Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-07-01FILE DATE PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF ITHACA REGULAR MEETING JULY 11 2008 Board Members Present: Rod Howe, Chair; Members George Conneman, Hollis Erb, and Fred Wilcox. Kevin Talty, Alternate Absent: Larry Thayer and Susan Riha Staff Present: Jonathan Kanter Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer (7:07 — 8:30); Chris Balestra, Planner (7:00 — 8:15), Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Others Present: Residents: Harry Ellsworth, Julie Goddard and John Rudan Applicants /Presenters: Katherine Trowbridge and Anne Marchessault, Trowbridge & Wolf Architects; Jeff Coleman, Attorney; Giora Fix, Applicant; Meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Chairperson posting and publication and stated where the fire exits that there were two Board Members absent, therefore, voting member for the evening. Howe accepted the affidavit of are. Chairperson Howe noted Board Member Talty will be a Persons to be Heard There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Howe announced the next agenda item IM ubli Preli 1 nal Jeff Coleman, Attorney for the Applicant I'm sure you are all aware this is somewhat deja vu. This subdivision had been approved a couple of years ago and there was a contingency for a map and an easement plan and I believe we have never received the map or the easement. It's just been I guess agreed upon between myself and Susan Brock as far as the content of that and the drainage plan has been taken care of, so, I believe that the only thing, if you do approve it tonight, the same way, the only thing we will need is an actual driveway agreement to be signed and recorded. Chairperson Howe — Any environmental issues that you're aware of? Mr: Coleman — I believe the only one previously was the drainage plan which has been taken care of. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 2 Chairperson Howe — Any environmental questions? Board Member Wilcox _ First of all, who is this? Mr. Coleman — I'm Jeff Coleman and I am appearing for Giora Fix, who is... Chairperson Wilcox — What has changed in the four years since you or the applicant was here before? Mr. Coleman — I believe nothing. It was approved at that time. Board Member Wilcox -- No, I'm talking about the neighborhood, the conditions, the road, the....is there anything different? Anything changed? Mr. Coleman — Not that I'm aware of but I don't believe I am really qualified to answer. (Mr. Coleman looks at Mr. Fix and asks him) Mr. Fix from the audience — No, no, it's the same...just see to... Chairperson Howe — Can you actually come up so we can capture on tape, since you are answering a question asked by a Planning Board Member. Giora Fix - So it's the same...it's nothing, you know, it's changed. Chairperson Howe — Did you ask for a specific reason? Board Member Wilcox — No, I didn't notice anything when I was there, but I just wanted to...just curious, if there was anything different today than there was four years ago, therefore might make us either rethink, lead to a different decision, that's all. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Any other environmental questions? Would someone like to move the SEAR? Board Member Talty = I'll move it. Chairperson Howe — Kevin... seconded by George. Susan? Ms. Brock — There's a correction. On whereas number 2, it says "that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is Legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency may have been true before we revised our Environmental Quality Review Law Now we don't have any actions which are Planning Board as Lead Agency. "legislatively determined to" so this of Ithaca Planning Board is acting < unchanged, automatically deemed to be in the purview of the Now it's done on a case -by -case basis. So strike reads; "this is an unlisted action for which the Town s Lead Agenc)' the rest of that sentence will remain Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 3 Chairperson Howe . Are those changes okay with Kevin and George? All those in favor. I.It's unanimous. If you'd have a seat, we will open it for a public hearing. This is a public hearing, if there is anyone here who would like to address the Planning Board on this topic, please come forward. Harry Ellsworth, Honness Lane I am here as a neighbor and a tax payer, but I also happen to be Vice -Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals. A lot has changed, in fact, a lot has changed in the last year. There's a growing trend on this street that seems to be tracking Pennsylvania Avenue and that is, what's developing is long -time residents are dying, the houses . are being bought by out -of -town owners and they're filling them with, in many cases, students. One of the students goes in and in turn sublets to other students. We've got a case right on the corner of, as far as to show you a number of this, there are at least five residences on Honness Lane that are owned by landlords that live nowhere near Tompkins County. One is on the corner of 123 Honness Lane and the corner of Terrace View. That has five cars, four in the driveway, one parking on the side of the road, Years ago, Andy Frost went up there and told them, after he finally got a hold of the landlord, who was in Israel, it took him six months to track him down, and told them, by the end of the semester they would only have three unrelated people in that house. The next year, you've got a whole new crop of college students that turn around, maybe three of them rent from the landlord, that turn around and sublet to two more because they are trying to get their monthly payment down to $400 instead of $600 -$700, $400 is a buy because you can't, you can't get anything within several miles. This street is just over one mile from the main Cornell campus. We've got' ..now I know, you'll say, well, we already got duplexes there. That's right we got duplexes, we got apartments, we got a Montessori School, we got a church, so, this is supposed to be medium density residential. We're already out of control, but, where do you reach the saturation point in all this. The traffic is increased substantially. The ... I live six houses from this property, I live three houses down from Pine Tree. The people coming down off East Hill, Eastern Heights, come through our area, 98% of them, those that are going downtown, those going to Cornell will go Pine Tree and go over. They turn the corner on Pine Tree, and a lot of them step on it. You're going to go on a tour, I'm going to be on it too, you need to pay attention to what you see on the street. It's a straight road downhill, so all you gotta do is lean on the gas and go right down there about 40 -50 mile an hour and then you slam your brakes on at the bottom right before you hit Pine Tree, Okay. There's a lot of that. I have a daughter who happens to be a special education child, Down Syndrome, the minister across the street has a daughter who's in a wheelchair that many times she's over at the church, you know, when they have activities, because she's part of his family. She has a full -time nurse, now, so we got these people going by ... Have l called the Sheriffs Office? No. Because they will be there one day for two hours and an hour later, everybody be doing their old thing that don't live in the neighborhood. If they lived in that neighborhood and had children with them in that neighborhood, they wouldn't be driving like that. So, that's one problem. The number of vehicles has picked up substantially. Just that Montessori School is probably good for maybe 150 cars a day. Between 8400 they're Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 4 down there so busy dumping off kids that they can't all get in the driveway of the Montessori School. They're parking across the street in David Church's...of course David's, you know, not with us ... he's tied up for a few years, but, his apartment is across the street, they're using that as their parking lot for their workers and the people that can't get in the driveway are parking across the street, walking their kids across this busy, high -speed street to take them to the Montessori School. In the evening, probably between 4:00 and 5:00, the same thing is going on again. There's got to be at least 75 cars going there, you know, it's the new family trend, both people work so they have to put their pre- schoolers somewhere. So, this is just, you know, subdividing a lot. But why is the lot being subdivided? It's not being subdivided because the owner wants to subdivide a lot. It's being subdivided to put in another, what I term, a kind of commercial property. We've got this creeping commercialism that's going on on Honness Lane, vis -a -vis what I've said. The apartments, you know, all this started out very subdued and now it's growing and where do you reach the saturation point? I think that's what the Town's Fathers and Mothers and Lawyers have to figure out. When is this going to be Pennsylvania Avenue II. Now, if you don't understand Pennsylvania Avenue, I'll explain it to you, because those people have been in front of my Board... Chairperson Howe — And we are familiar with that section of Town, we've talked about it and made recommendations to the Town Board. Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. People with families don't dare live up there because they are being threatened out of their homes and they've appeared in front of my Board and stated that. I won't go into the rest of the examples. So, that's where we're going. Where do we stop this? What's the harm with one more duplex when you got duplexes, but, we've got a trend here that's got to stop somewhere, or else, the neighbors, the long -term neighbors... next to me are people that are almost 90, so in a couple years, their house is going to be for sale and you know, these houses go so fast. I don't know what the connection is to where these people are, but they don't even get in our newspapers that they're for sale... Chairperson Howe — And I ... don't...do you ... are there other things that you want to talk about? Because I think there are some other people who want to talk as well. Mr. Ellsworth — So, I say it's time to stop this creeping cancer, what I call commercialism. You can call it duplex residential, but it's...that's what's going on. Yeah.. .That house where this person's (inaudible) tonight, there's four cars there most of the time. Two in the driveway, and two, there's an apartment beneath the first floor of this house, there's two college students parked down next to the street, in the lower part of that lot. So, you know, maybe those two will decide to sublet to two more. Where does it stop? Chairperson Howe — Okay. Board Member Wilcox — Can I ask, Harry, can I ask you a question... Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 5 Mr. Ellsworth — You know the neighborhood Fred. Board Member Wilcox — I grew up, I grew up in that neighborhood. You're my friend, you're also an esteemed member of the Zoning Board ... This Board is not, can not act in a discretionary way, unless the zoning laws allow us to. This is a legal lot ... hold on., Jet me finish...lt's a legal lot, so I feel like, let me assume you're right. We.. Yrn in the same position I was when we last dealt with a subdivision on Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm not sure I have the discretion to say 1 can't approve this because I don't like it." If it's a legal lot, then I believe I don't have much choice. Chairperson Howe — And I was actually going to ask Susan for that same kind of clarification because we often get up against this point where,.. Sol I think, Susan... Mr. Ellsworth — Well, I know the answer to that... Chairperson Howe -- ...the assessment that we have to be careful... Ms. Brock — Well, you do have to be careful. If there is something about this particular proposal, how it's ... the land, the surrounding situation that makes this proposal one that ... would have unacceptable environmental impacts, for example, you would have discretion. But, you've already passed your SEAR here and said that there's no potential for significant adverse impact. And so really, at this point, as long as the proposal complies with all the laws... I'm trying to think, .we would have to go back to our subdivision chapter to see, but, you're discretion is very limited. Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, very limited. And the only environmental impact that has been previously identified, which was the drainage, and that's included in the materials in front of us, and will be part of the resolution... Ms. Brock — And as far as the complaints about the number of people, unrelated people living in the house, our zoning laws do provide limits for how many families can be there. So, if you suspect that any particular property is violating that, you can call our code enforcement officers, Kristie Rice or Steve Williams, and they'll investigate that. And in fact, in the last year or two, they have had complaints about that type of thing, they've investigated them and they have actually sent out letters requiring landlords to decrease the number of people, which the landlords have actually done. So there actually have been tangible results from that type of thing. Mr. Ellsworth — I expected this reply. So I will appear again when this comes forward to build a two- duplex building. All this is now is subdividing a lot, right? That's all you're doing tonight. So you're hands are tied. Ms. Brock — But.. . Mr. Walker — Once this is a legal lot, and it can be a legal lot. It meets all the requirements for subdivision for lot size and the zoning ... to come in for a building permit Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 6 for a house, with an accessory apartment requires no further Board action. That's purely an administrative action. Ms. Balestra — And I believe the original intent, and the original subdivision did include a future two- family home on that second subdivided parcel. Mr. Ellsworth — Two family. Mr. Walker -- Duplex is not... it would not be a duplex, it would be a single- family home and an accessory apartment. Ms. Balestra — Exactly. Mr. Walker — Which is not a duplex. People talking over each other. Mr. Walker — This proposal is consistent with the zoning. Board Member Conneman — And it's medium density residential. Mr. Walker — Right, which is really.. . Board Member Conneman -- And is that just along that street or is that true in Eastwood Commons or what? Mr. Walker — Eastwood Commons is a special land -use district I believe. They have fiveplexes in that. There was a .... Ms. Balestra -- I think it's a cluster subdivision. Board Member Conneman — So that couldn't...in Eastwood have what's happened what Harry's described? Is that right? buy those homes and then allow more than one...l guess it's people or three unrelated people to occupy them? Board Member Erb — I think it's coded multiple residence... Chairperson Howe — Okay. Commons you couldn't You can not have people more than two unrelated Ms. Balestra — Yeah, so Eastwood Commons is ... multiple residence zone ... it's got different requirements than just the medium density residential zone. Board Member Conneman — What about across the street going the other way? What's the subdivision called... Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 7 Board Member Wilcox — What's the zoning? Board Member Conneman — Yeah, what's the zoning where Liz lives, for example? Board Member Erb — That is still medium - density residential. Board Member Conneman — So the same thing could happen there. I am trying to figure out what Harry is saying. Board Member Erb — Those are constructed as single- family houses side -by- side... Mr. Walker — You're talking about... Board Member Erb — He's talking about West View, Terrace View, Tower View. Mr. Walker — Those were all subdivided under the cluster subdivision and they are basically zero-lot line lots with the two houses attached with a party -wall between them. But that was done under the cluster lot provisions of the law. Chairperson Howe — Let's hear what the rest of the public has to say and then get into the discussion. So if you want to have a seat... Mr. Ellsworth — (inaudible) talked about traffic. This certainly isn't going to reduce traffic, is it? Or the safety of the type of people I talked about, is it? Chairperson Howe — Right. We did hear those concerns. .'were there other concerns? Mr. Ellsworth — Right, neighborhood watch and enforcement people. Wh o already happened. Right? realize your dilemma. start counting cars at then are acting from Chairperson Howe — I'm not sure. So maybe we could mount up a these places. And call the code a handicapped position because it's Mr. Walker — Well, Code Enforcement would not be looking at the traffic. Mr. Ellsworth — I'm talking about... Mr. Walker — As far as occupancy in the homes... Mr. Ellsworth — Riight. Mr. Walker — We will act on a complaint, because we do not have the staff to go out and knock on everyone's door and check on occupancy at this point. But when we get a complaint, one of the things we look at is how many registered cars there are. We're looking at people's addresses ... we have to look at whether they are a legal family unit... Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 8 under the definitions of the law. We have acted, primarily in the Pennsylvania and Coddington Road area, we've had at least five different buildings where they have caused the occupancy to be reduced in the past two years, so, you know...and if there's a valid complaint, we'll investigate it. Mr. Ellsworth — How long does it take to turn that around? A year? From when you go out... Mr. Walker — We get a complaint and we try to investigate it within two weeks and have a response. Chairperson Howe -- I think you have to follow a process as this goes forward and I'm not sure we can really address these sort of issues in a Planning Board meeting... Mr. Walker — No, I'm just, in a couple of months Jon and I won't have to worry about that. Chairperson Howe— Okay. So, do you want to have a seat and we'll open it up to... Julie Goddard, Sunnyview Lane Hi, I'm a homeowner and resident on Sunnyview Lane which is the property right behind the property that we're talking about. And first, just to concur with the other gentleman, have been there for five years, we have lived there for five years now and certainly the occupancy seems to be going up, and I know that's not an issue for this forum, and it may not even be something the landlord is aware of or knows about. It could be a subletting thing, but the number of cars there and just the noise in general has become more and certainly I concur with him as far as what otherwise was a family kind of a section of time to become just like crammed with people. But, that said, the other thing that I just wanted to make sure was resolved was you mentioned that the drainage issue was the main environmental concern and that was when this came up two or whatever years ago. What we had as a concern then because our backyard is downhill from the existing house and the proposed subdivision and already, the drainpipes from that house kind of lead right back to our backyard and I'm worried a little bit that by putting a new residence, and we're not only taking up trees that are sucking up water, but we're adding a roof where there used to be porous grass and I just don't want the issue to get worse, you know, our backyard is a swamp in the springtime and I just don't want it to... Chairperson Howe — And there is a condition in our proposed resolution that says "submission of a drainage plan for approval by the Town Engineer." Ms. Goddard — Okay, so that was,. .that's done or...? Chairperson Howe — It's in the proposed resolution as a condition. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 9 Ms. Goddard — Okay. And so that was what was not accomplished in the previous go. around or...? Chairperson Howe —I'm not sure. I think they just didn't follow through on... Mr. Walker — Well, I can actually add to that... Ms. Goddard — That's right, you came out... Mr. Walker — Yeah, I sloshed through your backyard and it's interesting... this particular drainage for this site impacts, well ... there's at least six properties involved in the drainage, and part of the difficulty we had four years ago or so, when we first talked about that was ... you were in agreement, I think your neighbors at 306 were also, and Mr. Fix was amicable to trying to work together to try and solve the problem because he had a wet area in his backyard also and the people at 102 Terrace View had a pond in their backyard that they wanted to eliminate, and then the people at 300 Sunny View and 104 Terrace View were a little resistant. And based on the topography, if a drainage system was to be installed, to really solve the problems, it was going to require cooperation from all the residents so that something could be constructed... And we actually went out and we had the area surveyed, so I have a pretty...a fairly detailed map so we can work on that. It's going to be a matter of getting the whole neighborhood to work together to make it work. Ms. Goddard — Right. But aside from that, which would be an expense by everybody, and that gets a little tricky because there is a bit of turn around, even from the homeowners and residents, just because it's kind of a place where I think new professors buy and then they buy a nicer place, you know, somewhere else.. 11 don't know, but, so,, The people down the hill from us have since moved and the home, -the two addresses that you last mentioned that were resistant to be involved in a major thing, that's... somebody owns it and rents the other half, so I think, you know, they don't want to sink too much into that. So, it's a little bit tricky to do a full cooperative effort because it's going to cost money and it's people that don't plan to be there maybe for ever. So I guess what I'm wondering is; is there going to be something with this new home, that by itself, will not contribute to the problem. That's what I want. I mean, the existing problem, certainly, that's not reasonable... Mr. Walker — There will be ... when you build a home, there is going to be an increase in impervious surfaces, and, there are some practices that can be installed on a single property , like a rain garden, which I would probably suggest, that would hold the water in that individual property and control the excess runoff from the roof on that property, which would not impact ... would not add to the problems downstream. It would not improve the problems, but it would not add to them. So, there's two, there's a number of different options. One would be to work within the property to mitigate the increased runoff on the site itself with like a ran garden, which would hold it and let the water sink in slowly and not flood the neighborhood and spread the water out so it's not Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 10 concentrated. Most of the problems up there now are due to the way the lots were graded for the existing houses, and... Ms. Goddard — Right, and the existing problem I am certainly not asking be a part of the... Mr. Walker — No, but I think the opportunity there was that if everyone worked together, we could resolve a lot of the existing problems and improve the situation. Ms. Goddard — Right, right. But if we can maybe assume that it would be tough to get everybody to buy -in on that sort of an expense, I just want to make sure that it's a part of the whatever the approval process is that the new residence would not increase the existing problem. Mr. Walker — Right, we will work on the site to ... but, just because they build a new house, doesn't necessarily mean itIs ... gonna ... creating a bigger problem if they do it properly. Ms. Goddard — Right, but how couldn't it? Mr. Walker — Well it's going to increase runoff, but they'll have to ... there are some things like rain gardens and some swales and they have the adjoining property above there. See, everything does drain downhill and the houses that were built on Sunny View Lane ... they cut terraces back in and they created flat areas that turned into little swampy areas and... Chairperson Howe — So I think we've put language in, as far as we can go with it, to ensure that it doesn't get worse and that it will be addressed onsite as much as... Ms. Goddard — Okay, that's what's important to me. John Rudan I live at 100 Wildflower Drive, around the comer, off Honness Lane, and I was surprised that this was the first time I heard of this. I've been there four years, and then I hear a comment over here that this was approved four years ago and has been dormant and has now come to revival. So this is the first time I heard of it and you know, things have changed even in the four years I've lived there, and ... So what I don't understand about the proposal, having seen absolutely nothing, is this fundamentally a two -unit rental that's going up? Or is this a two -unit house which the owner is going to occupy and be responsible for and has an accessory apartment equivalent. So I don't understand that and nothing here has helped me understand it. If it's a rental, then I have some concerns because I side with Harry that ... If any of you went during the height of the student presence and looked across the street at those multiple residences, they are awful. They've got parked cars every way. They are surrounding trees, limbs fall, they just park around the limbs,. 'So, there's one thing to have zoning, there's another thing to get people to live to the zoning. And so what I am puzzled about is what it is you've Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 11 approved that's gonna happen, because it apparently is within the limits of your jurisdiction. It meets the code requirements, although I think that a big a unit, which I don't know whether it goes this way.. .1 drive by that lot and have driven by carefully in the last couple of days since this came up and I'm wondering, well, there's a very large house which is dimension along the road quite big, and are they going to build a house along this side and cut two trees? Or are they going to build a house on this side? Because it looks like the lot is really ... they positioned the original house in the middle of the lot, and now you're kinda squeezing something into one side of it. Again, I haven't seen a map, I am new to the area, and so I am trying to figure out what it is that's really happening, given that I wasn't there four years ago and I am there now. So, I have some questions about what you're really doing, because I think the density is increasing... Chairperson Howe — And I think we can answer most of those. So, let me see if there are any other people who want to speak, and then I think we can address many of those. Mr. Rudan — But enforcement is an issue on which I think very much the Town lags. Chairperson Howe — And that is much of what we are talking about tonight, is actually enforcement issues. Is there anyone else who would like to address the public on this topic? I will close the public hearing at 7:33. And I think we can answer the last gentleman's questions pretty straightforward. So, we ... certainly if there is another house to be built on that lot they will have to meet all the setback requirements. So, the map that you see shows what those setback requirements are, and some of you are better acquainted with the zoning, but it sounds like we're saying what could be built is a primary residence with an accessory apartment. We have no control over whether it would be owner - occupied or rented but there are regulations that have no do with the number of un- related folks living under the roof. Correct? Did I get that all correct? Anyone want to elaborate... Ms. Brock — If it's a two- family dwelling, each dwelling unit can be occupied by no more than one family and the floor area of the second dwelling unit can not be more than 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit, except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50 %. Chairperson Howe — We always make things very crystal clear in that language... Board Member Wilcox — Well let's make it clear: We're approving, I'm sorry, we're being asked to approve a subdivision. Ms. Brock — Right, we don't actually have in front of us what type of building it's going to be, or actually whether it will even be residential buildings for that matter. Chairperson Howe — Right, we are just articulating what could be built. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 12 Ms. Brock — Right. So if it's a two- family dwelling, there can be one family in each unit and a family can be two unrelated people who live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit. Question /comment from the audience, inaudible. Ms. Brock — Well, let's see. ..it depends, if they have the indices' of the traditional family, it can be more. Comment from Dan, inaudible. Ms. Brock — Right, the Zoning Board, I think, makes that determination if they meet the requirements. Chairperson Howe — So this is probably one of those issues where we might not be pleased with what we're hearing is happening, but we have some limitations. So, further discussion about this? Board Member Talty — I'd like to comment that, being a landlord, I know exactly what transpires often, not all the time. What happens is, freshmen parents come in, they look for houses that are available, they put out their tentacles to all the realtors so that when people are ready to sell, what often happens is, the houses don't go on the market right away, or by the time you get to market, there is already an offer in on it. The parents will go and put an offer in, they'll hold the house for four years, the son or daughter will move off campus, they'll live with their friends, they pay the mortgage, they pay the taxes down and then at the end of the four years, they either sell the house again and make a profit or they hold on to it and rent it out accordingly. And that's what happens throughout all of Ithaca, City, Town whatever. Board Member Erb — I think it's also correct that we can't do anything about the mature trees that are at risk on that lot too, correct? I mean, that's just, they belong to the owner, right? Ms. Brock — Yes. We don't have a tree preservation ordinance. Chairperson Howe — All that we have to make sure they do is abide by ... when it goes before ... for a building permit, is the setbacks. Board Member Erb — I can just confirm everything that Mr. Ellsworth said because I drive down there to go to Terrace View many times a week and frankly, the number of cars at the corner house is appalling. But, I feel like I am tied. It's a legal subdivision. Board Member Conneman — I think that it's unfortunate that this is the situation. Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the proposed resolution? Board Member Wilcox — So moved. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 13 Chairperson Howe — Fred. ..any second? ... I'll second it. Any changes? Board Member Wilcox — I have a question about the drainage plan. Is the drainage.. As it possible that the owner of the lot would be subject to the Town's maintenance regulations with regard to ... if they create structures on the property, like a swale, would they be subject to the Town standard stormwater maintenance agreement? Mr. Walker — Not...not in this type of situation because it's less than an acre of disturbed area. So this would require a simple SWPP, stormwater management plan, which is basically sediment and erosion control during construction, and then making sure that their final grading doesn't cause problems for the neighbors. There's no ... then a basic SWPPP they have to look at the bigger watershed area but that's only for larger areas. So basically, this would be a simple SWPPP. Board Member Wilcox — Here's my concern. We had a recent subdivision on South Hill where we approved a drainage structure on each lot. That has been problematic for many, many reasons and my concern is that a drainage plan is submitted, it is approved, maybe that drainage plan includes an on- property swale of some sort, but then there's nothing to ensure that it's not filled in, or something like that... Mr. Walker — Yes there is. There are requirements on that, if you're talking about the Danby Road South Hill... Board Member Wilcox —Well, yeah... Mr. Walker — That subdivision required a full stormwater pollution prevention plan... Board Member Wilcox — Right, right ... but the individual swales on each lot have been problematic. Mr. Walker — Well... Board Member Wilcox — I don't want that to happen here. Mr. Walker — Individual swales is not the problem, necessarily, it's the implementer we've had the problem with. We have a requirement that each lot, each deed, as a restriction in there, detailing what the stormwater plan, or the facility is, which is the under drain swale, and then they are required to make, the owner of that lot, in perpetuity, is required to maintain that. The Town has the right to go in and fix it if they need to and then charge the owner back. Chairperson Howe — But that doesn't address your question about this. Board Member Wilcox — Would that be relevant here even though it's one lot? Mr. Walker — No, because this is just one lot; it falls, it's a smaller area, it does not require a full stormwater pollution prevention plan. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 14 Board Member Wilcox — But we're requiring a drainage plan. If that drainage plan has swales, for example, then what's to prevent those swales from getting filled in and not functioning in 5 years? That's where I'm going. Mr. Walker — That's a good question... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah. It's one thing to have a drainage plan, it's another thing to have it still functioning, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years later. That's what I'm saying. Board Member Conneman — Suppose someone fills it in, then what happens? Mr. Walker — The water starts going other places. Board Member Conneman — The Town doesn't enforce that? Come on. The question was ... one of the public said the problem is enforcement... Board Member Erb — Ms. Brock, is it within our purview to set maintenance of that stormwater facility as one of the conditions of this approval? Ms. Brock — I think it would be. Are you prepared to do that for every,... Board Member Talty — Exactly... Ms. Brock — Every single approval you... Board Member Wilcox — Well we don't ask for a drainage plan for every "simple twodot subdivision ". Clearly we recognize that there's a potential drainage issue in this area, the Town Engineer has confirmed that, and that requires us to go... Board Member Erb — Because one already exists. Board Member Talty — However, given the late, I could see this cropping up a lot more. drainage problems throughout the Town of Chairperson Howe — So are you concerned about setting a precedent? Ms. Brock — Well I think you need to think about that too. Board Member Erb — But, I'm ... I don't think I'd be upset if it were a precedent. We know that there is a concern in the neighborhood about the water runoff and the sogginess already. Chairperson Howe — Well, doesn't it get back to an enforcement issue? I mean, if these start getting written in... Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 15 Mr. Walker — When we drafted the stormwater management regulations, the level of planning required for stormwater pollution prevention and quantity and quality control was based on a certain area, a certain disturbed area, and regulating each single- family home site is ... would be very, very difficult with the staffing that we have, and it would be very.. A's not done very often, that I've seen, any place. When you have the zoning for a 15,000 square foot lot and the lot coverage requirements, which I believe is 3 %, that's kind of implied that, okay, there's going to be an increase in runoff with impervious surfaces, but that lot coverage is saying that if you stay within that lot coverage, it's within allowable, normal practice. The drainage problems that exist in that area right now, exist there because there was not a stormwater management plan for the larger subdivision of the bigger projects. And as things get built without adequate controls, problems occur. There are existing problems in the Sunny View Lane and that whole Grand View subdivision area because there was not a very good drainage plan. I mean, it wasn't looked at back when that was subdivided. This one house, as long as we spread the water so it doesn't concentrate flow, it should not increase the problems of the adjoining neighbors. It will not reduce the problems necessarily, but it shouldn't increase them. There is a way to put a drainage that will improve things for everyone, but that's going well beyond the limits of building one more house there, and that's why it requires the cooperation of...it's almost a drainage sister type of situation. Chairperson Howe — We should figure this out and move on. I am fine if we try to add something but I also could move forward without adding additional language about a maintenance agreement. Board Member Erb — I feel the same way and I am looking to my colleagues to see whether we want to do some more or not. Chairperson Howe —1'm leaning on the side of not, but, Fred... Kevin... George... Board Member Wilcox — Thinking... Chairperson Howe — Thinking... Board Member Conneman — When it comes up again, are you going to let it go in another instance? I mean, when do we stop this? When do we do something? Board Member Erb — That's what it's coming down to is: do we finally draw a line in the sand and say from now on at least, let's not have a new property contribute more to the problem. Chairperson Howe — Well I think that was already... Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 16 Board Member Erb — I understand fully that you are going to take care of the construction and the first few years. I thrust you, and I understand that. Mr. Walker — Well, that's primarily sediment and erosion control and not directing water in places where it shouldn't be going. If we start,, are you saying that, okay, if the people at 137 Honness Lane come in for a 300 - square foot addition on the back of their house that is going to increase the impervious surface by 500 - square feet because of the overhang and sidewalks, that they need to prepare a detailed stormwater management plan that will make sure that there is no additional runoff from their property? Board Member Wilcox — Only if they are in... Mr. Walker — Only if what... Board Member Wilcox -- ...there's an existing drainage problem there when they want... Mr. Walker — Only...how...l look to our legal counsel here ... hey, if you want to put ... we do not have a regulation that says that today. If you want us to pass a law that says that, talk to the Town Board, give me a bigger staff, and a lot of money... Chairperson Howe — Jonathan's been trying to... Mr. Kanter — That's kind of where I was going to go. We did just adopt a stormwater management regulation and we did address, you know, the simple, the basic and the full stormwater management plans. If the Town Board had decided it was important to address, lot -by -lot drainage plans, they would have done something like you are considering here. They didn't. If it is an issue, or becomes an ongoing issue that the Town Board becomes aware of, they should do something different from what they did in the stormwater management law. But I'd say since they just adopted a brand new law, it's not really something, as a policy, that we can do more of than what's in that law. Now there's one other aspect of this is the SEQR determination we'll be making... Ms. Brock — They already made it... Mr. Kanter -- ....Or made... okay... I'm glad that there was a significant drainage impa( Dec, in this case, because it wasn't a type were significant but that a form of a agreements in it, could have mitigated that that there wasn't a significant impact... wasn't here for that ... If you had determined A, you could have issued a conditioned Neg- I action, indicating that the drainage impacts drainage plan perhaps with maintenance significant impact. But apparently you found Chairperson Howe — I think this is one of these issues that if the neighbors feel that ... it's like the Northeast story ... if there's significant drainage problems, at some point they should present a case to the Town Board for a more formal study. I mean, because... we're not ... we can't try to address this issue by looking at one lot. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 17 Mr. Walker — There's an interesting thing with this particular lot. When I did go out and walk the lot.. .this was four years ago, so things might have changed, there was actually significant drainage coming off of 137 Honness Lane, which is just to the east, just uphill from the 131 which is the property in question, that they have a drain pipe that drains right onto their lot, so, do I go to 137 and say hey, you're flooding the potential lot that we just created and you're really causing some of the problem? It may be a field tile ... you know, there's all kinds of things like that. So there's existing drainage issues out there and I love to try and solve problems, but there are limitations on time and... Chairperson Howe — Well, it sounds like ... we shouldn't try to solve bigger issues with something that is fairly, potentially straightforward, from my perspective. Board Member Wilcox — Nonetheless, this draft resolution does include a clause which requires submission of a drainage plan. Board Member Erb —Which is unusual... Board Member Wilcox —Which is unusual, very unusual... Board Member Erb — So that was the bone I grabbed onto when I started gnawing at this. Mr. Walker — One of the things that's in the building code, and I have had difficulty at times convincing the code enforcement officers that drainage is something they need to look at when they issue building permits. They're getting better, but very often the builder will not look at the drainage unless he's forced to and then that's when it creates problems, and ... But there are regulations in the building code that say you should have adequate drainage around your buildings. It's primarily to protect the building you're constructing at the time, but you also have to look at it from the standpoint of not causing additional problems for neighbors. Board Member Conneman — I will vote for it only if c is in there. Chairperson Howe — I don't think anyone is talking about taking c out.... Board Member Wilcox — It's not going any place. ..no way... Board Member Erb — c stays, we're just not elaborating on it. Board Member Conneman — but I think some times when we have a situation like that it would be helpful if during SEQR determination that some of the people who come forth now could have come forth at that point... Chairperson Howe — Well, and that's a matter of ... we can always wait and vote on SEQR, so just remind me in the future, let's listen to the public and then vote on SEQR. I don't know if it would have changed anything about ... I mean, this is, in some ways a Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 18 pretty straight forward....Were there any other ... so there are no changes that we are proposing? Okay. I think we ... first, second ... all those in favor...it's unanimous. Mr. Coleman - One point. I haven't seen the proposed resolution that you've passed, but I would like to be informed of any time requirements to have things done. ..(inaudible)... Board Member Wilcox - You got 4 years... Mr. Kanter- No, no, no,.... Ms. Balestra - You have 180 days before the expiration of this approval. Mr. Coleman will you be giving me a copy of the resolution? Ms. Balestra - yes, actually, we will be sending you a copy of the final approved resolution... Board Member Erb - Will you send it to him or to Mr. Fix? Ms. Balestra - Probably send one copy to both of you. Mr. Coleman - Okay, thank you. Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board Reaardina Proposed Amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone. Chairperson Howe - We have... Christine developed a lot of information for us. We know that Codes & Ordinances Committee worked very hard on this... Board Member Wilcox - Studied and studied and studied it. We know that our Town Attorney has written and rewritten sections... Chairperson Howe - We are delighted to know that if this moves forward, the Planning Board really won't be involved in review, so that's good. But I, it really is impressive the research that went into this. And ... so ... maybe ... I don't know how to start ... I think everything's' pretty clear. Maybe if those of you who are on the Codes & Ordinances and Christine, if there is any general statement you want to make and then we will just see if we have questions. Ms. Balestra - I don't have much to add. The Town Board and the Codes & Ordinances Committee have gone back and forth on this regulation, various elements of the regulation, and they have decided on a regulation that they think will work so they are Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 19 asking for the Planning Board, the Zoning Board and the Conservation Board for a recommendation to see what you think. Chairperson Howe — And Fred, anything from a Codes & Ordinances perspective that you want to share? Board Member Wilcox — I think I mentioned it when I was here four weeks ago that Codes & Ordinances, very unusually, was not in agreement on many of the provisions. The votes were split with regard to maximum dock length. Under the ordinance, whether boat hoists could have a roof or not, for example...l'm also, talking to Hollis, she brought it to my attention...we want to thank the West Shore Homeowners' Association, their input turned out to be very valuable. Chairperson Howe — And it looks like you... Board Member Wilcox -- ...talking over... inaudible. ,,And much of it was, I shouldn't say much of it, some of it was incorporated into the regulations. You know, some people felt 40 foot maximum length permitted under the zoning for a dock was right, some felt 50. Really ... I don't know if it was scientific or emotional in Codes & Ordinances but people were pretty adamant whether you could put a roof on top of a boat hoist or not. But this is what came out of Codes & Ordinances and was recommended by the Town Board ... given to us for recommendation. I'm pretty pleased with it and a lot of work went into it, especially Staff. Chairperson Howe — I'm going to open the public hearing on this issue to see if there's a member of the public who wants to speak on the proposed revisions to the Lakefront Residential Zone. We'll leave the public hearing open ... Do we have questions for them about any aspects you see written into the law? Board Member Conneman — I thought it was very complete. The question I was going to ask Chris was, were there things that West Shore Homeowners' Association objected to that were important? I mean, I looked at this and tried to figure out ... there's some things I wouldn't agree with, but you guys studied it a lot. Ms. Balestra — No, I don't think anything suggested was outright objected to. But again, we did mention, like Fred said, some of the Codes' members felt differently than what the West Shore Homeowners' Association felt. Board Member Wilcox — Some people felt that roofs on boat lifts were a potential... had a potential visual impact that they didn't want there. The Homeowners' Association I think made their point about why it can be both reasonable and proper to have a roof. So we decided to allow roofs, but we limited the pitch of the roof to try to mitigate any potential visual impact. We also recognized that the lots are narrow, and somebody having a boat hoist with a roof out there is going to impact their own view and their neighbors view, potentially, especially where the lots are 50 -foot wide. So, we took much of that into consideration. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 20 Chairperson Howe - I saw some reference to lighting, but the lighting has to conform to the general lighting law, right? Ms. Brock - Yes. Board Member Talty - Very complete. Board Member Erb - I thought so, too. Mr. Kanter - And one of the really good things about it is that your standard dock proposal won't have to come to the Planning Board anymore. Chairperson Howe - Apparently there is no one who would like to address us this evening on this issue. So we will close the public hearing at 7:57p.m. Would someone like to move the resolution... Hollis... is there a second... Kevin... are there any changes? We had the proposed resolution in front of us when we came this evening. Are there any changes? Ms. Brock - I have one, on the third whereas, the last line says "and clarify some of the more confusing sections of the existing regulation "...I think we should strike "more confusing " ... so it reads "and clarify some of the sections of the existing regulation." We don't want to be saying anything other than that. Chairperson Howe - Any other changes? All those in favor ... it's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 = 061 Recommendation to Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270, Article VII of the Town of Ithaca Code, Entitled Zoning, Regarding the Lakefront Residential Zone Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 1, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending Chapter 270, Article VII, of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Lakefront Residential Zone," for the Town Board's consideration, and WHEREAS: The purpose of this local law is to clarify and modify some of the elements of the Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone regulation, due to the November 25, 2005 recommendation to the Codes and Ordinances Committee by the Planning Board to reconsider the dimensions and sizes of docks specified in the LR Zone and due to the results of staff research on existing waterfront structures and lakefront conditions in the Town of Ithaca; and Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 21 WHEREAS: Among other revisions, the proposed amendments would include definitions for the main terms expressed in the LR Zone regulation, extend maximum allowable dock lengths from 30 feet to 50 feet, begin dock length measurements from the Ordinary High.Water line, limit the size of boatlifts, permit roofs on boatlifts, permit accessory storage structures within 10 feet of the shoreline, and clarify some of the sections of the existing regulation; and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have accommodated some of the recommendations made by the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) and other members of the public in the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed this proposed local law at its meeting on July 1, 20081 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law amending Chapter 270, Article VII, of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Lakefront Residential Zone." A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Talty, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Riha and Thayer The motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item. Continuation of the Discussion Regarding the Cornell TGEIS Summary: Talking points were distributed and copies of comments submitted by Hollis were also put in the Planning Board Packets, Katherine Trowbridge and Annette Marchesseault addressed the Board and went through the talking points. The focus was on the Relationship between Land Use and Transportation and the Neighborhood Livability Sections, Ms. Brock had a number of comments, some of substance, some "housekeeping ". She went through the substantive ones and Ms. Trowbridge agreed to make the changes to the TGEIS. Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 22 The Board thanked them for their presentation and discussion ensued regarding what would happen at the next meeting on July 15th. The consensus was that a resolution regarding the acceptance of the TGEIS would be prepared by Staff. Other Business Board Member Erb gave a report on the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The field trip on July 8th was discussed and an Open House is being tentatively discussed /scheduled for September. Chairperson Howe asked that Members think about who might be interested in the Vice Chair position. Discussion ensued. Board Member Wilcox — I'd like Board members to understand that the Vice Chair is someone who you would want to run the meeting when Rod is not here. It's not, in my opinion, a position that's granted because of someone's tenure or as an honorific or something like that. It's also, in some way, the Planning Board designating who the next Chair might be. So, I think people should give it due consideration instead of just going "well, that person has had it, let's give it to them again." or "That person might be upset because they've been the Vice Chair for five years, if we don't appoint him this year." Chairperson Howe — If anyone wants to put their name out now, but I think we'll just want to think about it for awhile and see who's interested and wait until Susan and Larry are part of this discussion as well. Anyone want to say anything now? Minutes ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 = 062 Approval of Minutes June 17, 2008 Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 1, 2008 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meetings on June 17, 2008, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on June 17, 2008. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Talty, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None Absent: Riha and Thayer The motion was carried unanimously. Hollis Erb and Rod Howe will be absent July 15th Adjournment Upon motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00p.m. peAfully submitted, Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk Final PB 7 -1 -2008 Pg. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 1, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Fix 2 -Lot Subdivision, 131 Honness Lane. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 1.073 -acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 0.388 -acre parcel for construction of a two family residence. This proposal received Final Subdivision Approval on April 6, 2004, but the conditions of approval were not met and the approval has since expired. Giora & Limor Fix, Owners /Applicants; Jeff Coleman, Agent. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding proposed amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone. 7:30 P.M. Continuation of discussion regarding the draft Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T- GEIS). 6. Approval of Minutes: June 17, 2008 7, Other Business: 8. 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 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, July 1, 2008 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, July 1, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 131 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 1.073 -acre parcel into one 0.685 -acre parcel containing the existing residence and one 0.388 -acre parcel for construction of a two family residence. This proposal received Final Subdivision Approval on April 6, 2004, but the conditions of approval were not met and the approval has since expired. Giora & Limor Fix, Owners /Applicants; Jeff Coleman, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding proposed amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual 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 hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, June 23, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 L C�twc�/�"trM1 r'� �i!'4L1'� jt+'" �-�•�xJr f�',�w.,yr� Y f 'a I? A, ;I`.!t-i��..�aam.. •3u,�n�m 4xt�808�„ � , y�� :13#1�a�JoWrrtal� � , I , MOMS 10 t Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street July 1, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Address Iro7 S. -i X02 Sun O M47 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. 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, July 1, 2008 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: June 23, 2008 Date of Publication: June 25, 2008 Suti.dl..o.. ( pa&c Q . Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 25`h day of June 2008, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 b •