Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1997-11-18• • FRX TOWN Off ITHACA Da4a Clerk ZZ26 rif AL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BQJ RD NOVEMBER 18, 1997 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 18. 1997, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca. New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Candace Cornell, James Ainslie. Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town). Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering). George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner). Christine Balestra (Planner), Benjamin Helber (Planning Intern). ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Mawdslev. Daniel A. Brietta. Trowbridge, Tom Salm, Robert Wesley, Brennan Buck, Robert Frank Santelli, Nicole Salgado, K. Ruether, Will Cornwell, Fennessey, Becky Bilderback, Phyllis Baker, Dan Hoffmann, Ramage, Andrew Ramage, Betsy Darlington, Chris Gulick, Hagedorn, Elizabeth Dissin, Alex Murdock. Jr., Guy Gerard. Mike Ruthe, Peter O'Brien, Edward Hart, Arm Carlson., John Yntema, Scott Cardiff, John Jonah Zern, Jessica Nowillo, Nancy Richard Baker, Joel Gavnon, Sara Chairperson Fred Wilcox 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 10, 1997, and November 12, 1997, 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 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 12, 1997. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox 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 .. meeting. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN OBSERVATORY AT THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS NEAR THE TOP OF SOUTH HILL ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO'S. 42 -1 -13.1 AND 414-30.2, LOCATED OFF OF DANBY ROAD/ROUTE 96B, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET SOUTH OF THE EXISTING WATER TOWER. ITHACA COLLEGE OWNER/APPLICANT; PETER TROWBRIDGE, TROWBRIDGE AND WOLF, AGENT• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Chairperson Wilcox declared the above mentioned matter duly opened at 7:35 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Tom Salm, Vice President of Business at Ithaca College, stated that he would like the Planning Board to know that this an exciting and important academic addition for Ithaca College, and he is anxious to see it proceed. This project would be funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as well as funds from donors. The Observatory needs to be located in the woods in order to be sufficiently dark for the physics to work. Ithaca College involved the planning people immediately, in terms of Trowbridge, and they have been involved in the planning ever since Ithaca College submitted the grant to the Foundation. Mr. Salm stated that he would like to thank everyone for making the site visit for review of this project. Peter Trowbridge, Principal of Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, stated that he would like to introduce some people as part of the consulting team. Dan Brietta is a faculty member at Ithaca College, and this is his project. He will inform the Planning Board of the research and teaching programs associated with the observatory. Robert Wesley is the co- author of the assessment of the South Hill Unique Natural Area, and he will be speaking briefly of his assessment related to the observatory site. Robert O'Brien is from HOLT &- C Architects, and as Mr. Salm mentioned Mr. O'Brien's office has done some preliminary architectural sketches that the Planning Board will be reviewing tonight. Frank Santelli is from T.G. Millers, who has been responsible for engineering, septic, and water infrastructure to the site. Brennan Buck is from Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architect, and has been involved with the planning. process. Mr. Trowbridge stated that most of the Planning Board members visited the site. The observatory will be approximately 340 feet south of the water tower and two residential towers. Access to the site is by a fire service lane that runs behind the terrace dormitories. There is a drive that is actively maintained that runs to ICDU tower and the water tower. That area was primarily agriculture until the 1940's. Aerial photographs shoe- this area in pastures and agriculture at that time. There are remnants of stone walls from that farming era. As people know, who walked the site, the access drive to the observatory fundamentally- follows that wall. Daniel Brietta, Physics Department at Ithaca College, stated that this all started a few- years ago when, a trustee of Ithaca College died, Clinton Ford. left some money to do astronomy work because there is no real program. There was only one course being taught. Mr. Ford was an avid amateur astronomer, so it seems like the right thing to do by building an observatory to start a program. Mr. Brietta stated that they would like to start an astronomy concentration within the physic department, and an astronomy minor for people outside the department. This program would primarily be used for two objectives. One is for a research program for physic majors that are in the astronomy concentration, and it would be used for introductory classes. Ithaca College now offers laboratory sections taught with the astronomy courses. Hopefully, many of those laboratories will be to the observatory. Mr. Brietta stated that Ithaca College would like to have the observatory on top of a mountain far out in the woods somewhere, where the sky was dark and everything was wonderful. The usage would be very small because it would be difficult to transport a class of 90 students there. He PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • envisions taking groups of five or six students at one time, but it would be close enough to the campus for students to walk. The utilization of the proposed facility would be much higher. The site is not ideal in terms of light, but all the light pollution is off to one direction leaving the rest of the sky open. Mr. Brietta stated that there have been concerns about the size of the clearing and how far would the people see from the observatory. Most observatories have clear cuttings around the main dome to see as much of the sky as they can. The attempt is to save as many trees so they would not be cut. Anything close to 20 degrees of the horizon would get lost in the trees. People would be able to see from 20 degrees and up into the sky. The decision for 20 degrees above the horizon was made by how close the planets get to the ecliptic. In the summer ecliptic when the planets are low, they do not get more than 2' ) degrees above the horizon. The 20 degrees above the horizon would be good for viewing most things in the sky. Mr. Trowbridge stated that he would point out on the enlarged sketch plans the layout of the project. As Mr. Brietta mentioned, the primary consideration is access to the site for classes to visit the site. There were several considerations for access to the site. Mr. Trowbridge pointed out on the enlarged sketch where the current access is to the site, parking spaces, and the current water tower. Mr. Trowbridge stated that the parking area would provide parking for college vehicles to the observatory. Mr. Trowbridge stated that he has had conversations with Ray Wheaten of the Fire Department, and decided to make the access driveway 12 feet wide for emergency access. While locating the site they looked at various strategies to get the site requirements Mr. Brietta requires. There is a larger line that . gives a 20 degree site line, but Mr., Brietta also wanted a whole series of smaller telescopes that could be ground based. If there were a number of people in the class they would be able to look at a roughly 30 degree relationship to the horizon. There would be a number of people that would be using mobile telescopes ground mounted. It would be 20 degrees from the primary telescope, and 30 degrees from the ground base telescopes. A forest management plan was developed so the cleared area is tiny. The observatory building is approximately 600 square feet. Mr. Trowbridge stated that services would be available to the site, including underground water and sand filter sanitary septic system. There is an existing cross country trail that runs along the site. Construction of the septic system would come off the cross country trails instead of going through the woods. There are a couple parking spaces with one being required for ADA and the others for servicing purposes. Pavement would be limited to what is required for ADA access to the building. There are specific numbers in terms of square feet of area being cleared versus area that is within the 20 foot height and the 30 foot height. Mr. Trowbridge pointed out on an enlarged sketch from T.G. Millers that relates to making minor improvements to the gravel driveway for fire and emergency access. The sketch also shows utility, water, electric, sanitary, and other services to the building. Mr. Trowbridge stated that this building would be approximately 600 square feet. There are two parts to the building. There is a warming room, and the telescope space itself in an unheated building. The telescope is 10 feet in height with another 8 feet above that for a full height of 18 feet. They went to several locations • around the Town to see if the water tower is visible because this would be adjacent to it. The findings were that they could hardly see the water tower which made them believe that they would not be able to see the observatory from any of the higher locations. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Mr. Trowbridge stated that lights and safety lighting would be rather minimal. There would be low voltage cell activated lights three feet off the ground, and the lights would be switched off from the observatory for less pollution to the sky. Any disturbed soil around the observatory or the entrance drive will be covered with a compost, so there are no new plants introduced to the site. They would try to recreate the forest floor in those areas where soil will be disturbed to eliminate erosion. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that it seems that the building is very small especially if Ithaca College would be transporting a bus of students. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the telescope area needs to be cold. Mr. Brietta responded, yes. The telescope needs to remain unheated. There is a small dip in the dome where the telescopes looks out, and all the heat will go there and the image would diminish. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if the building was raised enough to get habitual space under the dome there would also be more viewing area above the 20 degrees. Mr. Brietta stated that he is not sure they would want to heat that area because then they would need to insulate the upper dome from downstairs and the access stairs. It may be very difficult. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it just seemed to be an inexpensive place to add, and may not be visible. Mr. Trowbridge stated that one of the issues raised at the site was initial studies regarding flora and fauna in the Unique Natural Area. They contacted with Robert Wesley who was one of the co- w authors of the report that the Planning Board was provided with regarding flora in the area. Mr. Wesley has some understanding of fauna, and would be speaking briefly in regards to that. Robert Wesley, Co- author of the study of the South Hill Unique Natural Area, stated that he has recently completed, for the Town of Ithaca, with Nancy Ostman an inventory of the South Hill Unique Natural Area as defined by Tompkins County. He noticed that the Town of Ithaca is delineating the boundaries of that area to be slightly smaller. but that is not an issue that he would be dealing with tonight. He wants to quickly review the unusual biological features of the South Hill area, and show how they relate to the proposed construction of this Ithaca College Observatory. Mr. Wesley showed the Planning Board and the public in attendance a 1970's aerial photograph of the Unique Natural Area of the South Hill. He pointed out the wetland areas, Ithaca College water tank, and where the observatory site would be located. Mr. Wesley stated that there are a number of rare species in the South Hill Natural Area. A state rarity, Carex Triceps, is quite abundant to the west of the area where the observatory is proposed. There are a hundred individuals of the Carex family. but none in the area of the observatory. The proposal would take out one clump of Carex somewhere in the path of the driveway, but as long as the habitat remains he does not see that any significant threat to the long term existence. There are many rare species. but they are in fact much father south. Board Member Gregory Bell asked Mr. Wesley what is a Carex. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 Mr. Wesley stated that the Carex is a small perennial evergreen grass like plant that has basil leaves. It is a sedge, and it is listed by the New York Natural Area program as a rare plant in the state. Board Member James Ainslie asked if this would disturb enough Carex so it would be a real problem. Mr. Wesley responded, no. It would be an insignificant disturbance. Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Weslev if he is concerned about it. Mr. Wesley responded, no. To destroy- a rare plant would be to destroy the habitat. As long as there is a large area of suitable habitat that remains undisturbed, then there would be no threat to the rare species. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Wesley to describe the tree cutting proposal. Mr. Wesley stated that trees taller than 20 or 30 feet would be telescopes. Mr. Wesley stated that plants in this area that would be th • would be favored by the cutting. would be cut to the ground in some areas. In some areas, trees cut to the around so they would not obstruct the view for the he does not have a problem with this. There were not unusual neatened by that and mentioned that some shade intolerant plants Chairperson Wilcox asked what would be the alternative to cutting the trees to the ground. Mr. Wesley stated that there is not a good alternative. Topping the trees would disfigure them in a way that they would be much more visually unattractive, and it would create a greater level of maintenance fees as well. He does not think that would be a desirable alternative. For a project that is conceived within a designated Unique Natural Area, this project is very small with a narrow drive and a small footprint. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be a problem with students wandering out there. Mr. Wesley stated that the students already wander out around this area. Board Member Bell asked if the double road exists now. Mr. Trowbridge stated that all the roads leading to the water tower exist now. They would be grading the center hump making the incline slightly different for fire access. Board Member Bell asked why are there two roads going to the same place. Mr. Trowbridge stated that is allows a vehicle not to do a three point turn, and also the ICDU is Tower is off to one side. They are preexisting roads. which are probably farm roads or access to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 water tower. Ithaca College would not be changing the road, but just improving the driveway for fire and emergency vehicles to reach the top of the hill. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the text it mentions the proposed drive extension would be 10 feet wide, but Mr. Trowbridge mentioned 1.2 feet wide. Mr. Trowbridge stated that the Planning Board was supplied with an addendum to the first letter received. The second letter mentions the driveway as 12 feet wide. If the letter did not, that information was supplied after the report vas supplied. Ray Wheaten was not able to meet with him right away, so the response from October 12. 1997 was a directive from the Fire Department. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Trowbridge who Ray Wheaten was. Mr. Trowbridge stated that Ray Wheaten is the Associate Fire Chief. There have been a few other issues mentioned about fauna in the area. There are three issues. the South Hill Bee. the Prairie Warbler, and a Buck Moth. There have been some discussions whether the Buck Moth actually exists on South Hill or if that insect exists in Pine Barrens and not here. The Prairie Warbler and the South Hill Bee both require open habitat, so it is not clear whether those exist on site or exist on South Hill in general. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter asked if the Prairie Warbler could be studied and documented before the Town does the SEQR review. Mr. Trowbridge responded, yes. That will be something they will be making a submission prior to December 8th. There was some information they received today, and will be looked into. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked what provision would be taken if Ithaca College expands to say that this land is hands off now and forever. Mr. Salm stated that Ithaca College needs to put together some type of Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the campus. Ithaca College acquired an 82 acre parcel of land just to the east of the campus that the College wanted to acquire ever since the campus began to be developed on South Hill. Ithaca College now has all the land holdings that are around the perimeter of the main part of the campus, and Mr. Kanter and himself have had some discussions about working on a GEIS. The first step in the GEIS process is for Ithaca College to update a master plan that was done approximately 10 years ago that had more to do with buildings than it had to do with land uses. Utilities and pedestrian flows were done at that time. The best outcome at this time is for Ithaca College to produce a plan with the Town of Ithaca that says there will be certain parts of this College holdings that would clearly have to remain forever wild. For instance. Ithaca College has known for years that they own a critical portion of the South Hill Swamp particularly as the water migrates to that site and into the part that Cornell University owns. Ithaca College has stayed away from that. Ithaca College destroyed the one house, and do not allow cats on the premises because they would be endangering the South Hill Swamp. Ithaca College has tried in some ways to be a good neighbor, but ultimately they need to do the GEIS. That would be long process. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 Board Member Kenerson stated that he wants to limit this to this project only. Mr. Salm stated that Mr. Brietta has some concerns about the land use in the area especially if the Town puts in playing fields with lights. Board Member Kenerson stated that it would take away the effective use of the facilities. Mr. Salm stated that anything that would be considered in the future would need to be taken into consideration if the Observatory is there. Mr. Wesley stated that restricting development away from the observatory also coincides well with restricting development away from the Unique Natural Area, which is certainly a desirable end. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town's Conservation Board provided a memorandum to the Planning Board, and Mr. Trowbridge was supplied with a copy. The memorandum raises question as to whether the tree cutting circles around the dormitory might be conservative in the amount of trees that may need to be cut, which has to do with the height of the telescope. The Conservation Board thought this may be looked at closer and try to minimize tree cutting in the area. Mr. Trowbridge stated that he received the memorandum at the beginning of the meeting, and reviewed the memorandum with Mr. Brietta to see whether less than 20 degrees to the horizon was acceptable. As Mr. Brietta mentioned that there would be considerable loss in terms of what would be able to be observed. There are some general use telescopes as mentioned early on that would be sitting on the ground that are only 30 degrees to the horizon. If those and the big telescope were taken into account Mr. Brietta felt that anything greater than 23 degrees would be considerable loss in terms of what would be observed. The mathematical calculations would be looked into as well. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the members of the Planning Board received a letter from Jonathan Mawdslev who is a graduate student in the department of entomology. Board Member Ainslie stated that the Town has had some concerns about Schoellkopf lights shining on Hector Street. Mr. Ainslie asked if the Observatory would be far enough above or far enough south so the Schoellkopf lights do not interfere with the Observatory. Mr. Brietta stated that he has not looked specifically at the Schoellkopf lights, but most of the lighting is off in the same direction. The safety lighting on campus is in the same direction as the Schoellkopf lights. Board Member Bell asked if Ithaca College has considered putting an elevated deck next to the building or even on top of the warm room. . Mr. Brietta responded, yes, and he has talked to Cornell University about what they do at their observatory. Cornell University has room on top of the main building where the telescopes could be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16. 1997 left, and they say it is awful. In the winter time there is snow, and it takes 20 minutes to set up the telescopes. There needs to be some sort of mounting and stability for the telescopes or otherwise they would get unbalanced as people walk around. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this is not a public hearing. This a chance for the applicants to supply the Board with a sketch plan review. If the public's comments are short the Board will hear a few comments. There will be a public hearing .vhen Ithaca College comes in for site plan approval. Johan Zern, Cornell Student Assembly. stated that he is concerned about the South Hill marsh that is located at the top of this hill. He is concerned that there has not been adequate review of the area to see whether this project would be impacting the ecosystem, which is home to many rare species, plants, and animals. (Attached is a letter from Cornell Student Assembly as Exhibit 42.) Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the Sketch Plan for Ithaca College construction of an Observatory at 8:17 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DECLARATION OF INTENT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STATUS PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT TO CONSIST OF 56 •APARTMENT UNITS IN SEVEN BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON A 9.12 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 27 -1- 13.12, TOTALING 95 +/- ACRES. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON MECKLENBURG ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA/CITY OF ITHACA BOUNDARY, R -15 RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A REZONING OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING SITE FROM R45 RESIDENCE TO MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL ALSO REOUIRE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. ANTHONY CERACCHE OWNER; CONIFER REALTY, APPLICANT; JOHN FENNESSEY, AGENT: Chairperson Wilcox declared the above mentioned matter duly_ opened at 8:20 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Director of Planning Kanter stated that this agenda item is not intended to be a long discussion about the project because this is simply a formality under the New York State Environmental Quality Review process to formally establish the Planning Board as lead agency. The Planning Staff mailed a letter, dated November 6, 1997, to all interested and involved agencies. The letter indicates the Planning Board's intent to be the lead agency for the review of this project, and to solicit any preliminary comments regarding the project itself. So far there have been three letters received from the agencies notified (New York State Department of Transportation. Tompkins County Department of Health, and the Tompkins County Department of Planning). and they all indicated there were no problems with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board being the lead agency for this project. The . Tompkins County Planning Department reiterated some of the issues that should be looked at during the environmental review process. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Staff is trying to assemble all the materials for review by the Planning Board to make the environmental determination, and will be scheduled for the December 16th meeting. The Planning Board was supplied with application materials for future developments (Phase II) of the project. Future developments (Phase II) has not been reviewed by the Planning Staff at this time. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board recommended a layout of the remaining 40 acres. MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency for environmental review of the proposed rezoning. site plan approval, and subdivision approval of the proposed Mecklenburg Heights apartment project. located on Mecklenburg Road, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved • agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of the above - referenced November 6, 1997 letter. • There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #3.) Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the discussion on the Mecklenburg Heights development at 8:29 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD REGARDING THE DRAFT TOWN OF ITHACA PARK, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (MARCH 10, 1997), WITH SUGGESTED REVISIONS PREPARED BY TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING STAFF AS A FOLLOW -UP TO OCTOBER 7, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING• Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:30 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone from the public wished to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Betsy Darlington, Director of Land Protection for the Finger Lakes Land Trust, stated that the Finger Lakes Land Trust held a Land Committee meeting last night, and they discussed a letter that was supplied to the Planning Board. Ms. Darlington read a prepared statement to the Planning Board. Ms. Darlington stated that from the Land Committee, there was no mention of the problems of run off from a developed parcel. There would be pesticides in people's lawns, and all non point source solutions from driveways, roads, and animals would be a great impact to the area. The run off question was of most importance for two major streams that pass through there. All the drainage is toward the Six Mile Creek area. Ms. Darlington pointed out the Sincebaugh parcel on enlarged map for the Planning Board and the public to see. Ms. Darlington stated that the City of Ithaca has had a major program of protecting the watershed lands. and have bought a lot of land in the Town to protect as part of the watershed. At this point, the Town of Ithaca has not participated, but although they have done a wonderful job with Conservation Zoning, and that is what the Finger Lakes Land Trust would urge the Town of Ithaca to do with this parcel. (The Finger Lakes Land Trust letter is hereto attached as Exhibit # 4) Board Member Cornell asked Ms. Darlington what is the City of Ithaca's program. Ms. Darlington stated that the City has been buying parcels for the watershed area since 1987. Board Member Cornell asked • preserve the watershed area. Ms. Darlington pointed out sor watershed area. Ms. Darlington stated property that the City of Ithaca is in the if the City purchased that land for park, or other parcels to ne of the parcels that the City of Ithaca has purchased for the that there are other parcels on the east side of the Sincebaugh process of purchasing. Board Member Cornell asked how is the City of Ithaca funding this. Ms. Darlington stated that the City of Ithaca funds this through the watershed funds. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked Nis. Darlington to clarify this sentence, "By not providing municipal designation of this parcel in the Open Space Plan, the Town could seriously jeopardize its likelihood of qualifying for public funding (e.g.. from NYS) to protect this area." Mr. Frantz asked which area is she referring to. Ms. Darlington stated that she was referring to the Sincebaugh property. Dan Hoffman. Chair of the City's Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee, supplied the Planning Board with maps of the area he would be speaking of Mr. Hoffman stated that he appeared at the previous public hearing on the Open Space Plan on behalf of the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee, and explained that they welcome the plan and applaud the Town's farsightedness in identifying areas that are critical for preservation. The Committee did make some comments on specifics. One • concerned the inappropriateness of artificial lighting for basketball courts or other purposes at the Iacovelli Park, which is the bright green trapezoidal shape on the map supplied. That is still part of the • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES i l NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 plan, and the Committee continues their concerns about having lighting in that area. More importantly, the Committee is more concerned that the Sincebaugh property has not been included in the Purchase of Development Rights Program, and there is no recommendation to extend Conservation Zoning to the entire property. The Committee continues to support both of those steps. The Six Mile Creek Natural Area in his mind is like a giant puzzle. That is how it is seen to him as someone who has been involved in preservation efforts for at least 15 years. The maps supplied to the Planning Board shows the various pieces that correlate to property parcels. Mr. Hoffman stated that the Six Mile Creek Natural Area has been defined by both the Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca, and extends roughly from the back of the property lines of the parcels along Slaterville Road, which includes the back boundary of Commonland. That is also a division between zoning district with the Conservation District now being below that line or down hill from that line, and residential zoning being above that line. On the other side of Coddington Road, both the City and the Town plans and documents have identified the Recreationway as the rough boundary of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area except for the City's water system that includes the pipelines, darns, and a maintenance road along with a few homes along Burns Road. this natural area or corridor is free from human development. In addition to being part of the City's watershed it is an extensively used area. It is a much beloved natural area by City residents and Town residents and others. It has a different character than the State Parks, it is not as developed or controlled. Many people appreciate that. It is known for it's wildflowers, in fact it is called "The Elizabeth Mulholland Wildflower Preserve ". It has an extensive trail system that is used by many hikers, joggers, and nature lovers. It is very close to urban areas. The downtown Ithaca area is within easy walking distance, with fairly densely populated areas of the Town of Ithaca stretching along both sides. It is a green way, and it is an important greenway that extends from the downtown urban area out into the country side beyond the Town of Ithaca to the Town of Dryden. There is not a lot like that, and there is not as many abroad either. Mr. Hoffman stated that in this puzzle looking at the maps, the biggest piece is the City's watershed property, which most was acquired early in this century. However. there have been some recent additions as Ms. Darlington referred to. Mr. Hoffman stated that he put star shapes on those four parcels on the maps supplied to the Planning Board. One star is down hill from the Sincebaugh property. Two stars on the Coddington Road side, and there is one star on Burns Road adjacent to the creek. Three of those parcels on the down stream side of Burns Road were funded by a special City fund created in the late 1980's. There have been approximately $200,000 placed in that fund by Common Council specifically for the purchase of property in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. In addition, a second fund has been established for the water and sewer department of the City's Public Works Department specifically for the acquisitions of the properties that are considered critical for the City to control these properties to protect and maintain it's water system. On the map those properties are not shaded because they have not been acquired yet, which are marked with a "w" in a circle. There are two on the Slaterville Road side down stream of Burns Road that extends down to the creek. There are two more properties up stream of Burns Road on the Slaterville Road side. There are two properties on the Coddington Road side up stream of Burns Road. Those are the properties designated for acquisition for the water and sewer fund for water supply purposes. Board Member Cornell asked how are the programs funded. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Mr. Hoffman stated that the water and sewer fund comes from water and sewer surpluses. The other fund has been used for properties down stream of the water line, which was primarily funded from operating funds. Board Member Ainslie asked if there are funds for the Sincebaugh property. Mr. Hoffman stated that his point is to show the Planning Board that the City has already invested in four properties, and have identified more than ten other properties. In addition to the properties marked "w" for water supply purposes. there are five other properties marked with an "s" in a circle. Those properties have been designed by the City for acquisition for substitute park land to replace other park land that has been converted to other purposes. The City of Ithaca has committed to acquiring approximately twelve properties, which are all in the Town of Ithaca, all of which will benefit Town residents as well as City residents. He is not sure whether the City is willing to also fund the entire cost of preventing development on the Sincebaugh property as well. His hope is that the City of Ithaca will be a willing partner if the Town of Ithaca were to make a joint commitment with the City to that property. The City has clearly recognized the importance of the corridor stretching between the Recreationway and the back of the properties on Slaterville Road. There has been a clear commitment over the past 12 years to -fill in that corridor so there is a protected greenway encompassing the undeveloped land in that corridor. Mr. Hoffman stated that back to the puzzle concept, the only piece of the puzzle that is not in place or provided for is the Sincebaugh property. It is a 40 acre piece, and it . is very close to the lower reservoir. It is not a hill side, and it is inside the Recreationway. It has been his impression as someone closely associated with the City both on the Advisory Committee and prior to that being on Common Council that both the Town and the City were reviewing the lower Recreationway as the boundary of development. There was a point when the Town needed the City's help to designate an alternate terminus for the Recreationway in the event that NYSEG, which holds an easement on the Burns Road section, that if NYSEG were to revoke that easement the Town needed an alternate terminus in order to qualify for State Funding. The City provided that terminus that they owned that goes all the way to Coddington Road. At that time, the City was assured that the Town would be reviewing the Recreationway as the boundary for development. He thinks at this point, it is appropriate and this is the opportunity when the Town is creating a Comprehensive Plan for Open Space to formalize that commitment to recognize that we have a resource here. The Recreationway itself is a public investment that thousands of people enjoy. What they appreciate about it is that is offers a primarily natural experience. People could look down hill from the Recreation way where there are trees and fields. People do not see back yards or garages. People would hear birds, not cars or lawn mowers starting up. Mr. Hoffman stated that there are some homes or properties that front on the Recreationway. That is not a justification for further allowing the natural character of the area to deteriorate. He thinks that the value of those homes can be protected by maintaining the natural area, but more importantly the experience of those who use the recreationway, and many people use the Recreationway daily can be protected by making. a commitment to preserve this parcel. Mr. Hoffman stated that Ms. Darlington mentioned that there are Conservation easements in this area. Mr. Hoffman pointed out on the map supplied to the Planning Board that two pieces of the puzzle have been solved or been taken care of by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, which has agreed to accept Conservation • easements on two large parcels. One parcel on the Coddington Road side, and one on the Slaterville Road side. In addition. the draft Open Space Plan before the Planning Board designates four properties PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 in the Six Mile Creek corridor for Purchase of Development Rights, which are designated on the map with circles with "PDR'' inside it. There is a recognition already by the Town that this corridor needs to be protected. He would hope that the Town would extend that to this crucial parcel. The Town has taken a significant step by providing Conservation Zoning, but unfortunately, the Conservation Zone follows the Recreationway for most of the southern boundary, for some reason departs and goes through the middle of the Sincebaugh property. He would argue for a Comprehensive Plan to make sense, a Conservation Zone should continue to follow the Recreationway. However, Conservation Zoning does provide considerable protection if is not a no build zone, and he would further argue that further below the Recreationway a no build area is appropriate. Zoning alone cannot accomplish that. Some kind of Purchase of Development Rights or title itself would be necessary. Mr. Hoffman stated that there would be concerns about the cost. This is not an inexpensive parcel, which is currently assessed at $212,000. However, a long term benefit to preserve the greenway and protect the area matches well against this cost keeping in mind that the total projected cost of the Purchase of Development Rights Program before the additions that were justified was at $3.7 million, but with those additions it is approximately $4 million. While something in the range of $200,000 or less is not something to sneeze at. In the context of the greater Purchase of Development Rights Program, it is not something that would break this deal. Mr. Hoffman stated that as Ms. Darlington mentioned to qualify for assistance, and this parcel is a prime candidate for funding assistance from the State or from others, it is necessary that a municipality designate a parcel in the Open Space Plan. To leave this parcel out of the Open Space Plan would guarantee that the Town would not be able to get funding •assistance from others for this parcel. Mr. Hoffman stated that he and others are here tonight to ask the Town of Ithaca to make a commitment to this corridor to join the City and the Finger Lakes Land Trust in trying to protect this very important greenway for years and generations to come by making a commitment to include this parcel in the plan to cover it with appropriate zoning and to take the steps as necessary to implement that. Board Member Cornell stated that Mr. Hoffman mentioned that he would like to formalize the notion that the Recreationway marks a limited development, and asked how would he propose doing that. Mr. Hoffman stated that it is almost done. Board Member Cornell asked if that would be the limit for the Conservation District. Mr. Hoffman stated that would be the logical boundary of the Conservation District to him. This is the only area that departs from the lower Recreationway. He thinks that all the other significant parcels are on a list it makes an effective limit to development. Board Member Cornell asked if the programs that the City are operating are receiving surplus money, but are there grants available. Mr. Hoffman stated that there are several New York State grants. The Finger Lakes Land Trust . are aware of other grants available to apply for. Mr. Hoffman stated that he hopes that City of Ithaca PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • would be a willing partner in this. There is sentiment that the City has done a lot already, and there is a hope that the Town would get aboard. Nancy Ramage, 964 East State Street, stated that she is the Vice -Chair of the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee. She wanted to mention that there are many people who are working for years to try and preserve this wonderful space. She is one of the daily users, and there are many people who use this daily. She happens to live in the City. and that is why she is on the City's Committee. She knows there are many people on the Recreationwav because she sees them everyday. She wanted to point out one thing that has not been mentioned, and that is that conversation has concentrated on the south side of Coddington Road. She agrees with the importance of the Sincebaugh property for that side, but she wanted to make the point for any one making use of the northeast side, which is the Slaterville Road side, of the paths and hill side views if development were to happen on the Sincebaugh property it would be a total disaster for the other side as well because people could see the south side Coddington Road side from the other side. She totally shutters to think of the destruction of the piece and beauty that would happen if that part was developed. She would like to add another important element, which from all source of other angles this property is terribly important for the preservation of green space. Guy Gerard, 104 Lake Street. stated that he will not repeat what everyone else has already said, but he would put a little different slant to it. The one thing he would like to point out, when he found • out about this particular proposal he figured that there was a concrete proposal for development. That is not the case. Right now it seems to be some type of decision on part of the staff to make sure that this parcel be reserved, and in a way be encouraging the development of that particular parcel. Mr. Frantz and he go back a few years, even though they have difference of opinions, they have a mutual relationship and a friendly relationship. He told Mr. Frantz that when this comes up the Town would be facing some uproar about it because of what it means to people in the community. Mr. Frantz knew about it because when it came, as Mr. Hoffman mentioned, through a secured easement from the City for this wonderful Recreationway. Mr. Frantz took 90 percent of the credit for this because he did very good planning, and made a wonderful job out of it. When it came to sway the council to the point where there was a lot of contention on part of the City, the main swing argument from Mr. Frantz in favor of the trail was that it would actually protect the natural setting of this area by insuring that no development would be feasible on the down side of the trail. Right from the start people were wondering why this particular parcel was singled out from being exempt from the plan. He wants everyone to understand that this is a planning issue that does reflect the will and the agreement with the people that we have. The Planners have professional minds and deal with professional people. The Planning Board represents what democracy is all about. The Planning Board is the people. Mr. Gerard stated that the question that the Planning Board should ask themselves at this point is what does the community want. The value of this corridor is without question, and they know if the parcel will be let go the whole thing will unravel. This is why there is a limit and a confine to that trail. Once one thing is let go then everything is unraveled. On the left up side of the trail there are houses, but as they go further down the trail it would not change too much. The argument given for this particular concept is itwo fold. This would allow residents from Juniper Drive to go down town without using Coddington Road. Another argument would be that the density should be allowed toward the City because this would cut down on the car traffic. Mr. Gerard stated that he is asking the Planning Board to think PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • about the people who are paying for the trail and use that area, and what would they like the Planning Board to do. He would like the Planning Board to reject the proposal. Board Member Ainslie asked if anyone has contacted Mr. Sincebaugh to see what he would like to do with his property. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Sincebaugh is in the public audience, and if he would like to make a public statement he is welcomed to. Board Member Cornell asked Mr. Gerard if he wants the Planning Board to reject the proposal or just modify the plan. Mr. Gerard stated that he would like the Planning Board to include the Sincebaugh parcel in the plan. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he would like to clarify a few things. There are details of information as far as the Recreationway is concerned. When he negotiated the permission from the City of Ithaca that if NYSEG would revoke the license for the last 1,300 feet of the Recreationway then the City would grant the To«n an easement up to Coddington Road. Many times in the discussion he mentioned the fact that the Town was acquiring the upper railroad grade with an • easement providing protection to the land below it from development because the Town would control the right of people to cross what is essentially Town property. If people included Sincebaugh in that, he made a mistake because it was always intended that what he was discussing was a section of the Recreationway that goes to Burns Road. The reason being is that the Town could not do anything because Mr. Sincebaugh owes a strip of land across the former railroad right -of -way that connects his parcel with the bottom of Juniper Drive. The Town of Ithaca owns from Juniper Drive eastward towards Burns Road, then there is a gap of 50 to 60 feet, then it is back to Coddington Road. Mr. Sincebaugh's property includes the connection up to the public right -of -way at Juniper Drive. It also includes a strip of land back almost to the public right -of -way. Board Member Cornell stated that she understands the boundaries, but asked why he is precluding it. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it appears in the statements that he has made. Board Member Cornell asked when were the road cuts granted. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the road cuts date back to the 1960's. Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that the Town has an easement granted by Mr. Sincebaugh to have the trail cross his land. Nfr. Sincebaugh owns the land, and the Town has the easement from him that precedes any acquisition of the right -of -way by the Town because the railroad Sstill owned it at that point. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that from a historical standpoint, the Sincebaugh parcel is part of a larger development that was never completed. The Town has a plat that was never filed called Russell Heights that shows a series of roads in this area. He believes that this is probably where the little segment of land was acquired either from the railroad or NYSEG as part of an overall development plan for this property. The Town does not have the same control over the Sincebaugh property as the Town has from the trail back to Burns Road. Mr. Frantz stated that he apologies for the misunderstanding that occurred. Second point, the Town of Ithaca has only an easement donated by Mr. Sincebaugh across his property. Mr. Sincebaugh does retain the underlying title to the land as part of the agreement by him to donate to the Town of Ithaca of this easement. Mr. Sincebaugh reserves the right to develop the land as allowed by zoning including as necessary the relocation of the Recreationway or crossing the Recreationway. The Town of Ithaca does not own a section of the Recreationway, the Town merely has an easement that was donated to the Town by Mr. Sincebaugh. Phyllis Baker, 411 Bostwick Road, stated that Mr. Kanter left a message on her answering machine that he would explain tonight how the land owners will be taxed for this project. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he did not say that. He left a message on her answering machine saying that the Planning Board would be happy to answer any question that she may have. Ms. Baker stated that the Plan states that taxpayers will be billed a maximum of $38.00 per average homeowner. Ms. Baker asked how would people's taxes be computed for people who own acreage. Director of Planning Kanter stated that Ms. Baker is asking how owners of large tracks of land are going to be taxed once the Plan is in place, and she was also wondering if farmers or agricultural landowners going to be taxed a different wav than other land owners. Ms. Baker stated that the question that she has been asking for a couple months, and has not been able to get the answer on, would the charge be based on the full assessment or agriculture land assessment. Ms. Baker asked how could the Town do this because there is no way the farmers could afford that. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town of Ithaca does not assess the land or determine the amount of property taxes on land because the County does that. He would answer the question by saying that they cannot answer that. It depends on whether the Town could get the County to recognize the Open Space Plan, and assess properties in a different way than they are now. The County sets the assessments on the property. The Plan itself does not have any provisions because the Town does not have any power to change the way the properties are taxed. Ms. Baker stated that it is a question that the farmers are tremendously concerned about, and she knows there are other ways of funding this. If the Town is going to assess so much per thousand, and this was figured on $100,000 or $12,000 house that bears no relationship to what their problem with this would be. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 Director of Planning Kanter stated that back to the original problem of how the Town came up with a figure of $38.00 per household to pay for different elements of the Plan. The Town provided clarification to the Planning Board in a memorandum along with suggestions for revisions to the text of the Plan. That indication is that if every single element of the Plan as proposed is implemented by the Town that would cost the average household in the Town approximately $38.00 per year. There are a lot of variables to that, and that is basically if much of the Plan is paid for based on the real property tax. As Ms. Baker mentioned there are many other ways for paying for the Plan. One of things that the Town Board would be looking at very closely. that if and once this Plan is adopted the Town Board will try its best not to increase property taxes to pay for different parts of this Plan. Instead they would look for other ways to do this. They would also look for ways of shifting things within the current budget parameters to do it. That is something the Town Board would need to look at in terms of how funding will work for the different parts of the Plan. Board Member Bell asked if there are grants the Town have in mind. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the grants would come largely for Purchase of Development Rights Program. Currently the State Bond Act has specif c-money set aside for land preservation programs that the Town is talking about especially for agricultural preservation. That Bond Act also has additional monies for natural area preservation. There are also Federal monies through the Farm Act for the same purpose of agricultural preservation. The Planning Department is • hoping, and if this can be done fairly quickly and get grant applications in, the Town could get significant amounts of money to pay for a large portion of the program. Chairperson Wilcox stated that every dollar received in grants lessens the total expenditure for the tax payers to pay. Ms. Baker stated that she finds this all disconcerting because it sounds like the people who own the Open Space that has already been controlled by the Town of Ithaca that the farmers will have to pay a disportionate share of this. If the Town manages to get all these grants and lower the costs and so forth so that the average home owners pays $10.00, she will still have to pay $00.00. It does not seem fair to her. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the $38.00 per year is the cost to an owner of a house or piece of property that is assessed at $150,000. Ms. Baker stated that there seems to be a 1,vay the Town could protect the farmers who have a business that requires large acreage and a business needed to be preserved. It sounds like the Town wants to put the farmers in bankruptcy quicker. Board Member Cornell asked. assuming that the Town does not receive any grant money, would the Bakers pay $38.00 or would it be assessed on the amount of land they own. iAssistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it depends on the value of the property holdings minus whatever exemptions they receive because they participate in the Agricultural District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 • Board Member Cornell asked if Ms. Baker would have to pay substantially more than $38.00. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he is not sure. Board Member Ainslie stated that he represents agriculture on this Planning Board, and he thinks that Ms. Baker is right. For example, his son rents properties from Ms. Hopkins, and because of the agriculture assessment her property assessment was lowered due to his son's agriculture on her land. His son has to have the income and Ms. Hopkins participates because she rented to him. It saved Ms. Hopkins $117,000, but her property is assessed above $400,000. If Mr. Frantz is saying this would be $150,000, Ms. Hopkins would be paying considerably more than one resident. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if the agricultural assessment for Ms. Hopkins property is $117,000. Board Member Ainslie stated that the agriculture assessment saved Ms. Hopkins $117,000. The reduction of the assessment in February saved her because the land is being farmed and it qualifies under the agriculture assessment. Ms. Baker is right. if Mr. Frantz is saying that this is only on $150,000 that Ms. Hopkins will not be paying just 538.00. Mr. Ainslie stated that if there is money necessary he feels that the tax payers of the Town should have a referendum to vote on this assessment. He does not feel as part of this Planning Board that he tells the Town Board to charge everyone without having a vote of the tax payers. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Plan itself would not be subject to a referendum because it is not the Plan that would be triggering this type of spending, but the establishment of a Purchase of Development Rights Program where there are specific amounts of money slotted for future acquisition of property would be subject to referendum. The Purchase of Development Rights Program would be established by a Local Law of some nature, and that would be subject to permissive referendum. years. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the figure is the maximum of $38.00 a year. Ms. Baker responded, not for her farm. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the amount would be collected for a limited number of Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the amount could be collected up to 20 years. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the figure of $38.00 per year was illustrative. and people are focusing on that figure. Obviously each tax payer would need to look at their own assessment and tax bills to determine what each tax payer will pay. The purpose of providing the $38.00 figure was to give people an idea of what the average homeowner in the Town could expect to pay if everything in • the Plan was implemented and it was done largely through the tax base. This was to give people a worse scenario of what they could be charged. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Ms. Baker stated that she thinks it is very important that the Planning Board understand that the farmers would be required to pay a disportionate share of this program. They have already- been called upon to sacrifice a lot under the Comprehensive Plan. our open space is very limited. They cannot sell their land as a farm because farming is not viable enough for anyone to want to get into this business. The farmers are to make a living and keep the taxes paid. If milk prices keep dropping, they cannot continue the operations of the farm. Ms. Baker stated that she sees a real possibly of the Baker family loosing their land because of the laws being passed by the Town of Ithaca. She does not think that should be so, and she thinks there should be some appreciation shown for what the Bakers have already gone through with the open space before. There should be a limit on how much the Bakers would need to pay for this Plan. That is one of the main real concern of hers. The other concern of hers on the issue of Development Rights, the amount that is being offered for them. She has not talked to one person who thinks it is even something to talk about. She has been told at two public meetings by a member of one of the Boards that the Town cannot offer more for those Development Rights because it was illegal. Ms. Baker stated that she came to the Town to see the law, and was told. that there was no such law on the limit of how much the Town could offer to pay for Development Rights. The Plan says $860.00, and she was told that was a legal limit. but when she wanted to see the law she was told that there was no such law. Board Member Cornell stated that there is a Municipal Purchase of Development Rights Law. • Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Law states that the amount the Town can offer is based on appraisals of the property, and that is where the figures were taken from. Those figures were estimated figures. The Town is not saying they could not offer more than $800.00 for a particular parcel, but the Town could only offer what the appraisal gave as a value of the agricultural rights of the property. Then the Town would need to base the offer on that. Board Member Cornell asked why was the figure based on the assessment of the land. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Plan is based on the appraised value of the land. Board Member Cornell asked why wasn't the figure based on the household no matter how many people are in the household or how much land is owned by that property owner. Ms. Baker stated that Ms. Cornell is talking about two different things here. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the question before the Planning Board is not what the cost per parcel will be in terms of taxes, but how much per parcel or per acre will the farmer be offered for the Purchase of Development Rights. There is some question about what that number will be. Again, the Plan shows a number because if a number is not shown someone will wonder what the number is. A number was presented to give people an idea. Board Member Ainslie asked if this would be the difference between the farm value and the development rights. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded. yes on average. NOVEMBER 18, 1997 Ms. Baker stated that be that as it may, if the Town wants farmers to jump at the chance for this they need to find another way to increase that. This is their grandchildren's future that they would be selling off, and they do not plan to do this to give to the government. Ms. Baker stated that her main concern is how they would be assessed for this payment of the Plan. She does not see anyway that it could be made equitable if the Town does not limit the number of acres that could be paid. Board Member Cornell asked why is the Town basing the figure on property taxes. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that property taxes is just one possible way of funding the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Department is not recommending that. Board Member Cornell stated that she does not like to base things on property taxes. Ms. Cornell asked if each household could pay the same amount instead of basing it on the land. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this is not an issue for the Planning Board, but an issue for the Town Board. • Ms. Baker stated that she would like the Planning Board to take her concerns under advisement. She would appreciate it. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not want the Planning Board discusses how the Town Board will decide to pay for this Plan. The Planning Board does not know what the Town Board will do. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Plan does talk about a number of different ways to fund this Plan. The Planning Department is not recommending that this Plan be done based on property taxes. The $38.00 figure could be thrown out the window because that was just an illustrated example which people are not getting the point of The Plan mentions all sorts of alternative financing such as grants, sales tax revenue, bonding, or donations. The figure of $38.00 should be amended by eliminating it from the Plan. Edward Hart, 201 Updike Road, stated that he has worked with the Land Trust and the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee. His major role as an inspector, he knows the area because he has lived here for 40 years, but he knows the entire section of the Sincebaugh property. He has traveled all the trails and maintains trails as an unofficial member of the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee. His concern is that the area is being destroyed, and it is being destroyed primarily by usage. There are too many people, not from the outside so much. There are people who park their cars and come to the • Recreationway, and use the trails and very much appreciate the trails. The problem is mostly the mountain bikers and people who leave the trails not only invading Mr. Sincebaugh's property. Mr. Sincebaugh's property has mountain bike tracks and some of the most beautiful trails go through his PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16. 1997 • property or start at his property and goes to the reservoir. He went on an expedition with the Town and representatives of the City looking at how badly damaged the trails are getting. There is no way to really stop this or police the area because there are so many ways to get into the Recreationway or into the Six Mile Creek area. If there were more people there and more houses and development there would be more destruction of the area. In terms of the destruction trails that used to be a few feet wide are now twice or three times as wide. In terms of the destruction, things need to be done to limit this. If there are more houses and more development in this area there will be more destruction. Elizabeth Disson, 215 First Street. stated that she really appreciates the Town's work in creating the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation. and Open Space Plan, and the interest in preserving undeveloped natural areas. She recently discovered the South Hill Recreationway, and she has been living here for approximately 11 years. She recently started going there, and she wants to go there to experience a walk in the country without going all the way out the country. She finds it a beautiful natural spot that she thinks she would be hurt by development on the Sincebaugh property. She is asking the Planning Board to include the Sincebaugh property in the Open Space Plan preferably by including it in the Purchase of Development Rights. Board Member Ainslie stated that he is very disturbed about what Mr. Hart said, and he happens to know a little about it second hand. The senior water engineer lives by him, and he just retired. He was in that area all the time, and unfortunately whether people like it or not students were unbelievably destructive of that property. Swimming when they shouldn't, and he agrees with them. If the Town is going to have this plan. the area needs to be policed. He does not think 25 more homes would change the attitude of the students that come in the other part of it. He does not want to see any more homes if it is not necessary. There is a terrible problem with dirt bikes and people do not seem to appreciate real estate, and he is very concerned about it. Board Member Cornell stated that the Town could continue educating trail users, and it is not just Ithaca it is every where. People will learn hopefully. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the PI, with many suggested recommendations on the of March 10, 1997. The Sincebaugh property Chairperson Wilcox asked if anyone has any Frantz other than the Sincebaugh property. inning Board was supplied with a proposed resolution part of Mr. Frantz in terms of changes to the Draft Plan is but one of the issues that Mr. Frantz has addressed. comments on the recommendations put forth by Mr. Board Member Bell asked if the Planning Board would go through issue by issue on the comments or what. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the proposed resolution asks the Planning Board to adopt the draft Plan from March 10, 1997 and the recommendations from Mr. Frantz. The Planning Board can change the recommendations, or the Planning Board does not have to make any recommendation tonight and put this off until next time. The Planning Board could make a recommendation to the • Town Board based on public input received so far that the Planning Board believes that the Sincebaugh property should be added to the Purchase of Development Rights Program or the Conservation Zoning. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 The Planning Board could make those recommendations to the proposed resolution to ass onto the Planning p P P Town Board. Chairperson Wilcox stated that, for the record, he lives on Juniper Drive within 200 yards of the Sincebaugh property. Board Member Cornell asked if there are portions of the Sincebaugh property that are on the other side of the buildable side of the South Hill Recreationway. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the former railroad bed is now the South Hill Recreationway. Mr. Frantz pointed out on an enlarged map where the Sincebaugh parcel is located. Mr. Frantz stated that the Conservation District covers the lower portion of the parcel towards the Six Mile Creek Gorge. Alex Murdock, 102 Treva Avenue, asked if the uphill portion of the South Hill Recreationway that connects the lower to the upper, is that the northern boundary of the Sincebaugh land. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes. If people are on the lower Recreationway going east from Hudson Street and start curving up the hill that does run along the northern boundary of the IS Sincebaugh property. Mr. Murdock asked if Mr. Sincebaugh owns the property that connects Kendall to his property. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that to reiterate what was in the memorandum from Mr. Frantz on November 7, 1997, describing that the Planning Staffs recommendation was not to include the Sincebaugh property in the Purchase of Development Rights program. That was basically for the Planning Committee, the Planning Board, and the Town Board to adopt the Conservation Zones for additional development potential that could remain on the Sincebaugh property if it were done in a way that would concentrate the development away from the rim of the gorge area. Based on topography and looking at how a development may go on the western most part of the property that is how the Conservation Zone line was drawn. Board Member Cornell asked if there was any other property that resembles the Sincebaugh property in the way it is broken up in the zones in terms of the relationship to the South Hill Recreationway and the Conservation Districts versus buildable. Director of Planning Kanter responded, no. The Sincebaugh parcel was unique in that sense. There were some other land locked parcels, which are in fact addressed in different ways. They are not land locked but they were entirely below- the railroad right -of -way close to the watershed land. There • were three parcels that were kept in R -30 and Zoned Conservation. Board Member Cornell asked if that was unusual to split this tip. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 Director of Planning Kanter stated that it was not unusual. The Planning Staff did look at other properties for the characteristics for the zoning. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that most of the Sincebaugh property in the 1960's was essentially old field covered with brush. The wooded portion marks the boundary of the rim of the gorge. As far as Purchase of Development Rights or Conservation Zoning, the staff looked at the disturbed condition of it. Given the quality of the vegitation, it was the opinion of the staff that there could be housing in this area that would not be visible from down in the gorge. It is above and away from the rim, and there is enough vegetated cover to at least block the view of the housing along the railroad grade and in the gorge area. Mr. Frantz stated that another planning concern, because this plan is nested within an overall Comprehensive Planning effort for the Town of Ithaca it includes other issues. Open space is one thing that the staff is addressing, and transportation is another. There is an intersection near the Sincebaugh property that has sight distance problems. This is not a good intersection, and it has been a long standing Town desire to complete the link. Not so much to give people a quicker way to get down town because it would be a longer way, but it would give an option other than the intersection. In the coming years. the Town could expect this intersection to deteriorate in terms of safety because of increasing traffic on Coddington Road. Public transit is available to a certain point. There are a lot of trade offs going on with the recommendations being discussed. Priorities is another question. The Town is talking about 3,600 acres of land for Purchase of Development Rights Program, and he would suggest at least 15 to 20 more parcels as being far more • significant from environmental standpoint than the Sincebaugh property that should also be protected under the Purchase of Development Rights Program. The problem is that the Town has limited resources. The City of Ithaca has invested of a lot of money in buying land in the Six Mile Creek Valley. The Town has committed at this point. without the Sincebaugh property, $3.8 million for the Purchase of Development Rights. Still; there is another 500 to 1,000 acres that could easily in his opinion could be added to the Purchase of Development Rights Program. Mr. Murdock stated that he is trying to identify the trail. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the trail has deteriorated some. The trail is heavily matted down through the trees. The trail was rough graded out. Mr. Murdock asked if the trail was rough graded out for the purpose of development. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded. yes. Mr. Murdock asked how long ago was that. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded. 1968 or 1969. Mr. Murdock asked if this was the first time for discussion of developing this similar to what ofMr. Sincebaugh wants to now. Chairperson Wilcox responded, no. there are no plans for Mr. Sincebaugh's property. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he does not know, from a historical standpoint, when they started to review subdivisions. The Town has plats of this area that date back to the 1950's, that there are no records of the Town reviewing. In the case of this particular parcel, there are no records of it actually being filed as a subdivision. Mr. Murdock asked if no one knows why that was originally graded. Board Member Cornell responded, no, because that was part of another subdivision. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it was graded for possible development. Mr. Murdock asked why did they stop the development. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he heard they ran out of money for the development. Mr. Hoffman stated that, fortunately, they do not have to follow through on every idea from 1968. Some of those ideas probably were not good ideas. He does think that is justification for allowing something under changed conditions now-. However, it is true that some damage to the Sincebaugh property occurred 30 or more years ago. He thinks it is important not to look just at that parcel in isolation. The value of that parcel lies in it's context. It is part of a greenway, it is part of a broad unique corridor going from the urban area well into the country side. Despite the fact that some destruction occurred 30 or more years ago, he would argue more value than to isolate a parcel that may have been less disturbed because of it's location and how it fits into the puzzle of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. In terms of how many people in the urban and the suburban areas enjoy that parcel he thinks the Town would be too hard pressed to find many other parcels in the Town that so many people get to appreciate. In terms of comparing the Sincebaugh property to the islands of the City's 30 parcels along Burns Road, there is simply no comparison. Those are very small parcels, and they all front on Burns Road. They are not landlocked parcels distant from roads. They are also no where near the size of the Sincebaugh property. He does not think they are comparable, although they are technically within the corridor. They are not in any situation like this parcel. Mr. Hart stated that he thinks the real problem with the Sincebaugh is right in the middle. All the major beauty trails go through, near, around, and reservoir. In some way the trails go through the Sincebaugh property. a property outside Coddington Road or some other part of the County. disaster in terms of that entire area for ecological beauty. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Mr. Hart is right. Mr. Wesley stated that he would like to speak in protection of the Sincebaugh parcel from development in t strategic part of the Six Mile Creek corridor. It certainly Recreationway. He sees making to traffic crossings on the the character in the use of it. He sees greenways of various property is that the property or between the railroad bed It is not the same as having He feels that this is a real favor of including some kind of plan for he Open Space Plan. He thinks it is such a is along the most heavily used part of the Recreationway. He thinks it would change sorts and paths that have been becoming PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 25 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 more important for non -motor transportation for people, not just recreationally, but for commuting to work and such. He sees that as an issue of tremendously increasing importance. He knows that Mr. Frantz has pointed out that a large part of the Sincebaugh property is not with pristine vegetation, that it has been cleared presumably for agriculture at some point in the past. He would argue that the disturbed part makes a good buffer to the more natural part of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. Board Member Cornell stated that Mr. Wesley mentioned that the Sincebaugh property acts as a buffer for the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. Ms. Cornell asked if he meant the watershed area. Mr. Wesley responded, yes. Board Member Cornell stated that along the western side of the Six Mile Creek area there is high congestion around Juniper Drive. Ms. Cornell asked if the Sincebaugh property acts as an effective buffer and filters for run offs that comes off in those in areas. Mr. Wesley responded, yes. Board Member Cornell asked if there is anything unusual about the property other than serving as a buffer. 0 Mr. Wesley stated that he wishes he knew- the property better. He has not spent a lot of time in that area. Board Member Cornell stated that she thinks the Planning Board should make a site visit to the Sincebaugh property. Mr. Wesley stated that he has seen old records of rare plant occurrences in the Six Mile Creek Gorge, but he has never visited the site. Board Member Cornell asked if this would act as an effective buffer. Mr. Wesley responded, yes. Mr. Hart stated that there was not much activity in the area until the Recreationway opened. Mr. Frantz has tried very hard to protect the gorge from the Recreationway. Kara Hagedom. 327 West King Road, stated that she is speaking as a resident of the Town of Ithaca, but she is the Naturalist, Recreation users. and Educator at the Buttermilk Falls State Park for the past eight years. She was ecstatic at the extension of Conservation Zoning around Buttermilk Falls State Park. Ms. Hagedorn asked how the land is zoned east of Buttermilk Falls "State Park towards Route 96B in areas that do not have Conservation Zoning. fe PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that current status is they are still commercial districts at the corner of Danby Road and King Road. Most of the other land would be R -15 or Multiple Residence. Ms. Hagedorn asked if it would be residential behind the Buttermilk Falls State Park. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there will be MR circling around the Commercial Zone. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Leonardo property will remain R -15 down to the Special Land Use District that encompasses Latourelle. The Conservation District Zoning goes to the Latourelle. From Latourelle southward it would remain R -30. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the staff did not make the recommendations as exact survey lines. Any of the Conservation Zones enacted will need to be looked at much closer in terms of where they would be located. Ms. Hagedorn asked if 50 units could be developed in the space between the Conservation Zoning and Route 96B. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that a portion of the Buttermilk Valley Estate Project will . be still be in R -30. Board Member Ainslie asked how much of the Buttermilk Valley Estate Project has been done. Chairperson Wilcox stated that project has not started yet. Ms. Hagedorn stated that it is very important that the Town use this Plan to be proactive, and try to discourage the kind of dense development that the Town has seen. If the extension of Conservation Zoning is done, she would greatly support that. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in addition to the Conservation District Zoning, the staff is proposing that the rear of the Commercial District (corner of Danby and East King Roads) that a portion be put towards the Purchase of Development Rights Program or Conservation District Zoning. The same for the Leonardo property. The staff tried to extend the buffer to provide a great measure of protection to the Buttermilk Falls State Park. Ms. Hagedorn asked what about MR zoning behind the Commercial District, could 100 units be located there. Director of Planning Kanter stated that under the current zoning it could more than that, such as 200 units. Ms. Hagedorn asked what is the reasoning for not extending Conservation Zoning all the way to the Commercial District and protecting the corner from that type of development. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16. 1997 • Director of Planning Kanter stated that there needs to be some kind of balance by leaving remaining development potential in the desirable park for the Town for development in that area. Ms. Hagedom stated kinds of problems that was cutting through the park to th that she sees if it is proposed She thinks that the Planning happening. that the potential of having 200 families on that corner will create the discussed for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Project where people are e park road and potential vandalism of the pavilion there. It is something by a developer to come in, there will be people here speaking out against. Board should be more proactive in protecting that kind of thing from Chairperson Wilcox asked if there was anyone else from the public wishing to be heard. No one spoke. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing, and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the revisions from Mr. Frantz (memorandum to the Planning Board dated November 7, .1997), he mentions revisions to the land area to be protected east of Buttermilk Falls State Park. Ms. Hoffmann asked if those revisions are reflected on the enlarged map. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the red dots indicated on the enlarged map parcels originally recommended for inclusion in the Purchase of Development Rights Program. The solid red outlined areas on the enlarged map shows the memorandum revisions that would be added for to the Purchase of Development Rights Program. The broad cross hatched green areas on the enlarged map shows areas being recommended for Conservation Zoning. The condensed crossed hatched areas on the outskirts of those additional areas are now being proposed for Conservation Zoning per the memorandum. The enlarged map reflects the current picture combined with the original draft and the memorandum with the proposed revisions. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the yellow on the enlarged map shows the responses to the Conservation Board's recommendation that the staff highlight those areas of the Town that are already protected in some manner such as State Parks. Board Member Cornell stated that she would likes the revisions to the Open Space Plan, and would like to give more protection to the Sincebaugh property without limiting Mr. Sincebaugh's use of his property. That is very similar to the Buttermilk Valley Estates Project when reviewing it, and unfortunately the Board did not notice that while deciding that approval. She thinks the Board should also consider an alternative to funding for the Purchase of Development Rights Program such as the wording in the suggested revisions. There is ample reason for including the Sincebaugh property in the Purchase of Development Rights Program, and maybe moving the Conservation Zone. Chairperson Wilcox asked Ms. Cornell if she would be in favor of adding the Sincebaugh property to the Purchase of Development Rights Program and extending Conservation District Zoning all the way to the Recreationway. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 28 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 Board Member Cornell responded, not without seeing the property first. That is where she has strong inclinations. Board Member Ainslie stated that he received phone calls just like everyone else, and the words Purchase of Development Rights came up. He would like to know the mechanics and time schedules when these funds would be available. Director of Planning Kanter stated that timing is part of the program. It is likely during the initial two to three years of not seeing too many acquisitions because the Town would be building the funds. If the Town was relying on grant monies to start the program going it may be approximately one year to make out applications, and at some time set up some funding mechanisms. The staff s recommendation was to look at the sales tax revenue first before looking at property taxes. Board Member Ainslie stated that Monika Roth will be holding a meeting on November 22 about Purchase of Development Rights. This is discouraging the farmers. That does not really work out well for the farmers. Everything seems to be contingent on the Purchase of Development Rights. Board Member Cornell asked if the Town has properties listed on the Purchase of Development Rights Program, would that enable the Town to go after grants for a particular property they are interested in. In fact that a property would be on that list, who knows if in 20 years the Town could is buy it, but it does enable the property to become available for grant money. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it is as concrete as it can get at this point. If the farmers want to participate in the program, then the Town could look at the schedule to do it sooner. The farmers will be getting the bulk of this money in the Purchase of Development Rights Program. Attorney Barney stated that the Town does not have Purchase of Development Rights legislation because there is no authority for the Town Board to act. This is part of the process the Town Board needs to take. The Town Board plans to put some money aside in the budget to help pay for some of the Open Space Plan. Board Member Cornell stated that Mr. Frantz has mentioned that there are some grants out there to help out in the Purchase of Development Rights Program. Condition 1 c in the memorandum of revisions should be revised to clarify it. The Board needs to look at it and examine it more. Board Member Ainslie asked what would the $38.00 do if there is Purchase of Development Rights Program. Attorney Barney stated that the money would help support the Purchase of Development Rights Program and all the aspects of the Open Space Plan. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that $22.50 would be for the Purchase of Development Rights Program out of the $38.00. • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 29 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 Board Member Ainslie stated that some of these parks have not been developed yet, and asked how did the staff come up with these figures. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the staff has enough imperial data in the Planning Department, and the staff has drafted the designs of the parks. The staff came up with basic programs for each of the parks and a basic design for what is going to be in that park, and then attached price tags to each of those items. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has heard enough things tonight and have seen enough comments from the last meeting to make her feel that she would like to look into some more about what the Town could do with the Sincebaugh property. She understands the background, and she understands the problems, but she also thinks there are other opportunities for doing great things here. The Town needs to look into these more. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to propose that the Planning Board continue another time to do that. Chairperson Wilcox asked what would the Planning Board gain by coming back in two weeks. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Planning Board would have a chance to look at the property. Director of Planning Kanter asked how many Planning Board members are interested in adding the Sincebaugh property to the Open Space Plan. Four out of seven members responded yes. Board Member Ainslie asked what does Mr. Sincebaugh want to do with his property. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the owner has left the meeting. Board Member Ainslie stated that if he had a piece of property, and the Town decided what they wanted to do with it, the Town would need to contact him to see if he would be agreeable to the Town's idea. Mr. Sincebaugh still owns the property, and has given a right -of -way. Mr. Ainslie asked if Mr. Sincebaugh is the one that the Town should be asking. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the To«-n is not treating him any differently than all the other land owners. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Purchase of Development Rights Program would be an offer to Mr. Sincebaugh to participate. It %would be strictly voluntary. Board Member Ainslie asked if Mr reaction. Sincebaugh has come to the Town with a favorable • Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded. no. He has never been favorable or not favorable. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 30 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Town did not ask every property owner of the parcels that the Town has looked at, and suggested Purchase of Development Rights Program. The Town believes that these are properties that are worth preserving in some way. Board Member Ainslie stated that he would still like to know what Mr. Sincebaugh wants to do. If Mr. Sincebaugh did not want to go along with this how could the Town purchase his property. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that his assumption as a Land Use Planner, was that Mr. Sincebaugh purchased the land for development purposes. Attorney Barney stated that when the Town negotiated with Mr. Sincebaugh to receive an easement for the trail, one of the crucial items from his standpoint was to be able to maintain the flexibility. That is why that easement, unlike most of the others the Town has, allows the trails to be moved within the 15 years at the Town's expense and after 15 years at Mr. Sincebaugh's expense. That was a condition that was imposed in order to get the trail. In the way the trail was located was along the road bed because Mr. Sincebaugh thought he would put the road, but he was not sure and he never formed a plan. At the time the Town was talking with Mr. Sincebaugh he was thinking about developing the land. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that is of development he would be allowed to do on the Town rezone all of it to Conservation District property, and offer Mr. Sincebaugh the oppoi Development Rights Program. through zoning the Town could control the amount property. That is why people are proposing that the to reduce potential development intensity on the -tunity to participate in the Town's Purchase of Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are a number of properties that the Board has not visited yet. This is only a plan in the sense to set up the possibility of future things to happen. The staff has made recommendations, but the staff does not have any strong feeling one way or the other. If the Planning Board as a policy would like to recommend to the Town Board to include Sincebaugh in the Plan for the purpose of Conservation Zoning or Purchase of Development Rights Program, the staff does not have a problem with that. The Planning Board does not need to find out any more information about the Sincebaugh property any more than the Board does about any other properties that were added to the Plan. It is a matter of how much comfort level people have with the Plan. Mr. Kanter stated that his feeling is, if the Planning Board wants to recommend to the Town Board to add Sincebaugh to the Plan, that the Planning Board does it with an understanding that it would increase the cost of the overall program and that it wvill require prioritizing properties as all the other properties will have been done. It would simply be adding another property to the list. There is no reason this property cannot be included for future reference. The suggestion is, the Planning Board could look at any of these properties, but he would strongly recommend that they have been looking at this plan so long now that it does not make sense to hesitate on the basis of whether one property should be added or not. It is a plan that it is just meant to be a plan, and will be amended in the future. The Planning Board could add the Sincebaugh property, and if for some reason it was not a good idea later on that property could be deleted. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 31 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Board Member Cornell asked what happens if the Planning Board adds the recommendation and accepted it in the resolution. Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would go to the Town Board to consider adoption of the Plan. Board Member Cornell asked if the Town Board adopts the Plan would there be numbers in the Plan stating what would be the tax payers amount to pay for the Plan. Director of Planning Kanter stated that is totally the Town Board's decision. The Town Board is the decision making Board on how things are financed. Board Member Cornell stated that she wants to know what level of decision making would the Planning Board need to make before passing this on to the Town Board. Director of Planning Kanter stated that if the Planning Board has specific things they want to recommend to the Town Board in the terms of the way things will be financed, then a statement should be made. In the Plan, it was set up in a way to show- the options. It does not say it needs.to be done a certain way, but it shows a variety of things the Town Board could do once the Plan is adopted. 0 Board Member Cornell asked if there needs to be prioritized list. Director of Planning Kanter stated that is something the Town Board would need to decide on. The Planning Board could send the recommended plan to the Town Board with a prioritized list. That is something this Board would need to decide. In terms of Park developments the priorities cannot be preset because that depends on how things are developed in the Town. The Purchase of Development Rights Program definitely needs priorities set, and once this plan is adopted by the Town Board then there would be other mechanisms started on how to implement the Program. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Kanter mentioned that the Plan has been looked at for a long time, which is true, but these additional comments about the Sincebaugh property is something that this Board has heard recently. She thought that the Planning Board might want to look at the Sincebaugh property more before deciding. Board Member Cornell stated that she would only recommend visiting the property if the Planning Board Members could not decide without further information. Board Member Bell stated that he is willing to vote on the Sincebaugh property tonight, but if he visited the site on a guided tour with someone who knows the property, he might be willing to vote to have the Conservation District line in a slightly different place. He is very familiar with the other side of the gorge, and he lives on the other side of the gorge. The Sincebaugh property could be seen from the top of the cliffs, and it does effect him personally, but he has not walked on this parcel. He • has heard a lot tonight and received a lot of details about the property. Mr. Bell stated that condition lc in the revision memorandum would reflect what staff had said in speaking, but not in writing here. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 32 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • That would be to add a few more phrases at the end of the proposed change. Condition lc is in regards to the $38.00, which states ''if all aspects of the Plan are fully implemented" was added to the previous wording. It would also make it more clear and more reflective of what everyone's intention was by adding "if no State or Federally grants are received or if no sales tax money is not used.'' Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that is not true. The $38.00 deals with the increase in property taxes, and it is based on the proposal to fund the part of the Purchase of Development Rights Program with sales tax revenue with a certain anticipation that the Town would be getting grant funding for at least the development of the parks and bike ways. The staff said in terms of the property tax they expect this Plan to cost the tax payers an additional $38.00 per year. Board Member Bell asked if that is already factored in. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes, for grants and sales tax revenues going towards the Plan. The $38.00 per year over 20 years works out to $3.7 million. Board Member Bell stated that he did not think he was proposing something different, he thought he was proposing a way to say what the staff has been saying. Attorney Barney would not be $38.00, but Assistant Town homeowner and what it sentence be deleted from asked if this Plan was fully funded and funded solely out of tax revenues, it more like $85.00. Planner Frantz responded, yes. The idea was to focus on the average vould mean to their property taxes. Mr. Frantz stated that he recommends that the Plan. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he agrees because it is just causing confusion for everyone. Board Member Cornell stated that people are still going to wonder how much this Plan will cost them. Board Member Ainslie stated that the staff had a real problem with Ms. Baker because they used a figure of $150,000, and when she asked the staff what she would be charged Mr. Frantz did not have a figure. Attorney Barney stated that if the Board is going to use anything, it should be expressed "x number of dollars per $100,000 of assessed value." Anyone could get their own assessed value and get a approximation of what they would be charged. MOTION made by Candace Cornell, seconded by Gregory Bell: • WHEREAS: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 33 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 • 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has prepared a draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, dated March 10, 1997, and an Executive Summary of the Plan, dated June 9, 1997, and 2. Said plan outlines a series of suggested policies and recommendations for action with regard to the provision of public park and recreation facilities in the Town of Ithaca over the next two decades, and further, suggested policies and recommendations for action with regard to protecting agriculturally and environmentally significant open space resources within the Town of Ithaca, and 3. The Town Board has referred said draft Park. Recreation, and Open Space Plan to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation with regard to adoption of said plan, and 4. The Planning Board, on October 7, 1997, has reviewed the summaries of four public informational meetings held concerning said plan in June and July of 1997, and written comments regarding said plan received by the Planning Department, and 5. The Planning Board, on October 7, 1997, has held a public hearing on said draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, and 6. The Planning Board requested that Planning Staff consider certain revisions to the draft Plan 0 that has been suggested at the October 7, 1997 hearing, and 7. Planning Staff has prepared a memorandum to the Planning Board, dated November 7, 1997, outlining suggested revisions to the March 10. 1997 draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, and 8. The Planning Board, on November 18, 1997. has held a second public hearing to consider the draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. dated March 10, 1997, along with the suggested revisions to the draft Plan as outlined in the Planning Department memorandum dated November 1, 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED• That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town Board that it adopt the draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, dated March 10. 1997, with the following suggested modifications to said Plan: a. Incorporation of the revisions to the draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan as outlined in the memorandum from the Planning Department to the Planning Board, dated November 7. 1997. Board Member Cornell stated that she would like to include another condition "the Sincebaugh property be included in both the Purchase of Development Rights Program, and the Conservation District Zoning to the proximity of the water supply- and the water shed to the City of Ithaca." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 34 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 0 Chairperson Wilcox stated that another condition should be added to say "that the proposed cost be expressed as dollars per $100.000 assessed value." Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he would revise condition lc in the revision memorandum. Board Member Cornell stated that the Planning Board should consider basing the cost not solely on property taxes. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board needs to decide whether they want the statement to be added or not. This was to give the people an idea if there were no other finding available that this is what the cost will be. Board Member Bell stated that he would like to add to Ms. Cornell's condition by adding "proximity to the reservoir, linkage between elements of the preserve and the change of character of the Recreationway." J Director of Planning Kanter stated that this is the Planning Board's recommendation is to add this to the draft Plan for the following reasons as Mr. Bell stated. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the reasons that have been given is that the Sincebaugh property is in close proximity to the reservoir. It is important to open space, and it part of an integrated network of open space. It is to prevent impacts to the South Hill Recreationway, which could happen due to the development of the Sincebaugh property. Board Member Bell stated that he would like to also add that the Town should protect public investments which have already been made and preserved. Board Member Ainslie stated that he has to reflect on what Ms. Baker said. If the Town puts this on percent per 1,000 then the person with acreage will pay more than the person who just owns a house. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Ainslie what he would like the Planning Board to say to the Town Board. Board Member Cornell stated that the Town should find a more equitable way to get the money. Board Member Ainslie stated that farmers take care of properties. and he does not see why they have to pay for someone else who has just a house and nothing else to do. If this is going to be based on per 1,000, that would not be equitable. He is not sure how to change this. . Director of Planning Kanter stated that it is not the Park and Open Space Plan, it is just the way the taxes are assessed. For example, school taxes are based on property taxes. Mr. Kanter stated that 0 • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 35 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 the Planning Board might want to consider another condition that indicates the Planning Board's desire to try and minimize impacts on real estate taxes. Mr. Kanter stated that Supervisor Valentino has already said she would not want the taxes to go up for people in order to fund this Plan. Board Member Ainslie stated that this is 1,vhat people are talking about. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board should add another FURTHER RESOLVE, that the Planning Board recommends the Town Board implement the Plan by using funding sources other than the real estate taxes." Board Member Bell stated that he would like to see this Plan list the widest range if possible of other funding sources other than property taxes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Plan already does. Board Member Cornell stated that the Plan already says that all other funding sources are exhausted and all parts of the Plan are implemented. Board Member Hoffmann pointed out in the draft Plan on Pages 59 and 63 to add the words and scenic ", and asked them to be added to the proposed resolution. There being no further discussion. Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #5.) Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the public hearing on the draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan at 11:20 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 7,1997: The Minutes were not available for approval. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 21,1997: The Minutes were not available for approval 0 AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 36 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 APPROVED - DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Chairperson Wilcox stated that there will not be a December 2, 1997 Planning Board Meeting, so therefore the next meeting will be held on December 16, 1997. --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Chairperson Wilcox stated that Ms. Cornell volunteered to be on the interview committee along with himself and two members of the Town Board. Two members of the Planning Board terms are up at the end of this year, plus there is one vacancy that will be advertised in the newspaper. - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - The Planning Board had a brief discussion about the Agriculture Committee. - ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - ------- Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Ithacare has contacted the Town, and they are ready to build their trail system. He and Mr. Kanter have walked the area. One of the conditions of the Site Plan Approval was the approval of the final location of the trails, and Ithacare would like the Planning Staff to visit the site for the trail system. If anyone is interested in the site visit, please contact the Planning Department for details. - ------------- ---- --- - ------------ -------------- ----------- ---------- The Planning Board briefly discussed the New York State Association of Towns Meeting. Ms. Cornell stated that she was interested in attending the February 1998 meeting. If anyone else is interested in attending this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk, Joan Lent Noteboom. - ------- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - The Planning Board discussed the Purchase of Development Rights Program meeting that is . scheduled for November 22, 1997 at Cooperative Extension. ----- - --- ---------------------- - ----- - ------- ----------------- ------- The Planning Board discussed the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) with Ithaca College and the Town of Ithaca. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the November 18, 1997, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Prepared by: Deborah Kelley, Keyboard Specialist /Minutes Recorder Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary for the • Town of Ithaca Planning Board • • • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca. New York 14850 Tuesday. November 18. 1997 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of an observatory at the Ithaca College campus near the top of South Hill on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 42 -1 -13.1 and 41 -1 -30.2, located off of Danby Road /Rt. 96B, approximately 300 feet south of the existing water tower. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf. Agent. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Declaration of Intent for Planning Board to assume Lead Agency status pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act in regard to the proposed Mecklenburg Heights development to consist of 56 apartment units in seven buildings to be located on a 9.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1- 13.12, totalling 95 +/-acres. The site is located on Mecklenburg Road, adjacent to the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca boundary, R -15 Residence District. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the proposed housing site from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. The proposed project will also,require Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval by the Planning • Board. Anthony Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Realty, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the Draft Town of Ithaca Park. Recreation and Open Space Plan (March 10, 1997), with suggested revisions prepared by Town of Ithaca Planning staff as a follow -up to October 7, 1997 Public Hearing. [Copies of the complete Draft Plan or an Executive Summary of the Draft Plan, as well as a summary of suggested revisions to the Draft Plan, are available at the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, 126 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.] 5. Approval of Minutes: October 7, 1997 (in packet) October 21, 1997 (in packet) 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter; AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. 0 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) • • • The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, November 12, 1997 anu ak.,,......-__ re x >f :r 0 r- d t, interested in running for this Position (Commissioner) must have their letter of intent in the office of the Secretary of the Board of Fire Commis- sioners, 80 Ridge Road, Lan- sing, NY 14882 by 5 PM, November 19, 1997. Howard Cahalan Secretary Lansing Board of Fire Commissioners November 11, 12, 1997 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, Nov. 18, 1997 By direction of 'the Chairperson 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, November 18, 1997, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the followingg �matter: 8:30 P.M. Continuation of Consideration of a Rec- ommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the Draft Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (March 10, 1997), with suggested revisions prepared by Town of Ithaca Planning staff as a follow -up to Octo- ber 7, 1997 Public Hearing (Copies of the complete Draft I PPlan or an Executive Sum- mory of the Draft Plan, as well as a summary of sug- gested revisions to the Draft Plan, are available at the ' Town of Ithaca Planning Department, 126 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.) Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear n all persons in support of such e matter or objections thereto. Y Persons may appear by !r agent or in person. Individuals with visual impair - n ments, hearing impairments Y or other special needs, will if be provided with assistance s as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance F must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP 3 Director of Planning 273 -1747 f November 12, 1997 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, Nov. 18, 1997 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the followingg matter: 8:30 P.M. Continuation of Consideration of a Rec. ommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the Draft Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (March 10, 1997), with suggested revisions prepared by Town of Ithaca Planning staff as a follow -up to Octo- ber 7, 1 997 Public Hearin gg (Copies of the complete Dratt Plan or an Executive Sum mary of the Draft Plan, as well as a summary of sugg• Basted revisions to the Drak Plan, are available at the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, 126 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.) Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impair- ments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning November 12, 19973 -1747 • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, November 18, 1997 By direction of the Chairperson 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, November 18, 1997, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 8:30 P.M. Continuation of Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the Draft Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (March 10, 1997), with suggested revisions prepared by Town of Ithaca Planning staff as a follow -up to October 7, 1997 Public Hearing. [Copies of the complete Draft Plan or an Executive Summary of the Draft Plan, as well as a summary of suggested revisions to the Draft Plan, are available at the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, • 126 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.] Said Planning Board will at said time such matter or objections thereto. Individuals with visual impairments, will be provided with assistance as assistance must make such a request ni public hearing. and said place hear Persons may appear hearing impairments necessary, upon rep Dt less than 48 hours Dated: Friday, November 10, 1997 Publish: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 • all persons in support of by agent or in person. or other special needs, Iuest. Persons desiring prior to the time of the Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 • r� 0 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Karen McGuire sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street. Ithaca. New York. on Tuesday. November 18 1997 commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board. Front Entrance of Town Hall. Date of Posting Date of Publication November 10.1997 November 12.1997 r, McGuire, Secretary Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this /:� th day of 1997. J� Notary Public, S1df6VNbWYbAa Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Cou y �v Commission Expires AOe • P-.� ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Draft Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan Recommendation to Town Board Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 18, 1997 MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Gregory Bell. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has prepared a draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, dated March 10. 1997, and an Executive Summary of the Plan, dated June 9, 1997, and 2. Said plan outlines a series of suggested policies and recommendations for action with regard to the provision of public park and recreation facilities in the Town of Ithaca over the next two decades, and further, suggested policies and recommendations for action with regard to protecting agriculturally and environmentally significant open space resources within the Town of Ithaca. and 3. The Town Board has referred said draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation with regard to adoption of said plan, and 4. The Planning Board, on October 7, 1997 has reviewed the summaries of four public informational meetings held concerning said plan in June and July of 1997, and written comments regarding said plan received by the Planning Department, and 5. The Planning Board, on October 7. 1997 has held a public hearing on said draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and 6. The Planning Board requested that Planning staff consider certain revisions to the draft Plan that had been suggested at the October 7, 1997 hearing, and 7. Planning staff has prepared a memorandum to the Planning Board, dated November 7, 1997, outlining suggested revisions to the March 10, 1997 draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and 8. The Planning Board, on November 18. 1997, has held a second public hearing to consider the draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, dated March 10, 1997, along with the suggested revisions to the draft Plan as outlined in the Planning Department memorandum dated November 7. 1997. • • 17 ADOPTED RESOLUTION; Draft Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan Recommendation to Town Board Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 18,1997 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town Board that it adopt the draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, dated March 10, 1997, with the following suggested modifications to said Plan: a. Incorporation of the revisions to the draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan as outlined in the memorandum from the Planning Department to the Planning Board, dated November 7, 1997, modified (i) to add the Sincebaugh property (Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -13) for inclusion in the PDR program: (ii) to enlarge the Conservation District to include all of the Sincebaugh property; (iii) by changing the language in Section 1(c) of the memo regarding the total cost of the Plan, to express the cost in terms of assessed value, to delete the reference to "increased" property taxes, and to clarify the figures; and (iv) by adding references to "Scenic Views" on pages 59 and 63 of the Plan as recommended by Ms. Hoffmann, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board finds that: 1. The Sincebaugh parcel is in close proximity to the Six Mile Creek and Reservoir making it important to include it as a buffer for protection of the Creek and Reservoir, 2. The parcel is important to the maintenance of the character of the South Hill Recreation Way, a portion of which traverses the Sincebaugh parcel. 3. The parcel is an important link to ensure the preservation of an integrated open space network in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, and 2 • • • ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Draft Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan Recommendation to Town Board Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 18, 1997 4. Preservation of the parcel will help to ensure the protection of public investments that have already been made on the South Hill Recreation Way- and in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommends that the Town Board in implementing the Plan use, as much as possible, funding sources other than real property taxes, such as those identified in the Plan. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell. Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca. 3 Mary Bryant, Oministrative ecretary A60.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION Mecklenburg Heights "� • Ilk. Lead Agency Designation Mecklenburg Road (Tax Parcel No.27-1-13.12) Planning Board,November 18, 1997 Motion by Robert Kenerson,seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. Conifer Realty Corporation has proposed a rezoning, site plan approval, and subdivision approval for 56 +/- rental apartment units on a 9.12+/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tar Parcel No. 27-1-13.12,totalling 95 +/- acres in size, located on Mecklenburg Road adjacent to the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca boundary, R-15 Residence District, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated September 8, 1997, has referred the petition to rezone the above-referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and has authorized and requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board act as lead agency for environmental review of the proposed rezoning, and 3. The proposed rezoning, site plan approval, and subdivision approval are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and 4. A Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part I, has been submitted by the applicant for the above- described actions, along with other application materials, and sj. A letter,dated November 6, 1997, was sent by the Planning Department to involved and interested agencies _ indicating the Planning Board's intent to act as lead agency with respect to the above-referenced actions, and requesting concurrence with said designation. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency for environmental review of the proposed rezoning, site plan approval, and subdivision approval of the proposed Mecklenburg Heights apartment project, located on Mecklenburg Road, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of the above-referenced November 6, 1997 letter. AYES- Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Ainslie, Cornell, Bell. NAYS -None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. wren McGuire, Secretary,Town of Ithaca. Ma Bryan dministrat' e Secretary. .vim,