideyard units , and up to 6 carriage units ;
development of the park around the pond including lawn , pathway ,
and supplemental planting of the buffer; development of the Green
including lawn and trees ; and installation of street trees for the
Phase One area. Utilities will also be installed as shown on the '
Phasing Plan .
We refer you to our project booklet dated 8/30/89 for additional
material ; we are enclosing information here only on items that have
been revised since Preliminary Subdivision Approval . We are also
enclosing our letter of 9/ 15/89 that details the revisions made to
the plan ; it accompanied our revised Subdivision Plat , Site Plan , and
Final Engineering Drawings as submitted to you on that date .
The following points are provided for further clarification on
specific issues , in response to your review of these plans .
1 . SCHEDULE FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS .
• Street trees will be installed in Phase One as shown on the
Phasing Plan , including trees on the Green .
• Improvements to the park in Phase One will include
establishing the lawn , construction of the path , and
• supplemental plantings to the buffer where existing
openings require additional planting .
EXHIBIT 2
_ _ _ _ nA I TLS . r^ • K r k A I yr n In rn 1n n77 1enn [ eV tn7 777 _ 4 nn 'l
Chase Pond -Final Site Plan
page 2
• Additional buffer plantings along the western edge will be
installed in conjunction with Cornell . If an agreeable
solution to the buffer cannot be reached with Cornell , then a
fence will be installed along the Western boundary . The
planting or fencing will be installed in two phases :
1 . ) The section near the pond prior to completion of an
pavilion at the western edge , and 2 . ) The section behind the
western townhouses prior to occupancy of those
townhouses . A temporary fence will be provided during
construction of the westernmost townhouses .
• Trees along King Road will be installed upon completion of
Phase One construction . Additional trees along King Road
have been added to the plan as suggested by the Town
Planner .
• Plans for the northeast corner of the park will be finalized
at the time of construction of units along the north edge
of the property . The Town Planner will have review of final
park plans for this area of the park .
• The schedule for construction of the pavilion and plans for
the pavilion are not complete at this time . Final pavilion
plans will be reviewed - with the Town Planner.
2 . BUS STOP . The location of the . bus stop on the plans represents
the location agreed upon . with Ithaca Transit, should a bus stop
be deemed appropriate in the future . However, there are no
current plans for construction of any structure at the bus stop
by either the developer or Ithaca Transit.
3a DISCOURAGING ACCESS TO CORNELL NATURAL, AREA,
Discussions have been heldwith . Cornell Plantations regarding ?
the possibility of providing educational signage in the Chase
ark P
Pond p pertaining to the Cornell Natural Area.
i Subsequently , there have been concerns expressed that such
signage might actually encourage trespassing . Therefore , the
educational signage program has been dropped at this point in
time . If Cornell Plantations requests that the developers install
educational signage, the . developer would be ha to do
addition , Cornell is free to post . their as so. In
P property as they see fit.
Residents will be advised at the time of purchase of units in
Chase Pond of the fragility of the natural area, and that
• trespassing is prohibited .
EXHIBIT 2
I
i
10
Chase Pond-Final Site Plan
r
page 3
4 . PROHIBITION OF PLANTING INVASIVE SPECIES . The following
plants will be
p prohibited from the Chase Pond subdivision by
deed restriction , both in Commonareas and on individual lots .
Acer platanoides Norway Maple
Berberis thunbergii Japanese Bayberry
Celastrus orbiculatus Asiatic Bittersweet
Elaeagnus sp . Autumn , Russian Olive
Lonicera sp . Honeysuckle
" Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife
Phragmites sp . Reed Canary Grass
Rhamnus frangula Tallhedge
Robinia pseudoacacia / Black/Bristly Locust
hispida
Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose
Vinca minor Myrtle
Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn
Ligustrum vulgare - Privet
5 . SIGNAGE .
Signage at the Chase Pond project will be minimal in
keeping with the neighborhood.. theme . An entry sign in the
location shown on the plan is proposed to mark the entrance .
This would be a relatively small, low-key sign . Numbers on
living units and street signs are the only other signage
anticipated .
. 6 . LIGHTING . A low light level is desirable and considered
appropriate for the neighborhood . Lighting will consist of
photo - cell operated , building . mounted fixtures at the end unit
of each block of townhouses .
7 . ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN. Current progress prints of the
building elevations and footprints of both townhouses and
sideyard houses are enclosed . These are working drawings and
are still undergoing revision . Our exterior color schemes are
being individually selected for each house from the various
i
Historical Color Charts " as supplied by paint manufacturers .
The brick will be chosen withsimilar. care to fit our Traditional 3
themes .
8 . DEED RESTRICTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORPORATION. As we
have discussed , our revised Deed restrictions and proposed
Community Corporation bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation
EXHIBIT 2
r
Chase Pond -Final Site Plan
page 4
' 8 . DEED RESTRICTIONS AND COIyI1V[UNI1-y CORPORATION. As we
have discussed , our revised Deed restrictions and proposed
I Community Corporation bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation
will be submitted to you and the Town Attorney directly by
Jim Salk. You should receive them either today or Monday,
September 25 for review before Final Subdivision Approval .
These will be required to be finalized before building permit
issuance .
Your time in reviewing this project is appreciated .
Sincerely ,
reterTrowbridge
Principal
I'
I
•
Y
f -
a IY
1
r
t.
I .
l
R
I�
I n
I
1
1
. 1
1
4
EXHIBIT 2
I
CA i
TOWN OF ITHA PLANNING
_ - BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC i
- - HEARINGS, TUESDAY, OCTO- :
ITHACA JOURNAL * - BEy direction of the Chairman
of .the P.Ianning.Boord, NOTICE
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public. '
Hearings will be held by the
Planning Board of the Town of
� � � � r Ithaca on Tuesday, October 3, is
+ y�. [ . G: i � L': � ,^ ':: �=5 Y.. I's_ 1989, in Towri Hall, 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at I
the following times and on the"
;
11 following matters:
7:30 P. M. Consideration of a ' .
. . - Recommendation to the Zon-
ing Board of Appeals with re-
L'2 = ft �Z , « .s: t . i . r.. G+7tu'1 ';' L•] F= a Lt : ." u7 L:. P q P
�f T"'._-.1 . L . �-.n -a sect to a request for Special
i• Approval of a proposed 528
sq. ft. classroom addition to ,
L:.Lt u e r _ - -�_• __ __ , _ the ' Kingdom Hall of Jeho_s
vah' Witnesses, 1201 Donby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par-
:el No.iiE �u jo:-t:: wi i F1 .:Vli 'aa _ :el No. 6-36-3-1 . 1 . 2. 41
R-30.
2. 41 acres
- _ Iota , Residence
_ ._ ,.. c — - CA
-c . .. .,, nh
of Je a s
• --- CWitnesses, .sOwner; Harlin
s ..d1=4- L^.Dezr LS ILtr-.1e...
Schack, Agent.
I
-- '
_ l-: _ -.y.. _R.:.•.:.1. ._". . .�.+;:.:. � :"��y I.^.L. 1L: ?1trtiC ' ____ � { �.._�_._ .r ........� . .._... .....
8:00
Consideration ofF
i abi Subdivision and
Approval forinnl Site Plan
Phase I o the
ar
CaPo development,
menta
con- .sadPhase I proposed t
�"
`
`
; .
sist of 36 lots with 36 primary 1
dwelling units and up to b ac-
cessory dwelling units, and 7
.. .- - --•. . . . _ - - . . . . . _.. __ . . _ � . ....._.. . ... ---- - -. .._.._ ._ — - .. _..- - - - - plus/minus acres of open
--. Lir.. y , - E:.+► £_ S', '+• •
� = OSD • �'� Q � L` space, and further, Considerid
er
ation of Final Site PIan Appro-
val for Phase I public utilities.-
t • ;;
_ The overall rolect received
Prete ar u rvision -
Q c� v I and P e imi Site
C {- C .r- Gam" o I' . Pla o a y r nary Ap
Z, • Q. - ___ . . . . . . .e_. _.. ._.. .- - -•----._.._.. . . ... _._. . .. . .. t9 n Approval, with certain
. . . - : n 59 .
conditions, o September
_ . . . .. --_ . . . �. _. . .. __ . . . . ..._ _�:.... ..... ....:......_.._. nits inof 161 o1—ached and
detached co figu-
_.- : t s 0 res located
rations
o t3
a
onEastKing Road near ..
R'd t Rood, T f Itha-
.. . . . . . . .' i ge res o own o
r I KQc a Parcel N 6-44-1 -
4. 311 , MulltiplelResidenc Dis- 1
_ . . trio. David C. Auble, Owner; :_':
ButterField Associates I,, Appli;
conts.
. , : 8: 45 P.M. Consideration of FI-
- _ j . p ',.►'Lr f 114 ; nal Subdivision Approval for. '',
_ .
{o'
_.: :. . . . osed Phase
_ ..._ . , - . . . .. . . __._. .. _ I Teton and
"Deer Run' clus_ `'f
JEAN FORD -' tered subdrvisi local
. _ . . . � - bn, ed a
Phase
se o e
-= Nota Public State Of New York bocklot of the intersection of
s -
Notary � Troy and - East King Roads; .j
- - Tax Parcel No.
_..
No. 4654410 Roads -
Town of Ithaca
. :: . 32 Residence District %rj
_. . . 1Phase III-ais proposed �to
Qua -
Qualified in Tomplci �ls .County consist o lots on Whitetail
- DriveandSaranac Way, and '•1
�OmmtssiOn ex ices Ma 31 19 . .
- -. : . . . _
p the Teton Court Phase is pro-. '3
pp o st of 12lots. e
r liminar Subdivision Approval
a _ _ for a modification of Phase III ?
,: .
-- -- -
. ._ . . _ - - 4 units, was rant by I
._: . :;�._•: •.,-. -:; . :. . _. . . --,- •,,�`,- :�- - .:. .:. -,_.. - _. - - --- - -_ - . . _ _ _ -- - -
2. _ :. Planning BoardoneJune 27e - .
1989an
d Preliminary Subdi
- ,
vision Approval for the Teton ;
- - � - ! 7;':.,Court Phse wasranted b
g y
=• •=` Y � ' --
the Planning Board on March, _
: :.. -
_. ,, ,r_- _ _ _ _ __ ,•_ z __- . :� , _ _ - 17, 1987. Deer Run Investors,
,.: y ':, - - - - - _ . _, -- -. . . . P. Owners; Edwin A. Hal I .
-. ber Applicant.
_ , - .z.,, " . : , . . . . _ . . ..: --. . . _ ;: .•
Planning
1Board will
said times and said place he
all persons in support of such _
II
.. - • - -- - _ . matters or objections thereto'. a- j
- - - appear n
Persons may by agent . ;
or in person.
Jean H. Swartwood . i
Town Clerk I
273- 1721
21 • �
September 28, 1989
i