HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-12-01•
s
TOWN OF'ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 1, 111992
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Tuesday, December 1, 1992, in Town
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
met
in
regular
session
on
Hall,
126
East
Seneca
Street,
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James
Baker, Herbert Finch, Virginia Langhans, William Lesser,
Stephen Smith, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman
(Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner),
Richard Eiken (Planner I), John Barney (Town Attorney).
,ALSO PRESENT. Peter Newell, Jessica Wing, Judy Malloy, Robert
Langhans, Jr., Fred Estabrook, Gerald Nye, Ken Ritter,
George Kugler,, Dave Auble, Tammo Steenhuis, Orlando
Iacovelli, Ron Simpson, Doug Wilcox, Kinga Gergely.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:37
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 November 23, 1992, and November 26, 1992,
respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the
properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the
City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on November 25, 19920
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.11
AGENDA ITEM:
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov
closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM. REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER
At 7:40 p.m.,
Town Planner
Floyd Forman
stated that,
hopefully,
after Christmas
or after
the first of the
new year, the
GEIS would
get full review.
Stu Mesinger
consultant to
Cornell University
is
presently reviewing
the
GEIS. When the
GEIS arrives
Town staff,
Larsen Engineers,
and the
Planning Board will
review
the revised
document. The
Planning''
Board has 30 days
to determine
whether the
document is now
adequate
for public review.
Mr. Forman also made reference to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Forman stated that there is the possibility that in reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan, it may be necessary to hold three Planning Board
Meetings a month. (Attached hereto are two letters concerning the
PLANNING BOARD -2- December 1, 1992
• Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit # 1 from Mr. & Mrs. Thayer and Exhibit #
2 from Elsie McMillan].
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 20, 1992
MOTION by James Baker, seconded by,Robert Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of October 20, 1992, are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Finch, Langhans, Lesser, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 3, 1992
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded,by Robert Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that'the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of November 3, 1992, are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
• Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Finch, Langhans, Lesser, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR PHASE II OF "CHASE FARM SUBDIVISION," INVOLVING THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 45- 1 -2.2,
33.89 + /- ACRES TOTAL, INTO 49 RESIDENTIAL LOTS INCLUDING
CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 3,450 FEET OF ROAD AND WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT THE END OF CHASE LANE, BACKLOT OF RIDGECREST
ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. PHASES I AND II OF "CHASE FARM
SUBDIVISION" WERE GRANTED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, WITH
CONDITIONS, ON SEPTEMBER;20, 1988. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PHASE
II FINAL SUBDIVISION, HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1992, WAS ADJOURNED PENDING
FURTHER REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. SOUTH FARM ASSOCIATES,
OWNER /APPLICANT; DOUG WILCOX, HARRISON',,RUE, AGENTS.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7t45 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Doug Wilcox addressed the Board concerning the findings of
wetlands on the above - noted property. Mr. Wilcox stated that with
all of the rain that had been received'by the Tompkins County area
. this year, it would be hard for any soil to drain well. Mr. Wilcox
further stated that it would take 14 to 18 months before the Corps of
Engineers would be able to come and look over the situation.
PLANNING BOARD -3- December 1, 1992
• Mr. Wilcox stated that under the circumstances he and his wife
were financially and emotionally upset and informed the Board he
would temporarily withdraw his application. The Board honored Mr.
Wilcox's request for temporary withdrawal of his application.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX -BED; 5,500 + /- SQUARE FOOT HOSPICE
FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED: OFFICE SPACE, OFF- STREET PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 4401 -1 -11
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 44.1 -1 -2 THROUGH 44.1 -1 -6, PORTIONS OF
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 44.1'' =1 -7 THROUGH 44.1 -1 -15, AND TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 44.1 -1 -16 THROUGH 44.1 -1 -20, 11.8 + /- ACRES
TOTAL, LOCATED ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE CHASE POND SITE ON EAST
KING ROAD ACROSS FROM CHASE FARM LANE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30.
PROJECT RECEIVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS ON
OCTOBER 17, 1992. CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK, OWNER; HOSPICARE OF
TOMPKINS COUNTY, APPLICANT; PETER NEWELL, ARCHITECT, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:54 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
At this time, Board Member Virginia Langhans stated, for the
record, that she would not participate °in any discussion of or vote
on this matter.
• Peter Newell, Architect for Hospicare, addressed the Board
stating that he had revised the site plan maps as of 12 -1 -92, and
proceeded to hand out to the Board "copies of the new maps [hereto
attached as Exhibits # 3 and # 4]. Mr. Newell stated he eliminated
the circular driveway in the front ,due to the fact that it was too
tight for delivery vans toturn and also for cost reasons.
Judy Malloy, President of Hospicare, addressed the Board stating
that she felt that the patients entering the hospice facility should
be entitled to convenience.' A covered' breezeway, facing East King
Road, instead of the parking lot,,would be the drop -off point and
would lead to the entrance of the faciltiy. The entrance would be a
little closer to the end of the building,,but the main issue is for
the comfort of the patient.
Ms. Malloy also stated that they are not opposed to suggestions.
Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that his main concern dealt with
the turning radius of large delivery trucks to the lower level. Mr.
Walker further stated that it is only 16 feet wide; the normal width
is 20 feet. Mr. Walker recommendedthat the driveway, entrance way
and the jog down to the parking lot should be 20 feet wide.
Ms. Malloy stated she agreed with Mr. Walker concerning the 20
feet for the driveway, entrance, etc., as this would give more of a
• free traffic flow.
PLANNING BOARD 0004600 December 1, 1992
• Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the public wished to speak or had any
questions. No one spoke. Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public
Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
There
appearing
to be no
further
discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if
anyone were
prepared
to offer
"a motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by`James Baker:
WHEREAS.
19 This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed construction of a' six -bed, 5,500 + /- square foot
hospice facility with associated office space, off - street parking
and landscaping on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
44.1 -1 -1, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1 -1 -2 through
44.1 -1 -6, portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1 -1 -7
through 44.1 -1 -15, and Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1 -1 -16
through 44.1 -1 -20, 11'.8 + /- acres total, located on the western
half of the Chase Pond site on East King Road across from Chase
Farm Lane, Residence District R -30, and
2. The Planning Board granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with
conditions, on November 3, 1992, and
• 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, made a Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance for the proposed hospice facility on
November 3, 1992, and
4. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals granted the necessary
special approval, with conditions, "on November 18, 1992, and
5. The following conditions of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval
Resolution, dated November 3, 1992; have been met:
a. Submission to and approvals' by the Town Engineer of a
maintenance plan for the pond'structure prior to final site
plan approval.
b. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board, prior to
final site plan approval, of proposed architectural
renderings showing, at a minimum, elevations, roof lines,
exterior appearance, and other architectural features of the
proposed hospice facility.
'
c. Revision of the site plan to show the specific footprint and
location of the proposed hospice facility, and
6. The Planning Board, at 'a Public Hearing held on December 1, 1992,
• has reviewed the site plan entitled "Hospicare of Tompkins
County" (Sheets SP -1 dated October'27, 1992, revised December 1,
1992 and SP -2 dated November 19, 1992, revised December 1, 1992),
PLANNING BOARD 0 00050MM December 1, 1992
prepared by Peter Newell Assocl Architects, and a set of
Of architectural renderings (no date), included with the site plan,
also prepared by Peter Newell Assoc. Architects, and
•
0
7. The agent for the applicant has indicated that the proposed
hospice will likely exceed the maximum height requirement by five
(5) feet, which will necessitate a;, variance from the Board of
Appeals,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
19 That the Planning Board hereby'grants Final Site Plan Approval
for the proposed construction of the proposed hospice facility
with associated office space, off - street parking and landscaping
on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.1 -1 -1, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1 -1 -2 through 44.1 -1 -6, portions of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44:1 -1 -7 through 44.1 -1 -15, and
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . "44.1 -1 -16 through 44.1 -1 -20, as
shown on the site °plan 'entitled "Hospicare of Tompkins County ",
(Sheets SP -1 dated October 27, 1992, revised December 1, 1992,
and SP -2 dated November 19, 1992, revised December 1, 1992),
prepared by Peter Newell Associates Architects, subject to the
following conditions.
a. The use of herbicides and pesticides will be kept to the
utmost minimum consistent with good horticultural,
scientific, and environmental',practices.
b. Submission of a deed restriction for the portion of the
parcel to remain as open space where no future construction
activity may ,occur, in a form to be approved by the Town
Attorney, and delineation of said portion of the parcel to
be left as open space on a revised site plan, to be supplied
before issuance of any building permits. The area to be
occupied by buildings, parking areas, sidewalks, and any
other accessory buildings or „structures shall not exceed one
acre.
C* Submission to and approval by "the Town Planner of a more
detailed landscaping plan for the proposed hospice, showing
type, size (height„ and diameter), and location of plantings,
prior to issuance of any building permits.
d. Submission to and approval,, by the Town Engineer of a soil
erosion and sedimentation control plan prior to any site
disturbance, said plan to b'e implemented during construction
of the proposed hospice facility and parking area.
e. The final architectural renderings shall
conforming to the architectural renderings
site plan and presented at the December
Board meeting. Any substantial deviation
determined by the Building Inspector, shall
by the Planning Board.
be substantially
included with the
11 1992 Planning
from the plans, as
require approval
•
•
•
PLANNING BOARD
-6-
December 1, 1992
f. The pond structure maintenance plan, as approved by the Town
Engineer, shall be strictly adhered to.
g. Approval by the Town Engineers, of the final locations and
details of the proposed water, sewer, and drainage
facilities, and execution of all proposed easement
agreements prior to issuance of any building permits.
h. Submission of proof of ownership of the subject parcel by
the applicant in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney,
prior to issuance of any building permits.
i. Granting of a variance by the Board of Appeals for more than
the maximum allowed building height prior to issuance of any
building permits.
j. Revision of the site plan to be approved by the Town
Planner and Town Engineer, with such approval to be obtained
prior to issuance of any building permits, as follows.
16 Increase
the entrance
driveway
width
to 20
feet to
accommodate
larger vehicles
and permit
hospice
two -way
traffic
into and
from the parking
area.
2. Raise the
lowest elevation
of the
building
to
at least
one -foot
(1) above the
top of
the
dike elevation
(12801),
to eliminate
any risk
of
flooding
in an
extreme
rainfall event.
-There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Finch; Lesser, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson
Grigorov declared the matter
of
Final Site
Plan
Approval for the
proposed construction of a six
-bed
hospice
facility
with associated
office space duly closed at 8:45
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION
ITHACA TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO A�PROPOSED
LOCAL
OF THE
LAW AMENDING
TOWN
OF
THE
ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING PLANNING PROCEDURES
AND
FINDINGS
RELATED
TO SPECIAL APPROVALS.
Chairperson Grigorov' declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 8:47 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Town Attorney John Barney addressed the Planning Board stating
that this proposed local law was generated by a decision of Judge
Relihan, Jr. involving the Minnie's.BBQ matter. The judge read the
Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance somewhat differently than the way all
of rest of us have been, treating the ordinance over the years, and
PLANNING BOARD -7- December 1, 1992
• felt several of the criteria that we thought were applicable were not
applicable. The PlanningBoard is appealing the judge's decision and
they thought it appropriate' to modify ,'the ordinance to make clear
what it is we are doing on these special approvals, or make it
clearer. What these four proposed amendments do is to make clear
that findings have to be made when special approval matters are
considered. The same findings are required by the Board of Zoning
Appeals when they decide to grant or deny a special approval. In
addition, the same three findings ,are made with respect to
recommendations, thus, it makes it'clear it is part of the special
approval to continue to make those three findings. Under Section 1,
Number 2, two additional matters to be considered which actually
apply to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals are,
one, lot area, access, and parking and loading facilities being
sufficient for proposed use and the' second one being a natural
surface water drainageway. The Paragraph 3 amendment, language
previously read that the proposed change is in accordance with the
comprehensive plan of development of the Town and it was suggested
that this should apply to both change: or a proposed use; Part 4
requires the Planning Board to consider the same seven criteria that
are existing right now that the Zoning "Board of Appeals is required
to consider for granting special approvals. The law is just a brief
synopsis. Granting special approvals is a kind of a presumption that
once the Zoning Ordinance says, for example, that one can have a
restaurant subject to obtaining a special approval of a particular
area, that that is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and what
the plan of the Town is to have a restaurant there. However, a
special approval criteria says that you can have a restaurant only if
you meet these criteria. If a person demonstrates that they meet the
criteria, the Planning Board does not have discretion in refusing to
grant the special apptovalej, they must be entitled to it. By the same
token, if an applicant fails to demonstrate that they meet the
criteria the Planning Board has no discretion; they must deny the
granting of a special approval. That is why we are trying to import
here, the seven or eight criteria that are requirements now for the
ZBA. If criteria are met, special approval must be granted. If
criteria are not met, special approval is denied. This is Zoning 101.
Chairperson Grigorov noted again that this was a Public Hearing
and asked if anyone else present wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion.
There appearing to be 'no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer 'a motion.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Herbert Finch.
WHEREAS.
1. The Town of Ithaca Town Board will be considering a local law
• amending the Town of `'Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to clarify Planning
Board procedures and findings with respect to review of
applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special approval,
PLANNING BOARD -8- December 1, 1992
• such proposed local law specifically amending Sections 46 -a, 77,
and 78 (see attached proposed local law), and
29 The Town of Ithaca Town Board has requested the Planning Board to
make a recommendation in regard to,the proposed amendment to the
Zoning ordinance prior to adoption of said local law by the Town
Board, and
3. The Planning Board finds that the proposed amendment would be
beneficial in its review of special approvals as it would help to
clarify procedures and findings related to such applications to
the Board of Appeals,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning. Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law
Amending the Zoning' Ordinance Regarding Planning Procedures and
Findings Related to Special' Approvals.
There being no furtherLdiscussion, "the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, L,anghans, Baker, Finch, Smith, Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared -to be carried unanimously.
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board with respect to a
Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Planning
Procedures and Findings and Findings Related to Special Approvals
duly adjourned at 8:53 p.m.l'
AGENDA ITEM. DISCUSSION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX1i PARCELS NO.53 -1 -23.1 THROUGH
- 23.15, COMPRISING THE " KLONDIKE MANOR" SUBDIVISION, AND TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO, 54` -7 -41 AND -43 (237 CODDINGTON ROAD), 8.2 +/-
AND 1.2 +/- ACRES RESPECTIVELY, TO ALLOW CREATION OF 4 LOTS AND A TOWN
PARK ON THE KLONDIKE MANOR SITE'; AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWELVE
ADDITIONAL APARTMENT UNITSAT 237 CODDINGTON ROAD. THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ONTWO PARCELS'ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CODDINGTON
ROAD BETWEEN THE ITHACA COLLEGE ENTRANCE AND JUNIPER DRIVE, RESIDENCE
DISTRICTS R -15 AND R -9. ORLANDO AND RALPH IACOVELLI, OWNERS; ORLANDO
IACOVELLI, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted
matter at 8:54 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above.
Orlando Iacovelli addressed the Board and stated that he and his
brother had gone through' a long process in the Klondike Manor
subdivisions. Mr. Iacovelli further stated that, in the Spring, he
• and his brother hope to start to make some serious modifications. Mr.
Iacovelli stated he had met with the Assistant Town Planner George
Frantz on a number of occasions to discuss some open space and some
ki
PLANNING BOARD -9- December 1, 1992
• other concepts of what his thoughts were on South Hill in the
Pennsylvania /Coddington Road area. It was suggested that Mr.
Iacovelli make a proposal to the Planning Board which could meet the
needs of the residents better than the current subdivision.
Therefore, Mr. Iacovelli ,appeared before the Planning Board and
stated that, he requests that Klondike,Manor be divided into four (4)
lots, three (3) of them fronting on Coddington Road, one (1) large
lot backlot of the front 31 , there would be a small laneway back to
the large lot. There would be a three and one -half acre park donated
to the Town, and the construction of a'nine unit apartment building
at 237 Coddington Road.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz affixed Klondike Subdivision
maps to the bulletin board, which are attached hereto as Exhibits # 5
and # 6. Mr. Frantz pointed out the three lots on Coddington Road
and one large lot consisting of three and one -half acres. Parking
will be provided.
Mr. Iacovelli stated;, that he was before the- Board for some
discussion and direction; if there is no desire by the Board or the
neighborhood to pursue this, then so be it. Mr. Iacovelli stated
that if this proposal meets the needs of the Town and the community
better than the present subdivision that is in existence, he would be
able to do something similar to what is being presented. Mr.
Iacovelli stated he had met with Mr. ^Frantz on a number of occasions
and the Board might like to speak with Mr. Frantz about the issue.
• Mr. Frantz stated that, in the course of negotiations for the
easement of the South Hill Recreation °Way; the whole issue of student
housing and family housing''in the arealshould be discussed.. Again,
the idea is it sort of alleviates the concerns of the student housing
spreading further east along Coddington Road by reserving the
Klondike tract for owner occupied :homes; a total of four of them,
and, essentially, it is protecting the development of density from
Klondike. This plat was approved for twelve lots on Klondike Lane
and two small Town park sites. The idea is to transfer the density
from Klondike over "here" at 237 Coddington Road, which already has
four apartment units; build a new building with nine units, and then
add three new units between these two. One apartment would go from
two units to three units and one would have four units. Overall, the
project would go from four apartment units to sixteen units. The
benefits to the overall, community are, again, eliminating the
potential for additional student and rental housing on "this" portion
of Coddington Road and beyond. If the Sincebaugh tract down hill of
the railroad grade was ever developed, there could be a six to seven
acre park with parking space. The Town will not have to maintain
another cul -de -sac, there will not beta road cutting across the South
Hill Recreation Way and there will not be the students driving up and
down Coddington Road between this development, Ithaca College, and
downtown.
Mr. Frantz further stated to the Board that developments like
this tend to provide more buffering between student apartments and
PLANNING BOARD -10- December 1, 1992
• the family homes. Also, the South Hill Recreation Way provides a
buffer between the proposed apartment building and the private homes.
Planning Board Member, William Lesser asked Mr. Frantz if he
referred in his notes that this was a transfer of development rights
or something like that? Mr. Lesser stated that, in general, he
thinks this is the appropriate way to proceed, however, this was the
first time Mr. Lesser had heard that mentioned.
Mr. Frantz stated that the concern is that this matter is being
thought of in terms of a cluster subdivision, but the problem is we
are not talking about continuous parcels of land and that could be a
problem. Another option could be for the Town to rezone this for
Special Land Use District or a Multiple Residence District based on a
site plan.
Mr. Lesser commented to Mr. Frantz''that the area to be covered on
the lot is substantial and wondered what other variances would be
required in such a Multiple Residence.) Mr. Frantz responded that
under Multiple Residence there are additional setbacks over what is
required under cluster, however, it looks possible to set this
building within the setbacks with some modifications of the
footprint. A variance would be required because there is no parking
allowed within any of the setbacks and there is a 60 -foot setback
between-the rear property' line and the building and parking is
forbidden there. Planting of shrubs,would hide parking lots. There
• would be access to proposed, park at Juniper Drive,
Mr. Lesser stated that'recently someone was killed due to the
fact that there is very heavy pedestrian traffic along Coddington
Road. Mr. Lesser asked if tthere was any possibility of a sidewalk to
allow students safe access to downtown.
Mr. Frantz stated that the major concern of residents along
Coddington Road is the fact that therej',are no sidewalks for students
or public. Mr. Frantz further stated that he thinks this is
something that the Town and the County are going to have to face
soon. In respect to lighting, Mr. Frantz stated that he has been
compiling information needed to do a petition for a Lighting District
on Coddington Road; one being recommended goes from the City line out
to the intersection of Troy Road. Mr.,Frantz stated that so far he
has gotten the names of ,over eighty property owners, amount of road
frontage they have, assessed evaluation of their land, and the type
of information you need to ':put together a package for a petition.
The residents petition the Town Board to establish a Lighting
District. It is a benefit ''type district, which means the Town Board
will setup 'the district „through NYSEG and the cost of that district
is then shared by the property owners in the district.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that this was a discussion and asked
if anyone from the public wished to speak.
• Ken Ritter of 249 Coddington Road addressed the Board and stated
that he had a number of concerns. He stated he has four small
PLANNING BOARD -11- December 1, 1992
• children ranging in age from 2 to 11. They purchased their property
about a year and a half ago thinking it would be an appropriate place
to raise small children. Mr. Ritter stated they have nothing against
students, there is no problem with students living next door and
possibly having parties; that is not the main concern. On several
occasions there have been cars parked along the lane when having
parties. Safety is Mr. Ritter's prime concern. At the entrance of
Ithaca College is were everything would empty out. It is not a
question of nine apartments, it is' really a question of thirty -six
additional units. There would be a total of fifty -two units there
because they are rented out individually to students. These are
apartments where all students sign a lease so you would have a total
of fifty -two units in there, and as it is proposed, there is only
space for about thirty -six or forty cars. Mr. Ritter also stated
that he noticed that most students who attended Ithaca College owned
cars and wondered where they would park them and where their friends
would park their cars when they have parties. Mr. Ritter further
stated it seemed dangerous to put that unit in there, the road is
very narrow, very dark (Coddington Road), and students are walking
two and three abreast; one ,can't see them. There is no place for the
students to go, there is a ditch on either side, the lighting is
inadequate and to put an additional thirty -six units there, right at
that intersection, seems to be very unsafe.
Planning Board Member Virginia Langhans asked Mr. Ritter when he
bought his home did he know" that this apartment complex of four units
• was there. Mr. Ritter, stated yes, and felt that the development
around there was complete. The next lot over was developed to the
fullest it could be and that was a factor in our decision to buys
that there would be no more development there. It has four units
there, but sixteen beds.; Mr. Ritter stated that they have a
restriction in their purchase agreement by the previous owners that
we cannot sell without incurring a penalty of $10,000.00 for the next
ten years. It puts Mr. Ritter in a bind, if they feel it is unsafe
for their children, they will suffer a penalty from this but, they do
like the area to raise their children in and they like the character
of the neighborhood as it is now. The Ritters' fear for the safety
of their children; as the children gets; older they will be walking
downtown and Mr. Ritter'; is worried,about that. If the street were
wider, if there were sidewalks, if it was well lit,- if there was a
control at the intersection for the entrance to Ithaca College, Mr.
Ritter thinks that at this 'point, the proposal could be examined a
little better but, at the present times he cannot see that it is safe.
Mr. Frantz stated that he had some information on traffic. In
1988 some traffic counts were done on Coddington Road all the way out
from Burns Road. At this time there are approximately 6,600 vehicles
per day from the Ithaca College entrance back to the City and roughly
2,100 vehicles per day ,eastward. Mr. Frantz explained how he
determined the present figures. Counts that were done in 1988 were
added to, about 500 to the 1988 counts to account for the
• development. Mr. Frantz further stated he has looked at possible
traffic generation from student apartments complex, and Mr. Frantz's
estimate is anywhere from 250 to 300 vehicles per day in and out of
ft
PLANNING BOARD -12- December 1, 1992
the driveway. This is "based on 40 cars and each driver taking at
least three trips each day.
Planning Board Member Langhans asked Mr. Iacovelli if most of the
students drove cars to school. Mr. Iacovelli responded that most of
the students are without cars and one of the reasons they selected to
live in this particular area is the fact that it is close to I.C. and
they can walk to school.
Ron Simpson of 112 Pineview Terrace addressed the Board stating
that most of the comments he had represented a group of people in the
neighborhood who met early in November'�to talk over the plan. Mr.
Simpson stated that there were at least nine people who met and a few
other people called because they could not be at the meeting. Most
of the people at the meeting generally support the new concept so,
there is support at least ''from the `,people living in that area.
However, there are a couple of concerns; one concern is the traffic
flow problem on Coddington Road where the intersection is directly
across from the College., Mr. Simpson further stated that he
supported Mr. Frantz's idea of not allowing cars to exit and enter in
both places but, the new driveway' is limited just to emergency
vehicles only and require all entering "and exiting vehicles to exit
directly across from the College. Mr. Simpson also stated that he
thought that there should be a stop sign at that intersection for two
reasons; there have been a number of accidents at this particular
intersection and it would control some',of the excessive speed. Mr.
Simpson stated he thought that if two stop signs were placed on
Coddington Road at the College entrance that this would alleviate
some of the concern that many people have. The second concern was
for the people living next door. The group hoped that some kind of a
buffer would be placed between the new facility and the people
living next door.
Mr. Simpson stated that the deeper concerns of those living
directly next to the new four lot parcel is in Mr. Iacovelli's
proposal where it is specified that these four homes would be owner
occupied (the two family would be owner occupied), and the group of
people involved feel that in order to give full support to this plan
would need assurance that down the road, the large # 4 parcel would
not only be owner occupied but that it would not be subdivided in the
future. The group of neighbors also liked the idea of the park land
and some of the people at, the meeting were very concerned about
access to the new Recreation Way that goes through there. Many
people are parking on Juniper Drive and with the new park land,
maybe, some thought could be given to using some of that as parking
to get it out off Juniper Drive and with a park there, the parking
problem on Juniper Drive would increase.
Mr. Simpson stated the' last question he had concerned the concept
of transfer of development '''rights. Mr. Simpson thought this concept
would have kind of a one for one ratio. In other words, if
• development rights are going to be transferred, there should be some
equity in what is being transferred and then wondered if it could be
explained how going from 13 to 4 lots equated to producing this
PLANNING BOARD -13- December 1, 1992
number or allowing this number of apartments to be put in, maybe the
formula or reasoning could be explained what went into that.
Mr. Frantz explained to Mr. Simpson that what they have is a
total of 12 lots, but zoning would allow two dwellings per lot, so we
are talking about 24 dwelling units in' the Klondike subdivision as
approved. We are taking'12 of those and moving them, for a maximum
of 8, so we are gradually reducing, and we are going from 24 in one
concept to 20 in another.
Fred Estabrook of 257 Coddington Road addressed the Board stating
that the old plan or one of the plans of the history of this proposal
would have put a cluster of student housing in his neighbor's
backyard. Mr. Iacovelli answered Mr. Estabrook by stating that this
old proposal was dismissed because there was no buffer.
Mr. Estabrook stated 'that possibly the new proposal was better
than the old one, but still there are problems. Mr. Estabrook thinks
the new plan would be good only if it were smaller. The value of the
transfer of development value is probably why it is necessary to pack
that many students into this small space because it is the only way
it can be profitable, but Mr. Estabrook thought that a smaller number
of students in that small !11space would be appropriate with the proper
traffic control at the intersection. Mr. Estabrook further stated
that he thought a traffic light is needed, along with sidewalks, and
lighting; safety is really a big concern here. Mr. Estabrook spoke
• about one of the student houses close to him that has a number of
parties. These parties generate anywhere from 100 to 200 people
causing noise, problems with parking, etc.
Mr. Iacovelli stated :1 i
lithat his area s not a party area. Mr.
Iacovelli further stated that he puts in his leases that there are to
be no large parties and that he enforces this. If there are large
parties, Mr. Iacovelli staged he calls the Sheriff and lets them deal
with the problem. Mr. Iacovelli :said that he and his brother go
around to the student house's and tell the students that they are not
allowed to have large parties.
Mr. Forman answered Mr.;Estabrook that he could take issue with
that statement because he did not make that statement. Mr. Forman
stated that Mr. Estabrook had phoned him and said he thought there
were problems. Mr. Forman stated he did not know if one of the
ladies that was present was Ms. Wing or not, but, first of all
perilous is not a word ;he uses. liMr. Forman stated that that was
indeed stated in the article. Mr. Forman further stated that when
•
any citizen calls him and has a complaint and a problem, he considers
that to be a problem and something that needs to be dealt with. Mr.
Mr. Estabrook
stated !;his main
reason for speaking was to plead
the
issue
of safety. Traffic, speed,
traffic control and lighting
are
very
serious problems.: Mr. Estabrook
explained that there
was an
article
where
Mr. Forman was quoted as
saying that the Town officials
did
not
consider it a perilous road
and stated that he would
like to
take
issue
with that statement.
Mr. Forman answered Mr.;Estabrook that he could take issue with
that statement because he did not make that statement. Mr. Forman
stated that Mr. Estabrook had phoned him and said he thought there
were problems. Mr. Forman stated he did not know if one of the
ladies that was present was Ms. Wing or not, but, first of all
perilous is not a word ;he uses. liMr. Forman stated that that was
indeed stated in the article. Mr. Forman further stated that when
•
any citizen calls him and has a complaint and a problem, he considers
that to be a problem and something that needs to be dealt with. Mr.
•
•
PLANNING BOARD -14- December 1, 1992
Forman told Mr. Estabrook that after he had spoken to him, he and Mr.
Frantz sat down to figure out where time could best be spent. Was it
doing traffic counts or spending time in coming up with a Lighting
District. They decided to spend the time on a Lighting District..
Again, just for the public, if anybody else saw the article, when
anybody calls and says there is a problem, it is something we need to
look at. Mr. Forman said he does not'call somebody and say it is not
a problem.
Mr. Estabrook stated that he appreciated what Mr. Forman had said
and that the main reason for him to be addressing the Board was to
bring the issue of safety to the Town's attention.
Dave Auble addressed the Board and "asked why the road cannot be
serviced with sidewalks. Mr. Auble stated he could see lighting
being important but, equally or more important, is a place to walk.
Mr. Auble stated he drives Coddington Road every day and has come
very close to hitting people because they cannot walk anywhere but in
the road, and this is a very high pedestrian area because of the
density and the College. Mr. Auble wondered why the Town could not
take the lead in getting sidewalks.
Mr. Frantz answered Mr. Auble'sl „question as to
not put in the sidewalks. Mr. Frantz explained that
road and that makes it a lot more complicated,
road, the Town could act and do something.
Mr. Auble, asked if the Town could
the County to put in sidewalks.
Auble if the road had shoulders. Mr.
no shoulders and the ditches are
bushes come to the ditches, and there
road.
why the Town did
this is a County
If it were a Town
take the lead in encouraging
Board Member Langhans asked Mr.
Auble stated that the road had
right next to the road and the
is no place to walk but in the
Mr. Frantz explained that there was this same type of problem on
Mitchell Street. The County on its own initiative came up with the
plan for the sidewalks „and the bike paths to be built along Judd
Falls Road, and, Mr. Frantz stated he thinks the Town can now start
approaching the County with these efforts. Mr. Auble stated that he
felt that this was an extremely urgent „matter, for instance, a lady
hit a student in the daylight, there were two or three students
walking along the road and another car was coming the other way and
the lady was unable to get over, therefore, she hit the student. In
the night, all of a sudden you are on top of these people walking in
the road and it is very difficult to keep from hitting them. With no
lighting and it is wet or whatever the circumstances are, you are
looking at a potential tragedy of somebody hitting a dozen people on
this road. Mr. Auble stated he cannot see the Town doing anything
less than make as fast; a progress as possible on this situation.
Every person who drives through there has an extremely heavy
liability situation, not to mention the emotional aspects.
Mr.
Iacovelli
stated
;that his purpose of
coming
before
the
Board
was to
get a feel
of what
the community wanted.
Mr.
Iacovelli
stated
PLANNING BOARD -15- December 1, 1992
that he was perfectly happy with Klondike Manor. Mr. Iacovelli
• further stated that he is not prepared''to pursue this matter after
this meeting if the community does not want this proposal, he would
rather withdraw. Mr. Iacovelli stated that he would like to sit down
and talk with his neighbors privately; if things cannot be worked out
then Mr. Iacovelli does not wish to continue the proposal before the
Board.
George Kugler of 101 Pine View Terrace addressed the Board
stating that he is breakingan 18 year record at basically supporting
the principle of this proposal. Mr. Kugler stated he spoke against
16 apartments on the three and one -half acres 18 years ago. Mr.
Kugler also stated that he knew that land would develop and one
cannot oppose development all the time. Mr. Kugler stated that he
wished 243 Coddington Road could be included in this; a little house
that is for rent at the present time, but apparently it cannot; the
landlord for this house lives out -of -town, and there are parties with
lots of cars and noise. Mr,. Kugler also stated that he has been
circulating a petition that will be presented to the Town Board
regarding the whole Coddington Road safety situation. Mr. Kugler
stated that he has also been working with Town Supervisor Shirley
Raffensperger trying to get the sheriff to enforce the Town law not
permitting parking any place on Coddington Road such as, in the
ditches, shoulders and so on. It is a daily enforcement problem.
Attorney Barney asked Mr,. Kugler what kind of response he gets from
the Sheriff's Department when he calls. Mr. Kugler stated that the
• Sheriff's Department tells him they will send a car as soon as they
can. Also, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted 235 Coddington Road
the extra unit because of the rear parking lot and those same people
park on Coddington Road. Mr. Kugler stated that the whole safety
thing is pretty obvious, there will;be a petition to the Town Board
to this affect.
Kinga Gergely of 106 Juniper Drive addressed the Board stating
that she had a petition that had been passed around stating, "In
light of the recent death of a neighbor, we would like once more to
bring to your attention the dangerous situation on Coddington Road.
It is being shared by automobiles, motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles,
walkers and joggers (sometimes by the dozens as Ithaca College teams
take to the roads). The road is narrow with virtually no shoulders
(some places, as at the`site of the accident, trees and bushes lean
onto the road, cars, some of them parked illegally, are sticking into
and backing onto the roadway). Lighting is very poor and in spite of
the reduced speed limits cars still,race by at unreasonable speeds.
It is a miracle that there have not been more tragedies." All of
this is just a summary of what the Board has heard at this meeting
tonight. If
"In order to prevent any more senseless accidents we ask that the
Town vigorously explore the following:' a sidewalk at least between
the college entrance and the City line, enforcing the speed limit and
• parking, better lighting, alerting and 11 out the help of Ithaca
College in these matters,i." Ms. Gergely felt that Ithaca College
PLANNING BOARD -16- December 1, 1992
• should take on some responsibilities. The petition has some 80
signatures.
Attorney Barney stated to Ms. Gergely that this petition should
be taken to the Town Board Meeting on December 7, 19920
Tammo Steenhuis of 266 Pennsylvania Avenue addressed the Board
stating that as a neighbor and as a resident, the people in the
proposed area would like to know what happens to the other parcels
too.
Mr. Frantz addressed the Board stating that a letter was received
from Margaret and Jim Nichols (attached hereto as Exhibit # 7)0
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the discussion of the
sketch plan for the proposed subdivision, comprising "Klondike Manor"
duly adjourned at 10:2°5 p.m:.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Grigorov stated that she had a list of Committee
Representatives for the different Boards and Committees that needed
to be returned on or before the December 15th Planning Board
Meeting. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any more comments
to be addressed. Chairperson Grigorov stated that there was no other
• business to come before the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the December 1, 1992
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wilma
J.
Hornback,
Recording Secretary
Town
of
Ithaca
Planning
Board
r�
U
Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov
• Chairperson
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
0
•
Dear Mrs. Grigorov
it
iii9V 161992
,
;., .
1 ?��'lR:i +.t:; ZLR'Ic�G.I:iJG1i3.EETittG
November 9, 1992
We understand that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will soon be taking up the proposed
Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Planning Committee. We appreciate
that a dedicated committee of townspeople has committed four years to the preparation of this plan and is
most anxious to see the review process completed. We also know that the plan is three years behind
schedule and that it has considerably exceeded original estimates of cost.
We believe, after having reviewed the Future Land Use Patterns map on page 4 -36A in Chapter 4 of the
proposed plan, that the plan will have a profound effect on every person now living and/or working in
Ithaca and Tompkins County for the next generation and beyond. We would, therefore, like the
opportunity to discuss our concerns with the planning board.
We urge you to hold work sessions on the draft plan in every neighborhood in the Town of Ithaca and
neighboring municipalities in facilities capable of seating 200 -300 people so that people will feel
comfortable in raising specific questions relating to their individual situation, their neighborhood, and, if
they choose, questions about our greater Ithaca community as a whole. We note that the Comprehensive
Planning Program Analysis prepared by Stuart I. Brown Associates states the following: "In endorsing the
goal and objectives, the CPS (Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee) has expressed their concerns that
growth management, the appropriate use of land and community participation are the three most
important issues that thould be addressed by the Planning Board ". We concur with their concerns. The
work sessions are essential to make sure that the plan you finally adopt is the best plan for the community
as a whole.
We look foward to the opportunity to participate in these work sessions. If you need our assistance in
setting up these meetings please contact Noel Desch.
Very truly yours
The undersigned Citizens of Ithaca
EXHIBIT # 1
2
November 14, 199
+1 iQ
Carolyn Grigorov
Chairperson Planning Board
Town of Ithaca 7' N N ^;T'"'ErRltiC=
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Carolyn Grigorov:
You and I have spoken —when you placed a (much appreciated) call in response to my
earlier letter to Town officials. Andy you are aware of my concerns about my own family
farm as it would be affected by recent and proposed actions by the Town. Today, however, I
am writing about another parcel of land in the Town, one that is owned by life -long (for
three generations) friends and fellow neighbors in Inlet Valley.
Inlet Valley is a neighborhood, although the thousands of commuters who stream through
it on their way to the city from Enfield, Newfield, Spencer, and beyond (just think of what
all that car exhaust is doing to our environment!) may not realize it. The Royce family
owned and farmed virtually all of the hillside that is on both sides of Enfield Fall Road
(Rte. 327) after it turns uphill. At the turn of the century, the family operated a tea room,
"Weedywold," in the lovely'red -brick house at the lower entrance to Robert H. Treman
State Park. Nina Royce and her son Milton each built ,modest houses some distance up the
hill and —long before there was any zoning in the Town of Ithaca — opened up a planned
development called Roycecliff. Milton and, later, his widow Ruth sold lots, one at a time,
on both sides of the road during the ensuing decades. My guess is that the last lot sold was
to the Tom Bell family, for the A -frame house —now owned by the Barnetts —near the floor of
Steep Hollow Glen just below the hairpin curve where a gravel bank operated years ago
(and from which the Town of Ithaca took gravel for many years).
I suggest that you and other members of the varous boards find one -half hour of your
crowded time, maybe as a group, to take a quick drive up Enfield Falls Road to see that
privately planned development on very steep slopes'(23 percent is what that slope
averages and on relativelyll small lots is possible with no detriment to the adjacent woods
and streams. All that is known about safeguarding the environment was not learned in the
last few years by baby= boomer environmental activists!
I
Back to the Royce family. Ruth Royce lived in her home until she required nursing -home
care in the final years of her life (her late 80s in the late 1980s). The three Royce
children have long been settled literally across the country (from eastern New York, to
Montana, to California) and, before and after their mother's death have negotiated the sale
of remaining parcels and houses, including Ruth's home after her death — except for one
parcel of open land, about 60 acres, I believe, that lies between the state park and the
houses that line the south side of the road. The Royce children's motives for keeping this
land are surely, in part, nostalgia for their home base, but also to keep open a
forethoughful option should any or, all of them choose to return to the Ithaca area to live,
perhaps as retirees, and, I suppose; it has been kept as an investment, should they or their
own children have a need to sell any or all of it.
If you look at the "Future Land Use" map of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, you can
spot the Royce land easily. It's the blob cross - hatched to designate it as "Conservation
• Open Space," bounded by "Recreational" (Treman Park) on the west, south, and east and by
the homes along Enfield Falls Road on the north. The Royces have received (except from
EXHIBIT # 2
•
•
•
concerne d neighbors) NOT ONE WORD of warning about what is bein g proposed for their
land, nor any notification of hearings and the availability of the various plans and
reports.
With the Steep Slopes EPOD and Comprehensive Plan as currently worded in place,how
many homes do you suppose would be allowed at Roycecliff? And what do you suppose
would happen
(A) to the value of the Royce property as saleable real estate? and
(B) to the costs for and likelihood of their being able to build on the property
themselves (which would require, I understand— heaven forbid —a bridge across the small
stream that runs through it)? You tell me if that isn't a "taking," unless, of course, the
Town is immediately prepared to buy the land at the currently assessed value.
I cannot believe that the Royce and `McMillan families are the only ones in the Town who
would be so affected by the proposed EPOD and rezoning laws. They are only the two that I
know well. Please consider that some landowners are' „prepared to challenge the Town on
these matters and the way they were carried out, and the costs of such challenges will be
borne by all Town taxpayers.
The already costly plans are the work of boards and 11 committees that are, it appears,
heavily packed with environmental activists who seem to believe, in their zeal, that only
they know what's best for the Town. But Enfield Falls Road's Roycecliff development
stands as a fine example of ,what conscientious landowners and builders, operating under
no zoning, at first, and, more recently, under zoning, requirements put in place many years
ago, can do on steep slopes and near streams, woods, and open space while adding to the
Town's tax base and providing a "good” neighborhood for it's citizens. I submit, as I have
before, that by drawing up laws and regulations that cover worst -case scenarios, the Town
is needlessly imposing hardship on its citizens (and 'gaining the enmity of quite a few of
them) while increasing, during hard economic times, the cost of the Town's government and
thereby increasing the tax burden on all citizens, directly or indirectly —while scaring
away potential builders.
I understand that State laws give the Town permission to go ahead with these laws and
regulations without a lot of input from the people to be most affected, and without any sort
of a referendum. But, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's fair. Before enactment, I
sincerely believe the Town will be doing itself a favor to hold neighborhood meetings and
listen to what townspeople have to say. New laws should right wrongs, not impose
unwarranted burdens on citizens who are currently doing the right thing.
If you've read this far, thank you. I, hope you'll share this letter with other members of the
Planning Board. I am sending a copy of this letter to Karl Niklas, as well.
Sincerely,
aoe��
Elsie McMillan
812 Elmira Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
EXHIBIT # 2
•
•
•
314 .
k
I
Ta
"I N S �A
F ggPP II
E
I
lit
•
it r'•
I
Ti
it
I
li I
Il'• r i
�{
��� _
i Y�
4 �
t
`1
� S7
FJ
E�
F
S
id
s -f;
1 ' .z
:d tot
0
I �s. rl�` i
1 u
.P o
I
I
l
•
x
W
H
y
r
•
,
1 1
I I
� I I
' I
V) 1 I I
I ,
1
!
I
I �
iA pp `o1' 1
0 \
1_-
I 1 -
r
T,
1 111'
L 11``1
if
J
�x
$31 11r
ba I
�1 1
a '
/ 1
, 1
I
,I I
\
AC
- �11
,
\
,
•IC -lll
I i II 1 \\ /
1 p 1
/
1
I
;1
r 'I
i
I
i 1
r
/
I
r
\
II\
�x
$31 11r
ba I
�1 1
a '
/ 1
, 1
I
,I I
\
AC
- �11
,
\
,
•IC -lll
I i II 1 \\ /
1 p 1
/
1
I
;1
r 'I
I"1"1
H
y
Cis
—� III -
D
r
m \
i
1
I
00 03D7C
yr
0z >>0
m0 O q
m mn 0
WA= aZm
ro D 0 -I N
m C
-0 r000d ca
n r0v
Z
�z m
X Z
m
M
O
O
N
s
� 1
I
i
n
O
0
0
0
Z
M '
Y I{
1 � 4
N
1
m
M
t•
N
O
1 N
Y
, O
\\ I
N {1
M
1 \ 1
I
N
, I G
Y 1 Z
1 ' 1
V % \ Y {{
I
O l
r-- 1
I 1
i + I
a
1
N
0
•
I
I
- \ I
N
Z
CmC
� D
D
m
Z
\
�I
N i
M
N
\ T
O
N/
N
a
v
N /
/ O
N
Y
m
/ OI
V/ \
{
Oi
74 AID
1
Y\
r{ .
ry i1, =n'•
b
• ... mil ' °i �': .!1: � -: i.l- , \I ,'„
••a 1 r;
�1 ,1
.r
1
FNrRAHCF
ro -
�TNKA
CoLLCr.E
x
�H{
V:I
�3
kmS
J
C
C
m
f4
V�
m
m
O
0
9
S'
n
�
O
\ /
O
O
O
O
cn
m
m
m
v
v
�`
y
=
m
z
D
w
m
O
y
p
z
m
y
N
Y
oM
O
m
D
z
mM
�C
Z�
�z
n
0
z
c
0
z
0
r
O
,\ 1
W
I
I .
! I
1
1
Al
i � `
yli
1
1
•
•
° r
w
232 Pennsylvania Avenue
Margaret B. Nichols Ithaca, New York 14850
607- 2774613 (home)
607- 277 -0934 (work)
.� November 28,1992
George R. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Ij I-�°
Town of Ithaca ^ i a
126 East Seneca Street \('y�' ' i 7`
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Frantz:. „ r.
w.�
We are writing in response to. your November 24 letter to South Hill residents regarding the pro-
posed building and renovation projects of Orlando Iacovelli lat 237 Coddington Road, a proposal to which
we are vehemently opposed.
What the residents of Pennsylvania Avenue do NOT need is 36 more students in the area directly
behind our properties. Our neighborhood is already infamous for its problems related to student behavior, as
anyone who reads the local paper is aware.
We have spent a great deal of time and money upgrading our property, yet the more we improve
things, the more the value of our property decreases, thanks largely to our student neighbors. While we can
appreciate Mr. Iacovelli's wish to make more money from larger numbers of student tenants, we don't
appreciate it being done at the expense of our property value,', not to mention our sanity.
Ithaca College students have proven themselves to be irresponsible and unwelcome neighbors,
making unreasonable amounts of noise (and it is important to note that due to the topography, noise from
above echoes downward even more loudly than if it were right next door), increasing the amount —and
speed —of traffic in the area, traipsing through (even peeing 'in) our yards, and trashing the roadways with
litter. No one seems willing to take responsibility for their behavior: not Ithaca College, not the landlords,
not the students themselves. Students are supposed to go to college to learn, not to disrupt the town in which
they are staying. Maybe if the College suspended law- breaking students or landlords kept a tighter reign on
their tenants the problem wouldn't have gotten so far out of band that the police have to be called repeatedly.
While it no doubt seems appealing to the Town to have Mr. Iacovelli build more properties on
which taxes will be paid, we ask that the impact of that many additional students upon a neighborhood
already suffering from student problems be considered. And while a Town park probably seems to you like
a great trade -off in this deal, as far as we're concerned, residents of South Hill don't need a public park any
more than we needed a Recreation Way, which from our perspective has been more a negative than a
positive.
What we do need is for someone to care about preserving what's left of our residential neighbor-
hoods and protect the quality of life for those who live there." The money spent developing a park would be
better spent dealing with the problems that already exist, like the terrible drainage situation, increasing
dangers at the 3 -way stop intersection of Coddington and Hudson streets, and the need for street lights on
Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues, where pedestrians are in great danger after dark. In a time when money
is tight, it would seem that careful expenditure (with a focus on issues related to safety) of tax dollars we
already have available is preferable to seeking additional taxj,dollars for things we don't really need.
We would appreciate it if you would read this letter at Tuesday night's meeting, at which we are
unable to be present. We will be requesting a copy of the minutes of this meeting to see if our opinions were
presented and to find out the results of your discussion.
cc: Shirley Raffensberger
EXHIBIT # 7
Sincerely, F, I 4d;*tar
Margaret and Jim Nichols
ksckols