HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1993-01-05A.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 51 1993
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 5, 1993, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Candace
Cornell, Herbert Finch, William Lesser, Dan Walker (Town
Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz
(Assistant Planner), John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Mildred Brammer, Lucille Schmieder, Lynn Bertoia,
Robert Bertoia, Kenneth Sullivan, Fred Brown, John
Whitcomb, Jonathan Hochberg, Martha Taylor, Eva
Hoffmann, Carol Bushburg, Nancy Wilson, Randolph
Brown.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly
opened at 7:36
OF ITHACA TAX
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 December 28, 1992,
and December 31, 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
Clerks of
the
City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby,
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 December 30, 19928
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.
AGENDA ITEM. PERSONS TO BE HEARD
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson
Grigorov closed this segment of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL
NO. 45 -2 -14, 66.5
FROM 2.9 +/- ACRES
SUBDIVIDED IS
R -30. CITIZENS
+/- ACRES
TO 37.2
LOCATED AT 250
SAVINGS BANK,
TOTAL,
+/-
TROY
OWNER,
INTO FIVE (5) LOTS RANGING
ACRES. PARCEL PROPOSED
ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
RANDOLPH BROWN, AGENT.
IN SIZE
TO BE
R -15 AND
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:38 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Randolph Brown, Agent for Citizens Savings Bank addressed the
Board and also affixed a map of the above mentioned property for
everyone to see, stating that an agreement was made to sell the house
Planning Board -2- January 5, 1993
with the 17.4 acres to one party. Another party who is Mr. Sullivan,
who owns a house now on East King Road wanted to buy about 2.8 acres
in back of his house to protect himself and to have more space.
The bank proposed to subdivide this parcel for sale and sell this
portion to Mr. Sullivan; and then sell the 17.4 acres to Ms.
Wilkerson and Ms. Taylor. By doing this it creates two lots; one of
which allows a right -of -way so part of the property is not
landlocked. This parcel also has four areas where it goes into
Ridgecrest Road. In the future, this leaves 37 acres and 3 parcels
which are to be worked with the Town to help with a plan to subdivide
the rest of the parcels. Citizens Savings Bank will be donating ten
percent (10 %) of the 66.5 acre tract to the Town, and the bank will
be working with the Town to see what is more advantageous for them
and for the bank. Citizens hopes to sell the rest of the land, they
do not have a plan to develop.
Chairperson Grigorov
noted
again
that this was a Public Hearing
and asked if anyone else
present
wished
to speak.
Nancy Wilson of 232 Troy Road addressed to Board stating that her
property is next to the right -of -way that comes out on Troy Road.
Ms. Wilson stated she is interested in what plans the Town might have
for water on Troy Road. Most residents have had trouble with wells
that do not produce enough water, and their only way of getting Town
water is if there is development so that water can be brought over
from Ridgecrest Road. Ms. Wilson wondered if the Town had any plans
to supply water along this area. Even the Jones' who had owned the
property had trouble getting water.
Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that water could be provided to
most of that parcel with the exception of the higher elevations. Mr.
Walker further stated that there could be water brought down Troy
Road, but there are some limitations of the tank for pressure.
Currently, there is water all the way out Ridgecrest Road. Mr.
Walker used the affixed map to explain the water flow. Mr. Walker
stated that if water was to be brought in; it could come in two
ways. There is no particular plan at this time to extend the water
lines.
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 discusison.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone from the Board was able to
go up and see the land. Planning Board members William Lesser and
Candace Cornell stated they had gone to see the land.
Town Attorney John
particular proposal does
5 in this manner, is
Attorney Barney further
intersecting roads are
Barney stated that the
only thing that this
by the way it
subdivides
parcel
3 and parcel
commit road
access to
be in
one location.
stated that he
had no sense
of
where other
located on
the
other side
of
the
tract and
Planning Board -3- January 5, 1993
® therefore, if this
balance of parcel
is an appropriate place to look for access for the
3.
Assistant Planner George Frantz stated that just the grade under
the power lines pretty much precludes a public road. Mr. Frantz also
stated that where the access is now, there is no problem with the
grade standpoint there. Mr. Frantz stated he walked across parcel 5
and into parcel 3. It is not level, but as far as the lay of the
land, it is fairly level and certainly appears to be within 100.
There might be a 2 or 3 foot grade difference between Troy Road, but
this is something that can be easily overcome.
Attorney Barney stated to Mr. Frantz that from Citizens
standpoint, they need parcel 1 and parcel 2, and are planning on
bringing in plans for the balance. Attorney Barney stated he did not
see any reason why the Planning Board could not give subdivision
approval for parcel 1 and parcel 2 tonight. Attorney Barney further
stated that he really needs to see what is going to happen to the
rest of the land; where the road access is going to be and so forth,
but by committing to this particular subdivision tonight in its
entirety, you are committing to this one location of the road and it
may be that upon further review and design. It may be better to
bring the road out in the middle of parcel 5 or something like that,
and that is the other decision that will have to be made tonight; to
accomplish what Citizens wants to have accomplished, which is, the
ability to transfer parcels 1 and 2, and reserve that kind of
decision to some time in the future when you have more drawings and
an idea of exactly how the layout will be. The layout may not work
terribly well from Citizens standpoint because they are going to have
to build a 270 foot road before they can get any lots to sell.
Mr.
Frantz replied
to
Attorney Barney
that
he looked
at it from
the standpoint of the
intersection
on Troy
Road,
and site
distance
and the
like, and what
is on
the other side
of Troy
Road.
There is a
commitment there for
anybody
who wants to develop
parcel 3
and any
sort of
development
that
would include a
public
road; yet
they are
building
270 feet of
public
road before they
start
making
any money
on their
investment.
Town Planner
Forman
stated that
even if Citizens
subdivides
the
way it is at present,
they can include
re- subdivide again
now attached to
Citizens will still
when
the two
if they
parcel
have to
they come back
separate
so choose.
3, or you
come back
with their re- subdivision
parcels 3 and 5, and then
You can leave what is parcel
can subdivide it the way it
before the Board. There is
5
is.
a
park and open -space
to submit this to
dedication
the Town,
when
should the
they re- subdivide
Town so choose.
it. They have
They will
be
coming back before the Board.
Attorney Barney stated that for parcel 3, once the Board approves
a subdivision plan, the parcels in this format, parcel 3 is then
® legally saleable as a separate piece of land. Parcel 5 is saleable
as an independent legal piece of land. In granting approval, the
Board is saying that there is a possibility that parcel 3 may be left
Planning Board -4- January 5, 1993
e in this configuration or sold to somebody who
option, if they do not pick up parcel 5 at
provide a road across the location shown here.
will
then
have
no
the
same
time, but
to
Planning Board member William Lesser stated that he thinks this
is an excellent point to raise, however, his knowledge of the area
suggests that particular point is not a bad one for an intersection.
It is not clear to him that running the road anywhere through parcel
5 would necessarily improve the intersection or make it any less
expensive to reach the interior of that parcel, unless there were
some interest in reconfiguring parcel 1, which is unlikely to happen.
Planning Board member Candace Cornell stated that Mr. Frantz
passed out an amendment to the draft resolution for the subdivision
for number "d ", [attached hereto as Exhibit # 1]. Ms. Cornell
thought it very important that the wording be included that Mr.
Frantz suggested. Ms. Cornell stated that there are a number of
potential wetlands in this entire area. There are a number of little
marshes. There are marsh wetlands, scrub wetlands, dogwood wetlands;
and we are not asking anyone at this time to delineate anything, but
it would seem important that this paragraph that Mr. Frantz drafted
gets included, because when Citizens tries to sell it, it makes the
buyer aware and protects Citizens.
Mr. Frantz stated that he did not see any adverse impact to the
wetlands as a result of the subdivision. Mr. Frantz stated he did
not see a problem with parcel 2, since it will be consolidated with
the parcel that already has the house. If someone were to purchase
parcel 3 and build one house on it, there is plenty of room on the
parcel probably to build a house without infringing on the wetlands.
Parcel 4, again, there are practically four acres, and there were a
small number of wetlands, but there appears to be enough area in
parcel 4 for somebody to build a house without infringing on the
wetlands. Mr. Frantz stated that something should go on the plat
that at least makes people aware of a potential problem at some point
in the future. If somebody were to purchase parcel 3, and come in
with a full -blown development plan, then at that point, a
full - fledged delineation of the wetland areas would be done.
Planning Board member Herbert Finch stated that he does not
object to wetlands being identified and shown, but he is concerned
about such an uncertain way of saying that we want to protect it, or
that this is where wetlands are. If there are wetlands that should
be protected, then that is something the Board needs to look at.
Mr. Forman asked Mr. Finch if he found potential wetlands on site
what his response would be? Mr. Finch answered that if there were
wetlands on the site, then the Board moves into a specific
environmental study of that kind of situation. Mr. Finch asked why
the Board should take action on Mr. Frantz's memo of 1/5/93, if the
Board does not need to be concerned about it? Mr. Forman replied
• that he thought it puts Citizens on notice that when they go to
re- subdivide this property in the next couple of months, that they
have to delineate the wetlands. Mr. Finch stated that this is no
Planning Board -5- January 5, 1993
® form of notice, it just gives somebody the idea that they should do
something.
Attorney Barney
stated
that the Board sent one
developer
scurrying back to get
a complete
delineation because of the
fact that
Candace and George walked
his
land and there may be some
wetlands up
there. You have to play
the game
fair with everybody.
You either
say you are going to
delineate
it and have it done or you
leave it to
the federal and state
agencies that
are under its jurisdiction.
Mr. Finch stated that he is not comfortable with this kind of a
designation on 5. Mr. Frantz replied to Mr. Finch that it is not
intended to commit anybody to do anything. What we are trying to do
is avoid having Citizens spend thousands of dollars to have the
wetlands formally identified. Mr. Finch stated that it seems to him
that this is hanging above Citizens head with the land, if they have
wetlands there, then it is their problem. Mr. Frantz stated that,
for instance, on lot 4, on parcel 1, 2 and 4, there are not going to
be problems with wetlands. Mr. Finch stated that if there are not
going to be any problems then let the Board go ahead, but he is just
not comfortable. Mr. Frantz stated that there is no problem with
this particular plat as far as yet, no adverse potential impacts to
the wetlands. For example, if somebody wants to purchase parcel 4
and this statement is on the plat, they do not have to do anything,
but they are made aware of the fact that there may be potential
wetlands on this piece of land that you are interested in purchasing,
• and you should at least check it out. Attorney Barney stated that if
wetlands are there, then certain consequences flow. If wetlands are
not there, then the Board should not be getting in the middle of it.
Planning Board member William Lesser asked what the major
distinction was between these potential wetlands and those on Chase
Farm? Town Engineer Walker stated that in the case of Chase Farm,
there were possible wetlands and constrction plans in them. The
difference with this plan is that there are no improvements planned.
The only time a wetland is subject to a permit is if you are going to
fill it. You can drain it, maybe, as long as you do not put any more
dirt back in it. The main thing is that this plat shows no
improvements. In fact, that requirement has been waived because
there is no improvements needed for the project as the developers
have presented it. There is no construction plan.
Town Planner Mr. Forman stated that while you see wetlands up
there, you do not see roads going through them, you do not see them
as being house lots; you have a 37 acre parcel where you show two
potential wetland areas and there are a number of locations for a
house on the 37 acre parcel. You have one lot with a house already
on it, you have another lot where a person is attaching it to their
own house lot; it is a totally different situation from Chase Farm.
Mr. Forman further stated he agreed with Mr. Kenerson in that you
have to be consistent, but you cannot say that everything is exactly
• the same when you go from one subdivision to another; each of them
changes in some way. If there were a road going through Jones Farm,
Mr. Forman stated he would agree that it would have to be delineated
Planning Board -6- January 5, 1993
® by a professional indi
approved by the Corps
should treat a similar s
totally different.
Mr. Finch stated
can identify that, then
vidual who does wetlands delineation, and
before this Board should act. Again, you
ituation in a similar manner, but this is
that if there are wetlands there and the Board
that is one situation.
Mr. Lesser asked if any other notices of alert were put on plots
for potential future purchasers? Attorney Barney stated the Board
will have a plat coming in up in the Northeast, and a note is being
put on the plat that the fact of the approval of this Board does not
guarantee that sewer will be available. Here, the Board is not
regulating in a sense, wetlands yet. It is the applicant's
responsibility to identify wetlands, not the Town's.
Mr. Lesser asked if the question of a parcel being a wetland or
not is something that could be referred to Codes and ordinances? Mr.
Kenerson stated that he thinks there is concern as to whose
responsibility this is. The Town is zoning each piece of property
and in affect says, here is what you can do with this; then they are
saying the burden of proof is on you, the owner, the purchaser, or
whoever it is, to say that you can do that. If you have a wetland
where you cannot build because of local, state and federal
regulations, you cannot use that property for the purpose for which
it was zoned. So what is the responsibility, who is to determine
this? Is the Town suppose to say no you cannot build here and if a
map says this is a wetland you cannot do certain things on a
wetland. Again, you the owner, that is your job to convince us that
you do not have a wetland.
Mr. Frantz stated to Mr. Kenerson that it is not the Town that
has jurisdiction over the wetlands, the Federal Government has
jurisdiction. As far as the Corps of Engineers is concerned, it is
the owners responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the
appropriate laws and regulations.
Attorney Barney stated that he thought the Board was reserving in
this resolution the right to set aside the parkland. Attorney Barney
suggested that maybe the Board should just approve the two lots that
are really the problem for Citizens tonight. Attorney Barney
suggested that before any further subdivision of any further parcels
occur, that the wetland issue be visited and an indication of where
they are be provided. Further, the Board should know where this
park -land is going to be, because once again, you subdivide these
lots, we are saying reserve it, but without some kind of indication
as to where it is going to be, what lot are we reserving at all. Mr.
Lesser replied that the parkland would be within parcel 3. Mr.
Walker stated that the only concern he has as an engineer is the
definition of what a wetland is. If you look at the preliminary
subdivision checklist, it says to identify all cultural and physical
® features on or adjacent to the parcel, significant features including
wetlands. The question is, is this a significant wetland and is the
action of the Board's approving going to create a harm to a
Planning Board -7- January 5, 1993
• significant wetland? When this was created, the definition of
wetland that was used, because this was done back in the 70's, was
the State designated wetlands when the form was created and those
were identified by DEC and put on maps and distributed to all the
agencies in the State. The definition of wetland has gotten very
hazy because there are many levels of wetlands. Mr. Walker stated
that he does not care what the Board is going to do, but if you deal
with the Corps of Engineers, as we all have in the past couple of
years with a different number of projects, the Corps of Engineers is
not even going to look at something like this for months. The
appropriate thing to do is that when you apply for a State permit,
they have a uniform notification procedure; they send a copy to the
Corps of Engineers Office, then they send it to the DEC and then the
Corps says, oh, here is a permit; this person is going to have an
action on here, should we evaluate it. You will not get an answer
for six months, but when you do, they will say that you can use one
of their consultants and map the wetland. Nine or ten months later,
you might get an answer that says you can do anything you want under
the nationwide permit, or we will have to modify the subdivision a
little more. It is a very frustrating situation and Mr. Walker
thinks the Board will have to make a decision. The procedure then
would be to identify the wetland, send the application on and delay
any action until the Corps responds, if you feel that is fair.
Mr. Frantz replied to Mr. Walker by stating that he does not
think this procedure is necessary because under C3, of Part 2 of the
Environmental Assessment Form, these areas, all appear to be wetland
areas; all appear to be less than one acre in size. Given the small
size and scattered nature of these potential wetland areas, the size
of the proposed parcels and very limited development anticipated as a
result of the proposed subdivision, no significant adverse impacts to
the wetlands are anticipated.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that it is clear that this continual
thing is not going to have anything to do with any wetlands, so, she
would like to find a way that this issue could be voted on tonight
without having to settle the big general problem of whether or not to
require something from every single developer or not, or how to draw
the line or what. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the Board would like
to put anything at all on the plat?
Mr. Finch replied to Chairperson Grigorov's question that in Mr.
Frantz writting C3, it basically sounds like the question had been
answered. Mr. Finch further stated that there is nothing there, the
Board does not say anything there, but just in case it shows up, Mr.
Finch felt this was not quite fair. Mr. Lesser replied that he
understood Mr. Frantz was saying that it likely is not going to be a
problem because the lots officially are large and if you plan
accordingly there. It is somewhat different from saying that you can
do anything on this land. Mr. Frantz replied that for example, take
lot 4, which again is large enough for somebody to build a house on
® it, but what could happen is that they could go and hire an
architect, site the house in the two or three areas comprising 5 to
100 of the whole lot that might be a wetland; and then they have
Planning Board -8- January 5, 1993
• spent all this
because they
are located.
the last two
have cost the
this is to
could be found
been the staff
•
0
money and then would have to relocate the house
do not know if there are wetlands on site and where they
Mr. Frantz further stated that he had been through in
years, two cases dealing with wetland surprises that
people many thousands of dollars, and the intent behind
try to avoid that. Mr. Frantz stated that the high spot
on the site. Chairperson Grigorov stated that it has
that has done the alerting.
Carol Bushburg addressed the Board stating that she is a real
estate agent. Ms. Bushburg stated that she was struck by how
profound and sweeping the Board's suggestions are in part because she
does not hear anything in the Board's discussion to disillusion
someone who wants to subdivide a three or four acre parcel, as
compared to a developer who wants to subdivide. Ms. Bushburg stated
that she has had some experience with ichthyological assocites and
wetland delineations, and knows that it can be expensive and a time
consuming process. Ms. Bushburg stated she appreciated that to prove
a negative is to put a quite profound responsibility and expense on
every property owner who comes to the Board who wants a subdivision.
On the contrary, to do some sort of preliminary observation of the
site by Mr. Frantz or Mr. Forman or some other member of the Planning
Department, puts a tremendous burden on that department which seems
extremely busy already. The very practical problems involved with
enforcing the kind of land act the Board is talking about seems to be
quite dramatic. Chairperson Grigorov replied to Ms. Bushburg that
this statement says the proper federal agency should be contacted
prior to commencement of any activity which may disturb potential
wetland areas. If this activity does not, then you do not have to
contact any agencies. Ms. Bushburg further stated that one of the
things that was striking to her was the City of Ithaca, the
legislation of all the wetland changes. Chairperson Grigorov stated
that what the Board tries to do is to follow the law and not let
people suffer unnecessarily. Mr. Frantz stated that the Army Corps
does not distinguish between somebody owning a house lot and somebody
developing a three or four hundred acre residential development.
Candace Cornell
stated
that she agreed
with Attorney Barney's
earlier
suggestion
about
excluding parcels
3 and 5 from the
subdivision
tonight
was a
good idea since
the Board had to think
about a
Park dedication
and
some other considerations.
There
appearing
to be no
further discussion,
Chairperson Grigorov
asked if
anyone were
prepared
to offer a motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by William Lesser.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration
Subdivision Approval for the
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 45 -2 -14,
(4) lots ranging in size from
of Preliminary and Final
proposed subdivision of Town of
6695 +/- acres total, into four
2.9 +/- acres to 42.196 +/- acres.
Planning Board -9- January 5, 1993
• Parcel proposed to be subdivided is located at 250 Troy Road,
Residence Districts R -15 and R -30.
29 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review with respect to the proposed subdivision, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 5, 1993,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Parts II and
III prepared by the Town planning staff, and a subdivision plat
entitled "Final Subdivision Map Showing Proposed Division of
Lands of Citizens Savings Bank, F.S.B.," dated 11/20/87 -
11/25/92 and revised 12/9/92 and 12/30/92, prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors, and other application
materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination
of environmental significance with respect to the proposed
subdivision;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the subdivision
® as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Cornell, Lesser, Finch.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval
for
the proposed subdivision
of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel
(4) lots ranging in
Parcel proposed to
Residence Districts
No. 6-
size
be
R -15
45 -2 -14, 66.5 +/- acres
from 2.9 +/- acres to 42.196
subdivided is located
and R -30.
total, into four
+/- acres.
at 250 Troy Road,
2. This is an Unlisted Action
Board, acting as lead agency
January 5, 1993, made
significance.
for which the Town of
in environmental
a negative determination
Ithaca Planning
review, has, on
of environmental
® 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 5, 1993,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Planning Board -10- January 5, 1993
Assessment
III prepar
entitled
Lands of
11/25/92
Miller, P
materials.
Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Parts II and
ed by the Town planning staff, and a subdivision plat
"Final Subdivision Map Showing Proposed Division of
Citizens Savings Bank, F.S.B.," dated 11/20/87
and revised 12/9/92 and 12/30/92, prepared by T.G.
.C. Engineers and Surveyors, and other application
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of
Ithaca Planning
Board hereby waives certain
requirements
for
Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval, as
shown on the
Preliminary
and Final
Subdivision Checklist, having
determined
from
the materials
presented that such waiver will
result in neither
the size
a significant
alteration of the purpose of
subdivision
control
nor the policies
enunciated or implied by the
Town Board.
be added to
the areas
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 45 -2 -14, 66.5 +/- acres total, into four
(4) lots shown as Lots 1,2, 4 and combined Lots 3 and 5 as shown
on a subdivision plat entitled "Final Subdivision Map Showing
Proposed Division of Lands of Citizens Savings Bank, F.S.B.,"
dated 11/20/87 - 11/25/92 and revised 12/9/92 and 12/30/92,
prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors,
® conditioned upon the following:
a. That Parcel #2 (2.8 +/- acres) of this subdivision shall be
transferred to Kenneth Sullivan within six months of the
date of this approval.
b. Parcel
#2 of
this
subdivision
shall be,
upon
such transfer,
consolidated
with
the Sullivan
understood
parcel (6-
45 -2
-6).
c. The final plat be redrawn to combine Lots 3 and 5 as one lot.
d. That no further subdivision of Lots 3 and 5 (combined) occur
until:
(i) There is provided information satisfactory to the
Planning Board as to the existence or size of any
wetlands on Lots 3 and 5;
(ii) The location
on Lots 3
and 5 of a Town
Park be
determined
as part
of any further
subdivision
applications,
it being
understood
that
in
calculating
the size
of the park and
related
set
aside land,
the areas
of parcels 1, 2
and 4, shall
be added to
the areas
of Lots 3 and 5
(i.e., the
calculation
shall be based
on
66.5 acres -
the total
acreage of the
entire
® parcel, rather
than on
42.196 acres -
the acres
of
Lots 3 and 5
alone).
0
Planning Board
-11-
January 5, 1993
e. No construction shall occur on parcel 4 until Health
Department approval for individual septic disposal system or
water supply system is approved.
f. Before any subdivision of Lots 3 and 5 is considered, a
Full Environmental Assessment Form be provided to the
Planning Board.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Cornell, Lesser, Finch.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the Citizens Savings
Bank, Owner, Randolph Brown, Agent located at 250 Troy Road
subdivision duly closed at 8:48 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER.
Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed the Planning Board stating
that there were two items to report. One is the GEIS. Mr. Forman
believed the GEIS would be coming in at the first meeting in
February. Changes were made by Cornell and now the document is with
® the consultant. Revisions were made to the GEIS. The first meeting
in February is when the GEIS will be coming back to the Planning
Board, formally.
The
second item is, for John
Whitcomb and
others it is good news,
we hope
the Comprehensive Plan
will be
out of the Comprehensive
Planning
Committee and formally
delivered at
the next meeting. That
is our
hope. On the 19th
of January that
the Comprehensive Plan
formally
be put in the Planning
Board's lap.
I hope that will be the
case.
So, the Planning Board
will have
two big projects to deal
with, the
Comprehensive Plan and
the GEIS.
Mr. Forman stated he
would like
to try where he can
to set up one
meeting dealing with the
Comprehensive
Plan and the other
for development
review.
Mr. Forman also stated that he thought Mr. Thomas Bell will be
back at the next meeting. Mr. Bell's plans have changed
significantly since the Board saw it the first time; changed in the
sense that Mr. Bell is no longer using both parking areas. The one
they use presently and the one that is not a parking area now, but
will need some upgrading. A parking lot also abuts a wetland as
well. Mr. Bell has decided not to use that whether the parking is
adequate, whether it works from a transportation standpoint, in terms
of entering and exiting, it is something the Board will need to look
at.
® Mr. Forman further stated that Wilson Labs wants to put up half a
dozen or so trailers, (4,200 square feet), and will be on the
calendar for the 19th.
Planning Board -12- January 5, 1993
® Mr. Kenerson asked Mr. Forman
before the Board. Mr. Frantz replied
Wilcox just before Christmas, and
implied that the development was not
OTHER BUSINESS
if Chase Farm was coming back
that he had spoken to Doug
in that conversation Mr. Wilcox
going to be further pursued.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that Robert Kenerson was re- elected
as Planning Board Vice Chairman and also stated that she had been
re- appointed as Chairperson. Chairperson Grigorov recommended the
appointment of the following to the Town Supervisor, Shirley
Raffensperger. Candace Cornell was re- appointed for the
representation for the Conservation Advisory Council, and also as
chairperson for this coming year; Herbert Finch for Codes and
Ordiances; William Lesser and Stephen Smith to be the Planning Board
representatives on the committee to recommend Planning Board members,
so that will probably be happening sooner or later about the
Agriculture member to replace Jim Baker who was honored at a luncheon
along with Joan Reuning from the Zoning Board.
Mr. Forman stated that the Comprehensive Plan Committee goes
through to the end of February. Mr. Forman further stated that
again, our hope is that this is the last meeting for the
Comprehensive Planning Committee.
Mr. Forman stated that Ecovillage is proceeding and maybe March
® or April they may come in with some sketch plans for the Planning
Board to look at. Cayuga Cliffs still had not hired an engineer yet,
formally. They had been working with an engineer from T. G. Miller,
that person is no longer with T. G. Miller. My expectation is that
they will be working with T. G. Miller and be back to the Planning
Board, but did not know when.
Mr. Frantz stated to
the Planning
Board
that Orlando Iacovelli
had made a formal application
for
rezoning
and subdivision
approval
for the Klondike subdivision.
Mr.
Iacovelli
has not changed
the
subdivision. It will
be 4 lots
as shown
at the last sketch
plan.
Mr. Iacovelli has reduced
the number
of apartments and number
of beds
from 52 beds to 46 beds.
The new building
will
have 6 units
and then
he will add the existing
2 buildings,
he will
convert from
2 units
apiece to 4 units apiece.
Chairperson Grigorov asked the members of the Planning Board if
they had received the letter from Linda Holzbaur and Kenneth Ritter
[Exhibit # 2] and all members had. Chairperson Grigorov stated she
called them up and stated she told Mr. Ritter she did not realize
that Mr. Frantz had endorsed the Iacovelli project. Mr. Frantz
stated that he had spoken to Linda Holzbaur on the phone and told her
that number one, he had no recollection of ever telling Fred
Estabrook that he had stated Mr. Estabrook supported the project, and
Mr. Frantz also told Ms. Holzbaur that he had no recollection of
® either her or Kenneth Ritter, in fact, telling him they supported the
project. Mr. Frantz further stated that Ms. Holzbaur and Mr. Ritter
are very, very concerned about the impact of the project. They have
Planning Board -13- January 5, 1993
® not come right out against it, but they certainly are not happy. Mr.
Frantz stated that he let Ms. Holzbaur know that he understood that
they did not support the project. This actually is a
miscommunication; Ms. Holzbaur was a bit surprised that Mr. Frantz
would say this. Mr. Frantz also assured them that whatever he might
say is not necessarily the position of the Town of Ithaca. Thus far,
Mr. Frantz stated that he had been speaking as a Town staffperson,
and the opinions that he had expressed were his opinions alone. They
will remain that until the Town Board and the Town Planning Board
pass the new resolutions.
40
C7
Vice Chair Robert Kenerson asked Assistant Planner Mr. Frantz
what was left to do on the South Hill Parkway. Mr. Frantz replied
that the upper railroad grade for the most part is clear and safe to
use. The big construction push will be met this coming summer. At
that point, the Highway and Parks Departments will be in there doing
grading that has to be done, replacing the dozen or so culverts that
have to be replaced, constructing the link between the upper and
lower railroad grades and the deadline for the completion of the
trail was October 1993.
Chairperson Grigorov asked Assistant Planner Mr. Frantz about the
sewer lines. Town Engineer Dan Walker replied that at this point the
work that is being done on the trail is approved and the sewer is not,
then it is put on the shelf until we get the Comprehensive Plan
remarks into the meetings. One of the priorities that is going on
the worklist is to identify capital project areas to provide the
infill services, one of which, Mr. Walker considers Coddington Road
as an infill to existing usage. There are several different projects
that will be looked at as possible capital improvement projects. An
evaluation of those projects will be done. They will then be
prioritized.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 17, 1992
MOTION by Willaim Lesser, seconded by Candace Cornell.
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of November 17, 1992, be and hereby are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Cornell, Lesser, Finch.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
11
•
0
Planning Board
ADJOURNMENT
-14-
January 5, 1993
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the January 5, 1993
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wilma
J.
Hornback,
Recording Secretary
Town
of
Ithaca
Planning
Board
0
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747
n
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning Board Members
FROM: George R. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner
DATE: January 5, 1993
RE: Jones Farm wetlands
Planning
staff
has drafted the
following
approved
plat
to fulfill condition
"d" of the
PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1747
notation to be put on the Jones Farm
resolution approving the proposal:
"During the Town of Ithaca Planning Board subdivision review process,
potential wetland areas as defined by criteria set forth in the 1987 Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands were identified
on Parcels 1, 21 3, and 4. The appropriate federal agency should be contacted
prior to commencement of any activity which may disturb these potential
wetland areas."
The above note would be placed on the approved plat prior to it being signed by the
Chair of the Planning Board and filed with the County Clerk.
EXHIBIT # 1
0
December 10 , 1 °C2
Carolyn Grigorov, Chair, Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
126 Last Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 1485O
Dear L(Is. Grigorov:
,
DEC 2 91992 k
! pit ' TEMjz( I
Our neighbor Fred Lstabrook has told us that George Frantz said
that we have given our support to the proposed development of
237 Coddington Road. This is not true. `oVe have never stated
support of this project.
We have many reservations about the safety issues involved: lack
of lighting, sidewalks, traffic regulation, etc. aloe have also
been informed that a large apartment building for students would
significantly lower our property value by impeding our lake view
and adding to the density of the neighborhood. Since we have a
restrictive mortgage, this lowered value worries us greatly.
`e expect confirmation with us before the torn uses our names
as supporters of any project.
Sincerely, _
Linda Holzbaur
Kenneth Ritter
240. Coddington road
Ithaca, NY 14850
cc: members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
EXHIBIT # 2
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
f -OWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1993
ZONING 273 -1747
By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday,
January 5, 1993, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time
and on the following matter:
7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45 -2 -14, 66.5 +/- acres total, into
five (5) lots ranging in size from 2.9 +/- acres to 37.2 +/- acres. Parcel
proposed to be subdivided is located at 250 Troy Road, Residence Districts
R -15 and R -30. Citizens Savings Bank, Owner, Randolph Brown, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of
such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Dated: Monday, December 28, 1992
Publish: Thursday, December 31, 1992
(DEVREVS\1- 5- 93.PH)
Joan L. Hamilton
Town Clerk
273 -1721
T
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TUESDAY, JAN. 5 1993
By direction of the C�airman
of the Planning Board, NO-
TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that be held
by they Planning Boalyd of the
Town of Ithaca on Tuesday,
Januor 5 1993, in Town
Hall, 126 Last Seneca Street, at the following
Ithaca, the following
matter:
7:35 P.M. Consideration of'..
Preliminary and final Subdi-
vision Approval for the pro subdivision of Town of
Pthaca Tax Parcel No
45 -2.14, 66.5 acres total,
into five (5) lots ranging in
size from 2.9± acres to
37.2± acres. Parcel pro -
osed to be subdivided is
Pa i,
cated at 250 Troy Road
Residence Districts R -15 anr�
R -30. Citizens Savings Bank,
Owner, Randolph Brown,
Agent.
said Planning a Board
dd sa place
hear all persons in support of
such, matter or objections:
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person.
loco Town Clerk
273.1721
December 311 1992
o-
.1
1.
'1
s
0 f
0