Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1987-10-20COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 5:00 P.M. October 20, 1987 PRESENT: Mayor Gutenberger Alderpersons (8) - Booth, Dennis, Hoffman, Killeen, Lytel,, Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather ABSENT: Alderpersons (2) - Cummings (excused), Haine (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Nash City Clerk - Paolangeli Personnel Administrator - Baker Building Commissioner - Hoard Fire Chief - Olmstead Acting Police Chief - Pagliaro Director, Planning and Development - Van Cort Superintendent of Public Works - DougLerty Commons Coordinator - Deming ri Commissioners, Board of Public Works - Nichols, Stone d" 3rd Ward Aldermanic Candidate - Johnson Lo City Planner - Meigs Preservation /Neighborhood Planner - Chatterton m PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Q Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Petitions and Hearings of Persons Before Council Alderperson Dennis requested the addition of Petitions and Hearings of Persons Before Council. No Council member objected. Planning � Development Committee Alderperson Booth requested the addition of a motion of referral to the Planning $ Development Committee and to the Planning Board involving the question of a city -wide moratorium on large scale development projects, pending Common Council's adoption of a site review process. No Council member objected. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: New Police Chief Appointment Mayor Gutenberger stated that it is an honor and privilege to present to the community and to Common Council the name of the person to fill the position of Police Chief for the City of Ithaca - Brian T. Page, currently a retired Captain of the Rochester Police Department. He has gone through, as did all final candidates, a very extensive interviewing process with community groups, with representatives of the criminal justice community, with representatives of the PBA, and the established interviewing committee. He,passed onto Council the unanimous recommendation of all of those groups. He thanked each of the individuals for giving their time and helping his administration and the City through this process. He stated we have an outstanding individual and we he is extremely proud to present him to Council. Resolution By Alderperson Dennis: WHEREAS, Brian T. Page the City of Ithaca Pol John C. Gutenberger as the vacant position of Seconded by Alderperson Killeen has been unanimously recomAnded by ice Chief Search Committee and by Mayor the person most qualified to fill Chief of Police; now, therefore, be it 373 374 -2- October 20, 1987 RESOLVED, That Brian 1'. Page is hereby provisionally appointed to the position of Chief of Police for the City of Ithaca effective November 9, 1987 at an annual salary of $47,000. Carried Unanimously Chief of Police Brian T. Page was sworn into office by City Clerk Callista F. Paolangeli. Alderperson Romanowski left the meeting at 5:15 P.M. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Training Sessions for All Police Officers Patricia A. Maxam, 327 South Geneva Street, presented a petition requesting the new Police Chief to conduct training sessions for all police officers in order for them to learn how to conduct their business with a minimal amount of violence. The petition was started on October 14th. Mayor Gutenberger stated that he will be sure the Police Chief receives the petition. Valentine Place Project David Lehman, 105 Valentine Place, read the following letter to Common Council: "Plans are afoot to add several multi -unit apartment buildings at the foot of Valentine Place. On September 18th, a permit was granted to allow the construction to proceed. Though it appears that few members of the Common Council and other City agencies were consulted about the wisdom of the project that could add as many as 250 persons and 100 cars to Valentine Place, a street that has already absorbed a terrific population expansion over the last three years. What's more, the proposed construction is at the edge of Six Mile Creek gorge. It seems only natural to speculate about the possible adverse impact of the proposed construction upon the gorge. Yet, no formal study of the project, environmental impact, was made prior to the granting of the permit. Many people in our community are frankly alarmed. We fear that the added buildings will alter the character of the neighborhood in ways that can only be deleterious. Neighborhood population mix is in a precarious balance and may be upset, perhaps irrevocably. Soon there is reason to worry that the remaining families in the area will feel obliged to pull up stakes and move on. The conversion of a pleasant, quiet, varigated community into a homogeneous student only district will then be complete. We who live on Valentine Place have other more immediate concerns as well. We are worried that the new construction will increase local traffic congestion and noise pollution to intolerable levels. We fear that the construction will create serious problems having to do with street access, for example, that are not yet being addressed. In effect, therefore, the granting of a building permit may commit us all to a series of future measures and future sacrifices. There seems to be something fundamentally unfair about such a procedure. It's worth noting that City Engineer William Gray warned Building Commissioner Thomas Hoard about the problems and complications of street access and site drainage in his memo of September 22nd. Yet the permit had already been granted. Doesii't this suggest the possibility that the building permit was granted precipitously and without due consultation? These are some of the reasons that lead me to advocate an immediate moratorium on the proposed construction pending a review by the Common Council and by other relavent City agencies." 0 D J -3- October 20, 1987 375 John Allberg, 106 Dunmore Place, President of Bryant Park Civic Association, stated that Bryant Park Civic Association wishes to go on record as supporting the home owners on Valen- tine Place in challenging this project. We are as concerned about the process which permitted it getting this far without seeing the light of day as we are about the potential impacts from the development itself. First, this is a large project; 259 beds permitted, 99 parking spaces on approximately two and one -half acres of land; this with all the implications on issues of density, traffic, - access and noise. Second, this follows right on the heels of three other large student apartment housing projects in this immediate area that will add a total of well over 400 residents since 1984. Third, this is an area that is sensi- tive both environmentally and politically. The Trancik report of 1983 which dealt with development of this Novarr tract made repeated reference to the environmental constraints on the land and the importance of careful coordination of any development by the City Design Review B3ard. The City Engineer's office, as previously mentioned in surveying the site, cautioned that "everywhere I turned I seemed to develop more questions ". From the political aspect anyone who doesn't LO understand that this would be politically controversial = would have to have been outside Ithaca for the past five Myears. Concurrent with the isssuing of the building permit Q for the Novarr project, Ithaca was in the midst of an outburst of interest in gorge preservation that attended discussion of the proposed Theory Center at Cornell University. Finally, there are a number of fuzzy issues that are associated with the project; an access road is proposed to the site in which there is some quesiton as to whether it is a private road, a city road, whether it's adequate for projected volumes of traffic and whether it is appropriate for emergency access. There is a question of whether this comes under subdivision regulations, therefore requires subdivision reviews. The Short Environmental Assessment Form that was completed on the project is challengable in at least six points. All of these add up to red flags that were crackling in the wind suggesting that a thorough and open review of the proposal should have been carried out by planning agencies, environmental groups and the public. The Bryant Park Civic Association recommends that (1) the Council and the Mayor should suspend the building permit pending full and adequate review by all appropriate bodies, and (2) the Council should direct the Planning Department to immediately develop more adequate site plan review procedures for large scale development projects." Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Avenue, read the following statement to Council: "I think that perhaps some sort of compromise can be worked out on this. Clearly, John Novarr, the developer, is not to blame. He appears to have complied with the law and the Building Commissioner did everything he thought the new gorge ordinance required by getting the project scaled down and the building moved back farther from the edge of the gorge. In other words, this isn't a time for blaming anyone, it's a time to see what can be done about it. Taking the most conservative possible view of what constitutes the gorge, its upper edge is where the steep bank drops off at the edge of the construction site. Although the buildings won't sit on the edge of the gorge as so defined, the road and construction 3'7 6 -4- October 20, 1987 area for the project already do. That would certainly be a violation of the ordinance, and sufficient reason to revoke the building permit until an impact statement can be done. But my concern is this is more than simply the impact on the gorge of having the project near its edge. My concern is also with several other problems with the development, problems which place a heavy burden on a few elderly people and their embattled neighborhood as well as on a much wider area. Except at its far end, Valentine Place is a quiet little street with older homes. With the exception of the developer's other large nearby projects, this is mostly a single- family residential area, and lies inside a designated historic district. Two elderly sisters who have lived in their attrac- tive house since at least 1929 will have a new access road passing within a few feet of their house. The house next door to theirs, built about 1905, is owned by an older couple who has lived there since the 1940's. The City, it turns out, owns the right -of -way that goes through the edge of that property very near their house. The City simply must think of what this development will do to those four people and all the others along Valentine Place, as well as along nearby streets. It is the City's responsibility to protect them and their neighborhood, one of the City's older and more venerable ones. Mr. Novarr tells me that he anticipates that in just a'few years that entire neighborhood will be student housing anyway, all the familities having fled. If his project proceeds as planned, it would certainly hasten such a demise of the neighborhood. Aside from the impact on the character of the neighborhood of suddenly adding about 200 -259 temporary residents, there are several other issues that should be of concern to you: 1) The area to be developed is currently a small forest, surrounded by older homes and a new high- density residential development. The plot is just downhill from the busy Mitchell Street -East State Street intersection, and is a remnant of the extensive forest that once lined Six Mile Creek gorge through the City. It lies just above the steep drop -off down to the creek. It is well known that trees play a vital role in cleaning the air of pollutants. The intersection above is a busy one, and as all of you know who has ever walked through it, extremely smelly at times. Traffic all over the City is increasing, and we desperately need patches of woods to help keep our air clean. If this woodland is wiped out as planned, the foul fumes from the traffic just above it will drift unimpeded all around Ithacare and nearby houses and develop - ments, and to some extent, over the City as a whole. How will this affect the health of the elderly residents of Ithacare (to say nothing of all the other neighbors), some- thing I am sure the directors of Ithacare never thought of when they leased the land to Mr.Novarr. Of course we'd be much better off if we had more woodlands to soak up some of this stuff, but unfortunately no one is proposing putting in a woodland. Let's not take out what we've got. These woods also help buffer the area from the fumes of Wilcox Press, located uncomfortably closeby, downstream. Irt -S- October 20, 1987 2) This woodlot also serves as a giant sponge for runoff. Isn't it predictable what will happen to the steep gorge banks below it when this sponge is replaced by impervious materials? And how stable is this bank anyway? Between the woodlot and East State Street there is nothing but black- top and housing. This sponge is not just a nice convenience; it's a necessity, if we're going to protect that gorge. What- ever plans Mr. Novarr has to take care of this must be scrutinized by knowledgeable people. 3) The traffic on East State Street at the intersection with Mitchell (Rt. 366) will become considerably worse with the cars of so many new residents and their guests going in and out of Valentine Place, a stone's throw to the east. I understand that Ithacare has ruled out access to Quarry Street, so Valentine Place is the only option left. 37'7 4) I am curious about how the Short EAF was filled out for the project. On what basis were the following items answered "no ": S, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 1S? 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 1S would all have been answered "yes" by just about anyone familiar with the project, if they were attempting Iq to be fair and reasonable. Items S and 6 would at least LO be "maybe ". Who determined the negative assessments on these items, and how? At what time of year were the plants inventoried, Mand by whom? There are some "protected" species in the site Q and I wonder if Ithacare's permission was given for their destruction or if they even knew that they were there. S) The City has just fought hard against Cornell over the Theory Center. We will look like fools - -or worse, hyprocrites -- if we let this other project proceed as proposed, a project which would be even more damaging to gorge and neighborhood than the Theory center would have been. The solution does not lie in cutting down still more of the woods so the project can be moved father from the gorge rim. A large area has already been cleared. If the entire project can't be scrapped, perhaps a smaller building in the cleared area could be built, but nothing more. The remaining portion of the clearing could be replanted, and the remaining woodland designated untouchable for future development. Furthermore, perhaps the building could be for the elderly, or better, low- income elderly, thus fulfilling a very real need in the City. This would also be far more compatible with nearby Ithacare than would more student housing. The need for an access road between the homes of the four elderly people on Valentine Place would be eliminated. There would be almost no impact on State Street traffic. And the remaining woods would be left intact, except for the bull- dozed trails leading to test pits. Those units not designated for low income people would command a higher rent because they would have, right next to them, this lovely woodland of oak, sugar maple, cherry, basswood, locust, cottonwood, and hemlock, plus of course the birds and other wildlife that go with such woods. People will pay for such attractions. Perhaps the clause in Novarr's lease from Ithacare could extend the period from 30 years to something longer to compen- sate for the reduced size of the project. I am sure Ithacare and Mr. Novarr care about this City, both in terms of its physical environment and its neighborhoods. And I am sure that, even if they have a legal right to do so, neither they nor the City want to say by their deeds to the elderly people most directly affected, "Tough luck, folks! You're old and weak and besides, there are just a couple of you, so we'll do whatever is within our legal right to do. Who cares how it will affect you ?" It's an especially ironic situations, given Ithacare's mission in care for the elderly. 378 -6- October 20, 1987 The Mayor is an excellant negotiator as we've seen with the Theory Center and many other instances. He knows how to sit down with people in the most impossible of situations and come out with viable solutions. Perhaps he and some Aldermen could sit down with Mr. Novarr, Ithacare, and repre- sentatives from that neighborhood and rethink the project. The healthy, attractive environment and strong neighborhoods are good for business too, afterall, and the developer's long -term interests would certainly be served by retaining these attributes for his project. At the same time, replacing those woods with housing for 200 -some temporary residents would significantly depreciate the value of neighboring properties. It seems that the developer's and Ithacare's financial gain would be at the expense of home owners all around the project. I have some ideas about how this type of situation might be prevented in the future, but for now, let's get this one solved. If ever the City had an opportunity to show neighbor- hoods that it is responsive to their concerns and does have a heart, this is it. Cornell has just demonstrated that it can be open and can compromise. I hope the City can too. Let's go beyond what is the legal minimum and do what's right." Rishi Raj, 919 East State Street, addressed the Council with what he perceives, and what he feels many of his co- citizens perceive to be a very fundamental problem in the City. He read the following statement: "I can really feel for the innocent citizens of my community when I see them feeling their way through the bureaucracy and the plotting in the backrooms by the politicians. Perhaps it's an over - statement but 1 think some of us really do feel that. Last time when we could not preserve the green space around our neighborhood several people in the neighborhood felt visibly depressed. The residents of the neighborhood are very disturbed by the events of the last two years. We predicted that the previous development would result in the breaking up of the neighborhood and that is exactly what has occurred. Several homes owners have moved out. But just to show the resilience of the people and the citizens, families have moved back in despite the apathy of the City officials and the politicians in this town. It is time that some firm action is taken and our act was cleaned up and to find out what exactly is going on." John Johnson, 946 East State Street, addressed the Council on the Valentine Place project. He urged the Mayor and the Council to do everything that they can to support the neigh- borhood and to assure a more positive outcome this time around. Looking at the future he hopes the Council will use this as a catalyst to set in place as quickly as possible a compre- hensive, effective site review procedure for large scale projects. Chis Zinder, 108 Park Lane, presented a joint letter from herself and Mary Herron, an elderly resident of Valentine Place as follows: "Dear Council People: I have lived at 106 Valentine Place for 61 years. Since 1983 I have seen a major changes in the neighborhood. After our most recent struggle it seems futile for me to petition tonight. This present administration has allowed decay of the fragile environment along Six Mile Creek gorge while simultaneously creating instability in a once strong neighborhood. -7- October 20, 1987 379 I challenge you to prove me wrong. Reverse your position on the most recent project and preserve what remains. My efforts seem reduced to protecting my own boundaries. Only recently I learned that a road will be opened by Mr. Novarr between my house and 112 Valentine Place. This is a parcel of land owned by the City of Ithaca. With permission of the City I have gardened and tended it for over SO years. Our extensive work greatly improved the drainage for the entire neighborhood and the beauty of this property. Several of my prize plantings are on this property. The news of opening this road as an emergency access to the pro- posed project was not presented in Mr. Novarr's letter of September 22nd. I need time now to present findings on my boundaries and to move valued property." Ms. Zinder asked how the City can allow a developer to construct a road on City property without going through the same process that the City is subject to. For example, the dedication procedure. Dominick LaCapra, 119 Terrace Place, spoke to the Council regarding the Valentine Place project. He stated that the = distance of the project from the gorge is clearly a matter of interpretation. One could argue that the building is Q taking place within the gorge depending upon how one defines the gorge. This cannot be a ministerial decision or quasi - automatic decision because it has to be a matter of interpre- tation. The second problem is the question of access and density in this area. If one goes down there and looks at the construction site, what seems to be the case is that a city street is being turned into a private parking ramp. And this ramp cannot possibly accomodate the volume of traffic it is supposed to bear. If one opposed the Cornell Theory Center, one has to oppose what's happening on Valentine Place. If one doesn't, one is subject to the charge that they are simply making political hay by Cornell bashing when it was very easy to do so, and when a comparable issue arises one turns one's back. It is inaccurate to say that nothing can be done, we know what can be done. The building permit can be suspended or rescinded and a review of its granting can be undertaken. That seems to be the only rational thing to do at this point. One quesiton that has not been addressed by people and it's a serious question. And that is, will this action of suspending the permit at this point subject the City to a lawsuit. No one wants this to happen. Whether it happens will be in the hands of Mr. Novarr. One hopes that lie will have the civic responsibility not to press charges against the City. If he does then the City has to bite the bullet. Presently the City is spending money in ways less justifiable than a suit would be. As a taxpayer I would much prefer to see our money spent to prevent a real Valentine Place massacre than for example to undertake another study for a master plan for Stewart Park. The City did not hesitate to go to court with American Community Cablevision when that seemed necessary and not going to court over Valentine Place will itself have costs. For one thing there will be the costs of $40,000 for a stop light which will illuminate in technicolor the massive traffic jams at Valentine and State. And there are other hidden costs such as widening access routes which will have to take place. 380 -8- October 20, 1987 He urged people to go down there and look at that construction site. It is a huge, huge development project and the amount of traffic going in and out of that place is going to be staggering. This is an issue which is not possibly open to understanding in terms of the cliche ridden opposition between developers and anti- developers. This is something that in its enormity goes beyond that. It is just incredible the size of this project. It seems to him at this point that suspending the permit is a simple matter of political and civic responsibility. Nothing more, nothing less. Joel Rabinowitz, 312 Farm Street, read the following statement to Council: "For many years of my life I lived at 912 East State Street, not far from Valentine Place and my father still lives there. Needless to say, my love for the neighborhood in which I grew up has not ceased simply because I now reside in another part of the City. As many of you are aware, I was involved in the long and traumatic Valentine Place rezoning and develop- ment battle that took place three years ago, a fight that is often appropriately referred to as the "Valentine Place Massacre ". It is incredible to me that here we are again discussing the same location, the same issues, and a project that is far larger and potentially more environmentally damaging than the one we fought over three years ago. While I do not want to belabor the past and the previous Valentine Place battle, I do think it is important to make two points that new comers to the neighborhood and to this issue might not be aware of. First, there still remain a number of unresolved questions from the Valentine Place fight of 1984. Principle among these and one that is most relevant to the present development is the question of how Mr. Novarr and Ithacare ever ended up with any properties zoned R -3 in the first place. After all, both the Ithacare and Novarr properties were purchased from Ithaca College. When zoning was first established and put in place Ithaca College and its educational use proper- ties like those of Cornell were zoned P -1, public use. Aside from campus dormitories no residential, whether single family or multi -unit, is permitted in the P -1 zone. In fact, it was on the basis of the assumption that all the land he owned was in a P -1 zone, that Mr. Novarr first petitioned the City in 1983 for a zoning change that would allow him to build residential units. How it happened that the current zoning map seems to indicate that Novarr and Ithacare have some R -3 land is a mystery that neither the Building Commissioner or the Planning Department has ever been able to explain. Second, I feel it is important to remind Common Council and the public that in 1984 the Valentine Place neighborhood was unalterably opposed to any type of development. In a significant compromise offer the residents suggested that the City amend the zoning ordinance to allow site specific approval of cluster developments that would meet R -la density requirements. If it had been implemented this idea would have meant that Mr. Novarr could have built a small scale group of single - family dwellings that would have been in keeping with the then prevailing residential character of the neighborhood. It would have provided some additional affordable family housing of the kind that City planners keep telling us we need so badly. i October 20, 1987 381 Unfortunately, Mr. Novarr rejected the compromise offer, allegedly saying that he could not get "top dollar" for this type of development. I would like to turn now to the present situation. The City has a rather detailed environmental quality review ordinance on its books. This ordinance lists criteria for "Type 1 Actions" which are those actions or projects that are more likely than not to require environmental impact statements. By my reading of the ordinance, the Novarr development qualifies as a Type 1 Action under at least three sections of the list. The one we've heard the most about, of course, is the one (4wo, that has to do with the project's proximity to Six Mile Creek gorge. The other two sections have to do with the fact that parking facilities are to be built for 50 or more cars, and that the residential facility will contain more than 15 units. And we've heard that the number of sleeping units is 259 in the project. Unfortunately, however, there is a terribly big loophole in the City's Environmental Quality Review ordinance. The loophole is that there is no point at which environmental review would kick in if there is no necessity for any approval of a project other than the granting of a building permit. LDIq In response to the Theory Center issue Common Council made some progress in closing this loophole with the recent amended wording that Common Council passed in August. But we can CD see how well that worked when applied to this project we Q are now discussing. The Building Commissioner has determined that the project is not close enough to the gorge to be considered sufficiently contiguous despite the fact that Mr. Novarr's workers have already graded a road that is right on the edge of the gorge slope and treeline. Even leaving aside the question of environmental review, it would seem that there are so many legal questions concerning this project that the Building Commissioner should not have granted the permit. There are questions concerning zoning boundaries, street frontage, subdivision approval, adjacent property boundaries and proper engineering review of the adequacy of the site. Until these questions are settled the Building Commissioner should have withheld approval of the building permit. For these retrzons, I support any resolution put forward by Common Council members that would respectively ask the Building Commissioner to suspend or reconsider the previous approval of the building permit for the Novarr project. And this brings us to the future. If this project goes forward it would be exactly the opposite of the planned development and controlled growth that those of you who are running for re- election are saying we must have in Ithaca from now on. This project is a perfect illustration of why a mandatory site plan review process is so badly needed. A site plan review committee with true authority could be entrusted to initiate proper environmental review of Type 1 Actions such as the Novarr project. The environmental review could occur as a matter of course in the site plan approval or permit process. This would close the loophole I referred to earlier and help bring the City into compliance with the State Environ- mental Quality Review Act. I would like to thank in advance members of Common Council who have considered and are about to propose legislation that would call for the establishment of a site plan review system for Ithaca. This community certainly doesn't need any more "Valentine Place Massacres ". Mandatory site plan review of large development projects is surely an idea whose time has come. Thank you." 382 -10- October 20, 1987 Clinton Hall Handicapped Accessibility Betsy Park, 2022 East "Tompkins Street, co -owner of 15 Steps, addressed the Council regarding handicapped accessibility at Clinton Hall. She stated that she had received a letter from Building Commissioner Hoard on October 9, 1987 which ordered her to immediately make her premises accessible to the handicapped or face a fine of $250 to $S00 per day. Her attorney is looking into the legal aspects of this order, initial research indicates that she cannot be ordered by these means. She has prepared information packets for Council which include all correspondence among concerned parties; 15 Steps, Thomas Hoard, Jos Ciaschi, the City of Ithaca and her lawyer. She has also included a sketch of the physical layout of her business for those of the Council who have not come down to see it. If any clarification of the letters is needed, she would be happy to go over them later. She gave background information regarding her shop and access- ibility needs. There were several instances when Mr. Joseph Ciaschi, owner of Clinton Hall and Mr. Bagnardi, Architect could have given her indications of handicapped accessibility plans and did not do so. If this information had been given to her, she would not Have designed her space in the way it is used now. All of the first floor tenants are willing to sign an affidavit confirming that at no time were they informed by Mr. Ciaschi or the Architect or the City prior to receiving the letter dated June 24th that handicapped access was to be through their rear doors. She urged Council to consider reinstating their original resolution worded to include the ramping of the front of Clinton Hall as the solution to handicapped access. She urged Council to take a stand that will reflect well on Council. and the City of Ithaca. Jeff Furman, 208 Utica Street, Vice President of Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., spoke to Council regarding handicapped access- ibility at Clinton Hall. He built his store with the knowledge given to him that handicapped accessibility would be through the front of the building. He does not understand how he can go through the building permit process, get it changed, get ordered that he only has 30 days to change his store and also how the original plans which were for a ramp could have been changed without anybody informing the tenants and then asking the tenants to bear the burden of making the change. He requested that the fine on Ben & Jerry's store, which could be as high as $500 a. day be held in abeyance until this matter can be resolved. Tom Seidner, owner of Borealis Book Store, spoke to Common Council regarding handicapped accessibility at Clinton Hall. He stated that the alleyway which is supposed to be used for handicapped access is also a right -of -way for a church parking lot. There are construction vehicles parked in that driveway thereby not leaving enough room for wheelchairs to get by. The alley is not lit, it is long and dark. The landlord locks the back door to the building at 6:00 p.m. each night. A ramp needs to be on the front of the building and he would hope the City can resolve this matter very soon. 0 J �i 0 Iq LO m G� -11- October 20, 1987 City -wide Moratorium on Large Development Projects Until Common Council Adopts a Site Review Process for Those Projects By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Dennis RESOLVED, That the Common Council refer to the Planning and Development Committee and to the Planning Board the issue of whether the Common Council should adopt a City -wide mora- torium on the issuance of building permits and other City approvals or permits for large development projects in order to provide sufficient time for the Council to consider and adopt an appropriate site review process to govern the develop- ment of such projects; that the Committee and the Board begin their assessment of this issue by considering that the term "large scale projects" includes those activities listed as Type 1 actions in Section 36.5(B) of Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code (Environmental Quality Review), but that the Committee and Board not be bound by that listing of actions; that the Committee and Board begin their assessment of this issue by considering a moratorium that would last approximately six months, but that the Committee and Board not be limited from considering a longer or shorter moratorium; and that the Committee and the Board report and make specific recommenda- tions to the Council on this matter not later than the Council's December, 1987 meeting. Alderperson Killeen stated that the motion is futuristic and the Council has heard several people speak today on the Valentine Place issue and the construction that is underway. He asked "Where does all this information go ?" The Council is talking about a December 1987 deadline but the invitation that was sent to many people by the City of Ithaca posted notice to comment to any duly constituted board or the Board of Zoning Appeals for up to thirty days; tomorrow is that thirtieth day, who is reviewing, who is assessing? What about the major development of Valentine Place? Does it just proceed? Should the City,not, to keep good faith, to suggest that the testimony that has been invited, that has been received, that's duly recorded by the City Clerk, that it has some meaning, some relevance and that it will be con- sidered or is it a foregone conclusion that this is underway? Should the City not get a cease and desist order so that more irrevocable site development won't occur. 383 City Attorney Nash responded in regard to the notice that was sent to Valentine Place residents, that it is pursuant to a Common Council ordinance passed a few months ago directing a developer or any person who comes in for a building permit, that they can provide that notice to neighbors within 200 feet; it is not mandatory that he or she do that, but they can do that, thereby giving a 30 -day period for someone to challenge the issuance of that building permit. Traditionally, the issuance of a building permit is reviewable by the Board of Zoning Appeals if there is some dispute of what zone the property is in, what type of development is allowed within that zone, whether proper set -backs have been taken into account. The question in this instance seems to be should there have been an environmental review taken pursuant to the City's recent change on the definition of ministerial act and the definition of critical areas. His understanding is that environmental review decisions would not be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals; they deal with zoning matters, zoning decisions made by the Building Commissioner. He thinks the notification still holds but he doesn't think the Board of Appeals could deal with the environmental issues. They could deal on whether or not it's too dense under the zoning ordinance or there are proper set -backs or it's not in a proper zone. 16 I -12- October 20, 1987 He does not think Common Council has jurisdiction generally to review the decisions of the Building Commissioner. If it's a zoning matter it goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals, if it's a building or housing code matter, it goes to the Housing Board of Review. Alderperson Schlather stated that assuming there is a question of subdivision, even though it's unclear whether or not a long term lease is subject to subdivision regulations, to what entity would the aggrieved citizen file this appeal - the Planning Board? The concern has been raised that perhaps this is tantamount to a subdivision and it is a subdivision without going through the subdivision1process and if in fact there is to be the creation of a new street over the existing public right -of -way that may even add fuel to the argument that it is indeed a subdivision. Subdivision is not subject to review by the BZA, the only entity that reviews subdivision is the Planning Board. On the other hand is the Building Commissioner authorized to issue a permit, if in fact, sub- division is required but has not been done? And if the Building Commissioner is not authorized to issue a permit under those circumstances then that would throw it back under the BZA court because it would have been an improper issuance of a building permit. Alderperson Schlather then asked City Attorney Nash if what he is saying is that he is not sure if an appeal to the Planning Board would provide a venue for this issue and if it's conceivable that the only appeal would be an appeal to the court. City Attorney Nash responded "yes" Alderperson Schlather further stated that if in fact subdivison review is an issue here, it would seem to him that the people who are aggrieved would file an appeal in writing with the Planning Board within the thirty day period and that would be a good starting point. 1J Alderperson Booth remarked that he thinks there is plenty of grounds for revoking the permit. He thinks the Mayor and the City officials have those grounds. If there is liability out there in terms of a lawsuit he thinks that is part of the reality of City government. He would hope that someone in City government can see a way to revoke the permit that was not wisely granted. City Attorney Nash stated that in his opinion, at this point, the only person who would have authority to revoke that permit would be the Building Commissioner. He does not think the Mayor has the authority to revoke that building permit. It's not a zoning matter and he's not sure that the City has any other appropriate Board that can revoke that building permit. Alderperson Dennis stated that if Building Commissioner Hoard were to revoke the Novarr building permit he would like the Building Commissioner to know that there is some sense of support for him from the members of Council. Alderperson Dennis questioned the notice that was posted for the permit. His understanding is that the notice is not mandatory. He asked if Charter and Ordinance devised `t this notice. Alderperson Schlather responded that the form was devised administratively but the purpose was if the notice is sent ;then there is a 30 -day appeal period. If the notice is not sent then the appeal period can continue indefinitely So the committee was simply trying to create a mechanism whereby -13- October 20, 1987 there could be come certitude on the part of both the public and the applicant with respect to decisions made by the Building Commissioner. Discussion followed on the form of the notice that is posted. Alderperson Hoffman asked City Attorney Nash if it is his opinion that the opening of the right -of -way on Woodcock Street would require action by Council or any other body. City Attorney Nash responded that he did not think it did require action. It's basically a very short stub of a street that's been on maps for some 80 years. It's there, it's available. If the City wanted to open it and make it a City street, he is not sure exactly what the procedure would be for that. It's been dedicated previously. We are not talking about opening a new street. It was to provide access in conformance with municipal standards so that it would provide access for emergency vehicles. It basiially opens about 30 feet and the rest of the roadway continues on private property. Alderperson Hoffman asked if City Attorney Nash is saying LO that any private developer can come forward and open a street. = City Attorney Nash responded that to provide access to a m lot, yes. You can't build on a platted street without specific Q approval, that is in the general City law. You can't block that access but he is not aware of any reason why you couldn't use it. The City has done it in the past in various situations. Alderperson Schlather requested that the City Attorney issue an opinion as to whether or not the subdivision review mechanism applies to long -term leases. City Attorney Nash responded that he can not find any case where it has ever been applied in that manner. lie has not been able to locate a copy of the specific lease we are talking about. It's not recorded in the City Clerk's Office and he could not obtain it from Mr. Novarr's attorney. He doesn't see anything that would authorize calling a long -term lease a sale or other division of property that gets into subdivision. He is not saying that a court would not say that at some point but he has never seen it done. Mayor Gutenberger asked that before Council adjourns that he be given an opinion on the matter and also the matter that was raised by Alderperson Booth of the Mayor or any other person's ability to revoke a permit. Alderperson Lytel asked if Council has reasonable questions on the Short EAF that was filled out, isn't that an opportunity for the Council to question whether or not our process has been adequately fulfilled? City Attorney Nash responded that the issuance of a building permit generally is a ministerial act, which means that it does not require discretion. Common Council designated areas in which they stated that issuance of a building permit was not a ministerial action. They designated it in a way that the Building Commissioner obviously has to exercise some discretion as to what was substantially contiguous to a gorge area or in a gorge area and what was not. He exercised that discretion and determined that this project, once it was moved from 17 feet to 70 feet back was not in an area that was substantially contiguous to the gorge area. Once he determined that there was no environmental review necessary. • 3 811 -14- October 20, 1987 In order to revoke that building permit, in his opinion, the City needs to have some indication of a clear error or mistake made. Alderperson Peterson urged the residents not to give up with submitting their appeal, to keep it on the environmental level and look into issues that the City Attorney has explained might be more clearly appropriate for the Board of Zoning Appeals to review. Alderperson Booth stated that }le thinks there are clearly three errors. If that is a public street, public property, public right -of -way, it seems that there is a substantial question if a private individual has the right to use that as a driveway. There are specific provisions in the municipal code for opening public streets. Secondly, in his opinion, this is a subdivision. The lease is potentially an effort to circumvent the intentions of the City's subdivision law. Thirdly, even absence the gorge question, he would suggest that the amount of decision making that has gone into this particular decision, totally removes the argument that this is a ministerial act. This is a decision that was filled with a variety of exercises of discretion. It is a building permit and most building permits do not involve the exercise of discretion. This one involved exercise of discretion in a number of ways and is not a ministerial act and because it is not a ministerial act then the City's S.E.Q.R. ordinance automatically kicked into place because of the magnitude of this project. Alderperson Hoffman stated that in his opinion the Building Commissioner to narrowly defined the project. He considered it to be only the building structures. The language of our ordinance says that any land alteration, new construction or significant expansion of existing structures is covered by the new amendment. If the Council feels it is not appro- priate to pass a resolution about this subject right now, he would hope that individual Council people would communicate their feelings to the Building Commissioner and offer the kind of support that Alderperson Dennis had suggested and if the Building Commissioner agrees with us, the building permit should be suspended or revoked. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:45 P.M. Callista F. Paolangeli. City Clerk J