HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-10-03REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2006
215 NORTH .TIOGA STREET
ITHACA, NY 14850
PRESENT
FILE
DATE
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board
Member (arrived at 7:14 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board
Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney .for the Town;
Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (arrived at 7:13 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant
Director of Planning; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.
EXCUSED
Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Mike Smith, Environmental
Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner.
OTHERS
Dwight Ball, 105 -107 Court St, Binghamton NY; Jack Brayton, 1249 Front St,
Binghamton NY; Mike Tomanocy, 1249 Front St, Binghamton NY; Hollis Erb, 118
Snyder Hill Rd; Martin Lasskorn, 108 Elmwood Ave; Pat Long, 4 Schickel . Rd; Dave
Auble, 111 King Rd W; Dave and Melanie Rogers, 120 Bundy Rd; Melvin and Aileen
Ellis, 118 Bundy Rd; Boris Simkin, Ithaca; Peter Paradise, Cornell University,
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 25, 2006 and September 27, 2006,
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 September 27, 2006,
Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to
on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one
address the Board.
SEAR
Big AI's (Manely's Mighty -Mart), 1103 Danby -Road
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
address the Board
present wishing to
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 2
Chairperson Wilcox — Gentlemen, the first time you speak I will want a name and
address, a professional address is fine. Then each time you speak after that I will try to
remind you to just give your first name again that way when we record and then
transcribe the minutes it will make it a lot easier for the secretary to know who spoke.
So having said that ... what did I say?
Ms. Brock — Clerk.
Chairperson Wilcox — Clerk? My assistant. Name and address please.
Dwight Ball, 105 -107 Court St, Binghamton NY
My name is Dwight Ball. I am an attorney and my office is at 105 -107 Court Street in
Binghamton, New York.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a presentation this evening?
Mr. Ball — Yes, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox — The floor is yours.
Mr. Ball — I have indicated my name and occupation and I represent Manley Is Mighty -
Mart, LLC, which is the applicant here. With me tonight is Jack Brayton, who is the
general manager of the LLC, which is the top job for those that are used to words like
"president" and Mike Tomanocy, who is our construction manager, because of an issue
regarding lighting. We thought he might be able to address that with you.
The relief the applicant is seeking is modification of its existing special permit, which it
inherited for Big AI's at Danby Road as you indicated. The proposal is for permission to
be open 24 -hours a day, 7 -days a week as compared to the current hours, which are 6
am to 1 pm Friday and Saturday, and I think 6 am to Midnight the balance of the week.
The problem from the applicant's standpoint is the problem we have dealing with
competitors. In our application we gave you a list of competitive stores that are
convenient stores in this area that are open 24 -7, and this is also true. of this drift
towards 24 hours... is true of Wegman's and fast foods, etc. It has just become a way of
surviving in business. Mr. Brayton assumed control of the company just last year and
did observe a drop in revenue. In analyzing why this occurred, one of the factors was
the hours of operation compared to competitors. Not having been involved in our initial
purchase, although I was, he was not aware of the 24 -hour restriction, I mean the
restriction on hours and he just started doing it. You have to remember that your
special permit was granted in 1998, years before we bought the place and long before.
Mr. Brayton even came on board. The result, which he will be glad to discuss with you,
was clearly evidenced in a turn around in revenue as soon as we did this. Because we
have actually been doing this in ignorance since August of 2005. Both your prior zoning
commissioner and the current zoning planner, or I guess you call Planning Director,
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 3
have indicated that pending this application, we did not have to stop, which I thought
was a very generous and cooperative offer on their parts.
The fact is we know that the hours of operation are essential in this day of
competition, but on the other hand we also know that when the approval was granted, it
appears that that was the hours that the applicant then, who owned Big AI's, was
requesting. Not because there was any pressure from anyone to make them less or
more, he was actually asked as I read the minutes of, your prior meeting, what are your
hours of operation. He said what exists, and they said okay and they gave it to him.
The second aspect, though, which has to be addressed is plans, according to the
minutes I read and your reports of your Planning Director, indicated that he was going to
have either recessed or shielded lighting. And although his plans called for it, they don't
exist. I can represent to you that if this is granted, you will have your shielded or
recessed lighting within any reasonable time that you determine. I understand that you
have a proposed statute, which would require this, but it doesn't exist and I want to
assure you that we will not for passage or non- passage of that. We are willing to do
that. We have 20 other stores and all 20 have recessed or shielded lighting. We
inherited the store and it just never got converted to that.
In spite of the fact that we have been open for 14 months, I don't think you have
ever received or anyone in the Town has ever received a formal complaint objecting to
it, whether it is neighbor. I mean some may, but I don't believe ever to the extent that
formal complaints have ever been filed. In addition and I realize it makes it look like a
zoning application, we did want to get a feel for how the neighbors felt, so we had
petitions out for several weeks and I submitted 350 signatures of people who were
supporting this. Now, I don't want to spend a lot of time speaking as an attorney. Mr.
Brayton is here to discuss with you, I think probably briefly, but to answer any questions
on the economic impact and Mike is here to answer any questions about how and how
quickly, how reasonably quickly we can do recessed lighting if that were a condition to
approval, which I assume would be a condition if you do approve our application. So
thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. As you are well aware, the first issue to be
discussed are the environmental impacts.
Mr. Ball — I saw the comment by your planner that there do not appear to be any
environmental impacts...
Chairperson Wilcox — Other than the lighting.
Mr. Ball — Other than the lighting, which we are prepared to address.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to have Mike, I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name. I
would like to have him address the lighting issue.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 4
Board Member Thayer — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — So how you get the microphone over to him... When the original
Big AI's was approved, both this board... Mr. Herzing made representations to both this
board and the Zoning Board that the lighting would be recessed, which is one of the
things we wanted. Mickey was able to through a quirk in the zoning law at the time, to
substitute the canopy, which had the dropped down lighting. This has been a problem
for us ever since. Given the potential impacts of the lighting, if you operate 24 -hours a
day, we would like to be able to either shroud those or even better, recess them back up
into the canopy and get them more out of the way so that we reduce the spillage.
Mike Tomanocy, 1249 Front St, Binghamton NY
Okay, we can offer two things. One, we can purchase and install a totally recessed
light. The only thing you would see is basically a partial dome. Or we can use a, not a
100 percent cutoff fixture, but one...
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you just give me the sheet? And you pointed to that one
right there, I believe.
Mr. Tomanocy — The one that is currently in place right now is the fixture similar to that.
Chairperson Wilcox - The one above it. Okay. I would just pass that around. That
would be similar to your other canopies, the other stations that you own and their
canopies?
Mr. Tomanocy — That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — And similar to canopies run by your competitors, I assume.
Mr.. Tomanocy Actually, most of our competitors use lights that are similar to what is
currently on.
Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Questions?
Board Member Conneman — I have two questions. Where were the petitions signed?
At the Mighty -Mart?
Mr. Ball - In the store.
Board Member Conneman — Secondly, I have no trouble with you being open 24 -hours
,if in fact you solve the light problem. But I'm curious, is there some period of time when
you don't have very many customers? I'm an economist and you have to pay people
and if you could shut down from 3 to 4 or something you would save money. Is there
some period of time when nobody comes?
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 5
Jack Brayton, 1249 Front St, Binghamton NY
My name is Jack Brayton. and I am the general manager of Manley's, 1249 Front Street,
Binghamton. The answer to that question is, there are periods of time throughout the
week and they don't even seem to be regular, say between 2 and 3 or 1 and 2 where
occasionally there are very few customers. There is usually at least a gasoline
customer, but very few that go into the store. But what we do with the time period,
whether it be an hour or a little more, utilize that time with the employee to help set up
for the next hour or morning. So we have a better... a cleaner place, a better service
operation for the public when they do come in. But it is rare that we don't have
anybody.
Board Member Conneman - Thank you.
Board Member Howe — No. I'm with George.
Board Member Thayer— I'm set.
Board Member Mitrano — And I'm with you, too.
Chairperson Wilcox — We had some other site plan issue with Mickey. They all got
resolved, didn't they? Well, either got resolved or they have become part of the existing
site plan.
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I would say for the most part the site plan issues were resolved.
Mickey Herzing at the time where we discovered there were a number of things that
were built contrary to what the site plan said, was going to come in with the site plan
modification. In fact he did formally come in with a modification, but there were so many
things and there was so much reaction against what he did, that he just said I will go
back and fix everything to be the way the site plan...
Chairperson Wilcox — Though some things he couldn't. For example handicap parking
wound up in a different place.
Mr. Kanter — Handicap parking, right. But there were a few things, the stormwater pond
was not done the way it was supposed to be done. That went back and basically Dan
and his staff reviewed it and it was done in a way.that it had to be done..
Chairperson Wilcox — And the plantings got done. The fuel tanker was being parked
along the shoulder of the road and we got that straightened out. Remember that? So
we got that straightened out so that the tanker could pull onto the property and provide
a much safer environment for everybody.
Mr. Kanter — There may still be some ongoing discussions regarding signs, banners and
the like with Manley's, but those are unrelated to what is going on and what is before
the board tonight. Also I will just clarify something that was stated. I did not explicitly
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 6
state that they could continue operating 24 -hours a day, 7 -days a week pending this
hearing. I simply, basically, in my letter had indicated that the way we like to resolve
these things is to come in and get compliance and nothing was state really in, terms of
the interim. So here they are.
Mr. Ball — I apologize because that is the way you did say it. I'm used to some towns
giving you a stop order pending you getting an approval. I didn't get one here, so...
Mr. Kanter — Right. We did not do that.
Mr, Ball — I didn't mean to misconstrue your statement.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any concerns about. other potential environmental impacts such
as traffic or noise?
Board Member Thayer — No change. I'll move the SEQR.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Because I think the impacts that the public would be
concerned about would be mostly environmental, I want to give them a chance to speak
now and possibly a second time as well.
Board Member Thayer — I was assuming that the lights would be recessed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Let me do that. Gentlemen, let me just tell you and for Mr.
Ball. Very often what we do is given the procedure of doing the environmental review
and once you get through the environmental review, assume that this determination of
no significant impact, then you go to the public hearing and we give the public a chance
to speak. The problem is the public very often wants to talk about environmental
matters so something we have done very often here, when 'appropriate is we'll give the
public a chance to speak while we do the environmental review and of course they
would still have the right to speak as part of the public hearing.. It is my feeling that the
public would like to talk about environmental issues here. So if the three of you would
take a seat, I am going to give the public a chance to speak. So ladies and gentlemen; if
you have been listening, we will have... assuming that we make the determination that
there is no significant environmental impact, we will hold the public hearing and you will
have a chance to speak. None the less, you may want to speak now as well or in
addition to that because you may have concerns about environmental issues such as
lighting or traffic or something like that. So given that, you have the opportunity. We
ask you to please step up to the microphone. We ask that you give us your name and
address and we'll be glad to listen to what you have to say.
Martin Lasskorn, 108 Elmwood Ave
My name is Martin Lasskorn. I'm... me and my wife or my wife and I are the owners of
the property immediately adjacent to Big AI's and we just to...
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 7
Chairperson Wilcox — An address please.
Mr. Lasskorn — We live at 108 Elmwood Avenue and we own the property at 105 Kings
Way. I. just want to put on record that I don't want to stand in the 'way of the whole
progress of development up on Kings Way and this area of the hotel and everything.
However, I would like to put on record that being open 24 -7 does create a certain
amount-of. hardship for us as residential rental property owners right next door and the
ability of renting the property and I want to put that on record just in case we come back
to the board or the Zoning Board to potentially seek rezoning. There is some hardship
involved to us. We have some... just in a casual conversation of potentially selling the
property, but in case that doesn't come through we would like to potentially come back
and ask for rezoning.
Chairperson Wilcox — And you understand what is before this board tonight is simply
granting them the right to operate 24 -hours a day.
Mr. Lasskorn — That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — They have been operating 24 -hours a day for roughly a year, a
little over a year.
Mr. Lasskorn — And while we haven't really received any major complaints from our
tenants ... (not audible) ... was that you can feel a difference at night when doors close
and operate the pumps and everything else. But I don't want to appear that we don't
want him to get the 24 -7, however we would like to put it on record that it does create a
certain amount of hardship.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you, sir.
Board Member Mitrano — May I ask this gentleman a question?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Sure.
Board Member Mitrano — Is it the movement of cars, people that kind of thing or is it the
light or is there no differentiation between the various environmental factors that may be .
affecting your tenants?
Mr. Lasskorn — Well the only ... I can only go by hearsay from the tenants, but
what ... (not audible) ... the closing of doors, operating of pumps and cars driving in and
out and starting the engine. It wasn't, like I said, a major complaint, but it was a concern
and then we tried to rent the property over the last couple of months. We did get
questions if they were open 24-7. So people are concerned about it.
Board Member Mitrano — Right. I mean it is true. There is a residence immediately
next door to this business.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 8
Chairperson Wilcox - Pardon?
Board Member Mitrano - It is simply true that there. is a residence, actually a few of
them, but I take it that you own the property immediately adjacent this business and so
how could it not?
. -Board-Member-Thayer.- .True.. There also is a new hotel across the street.
Mr. Kanter - Or there will be.
Board Member Mitrano - Well, say more about that. So you have a hotel, but if you had
a business that wasn't operating 24 -7, I'm not sure that the noise from the hotel would
be as much a factor for the property owner right next door.
Board Member Thayer - No, granted, but I was just stating it because of the 24 -7 it will
be open.
Board Member Mitrano - As an incentive for the business to want to stay open.
Board Member Thayer - Exactly.
Board Member Mitrano - Oh, I get that big time. But this gentleman here that it is going
to be a factor in terms of the residents. And there are more than one that are right
along that strip.
Chairperson Wilcox - My assistant, my valuable assistant, has asked that you spell your
last name, please.
Mr. Lasskorn - L- A- S- S- K- O -R -N.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Any other questions?
Ms. Brock - You had mentioned that you wanted to put this on the record because at
some point you might seek rezoning before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I just
Wanted you to know that actually rezoning is the done by the Town Board. The Zoning
Board of Appeals would consider variances for use among other matters. But I just
wanted to let you know if you, in the future, did need to seek rezoning that it wouldn't be
before the Zoning Board of Appeals, it would be the Town Board.
Mr. Lasskorn - Town Board. Okay. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen... yes
Planning Board Minutes.
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 9
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road
I think anything to control light spillage is a very good idea. It sounds like recessed light
or something equivalent to that would be very desirable in this project.-
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Hollis.
Board _Member_ Mitrano —_ Can _I ask _a question._.. I should_ say___ may _ I, _ pardon my
ignorance about light fixtures and that kind of thing but...
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on ... do we need the applicant up here?
(Board members look at diagrams and determine the applicable one)
Board Member Mitrano — and so, what is the recessed feature about it?
Board Member Conneman -- In
recessed, and this is just a globe at
Mitrano - So you don't see the bulb
Wilcox — Hold on... hold on... Would
environmental review? Mr. Auble.
first.
stead of being down like so ... the light fixture is
the bottom, so you don't see the bulb,
and what's the percentage nature of the spillage?
anyone else like to address the Board as part of the
David, you know the routine... name and address
David Auble, 111 West King Road
I don't have a particular objection to the 24 -hour operation but other than the fact that
being downstream from Big AI's, I collect a lot of trash out of my drainage stream that
runs through my property and I think that... my impression is trying to observe this over
a regular basis.. over a couple of years... sometimes it goes from the dumpsters or from
Big AI's operation and obviously some of those things they can't control and people and
individuals throw their stuff away. but I think there could be a little upgrading in policing
the site that trash is contained properly and not allowed to wash down the stream which
this, this actually is more of a drainage ditch which actually connects with the stream
further down off my site in the state park. So it is a blemish on the state park as well as
my site and also eventually the watershed.
Chairperson Wilcox — You mentioned this to...
Mr. Auble — No I haven't mentioned this, I wanted to bring it up here with the Board.
since I am here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are they aware that you own the land or did own the land on
which the hotel is being built? Just so you know who this gentleman is, David either
does own or has sold the land upon which the hotel will be built across the street:
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 10
Mr. Auble —And I own adjacent...
Chairperson Wilcox -- ...and the land behind it of course and the land north of it.
Mr. Auble -- ...south... south of the...
Chairperson Wilcox — Pardon me, thank you.
Mr. Auble -- ...because it is uphill. That's my basic comment. I just...
Chairperson Wilcox — I think Jack will address it, I know he made a note back there.
Board Member Howe — Dave, I was just going to say it's hard to control the cars after
they pulled away as to what they toss out the window. You're across the road and I
don't think that the stuff is going to wash across the road that's dropped in the parking
lot, but maybe, I don't know.
Board Member Mitrano — Maybe, the winds.
Mr. Auble — I just,. it depends on which way the wind is* blowing.. Into the ditch in front of
the, there's a deep ditch in front of the Big AI's, once it goes in there it is going to go
downhill, and when the rain falls, anything that is collected in there eventually is going to
wash through. So I`m constantly walking around with a plastic bag and policing that
whole...
Board Member Connemann — It is true that when we approved the Burger King site, that
Mr. Lowe agreed to pick up anything within a half a mile. However, I have friends who
live further than that who will argue that people don't wait till half a mile, they wait till
three quarters of a mile before they throw it out the window. (inaudible between Board
Members) and anyway, I think it is reasonable... I think. if the current owners of this
facility might think about policing it. Not only policing a long ways but I mean on site...1
expect that they do.
Board Member Milano — Susan, what do you think about that? It was under a different
regime but how appropriate do you think that kind of addition would be?
Ms. Brock — I guess the question is whether this is a problem at other properties for
which you grant special permits or site plan approvals and whether you are requiring
this in a similar manner with other applicants.
Board Member Mitrano — Well we did do it for Mr. Burger King. And at the time I felt
that it was quite an onerous addition to what we voted on but now that we have a
precedent and there is an application for special consideration, especially under the
circumstances that it has already been going on for 18 months without appropriate
approval, I'm a little bit on George's side here.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 11
Board Member Conneman — I'm not saying that...
Board Member Mitrano — I might say it, but I first wanted Susan's counsel...
Board Member Conneman — I think what Auble is saying is that it can be a problem,
that's all.
Board Member Mitrano — No, it is a problem.
Ms. Brock — We probably should ask the applicant what type of trash receptacles they
have; Whether they are covered, whether they are dumpsters that are covered, that
type of thing. I think that's certainly could be something that we'd want to.address in
any resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else?
Mr. Kanter — I just want to add to that while I am thinking about it. You might want to
consider whether the increase to 24 -hour, 7 day a week operation has.., is the cause of
additional trash problems because that condition. was not part of the original approval
and so I think you want to have a direct causation... a direct link between the proposal
at hand and any conditions that you come up with.
Board Member Mitrano — Well I suppose we should ask the last public speaker if he has
noticed it more in the last 18 months than not. Not that that is a scientific study but it
wouldn't surprise me to find that people who are arriving between the hours of 1 and 6
might be more prone to tossing things out a window than people arriving between 5 and
9.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to make a comment David? If you do you need to
come up here. We can't record you very well from back there.
Mr. Auble — Yeah, it's a good point that some of the people who come in later, some of
the college students who may have had a couple of beers might be the type to be more
prone to toss trash out, that's the nature of some of these kids and the extra hours of
operation is going, to add to that possibility. I just think that the management issue, and
if there is some way that approvals could be tied into encouraging that or encouraging
them to at least be in touch with the neighborhood and be aware, check once in awhile
and see...
Chairperson Wilcox — Have you noticed it a lot more in the past year Dave, or not?
Mr. Auble — It's been pretty steadily the same since I moved back, I retired and moved
back to Ithaca the last 2 and a half years and I just... I'm one of these types of people
who has a hard time ... I can't walk by something... trash on the ground ... I just... it's a
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 12
little bit time consuming after a while. You feel just like you're the trash picker for an
operation that should have someone who sends an employee out periodically to police
the area and maybe even check in with the neighborhood, especially downhill, to see.
Board Member Mitrano — No I'm with you and I feel the same way about the hotel
across the street, I'd feel the same way about the mall across the other street; it's not
- - -- prejudicial -to -- anyone.,. -I- feel the -same way when I walk down the Cornell campus and l
see a student drop something. It is not prejudicial,
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you David. Comments regarding environmental review?
Okay, to those of you who are starting to line up for. the future public hearings, we will
try and get to you as soon as we can.
Gentlemen, one or all or three of you, we'll bring you back up here, the question has to
do with trash and garbage and Jack I saw you take a note, so is there a comment you
want to make?
Mr. Brayton — As far as the trash is concerned, we have dumpsters in the back that are
covered dumpsters. We could add an additional locking device that could keep them
locked unless they are being used for dumping into and then lock them again to prevent
any covers being left open and allowing the wind that material out of there, that would
be an easy fix for us. We'd be glad to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — When you say lock you mean just something that keeps the cover
down? You don't mean a Yale lock do you?
Mr. Brayton — There's a cable type device with a latch that comes with some of those
dumpsters and we can require the garbage hauler to deliver to us. To secure the lid.
That will help. In addition to that, we'll provide a check list that the manager has to
enforce with each shift to make our employee periodically go out and clean the lot.
Overnight there is only one employee usually who couldn't do that between the hours of
1 and 6 say, but during the day we.will have someone. police the lot daily and have a
checklist to show that they have signed -off on it.
Chairperson Wilcox — I feel good.
Board Member Conneman — That's fine.
Board Member Thayer — I'm satisfied.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy? Okay, alright.
Board Member Conneman — No before, I want to be sure that Susan, we have written
not to the SEQR but into the proposed resolution that the lights will be taken care of,
right?
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 13
Ms. Brock - That's in the draft resoluion.. I. have a little bit of language
Board Member Conneman — Okay, I don't care about the language as long as that is in
there because I vote for the SEQR as long as we solve the light problem.
_ _ _Ms. Brock — Pardon?
Board Member Conneman — I said
before we leave here tonight.
I will vote for the SEAR if we solve the light problem
Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute. You can't do that. You can't do that. You can't
say I will vote for it if we solve the problem. We can make no guarantee that we are
going to solve the light problem. I can't guarantee that. I can't guarantee how this Board
is,going to vote...
i
Board Member Mitrano —Well wait, where is the light problem...
Chairperson Wilcox — It's pretty safe to assume, yeah but...
Board Member Conneman — I want it in the minutes that it is safe to assume
(laughter)
Chairperson Wilcox — No guarantee.
Board Member Mitrano -- So the light issue is in the special permit approval not in the
SEQR.
Board Member Conneman — Thank you. It's in the minutes.
Ms. Brock — Just to clarify things too, this Board can find that there is no significant
environmental impact and vote for that a negative declaration and yet still have a
condition in the resolution approving the modification to the special permit regarding the
lighting as an issue that needs to be addressed even though it doesn't pose a significant
adverse environmental impact.
Board Member Mitrano - What she said
(laughter)
Ms. Brock - Is that clear...
Chairperson Wilcox — There's too many lawyers in this room...
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 14
(laughter)
Board Member Conneman =- ...(inaudible) ...that's a significant need, that's my...
Ms. Brock — Well that's your job, to determine whether an impact would be significant or
not.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's our job and probably would be different for every
community.
Ms. Brock — And if you feel there is a significant impact but that it can be addressed
through conditions you can actually vote for a conditioned negative declaration. But that
is something we would need to draft if that's how you want to vote tonight.
Board Member Mitrano — So we would have to start talking about significant. ..we can't
just say what you said?
Ms. Brock — If.you feel that the potential impacts from this project are not significant, you
can just vote for a negative declaration.
Board Member Thayer — With all that in mind... I will so move the SEQR.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer, yes. Seconded by Rod_ Howe. Any
further discussion with regard to the environmental review?
Board Votes,
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -099: SEOR: Special Permit/ Modification of
Condition Regarding Hours of Operation, Big AI's Convenience Store /Gas
Station, 1103 Danbv Rd, Tax Parcel No. 43 =2 -2.2
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration to modify a Special Permit Approval for the Big AI's
Convenience Store (Manley's Mighty -Mart) located at 1103 Danby Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal
involves modifying the previously granted approval to allow the store to operate
24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A Special Approval was granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for the convenience store on January 14, 1998, which
restricted the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday,
and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. Pursuant to the current
Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with gasoline sales
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 15
are now regulated by Special Permit from the Planning Board. Manley's Mighty-
Mart, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Dwight R. Ball, Esq., Agent, and
24 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Special Permits and the
modification thereof, and
31 The Planning Board, on October 3, 2006, . has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by
the applicant, and. Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a Project Narrative
(date stamped August 18, 2006), and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Special
Permit/modification of a previous condition;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the
reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of
the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore,
neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement
will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously:
Chairperson Wilcox — At 7:40, ladies and gentlemen the next item on the Agenda is the
Public Hearing for consideration to modify a special permit approval for the Big AI's
convenience store or Manley's Mighty Mart located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41- 2 -2.2, vehicle fuel and repair zone. Proposal involves
modifying the previously granted approval to allow the store to operate 24 hours a day 7
days per week. A special approval was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
convenience store on January 14, 1998 which restricted the hours of operation from 6
am to 1 am Friday and Saturday and 6 am to midnight Sunday through Thursday.
Pursuant to the current Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with
gasoline sales are now regulated by special permit from the Planning board. Manley's
Mighty Mart, LLC, owner /applicant Dwight R. Ball, Esq. Agent.
Planning Board Minutes'
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 16
Questions or comments with regard to the request to modify special permit.
There are none.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, you know...
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, there are some...
Board Member Mitrano -- ...on occasion I have substantive concerns about various
operations. You might recall across the street I was concerned about olive oil. What
happened to the black and tan selections in your beer cooler.
Mr. Brayton — It will be there tomorrow.
(laughter) .
Chairperson Wilcox — Are they not carrying Ithaca Beer?
Board Member Mitrano — Oh n, they have Ithaca Beer... (laughter) ... It's what you calla
joke ... a little comic relief....
Board Member Conneman — Can we impose that condition,..
(laughter)
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions, comments...
Board Member Conneman — Do you want a copy of this?
Chairperson Wilcox — We do want a copy of this ... of the cut - sheet. That would be
helpful .... who wants to run out ... we have a volunteer.
Gentlemen if you will take a seat, I will give the public a chance to speak.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m. .
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the Planning
Board this evening on this agenda item, even if you have already spoken before, please
step to the microphone, provide us with your name and address, and we will be very .
interested to hear what you have to say.
There being no one, I will close the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes.
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 17
You're working on some changes to the language. We have a commitment to provide
locked dumpsters and to provide an employee checklist as well, which should probably
also go in. -
Would somebody like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Tracey Mitrano,
seconded by... seconded by Rod Howe, okay.
Before we do that ... you all have a copy of the comments that Tessa Flores dropped, off.
She said she couldn't stay, I'll just read it into the record.
"In the matter of Manley's Mini Mart, due to concerns about light pollution,
request that this store not remain open for 24- hours."
When she dropped this off, I said to her that the resolution as drafted would allow 24..
hour operation subject to either putting some sort of shroud around the light or putting
them up into the canopy and she was pleased to hear that. So those are her
comments.
Board Member Thayer — She's a neighbor I guess...
Chairperson Wilcox — She is a neighbor, yes, yes.
have a motion and a second I believe, right? Yes.. I have a motion and a second and
we will all look to Susan for her changes.
Did anybody notice that petitions, some of them, mention the Town of Danby?
Board Member Conneman — Yes, in fact all of them say that.
e
Chairperson Wilcox — No its just some of them... its just interesting... Some of them
mention the Town of Danby Planning Board and some of them mention the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board.
Board Member Conneman — Some of them decided not to make their name readable
also.
Chairperson Wilcox -Yeah, yeah, that's true. Yeah, oops. Susan... consult with the
Assistant Town Attorney....
Ms. Brock — Is there information on the record to show that the increased hours of
operation are going to result in increased trash blowing or washing off -site? Because
what we've heard is ... from the neighbor Mr. Auble, is that he has not noticed an
increase over the past year when this operation already was open 24 -hours a day and
you know, we've heard some speculation that college students who com in in the wee
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 18
hours of the morning might be more likely to throw trash out their car windows but it
seems rather speculative.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well what we have is the applicant agreed to do it. That's what
we have. We're not tying it, I don't think we're tying it to anything other than the
applicant has agreed to do it. Yeah, go head.
Mr. Kanter — But that's ...That's how we ended up with the hours of operation restriction
in the first place because the applicant said that was what he was going to do and now
this is a different owner /applicant who says that that's not what he wants to do so...
Board Member Mitrano — Yeah, that's not inappropriate
Board Member Thayer -- ...so the Board could simply hear what the applicant has
committed to doing and as a good neighbor, hopefully, would do it.
Chairperson Wilcox — But if it's not part of the resolution, then there is no enforcement..
Mr. Kanter — But I think what Susan was trying to say ... well, said very well, was that
Chairperson Wilcox -- ...but we haven't tied it ...
Mr. Kanter — ... is that, yeah, if you can make a direct link that the increased hours of
operation are the contributor to the problem, then that certainly could be a condition.
So, if you can document the evidence...
Board Member Mitrano — Well, we could hold up the application tonight and wait for that
evidence to come in, but I doubt any of us have an appetite for that. I certainly don't,
even though I am very much an advocate Mr. Auble's position.
Ms. Brock — Also there is an exterior property maintenance ordinance in the Town Code
which requires building owners to keep the premises free of garbage, refuse and debris,
discarded materials etc .... that create degradation, unsightliness ... among other things.
So I think the Town always has the ability to enforce that ordinance against any owner.
Chairperson Wilcox — When complaints are brought to the enforcement office, if you
will.
Ms. Brock — I'd have to review the entire ordinance to see...
Chairperson Wilcox — Or, or if ...
Ms. Brock — It says upon receiving a complaint OR upon any inspection of a property,
the building inspector or zoning officer shall determine whether or not there appears to
be a violation.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 19
Board Member Thayer — So I think it is cleaner to leave the language out of the
resolution.
Board Member Conneman — So I think we take him in good faith and assume he'll do it.
Ms. Brock — I have one other one and it deals with the lighting condition in the be it
further resolved clause on page 2, item '1 b... It states that the lights in said canopy shall
be replaced with fully shielded or fully recessed lights within 6- months of this approval,
i.e. no later that April 3, 2007. 1 propose to add the words.,. "acceptable to the Director
of Planning" directly after the words fully shielded or fully recessed lights, so it reads
that the lights in said canopy shall be replaced with fully shielded or fully recessed
lights, acceptable to the Director of Planning, within 6- months of the. date of this
approval, i.e. not later than April 3, 2007. And that's to avoid any miscommunication or
any differences of opinion as to what constitutes fully shielded or fully recessed lights.
Board Member Conneman — Can you make a record of our sketch plan, the cut sheet
that should be maybe, part of that?
Ms. Brock — I don't know if the Director of Planning has had a chance. to look at that cut-
sheet, if you want to right now...
Mr. Kanter —Yeah, I prefer leaving it:.:l mean ... we've seen the cut -sheet but it could be
if there's a better choice even than this we would want to be open to doing that as well.
So, it would be...at least this good, but it could be better.
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll leave it to you Jon. That change acceptable gentlemen?
Okay. The Town Board is taking up the proposed Lighting Ordinance this month...did I
see it on an agenda? And if that ordinance were to be passed the way it is currently
worded, as drafted, it would force the owner's of the Manley Mart to deal with the
lighting in a manner similar to what we are requiring here within roughly a year of its
passage. So what we are essentially doing is under the assumption that that law
passes, we are getting its' impact six months sooner because we have identified it as a
potential impact of being open 24 -hours a day.
Mr. Kanter — I just chose 6- months as a reasonable period of time but that is certainly
something we could discuss further.
Chairperson Wilcox — And I see no issue with 6- months, and sooner is better.
I have a motion and a second, any further discussion over here? Anything on this side?
Okay. There being no more discussion...
Board votes.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 20
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -100: Special Permit/Modification of Condition
Regarding Hours of Operation, Big AI's Convenience Store /Gas Station
1103 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -2.2
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe,
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration to modify a Special Permit Approval for the Big AI's
Convenience Store ( Manley's Mighty -Mart) located at 1103 Danby Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 2 -2.2; Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal
involves modifying the previously granted approval to allow the store to operate
24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A Special Approval was granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for the convenience store on January 14, 1998, which
restricted the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday,
and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. Pursuant to the current
Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with gasoline sales
are now regulated by Special Permit from the Planning Board, Manley's Mighty.
Mart, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Dwight R. Ball, Esq., Agent, and
2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval on March 3,
1998 for the reconstruction of Big AI's Hilltop Quikstop to consist of the
demolition -of -the -previous fuel -pump island and convenience store and the
construction of new fuel pump islands with canopy and a +/- 3,330 square foot
convenience store. No further changes to the approved site plan are proposed at
this time, and
3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
lead agency in environmental review with respect
Modifications thereof, has on October 3, 2006, made a
environmental significance, after having reviewed and
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitt(
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
Planning Board, acting as
to Special Permits and
negative determination of
accepted as adequate a
;d by the applicant, and a
4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 3, 2006, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, a Project Narrative prepared by the applicant (date
stamped August 18, 2006), a previously approved Site Plan for Big AI's, prepared
by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 9/4/98, revised 12/21/99 and 1/7/00 (for reference
purposes), and other application materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the criteria for granting
Special Permits and modifications thereof in Section 270 -200 of the Town of
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 21:
Ithaca Code have been considered by the Planning Board and specifically that
the standards listed in Section 270 -200 A through L have been met with the
following exception:
a. That the lighting in the existing canopy over the gas pumps are not
recessed or fully shielded and may cause impacts of glare and light
.- spillage onto nearby properties during extended nighttime hours of
operation, and therefore, may be more objectionable to nearby. properties
by reason of illumination, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit for the
proposed operation of Big AI's Convenience Store and Gas Station (Manley's
Mighty -Mart) located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No: 43- 2 -2.2,
Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone, which is a modification of the Special Approval that
was granted by the Zoning Board of ,Appeals for. the convenience store and gas
station on January 14, 1998, subject to the following conditions:
a. That the convenience store and gas station are permitted to operate 24 hours
per day,. 7 days per week, without any restrictions regarding hours of
operation, and
b. In order to minimize the potential impacts of light glare and spillage of the gas
pump canopy lights on nearby properties during the extended nighttime
hours, the lights in said canopy shall be replaced with fully shielded or fully
recessed lights, acceptable to the Director of Planning, within six months of
the date of this approval (i.e., no later than April 3, 2007).
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next item on the agenda
I have to assume either the Ellis' of the Rogers' are here this evening?
right. Come on up if you would please.
At 7: 51 p.m., ladies and gentlemen, the next item this evening is:
SEAR : Ellis 2 -Lot Subdivision located at 118 & 120 Bundy Road
There we go, all
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 22
Name and address please.
1.
Dave Rogers, 120 Bundy Road, Ithaca
Chairperson Wilcox — Would you provide a brief over view of your application for us this
evening. Just briefly. That way the audience can hear what we ... and if you could just
turn the microphone toward you so we can record you that much better ... thank you.
Mr. Rogers — It's just simply to obtain a sliver of additional land so that the retaining wall
that was put up for the safe operation of the basketball court no longer resides on the...
Chairperson Wilcox — And when we say sliver we are talking roughly 1 /400ths of an
acre.
Mr. Rogerss— Yes,
Chairperson Wilcox — Four hundredths of an acre. Have you seen the comments
prepared by Michael Smith of the staff ... that given the subdivision... given the map that
was provided to us, the survey map, there maybe requirement for variances, one or
more? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Rogers — Any more detail on that? I'm not... J
Chairperson Wilcox — I can give you more detail on that.
Mr. Rogers — Did it have to do with the setback?
Chairperson Wilcox — The setback of the house from the side yards, yes.
Mr. Rogers — Evidently Bob Rushler forgot to locate the adjacent properties ...
Chairperson Wilcox — And provide the distance, the closest distance between the
structures and the property lines.
Mr. Rogers — But he did provide me with a letter.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let's see what we have. Okay. Thank you sir. I'll read what the
letter says, it is signed and it is stamped:
To whom it may concern; I have measured the distance from Ellis
residence, tax parcel 26. -3 -14 to the proposed now east ...I'm having a
hard time reading this... now east line, Rogers, tax parcel 26. -3 -60.2, and it
far exceeds the distance required by Town of Ithaca zoning, 15 feet, I
measured 43 feet.
That's in
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 23
Mr. Walker — The setback would only be 10 feet because that is the garage, I believe
there.
Chairperson Wilcox_- Yeah, but that's in conflict to what we have front of us which
says its' to close to measure.
Mr. Walker - And also we would, as Mike suggested in the resolution, we would want to
actually see that on a map, not have the surveyor tell us that he, that he's sure it meet
the Town Code, but to see it on a survey map. That's normal way to do it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah because if he's saying it is 43 and the Town requires 15,
that's not the issue that Michael brought up in his cover memo, the issue is that... If it
was 43 feet, that would be roughly an inch, inch and a half, given the scale on this map
and the issue to be brought up is one which the side yard setback is ... might be around
15 feet not 43 feet:
am going to give this back to you.
Here's what... here's what's going on. We have the statement from the surveyor, Mr.
Rushlor, it's not clear to me, Jon Kanter and I presume the Board as well, that he is
addressing the issue that Michael Smith brought up, In his memo to us about the side
yard setback and the potential need for variances. The only way to solve that is, the
only proper way to prove that is to have those side, yard distances actually put on the
survey map and if they should not meet the zoning requirements, then your off the the
zoning board to try to get, to try to get, to apply for a variance; if indeed there are
deficiencies in the side yards.
Mr. Walker — I don't have any doubt that there are no deficiencies. You need to have
him portray that on a map.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I believe that will be a condition of the approval of the
subdivision, should we get to that. Stay right there.
Questions with regard to the environmental review?
Mr. Walker — On your house, Mr. Rogers, the garage is on the right hand side? On the .
side where the variance is there, so that's only a 10 -foot setback, for the attached .
garage to the side yard so I am sure there is enough room there.
Mr. Kanter — Well the thing that is unusual about this map is that the parcel from which
the triangle is actually being subdivided is not being shown, it's the other house that's
being shown. So there is no. indication about where the house or the garage on parcel
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 24
26. -3 -14 is located at all and it could be 50 -feet, it could be 1,000 -feet, we don't know,
until the survey shows it.
Chairperson Wilcox — You should be aware that we can not provide variances from the
zoning. A planning board can not do that unless we are specifically authorized in the
zoning ordinance. So we can't sit here and say well, it might be 10, it might be 15, it's
okay ... we can't do that. That's what the zoning board's purpose is.
Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? Would somebody like to
move the SEQR motion? So moved by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe.
The Board votes.
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -101: SEAR; Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Ellis 2 -Lot Subdivision (Lot Line Modification)118 & 120 Bundy Road,
Tax Parcel No.'s 26 -3 -14 & 26 -3 -16.2
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, Board Member Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed 2 -lot subdivision (lot line modification) located at 118 and 120 Bundy
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 26 -3 -14 and 26 -3 -16.2, Medium Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 0.038 +/- acre strip of
land from the western edge of 118 Bundy Road, which will then be consolidated
with 120 Bundy Road. Melvin & Aileen Ellis and David & Melanie Rogers,
Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to
Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on October 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled
"Map of Survey Lands to be Conveyed by Melvin F. & Aileen B. Ellis," prepared
by Robert S. Russler Jr., revised date June 20, 2006, 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.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 25
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment
Form Part II referenced above, 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.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously
Chairperson Wilcox opens the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m.
The next item is:
Public Hearing
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision or
lot line modification located at 118 and 120 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 26 -3 -14 and 26 -3 -16.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing _a 0.038 +/- acre strip of land from the western edge
of 118 Bundy Road, which will then be consolidated with 120 Bundy Road. Melvin
& Aileen Ellis and David & Melanie Rogers, Owners /Applicants
Questions with regard to the subdivision. There being none, why don't you have a seat
and we'll give the public a chance to speak.
Ladies and gentlemen, once again, this is a public hearing, if you wish to address the
Planning Board this evening on this particular item, please come up to the microphone,
give us your name and address and we will be most interested to hear what you nave to
say.
There Being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:59p.m.
Susan, are we all set from your end?
Ms. Brock — Yes we area
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted. So moved by
George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe. No changes?
Ms. Brock - No changes.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final = Page 26
Chairperson Wilcox — You've seen the resolution? As drafted? The subdivision and the
requirements? In terms of the copies that we need.... that sort of stuff? Okay. So you
understand what it requires you to do. If you nod . your head, we're okay, if you want to
talk at length I gotta bring you to the microphone. Okay, you're all set ?. Okay. I have a
motion and a second, there being no further discussion...
The Board votes.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -102: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Ellis 2 -Lot Subdivision (Lot Line Modification), 118 & 120 Bundy Road, Tax Parcel
No.'s 26 -3 -14 & 26 -3 -161
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed 2 -lot subdivision (lot line modification) located at 118 and 120 Bundy
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 26 -3 -14 and 26 -3 -16.2, Medium Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 0.038 +/- acre strip of
land from the western edge of 118 Bundy Road, which will then be consolidated
with 120 Bundy Road. Melvin & Aileen Ellis and David & Melanie Rogers,
Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
dead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has
on October 3, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II
prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board on October 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled
"Map of Survey Lands to be Conveyed by Melvin F. & Aileen B. Ellis," prepared
by Robert S. Russler Jr., revised date June 20, 2006, 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
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 27
21 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 2-lotc subdivision located at 118 and 120 Bundy Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 26-3 -14 and 26 -3 -16.2, as shown on the survey
map entitled "Map of Survey Lands to be Conveyed by Melvin F. & Aileen B.
Ellis," prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., revised date June 20, 2006, subject to
the following conditions:
a. revision of plat to show side yard setback dimensions on both properties,
including location of garage /house on Tax Parcel 26-3 -14, prior to signing
of the plat by the Chairman, and
b, granting of setback variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals, if necessary, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman, and
C, submission.for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of a mylar
and three dark -lined prints of the revised final subdivision plat, prior to
filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission 'of a receipt
of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and
d, within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.038 +A acres with
Tax Parcel No. 26 -3 -16.2, and evidence of such consolidation to be
submitted to the Town Planning Department.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox . Ladies and gentlemen, at 8:01 p,m., the next item on the agenda
is a Public Hearing, there is no SEQR determination, contrary to what the agenda might
say... is a
Public Hearing
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance or
variances to allow a 28 square foot (7' x 4') neighborhood identification sign on
the southeast corner of Schickel Road and Larisa Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 36 -2 -3.44, Low Density Residential Zone. Jeremy & Sharon Davis; Boris
Simkin and Igor Cheikhet, Applicants
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final.- Page 28
Come on up. Before we forget ... I need to give you this. You need, you're going to need
this so since. you're here ... we will be very efficient... you'll have to put that up on the
property for the Zoning Board.
Pull that microphone up nice and close; you know the routine, name and address please.
Boris Simkin, Ithaca, NY
Chairperson Wilcox — Would you provide a brief overview of what's being proposed this
evening.
Mr. Simkin —Actually we are proposing to put a subdivision sign which is a little bit
bigger than is standard and the reason for that, we'd like to see the sign from 96B
because this subdivision is a little bit off set from 96B, about 400 -feet, and we would like
it to be visible, and this is upscale and high -end subdivision and we would like this sign
to be nice looking sign: That basically it.
Board Member Mitrano — I'm all for it, but its' too big
granting a variance but that's too big.
Mr. Simkin — I expected that.
(laughter) I mean I'm all for
Board Member Thayer — I believe in nice signs but they don't have to be ... they don't
have to be big. You can have a nice little sign.
Mr. Simkin — Ok. First of all, you have on the back of this front page is the Planning.
Department memorandum, right ... on the back of this page you have sign... sizes of
signs in similar subdivisions, alright... and if you look at Chase Farm, this is 19.5 square
feet... if you look at Deer Run, it is 14.6, okay... Commonland Community... 18.8
okay... new Southwoods subdivision, 12 square feet. If you look at the sign design,
okay ... so actually the lettering is only 13 square feet. The rest of this is just for looks.
We can consider this whole part as part of the base and base always, usually is not
included with the... in the .size of the sign. So we could make it 13 square feet if we
eliminate this whole base, but we would like to have better design and better look. This
is only reason why we have this all, so this is my point.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay, so just help me because I'm not a special ... I am
spacially challenged. Which of these signs for which you have provided the
photographs, would this most resemble in terms of just the sign size?
Mr. Simkin — Sign size. Okay. If you look at the lettering in this rectangular area.. this
is exactly the same. .01- sauare foot more than Southwoods. Southwoods is 12- square
feet, you have here 84" x 22", it is exactly 13- square feet.
Board Member Mitrano — Okay, and in terms of total height and maybe dimension.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 29
Mr. Simkin – Total height is fine, we are not exceeding total height in this instance.
Board Member Mitrano -- And it most resembles which one or is less than one that's
larger?
-- - — Mr._Simkin_– I would say none of them.
them.
I mean from the point of view of design, non of
Board Member – So this one is shorter, if you will, than any of the ones here?
Mr. Simkin -- You mean short in what dimension?
Board Member Mitrano -- Well, that's what I am having a problem with. I am not trying
to see it in terms of total square feet. Is it as tall as Chase Farm for example...
Mr. Simkin – No, this is shorter. And actually what I am saying, if you look at.the.
design, you can eliminate this oval area and you are going to be the same as
Southwoods, but this is just for look. Just for better design, just for better looking.
think the subdivision deserves a little bit better sign.
_ Board Member Mitrano – So it will be shorter than the Chase Farm, because to me to
be the tallest and it will be about the size in.terms of the sign itself as the Southwoods,
but it will be taller than the Southwoods sign... no it won't be taller...
Mr. Simkin – no it won't be taller because Southwoods, if you take a look at this and
this... no, we don't have it here, but if you take a look at the picture of Southwoods, this
is about 5 -feet, we want to have point half maybe.
Board Member Mitrano – Okay, I appreciate your explanation about that. I am not good
at just looking at dimensions, but by comparison.
Mr. Simkin – We can eliminate this whole part and meet this same area as you granted
to Southwoods, but we would like to have this better looking. Lettering is going to be
the same and...
Board Member Mitrano – And I appreciate your point that on 96B, the speed with which
people are driving and the foliage surrounding it ... okay...I have abetter understanding.
Board Member Conneman – I'm not an artist either. My family always says if I had to
draw something they would starve to death. But, it seems to me that you could just put
a smaller sign that is, that is sort of an oval there instead of putting the oval above it,
make the sign oval. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do that.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 30
Mr. Simkin — The only reason is design reason. Because we hired the professional
designer and we had probably 6 or 7 different options to consider and we just like this
design.
Board Member Thayer — The 18.2- square feet, is that the rectangle or the oval or both.
Mr. Simkin — No, no. Eighteen point two if you take overall. If you take maximum
dimensions over ... I don't know how to explain it...
Chairperson Wilcox — Boris ... why don't you ... Jon was going to try and answer... not try,
he was going to answer.
Mr. Kanter — The first thing I will do, just for the record, because Chris did mention this
in her memo, is to indicate that the actual square footage we are looking at is not what
was in the public hearing notice because that also included the base support which is
below the oval. So, if it had included that, which it doesn't, it would have been more like
28- square feet, which is what was advertised in the public hearing.
Upon further review, that was determined to be part of the base or support of the sign
which is not counted in the square foot calculation as defined in the sign law.
Chairperson Wilcox — And the resulting square footage is roughly =/- 18- square feet.
Still exceeding the zoning law.
Mr. Kanter -- And that is taking the rectangle around both the oval portion and the
rectangular portion of the sign. Around the length and width of that which comes out to
be, well on the diagram, 84 Y2 inches wide and 31 3/ inches tall, which comes out to
about 18.6.
Board Member Conneman — I wonder what the actual square footage of this rectangular
side is.
Mr. Kanter— Of just the rectangle itself, I think ... well we didn't measure, but I think its
about 11.1
Mr. Simkin — Yeah, it is 7 feet ... 84 inches...7 feet and when you
Mr. Kanter — So it's the oval that adds to the square footage.
Board Member Conneman — The oval is being measured by a rectangle, which is kind
of hard.
Board Member Thayer — Let me ask a question. How much bigger is the proposed sign
than Southwoods?
Planning Board Minutes:.
October 3, 2006
Final- Page 31
Chairperson Wilcox – It is roughly 18 vs 12.
Mr. Kanter – Yeah, about 6- square feet larger if you count.
Board Member Mitrano – I thought he said it was the same size.
_Mr._Kanter_— Because_of_the way_we_are_defining it in-our sign law.
Board Member Thayer -- But if you took the oval out..
Mr. Simkin – If you do just oval, it is probably going to be just 15 or so. In the way how
you show it..:
Board Member Conneman – What I want to know is ... Tell me why the sign has to be
bigger than Southwoods. I don't understand why.
Mr. Simkin – This is not bigger than Southwoods because the lettering is going to be the
same as Southwoods, and by the way, Southwoods is next to a road, East King Road,
our subdivision (inaudible) about 400 -feet from 96B, so we like this sign to be visible
from a 400 feet distance. But lettering is going to be the same because we put lettering
on 12 square feet, 13 square feet area.
Board Member Mitrano – But your not concerned with lettering if I understand your
question George. Your concerned about this verses the,..
Board Member Conneman – I don't care what kind of lettering you put, you can put it
from top to bottom if you wish, it's just that ... You mean. to tell me it makes a difference
having a bigger sign on this than Southwoods has? I don't understand why. You say
you want people to see it.
Mr. Simkin - Okay, let me ask you a question. Why you are saying, comparing just to
Southwoods, why you not complain to Deer Run, why you not comparing to
Commonland Community which is 19- square feet. Why you comparing just to
Southwoods?
Board Member Mitrano – I think only because you suggested it was the same size.
Board Member Conneman – You said it was the same size.
Mr. Simkin – Southwoods was the west subdivision and this is my compare to
Southwoods. But you have, on the back of this page, you have all the information about
different size in the subdivision. Chase Park, 20- square feet...
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 32
Chairperson Wilcox — Well we compare it to ... we can compare it to Shell Brook too,
don't want to go there ... we can compare it to Shell Brook, which is under 4 square feet.
Let's, lets...
Mr. Simkin - I have no idea where this Shell Brook is but Southwoods, Deer Run and
our subdivision are pretty much the same qual.ity and size.
Board Member Thayer - I think we should remember that our regulations allow 6-
square feet.
Mr. Simkin — Is why we are here.
Chairperson Wilcox — For those members of the audience for this particular agenda
item, I just want to make sure you are clear; In this particular case, the Planning Board
acts purely as a review board and provides a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
They will ultimately make the decision. We will have a public hearing shortly and give
you a chance to speak but we will not make a decision tonight, other to provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board. It will be the Zoning Board who will determine
what size sign will be allowed and hopefully they will take our recommendation into
account. I'm sure they will take our recommendation into account.
Board Member Thayer — Personally, I prefer to see something in the 12- square feet
area.
Board Member Conneman — Yeah, I think we all agree...
Board Member Thayer — and if you go to the square, rectangle rather than oval, you're
13 some add and if you cut the edges back a little bit toward the writing, you might be
able to get down to 12.
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is that they might ... the way we measure a sign... size...
they may be able to use the space more efficiently because there is a lot of square
footage, which counts towards the size when there actually is no sign there: That's
because we put the rectangle around the oval and the size of the smallest rectangle
which encloses the sign, becomes the size of the sign. So.we gotta drop... We need to
give the public a chance to speak. Boris, is there anything you want to say right now?
We will give you a chance to make some comments later.
Ladies and Gentlemen: for those of you who have been sitting very patiently, either for
this of for the Cornell athletic fields' public hearing, once again, we invite you to step to
the microphone, give us your name and address and we will be sure to listen to what
you have to say this evening. Again, we thank you for your patience, we are only
running a little late this evening,
need your to speak into.the microphone, say it again.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3;.2006
Final - Page 33
Pat Barnes, 4 Shickel Road
First of all, there were no orange signs put up regarding this meeting and second of all,
the people in number 8 were going to move after this started, but she died instead, the
lady did, now there are 2 houses that have been sold. New owners received. no mail
notice of this meeting and I don't think anybody objects to their sign. However, having
- - — put -up- with -a -year -more- than -a year.,- of_the_ imposition, which .I was much to naive and
ignorant to know what this involved; apparently Tess does understand all this, the dirt,
the dust, the noise, the trucks... seven in the morning, they're still working in the
evening ... I can't believe the traffic. Shickel Road is destroyed and who is going to fix it
and when. I have written a letter to the Town Board. I will be at the meeting on the 16tn,
but the new owners are just bewildered as to what is going on. And we're sick of it.
Really sick of all this. Now, I understand that that's, an exclusive, high -end
development. They want to differentiate, obviously, from Shickel Road. Why don't they
put a road in and put their sign on another road and stay out of Shickel Road.- Put
another road, he's got lotta land. If you don't want to go in from Compton, go in from
96B. Put another road and put your sign up there. That way Shickel Road can be left in
peace the way it was before this started. And how long is this is going to go on? Thirty
one units? What has he got ... 4 houses? I guess this is going to go on forever. Well,
don't know how long the people who just moved in will stay, because that's kind of a
problem and I wish Tess Flores was on one of the Town Boards. I'll have to see what I
can do about that because I think South Hill needs representation. We don't have
anybody on any of our Boards here. So, as I said, we don't, I guess, object to this sign.
But, people are objecting to everything else about this construction. Okay. That's it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you ma'am. Anybody else? Anybody else want to follow
that?
There being no one else, I will close the public hearing at 8:18p.m.
You said you have contacted the Town Board with regard...
Ms. Barnes — I have written a letter, I have handed it in, I will be there.
Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the traffic and the ...
Ms. Barnes — The road.
Chairperson Wilcox — Shickel Road specifically .
Ms. Mitrano — So there is no one on the Town Board for the South Hill?
Chairperson Wilcox — Boy, they used to all be from South Hill, well, I'm sorry, there was
a time when 6 out of 7 lived on South Hill. On the Town Board, I don't think so. On this
Board we only have one from South Hill. I spent 20 years there, but not anymore.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 34
Okay, again Tessa Flores did stop by and she provided comments, she said she
couldn't stay. Again I'll read them: .
In the matter of the sign variance for the West View subdivision, I went to
see both the Chase Farm sign and. the Southwood sign. Both are
tastefully done, in my view, adequate. The sign requested seems
excessive to me, I request that the variance be denied. I have some
interest in this matter, as at the end of this development there will be a
right -of -way leading to property owned by my husband, Ira Goldstein and
myself. Thank you for your consideration.
Once again, I should point out that this Board will not be granting the variance or is in
the position to grant a variance or approval, simply a recommendation to the Zoning
Board.
Boris ... you want to comeback up, just in case. Thanks. Questions in regard to or.,,
Board Member Mitrano — No, but I have a comment. Feeling Solemonic: I am very
favorable towards both the applicants concern about the particular positioning of the
sign on 96B where the traffic is different than what it would be on King Road, for
example, but I am also very sympathetic to Larry's perspective of trying to bring it in.
So, well, I am not sure if I would be as conservative as Larry is on the 12, you know, I
wouldn't want to go much beyond say, 14, so I'm just trying to get something a little bit
pared down, but I don't feel the need to bring it all the way down to 12.
Board Member Thayer — I am in favor of 12, to be honest with you.
Mr. Simkin — Let me ask you a question.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, let me finish.
Board Member Conneman — We sort of set a precedent with the 12 1 think when we
dropped the other...
Chairperson Wilcox — Southwoods? Specifically?
Board Member Conneman -- Yeah, yeah, exactly. How Commonland got in, I don't
know.
Chairperson Wilcox — Boris, go ahead.
Mr. Simkin Yeah, well my ask a question. So you're saying that if I move this oval
part, right, I can stay as is? Correct> .
Board Member Conneman — Stay what?
Board Member Mitrano — As is he says.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 35
Mr. Simkin — I move this oval part and make it just ugly rectangle on a standard base,
can stay with 12 or 13 square feet, correct?
Board Member Mitrano — You'd be closer.
Ms. Brock — You'd still need a variance because.
Mr. Simkin I understand I still need variance. I understand. But you are saying that
aesthetic is not important, right, so I need to just put rectangular and...I just don't
understand why you stick with just square here ... what is point ... why not 14.x,9...
Chairperson Wilcox — Why not 6,
Mr. Simkin -- Why not 6? Why?
Chairperson Wilcox — Why not 6. This Board could say 6 is enough. I hear your
argument about why we picked 12 ... the consensus is 12 and not 14, but the alternative
argument is ... we could recommend 6.
Mr. Simkin — I understand that.
Mr. Kanter — Could I ask a question about the visibility from the road, because it looks
like where this is proposed to be positioned, which is at the intersection of Marrissa
Lane and Shickel Road, it probably is not going to be visible from Danby Road unless
it's a billboard.
Board Member Mitrano — Yeah that's true
down to 12 then, on that point.
That's another point. Okay. I'd go back
Mr. Kanter — And then I am wondering about colors. We really don't have any indication
of the colors of this sign. There are some code numbers listed on the diagram but it
doesn't tell me what the colors are, so I think the Board would probably want to know
that.
Board Member Conneman — That'd be cool.
Chairperson Wilcox — Boris... colors.
Mr. Simkin — Sorry, but I am color blind. No I have a sketch... color sketch, but I can not
tell the colors....
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 36
Chairperson Wilcox — No tell us the colors, tell us.
Mr. Simkin — I think, I said, I'm color blind okay, so I think this is a combination of brown,
and kind of green but as I said, I am color blind.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Mr. Simkin — I have a color copy that I can submit.
Chairperson Wilcox — In general, brown and green is good unless its...
Mr. Simkin — No, it's not blue or red, for sure... it's kind of brown or green color.
Board Member Conneman — And the sign will not be lit?
Chairperson Wilcox — I believe the resolution is drafted, in our recommendation, says
that the sign will not be illuminated, that is correct.
I think we have kind of centered around 12.... Jonathan, or staff, any other comments
from you on your side? Alright, so let me do this since we need to do a little fill in the
blank here... We are going to draft it here. I am going to change the 3�d line, Susan,
which says "sign variance for an 18- square foot ". I want to change that for a +/- 18-
square foot to reflect the fact that it is roughly 18 point whatever and that the request for
a sign variance for 18, +/- 18 be denied and be it further resolved that... recommends
the Zoning Board of Appeals ... a sign variance with an area not to exceed 12- square
feet and then in condition B would read; the proposed sign shall not exceed 12- square
feet in total sign area as defined in the Town of Ithaca sign law,
will move that motion. Seconded by Larry Thayer. Okay,
Ms. Brock — Under condition A ... add the words; acceptable to the Attorney for the Town
after the phrase 'the applicant will receive an easement' .
Chairperson Wilcox — And a copy was available when we came in...a proposed...we
have one...
Ms. Brock — But, among other things, it says that 'the exact size and location of the
easement will be as shown on the attached drawing' and there is no attached drawing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so we will leave that condition in there. Okay. I have some
questions about... Well I was going to say we had nothing from the owner of the land
saying that they agreed to it, but we have a signed and notarized grant of right -of -way
signed by both Sam and Jeremy Davis. Essentially what that says is that the owner in
some way agrees to put the sign on their property. Where was the Southwoods sign
placed? Was it placed in the road right -of -way? Was it placed on a homeowner's lot?
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 37
Are we concerned about maintenance agreements? Are we concerned about, not only
allowing Boris and /or his agents and /or his company to put the sign there, but to have
access to the across the owner's land to maintain the sign? I mean, are there other
issues here?
Mr. Kanter — Probably. I think when the Southwoods sign was approved, if I recall
correctly, and I think Chris might have mentioned this in her memo, it was actually still
part ... it was under ownership of the subdivider so that was no the same issue. It may
now be privately owned.
Chairperson Wilcox — And now that it is privately owned, is it more than simply the
owner allows or grants the easement to put the sign there... but does Mr. Simkin and /or
his company or companies, need the right to go onto the property to maintain the sign?
Who's going to mow, you know, if the grass grows up around the posts, who's going to
Board Member Conneman — I know. It's just a sign in a subdivision, but...
Mr. Kanter — Those are all good questions.
Chairperson Wilcox And I think we can make a recommendation to the Zoning Board,
but these might be questions that the Zoning Board might want to address, when Mr.
Simkin goes in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. At least Susan has a heads -up on
it now.
Ms. Brock — Well and A, we could say the easement... allowing the applicant to erect
and maintain... the sign... and the area around the sign..
Chairperson Wilcox -- ...to erect and maintain... okay..
Ms. Brock -- ..:the sign and the area around...
Chairperson Wilcox -- ... to erect and maintain the sign and the area around the
sign...okay. That's a little wishy -washy isn't right ?. The area around the sign?
Board Member Mitrano — Is it alright if I ask why we are getting into this? I mean, I
understand, you know, it's a theoretical matter, why we are getting into this, but, given
that we haven't gotten into this with all of the other ones, do we have a clear framework
from which to work as to how to apply it to this case? Or is this something that we want
to float?
Chairperson Wilcox — I raised a concern because the applicant does not own the
Property
Board Member Mitrano — But on... usually, the applicant has supplied us with an
indication that the owners have provided what was an easement or something like
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Finai - Page 38
that ... I'm not even that we have that for any of these others,.so why are we focusing on
this so particularly now? It might be a worthwhile issue, but I don't know why we are
demanding that we have particulars for this particular resolution. Counsel?
Ms. Brock — I think it is appropriate to include these types of items, in the
recommendation to the Zoning Board,
Board Member Mitrano — All right. Then I will go right along with them.
Ms. Brock — And, perhaps to clarify, instead of saying in the area around the sign, we
can just say to erect and maintain the sign and property because the next phrase is ` in
the proposed area indicated in the submitted survey map:' .
Chairperson Wilcox --Okay.
changes... Susan?
Ms. Brock — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jon.
Is that change acceptable?
Mr. Kanter — I was just going to add to condition D...a revised sign detail drawing
showing the new dimensions and colors of the sign to be submitted.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, thank you. Larry ... acceptable? Okay and it is acceptable
to me as well. Okay. Thank you Jon. Anything else? I have a motion and a second.
Board votes.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -103: Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zonin
Board of Appeals; Sign Variance — Westview Subdivision; Schickel Road Sign
Review Board (Planning Board)
MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member. Thayer...
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
acting .as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends to the Zoning
Board of Appeals the request for a sign variance for an 18t square foot freestanding
neighborhood sign, where neighborhood identification signs in a residential district
cannot exceed 6 square feet in size, be denied,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a sign variance for a
freestanding neighborhood identification sign on the southeast corner of Schickel Road
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 39
and Larisa Lane,,with an area not to exceed 12 square feet, where neighborhood
identification signs in a Residential District cannot exceed 6 square feet in size, be
approved, with the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town,
from the owner of the property on which the sign will be placed, allowing the
_applicant to erect and maintain the sign, and property, in the proposed area
indicated on the submitted survey map, prior to the Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting of October 23, 2006, and
b. The proposed sign shall not exceed 12 square feet in total sign area, as defined
in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and
C, The proposed sign shall not be illuminated, and
d. A revised sign detail drawing showing the new dimensions and colors of the sign
be submitted for review and approval of the. Director of Planning and Zoning,.
prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously
Chairperson Wilcox — How are we doing on time guys and gals? Who's here
representing Cornell? That's not Brenda Smith but... Good enough.
At 8:30p.m. Ladies and Gentlemen; the next item this evening is:
SEAR: Cornell University, Precinct 8, athletic fields modifications located on
Game Farm Road
Name and professional address please.
Peter Paradise, Cornell University, Department of - Planning and Design
Construction
am here representing the Precinct 8 Athletic Field Project. Tonight we are seeking a
modified, site plan review. Site plan review was approved in 2003, the project has since
been constructed and there are, there was a modification to the projects between site
plan approval and construction. Essentially... the diagram shows in white /gray, which
you might not. be able to see well, but I think it was in the mailing, what was
approved ... the access drive and 30 ... what was 30 parking spaces in the gravel
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 40.
area ... what was constructed is in dark gray... gravel driveway with 15 spaces...we
maintained the same curving radius, we maintained the same driveway width. In
addition to that, the building and driveway were shifted slightly north, closer to the
athletic fields. These changes were made to accommodate the program. and we
minimized the amount of disturbed area by a little over a half of an acre trying to
minimize the impact of the agricultural fields to the south.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review?
Board Member Howe — I move the motion..
Board Member Conneman - I think it's all there.
Board Member Mitrano — Right:
Board Member Conneman - It's all for the better.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to say anything? Do I have a motion? Did
somebody move the motion? I'm sorry, Rod moved the motion. Seconded by George
Conneman. There being no further discussion...
Board votes.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -104: SEQR - Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Modification, Cornell University — Precinct 8 Athletic Fields, Game Farm Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -3, 62 -2-4, 624-5, 62 -2 -6
MOTION made by Board Member Howe; seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Modification for the
previously approved Precinct 8 Athletic Fields project located off Game Farm
Road,. Tax Parcel No's 62 -2 -3, 62 -2 -4, 62 -2 -59 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential
Zone. The proposal involves decreasing the total size of the gravel parking lot to
approximately 15 parking spaces, a decrease of approximately. 15 spaces from
the originally approved 30 space parking lot, and a minor shift to the north of the
parking, building pad, and circular drive. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant;
Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in this environmental review with respect to Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Modification, and
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 41
31 The Planning Board, on October 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a drawing entitled
"Modified Layout Plan" dated 9/22/06, prepared by Brenda Smith, and other
application material, and
A.- The Town_Planning_staff has recommended negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Modification.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning
of environmental significance based on
reasons set forth in the EAF Part
Environmental Quality Review Act and
the Town of Ithaca Code for the above
neither a Full Environmental Assessmer
will be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
Board hereby makes a negative determination
the information in the EAF Part I and for the
II in accordance with the New York State
Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of
referenced action as proposed, and, therefore,
t Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — At 8..:1 need to sign a few things don't I: ... At 8:32 p.m., the next
item is a public hearing for consideration of preliminary and final site plan approval for
the modifications of the previously approved Precinct 8 Athletic Fields Project, located
off Game Farm Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -3, 62 -2-41 62 -2 -5, and 62 =2 -6, Low Density
Residential Zone. Proposal involves decreasing the total size of the gravel parking lot
to approvimately 15 parking spaces, a decrease of approximately 15 spaces to the
previously approved 30 space parking lot and a minor shift to the north of the parking
building pad and circular driver Cornell University, owner /applicant, Brenda Smith, Civil
Engineer.
Agent representing Cornell is Peter Paradise. You have a title? Civil Section Leader.
Thank you very much. Questions with regard to the modifications that already exist?
Board Member Mitrano - I move the motion.
Chairperson Wilcox — I gotta give the public a chance to speak.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 42
Board Member Mitrano — I know, it's a check...
Chairperson Wilcox - None. Peter, you want to take a seat....1 know our Cornell
University Veterinary professor would like to address the Board this evening. She has
been waiting patiently.
-- Hollis- Erb, -118- Snyder- Hill.Road-
Less footprint is a good thing. Thank you.
Board Member Mitrano — See, she moves the motion too.
Chairperson Wilcox— She sat here all night just to...
Board Member Thayer — She wins the shortest...
Chairperson Wilcox— Anybody else? There is no one else here, you ... YOU 're not going
to say a word are you ... there being no one else, I will close the public hearing at 834
p.m. and bring the matter back to the Board.
Board Member Thayer — I'll move the motion.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman.
Changes?
Ms. Brock— I have no changes.
Chairperson Wilcox — No changes. Yipee.
Board votes.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -105: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Modification,
Cornell University — Precinct .8 Athletic Fields, Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -3, 6244, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Plan Modification for the
previously approved Precinct 8 Athletic Fields project located off Game Farm
Road, Tax Parcel No's 62 -2 -3, 62 -2-41 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential
Zone. The proposal involves decreasing the total size of the gravel parking lot to
approximately 15 parking spaces, a decrease of approximately 15 spaces from
the originally approved 30 space parking lot, and a minor shift to the north of the
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 43.
parking, building pad, and circular drive. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant;
Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Modification, has, on October 3, 2006, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 3, 2006, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, a plan entitled "Modified Layout Plan ", dated 9/22/06,
and other application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants approval for Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Modifications for the Precinct 8 Athletic Fields project located off Game
Farm Road, as shown on the drawing entitled "Modified Layout Plan" dated 9/22/06 and
other materials.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. . .
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox = Persons to Be Heard -- there are none. Approval of minutes...
the minutes were not available, they're on the table in front of you so we will adjourn or
postpone that to the next meeting. .
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox -- While Jon is coming back ... I have a ...I have something that
bothered me. While we were looking at the Ellis- Rogers subdivision, the quality of that
survey map was pretty bad. Given today's current standards, boy....
Board Member Conneman — It was even the wrong lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know... it's just ... I don't know...
Board Member Conneman — it was stamped and everything...
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 44
Chairperson Wilcox – I know... we are talking about the subdivision map that Mr.
Russler did.:.
Mr. Walker – Yeah, well he has
Project...
.___Chairp-erso ❑_W_ _ilcox.— I_am worrie
the technology that it has behind
about it's accuracy. I wonder
know... Granted, he did the wrong
developed a new parcel map for the Rogers Parks
d about... about more that... it doesn't... it doesn't have
it that we see from like T.G. Miller, therefore I wonder
about the validity of the calculations. It just ... YOU
lot, but that's another issue.
Mr. Walker – He didn't understand our subdivision regulations and apparently when we
accepted the application, we waived requirements as this Board is allowed to do.
Board Member Conneman – Yeah, kind of did it by default.
Mr. Walker – And this is one of these where... Well first off, I don't even now how the
house got built. The garage was without a variance because they didn't have., 'prior to
this subdivision, they didn't have a legal building lot.
Chairperson Wilcox – The house that's there buts not showing on the ...
Mr. Walker – It's a 100 feet wide at the setback line, right?
Mr. Kanter – It's not even shown on the aerial, it's so new.
Board Member Mitrano – How did they get a building permit?
Mr. Kanter – Well; that's a question I'm going to ask in my office.
Chairperson Wilcox – Who issued it?
Mr. Walker – Well, Andy was still here then, but... l mean they had a100 foot of frontage
on the road, but with the 80 foot of back lot line, the taper shows they didn't have a 100
foot at the setback.
Chairperson Wilcox – Can we get back to the survey. I .mean... just... I expect
something better I guess. You know ... CAD drawn and...
Mr. Walker – you don't need a CAD drawing.
surveying, you want to do everything on a compute r
used for centuries and they can be very accurate,
has been know to work cheap.,
Chairperson Wilcox – Inexpensively...
mean, if you are marketing your
. I mean hand drawn maps were
Now Mr .... this particular surveyor
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 45
Board Member Conneman — But this is the 21St Century, okay, in case you missed it...
Ms. Brock — I think that we should probably refrain from speculating
Board Member Mitrano — Yeah, I would appreciate that too. Is this on the minute... are
these on the minutes?
Ms. Brock - Yes this is on the record.
Board Member Mitrano — I'm not in favor of this quality of the conversation:
Board Member Howe - Other business..:
Mr. Walker — This is a legal map submitted by the surveyor...
Chairperson Wilcox Therefore it is acceptable
Mr. Walker - I don't have any problems with this. If it was a real bad survey, I might talk
to them....
Chairperson Wilcox - But that's a legal survey...
Mr. Walker — This is an adequate survey map.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, alright. Jon, you want to do next meeting... agenda....
Mr. Kanter — Surely,... we've got the Ithaca College Gateway Building; Final Site Plan
coming in; we've got a sketch plan for the Ithaca Community Childcare Center addition
on Warren Road, I'm not sure what all the details are, but we'll be finding that out next
time, and what we'd like to do is a presentation of the Town of Ithaca Transportation
Plan to this Board. We are doing the same to the Town Board this Thursday. We will
be asking the Town Board to refer the Transportation Plan draft to the Planning Board
for a recommendation, but we thought what might be helpful, is to give you kind of an
early presentation, give you the draft after you've had the presentation, read through the
draft and then get back together at the following meeting, which would be November 7 t
for the actual recommendation and public hearing. That way you're kind of not hearing
it at the same time as the public who is coming in at the public hearing... so that's the
proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's it for the meeting?
Mr. Kanter — Yup, that should about do it for that meeting, yes.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 46
Chairperson Wilcox - Alright... George, you want to talk about, and I want to talk about a
little bit, about Sapsucker Woods....
Board Member Conneman - First of all Tompkins County had this great opportunity to
look at their sites ... their scenic views. Let me tell you something... what the problem
with that is. I think a cornfield is beautiful, most people don't. I don't see the way they
did -it, -how you- can - make_ an.. y_ judgement.__Secondly_,_half__of the__places they had,
swear, were in State Parks, where you're not going to change anything. So I just want
to get that on the record with Susan there. Because it really, it really irritated me. The
other thing is we were all invited to go to the CU masterplan meeting, right?
Board Member Mitrano - I'd like to hear about that.
Board Member Conneman - the meeting was spectacular. It was held in the part of
Shockoff where there are 200 seats and they had all these vegges and all this food out
there, and, guess how many people showed up ... There were 12 people
Board Member Mitrano -.I was in Washington
Board Member Conneman - Seven people from Cornell, Eva Hoffmann and myself and
3 other people. One was from Lansing and one was somebody else ... Anyway, the only
thing I will say is these people, I think, if they don't get snowed by Cornell, it will be very
interesting because they seem to understand that you need, for a masterplan, you need
to have some vision and so forth, and goals, and everything else ... (inaudible)... I just
wanted to mention that.
I think I agreed, one time here, when I got the letter from someone and read it to you,
that after that, if I get any letters that relate to anything before this Board, that I will
share...) shared with Jonathan a letter that I got from Susan (inaudible) who is a forest
soils expert at Cornell and she -had some real questions about the drainage problems in
the Lucente development proposal. Okay. Subsequently, last week I had Andy
Williams, who wrote this to the Journal, and if you haven't seen this in the Journal, you
should read it, cause it's well written... He and a couple of other people wanted to
meet... how the Planning Board operated. Why did we push ahead so quickly with the
SEQR and so on and so on and so forth, okay. And the other question that they raised
was the one that I raised... How do we guarantee the conditions, whatever they are,.
even if we go to z+ next time. How do we guarantee that those are carried out.
Because they look around and say Lucente always promised something, but nothing
happened. So, that's why Susan and I are so up ... want to talk about how we guarantee
that things are carried out. I had some real questions aboutthe proposal, as you know,
abstained, I think if I read the minutes, which I read in the entirety, that Rod had some
questions about this, was a little uneasy ... I think it was a case of pushing this too much
forward. I don't see why we consider a proposal when Larry Fabroni doesn't have a
letter, he does not have a letter from DEC, the Army Corp of Engineers, who ever else
he has to get a letter for ... let's get that all together first before we consider his proposal,
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006 .
Final - Page 47
because he's done this before. And these people that I met with, they're not angry,
they're just hurt that they think we didn't listen to them. I think that's right, myself.
Board Member Howe — I also got an email, and I think you were copied on it Jonathan
right, there was an email that went to myself, Herb Engman, you and I can't remember
who that was from ... was that from Susan...
Mr, Kanter I' can't remember because there have been a number of emails floating
around, but I did see it.
Board Member Howe — And Herb actually sent a very nice response back to, did he
copy you on the response he sent back to whoever...
Chairperson Wilcox — When we've had, well, first of all, it's important that when you get
communication that provides information, you make it available to I guess Jonathan, so
that it can eventually be distributed so that all of us have equal access to the same
information. I think that's fair to us, its also fair to the applicant.. If the applicant has a
position on something and tells me, that doesn't benefit the applicant as opposed to
telling all of us. I think in the past when we have had application which, or we've had.
subdivisions or site plan reviews where there is a great distance or concentration of time
between preliminary and final, that you will collect those notes, comments, letters,
emails and then when a packet is distributed for review for final, they'll all be included as
the last (inadible) would go. I would be much happier to get all those comments at the
relevant time rather than just, a couple now, a couple in 2 weeks, because we might not
see the applicant back 3 months 6 months I have no idea.
Board Member Conneman — And I think that's and also to the article that was in the
paper. If you haven't seen it you should read it.
Mr. Kanter — I hesitate sending editorials because that was on the opinion page, and
certainly it is somebody's right to express their opinion, but there was very little factual
information, it was a position statement, basically, and I think everybody who wants to
read it can read it in the newspaper. So that's not something I would forward to the
Board but, other things, and that counts emails, certainly.
Board Member Conneman — And you think everything Mr. Fabroni says is fact?
Mr. Kanter — I didn't say that.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, I got Susan and Carrie, Carrie go ahead.
Ms. Whitmore — And also, any correspondance that Planning Board Members, Zoning
Board Members, Town Board Members, receive from anybody in relation to their
position as a Board Member, is actually a town record and it has to be turned over to
Planning Board Minutes
October 3V
Final - Page 48
the Town Clerks Office because we are the Records Management Officers for the
Town.
Board Member Conneman — What do you do if you meet with somebody? I mean,
these are constituents who said to me; "How'd you like to have a cup of coffee and let's
talk about it." What do you do with that?
Ms. Brock — Well, that's not a record so that's not subject to these requirements.
Ms. Whitmore — It wouldn't be FOILable. However, the letters that you receive about a
project, we have to produce under a FOIL request.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would ... The difficulty with having
expressing an opinion about the project during the meeting.
Board Member Conneman - I didn't do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — I didn't say you did
Board Member Conneman — Okay
Chairperson Wilcox. — I simply said...
Board Member Conneman — I don't do that
a meeting like that is not
Chairperson Wilcox — It is difficult not to express an opinion about something during a
meeting like that. If you get together with neighbors or something like that, be very
careful about...
Board Member Conneman — I learned that when .1 was the Associate Dean, I knew how
to talk...
Chairperson Wilcox — Same thing if I run into a friend in the grocery store who wants my
opinion on something, you know, come to a public meeting and you'll hear an opinion
eventually.
Board Member Conneman —Yeah, correct.
Board Member Mitrano — You steer them to the meat section.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you want to say something else Susan?
Ms. Brock — Carrie and I had the same comment.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 49
Chairperson Wilcox — I did the Save Sapsuckerwoods Group or whatever they are
calling themselves, Save Sapsuckerwoods ... they did have a table display on the
commons and I ran into it on Friday afternoon and stopped by and they recognized me,
of course, and I got a copy of their flyer and they have a website now, and I have looked
at their materials and thanked them for their time ... They are very passionate ...
Board Member Conneman — You better believe they're passionate ...... They give bird
lessons also ... I mean
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, so I think it is incumbent upon us, and correctly so. We've
had this issue before. Just because we include something in a resolution, since we
don't have enforcement power, that falls to .another part of Town government, how can
we be sure that it will actually get done. And the answer is, we have staff who will go
out there and review what's done and make sure it conforms to the approved plans. In
fact, that's going on right now, for example, with the Rite -Aid, as I've been copied on the
correspondence between Jon Kanter and the gentleman representing Rite -Aid, the
builder Pallentino, so I am aware of the correspondence that can go back and forth.
Mr. Kanter. And there maybe somethings coming back to this Board...
Board Member Conneman — You don't have to share that with us?
Chairperson Wilcox — No because its correspondence between the Town and the
applicant. I am simply being cc'd. It's already part of the Town record because Jon's
writing it and Jon's receiving it.
Mr. Kanter — I mean there is nothing to hide in terms of information. The elements that
are out there still to be resolved are things like a chain -link fence that they put around
the pond that wasn't approved as part of the site plan which they need, they say they
need for security purposes, but to me is a not so nice looking standard chain -link fence,
ranging to the crosswalk, which I think the Board is going to be interested in seeing how
that was done because I am not sure it is going to work the way we wanted it to, ranging
to signs that so far they are in compliance but they are going to be coming back in
proposing some variances for some signs that they arenit ... that they didn't:..so they
Chairperson Wilcox — Stop there... What did we tell them George...
Board Member Conneman — I told them NO and what I am going to tell him when he
comes in is what part of no doesn't he understand because what I also told him was this
is not Buffalo, this Ithaca, New York.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know, we all felt that way. You conform to the sign law.
Anything else George on Sapsuckerwoods?
Planning Board Minutes
October 3; 2006
Final - Page 50
Board Member Conneman - No, I just wanted to know...I just wanted to share with you
because she.said we have to share and that's a conversation I had. I personally felt
that we went to fast and I think the neighbors have some legitimate complaints and they
wanted to know how the Town Board operated and so on and so forth.
Board Member Mitrano — May ask.staff, was there procedures pursuant to law that we
didn't follow with respect to that application? Were there documents that we didn't get
from the Army Corp of Engineers or any such bodies that were required that we failed to
meet those qualifications?
Chairperson Wilcox - No. There are 2 issues. One, it was late and I moved the motion
for SEQR approval, got a second and, it was late in the evening and one could.take the,
position that we hurried. The Board collectively asked about fortuitous and the Board
decided that we had discussed it enough. The other thing is, there are just a huge
number of conditions attached to the preliminary site plan approval. They have a
tremendous amount of work to do from dealing with stormwater amangement plans
approved to Cornell agreeing.to the Lab of O agreeing to take the land ... They have a
tremendous amount of work to do before they come back..
Board Member Mitrano — That's what I recall.
Chairperson Wilcox — And George's thought is maybe we want to see more of that
before we grant the.preliminary rather than making it a condition.
Board Member Mitrano — And that's fine. I was just curious as to staff whether or not w
had failed to do all the procedural assessments.
Board Member Conneman You're talking about legal, I'm talking about ethical in
listening to the neighbors and what they said: I don't care about the legal at this point.
Chairperson Wilcox — We could get into a debate and actually it is already 9:00. My
experience, you've served on public boards as well George, my experience is that when
you don't do what the public wants, their response is, we didn't listen...
Board Member Mitrano — And that's why I want it on the record that we went according
to procedure.
Mr. Kanter — We will either answer a question and tell you, yes, you did absolutely what
you were supposed to do, or we will go into closed session so that we can tell you what
you did wrong. Which you think we should do ....
(laughter)
Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Attorney is now having a heart attack.
Planning Board Minutes
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 51
(laughter)
Board Member Conneman — I was on the (inaudible) we never had these problems
because we always gave everybody sufficient time. That didn't mean that you could
talk forever, but, if Tracy said something twice, the third time she wanted to say
something we would say; Tracy, you said that twice, okay. That's how we shortened our
_ meetings,_ but we tried to reach_ consensus_ and we never rushed through something that
was important because I think that's how the public acceptance and remember, we hav
5 municipalities that we dealt with. If you don't... if you think this is tough, you want to
try that one.
Board Member Mitrano — Well if we are voicing opinion, I would say that Fred is very,
very generous in giving the public ample...
Board Member Conneman — Well, he wasn't that night.
Ms. Brock — Well, I believe everybody who wanted to speak did have the opportunity to
do so and a number of people
Board Member Thayer — I think so. I remember there being lots of conditions, like you
pointed out. We had plenty of time to go over those conditions.
Ms. Brock — I think the applicant-provided sufficient documentation: The public was
able to comment on that, the Board asked a number of questions of the applicant to get
clarifications, tremendous number of conditions were changed or added to the
preliminary approval as a result of that. The board did have the opportunity and availed
itself of the opportunity to discuss the environmental issues based on the outcome of
the vote on the SEQR, it was clear that there were 2 members who felt that perhaps
they did not have adequate opportunity to discuss all the issues. Four members felt that
they did, and that's why we ended up with the 4 -2 vote. But I am not aware of any legal
requirements that were not met.
Board Member Conneman — There was nothing illegal. That isn't the issue. The issue
is ethical and ....
Ms. Ritter — One thing I want to add is that the applicant had come in for 2 or 3 sketch
plans prior to coming in for preliminary and SEQR and you had all sent them away,
saying this wasn't good enough and he came back with quite a bit, quite a different
proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I remember those 5 -acre estate lots that were 3/4s
wetland...yeah.
Board Member Mitrano —We spent an enormous amount of time, in my recall on this
proposal.
Planning Board Minutes.
October 3, 2006
Final - Page 52
Board Member Conneman - (inaudible)... COIL has not accepted yet, unless you all
know something that I don't know,
Chairperson Wilcox - It's a condition of approval.
Ms.-Brock - Right..T� - -- - -
Board Member Mitrano - And George, the reason I ask about the legal thing is that
when you start saying things like 'they should have brought in documents from' and
your naming governmental bodies, those sound like requirements. So I just want to be
very clear whether we needed those types of documents or not.
Board Member Conneman - It would be a lot easier for us and a lot shorter process if
they come prepared all the way. I won't mention ... some developers come in and
they've got their act together. In this case, they didn't have their act together.. They
don't have these letters that are crucial.
Board Member Mitrano - But I am confused. Are they required for the application?
Ms. Ritter - Well the DEC letter we often allow ... we often grant preliminary predicated
on, you know, before final, getting the DEC approval or even sometimes before building
permit.
Board Member Conneman — Including the Army Corp of Engineers too? : .
Ms. Ritter - I was thinking of... We often ask for permits, general permits from County
State Federal prior to either final or sometime building permits. But they, it, it's not
untypical to do that. But you were certainly, you can certainly change that and ask for it
prior to giving a preliminary. It just sort of depends on how (inaudible)
Board Member Conneman - I would have asked for that but you all said that they could
do it the next time. Well, I think that, I think that was wrong.
Mr. Walker - Historically we have been doing preliminaries. pretty much with. the concept
plan but not the final construction documents.
Board Member Conneman - That is true... but these are very crucial things.
Mr. Walker - Right. I don't disagree with that, I think you could have asked for a more.
detailed, more details on the stormwater management and asked, because there is a
jurisdictional issue going on right now, whether or not it is a jurisdictional DEC or federal
wetland.
Chairperson Wilcox -But we will have those documents available for...
Mr. Walker .,I assume so ... you'll have it before they have a final...
Chairperson Wilcox — When they come back for final ...(inaudible) .
Mr. Walker — (inaudible) and that may take a significant amount of time to do that.
Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else under Other Business?
ADJOURMENT
Chairperson Wilcox adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully somitted,
Carrie lCtoqateiWhr re
Deputy Town Clerk
f_
7:50 P.M.. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Precinct 8 Athletic Fields Modification, Game Farm Road.
7 :50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the modification of the
previously approved Precinct 8 Athletic Fields project located off Game Farm Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -3,
62 -24, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves decreasing.the total size of the
gravel parking lot to approximately 15 parking spaces, a decrease of approximately 15 spaces from the
originally approved 30 space parking lot, and a minor shift to the north of the parking, building pad, and circular
drive. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent.. .
10
11.
12
13.
Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
Approval of Minutes: September 5, 20060
Other Business:.
Adjournment,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17470
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday. October 3, 2006
AGENDA
7:00 P.M:
Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M.
SEQR Determination: Big Al's ( Manley's Mighty - Mart), 1103 Danby Road,
7 :05 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration to modify a Special Permit Approval for the Big Al's Convenience Store
(Manley '. s Mighty -Mart) located.at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel
and Repair Zone. The proposal involves modifying the previously granted approval to allow the store to operate
24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A Special Approval was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
convenience store on January 14, 1998, which restricted the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday
and Saturday, and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. Pursuant to the current. Town of Ithaca
Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with gasoline sales are now regulated by Special Permit from the
Planning Board. Manley's Mighty -Mart, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Dwight R. Ball, Esq., Agent.
7:30 P.M.
SEQR Determination: Ellis 2 -Lot Subdivision, 118 & 120 Bundy Road.
7 :30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot
subdivision (lot line modification) located at 118 and 120 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 26 -3-
14 and 26-3 -16.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 0.038 +/- acre strip
of land from the western edge of 118 Bundy Road, which will then be consolidated with 120 Bundy Road.
Melvin & Aileen Ellis and David & Melanie Rogers, Owners /Applicants.
7:40 P.M.
SEQR Determination: Westview Subdivision Sign, Schickel Road. .
7:40 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign
variance(s) to allow a 28 square foot (7' x 4') neighborhood identification sign on the southeast corner of
Schickel Road and Larisa Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3.44, Low Density Residential Zone.
Jeremy & Sharon Davis, Owners; Boris Simkin and Igor Cheikhet, Applicants.
7:50 P.M.. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Precinct 8 Athletic Fields Modification, Game Farm Road.
7 :50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the modification of the
previously approved Precinct 8 Athletic Fields project located off Game Farm Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -3,
62 -24, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves decreasing.the total size of the
gravel parking lot to approximately 15 parking spaces, a decrease of approximately 15 spaces from the
originally approved 30 space parking lot, and a minor shift to the north of the parking, building pad, and circular
drive. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent.. .
10
11.
12
13.
Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
Approval of Minutes: September 5, 20060
Other Business:.
Adjournment,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17470
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
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 Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration to modify a Special Permit Approval for the Big Al's Convenience Store
( Manley's Mighty -Mart) located at 1 103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal involves modifying the previously
granted approval to allow the store to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A
Special Approval was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the convenience store
on January 14, 1998, which restricted the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,
Friday and Saturday, and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. Pursuant to
the current Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with gasoline sales
are now regulated by Special Permit from the Planning Board.. Manley's Mighty -Mart,
LLC, Owner /Applicant; Dwight R. Ball, Esq., Agent.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot
subdivision (lot line modification) located at 118 and 120 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.'s 26 -3 -14 and 26 -3 -16.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing a 0.038 +/- acre strip of land from the western edge of 118
Bundy Road, which will then be consolidated with 120 Bundy Road. Melvin & Aileen
Ellis and David & Melanie Rogers, Owners/Applicants.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the . Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign
variance(s) to allow a 28 square foot (7' x 4') neighborhood identification sign on the
southeast corner of Schickel Road and Larisa Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2=
3.44, Low Density Residential Zone. Jeremy & Sharon Davis, Owners; Boris Simkin and
Igor Cheikhet, Applicants.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the modification of the
previously approved Precinct 8 Athletic Fields project located off Game Farm Road, Tax
Parcel No's 62 -2 -3, 62 -2 -4, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves decreasing the total size of the gravel parking lot to approximately 15 parking
spaces, a decrease of approximately 15 spaces from the originally approved 30 space
parking lot, and a minor shift to the north of the parking, building pad, and circular drive:
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent. .
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: Monday, September 25, 2006
Publish: Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Wednesday,�September 27,2006�)rTHE CiHA €AJOURNAt„
-'� '� .
TOWN OITHAC�4'�;
§3 'PLANNING $OARD r
NOTICE
P MUC_HEARI
Tuesdap
ILL
-- - — OtYobs2
for
pBe ofthe�Rlanairgr
BoordNOTICE3S FiEItBY
Vwlll he d'b "e Plantng5
thaa
Boaid afrthe�'fown ol
f cax;
ion %4 11 dNO 3,
82006 at %IIRSM I a�
Shf,I,thncal Y °te
afollowmg ilmesaa an °fhe t 7�t0 P.A!L Gonsdeiahonf
d r_
Following mattersi
pf a Recomnendatwn to t6e1
fr ' t rfZOmn �3B& ZIP`, is
7.05 P M Conslderahon z �� APPS t
t Odl f a'S'p c1al Per If '199°x,.! �o'
a vanance Ito allow�a 8'
APPr°va fw the &4g ` uure tt � � qz �
x X 4 nel hwA
Convemence���Stors9 �n �ts g
r' boyhood IdenhhcahI sign
(Manl s Migghiiyy4�MMartJ to , aolr the6oyt�ieast cornei�oF; III, rcated xat�1103 jDanbyg wf �F h
Road, Town of Itha pgo Scll k I d d La
'P.arcel,No'�43 72"2;�Vehr=�
cleF,uel andRepa�r,Rane
�,Tiieproposal involvesmodF�
fying the'prevlousFyigronted
appFo al to allow the2slorei
to :oX r`ate 424 hours r
dayaays per weetc:
Speclaln3 Approvalrws�
'ggranted�jFthe2a irtg
Board of ""peals forthe r
convenience ,istoreIgon l u
98'�wfi cr#i `
Ice oa an nsa
lanp�Towil�"oF�ltheca. Tax
Pa�cel��No3b -2�3 44Low;
�Denslty�Reslder>haf Z e:��
Jeremy �8u`Shuroo�Dwls
Ownef®R TO
Slm ngar
rylgo� Chelkhet .App(ICQnts��
7.50 {Pd .;Consl4ierahon,
�Ai S teP a`Appro alrtiie
rOITTItIcanoo oF�th evF
?; •,_ c
?ously appproved�PracitiCF8'
a 1 re Atfilehc Fields prolect7oca
,p ,e C, ,�
strl�c�tedxfhehoursofjo f ¢ off tGome Fa Road,
rhon tofib 00 a m£ltaa�} 00 3 6223 62'= how,
ka m °,Friday and Saturd.a� �� „
Dense ResldeIT Zone
and 6 00 a m Sfo,mldrugt h ,
Sunday.Mrough Thursday Proposal nvo(ves de
'ursvant #o "thQ to ent crea�ngc to i of a+Ye �i
�. a the aveh 4
Town�of lthacq Code Sec; �9r x Pm9 aP
hod 270138`conver eitceQ�r in
z9oresilm tht`gasolmesptesl spacesxrcdecrease -f.�
t al ;�Perf9froin�the�l!;e'g'saPfro 341;
nngg) rd ,< , Manle}/s spode parking l t ad a
MI h
'IF "Own'ei �minar shl#t�to the rmrih�oF:
,9 the "' rkl" * bow .�
SAPPhcantDwig� B "al, M %s AiI
C v mot' m EmIgllad
FEsq:, Agent��Umve sl ` CMmei q I
7 30 P M. Const III, t% z , /
W 'Prellmma and Fall 11 acant Br da Sm rvrl
SubdmslonA ;proval4fo Engineer enter
hfheprop so ed `FFotzsubc�ivr
slon (lottline� niShcficafion' Sard' unninga w11t:
�fbcateds ate, LM R� iru 2 al said t
rBuo'dy�RoadTowno
pace 6eara71 parsonsrne
ttS M Y 3 Y l
tlthaca7axParcel Non`s 26�Pportofwch matters or
3 14 and 263 =1b 2 McEtr oblecho&Ahere16 Peisons=
'�i;:' -t a' tyz aavT1a +n a a-'
um�ensltyResidential mayg<b'n
X?S 4 n-3G§ �!
f Zone iTheb roposat l persaflap vt tied rr 4als nth
"volves sulidm ng a 038 vlxual rmpaamenk; heanng
+/ bcre-im of land =name iinpalrrnen r seF r s
P
ai ci needs wllt� ov'
ih ester 'edge of 7.1,8 n � sail
Bundy Road; wIIII wnA witha stance ne
`thenk-be consolidated vriih <?9u Mq,Persons�
120iBun �RoadMehnn= ar+n9sslstonce � must
& Aileen 111s and DavtSfr &ws (�9
i Mel
ann Rogees t C>wner_s /< �rless �iran 48 hour pnorW a
ex,,:,:,;IICa[ItSri l' u,"''' 1" t.'`r' F' 4a 6�hle • Amme .e�flrbC.
III-
. 'Jonrr`a�hanKar�er,�CP
'of Plann
P.,
"Pub*
PLEASE
PRINT NAME
�a
,Rrks Fr ,6
QLc;p5 o V- LA
PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
c P
Its S� LA �(�
to
►lt000 % � vv, c�a
41 n n 4 o n tns
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Dani Holford, 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.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, October 3, 2006
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting: September 25, 2006
Date of Publication: September 27, 2006.
i
Dani Holford, Senior Typist,
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27`h day of September 2006.
Notary Yumic
CARRIE mrrmORE
Notary Public, State of New York
No..01 WH6052877
Tioga County �,��y,
Commission Expires December 26,