Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-11-15TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 15, 1994 FIU� -D TOWN OF ITHACA - cte� The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, Ithaca, November New York 15, 1994, at 7 :30 in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, p.m. this segment of the NAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 15, 1994 FIU� -D TOWN OF ITHACA - cte� The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, Ithaca, November New York 15, 1994, at 7 :30 in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, p.m. PRESENT. Chairperson Robert Kenerson, George Bayer, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer) , George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner) , JoAnn Cornish - Epps (Planner II), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Ed Hallberg, Mark Macera, John Yntema, Bruno Schickel, Karen L. Smith, Bonnie VanAmburg, Lawrence A. Hatzlien, Karen Knudson, Nancy Brown, Greg Thomas, Mary & Bill Webber, Daryl Anderson, Steve Gaarder, Jerry & Claudia Weisburd. Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 7, 1994, and November 9, 1994, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service By Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town 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 9, 19940 Chairperson Kenerson 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 Kenerson closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 1, 19949 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of November 1, 1994, be and hereby are approved with the following correction: On Page 7, Paragraph 10, Sentence 1, which read as follows: "It was agreed that the Board members and the Fires Residents' Group should have an opportunity to further review the revised SLUD....", Planning Board Minutes 2 November 15, 1994 Which was revised to read as follows: "It was agreed that the Board members and the First Residents' Group should have an opportunity to further review the revised SLUD...." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Hoffmann,_ Ainslie, Finch, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS OF ABANDONED SUBDIVISIONS BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE VII, SECTION 39.. Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7:35 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 Board and stated that over the years there has been a general effort to place into the Zoning Ordinance and into other legislation of the Town of Ithaca, automatic terminations of approvals where the action that the approval contemplated was never taken. Attorney Barney stated that the reason for this amendment is because the laws are always changing and this would put in place a mechanism to terminate subdivision approval if nothing is done on the subdivision or very little is done on the subdivision after approval is granted. Chairperson Kenerson asked if the termination was subject to review before it is done. Attorney Barney responded that termination would be automatic if no action has been taken within a three year period, or if work has not materially commenced. Attorney Barney stated that it takes an affirmative act to terminate a subdivision because subdivisions are more procedure bound than site plans due to the map being signed and filed in the County Clerk's Office. Attorney Barney stated that to put the County Clerk's Office and anyone who is buying under that subdivision map on notice there has been a termination, by a notice sent by the Town Planner for recording in the County Clerk's office. Attorney Barney stated that anyone has the right to come before the Board and apply for an extension of time as long as they can show reason for the extension. Attorney Barney stated that the extinguishment process would have an appeals process, which would come before the Board. If the Town Planning Board grants the extension, then an additional notice would be sent to the County Clerk's office stating that the prior notice is not applicable. Attorney Barney stated that if a termination occurs, Planning Board Minutes 3 November 15, 1994 the notice would be provided personally or by certified mail to the developer or subdivider. Chairperson Kenerson asked if the land reverted back to the state which the land was in prior to the would subdivision. open or fair procedure. Attorney Barney stated that if a subdivision is terminated the zoning would be applicable to the majority of the perimeter of the area subdivided. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that because subdivisions are filed with the County Clerk's Office and are created only through a Public Hearing, it would be a possibility to include language in this amendment that would call for a Public Hearing to extinguish a subdivision rather than being done by the Town Planner as an administrative task. Mr. Kanter stated that this might be a policy decision that the Planning Board would need to make. Mr. Kanter stated that a Public Hearing would be required if the extinguishment were challenged. Chairperson Kenerson asked if the Planning Board concurred with the proposed amendment and makes a recommendation to the Town Board, who then enacts the amendment. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Planning Board enacts the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, and the enactment needs to be approved by the Town Board. Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board could not modify the amendment but they could approve it or disapprove it. Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked Town Planner Jonathan Kanter what the reason for his suggestion of a Public Hearing would be before terminating a subdivision approval. Mr. Kanter responded that it would make it a public event as a matter of course for every extinguishment instead of just those terminations which would be contested which would make it a more open or fair procedure. Mr. Kanter stated that it would be an action by the Planning Board rather- than an administrative procedure. Board Member Candace Cornell, referring to Page 1, Item 3(a) of the proposed Resolution amending the Subdivision Regulations to Provide for Extinguishment of Subdivision Approvals of Abandoned Subdivisions, asked what would happen if something was materially commenced 15 years ago and then stopped. (Said Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #1) Town Attorney John Barney stated that if that occurred, the Town would revert to New York State Law which states that a lot that is in an approved subdivision maintains vitality for 2 or 3 years and then is subject to any change in regulations that may Planning Board Minutes occur. Board Member Candace should be a Public Hearing 0 November 15, 1994 Cornell stated that she felt that there in the event of an extinguishment. wished to Attorney Barney stated that he felt that not having the public hearing shifts the responsibility to the developer or subdivider if they want to preserve the project. Also, if the Public Hearing to request an extension is the responsibility of the developer, the cost would be that of the developer instead of the Town. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the way the proposal is worded, the notice being filed would be of extinguishment, not of the intent to extinguish, which gets filed with the County Clerk with the original plat, and the procedure says that if the developer comes in with the request to override the extinguishment, and the Planning Board approves that request, then the Town Planner would need to send an additional notice to the County Clerk stating that the previous notice is obsolete and that the original final approval is okay. Mr. Kanter stated that this could cause a lot of confusion, due to the necessary tracking. Board Member Herbert Finch addressed the Board and stated that he is also a member of the Codes and Ordinance Committee and that he felt that the intent was to have the Ordinance set the policy and that it then becomes an administrative matter to implement based on that policy. Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated that there would be a lot of work to administer this policy. One is continuing monitoring of tax parcels and owners, one would be tax deed searches for every parcel that has been subdivided before we make the determination that the deed hasn't been transferred. Mr. Walker stated that a 2 -lot subdivision would not be any problem, but a large subdivision could cause a lot of problems if not completed in 5 years. Mr. Walker asked Town Attorney John Barney if the Town would have to file a plat consolidating lots that are left undeveloped and /or unsold since it has been filed at the Clerk's Office showing many lots. Attorney Barney stated that as a practical matter, the Board probably would not terminate that subdivision. Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Ed Hallberg of 31 Judd Falls Plaza, asked Town Attorney John Barney why the Town needed this amendment if there was already a State Law. Town Attorney John Barney stated that it was a State Law that deals with an upzoning, and this law would be applied across the Planning Board Minutes 5 November 15, 1994 Board when there is an inactive subdivision. Mr. Hallberg stated that this amendment puts a gun to a developers head to complete a development whether it is financially feasible or not. Board Member Candace Cornell asked where the time of three years came from. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the majority of subdivisions are completed within three years, and the three year time limit starts at Final Approval. Mr. Hallberg asked why the Town of Ithaca needs the amendment. Board Member Candace Cornell responded that the Town needs to keep the decision making current with the knowledge base of building, zoning, and environmental issues that effect the Town and its' residents. Ms. Cornell stated that she did not know if three years was the right amount of time. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she was under the impression that when a developer came to the Board with a request for subdivision approval that the request was made with the intent to go ahead and develop as soon as possible, and if something comes up that prevents the proposed development, it has always been possible to come in and ask to change things. Board Member Candace Cornell asked what the process for an extension would be. Town Attorney John Barney stated that Paragraph 6 of the proposed resolution explains the procedure for an extension. Ed Hallberg addressed the Board and stated that if he were going to invest in the Town of Ithaca with the threat of the sunset provision hanging over his head, he would do just the opposite of what was in the Comprehensive Plan. People are buying existing road frontage and cutting it into at -right subdivided lots with minimum lot size. Scenic views will be gone, reasonable planning will be gone, safe low traffic neighborhoods will be gone because the sunset provision will exacerbate this. Mr. Hallberg stated that three years is a very, very short time span. Board Member Candace Cornell asked what sort of time frame Mr Hallberg felt was fair. Mr. Hallberg responded, 50 years.. Planning Board Minutes 6 November 15, 1994 Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked Mr. Hallberg if he found himself in a situation where he was unable to develop if he would want to come before the Board with a new proposal layout. Mr. Hallberg responded that if he came in to the Planning Board with what he considers a hardship the Planning Board would not necessarily consider his situation a hardship, and he could then be turned down. Mr. Hallberg asked that the Planning Board table the issue until either the Codes and Ordinance Committee or the Planning Board consulted with developers before taking any action to listen to the people that will be most effected by the proposal. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that the sunset provision was intended to focus on subdivisions that have been abandoned, not on a development where someone is attempting to do something with its Mr. Hallberg stated that he felt that three years was a ridiculously short period of time. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board could consider a different number for the limitation period. Chairperson Kenerson stated that if there was a real intent to complete a development, then the Board would probably encourage it, but if there is not real intent to complete the proposal then revert the subdivision back to its prior state. Bruno Schickel addressed the Board and stated that he was strongly opposed to the proposed resolution. Mr. Schickel's reasons for opposing the proposed resolution were due to the impact on staff time and the cost to implement the proposal as discussed earlier, and because he sees no need for the provision. Mr. Schickel stated that this would allow for only small areas to be developed at any given time. Mr. Schickel stated that the intentions of the Planning Board now, versus the intention of a future Planning Board could be very different 10 years from now. Mr. Schickel stated that he did not feel that the Town of Ithaca needed the sunset provision to accomplish what was intended with the problem of abandoned subdivisions because the Town has the mechanisms to deal with the problem. Mr. Schickel stated that the value of the land would be much greater with the subdivision approval because it has already gone through the subdivision process. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board wants to give the developer a reasonable amount of time to use that investment that they are making to accomplish what they set out to do, however, it would not be unreasonable for a municipality to say Planning Board Minutes 7 November 15, 1994 that if at some point in time the developer is unable to proceed, then reapply for a development that may be more possible. Attorney Barney stated that although 3 years may not be enough, 50 years is not a reasonable amount of time either. Attorney Barney stated that according to the proposed amendment the infrastructure needed to be completed within 5 years. Mr. Schickel state that he felt there should be a minimum of 15 years. Board Member Candace Cornell asked Mr. Schickel whether he felt that completing infrastructure within five years may not be enough time. Ms. Cornell then asked Mr. Schickel how much time he felt he would need between final subdivision approval and breaking ground to do something intent to complete. Mr. Schickel stated that the Planning Board needed to discuss this matter with some developers. Mr. Schickel stated that there were a lot of repercussions that he does not feel the proposed resolution would deal with. Chairperson Kenerson again noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone else present who wished to speak. Jerold Weisburd of 167 Calkins Road, addressed the Board and stated that he felt that the Board was discussing a situation where a development had already received final approval, and that the Board could require a double- staged final approval. Mr. Weisburd stated that the development would not be final. until the infrastructure was completed. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that the phased approval process gives preliminary approval to the whole subdivision. A request for final approval on Phase 1 to consist of a smaller number of lots would delay triggering the time limitations on the overall development until the developer receives final approval on a phase by phase basis. Chairperson Kenerson asked if anyone else present wished to speak on this matter. No one spoke. Chairperson Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Chairperson Kenerson addressed the Board and stated that the Board had several options: 1) Adjourn and refer back to the Codes and ordinance Committee for further research to include developers, who will be directly involved with the process, 2) Approve it as presented to the Board, 3) Adjust the document and then approve it, or 4) Decide that the Town does not need the sunset provision at all. Planning Board Minutes 8 November 15, 1994 Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she felt that the policy was needed, but that she did not want to approve it as presented to the Planning Board at this meeting. Ms. Cornell stated that she would like to speak with developers or refer it back to the Codes and Ordinance Committee to speak to some developers. Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Board should express which concerns needed to be further addressed. Ms. Cornell stated that her concerns were the three year and the five year limitations. Ms. Cornell stated that phasing allows for long range planned development. Ms. Cornell stated that she was not sure that three years was enough time, and that she did not have enough evidence to vote on three years. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by George Bayer. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca hereby recommends that the Proposed Resolution for the Amendment to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to Provide for Extinguishment of Subdivision Approvals of Abandoned Subdivisions be referred back to the Codes and Ordinance Committee for further research and review. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Ainslie, Finch, Bayer. Nay - Hoffmann, Cornell, Kenerson. The MOTION was declared to be denied. Town Attorney John Barney stated that he did not feel that the Codes and Ordinance Committee would have any greater expertise than the Planning Board with regard to the timing issue. If the Board is most concerned with the time frame involved they should defer the action until they could meet with developers and discuss the matter with the Planning Board at a public informational meeting. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hold an informational meeting and invite developers, representatives from Homebuilders Association, and builders from the area to discuss the Proposed Resolution for the Amendment to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to Provide for Extinguishment of Subdivision Approvals of Abandoned Subdivisions, by the end of January 1995. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board Minutes 9 November 15, 1994 Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion of the Proposed Resolution for the Amendment to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to Provide for Extinguishment of Subdivision Approvals of Abandoned Subdivisions to be duly closed at 9:01 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFIED SITE PLAN OF EAST HILL PLAZA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENOVATING AN INTERIOR SPACE OF APPROXIMATELY 61000 + /- SQUARE FEET TO BE OCCUPIED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 62 -2- 1.121, 9.16 + /- ACRES TOTAL AREA, BUSINESS DISTRICT C. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER /APPLICANT; BONNIE VANAMBURG, AGENT. Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9:02 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Larry Hatzlien, architect for Cornell University, addressed the Board and stated the request was for a 6,000 square foot office space to be renovated to hold the Purchasing Department for Cornell University, with no change in use or parking requirements. Mr. Hatzlien stated that the proposal included the conversion of two standard restrooms into handicapped restrooms. Mr. Hatzlien stated that there would be a beautification of the back of the building to include painting the building, improvement of entrance areas, and enclosure of equipment areas and dumpsters. Chairperson Kenerson asked if the building was equipped with sprinklers. Mr. Hatzlien responded, yes. Chairperson Kenerson asked if there would be any signs for consideration of the Board. Mr. Hatzlien responded that there would be a sign identifying the rear entrance to the Purchasing Department on the building itself. Board Member Herbert Finch asked if the plans included landscaping. Mr. Hatzlien responded that there would be landscaping plans, but not as part of this approval process. He also indicated that they would be coming back to the Board with plans to improve the Planning Board Minutes 10 November 15, 1994 rear parking area in the future. Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, WHEREAS: seconded by Herbert Finch. 14 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to 6,000 +/- square feet of interior office space so that Cornell can move its Purchasing Department from 120 Maple Ave. to space currently being occupied by the Lab of Nuclear Studies at East Hill Plaza corner of Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District C, Cornell University, Owner; Bonnie J. VanAmburg, Agent. 2. 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 Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 15, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled "East Hill Plaza," dated November, 1994, prepared by Cornell University, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan, as proposed; 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 above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board Minutes 11 November 15, 1994 Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Candace Cornell, WHEREAS: seconded by James Ainslie: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to 6,000 +/- square feet of interior office space so that Cornell can move its Purchasing Department from 120 Maple Ave. to space currently being occupied by the Lab of Nuclear Studies at East Hill Plaza corner of Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 1.121, Business District C, Cornell University, Owner, Bonnie J. VanAmburg, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on November 15, 1994, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on November 15, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled "East Hill Plaza," and dated November, 1994, prepared by Cornell University, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 16 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site plan modification entitled "East Hill Plaza ", and dated November, 1994, prepared by Cornell University, subject to the following condition: Submission of an original and two copies of the final site plan, revised to include the conditions shown on the Final Site Plan Checklist attached, for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board Minutes 12 November 15, 1994 Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for East Hill Plaza Interior Modifications to be occupied by Cornell University's Purchasing Department duly closed at 9:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM. DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT BY THE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION (PRI) TO SET UP A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DISPLAY BY DINAMATION OF DINOSAUR REPLICAS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1995, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE REGARDING ACCESS, PARKING, CIRCULATION, AND A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR SOUVENIR /GIFT SALES, LOCATED AT 1259 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 24- 3-3.1, APPROXIMATELY 6.35 + /- ACRES TOTAL AREA, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION, OWNER /APPLICANT; WARREN ALLMON. AGENT. Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda. Board Member George Bayer asked how big the replicas would.be. Warren Allmon, representative for the Paleontological Research Institution, responded that the replicas would be life- sized. Board Member Candace Cornell asked what the surface would be for parking. Mr. Allmon responded that the vehicles would park on the grass so that the grass could grow back. Mr. Allmon responded that the gift shop and the exhibits would be inside a building. In responding to a question about whether the replicas would be on display outdoors, Mr. Allmon stated in past years, that the skin of the dinosaurs would be damaged by the sun's UV radiation, but that the skins have now been improved so that they could be displayed outside without any damage. Board Member James Ainslie asked if the dinosaurs would have voices or make noise. Mr. Allmon responded that the dinosaurs would roar. Board Member George Bayer asked if the replicas would be visible from the road. Mr. Allmon responded that they would be visible from the road as they are life -size. Mr. Allmon stated that the only conceivable problem was the speed limit and that there would be a gravel pull - off to make it safer pulling into and out of the PRI driveway. Mr. Planning Board Minutes 13 November 15, 1994 Allmon indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Joseph Ciaschi about using his exit drive during the temporary exhibit, and that Mr. Ciaschi was agreeable to this. The Board discussed parking requirements, location, and adequacy. Mr. Allmon stated that the site has room for parking 75 - 100 cars and that a person would be paid to direct cars to appropriate parking spaces, and that there would be guards on the premises 24 hours a day as required by Dinamation. Mr. Allmon stated that there would be some electrical wiring as well as a compressor since the dinosaurs' movements are hydraulic. Mr. Allmon stated that there had been discussions with Mr. Joseph Ciaschi regarding overflow parking and that he could discuss the possibility of using his lot for that purpose on the weekends. Mr. Allmon stated that they would be charging admission and that they would be asking the Board for special approval for temporary use on that site. Ms. Cornell indicated that it would be important to explore other options for overflow parking. Mr. Allmon indicated that he may propose off -site signs to direct people to the exhibit from surrounding areas. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz pointed out that he did not think that the Town Sign Law allows off premises advertising signs. Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the Concept by the Paleontological Research Institution for a temporary Dinamation display to be closed and directed Mr. Allmon to come back to the Board with a Preliminary Site Plan and application for Special Approval. AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF A 30 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 28 -1 -26.2, THE NORTH LINE OF SAID AREA BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 21150 FEET SOUTH LINE OF MECKLENBURG ROAD (NYS ROUTE 79), THE EAST LINE BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET WEST OF WEST HAVEN ROAD, THE SOUTH BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH OF ELM STREET EXTENSION. SAID PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30 TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD). ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA, INC. OWNER; FIRST RESIDENTS' GROUP, APPLICANT; CLAUDIA AND JEROLD WEISBURD, AGENTS. Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda. Jerold Weisburd of 167 Calkins Road, addressed the Board and stated that they were distributing comments on the November 4, 1994 Planning Board Minutes 14 November 15, 1994 draft of the SLUD for EcoVillage, and asked that the Board review the comments with them at this meeting. The Planning Board discussed the issue of home occupations and limitations. The First Residents Group felt that 4 offices in the Common House were too few, and asked that they be allowed 30 in the common house and /or in the individual homes. The consensus of the Board seemed to be that 30 offices would make the Common House into an office complex, and that 30 offices were too many. Daryl Anderson, a member of the First Residents' Group, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to have the option at some point in the future to have an office in the common house and limiting them to 4 offices gives no future flexibility. Frank Thomas, a member of the First Residents' Group, addressed the Board and stated that he felt that being able to combine resources with other residents would be for the greater good of the community. Mr. Thomas stated that the 4 allotted offices have already been reserved by potential residents. chairperson Kenerson asked what the Residents' Group felt would be fair. Mr. Thomas responded that he wanted the option to come in if any modifications were necessary, with 30 total either in houses or in the Common House. Jerold Weisburd suggested that there be up to 15 offices in the Common House with no more than 15 in the homes themselves. Claudia Weisburd stated that if this were a traditional subdivision, there would be no limit on the number of home occupations you could have. Town Attorney John Barney stated that 30 would be the limit with only one home occupation allowed per household. Attorney Barney stated, "What bothers me about this is that every time you (First Residents' Group) come in here, all of a sudden we are being asked to move a little further away from what the zoning, planning, and everything else was. We are now looking at a piece of land that is 2,000 feet away from the road, stretching the rules a great distance to allow that to happen. Now you are saying that you want the opportunity to put up to 15 offices, without any limiting factors, in a building in the middle of what is supposed to be a residential project. We would never even consider that at all in other residential communities. And you don't have the limiting factor of kids in the room next door making it impossible to communicate on the telephone. So, I have a great deal of difficulty with constantly pushing against the envelope because the basis on which this is sold to this board is because it is going to be an Ecovillage, we need small houses, it will be ecologically Planning Board Minutes 15 November 15, 1994 sound, residential only a residential community. community but Now you are it is also as well. Fifteen offices are a is lot." saying that it is not a multi - office facility Board Member Candace Cornell stated that if this were a standard subdivision, 30 individual offices would be allowed within 30 individual dwellings, but several people together pooling resources, it changes things, because offices in an individual home is self limited. Thirty offices in one building is an office building. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that it is important to remember that the Board is dealing with home occupations, as defined in the Town's Zoning Ordinance, which is one person working out of their home with the ability to hire no more than three non - resident persons. This comes to 4 employees per office. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he wanted to urge people not to underestimate the number of parking spaces that will be needed. The number of trips coming in for employees and customers could be high impacting types of uses that could be in there. Mr. Kanter stated that there was a need to put some caps on what is allowed in the Common House. Board Member James Ainslie stated that he thought that the agreement, as far as parking is concerned, was that the cooperative would take care of that and put additional spaces in if and when needed. Board Member Candace Cornell restrictions and requirements built no leverage if they decide they additional parking spaces in. stated that if we don't have into the law, then the Town has do not have the money to put Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she feels a great deal of conflict at these meetings because things keep changing from the original presentation. Board Member George Bayer stated that the Board should ask the Residents' Group to limit the type of occupations that would be allowed. Ms. Weisburd stated that the Residents' Group was asking for what was permitted in an R -30 zone, and that they be allowed to be clustered together. Ms. Weisburd stated that she wanted to find a number between the 4, which the Residents' Group feels is too low, and 15, which the Board feels is too high. Ms. Weisburd suggested 6 offices be allowed in the Common House. Mr. Anderson addressed the Board and stated that all they were asking for was some flexibility for the future. Planning Board Minutes 16 November 15, 1994 Mr. Weisburd asked the Board to consider 6 offices or up to 150 of floor space of the Common House. Board Member Candace Cornell asked if that was with or without changing or limiting the occupations. Mr. Weisburd responded, without changing occupations. Ms. Cornell suggested tabling this discussion to a future meeting to allow the Board time to review the points raised in the Weisburd's letter of November 15, 1994, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. (See Exhibit #2) Mary Webber, a member of the First Residents' Group, addressed the Board and stated that her main concern was that they were expected to finish the infrastructure before building their homes. Ms. Webber stated that the First Residents' Group are the developers, and she felt that the Planning Board should leave it to the certificates of occupancy to control. when they could move into the homes. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the road needed to be built so that there would be access, there must be a gravel road for entrance to the property during construction. Mr. Walker stated that before he would approve anything, as Town Engineer, he would want to see a definite, complete construction plan, full funding mechanisms, escrow accounts, and controls on that. Ms. Weisburd stated that she felt that everyone needed to take the time to read the new material and then get together again to try to come to an agreement. Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion regarding the Special Land Use District for the proposed EcoVillage project duly tabled until a future Planning Board meeting, and asked staff to schedule a meeting with the First Residents' Group to finalize the details of the SLUD for the Board's consideration. AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF (A) DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE AND (B) PRELIMINARY DRAFT SCOPING OUTLINE TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A 1151000 + /- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, ON THAT 28 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 39 -1- 1.3, DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 7. ITHACARE, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA., AGENT. - Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:51 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda. Planning Board Minutes 17 November 15, 1994 Town Attorney John Barney stated that he had drafted a resolution regarding Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance in accordance with the Court decision. Attorney Barney stated that a notice of appeal was filed on November 14, 1994, so there is technically an appeal pending. Attorney Barney suggested that the Board review the proposed resolution of Positive Declaration and the Preliminary Draft Scoping outline for the Environmental Impact Statement, and consider the matter at the Board's December 6, 1994 meeting, at which time action can be taken. Attorney Barney stated that in the meantime, several representatives from the Town will meet with representatives from Ithacare to discuss the two documents referred t above. The Planning Board could hold a Public Scoping Hearing at the December 20, 1994 meeting, and then approve it at the January 3, 1995 meeting. Attorney Barney stated that the reason the resolution was drafted this way was to preserve the Town's ability through the course of the appeal to say if the judge has his decision overruled, then this resolution is rescinded by virtue of the overruling. But in the meantime, pending the appeal, we will proceed with the EIS process and do it by the book. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she felt that there should be a Public Hearing for the Scoping. Attorney Barney stated that public input was not mandatory, but given the nature of this proposal, it would make sense to have one. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she felt that when ever there is a positive declaration there should be public input. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that using the scoping checklist as the basis for the Preliminary Draft Scoping Outline gives the Board an idea of what the fullest Environmental Impact Statement could have if it were going to cover all subjects. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board needed to narrow down the subjects to be covered by the EIS and to expand within each of those subjects exactly what that means, what would be covered, and how it would be covered. Mr. Kanter stated that he wanted to set up a meeting with the applicants to discuss the scoping outline, refine it, and then bring it back to the Board. Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion of Ithacare duly adjourned until December 6, 19940 Planning Board Minutes 18 November 15, 1994 AGENDA ITEM. OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Kenerson stated that there was the annual meeting of the Association of Towns in New York City on February 19 through February 22, 1995, and asked if anyone felt that they may be interested in going to let Town Planner Jonathan Kanter know so that he may check the budget to verify that the funds were there to send those interested in attending. Board Members Candace Cornell and George Bayer expressed an interest in attending. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he would like to try to attend as well. Chairperson Kenerson stated that Board Member Candace Cornell's term on the Planning Board expired on December 31, 1994 and that there needed to be an interviewing committee to fill that position on the Board. Chairperson Kenerson appointed Herbert Finch and Stephen Smith to the Interviewing Committee as representatives for the Planning Board. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the November 15, 1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly closed at 11:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, StarrRae Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 11/18/94. C, TOWN OF ITHACA RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVALS OF ABANDONED SUBDIVISIONS BE IT RESOLVED that the Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Ithaca as adopted by the Town Planning Board on March 24, 1956 and approved by the Town Board on March 24, 1956, as amended by the Planning Board on several subsequent occasions, the most recent being _ , 1993, as approved by the Town Board on , 1993, be further amended by adding a new Article VII, Section 39, reading as follows: "ARTICLE V11 EXPIRATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Section 39. Expiration of Subdivision Approval. 1. In addition to any other provisions of law governing expiration of subdivision approvals, including those provisions which provide the subdivision approval expires if the approved subdivision map is not filed- with the Tompkins County Clerk within a specified time of approval, a subdivision approval will also terminate under the circumstances set forth below. 2. If the proposed subdivision requires construction of any facilities such as roads, drainage courses, water or sewer lines, or other similar facilities, unless within thirty -six months of the date the Planning Board gave final subdivision approval (a) work has materially commenced on such facilities in accordance with the finally approved subdivision plat, or (b) one or more lots have been transferred from the developer and the deeds for same duly recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, the subdivision approval (both final and preliminary) shall expire and the permissible uses and construction on the property shall revert to those in effect prior to the granting of any subdivision approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if final subdivision approval was granted prior to July 191 1994, the time for work to materially commence or lots to be sold shall be extended to July 19, 1997. 3. For the purposes of this Section 39 (a) work will not have "materially commenced" unless, at a minimum, (i) a building permit, if required, has been obtained for at least one structure in the subdivision; and (ii) construction equipment and tools consistent with the size of the proposed work have been brought to and been used on the site; and (iii) significant construction of roads or utilities, or significant framing, erection, or construction of a material structure, has been Exhibit #1 11/15/94 Minutes subreg. amd, wp51 ith/locallaw, 11104194 4: 07pm i started and is being diligently pursued; and (b) a lot will not have been "transferred" unless conveyed by a deed, duly executed and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, to (i) a person unrelated to the subdivider in a bona tide transaction for value, or (ii) a person related to the subdivider or for less than reasonable value in accordance with circumstances related to the Planning Board as part of the subdivision approval (e.g. a subdivision where; the intention is to convey a lot to a relative or to convey a lot to an adjacent landowner for less than full value). 40 If the proposed subdivision does not require the construction of any facilities, the subdivision approval (both final and preliminary) shall expire within the time limits set forth above with the consequences set forth above and subject to the ability to obtain extensions as set forth below, unless at least one lot of the subdivision has been transferred. 5. In addition to the foregoing, a subdivision approval for a subdivision requiring construction of facilities shall likewise terminate as to any untransferred lots in the event that the facilities are not substantially completed within five years of the date of final subdivision approval. 6. The Planning Board, upon request of the subdivider, after a public hearing, and upon a finding that the imposition of the time limits set forth above in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 would create an undue hardship on the subdivider, may extend the time limits for such additional periods as the Planning Board may reasonably determine. An application for such extension may be made at the time of filing of the original application or at any time thereafter up to, but no later than, six months after the expiration of the time limits set forth above. 7. In the event of any termination of subdivision approval pursuant to these provisions, the Planning Board or Town Planner shall cause a notice of such termination to be delivered personally to the subdivider, or forwarded by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the subdivider at the last address for the subdivider on file at the Town of Ithaca Planning Department and shall cause a copy of such notice, together with an affidavit of service (personally or by mail) to be recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in Miscellaneous Records or other appropriate location. 80 Any subdivider who believes the termination of approval pursuant to this section is not warranted may file an application for a hearing before the Planning Board. Such application shall be filed within 30 days of the delivery of the notice referred to above (for this purpose "delivery" shall be deemed to occur on the date the notice is personally delivered or the day it is delivered to the postal service for mailing). The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing on such application on at least five days prior notice given in the same manner as required for public hearings on subdivision approvals, within 60 days of receipt such application. The burden of establishing that the approval should not be terminated shall rest upon the applicant. If die Planning Board determines that the approval was improperly terminated, it shall render a decision so stating and shall cause a notice to that effect to be forwarded to the Tompkins County Clerk's Office for 0) • r subreg. amd, wp51 ith/locallaw, 11104194 4 :07pm recording in the same location as the notice previously effecting such termination. Any determination of the Planning Board regarding such termination may be reviewed by a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules. Such proceeding shall be commenced no later than 30 days after the decision being reviewed has been filed by the Planning Board with the appropriate Town Clerk, 9. Nothing in this section 39 is intended to alter the effect of Town Law Section 265 -a on lots in a subdivision when zoning is changed to increase lot sizes or other requirements thereby rendering an existing subdivision's lots non - conforming. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this amendment to the Subdivision Regulations take effect upon approval of same by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. Residents Group c/o House Craft Builders PO Box 640 Ithaca, New York November 15, 1994 Mr. Jonathan Kanter Town Planner Town of Ithaca Ithaca, New York Dear Jonathan: We just received a copy of what is marked Final Draft for the SLUD. There are some major items that we still feel need significant attention. 1. Office space in the Common House. For reasons already explained, people want to be able to locate their home offices in the Common House rather than in their private dwelling. Since this location latitude has no effect on the number of home occupations otherwise permitted in the zoning, but simply allows them to more efficiently `clustered', we see no rationale for limiting the number permissible in the common house. We request that Section 3 (page 5) be changed as follows: Offices or occupations as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above may be conducted IN THE DWELLING OR IN THE COMMON HOUSE provided: (a) (no change) (b) DELETE (c) DELETE (d) - (g) (no change) 2. The provisions on the primary and secondary road referring to distance to dwellings are not accurate. The primary road does not go to within 100' of all dwelling units. Neither does the secondary road go to within 100' of all dwelling units. Rather, emergency access will be provided to within 100' of each building by either the primary or the secondary access road. We suggest Sections K and L (page 9) be modified as follows: K. 1. GOOD AND MARKETABLE FEE TITLE .... FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD FROM ROUTE 79 (MECKLENBURG ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN. L. 1. GOOD AND MARKETABLE TITLE ... FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD FROM WEST HAVEN ROAD, AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN. ADD: EMERGENCY VEHICLES WILL HAVE ACCESS TO WITHIN 100' OF ALL BUILDINGS EITHER VIA THE PRIMARY ACCESS ROAD OR VIA THE SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD. Exhibit #2 11/15/94 Minutes 1 3. Section M (page 10) refers to `Elimination of Cul de Sac.' As mentioned previously, we do not want to get into differences of interpretation of the meaning of cul de sac. We suggest you eliminate the title, and modify as follows: M. ADDITIONAL ROADWAY. NO LATER THAN SIX YEARS FORM .... THE OWNER OR OWNERS OF THE SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT SHALL, AT THEIR COST AND EXPENSE, CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL ROADWAY ACCESS BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: 1 ..... OR 2..... 3..... No building permits shall be issued for more than 30 dwelling units and one community center, PLUS PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, in the Special Land Use District, until the conditions 1., 2., OR 3. above have been met, or have been waived by the Town of Ithaca Town Board. 4. You have received a letter from the residents about the hardships created by the permitted schedule you have outlined in the SLUD: that the road be completely financed prior to issuance of any permits at all, and that water and sewer be finished prior to issuing more than 10. You have responded to the concerns of the residents somewhat with respect to the sewer and water, but not as far as the road. Unfortunately, the conditions you have laid out in the present draft still cause the following problems for the group: (a) Significant delay to start of house construction, if need to wait until road is finished. This makes it more difficult to get bridge loans, for those who need to sell houses in order to buy their Eco Village home, and more difficult and costly to get construction financing for the houses; (b) Delaying move -in dates for residents, especially difficult for people who are in `temporary' quarters; (c) Significantly restricts ability of contractor to move quickly and cost efficiently, essential to keeping the houses affordable. Aim is to have a group of houses and the infrastructure ready together, with the rest of the houses in various stages of construction ranging from early to almost complete. At issue is the time gap between when the peak outlay of cash is made by the group (completion of infrastructure) and the time they can get a. mortgage from the bank and move in. The shorter this time is, the more affordable it is for the group. This is not like an ordinary subdivision, where a developer could sell lots based on infrastructure, then not complete the infrastructure, and leave the owners high and dry (so to speak), who then appeal to the Town. This is an unusual situation. The developer is the future residents who will be moving in, themselves. They can't `disappear'. These are their own homes that they are building. Therefore, we suggest that Section K.2. (page 9) read: Construction of a road is COMMENCED in accordance with the applicable Town of Ithaca highway specifications in effect at the time. (DELETE: prior to the issuance of ...) 2 Section R. Provision of Sewer Facilities (page 12 -13) We request that no limits be placed on the number of building permits, provided that (1) no change (2) no change (3) no change If you want to retain the waiver language, we would request that the number permitted prior to needing a waiver be ten plus the Common House. It is very important to this group that the Common House be built along with the earliest units to be moved into, and it would provide temporary shop space for residents to work on aspects of house construction. In addition, we request that the escrow amount for the sewer work be based on actual contracts for the construction work; that is, that the residents can demonstrate that they have the money to cover the cost of the work contracted, with a contract in hand for that amount. Section R. 2. (d) (page 12) There is proof provided to the Town Engineer and Planning Board that there is adequate financial support available to the developer to complete the line, BASED UPON CONTRACT PRICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, such proof being in the form of.... With respect to Section R.2.(e): The Town Engineer will be called upon to verify that construction has commenced and is progressing with sufficient rapidity. In addition, the Town Engineer will verify the financial status. If these items, plus the other conditions have been met, we do not see on what grounds the Town Engineer would deny recommendation of the waiver. To streamline the process, to avoid more administrative work, and to avoid potential disputes about unspecified areas of judgment, we suggest that this item (e) be deleted, especially since the Planning Board, when confronted with a request, can take into account recommendations by the Town Engineer and impose additional conditions. 5. With reference to Section S. Provision of Adequate Water Facilil arguments are the same as for the sewer, outlined above. As above, placed on permits, with the same provisions as above. Again, if you language, we ask that the group be allowed permits for ten dwelling House. ies (page 13), the hardship we would ask that no limit be choose to keep the waiver units plus the Common In addition, Section S.2. (page 13): The water line is a private line. We were under the impression that it had already been agreed that the water line need not be built to Town specs because it is private, and because Town specs would pose a significant financial hardship. We ask that this section 2 be deleted, with `water line' added to Section 3. That way, the water lines and the pump station would be developed with the same parties, with commensurate specifications. Section 3 would then read, "A pump station AND SUCH WATER LINES to be owned and maintained..." 3 t. Y As with the sewer, we ask that for Section (d) the adequacy of financial support be based on the prices for which the group has contracted the work. As with the sewer, we ask that Section (e) be deleted. You have been very helpful in working through these details. However, because the project is so very different from projects the Town has seen previously, it is demanding somewhat different thinking. The uniqueness of the housing form - co- housing - coupled with the uniqueness of the `developer' being the future residents themselves, coupled with the environmental and planning principles being attempted, results in some complex points. We hope we can work them through in a way that is satisfactory to all. Sincerely, Claudia Weisburd House Craft Builders for the Eco Village Residents Group El