Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-05-13FILE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special session on Thursday, May 13, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member (7:07 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Engineering; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Christine Balestra, Planner. EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Nancy Boodley; Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Robert Mitchell, - 153 West Haven Road; Peter Trowbridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road; Ron Danappoli, 1385 Mecklenburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal .on May 5, 2004 and May 7, 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works,. and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 7, 2004. 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 Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — For those of you who are here for the. Drake sketch plan review, we will give you a chance to speak if you so desire even though it is not a public hearing. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Boodley 2 -Lot Subdivision, 199 Iradell Road Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13,2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — And I assume that you are Mrs. Boodley. Can I ask you to come up here and take a seat? Oh, I didn't realize you are slightly handicapped. Mrs. Boodley — Slightly handicapped. I broke it. Chairperson Wilcox - I trust it is healing nicely. Mrs. Boodley — It is coming. Chairperson Wilcox — I will ask that you pull the microphone up a little bit closer so that both we can record you and then also amplify to people in. the room. Name and address and if you would, a brief description of what you are proposing and then we will get into the environmental part of it. Mrs. Boodley — My name is Nancy K. Boodley. 1 am presently married to Frank Hanshaw, but the property is still Nancy K. Boodley. My first husband and I bought the property some .39 or 40 years ago, pretty long ago, and we built a house. I like privacy so we did not cut the trees in front of the house, on either side of the house or behind the house. We simply landscaped it around the house. And since i have been married to another: gentleman for 14 year and we have a house now in Cayuga Heights, I have been thinking about selling it, renting it, doing miscellaneous things with it since l don't live in it. And I decided finally, okay, I am going to sell it. And I decided that the part of the lot that I should have go with the house would the be the part that we had turned into lawn plus the barrier to Iradell Road, which is just scrub grass and old trees and things like that to invite the birds and the deer and so forth to stay there. I wanted to keep the remainder of the lot for no particular reason. except that I didn't want anybody to cut. the trees down. I get very excited when the Highway Department comes along and cuts down a tree. They can verify that because.l was always out there and they still have my name down, oh, she doesn't like trees cut. In the spring, people came along and they decided, okay, they needed a right -of- -way for the telephone line and I was really up in arms about that because they cut the trees down and they left them there as a big mess and I finally got that cleaned up. But I do like woods and I would like to keep that. I do not have any particular notion to build a house there at the present time. I probably won't. I am already 76 years old or I will be this Sunday, so I probably, in my lifetime, will not do anything with the piece of land that's left except to keep it as woods, which I would like to do. I am very fond of deer in spite of the fact that they eat all of my rhododendron. It was quite a wet lot when we first purchased it and I would say it was probably 15, maybe 18 years ago, plus or minus, that the farmer next door sold the farm across the street to Mr. Thompson. At that time, which was his perfect right, he put drainage ditches in so that he could farm the land instead of having it just pasture, which made it so that the water did not come down on our land as much as it did when .the survey A PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1312004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 maps were made saying it was a wetland. So it became much less of a wetland, which certainly was an improvement to us, but its still designated as a wetland because it had been designated that before. But that is about all I can tell you about. If you have any questions, I would be very happy to answer. I Chairperson Wilcox — Obviously, you are aware of the DEC designated wetland... whatever its boundaries are you are aware of it. Mrs. Boodley — Yes. I am certainly aware of that. Chairperson Wilcox — You are aware that the County has a unique natural area, which touches... Mrs. Boodley — Right. I was not aware that that needed to be ... I simply called Mr. Rustler and said I needed a survey map of the three acres that I would .like to sell, .I did not say its partly wetland, we need the thing, but I will very happily do that. I didn't know that designation until I read it on the information that was.sent to I did know it was wetland, yes, that .I knew. Chairperson Wilcox — So you have seen ... should we get to it, you have seen the draft resolution? Mrs. Boodley —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Questions ladies and gentlemen? The issues are whether a house can be built on that... Board Member Thayer — That's not our concern tonight, right? Chairperson Wilcox — Not at this point and if we get ahead of SEQR and look at the draft resolution for subdivision, it seems to. cover the issues the owner would have to deal with When and if it is transferred to someone who really does intend to build a. house on it. Anything else, staff? You all set? Someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by Kevin Talty. We are going to need to do two votes, so this is the first one. There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. Motion is passed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 .APPROVED.June 1, 2004 PB RESOLUTION NO, 2004 -043: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Boodley Two -Lot Subdivision, 199 Iradell Road, Tax Parcel No. 24.44.2 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for a proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.4-1.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing the 8.08 + 1- acre parcel into two lots, one 3+1-, acre parcel containing an existing residence, and one 5.08 + 1- acre vacant parcel. A NYS DEC designated freshwater wetland is located on the parcel. Nancy K. Boodley, Owner /Applicant, and 21 This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated . environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 13, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and a survey entitled "Map of Survey No. 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated March 29, 2004, and prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., LLS, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described actions, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -1.2, Agricultural zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 8.08 + /- acre parcel into two lots, one 3 +/- acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 5.08 +/- acre vacant parcel to be maintained in its natural state. A NYS Department of Environmental Conservation designated freshwater wetland is located on the parcel. Nancy K. Boodley, Owner/Applicant'. Chairperson Wilcox — And look at that, right on time at 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — While Mrs..Boodley is sitting at the table, questions with regard.to the actual subdivision being proposed? None. Chris? Questions, comments with regard to the subdivision. Ms. Balestra — Not until after... I just have a suggestion for the resolution afterwards. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Alright. Why don't you stay right there for now just in case? Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Simple two -lot subdivision? Ms. Balestra — Yeah, .ya know. Chairperson Wilcox — Sometimes you get lucky, right? Ms. Balestra — Yeah, sometimes there's wetland. Chairperson Wilcox — Even with a wetland, that's right. Someone like to move the motion for subdivision approval? Board Member Thayer — I'll move. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer. Seconded by ... Rod Howe. Chris? Ms. Balestra — It would be helpful to have J.B. here, but... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, well, Town Attorney is tardy. Ms. Balestra — Planning staff had talked about the conditions and how we were going to enforce or, trigger our files if in ten years someone wants to develop the five acre parcel ... how would we know that there would... Chairperson Wilcox.— Trigger the delineation, for example. Ms. Balestra Right. That someone would need to do delineation.. That there would be a no disturbance zone and erosion and sedimentation control. And then we sort of thought that if we had that information included on the survey map, the updated survey map' that would be submitted and also filed at the County, .then that information would be permanent. It would be on. the maps that anyone who wanted to do anything with the property would have to follow the steps on the survey map. We have done that in the pasta If something that we thought of after the mail -out went out and thought we would have to change the resolution then, but it would be up to the board to decide. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, there was also a question of including the whole piece of land on the survey map. Ms. Balestra — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — It could all be accomplished at the same time. Mr. Kanter — That is in the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that is a good idea. Board Member Thayer — Yes. Mr. Kanter — So it could be probably just a note. on the subdivision plat saying ... what condition number is that? Ms. Balestra — It is actually "c" and "d" Chairperson Wilcox — May I object before we write it? Ms. Balestra — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't have a problem with it, but it shifts the burden of who would pay for it from the purchaser of the land who wants to build on it to the applicant. And since the applicant has no intent to build on it... Mr. Kanter — No. I don't think you are understanding it correctly. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — The condition would still be the same as is on here, which would be prior to issuance of any building permit. That is what the notation would say. ., . Chairperson Wilcox - Right. Okay. Mr. Kanter — So, that would be Mrs. Boodley's burden if she still owned the property and wanted to build a house, but not if she sold it to someone. Say it transferred to.... Chairperson Wilcox = I'm.sorry. I thought that you were asking that this survey map be modified to show... Mr. Kanter — To include the note. Ms. Balestra - That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — So if I am to receive or staff is to receive, the Town has received a final subdivision map for my signature, then the wetlands would have to be delineated on that. Mr. Kanter — No. That's not what the notation would say. Ms. Balestra — You would receive the survey map that- had the entire boundary of the parcel with the subdivision and notation that says prior to any issuance of any building permits, a wetland's delineation and permits shall be submitted. Chairperson Wilcox - So we simply want to note that on the survey? Ms: Balestra — Right. So that way it triggers it when someone does come in for building permit. Chairperson Wilcox - Oh. Don't have an issue at all with that. No. I really thought you wanted to actually delineate the wetland and I thought that would be slightly unfair to the applicant who has no intent to do anything to the land. Ms. Balestra — Oh, no. Chairperson Wilcox - Very good. I have a motion and a second. How do you want to word that? Ms. Balestra — That's the thing that we didn't actually cover yet. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's the issue. Mr. Kanter — It could basically just be a repeating of what 14 c" says and... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13; 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Ms. Balestra — Inclusion of the boundaries... including the notation... Chairperson Wilcox — So I am guessing something to the affect that we could re- letter "d" to "e" and then a new "d" which says subject to the affect of, um, the survey map should have ... I don't know how John would do it:..the survey map should have appropriate language on it, um, to indicate that... Ms. Balestra — A wetlands delineation only-to... _ - - -- Chairperson Wilcox — Only to occur... Ms. Balestra — Should be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit and 100 not ... no disturbance zone shall, be maintained along the wetland boundary. Chairperson Wilcox — And that those are physically stated on the survey. You will get a revised copy. Mrs. Boodley — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — You understand where we are going with this right? And all you need to do when you go to Mr. Rustler is have him just ... we will get the language tightened up here in the final resolution. You'll get a copy of it and just make sure that that gets on there and that will help trigger when someone... if and when the property is sold... Mrs. Boodley — And it sold or somebody decides... Chairperson Wilcox - Or somebody actually puts a house on it. Okay. Alright. Are you comfortable with the language so far? You can tighten it up with John, when he shows up? Okay. Alright. We're all set with that, Larry and Rod? Okay. Anything else? Okay. My apologies for not understanding. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox— Anybody opposed? And there are no abstentions. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -044: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Boodley Two -Lot Subdivision, 199 Iradell Road, Tax Parcel No. 24.44.2 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13; 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for a proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.44.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing the 8.08 + 1- acre parcel into two lots, one 3 +1 acre parcel containing an existing residence, and one 5.08 + 1- acre vacant parcel. A NYS DEC designated freshwater wetland is located on the parcel. Nancy K. Boodley, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board; acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has May 13, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 13, 2004, has reviewed a survey entitled "Map of Survey No. 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated March 29, 2004; and prepared by Robert S. Russler A, LLS and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements . for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.4-11, as shown on the survey entitled "Map of Survey No. 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of the subdivision plat to include the boundaries and accurate survey information for the entire Tax parcel No. 24144.2, prior. to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and b. Revision of the subdivision plat, prior to signature by the Chair, to include a note on the, plat that a wetland delineation is required pursuant to subparagraph d below and further noting the requirement of the buffer set forth in the same subparagraph, and C. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints (as revised above), prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a Ithaca Planning Department, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 receipt of filing to the Town of d. A delineation of the existing NYS DEC designated freshwater wetland should be completed on the 5.08 + 1- acre parcel, and should be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Building ' Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits for the parcel. Additionally, a 100 46ot "no disturbance" buffer shall be maintained between the delineated wetland and any future building or development, including construction of a septic system, and e. Submission of an erosion and sedimentation control plan, prior to the issuance of any building permits on the 5.08 + 1- acre parcel, to protect the. sensitive wetland environment of the area from impacts associated with future residential and private septic system development. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 30 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -15.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes constructing 'a new road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 29 residential lots and one. lot reserved -for open space on the 94 +/- acre parcel. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, are you an interested neighbor tonight? Mr. Trowbridge — Yes, I am. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, you're all set. Ladies and gentlemen, you are welcome to come up behind us if it makes it easier to see the map, whatever works best for you. We will give you a chance to speak when Larry is done and when you are done. So if you have something to say, we will be glad to listen to you. Larry, the floor is yours. Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road — I want to start off by saying I don't know why Mr. Drake is not here this evening. I would have him start off by ... I don't know that I can adjust this to telling you why he wants to subdivide his land. The main reason he wants PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 to subdivide because he wants to stay in farming. And he would tell you that it is very difficult to be in a family farming operation these days. And he would also tell you that there are two family farmers left West Hill, himself and the Bakers. Mr. Ainslie, who you are very familiar with, could.not stay in farming. And he very much wants to stay in farming and he. very much wants to farm this land. The fact that the zoning has changed is the only reason he submitted this subdivision :plan. If the zoning had stayed R -30, I. think you would see this land and the farming. as long as possible. You will still it in farming as long as possible. And that is what he would tell you his intention is. But he needs ... the farming operation where they are trying to make three incomes out of a farm and other businesses. ..(inaudible)..'he needs the ability to sell off a lot every now and then to stay solid. This particular piece of land that we know. was owned by Mr. (inaudible). At one time Mr. (inaudible)...(inaudible) ... at least the one before Mr. Drake could not make a go of farming on this land. Mr. Drake has taken it over and turned it into a pretty good farm parcel ... (inaudible)... So .let me just start out with that and say that is meant how ... (inaudible) ... his ability to. maintain equipment, be ... (inaudible) ... he is part time and this makes it still possible for him to make a go of farming. And otherwise, a lot of the farming is an equine farm that borders on the east property and just to the west of it. From the west of this parcel all the way to Sheffield Road is a horse farm. To the north there is a sharecrop piece of land. To the east of it is the Sky View parcel that you are considering for ... cluster development and the land just adjacent to it would be left to a farming operation as I understand it. So that sort of gives you a backdrop of what is going on around the property. The Sky View property begins here and the Equine Farm is here ... this is the farm piece of land just to the north of it. Board Member Conneman — Who is that to the north? Mr. Fabbroni — (not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox Larry, there is a portable mic right. If you'll just pull it out and make sure it's on. Mr. Fabbroni — I guess and the other point to make beyond the fact that he wants to farm is that this particular piece of property and the one to the east of it, if you look at your new zoning map up on the wall in back of you, just to the south of Route 79 on the other side of the road is low density residential. So its. what ... I would call it at the fence. Jon would call it well within the Agricultural Zone, but I guess that I would also appeal to you that as you considered everything along the way, its at the edge of what you mapped out to be the urban area. Now moving beyond that, what we plan is basically 29 lots, the 30th lot being the open space. And his intention again is to sell off and develop these lots, as he needs PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13,.2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 to, not in one fell swoop. Again, it is hard for me to give you the full flavor of what Bob would have told you the other night, but he's happy if this takes him 15 years to accomplish in terms of a build -out. His main purpose is to farm the land. His two sons are actively engaged in farming with him. So even though Bob is 66, he is trying to provide for the next generation in terms of what he would like to do with the land. And what we mapped out was a "u" shaped configuration with roads, 1,000 feet apart intersecting on to Route 79 and all of these lots are in excess of two acres. There are some that are larger than that and they are pretty. much dictated by the local topography so that there is some drainage ways that more or less define the edges of those larger lots. Along the way we expect to speak to the traffic issue. We projected about 39 cars in the peak hour from what we presented. This road ;is a State highway. It can handle conservatively 10,000 cars a day. It is handling under 5,000 now. You know. You've been through the whole drill, but 39 cars against about 1,000 capacity in a peak hour is pretty small and we really would hate to be lumped in with Sky View and the low income housing project because we are. making a pretty simple, non- descript proposal for this land. We've spoken informally with the Fire Chief; the concept of a fire pond for fire protection is what we have conceptualized up in the northwest.part of the property and with a hydrant to a road right -of -way. They feel that is as good a solution as any that are available to them beyond where the public water. is available. This land, I might take a step back, is above what can be served by public water. And if you look at some of your maps that went along with your Comprehensive Planning, it is very near an aquifer. We thing that a portion of the land is actually ... we will tap into that aquifer based up on the well that was drilled for this lot that you subdivided off about a year and half ago. The ... was easily in excess of 15 gallons per minute and we would expect as. we go through this ... to prove that well would be sufficient for these two acre lots. So as I said the yield tests we would expect to do and that we would most likely do them on the well that we drilled for that homeowner on this roughly four acre lot that you split off. We, down the line, would prepare a whole drainage and erosion plan in accordance with the new State and EPA requirements and basically everything on this portion of the property drains down towards the road and then comes back and none of it gets to Linderman Creek, I might add. It all ends up in Williams Glen Gorge that you may know is sort of at the south end of the Perry property that you have dealt with in time and runs, generally speaking, north of this property. Board Member Hoffmann — Larry, could you go over that again? Could you show again how that water travels? Mr. Fabbroni — The water in this part of the property comes down these draws roughly like this and then what we propose is a holding area here. In concept we would do quality retention on each of the lots and then we. would do quantity retention in a retention pond. So everything on this portion of the property on the south end comes down to this corner of the property and then works its way back on the adjacent PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13; 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 property to Williams Glen, but we would do all the before and after retention on our property at this location here. The balance of the drainage on our land then comes down to this hedgerow and there is an existing farm .ditch that comes down here and would feed into what we propose as another retention area before it leaves the property. This is the concept of a fire pond. There is an existing ditch and there is somewhat of an artesian condition even though that there is a swale on this property, so this is a pretty regularly running ditch as a feed to a concept of a fire pond on this area of the open space. So that pretty much covers the drainage. Some -people have spoken about streams. The Health Department wrote about a stream. There is a covered ditch here. There is an old farm tile in what very well could have been streams at some point in time right in this area here. We have spoken to the Health Department preliminarily about the size of the lots and the concept of septic systems and there's really not a lot of concern on their part. These lots can support sand filters. If we do further perk tests, which we intend to do, we may even end up with some conventional systems or straight leech fields on these lands because the soil map as you look at it varies in four different soil types across the property. There is a small band of what you call rich agricultural soils. The rest, really I'd say 95 percent of the land is what you put into your next most desirable Ag soils as opposed to the prime soils. Again, if you look at your Comprehensive plan, you'll see what I mean. So its, not that I'm trying to make an argument against farming, but it is not in the prime soil area of your Agricultural Zone. The open space, which is pretty much your preference, who owns it and controls it. I get from Jon's write up that you really have no plans up in this area so the landowner would basically hold onto this and come up with some management.plan through nature conservancy or somebody else to manage the open space that the Town was not of the disposition to have it. And depending on where we go in this conversation tonight, you may have some other preference on how to control that. Again, maybe not from everybody's point of view, but from our point of view we tried to stay in excessive of two =acre lots. If we had gone with the low density residential, which we have the grandfather clause that we are operating under, we could have added almost three times the density here. The intention wasn't to load up the property; The intention was to give them a fail safe to stay in the farming business. It is difficult to cluster on .this particular land without the public utilities. I know that's a very strong desire of the Planning Board as I listen to you deliberate on other projects. It's difficult. The land and the soils are suitable for farming; they are just as suitable for septic systems. It is not a problem that we are creating out by putting septic systems on such poorly drained soils like you have up in Lansing and then you have to deal with the problem 20 -25 years out. The lots are more than sufficient to support alternate sites for replacement systems if you came to that point and that is what the Health Department requires these days. And rather than go on and on, I guess I'll just end it where I started it. Bob wants to farm this land. The only way he can economically stay in the farming business as PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 long as possible is to sell off a lot every now and then. He doesn't want to sell off. seven -acre lots. He'd just assume sell off two or three acre lots. He's in the construction business almost as a sidelight: His love is in farming and I can't convey that to you without him doing that personally, but if he could only farm, he would farm. He's found a way to make a living by being one of the better demolition contractors in Town and he and his family farm not only this parcel, but a 165 other acres. So roughly they farm 265 acres within the Town of Ithaca on West Hill. Again he would tell you there's only really two real.farmers left. You're likely to end up with gentlemen farmers or mega farmers in his mind if you don't help him out a little bit. Chairperson Wilcox = You all set for now, Larry? Okay. Who wants to start? Board Member Conneman — Do you think that 265 acres: is a viable farm business, Larry? Let me tell you something about farmers. I worked with farmers all my life. Corns, oats, soybeans and hay on what will now be 157 acres doesn't sound very viable to me. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, that's what he's saying. His intention is to farm those 95 acres as long as he can. Board Member Conneman — And there are some alternatives to that. If you clustered, then if you made ... and there was a proposal to say buys the development rights on this property, it would keep him in farming. If his real issue is to farm it, there are other ways to do it than this. It is an unimaginative way of doing it. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, there is a lot of cash flow involved in what you just verbalized that he doesn't have for one thing. I mean, again, it is very difficult for me to convey his situation to you other than to say that he is worried about getting the grain bin filled up so that there is some bit of insurance for the next year's income. I mean the income that it would take to beat the quotes of developers, he doesn't have and that is not his interest. And once you cluster, you are almost forced to either bring the public utilities up and put a hydromantic water zone in there, run it all the way down to the sewer. The Sky View property is going to be clustered at the lower end. That means running sewer through a dead space..,I .don't know, at least a third of a mile. There is a. lot of expense just to get off the ground on a clustered... when you don't really intend to do anything but farm the land and sell off a parcel here and there. Board Member Conneman — There is a lot of expense to drilling a well and building a sand filter and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Fabbroni — There is, but you sell the lot ... you know, you would subdivide it. He would have to develop the road obviously, but then typically someone who buys the lot sort of builds that into what they offer for the land and that's their expense to drill the well and ... its sort of handled individually by the person who buys the lot. Board Member Conneman — This would be developed over 18 years, is that right? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13; 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Mr. Fabbroni — What I'm saying is as long as possible is what he is telling you. And he wouldn't be able to do that if he wasn't in the business... if he didn't operate equipment, it wouldn't be economically feasible to do this either. Board Member Hoffmann — I just reacted when you said that Mr. Drake and the Bakers are the only families currently farming on West Hill and then you mentioned the horse farm just to the west and dairy farm just to the north... Mr. Fabbroni.— Traditional farming is what I meant. meant. Board Member Hoffmann — But you didn't say that. Mr. Fabbroni — I'm sorry. That's what I meant. Traditional crop farming is what Board Member Hoffmann — And it seems to me I don't know the facts about how many people are farming in the Town of Ithaca, but you have ... that's four right there in this neighborhood and I have a feeling there might be more on West Hill as well. So maybe farming isn't,. that aren't as few farmers as you said. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, he told me that Cornell did a study and he was the only active family farmer between the City and Mecklenburg. So, traditional farming. The horse barn is a different kind of operation. Board Member Conneman = That's farming, right? Mr. Fabbroni — Well, if that's what you envision for West Hill that might be what you end up with. Board Member Conneman — So what would be wrong with that? Mr. Fabbroni — I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with it... Chairperson Wilcox — Can I bring this back? I think we're going off on a tangent. Board Member Conneman — No ... (inaudible)... Board Member Hoffmann — In a sense we are. Board Member Conneman — We counted the farms. He counted the farms first, Fred. I didn't count them. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, tell me why that's relevant to what's in front of us. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, its relevant bec, preserve the farmland in such a state that it can be traditional ways, but so that it can be changed. The once you start developing the land, there is no going PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 ruse what we are trying to do is farmed in traditional ways or non - farming uses can be changed, but back to farming. „. Chairperson Wilcox I understand that, but it doesn't matter whether there are two farmers on West Hill or farmers on West Hill so if we could just... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, in a sense it also means that maybe it isn't such a difficult thing .to do if there are four instead of two or maybe even more. Mr. Kanter — Well, what I would say is what you need to do is get the facts. Not have one side say one thing and another side says another thing. What you need is an agricultural resource impact analysis is what I'm recommending. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. Mr. Kanter — So you'll get the actual numbers and who's doing what. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that something we would ask this applicant for or is it something that the. Town... Mr. Kanter — I would if I were you. Board Member Hoffmann.— The Town is not working on something like this. There was something in the news about the Town Board trying to reestablish the AG Committee again. Mr. Kanter — Right. They are trying to do that Chairperson Wilcox - But none - the -less, it would be this board's prerogative to request the information to assist us in making our decision. Board Member Hoffmann— My initial reaction was a little bit like my initial reaction to the proposed developed just to the east, Mr. Rancich's proposal, is that after looking at the proposal for ... I forget the name of the development now. The one that we already have existing. Board Member Thayer — Conifer? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Right. Thank you. Where we know it's going to be expanded to the north already. That has already been discussed. And when I saw the Rancich proposal, I thought alright, maybe if its clustered as close as possible to the Conifer proposal and about half the land, the western most part, being left open to farming that it was acceptable, but I couldn't see any more of that land being developed beyond that and that is exactly how I feel about this. This is just too much more PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 development and the sprawl type development that I think we are trying to get away from on what is valuable agricultural land and I don't feel at all excited about this proposal. Board Member Howe — I realize that we can't say no, .but I am wondering what is our ability to look at those 'three and thing about some comprehensive plans instead each piece meal. I don't know whether that's something we can look into or not. That's an open question. Mr. Kanter — From a planning perspective I agree completely. I guess the question really is a legal one as to how you can try to tie in. three proposals that are basically going on simultaneously, although we don't have the Conifer in yet technically, but it probably will be coming in soon. Board Member Conneman — But we could ask Larry to come back with a cluster - housing proposal. Is that right? That's part of our Town rules...? Is that right? Mr. Kanter — Actually the Town Board adopts the amendment ... we should have the amendment adopted next month.. Chairperson Wilcox — Just to make sure we're clear, if we suggested, recommended, urged clustering then there are distinct advantage to that from our point of view, but then we have to start thinking about water and sewer. I mean you can't cluster without public water. I can't see how we could reasonably cluster without public water and sewer. And do we want public water and sewer up there, which would...if we clustered it I assume it would be on the north side of the lot or the east side of the lot or the northeast corner would probably where we go. And I was thinking, now we have created this open space from the western side of Sky Gardens to the Drake subdivision. Board Member Conneman — So it would be easier to farm in that kind of a setting, right? Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think the Sky Gardens parcel is going to get farmed. I mean I don't want to have big chunks of open land and then development and then big chunks of open land. Board Member Talty — Why don't we just call it how it is because... it is all going to be developed? Okay. And I like what Rod said. Its got to be a comprehensive plan because I understand what he's saying, but farming cause I sell to farmers and I know George has indicated he works with farms and farming is either going to go ... the small farmers are going to disappear and the macro farmers when it happens. And when that happens and we approve things, they are going to start putting up subdivisions, whether it's a cluster or the sprawl, whatever we decide here, they are going to go inside these lots. So going back to what Rod said, lets formulate a comprehensive plan because there is no way you are going cluster here and then open space and cluster here and you're going to farm this. It may happen for five years; it's going to happen for 10 years, but its not going to happen for 25 years. So we might as well just cut to the chase with PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 131.2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 these three different pieces and say, listen we need 'a master comprehensive. plan like Rod has indicated because if we go and start passing things wily nily, that's just not the smart thing to do. Board Member Conneman — That's not what I heard Rod say, maybe he did. •, Board Member Howe think holistically abOL agricultural. I mean field where we try to continuing support. It viable... — Yeah, I don't think it those. I guess I hope that there will split Ag economic i might look different I said quite what Kevin said, but I do want to don't have quite the same view you do of be room for agricultural. I also work in the Develop. So I am hoping. there is room for than does today, but I am hoping it will be .Board Member Talty — There is always hope, but once we start developing if we don't have a comprehensive plan it is going to look terrible. If we are going to develop and there is some kind of master plan, then let's develop smartly because we start to ... corners of parcels. It's just not going to work out. So as much as I like farmers and I hope he really goes forth with this plans and his sons and his family, ultimately as soon as we start approving items like this then all of a sudden the money comes in and the farming doesn't work out ten years from now and then you come back in front and you want to do the southwest corner. I'm tellin' ya it's going to happen. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, he's not going to deny that it is going to be more and more of a struggle over time. This is honestly what he sees keeping him in farming for 15 or 20 years Board Member Talty — And then what? Mr. Fabbroni — He doesn't know. I mean no more than anybody else knows, but his level of farming... you're in the industry and George knows a heck of a lot more than I do, but what he has explained to me is that it is almost too late what they are doing for the family farmer. Board Member Talty — No question about it. Mr. Fabbroni — And the way he has been able to work it out is his passion is farming. He goes and does something out they can make three incomes out of. Some people have trouble making one income out of it. Board Member Conneman — But they're not making income from farming, they are making income from something else. Mr. Fabbroni — But their passion is farming, George. That you can't take ... I mean if that is what you want... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 137, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Talty — Passion doesn't pay for new John Deere tractors that cost a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Fabbroni — And that is what he would tell you. He is able to fix is old equipment and still make it work and not the average person can do that. Board Member Talty — I am not denying his intent. I am, however, saying that it is the obligation of this Planning Board to plan and I don't think we're planning. Mr. Fabbroni - I'm not disagreeing with any of you... Board Member Talty - ...look to the future instead of this sprawl, cluster. I mean I think cluster, you are going to shut this guy down. He won't be able to do it because there is no way he is going to be able to extend sewer across open land. Chairperson Wilcox — I just wanted to introduce one more thing to this and I'll ask Mr. Barney. As of right since Mr. Drake came in under the previous zoning, this was R -30. Mr. Kanter — It was agricultural, which followed the R -30 rules. Chairperson Wilcox — Which said ... which would be 30,000 square foot lots assuming that that was ... you could good well, water and septic tank approved on a 30,000 square foot lot, which is unlikely. Mr. Walker — The Health Department is looking at two -acre lots. Chairperson Wilcox — They are looking at two -acre lots. So as of right, Mr. Drake. has that right to come in and apply for and reasonably in some way expect the ability to subdivide that land, in roughly two acres lot subject to our approval and our consideration and whatever changes we decide are appropriate whether that be clustering or a whether that be a reduction in lots or change the road or whatever. So want to make sure we understand that as well. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but Fred, it is true that he has that right, but we also have the right to require clustering. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, we do. Attorney. Barney — Well, that's not entirely clear. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe not in an area like this where there is no water and sewer. Attorney Barney — Well, even more. Legally, I think ... we are amending the law to I ermit a rectuired cluster in an agricultural zone. That law probably won't be adopted until June 6t or 7 th at the Town Board meeting. But this application is coming in under the old zoning, which is governed the law without, I quite" frankly questionable to do that including may be a little bit of an issue ther( PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 by the old law and whether we can apply a change in don't know sitting here. It would be a little bit besides the fact that.,.(inaudible) ... but, legally there Board Member Conneman — If you allow that type of development on that property that will kill it for agricultural and it will also kill any use you might make of Mr. Rancich's plan the same way because you are going to have this skip development practically. You got a piece of land and it becomes impossible. Mr. Kanter — There was something in the County Plannin.g Department letter, which amazingly made a lot of sense to me. Board Member Conneman — I second that. Mr. Kanter — You may or may not put that in the minutes. But this is the May 5, which was actually a response to the lead agency where they said the two developments will be considered together to determine a desired location of a more urban edge and that really gets back to the idea of looking at this property and the Rancich property together to really what makes sense for that area. Because if what we're really trying to do is identify an edge beyond which is going to be much lower density and agricultural lands, these are the two properties where that decision has to be made. So anything we can do to try to reach that kind of a conclusion would be helpful. I'm not sure what the mechanism is at this point yet, though, but that is certainly one reason why I'm recommending that as many of these environmental issues be looked at in a coordinated way as possible. And again, the environmental determination is really a key one here, which although by rights you have a certain. number of lots you could do on a property like this, they are only by right if they can meet the environmental standards, exceed them. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to make another couple of comments about farming.. We talk about what's known as traditional farming. I would like to put it in quotation marks because when I think of traditional farming I think of even older traditional farming than what is known as traditional farming today. But I think what most people mean are the fairly standard crop growing or diary farms that we see around this area. But I think a lot of local people who own farmland have been very imaginative and have been able to do successful farming in other ways. I'm thinking of Christiann Dean who was on the Agriculture Committee some years ago who, with her family, have a farm on South Hill and they are doing the kind of vegetable growing were people buy shares and can get an equal share of the crop as it matures. And then there is a fifth farmer in this neighborhood. That's the family that farms on the EcoVillage property. They do something similar I believe. I think that horse farming is certainly another way of. doing it. There are probably others that I don't know, but if one continues thinking of trying to farm in this quote on unquote traditional way, I can see problems up ahead because that it is very ... it requires this very fancy expensive machinery and so, which you need much more land to make worthwhile. So if farmers keep on thinking of farming in that way, But if they would be willing, if they really the type of farming slightly, maybe they those of you who know about farming this PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 1 can see that things don't look too promising. love farming if they would be willing to change would be able to make it. I don't know what ik of it. Board Member Conneman — You're not. make money on corn, oats and soybeans, not on 165- acres. That's a way to starve to death. You're not to make money that way. You've got to think bigger than that.., Even people who have large acres of those crops are in trouble because those are crops that are grown every place and prices are low generally, except for last year soy beans were high because of (inaudible). Mr. Fabbroni — I would believe you except for he's been doing it with his father. since 1935. You know, I believe, but in this case he's done it since 1935. Board Member Thayer — But he admits he's in trouble. . Board Member Conneman — He admits he's in trouble now. I'm not talking about 1935 or 1940 or 1955. He says he's in trouble today and what he needs is a shot in the arm every once in a while. . Mr. Fabbroni — He's just saying you get bad weather. You get a bad year. You get a bad something. He needs a lift in that case is what he's saying. Board Member Conneman — 165 =acres with those crops he'll always have a bad year. Chairperson Wilcox — Guys, guys, if I may, you're frustrating me. Board Member Conneman — Why? Chairperson Wilcox — Because... Board Member Conneman — Because we ought to be planning... Chairperson Wilcox No, no. You're missing the point. We need to plan. We don't need to criticize Mr. Drake and tell him how to run his business. Board. Member Conneman — We're not... Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, we are. We're saying to Mr: Drake maybe you could do better if you did your business differently. I'm not here to tell Mr. Drake how to run his business and how to run his farm. I agreed we need to plan, but I am not going to sit here and question his motives and say maybe if he tried alternative methods of farming we wouldn't be here. We are here. Why don't we work with what we've been given and change it, throw it out, and tell him to come back, tell it won't work. But not sit here and question Mr. Drake coming to us. He has come to us. Lets deal with what's in front of us. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1332004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Talty — Fred, I disagree with what you said. Completely Chairperson Wilcox - That's fine. Board Member Talty — You know why? Because you got to think outside the box and. you're trying to think inside the box with the materials that you've been given. Chairperson Wilcox — No, I'm not. I'm saying... Board Member Talty — Yes, you are. Chairperson Wilcox— No. I'm differentiating... Board Member Talty —Yes... Chairperson Wilcox — Please... I'm differentiating between coming up with a plan that we think is reasonable or throwing a plan away and questioning the applicants motives for coming here in the first place. That's the issue. Attorney Barney — Kevin, I have to take a little bit of an issue with what you said. We have the plan and right behind you, you have the Comprehensive Plan. We have implemented that plan in the Zoning Ordinance. In an effort to be somewhat fair about it, we did build in a fairly significant period of transition from the old ordinance to the new ordinance. Board Member Talty — Understood. Attorney Barney — Mr. Drake is trying to take advantage of that period, which is available for anybody. He shouldn't be discriminated against because he is taking advantage of that. Beyond that period though, I don't think. you are going to see somebody coming with a property next door to Mr. Drake on the west because it is not available to him any longer. At that point, we are into the seven -acre limitation. So the Town has planned. The Town has put together a Zoning Ordinance in response to that plan and is moving forward. Mr. Drake happens to be a little bit of an anomaly because of a four -month time period. If he had not come until April 2 "d, we wouldn't be talking about this. You would have all the right you want to, to say you have to go back to some other kind of format. For him, for better or for worse, he did come in under within the prescribed time limit. He's governed by the rules that the Town has provided and was in effect, and I don't think you're really in a position to say you're going to reject this out of hand. You can certainly do as the chairman suggested; look at it, suggest changes. Say we can't accept this particular proposal, but we will look at something else. That is clearly in your purview. It was before and it is now. But to think that somehow thinking out of the box is going to get us away from a subdivision here... the only way to do that is to tell Mr. Drake sell your property to us and we'll buy it for ... (inaudible).,. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Talty — I have a question beyond this project. Is he still grandfathered on the remainder of the property? Does that change? So it's only this project? Attorney Barney — It is only the application that was in before April 1 St Board Member Talty —Okay. Board Member Thayer — I agree with Kevin to the point that .this.is beautiful land and I think it is going to be developed and there is very little of there. You are almost to the crest of the hill. After that the view shed is gone. So if we look at this particular sprawl, it is very unimaginative as you mentioned, George:. I think if we are going to improve anything or look at anything, we got to do something more than a rectangle, in my mind. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not approving this. No way. Board Member Thayer — That's my point. Chairperson. Wilcox — We haven't even gotten to all the issues with this. Board Member Thayer — You want us to get back to the.... Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. I would love for us to talk about how we can tie develop of this parcel with the other parcels. And I would love to provide specific feedback on what is wrong... Board Member Thayer — I agree that its going to look ... you know, you've. got Conifer then you have a blank field with a cluster and then you have this development... its going to look strange, but like you said, this is in front of us and we should took at us and tell Larry to bring it back with something... Chairperson Wilcox — We need to do two things. Lets look at it as a subdivision before us and also look at it as a development request in conjunction with Sky Gardens and the Conifer. The connectivity between them... Board Member Thayer — Connecting roads and sidewalks, whatever. Chairperson Wilcox — Whatever, that's right. And then we will start being nasty to Larry about this unimaginative subdivision proposal. I don't know who wants to start, but... Mr. Fabbroni — We have to start somewhere. Chairperson Wilcox — You know what? George Conneman made a comment about a proposed hotel up on South Hill, about how ugly it was and it is ugly and in fact, it's coming back again, right. Slightly modified. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 139 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Thayer — The hotel isn't ugly. It's quite attractive, but that's another issue. Chairperson Wilcox — How do we want to describe this? Unimaginative? Let me be a bit more concrete. Except for about four intersections, they, are all right angles.. There is no imaginative... you have two one /third mile drag strips. They are nearly a third of a mile long and they are perfectly straight and they are drag strips. That is not going to do anything to slow the cars down. Its just ... I can't see approving this. It just has not imagination. It is cookie - cutter. Board Member Thayer — Cookie - cutter. Board Member Conneman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — We need to do something here to have the road change direction a little bit or do something that turns this into a small little neighborhood. Something that slows the cars down. You've got to do something here, Larry. Board Member Hoffmann — It doesn't use the natural contours of the. land to layout the road. The open space is very unimaginative, too and scattered and it is essentially just ... it looks like it is put where it is for the convenience of the developer to put drainage ponds rather than being open space that can be used. Mr. Fabbroni — It is the most natural part of the land. I didn't say...l mean it is the most natural part of the land, those'two parcels. Board Member Hoffmann — It's the most what? Mr. Fabbroni — Those are the most vegetative part of the land. So they weren't just picked wily nily, but I'm open to any suggestions. I mean one of the problems is getting through the conversation we were just having. Are we headed towards a real proposal than I can'come back with a backwards nine with a cul -de -sac off of it and curvilinear roads. It's just hard to read your mind coming in the first time. Chairperson Wilcox — No, no. Actually, Larry, what we want is for you to come in with something imaginative rather than you coming in with something that's...) mean I could have done this with ... I'm sorry. That's not fair. I could have laid these lots out. I expect more from you. I expect more from you. Mr. Fabbroni — That's fair. Chairperson Wilcox — I expect you to come in with something imaginative that we can use as a starting point. I don't think this is the starting point. I mean, I really, really... its... u PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13,2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Thayer — So, how do we tie it in with Sky acres? How do we tie it in with can we do that? Mr. Kanter — Well, we could: Both developments will be before the board at the same time. You could, like we did with the Overlook, have a future road connection at a certain place... Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that type of thing. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we did with Conifer and Perry. and started to piece that together. Board Member Thayer — Right, with the future roads. Mr. Fabbroni — We showed a future road to the road. My problem to the east or west is, the horse farm is pretty well defined. I mean it is 900 acres or I don't know what. I didn't know what I was I serving other than where I talked about that farm pond, that could be. moved farther to the north and you could leave room for something there if and when and ever, but I didn't see an if and when and ever. To the east, was a different sort of thought. Did you want another third of a mile of road ... I could see walkways and bikeways and that sort of connectivity, but I was having a problem seeing that you wanted a road thereto no place. If you do, then I could find out from this conversation, but and its not a ... and certainly when I reconfigure the whole. layout, its not a problem to give a right -of -way that way, but what is it going to do is the question that I want to ask. Board Member Hoffmann - Did all of you see the letter from Brent and Diane Katzman with the drawing? Board Member Thayer — It's asking for a cluster. Board Member Hoffmann Right and I mean approximately in those locations for both the Sky Gardens and this parcel would make some sense for many reasons that' they mention, but one of the ones that I can think of or two is it preserves more farmland and it also keeps the land along Mecklenburg Road free from houses so it preserves the views there better. There are other things, too, I think that they mentioned in the letter. The other option, of course, is we could talk about and this is something the Katzman's mentioned, too, we could talk about using the purchase of development rights for this parcel. That way Mr. Drake would get some financial benefit in exchange for keeping this land available for farming. Chairperson Wilcox — On that point, my comment is I would hope that Mr. Drake and the Town and the Town is defined as the Supervisor and the elected officials and staff could at lease pursue, if they haven't already, that possibility and see if that is something that is both deals with Mr. Drake's short-term concern and the Town long term concern is to protect. Maybe they've pursued it; maybe they haven't. Maybe Mr. Drake has talked to other farmers and for whatever reason has decided not to, but I would certainly love it if PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Mr. Drake and the Town. at least tried to go through* the process and have appraisals done and come up with the, correct me if I'm Mr. Kanter, what is the value . of the property without the development rights and what is the value with the development rights and what is the difference between the two and that becomes the offer that the Town could make if the Town had the funding to do it, etc. Is this a priority parcel for the Town in terms of all the other parcels that might exist in the Town of Ithaca including others on West Hill? I don't know the answers to those. That's Town policy. Mr. Kanter — A short response is we did to talk to Mr. Drake and Larry when they came in to discuss the subdivision about that, about purchase of development rights. And we didn't get into a lot of detail, but Mr. Drake seemed pretty well set on pursuing this kind of approach as opposed to the purchase of development rights approach. But the first step would be if Mr. Drake were interested in pursuing that ;to submit an application for the easement program and that would trigger an appraisal as you were mentioning. We can't really do it to demonstrate that it could be worth such and such. It has to be at the request of the owner, but the Town does front the money for that appraisal. Board Member Conneman — That would give him a chance to save the land, which you say he is interested in.. Chairperson Wilcox — It gives him a chance to preserve the land and a one - time -shot of cash infusion. Board Member Conneman — Well, I don't know whether development rights have to.. .do they have to pay immediately or can they be paid overtime? Attorney Barney — I think our plan...at least the one we've done was paid all at once cash payment. That raises an interesting tax problem for the recipient. They usually have a relatively low basis of the land, they get their big chunk of money and the government takes it, although in this particular administration right now it might be the best time to do it ... (inaudible). I haven't really looked at it. The Town probably could, subject to some research, could enter into an agreement to pay for it over a period of time, which would reduce... Mr. Kanter — We've actually done some preliminary research on annuities and that type of approach and there are some options out there if we could figure it out legally. Board Member Conneman — That would satisfy me and Kevin and his think outside the box. Don't assume you can't do it. You don't know. I don't know Mr. Drake. He might be a very well devoted person who really wants to preserve the land, but he needs some cash infusion to continue to farm. I also think that we ought to ask to see what a cluster development would look like if we had any kinds of planning ideas to do it. I think that this, I won't proposal, but this diagram at least gets me excited about the fact that if you are going to have it you've got some land that is eased together. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Mr., Barney, would you go back over the history of ... the recent history of subdivisions on agricultural lands? I'm sorry, clustering on agricultural land. Attorney Barney — Currently, the subdivision regulations say you can only cluster in a residential district ... (inaudible). We are in the process in amending that provision. Chairperson Wilcox — We made a recommendation at a previous meeting. Attorney Barney — Right. Now the Town's new Zoning Ordinance... under the old ordinance you couldn't compel .*..(inaudible)... under the new ordinance, we specifically are authorized to compel a cluster that is inconsistent with the subdivision regulations, which presently reads you can't do it. So we are eliminating that anomaly. My problem . is just the timing of it. If we had eliminated the anomaly a year ago...(inaudible) ... whether somebody could legally ... (inaudible) ... because this is coming in under the old rules and it should be held to old rules and not anything that apply subsequent or adopted subsequent to April 1St. I don't know without doing some research if that would be pursuable in a lawsuit. Chairperson Wilcox - Do you think we... Attorney Barney — My instincts say we would have a problem... Mr. Walker — John, the old law said the board could not require a cluster, but did that preclude a developer's suggesting a cluster? Attorney Barney — No. Mr. Walker — If a developer came in and said they wanted to cluster in the Ag zone, would they be allowed to? Attorney Barney — I think ... they could only cluster. I think at the time that that was done, which was a number of years ago. The theory was that you didn't want to have lots of houses close up on an agricultural zone. Chairperson Wilcox — With the assumption that the Ag zone didn't have water and sewer. Attorney Barney — Yeah, the old history was that typically whenever you went to cluster or whenever water and sewer came in, it was almost an automatic rezoning from R -30 to R -15 and of course clustering is permitted both R -30 and R -15 zones, so there was never really much of an issue. Even when Ag lands were water and sewer ... I can't remember off the top of my head whether that ever happened. I think the process would have been to rezone to R15. R15 was always kind of the traditional residential zone with the infrastructure present. When the infrastructure came along, the zoning followed. That has not been the case, obviously, in recent years. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox - Can we look into whether we can require ... I would love to be able to ask for a subdivision that showed clustering. Before we ask for it or before we... Attorney Barney — It's a question of whether... Chairperson Wilcox - ...we can. I don't want to ask for it if we can't. Attorney Barney — Well, you can ask,for it and the developer can say yes I'll do it or they can say no I won't. I mean the developer can certainly, I would assume, do it voluntarily. P. Chairperson Wilcox — The question is can we ask for it. Attorney. Barney — Can you demand it ... (inaudible) ... is what you are saying. And my answer to that is that is where I think you will have a little. bit of a problem. Chairperson Wilcox — We can ask for it but can't demand it or compel it. Board Member Thayer- Dan, there would have to be a pumping station to get the water up there, right? Mr. Walker — Yeah. Board Member Thayer — And .where would that be? Along the road or can it be over inside? Where is the waterline now? Mr. Walker — The waterline runs at the top of the Conifer property. Board Member Thayer — It runs east and west there? Mr. Walker — Yeah. It is right at the base of the Sky Gardens. proposal so they have access to it. It's on the adjoining property, but they have access to it. And they are within the service area on the lower half of that Sky Gardens parcel. Board Member Thayer — So the pump would have to be on their property? Mr. Walker — There would have to be a pump, well, actually the pump station probably couldn't be much above Conifer's property. I would probably recommend that it be directly off that 12 -inch main because in that area we're not at an excessively high pressure. Board Member Thayer — That presents another problem for the developer is he agrees to go to a cluster. He's gotta buy or get an easement or something for a clubhouse there because he's going to have to pay for it, right? . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13; 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — He's going to have to pay for and he's got get it across the Sky Gardens' property, Mr. Rancich's, Mr. Walker — Normally, when a developer comes in and a development requires services to be constructed, we make that a requirement that the developer provide those because they are being the benefit of the subdivision. ,Because of the distance of this parcel from the utilities and the fact that its outside the service area and the Town Board has made it quite clear, along with the consensus of this board, I .believe, that water should not extend beyond the existing service area. Um, and you are kind of pushing outside. Board Member Thayer — Well; that's why I'm asking... Mr. Walker — Now, EcoVillage is basically... the EcoVillage example is a cluster in an Agricultural Zone, basically. They've got 60 residences in about a 10 -acre parcel in the middle of a larger parcel. And they've had to put in a booster pump to get water up to them, but sewage flows down hill so it was easy to get sewer out of that property. Now, those are...that infrastructure was paid for initially by 30 lots and then, you know, is being shared by another 30 lots so you are spreading the cost of that over 60 lots. It was quite a financial burden on them and they are not happy with .the system as it is now. They have enough pressure, but they don't like the cost. Operationally, it is. pretty expensive type system because you've got pumps running all the time. Board Member Thayer— Well, that's what I'm saying. If it not practical or impossible to get water up there or the Board won't let us put water up there, why should we even talk about a cluster? Mr. Walker — Nothing is impossible. Engineers can do anything. Attorney Barney — With enough money. As we sit here today, the law reads in our subdivision regulations that clustered subdivisions are permitted only in any residential district of the Town of Ithaca. Agricultural lands must first be rezoned to a residential designation before a clustered subdivision plan play be brought before the Planning Board for review. So as we sit here right today, its not only you ca.n't compel it, you can't even consider it. Now in two weeks, I think that law will change to read a clustered subdivision is permitted with respect to any residential dwellings in any zone and goes on to say, I think, elsewhere we were are compelled to a submission of a clustered plan. But as you sit here tonight, we can't even legally consider it. Board Member Talty — So, we can consider a hypothetical. Attorney Barney — You can suggest to the developer that you would like to look at a cluster and the developer could say, if a developer was of a mind to, sure I'll be happy to present one to you and I'll present it to you in 2.5 half weeks, in which event it would probably be legal. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Mr. Walker = Just one comment, just knowing the West Hill a little bit. The area where the cluster is shown. on the this little letter from ... that right in one of the wettest parts of the property in the only woodland area that's next to the major stream in the area. So it would be in total violation of our stream maintenance and protection program; So that is not the right place to put the cluster. Mr. Kanter — That's a pretty small corner Mr. Fabbroni — If Mr. Drake considered upper part of the property because that But I'm in a difficult situation of saying without talking to him. to cluster in anyway. a cluster, I think we would be looking at the 's the part of the property that has the views. whether he would consider the cluster or not Chairperson Wilcox — That's fine. That's fine. Board Member Conneman — (inaudible) ... if he were to consider development rights if it was available ... (inaudible) ... if that was possible. Mr. Fabbroni — I think the lot..,just from having education that needed to go in the communication he definitely has an impression it isn't. From wl• discussion has gone on, on that matter. talked to him, there is a lot more if that is a viable alternative because ere I've sat, I don't know that a full Mr. Kanter — No. I don't think it has. Actually, it would be an interesting discussion. Mr. Fabbroni — So a lot of people have misimpressions just as soon as you start taking a little bit of their rights away from them, you know. Mr. Kanter — Its like when you buy a property you are taking all their rights away. Actually, we would be glad to run through some numbers with him. Mr. Fabbroni — I think its worth another conversation, not based on anything he's said to me on the other end; but I didn't feel like it was more than just a passing idea, you know, in the conversation we had and right or wrong... Board Member Conneman — (comments not audible) Chairperson Wilcox— I was just thinking that. Mr. Fabbroni — One of the things I've been trying to convey to you is that and as you pointed, nothing to do with anything, there's a 66 -year passion here that you are dealing with, too. It is a legitimate a one as I can sense it can be over to you. Chairperson Wilcox — Should we give the waiting public a chance to speak? Board Member Thayer — Yes. Good idea. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, Larry. You can stay there, Larry, or you can go back and take a seat. I don't know if anybody wants to talk, but here's your opportunity. Who's going to go first? Bob? Robert Mitchell, 153 West Haven Road — Two comments.. One is I'm here really in concern of the watershed of Cliff Park Brook. I've been before this board on the same issue. That's the ... the headwaters of the brook is actually on this land. It doesn't drain all to Williams Creek. It comes down to Cliff Park Brook. This brook is under a. lot of pressure right now from previous development. EcoVillage .channelized this brook and also have impounded and use it for irrigation. And the Town just put a new water tower in this watershed and I think it has changed the way this brook flows. Additionally, we have had tremendous amount of erosion and then last summer because they impound it and use it for irrigation, this brook dries up much more than it used to. So that I am concerned that when they do develop this land, if they do develop this land that the stream flow can be as normalized as it is now: This stream right now is on land that they are actually clearing for more farmland. It was a wet area and. now they are clearing off the trees and using.some pretty heavy equipment to move some big rocks out of there. it flows down there and then across the top of the Sky View land and then crossed the road and comes across EcoVillage. So I would just ... if they are going to develop this land, I would want you to consider that Just as a thought, too, as I sit here and listen to you thinking of creative ways to do this, I. wonder if you could ... if these two developers could get together and do some land swapping and development rights swapping, whether they could use some of the lower land and keep both these develops on the lower parcel of the land and use some of the Sky View Gardens land that's currently good farmland higher up on the hill as continued to be farmland as open space. Thank you. Peter Trowbridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road — We are directly south of this parcel, as you know. And I don't particularly have a problem with the residential development at some scale on this particular piece of land. .Having grown up on a farm and most of my family is in farming; I know how difficult it is as a small family farm to continue to be viable. I have brothers who work 60 -hour weeks and make $30,000 a year and have had to sell frontage to keep their family farms in operation. So I am not certainly opposed to residential development in the area, but there are a few homework issues that I guess I would ask Larry to think about. One is looking at well logs in the area. Despite the fact there was a conversation about one well on the property and an abundance of water, I can tell you living directly across the street I have two wells that exceed 220 feet and it is very difficult to operate, keep a household going on those two wells. Deeper than that you run into salt on west hill, saline. One of the wells, despite the fact that they are only about 80 feet apart is, is also sulfur: So the quality of water in this area as most glacial areas is very variable. So it would be worthwhile for the board to think about or at least look at well logs in the area whether than looking at a single well because despite the fact you may or may not consider clustering, the availability of water even on two -acre lots with septic and again, my two wells are ... I have a septic. Two wells that are separated, I would doubt that I could get adequate water and septic PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 and replacement even on', two acres.despite the fact that's what's required by the Health Department. So it might be worthwhile just to take a little study. And again, I know that everyone always talks about traffic and I'm the last person to do that except my lower driveway... Chairperson Wilcox— You are in a unique position. Mr. Trowbridge — Except my lower driveway I have timed because of the crest of the hill and 55 mile an hour zones and as you know the lower road here is directly across from my driveway I pretty much have a pretty good sense of what the timing is. I've timed...) don't see a car and its six seconds and it may, may not be going 55 miles an hour and they may not be driving the legal limit, but they are at my driveway. I do not have enough time to make a reasonable right hand turn out of my driveway before someone is really .on top of me. Mr. Kanter — And what kind of car do you have? Mr. Trowbridge — A reasonable car. I actually have a pickup truck. But its worthwhile taking a look at if you consider:..continuing to consider the subdivision whether there. is a speed issue, but it is a pretty blind hill coming over the top. So there are some issues of thinking about safety at that intersection. But again, I don't particularly oppose some level of development. I just think there probably needs to be a little more study. One last thing, if frontage lots are sold, which is quite likely if a subdivision like would go through, certainly some of the wettest lots are directly on Mecklenburg Road, the southeast corner of that development. I can tell you that it is not farmable. It's never had crops on it. It's full of typhus, which are cattails. It has all the indicators of a wet area and so some of the frontage lots, which if I was farming, you know I didn't want to invest and I wanted to sell of parcels, the ones I would sell off would be frontage. Clearly that parcel as is just discussed by the previous speaker, water moves through that part of the site into the roadside ditch on 79 under the road and then through EcoVillage. So there are some, maybe some limitations so even with a standard subdivision, there are some of these lots that -might want to be oversized because of the nature and the wetness of the soil. So maybe that corner lot if it is going to be subdivided would quite likely would have to be a bigger lot in order to qualify for Health Department regs in terms of septic and some of the ... clearly it would be a wetland under Army Core and would need to be probably oversized to be a suitable, developable lot. So again, I'd be a happy neighbor for Mr. Drake and for ... I don't really oppose development in the area, but I suspect there is a little bit more study that needs to be done. Just so at the end of the day, people who buy these lots have the kind of services I think a bank would expect. I would be thrilled if you could bring services across from my house because I would be a very happy guy. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Peter. Ron Danappoli, 1385 Mecklenburg Road — Mostly I came here because I have just heard about the letter saying there was a planned subdivision and I hadn't heard PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 anything about it. So I just wanted to check out what the plans were. I would second the comment about .the speed zone. I'm at the top of the crest and I don't think ... I make his driveway in six seconds, maybe some of the mornings. People do come by fast and I can ... as I'm driving home I'm. coming up on 1362 I realize that there is not a lot of vision of what is coming over on the other direction. .So I can0just imagine.someone speeding around. I see people zipping by the house all the. time.. being on top of somebody coming out of that subdivision in a hurry. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Larry, what do you want from us.at this point? What do you need from us and I'll ask you to pull the microphone back over. Mr. Fabbroni — Based on what some of the neighbors have just said, I mean I could go. off and come up with a creative layout for one. I could discuss cluster with Mr. Drake. Number two; I could discuss the land swapping idea. I mean if the board wasn't sitting here saying we. wouldn't consider another unit on the Rancich land then that is something halfway viable to go discuss. I mean, you know, if you end up with more development down there and all open area above it, it's certainly a creative idea that I heard. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Rancich strikes me as that sort guy who would like to just sit down and talk about it to. He's kind of that, you know, gregarious... Mr. Kanter — If thought it would be helpful for the Town to be involved in some kind of discussion like that we would be happy too. Mr. Fabbroni — Of course I, in the first instance I ought to see where Mr. Drake wants to go. So that is kind of my thoughts going away. I sort of feel compelled because I'm in this grandfathered period to move along and come up with an alternate layout that's more creative and God forbid to say the word, traditional, and then work on the other things simultaneously because we are under some obligation to move along with the process, as I understand.it. Chairperson Wilcox - The fact that you got it in before April 1 st . Mr. Fabbroni — You know the site distance thing is a real issue with the lower road; again it is not very creative. We've got that message loud and clear, but one of the reasons for the upper drive was because it is not the same dilemma. You are up over that dip there. As much as I've been able to try it out myself, you have a lot more distance coming out .of that-up ... the existing driveway as it goes into the land if you've been up there. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you DOT's comments? Mr. Fabbroni — I have not seen DOT's comments. I have not seen this alternate plan that you were referring to earlier. Board Member Hoffmann I didn't see it either. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, they were sitting here when we came. in. Mr. Fabbroni — So I would like to see that and kind of... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sure you will get copies... Mr. Fabbroni — Even if we didn't end up as .Dan said, I got the impression its in the northeast corner. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that a copy of everything that was in front of us when we came in? Very good. Thank you. Mr. Fabbroni — There are other issues taking off of what Peter said. If you find a. good artesian well and you go on the rest of the property and you don't then one of the other options, I don't know if the Town would be open to a public supply, a privately owned public supply so to speak. Obviously there would have to be the guarantees for maintaining it, but as we discussed the separation problem and just the ligistics of getting the public water system up there that might be another option. So I can go off and explore and do homework on those things. Your preferences have been made pretty clear, but I'm at a little at a handicap on saying too much on that option tonight. Everything has beer. very useful. Chairperson Wilcox — I would point out that Mr. Drake was here last week when we were scheduled. Mr. Fabbroni — He was. I don't know what happened. The notice went out. Maybe it's the fact that it's a Thursday instead of a Tuesday. I don't know. I can't really say. I left a message last Saturday. I called again today,. so I'm really at a loss to know what happened. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. So you're all set for now? Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else members of the board wish to say at this point? Board Member Conneman — The only thing that I'd say is that I think we are all concerned about how the ... (inaudible) ... if we can do something more creative, whatever that is, it would be helpful. Chairperson Wilcox = We will see you next Tuesday, right Larry? Mr. Fabbroni — Yup. Y PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:37 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE. HEARD None. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Board Member Howe — Jonathan, I won't be at the meeting next Tuesday. Mr. Kanter — It seems like a fairly long agenda, but really isn't going to be that bad. Chairperson Wilcox— There are no minutes to be approved. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, .they've been approved already? Chairperson Wilcox — They've been approved. That's what happens when you miss a meeting. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I had some questions about some things Chairperson Wilcox — Too late. (laughing) Board Member Hoffmann — Wow. Wow. Board Member Thayer — We are in trouble. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — No. We are efficient. Those are final. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, actually, for instance in the resolution about ... I just want to give you an example here. In the resolution about the library addition, there area is called planned. development zone number 9, but when we talked about it we talked about district 7, precinct 7. Are those two the same thing or is... Mr. Kanter — Precinct 7 and Special Land Use District Number 9, or now known as Planned Development Zone Number 9, are the same thing. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — One is Cornell Is designation. The other is the Town's designation. Alright. So that was your one example, right? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. I have other things but I don't dare to mention them. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I try not to cross that thin line between running an efficient meeting and being very impolite. Board Member Hoffmann — I'll show you this after the meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — If I hang around long enough, right? Board Member Hoffmann— Oh, yeah. Otherwise I will talk to Jonathan about it. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay: Mr. Kanter — Oh, no. Chairperson Wilcox — Before some of you may have gotten here, I think before Kevin had gotten, I had asked Rod if he wanted to say anything with regard to the email that he sent to each of us, which did not have anything to do with any specific proposal, Mr. Barney. So don't worry. So, Rod, its up to you. If you would like to speak to it, if you don't want to, it's totally up to you. Board Member Howe = 1 mean let me just pose a question for us to consider. I'm as anxious to go home as anyone: There's times it is not clear how much we can push something for a developer and sometimes it comes up and we talk about it briefly. I guess I'm just wondering if it might be helpful to almost .have a retreat sometime to remind us of, I mean. we have the Comprehensive Plan and we have the 'new' zoning. Remind us what are some of the tools that we have available to us, some of the more innovative tools that we may or may not be able to push. We saw the presentation by the. County Planning Department in their sort of guiding principles. How does that fit in to what we are thinking about? At times I guess I'm feeling that our cumulative decisions are changing the character of the Town in ways that I'm not excited about, but I realize...l'm very pleased with the zoning that we came up with and there's only so much that we can do. There's going to be things that we have to approve that individually some of us may not like, but we. have to obviously follow the laws and regulations that we've set. So its really more this question of how do we _make...are we using the tools at our disposal in creative ways to make sure that the cumulative decisions and I'm thinking of what the Town is going to look like in 15 or 20 years. Is it going to be the kind. of Town that we want our children and grandchildren to live in based on the principles that I know most of us hold very strongly right now.? So sometimes it is helpful to have time to back away from having to discuss any given proposal and just have sort of an open dialog because sometimes we all have questions about can we do this, can we do that. Maybe it is not useful, maybe others aren't interested and that's fine. It was just a question. And actually I guess this was ... it came out of a specific proposal. Its broader, but I was very PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 struck by our discussion about the Westview /Schickel Road where when it came to a call to a vote... Chairperson Wilcox — No one would second it. Board Member Howe— Plus I don't feel really good about that proposal and I still wonder how much we could have pushed cluster development for that particular...so that's ... some questions were raised as a result of that development. Chairperson Wilcox —None of us were really happy with that. Board Member Thayer — No. We weren't. Board Member Conneman — I don't we'll be happy with Sky Gardens and Drake and all that kind of stuff that ... (inaudible) ... because we were ... (inaudible)...planning by pieces. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, with these parcels we are also being....by having this time period when people come in with projects, we are sort of being forced into looking at it the old way where. we have already ... our minds are set to do it the new way. That is difficult. Mr. Kanter — That is not so much true with Sky Gardens because although they came in before the April 1st deadline, they have no right to do what they are proposing to do under the old or the new. They think they came in under the door, but really it is irrelevant on that one as far as I'm concerned. Board Member Conneman.— Sometimes you look at and this is nothing against. John or attorneys in general, they look at what is needed instead of what is right. Attorney Barney — It is hard to stand up in front of a judge and say it's not really what is legal, its what's right. Board Member Conneman — Maybe they ought to change the judges. Chairperson Wilcox — Remember what is legal is a combination of I assume State law and but also the Town Board's laws and regulations which govern what authority we have and under what rules i.e., zoning and subdivision and site plan .that we operate under. And as much as I, you know, we've got into a little bit tiff about this particular thing from Larry, but I don't think we were disagreeing with each other. Maybe I just wasn't being clear, but I don't like this either. But lets talk about what we don't like and let's see what we can do to change it. I'm on the record so I have to be careful of what I say, but this is terrible. Board Member Conneman — My thing is when a Planning Board does its ... tries to make things better and not simply take what they give us. Board. Member Talty — We're a Planning Board Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Yes, we should. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . MAY 131.2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 We should plan. Board Member Talty - That's it. I mean one of the most disgraceful things I've been involved with is Mr.. Auble's division where we've got single family homes one side of the cul -de -sac just because.of how if was zoned coming out to the road, right. We had commercial... Mr. Kanter — No. It was rezoned specifically that way so ... because some people thought the plan was a good one. Board Member Thayer — It was done intentionally. Board Member Talty — Well, I can't think of one neighborhood anywhere in the State that has a cul -de -sac with residential homes on one side and cluster housing on the other. I can't think of one. Board Member Hoffmann — Why do you think that wouldn't work? Board Member Talty — I'm not saying it won't, but I mean that's not what ... I mean when we came up with this, this, is this dysfunctional thinking as far as a Planning. Board, in my opinion. I mean we are trying to think outside the box to use my own words. Maybe I didn't use them correctly in tonight's presentation, but I mean I wouldn't ever ... I don't know anybody who would want to live on that.... Mr. Kanter — I think you'll find those lots will probably sell pretty quickly. Board Member Talty — Living on a cul -de -sac with single - family homes on one side and cluster housing on the other? . Chairperson Wilcox — Apartments. Attorney. Barney — I think in the Winston Court area in the Northeast and they might not be quite in the same cul -de -sac, but you have a whole... Board Member Talty But its not directly across the street is what I'm saying. Directly across. Mr: Kanter — Actually, the reason that layout was thought to be a good one by a lot of people was because the single family larger lots would help further buffer the State parkland on that side. Board Member Talty — That's correct. That's exactly what it was. It was different sections coming down all the way to the road. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Connem,an The intention was a different kind of commercial development, not however you might describe... there is something wrong with that picture. You've got to think of that picture. There's something wrong with that. Chairperson Wilcox — That's okay. We all got a big packet in the mail today..) haven't opened it yet. Board Member Conneman Maybe next time we'll talk about it. Mr. Kanter — It's not fair to talk about it tonight, right. Board Member Hoffmann I just wanted to make a suggestion. If you would like to have a meeting, which is like a retreat and unless you would like to do it here at the boardroom, I would be very happy to have you all come over to my house and we can do it there in a somewhat less formal setting. I know it has to be advertised. Chairperson Wilcox — How did the County deal with that when the legislature had their quote retreat? Ms. Coates Whitmore — The Town Board has a board retreat where they do training. It is advertised as a board retreat and that they wouldn't be discussing any official business and it is open to the public. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I don't know if Eva wants her house open to the public. Board Member Hoffmann - Well considering how often we get public to various meetings, I think I'll take the risk. Chairperson Wilcox — I think I know some professor in the Vet School who might show up. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe. Board Member Howe And some my not feel its necessary, but I just seems like it might be helpful to step back and just look back at some of the broader ... I think we have all of the foundation pieces. I'm just not sure sometimes we piece them all together. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm wondering if we don't push hard enough sometimes and maybe that's me.. Do we not push and push and push .a little bit harder and come a little bit close to that line of are we doing something legal or illegal: Board Member Thayer = (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — Well, maybe we .are. Board Member Conneman — (inaudible) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13,.2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to take this thing and I'm going to paint a yellow stripe right down this third of a mile and I'm going to get two 1968 cars with 427s and I'm going to go dragging down the damn thing. Board Member Conneman - I'm going to frame it. I think it is so unimaginative. Chairperson Wilcox — But how much can we push to be legal? Mr. Kanter — Hopefully who ever is drafting these minutes can do a nice short summary of this whole discussion. Chairperson Wilcox How far can we push? Board Member Thayer — Well, I think we got our. point across to Larry. Attorney Barney — Keep in mind you are defendants in a lawsuit in which are responding to in which somebody thinks you didn't push enough. Board Member Conneman — I would like to be around when Cornell says you have to have a parking lot educational purpose. When they get through the suit on the red woods. I can't imagine any judge saying you got to have a parking lot for educational purposes. Come on. Now legally... Attorney Barney — I don't think the issue is going to be framed in the form of educational purposes and a parking lot. Board Member Conneman.— Well, then what other justification do you have? Chairperson Wilcox — No. The question is whether the... Attorney Barney — They have already lost on that issue of a site plan. Board Member Conneman — How would reason? I don't understand how anybody could sit there and... Attorney Barney — Do you know how the case went? Basically, Cornell sued when the site plan was denied. The judge looked at it and said hey you folks on the Planning Board didn't make any findings to justify what you did. I'm sending it back to you to make findings. The Planning Board in a very, I would use the word arrogant, response sent it back saying we decided what we decided, that's the way it is. The judge at that point said if that's the way you want it, denied. Cornell is right. They get the site plan. Then they came in and they started on the historical side of it. The issue in terms of the parking lot is history. Its really difficult to justify why a parking lot is a problem ... (inaudible) ... and that's the issue is ... on that. the Planning Board chose not to ... (inaudible),.I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 131-2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 They lost on the site plan, but Board Member Conneman'— The chairman of the Planning Board was not very aggressive about it. He could have done some things with that. Attorney Barney — The Planning Board could have made some findings that maybe substantiated their decisions as to why... Board Member Conneman — But they didn't. They chose not to... Mr.. Kanter — But its also hard to make findings if you haven't gotten the information you need during the process to make the findings. You can't just make them up at the end either, so that is why this SEQR process in particular is so important. Board Member Conneman — Right. That's true. Mr. Kanter — Another thing I love anyone to think about is going to some of these training sessions that are widely available like the New York Planning Federation programs. I think this next one is going to be in Lake Placid again. It's coming up in September I think. There are usually all kinds of other opportunities. Actually,. if you wanted to, we could see if the Department of State people could come out here and give us some educational stuff. Board Member Hoffmann — That might be easier for some people who can't take the time for the whole conference. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have some connections there, Rod? Board Member Howe — With the New York Planning Federation? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, that and the Department of State. Board Member Howe We would have to be pretty specific about what we want. Chairperson Wilcox I don't want this to get dropped. I want to know how we can pursue this discussion. Board Member Howe — I guess whether if folks are interested in taking Eva up on her offer or whether you want to pursue DOS or somebody. to come in. Mr. Kanter — Or it could be all of those or some combination. Chairperson Wilcox — I have the opportunity to get to the training sessions held by the Planning Federation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 APPROVED June 1, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann— What are the days again for that? Chairperson Wilcox — It is the third or fourth week of September. Again this year it is the same time as last year. Mr. Kanter — Sunday, September 19th _Wednesday, September 22 "d. It's a little earlier than when they usually have it. 'Chairperson Wilcox — I used to.go every other year. .l now gone 2 or 3 years in a row now because other people haven't gone, can't go, whatever. I take advantage of the opportunity whenever I can and I encourage everybody else, too. The put on a good show. Board Member Hoffmann I wouldn't mind going again if nobody else wants to do it because there is some... Mr. Kanter— We should be able to send a few people, depending on the interest. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't see the budget numbers, but I suspect there's got to be room for two or thee in there at least. So think about training. Who's going to pursue individualized training with the Planning Federation or... Board Member Howe — Well, let me talk to Bob Elliot and get some ideas. I'm seeing something fairly tailored. I think the issue for us is, we have an understanding, its just pushing ourselves and making sure we utilize the tools that we do have Chairperson Wilcox —.Any other business tonight? AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 13, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, tilt Carrie g oa s Whmore Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Special Meeting Thursday, May 13, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Boodley 2 -Lot Subdivision, 199 Iradell Road, 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No..24- 1 -1.2, Agricultural zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 8.08 + /- acre parcel into two lots, one 3 +/- acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 5.08 +/- acre vacant parcel to be maintained in its natural state. A NYS Department of Environmental Conservation designated freshwater wetland is located on the parcel. Nancy K. Boodley, Owner /Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 30 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 15.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes constructing a new road off Mecklenburg Road for the development of 29 residential lots and one lot reserved for open space on the 94 +/- acre parcel. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbrom, P.E., L.S., Agent. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: 7. Other Business: 8, Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, A1CP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Thursday, May 13, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of,Ithaca'on Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 199 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -1.2, Agricultural zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 8.08 + /- acre parcel into two lots, one 3 +/- acre parcel containing the. existing residence and one 5.08 +/- acre vacant parcel to be maintained in its natural state. A NYS Department of Environmental Conservation . designated freshwater wetland is located on the parcel. Nancy K. Boodley, Owner /Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, 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 hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Publish: Friday, May 7, 2004, The Ithaca Journal :. Friday, May °7, TOVM;OVffHACA-- . *ANNING'BOARD '4F'• NOTICE`,OF,;P.UBUC "HEARINGS A. Thursday, May M13, 2004,_ irechon :of the Chdr' Jerson . of = <the Planning" be held by. the ",Planning iid:oEtfi`e Gvn of'lth'acar, a>Thursday, - -'May, `1,3;. )4,•at:2115' North, Tiogo iet,`flthaca, KY.i;- :at. the' )wing times and -ori:the )wing matters::.-_ 10 P.N1.Consi' era'tion Preliminary- ;Nand '`Final division Approval for the No:&'24- 1.1:2, Agricultural' zone.,,,dJhe ,proposal in- ,dudes'- subdividing _�- the - 8:08+/ . ='acre_.'parcel, into two lots, one 3 " +/= ;'age, porcel',containing:;the:i&ist. - j ng;iesidenceand'oneZM ±/- acre vacant parcel to be maintained.` .in- Its' natural estate: A NYS Deporhtient'of Environmental Conservation designated ; freshwater wet-.: an is,, ocated "on "the :ppar 'cel.' Narrxxyy K Boodley, `Owner/Ap'plicanl `Said Planning Board will afsaid times and said place 1, hear all persons -in support 1of 'such matters orobjections 1jheieto:;r Persons -;may bp­' •,pear by, agent on in person. Individuals with visual im-.. ,pairments;.:hearing: impair - .ments,', or. other: "special needs; will be provided with assistance as:- .necessary,:• upon request.•Personsdesir -, ing assistance- =must .make such =a request'not; less than 48'hours''prior.to the time of ,the•pubk hearings: . Jonathan.Kanteri AICP Director of Planning -273 -1747 . Dated: Wednesday, May'5, ,2004 Publish Friday, `;May 7, 1004 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: May 13, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION 7T aw�nilo ���K �J` I� T- TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist 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. tc Town Hall 215 North 1 toga at 7:00 P.M. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting Date of Posting Date of Publication May 5, 2004 May 7, 2004 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) . F1 r Town Clerk .Sian Board — 215 North Tioga Street. at l,a, Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7th day of May 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 O b�