HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2017-11-20 Public Hearing Notice
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, November 20, 2017
6:00 p.m.
Appeal of David Mountin, 519 Elm St. Ext., TP 29.-7-12.4 requesting a variance from Town of
Ithaca Code Section 270-73 C, "Size and area of lot"to be allowed to subdivide the property
where a parcel would have a 60'ft width at the front yard setback(50ft from the street line)
where 100'ft is required.
Questions can be directed to Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. Application materials
are available online www.town.ithaca.ny.us/meeting-agendas
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
11/14/2017
Comments can be made in person or via email to Townclerkatown.ithaca.ny.us
Applicable Code section
270-73 Size and area of lot.
Lots in Medium Density Residential Zones shall meet the following minimum requirements:
C. Minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line(50 feet from the street line)
shall be 100 feet; and
Public Hearing Notice
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, November 20, 2017
6:00 p.m.
Appeal of David Mountin, 519 Elm St. Ext., TP 29.-7-12.4 requesting a variance from Town of
Ithaca Code Section 270-73 C, "Size and area of lot" to be allowed to Subdivide the property
where a parcel would have a 60'ft width at the front yard setback (50ft from the street line)
where I 00'ft is required.
Questions can be directed to Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Application materials
are available online /Ine ti gr-a
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
11/8/2017
Comments can be made in person or via email to ']'owticlek( )tt�)wi�.iti),,I
.................
Applicable Code section
� ,270-7-3Size arnrl area of lot.
Lots in Medium Density Residential Zones shall meet the following minimum requirements:
C, Minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line (50 feet from the street line)
shall be 100 feet; and
OF r?, gnu TOWN OF ITHACA -*r.9
0 0 1 [i]
a 'M
215 N. T'ioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
11r2 11 0 1 ww
ww.tonithaca.ny.us
IRV, y
4Z
10%0 '
AFF1QAV1,T OF SERVICE BY MAIL ANIS POSTING & PUBLICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
1, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn, depose and state, that deponent is not a party to the actions,
is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York.
That on the 7"' day of November 2017, deponent served the within Notice upon the property
owners listed on the attached document, of the following addresses:
519 Elm Street Ext
By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care
and custody of the United. States Post Office Department within the State of New York, and
that the attached notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of
Ithaca on November 7, 2017 and the notice has been duty published in the official newspaper, Ithtica
jouriial on November 2017.
Paulette kosa, T6wn Clerk
Sworn to before me this lh day of November 2017. ..........
Public Hearing Notice
Town of jtjjjaca Zoll ng Board of Appeal:%
Mon'day,November 20,2:017
00 p,til,215 NI.Tic)qa Street
Est. TP 29-7-12.4,
Appear of David MourWo, 519 Elrn 51. ExWcod� Section
re cur. a variance frorn Town Of lthac
27Q-73 C, "Si�ze and area of lot" to be aPowed to subdi-
VKle the groperty where a parcel would have �a 60'ft,
tree irrasm
N(itag,,Public wicItil at t ie front ygird setback (Soft frorn the s ._t
wh 0 t,,� 100,ft is req%lirecL 'ector
-ected 'to BrLice 8�,,xtes, Dit of
Qu 1�-'�tions cart be dii
C"cle Enrforcfarrient, Apphcation materialls are available
y_,,!qs/Nnretjnq,- a pdas
Debra DeAug,istine Paolette Rosa
Notary Public-State.of New York Town Clerk
No.01 DE6148035
Oualifiod in Tompkins County
?Ay Commission Expires June 19,24
09 lRffi�)[S�, �Iff",
,(UOAVOOAV,'@�(J3JBOIHX)LULU/�C)Y WU J!"MAJO],tq)P�Afl)fl
Ql 9/(�fl X @zl l
Aliso,James N Edmondson, Katherine M
Alise, Kristine 526 Elrn k4
St 151
104 Haller Blvd Ithaca,NY 14850
Ithaca, NY 14850
Hi—ins.Eleanor K Lancaster, Kyle M Haller,Christian I
C'm .
500 Elm St 511 Elm StExt 31 Park Forest Dr
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pittsford,NY 14534
Lopinto,Michael Mccenas,Mark Mountin, David
Perri,Halevy PO Box S1 Mountin, Sarah Locke
531 Elm St Ext Ithaca,NY 14851 738 Elm St Ext
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
N Y S Electric&Gas Corp Nickles, Patricia L Oliver,Christopher J
70 Farm View Dr Freeport 551 Elrn St 517 Elm Street Ext
New Gloucester,ME 4260 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Peters,Michael W Philippe, Guillaume M N Ranger-Moore,James R
102 Haller Blvd Philippe Brooks,Jessica Ranvier-Moore;,Patricia K
Ithaca,NY 14850 509 Elm Street Ext 1531 East Waverly St
Ithaca, NY 14850 Tucson, AZ 85755
Rehberg,Carol C Smith, Annie E Smith,Hadley M
7 S Child St 556 Elm St Ext SicoCcle,Nancy
Woodbury,NJ 8096 Ithaca,NY 14850 543 Elm St Ext
Ithaca,NY 14850
Tolwinski, Kasia White, Ardeen L YOU11"Z71,John F
Mont-ornery,Sean 505 Elm St Young,Julie R
C
560 Elm St Ext Ithaca,NY 14850 410 Tripharmner Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
I"x MthNjory"5 M/8160
1112=- T-4
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, November 20, 2017
6:00 p.m. Town Hall
ZBA Members Present: Rob Rosen (Chair), Chris Jung, Christine Decker, George Vignaux,
Caren Rubin, William Highland
Town Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the
Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk
Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Appeal of David Mountin, 519 Elm St. Ext., TP 29.-7-12.4 requesting a variance from Town
of Ithaca Code Section 270-73 C, "Size and area of lot" to be allowed to subdivide the
property where a parcel would have a 60 ft width at the front yard setback(50 ft from the
street line)where 100 ft is required.
Mr. Rosen noted that he served with Mr. Mountin on the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that it
would not influence his decision.
Mr. Mountin said they bought the 20-acre parcel ten years ago. There are four lots, two of which
are landlocked. They want to change the lot lines to make four legally conforming lots and are
seeking a variance from the width requirement at the front yard setback to get access to Lot C.
Ms. Brock explained that the lot line adjustments are to get road access to all four parcels. A
variance is needed for lot C because 50 feet back from the street line, the lot is supposed to have
a minimum width of 100 feet, but only has 60 feet.
Public Hearing
Jack Young owns the property to the south of the Mountin property. He's on the Cayuga Heights
ZBA and could not make it to the Planning Board meeting when this subdivision was discussed.
This is a tough site to develop with a lot of physical constraints: it has limited access, slope,
there's a NYSEG line, a stream/gullet'. It would have been a tough site to develop before
stormwater regulations became so important in New York State. He can see why the applicant
wants a variance so he can have four lots to sell, but he can't see how it could be granted. One of
the most important things a board can do is come up with conditions so you can acknowledge the
fact that every lot is unique and that a strict application of the ordinances doesn't always yield
equitable results. The ZBA is a safety valve. He can see a couple conditions that could be applied
to make it possible to grant the variance. He suggested a couple conditions that they in Cayuga
Heights would have done. Back in the 1930s, his and Mr. Mountie's properties were farmed:
there was no power line, no substation. You could do what you wanted back then. Nowadays, the
stormwater management issues are significant. Someone else built in the back of the lot at 511
Elm Street Extension, much in the way the Mountin proposal would suggest for lot C and D;
they had a full 100-foot for frontage and their road works its way down with several curves to get
to the house site. That's the best way to work with the terrain and the contours. The stormwater
issues are significant for the land downhill, which is his property. He'd like to see one of two
options: The first would be to cut the number of curb cuts and bring the access in from Coy Glen.
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg. 1
The total footage of road required would be the same or less, there would be fewer curb cuts,
there'd be less contour to fight, both lots ae large enough that they could share maintenance of a
road and not have it infringe on their property. The second would be to come up with a way to
get a road down the 60 feet of frontage on Elm Street Extension that would have room for
suitable stormwater management facilities. He hopes that with a condition, the board will be able
to grant the request. He has no problem with the proposal. He hopes the board comes up with a
solution to eliminate the road off Elm Street Extension or mitigates it by leaving room on
adjacent lots for stormwater management, which isn't going to leave the burden on the properties
downhill, including his own.
Mr. Vignaux asked about the driveway on the drawing Mr. Young provided.
Mr. Young responded that the 60-foot strip was a right-of-way that had been left for future
access in a previous subdivision. The whole area, including his property, had been subdivided
into hundreds of lots at one time, only a few of which were built. When he bought his land, he
abandoned a 1929 subdivision with over a hundred lots because they were not up to modern
standards. That 60-foot strip was designed for a road. It's reasonably steep, but if you have two
people sharing the cost and if you work with the entire 60 feet, lot D can only get access through
that 60-foot strip, which would be part of lot D in the revised layout.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. His initial impression is that the Planning
Board, a higher-level authority than the ZBA, approved it. They thought it fit the character of the
neighborhood. The ZBA's purview is to determine whether the proposed variance from zoning is
acceptable. That's the issue before the board. It's not within our scope to redesign the
subdivision or suggest alternative roads.
Ms. Brock added that the board is also responsible for doing the assessment of the area variance
criteria.
Mr. Highland asked about the downside of having only 60 feet instead of 100.
Mr. Rosen responded that the neighbors on either side would have less privacy.
Ms. Brock said it was an attempt to avoid flag lots.
Mr. Rosen said Planning Board has looked at other neighborhoods with flag lots and have
determined that it is sometimes acceptable. They looked at this one and thought that from a
planning point of view, it would be fine. He agreed there are a lot of other ways to create the
subdivision: you could build a road down the middle and have smaller lots going off it, and more
of them. But what's in front of the board is this particular situation and whether 60 feet is
significantly different than 100 feet, to the point that it would be a detriment to the welfare of the
community, and whether it outweighs the benefit to the applicant of doing it this way versus
another way.
Ms. Brock asked what Mr. Bates looks at for stormwater.
Mr. Bates responded that the town engineer determines whether the stormwater is sufficient.
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg. 2
Mr. Rosen said there's a way to do stormwater management for a 300-foot driveway on this huge
piece of land. He asked Mr. Mountin whether he considered locating parcel B all the way to the
northeast corner of parcel A.
Mr. Mountin said lot B originally had an old house on it that was dilapidated when he bought the
land; it still has the foundation with the sewer and gas pipe. Further to the east is the NYSEG
easement, so you can't build there. The intention of lot C is to get to the 8-acre lot in back. The
town requires stormwater management plans with any development. The lots are buildable as he
has presented them. The lots in the proposed design are the most natural in contour for the site
without having to do a lot of earth moving.
Mr. Rosen said there are many different ways to do subdivision, all of which could be more
expensive or worse in some ways. The proposed location for parcel B is economically the most
logical: the overhead NYSEG easement interferes much less than if the lot were in the other
corner, and there is already water, gas, and sewer piping to the lot.
Mr. Young agreed that board can't redesign the plan, but if the second question you have to
consider is whether there's an alternative method feasible for the applicant to pursue that gives
him the four lots, clearly there is. It could be redesigned in a way that didn't leave you with a 60-
foot strip. If that means you can't use an existing foundation—which is probably not going to be
usable anyway, and it's unlikely that an old sewer or water line are usable because the
regulations have changed. Regarding stormwater management, the hill doesn't slope down with
the lot; it slopes off to the side. You're going to have to put a large ditch there to catch the 350
feet of road and funnel it all the way down onto lot C, that water is going to runoff onto lots A
and B. These are relevant to the five questions. Question 2: there is an alternative. Questions 1
and 4: there are impacts on the neighborhood if you don't have enough room to put those
stormwater management facilities on the 60-foot strip. He highlighted what he thought was an
easy solution. The Planning Board is looking at whether the plan meets their technical
requirements. The ZBA looks at it from a different standpoint. It's not a case where you can say
that if there was a problem, the planning board would have taken care of it, because if it's in the
five questions, it's in the ZBA's purview.
Mr. Vignaux pointed out that Mr. Young could have raised these points at the Planning Board
meeting if he could have attended.
Mr. Young said he submitted a written statement to the Planning Board, but there was nobody at
the meeting who was present at the earlier planning department meetings involving that property
before Mr. Mountin bought it. So no one was there who knew what discussions had taken place
and what assurances he was given at the time in respect to one of the Town Board members who
was interested in Mr. Young not using some of the access he had to the board member's lot
because it would have affected his personal home. Mr. Young thought there would be someone
at the Planning Board meeting who remembered that. He didn't expect that someone at the
meeting would claim that he builds houses all over the county when he hasn't built a single
house in the county.
Mr. Rosen said he gets that Mr. Young doesn't build houses, but he own 39 acres adjacent to this
lot. He asked Mr. Young whether he lives in the neighborhood.
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg. 3
Ms. Young said he lived on West Hill in the 1980s. He doesn't live on the lot.
Ms. Brock said Mr. Young did send an email to the planning department, who then forwarded it
to the planning board before their meeting of September 5th, where he did raise the concerns
about a meeting. She read from his email: "Our understanding from discussions with the
Planning Board staff when we did our original subdivision in 2004 was that you weren't going to
approve any subdivision of what's now the Mountin property that didn't leave future access for
adjoining properties, and I would like the Planning Board to consider requiring that to be done
before approving this subdivision application. My feeling is that dedicating space for a legally
sufficient public road leading from either Elm Street Extension or Coy Glen Road to our
property line, located on a developable slope, ought to be a condition of this subdivision
approval. If it isn't, it will substantially devalue our adjacent property and run contrary to the
principals I was told would apply to the Mountin property before we agreed to sell/donate
portions of our original frontage on Coy Glen Road and Floral Avenue to the Town." So the
planning board did have that information in front of them before their meeting, and that's why
Chris Balestra, the planner, also provided information about what was in Mr. Young's 2004
subdivision application, noting that they would probably need a cul-de-sac, and she said at the
meeting that she didn't understand why the issue was being raised because Mr. Young's agent, at
the meeting in 2004, said he understood that they'd need a cul-de-sac to develop the property. At
that point, they didn't seem to be relying on any type of agreement to get access across what is
now the Mountin property. Mr. Young has now replied, saying he wasn't talking about his
application to the planning board in 2004, but rather about some other meetings that happened,
perhaps around that time with other people. We were just looking at the words of his email to the
planning board last month when he said, "Our understanding from discussions with the Planning
Board staff when we did our original subdivision in 2004." That's why we went back to that
subdivision application and looked at the minutes from that meeting. In his mind, he might have
been referring to another meeting. This gives you a sense of what was before the planning board
meeting in September.
Mr. Rosen said he thinks a 10- or 12-foot-wide driveway running down a 60-foot piece of land
will have plenty of room to shed water. We don't have a technical study showing that there
would be runoff onto adjacent properties if a driveway were put on that strip.
Mr. Vignaux pointed out that onus for the runoff would fall on the owner of the property.
Ms. Brock said the level of what they'd have to do is dependent on how much land is being
disturbed. There's no development proposal, so we can't speculate. She read from the planning
board's SEQR for Mr. Mountie's proposal to the planning board, for which they did a neg dec.
Because there was no development plan, their action in approving the subdivision would not
result in stormwater discharges onto adjacent properties. Where there's a subdivision and they
can reasonably anticipate what will happen as a result of it, they will look at stormwater impacts.
Here, because there was no development plan, they had no idea what would be built and where,
and they could not assess what the stormwater impacts would be. We have a stormwater law and
depending on how much land is disturbed, there are different levels of plans that have to be
developed.
Mr. Rosen said there are two issues: 1)whether building a driveway on 60-foot strip of land will
create a stormwater hazard; and 2)whether the 60-foot strip is so narrow that the driveway will
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg. 4
be right outside the neighbor's window, affecting their quality of life. None of the neighbors who
live there have weighed in on this. A driveway shielded by 20 or 30 feet of space is pretty far
from a neighbor's house. His opinion is that neither of these issues is a significant detriment to
the health, safety, and welfare of the community. He asked for the opinions of the rest of the
board.
Mr. Vignaux said he agreed.
Ms. Rubin said that in the absence of additional information, she can't agree or disagree and
can't find for the argument that there would be a detriment.
Ms. Jung said it's hard to predict the future. This is moving lot lines on large properties. The
future of what's developed is taken care of by the code and it's not our concern.
Mr. Vignaux said this can be used as it stands; if it's not to be used this way, they'd have to
come in for permission to rezone. If they want to put 47 houses there, they can't.
Ms. Brock pointed out that in the MDR, two-family homes are allowed. There could be a cluster
development if the planning board approved it.
Mr. Vignaux responded that without additional approval, they could only build one- or two-
family homes.
Ms. Decker said it's a lot-line change, not a big change to the neighborhood. Looking at the map,
there are currently a number of flag lots off Elm Street Extension. And, should they decide to
build on the lots, they'll have to meet with the town engineer. That's not our discussion.
Mr. Highland agreed with his colleagues.
Ms. Brock said it's exempt from SEQR because it's the granting of an individual lot line
variance.
ZBA Resolution No. 0026-2017 Area Variance
519 Elm St. Ext., TP 29.-7-12.4
November 20, 2017
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of David Mountin, 519 Elm St. Ext., TP 29.-7-12.4
requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-73 C, "Size and area of lot"to be
allowed to subdivide the property where a parcel would have a 60-foot width at the front yard
setback(50 feet from the street line)where 100 feet is required, with the following
Condition:
That the subdivision be done as shown on the presented survey map, and
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of
the community, specifically:
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg. 5
I. Although the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve can be achieved by other means
feasible, they are not desirable alternatives given the physical constraints of developing
the land, such as the overhead power lines, slopes, and a creek in the northeast corner of
proposed parcel C, which has a town stream setback that will apply to it; and
2. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby
properties given that the proposed lot sizes are in character with the neighborhood, there
are two other flag lots located across Elm Street Extension, and there are at least two
other lots on the same side of Elm Street Extension that appear to have even less of a
setback at the 50-foot setback line than parcel C would have; and
3. The request is substantial given that 100 feet is required and 60 feet is provided; and
4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, as evidenced by the
fact that SEQR is not required; and
5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to subdivide his
land in this way, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety,
and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above.
Moved by Rob Rosen; seconded by George Vignaux
Vote
Ayes: Rosen, Jung, Decker, Vignaux, and Highland
ZBA Resolution No. 0027-2017: Recommend Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments to
the Town Board
Whereas,the Zoning Board of Appeals has unanimously recommended that Rob Rosen be
reappointed as Chair for the year ending December 31, 2018; and
Whereas, Chairman Rosen,the Zoning Board of Appeals members, and the Director of Code
Enforcement have recommended that the following board members be reappointed:
George Vigneaux, Board Member, for a five-year term from 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2022, and
Carin Ruben, Alternate Board Member, for a one-year term from 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2018;
Now therefore be it
Resolved,the Director of Code Enforcement will convey the Zoning Board of Appeals'
recommendations to the Town Board for their consideration.
Moved by Christine Decker; seconded by Chris Jung
Vote
Ayes: Rosen, Jung, Decker, Vignaux, and Highland
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg. 6
ZBA Resolution No.0028-2017: 2018 Meeting Schedule
Resolved,that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals hereby adopts the following as its
schedule for regular meetings for 2018.Unless otherwise noted(*), all meetings will be held the
third Monday of every month and will begin at 6:00 p.m.:
Meeting Date
January 22nd
*February 26th
March 19th
April 16th
May 21st
June 18th
July 16th
August 20th
September 17th
*October 22nd
November 19th
December 17th
Moved by Rob Rosen; seconded by Christine Decker
Vote
Ayes: Rosen,Jung,Decker,Vignaux, and Highland
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
S ed by
Debra DeAugist",Deputtylerk
ZBA 2017-11-20 Pg.7
OF 12, TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N.Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
www,town.ithaca.ny.us
>
.... .. .........
yo CODE ENFORCEMENT-BRUCE W.BATES,DIRECTOR M%il *
Phone(607) 273-1783 0 Fax(607)273-1704
p(Ldes(i�tQW thaca-n yyiq
nj� 00P
Z,gq�n E?,oard oa bif —I rn
8pp�cafim For
SubrnA fl-Js appfication ONLY after� 1. Aripkying for flld�inglsgn peun�t fic)r wh�ch YoU iiec6verf a
firon'u CodeE'"Moircement staff or 2. A fiefen'M frorn thus Plannng Board base'd UPOu 1 a rile
pan w subc]Mson review. For Office Use Oni
tr
ZBA Appearance Fee: Property is located within,or adjacent to: -County Ag District;___UNA;
$150 -Area, Sign, or CEA Forest Home Historic District; State Park/another municipality
Sprinkler Variance and
Special Approval For Office Use Only Date Received: Zoning District:
$260 -Use Variance
P ease check all that apply: Applicable Section(s)of Town Code:
Area Variance
Use Variance
— Sign Variance
— Sprinkler Variance
— Special Approval
(Oinly I fee is required per
appearance,higher fee
prevails)
The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submit this application requesting an appearance before the Zoning Board of
Appeals to be permitted to:
At property address: Tax Parcel No. �9............... .......
as shown on the attached supporting documents. As description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary
hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization, request is as follows: (attach any additional sheets as
necessary):
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town
staff to enter my property for anypectios) necessary that are in connection with my application.
PRINT NAME HERE: �4y/,n(6 M0W1_tA.)_
Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date: /0
Signature of Agent- Date:
Best phone number for contacting: 2°d' number:
Email:
NOTEYour attendance at the ZBA meeting Is strongly advised.
X' D-,"j, and S�GPJ VARIANCE CRITERIA FORM
w
It!'L lir € r l ittw,y. i "'llu,,uintI
Owner/Appellant/Agent Name: f
Address of(Property Requiring Variance: 61
Tax Parcel No.: "` b
TES7": No area variance will be granted without consideration by the Board of the fallowing factors:
A. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to
nearby prop ies l
Yes No
Reasons: irSvA) GOF f1"vX3
B. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative
to the varian '�
Yes No
Reasons: A44)6
°r - ! ✓ .
110VF&_5_" Ae,6"eSS
C. Is threquested variance substantial?
Yes No
Reasons;
PWIt " P W.
-7-0 7
D. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhoo ? 11
Yes No
Reasons: 77-0
P. Is the allegeIty self-created?
Yes No
Reasons:
,y' � -
00' W or- lqr 5D S .
ZBA Appl.Use Variance REV January 2014
i
w«
O u+
+� � N 0 ry 0
[ I $3 !s "
N
A* ht
fa m U,ro-u,
crcle € o
I W M"11•g•0o S t M,— '&VW 3"trc7$f0 N m o
/t• � QQq �a� $
I r . 4
WIL
�
�- 15
Ll Lot �
.11"jo S
P)l
N 31 9 E"
a
ag ariq
u cis4
.ocr?t 3"lY.tzco 3`atAU �r\�
7'r�
I z � I k a
I �
_ - L
,vlau LPVW
0000� S Ot'J3$8"E iot so' p /
Ir��tc miw rn A i� 8 FOR I Z' 44
oil
I a � Itti ash
— — — Wtl�3OGlM MIIOLW Ol.fVYbi SYAI R � i
f a 3maZ—.— �� A970 dOD
I y a
OO
� aa � aa � a
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
215 N.Tioga Street,Ithaca,NY 14850
Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Linda Collins,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty,
Jon Bosak, and Melissa Hill
Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; David
O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town
Clerk
Call to Order
Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM
SEQR Determination: Mountin 4-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension&Coy Glen Road
Mr. Mountin said he and his wife bought the 20-acre parcel ten years ago. They bought four lots and
two of them are landlocked. He wants to re-subdivide the four lots into four legal lots.They currently
have no plans to develop any of the parcels,but this makes it so that in the future, they will have legal
lots they can sell or build on.
Mr.Wilcox asked why lot D, with a 60-foot frontage on Coy Glen Road, won't need a variance
whereas lot C,with a 6046ot frontage onto Elm Street,will.
Ms. Balestra said that lot D is a preexisting lot; it's not being widened or narrowed, so you're not
changing the existing non-conformity.
Ms. Brock commented that she didn't think they needed to have the answer because the proposed
resolution reads "receipt of any necessary variances" from the ZBA, so it doesn't need to be discussed.
Mr. Wilcox added that the need for variances is something the planning board should not take into
account when considering subdivisions; that's the zoning board's job.
Mr. Bosak said it seems the motivation for this proposal is to give road frontage to all the landlocked
parcels,but that could be accomplished just by consolidating the three lots into lot D. But this goes
even further: he's moving lot lines, creating a new A, B, and C. Mr. Bosak was having trouble
reconciling this additional and rather problematic subdivision with the assertion that Mr. Mountin
doesn't have any plans.
Mr. Mountin said there are four existing lots, two of which are landlocked, so he's asking for a re-
subdivision to create four lots, all with road frontage: four lots to four lots. He could put a house on
A or leave it green; he could put a house on B,where there was an existing house at one time and
which he tore down because it was uninhabitable and an eyesore.
Mr. Bosak asked which properties would remain landlocked if all he did was consolidate the three
lots into D.
'Planning Board 09-05-2017
Page 2 of 12
Mr. Mountin responded that none would.
Mr. Bosak said that in order to accomplish the stated goal, which is providing road access to all these
properties, he could simply by consolidate those three lots.
Mr. Mountin said that's one option; he can come up with a lot of options. He's going further because
there are four existing lots; he's just re-subdividing them to make four new lots.
Mr. Wilcox said he had four lots and will still have four lots. His goal is to get rid of the landlocked
parcels and retain four lots. Mr. Mountin agreed.
Ms. Fogarty suggested having a conversation about the letter from Jack Young.
Mr.Wilcox said that we received a letter from Jack Young,who owns adjacent property to the south.
In a late afternoon email, Ms. Balestra responded by providing excerpts from the planning board
packet of February 24, 2004, when the board considered a subdivision proposal from Mr. Young to
subdivide off a parcel of land for the pump station, a parcel of land for a future town park, and a
series of tiny parcels to be given to neighboring properties to resolve instances where buildings may
have crossed property lines.
• Jon Kanter's staff memo to the planning board stated that "the applicant has indicated that he has
no immediate plans to further develop Lot 6(32.5+/-acres) at this time. It has the potential to be
developed with lots that could be served by a cul-de-sac road. There is adequate frontage on Coy
Glen Road ... to construct an access road, although this will become the only access point for Lot
6.This will tend to minimize the number of additional lots that could be developed on Lot 6 ...
which is probably desirable given the steep character of the site."
• In the applicant's narrative, Mr. Young stated regarding Lot 6 that this "large lot will remain
undeveloped in the immediate term. If a decision were made to develop this 32-acre parcel at
some future date, it would probably feature a short cul-de-sac, accessed from Coy Glen Road
where the lot has usable road frontage. There are, however, no plans to develop this portion of
the property in the near term."
• Finally, in Part 2 of the SEQR form used at the time, it was stated that the "Comprehensive Plan
anticipates additional residential growth in this general area. Lot 6 has additional development
potential. It is zoned R-15 Residence and could be served by a dead-end cul-de-sac road, since
there will be only one remaining point of access to the parcel. Site-specific environmental impacts
would have to be evaluated if and when Lot 6 is proposed for further subdivision. Based on the
above, the proposed subdivision would not have any growth inducing impacts, but would include
the opportunity for subsequent development of Lot 6."
Mr. Wilcox stated that the point here is that Mr.Young knew 13 years ago that in proceeding with
the subdivision,what he would end up with was a 32-acre parcel with access from only one point, and
it was to be further subdivided and developed, he would probably need to build a cul-de-sac.
Ms. Balestra said that the town restricts the length of cul-de-sacs to 1000 feet; that would reach into
the middle of the property.
Mr. Bosak asked why Mr.Young cares about Mr. Mountin's proposal.
Planning Board 09-05-2017
Page 3 of 12
Mr.Wilcox said he was also confused; that's the point of looking at the notes from the meeting in
2004. Mr.Young has a concern,but we have information from 13 years ago which indicates that he
was well aware of the situation at the time, and the subdivision went through regardless, creating this
situation where he has that one piece of frontage left and would need to build a cul-de-sac. Mr.
Mountin indicates that he talked to the previous owner of Mr. Mountin's property. Mr.Young is
saying this would preclude him from getting access from Mr. Mountin's parcel.
Mr. Bosak says that Mr.Young asserts that if the proposed subdivision goes through, he will be left
with "a 33 acre property that will be primarily undevelopable due to the lack of a second access." Is
that true?
Ms. Balestra responded that it's not true. If he wants to do a major subdivision that wouldn't
necessarily be allowed by zoning right now, he would be required to have two access points, but if he
wanted to subdivide into, say,six lots off a cul-de-sac,we would do an environmental review and the
board would go through their regular process.There's nothing illegal about it, and we're not
preventing it from happening.
To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Mountin said he met with Mr. Young and Supervisor Bill
Goodman about two years ago. He didn't say Mr.Young could have access through his property. Mr.
Young is a developer as a profession; he purchases land,builds as many houses as he can, and moves
on. Mr. Mountin said he lives on West Hill, he lives on Elm Street, he lives in the neighborhood. He
has no intention of doing what Mr. Young wants to do,which is to put in as many houses to make as
much money as he can. It is zoned medium density,which would allow three houses per acre; he has
no intention of doing that. Mr.Young came to that meeting with the expectation and understanding
that he would be able to go through Mr. Mountin's land with a driveway.This is not in writing.
Mr.Wilcox said it's clear from the materials from 2004 that he was well aware of what he was
agreeing to then.
Ms. Fogarty said she feels there's a piece of information about the meeting she doesn't know.
Ms. Brock asked why it would matter, legally. We have all the information Mr. Wilcox read into the
record that the applicant, Mr.Young, knew that he would be left with a lot with only one access
point.What wasn't read was that in the planning board minutes, his agent said exactly the same
thing: that it would have to be a cul-de-sac with a number of lots off that. She is not sure why
anything else matters. He also said in his letter that his understanding from discussions with planning
staff for the original subdivision in 2004 was that the board wouldn't approve any subdivision of what
is now the Mountin property if it didn't leave future access for adjoining properties. The record
completely belies that.She doesn't know why he's making those assertions, since we have a record of
what was said and what was put in writing at the time.
PB Resolution No. 2017-057: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,Mountin 4-Lot
Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road,Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7.12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-
12.5,
9:7-
12.5, and 29.-7.12.12
Moved by Linda Collins; seconded Yvonne Fogarty
Planning Board 09.05-2017
Page 4 of 12
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-
lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension)and
Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-
12.2,
9:7-
12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension(Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension(Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre
parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin
&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the project;
3. The Planning Board on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1,submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared
by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David
Mountin &Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on Coy Glen Rd. &Elm Street Ext.,Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County,New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, and other
application materials; and
4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part
617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed,
based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3,
and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Vote
Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-lot
subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and Coy
Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7,12.2, 29.-7-
12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7.12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves re-
subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644+/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension(Parcel
A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin&Sarah Locke
Mountin, Owners/Applicants
Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m.
Planning Board 09-05-2017
Page 5 of 12
Gail Sakai, Coy Glen Road, asked what the applicant can develop on the land without further
planning board approval. Her concern is the 10-acre lot on Coy Glen and how many more homes
could be built there.
Mr.Wilcox said if this is approved, Mr. Mountin can build one structure on parcel D, either a one-or
two-family home.
Ms. Balestra said he couldn't build an apartment building on parcel D with the way the zoning is
written now.
Mr. Wilcox added that he couldn't build multiple structures unless he comes back before this board
and re-subdivides parcel D into smaller parcels.
Ms. Balestra said that, in that case, in terms of how many houses he could put there,we would look at
all the environmental considerations.
Ms. Sakai said Coy Glen is having much more traffic at much higher speeds these days. It's a curving
road.
Mr.Wilcox said that if and when the owner of parcel D wishes to put a subdivision on the lot, they
would have to come before the board; we would look at traffic, site lines on the road, slopes in the
area - all considerations as to what's a reasonable number of individual homes that could be built.
Right now, he has four lots, which means four residential structures.
Pamela Peabody, Coy Glen native for the last 18 years, said she wasn't aware of the 2004 event. She
didn't have enough opportunity to look over all the 60 pages of review that was online today. She
requested that the board consider postponing any further progress because a lot of people didn't
receive a mailer. She went all down her street and down Elm Street Extension, and nobody was aware
this was happening. She received it on the Thursday before a holiday weekend, so she couldn't even
begin to review it. She would like to have time to study of the magnitude of what they're asking to
take place on Coy Glen because the environmental impact is huge. She doesn't believe the notice
complied with the town regulations to inform all the residents that this affects. She's well aware of the
speed factor, the people walking, the animals, the change in the water lines, the high power lines that
are off Elm Street Extension.The magnitude is huge and more people should be given the opportuni-
ty
pportunety of what we're getting into.
Mr. Wilcox said responded that the town mails to owners within 500 feet of the proposed project,
although it is not legally required. So the fact that property owners within 500 feet of this subdivision
got a notice, that's a courtesy. He had the affidavit in front of him indicating that the notice of the
public hearing was posted on the bulletin board and published in the Ithaca Journal last Wednesday,
which is the legal requirement.There aren't 60 pages of materials. She may have seen a document
with the materials for both applications, one of which is the cell phone tower.The materials for this
proposal are ten or 15 pages at most. Ms. Peabody is also asking the board to consider the environ-
mental impact of moving lot lines around. Mr. Mountin has four lots; he will still have four lots.We
aren't approving building houses. That's another action.The only thing this action proposes is to
move lot lines. This might make it easier for him to build houses in the future,but we are not
Planning Board 09-05-2017
Page 6 of 12
approving him building houses; to do that, he would have to come back to the town to apply for
building permits.
Ms. Peabody said she did not know what they are trying to do on Coy Glen, and she's not just
speaking for herself.
Mr. Wilcox asked what she meant by"trying to do."
Ms. Peabody responded that we're moving in a direction that the Mountins are looking towards. It
was turned down at one point by Mr.Young,who wanted to do a large construction back there.
Mr. Wilcox said Mr.Young has a 33-acre parcel and at some point in the future, he might come
before the board and ask that it be subdivided so he can put in multiple structures.That's not in
front of us tonight. Mr. Mountin is here for two reasons: the first is to deal with the fact that there are
two landlocked parcels, and this board would be happy to eliminate landlocked parcels, and the other
is to retain the four parcels in the future that he has now, with the potential for building four housing
units in the future. But we're not approving him building anything. We're simply approving moving
lot lines.
Ms. Peabody continued to petition for a postponement to allow people to understand what's
happening before it happens.
Cathy Cook, 209 Coy Glen Road, said she is very familiar with Jack Young and what was done there.
The pump station is in her back yard. She was fearful because of living in that beautiful portion of the
town of Ithaca that is so close to town, but feels like you're far away, and we all want to protect it. But
things worked out fine. She agrees with her neighbor regarding traffic issues. She realizes there is a
process to go through, and she survived the process when the 50 acres owned by Jack Young was
subdivided. She was a beneficiary of the last process.
Ms. Collins said it's unfortunate that the technical term "subdivision" is part of the discussion. This
has happened many times over the years she's been on the board.Any time any of us hears there's
going to be a subdivision in our neighborhood, that term suggests that someone is going to come and
build a lot of houses. That's not what's happening in this case. If a subdivision is going to be built on
the property, it would be a lengthy process with many steps.That's not what this is about; it's simply
moving some lot lines. The applicant said he has no plans at this point,but that's not what we're
considering tonight. Concerns about traffic and other environmental issues are not part of what we're
doing.They would be addressed in the future if any development were proposed.
Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
PB Resolution No. 2017-058: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin+Lot
Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7.12.2, 29.-7.12.4, 29--7-
12.5,
9:7-
12.5, and 29.-7.12.12
Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty
WHEREAS:
Planning Board 09-05.2017
Page 7 of 12
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-
lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and
Coy Glen Road (between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-
12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644+/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension(Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension(Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre
parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin
&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the project, has on September 5, 2017, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1,submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3
prepared by the Town Planning staff; and
3. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map
entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on
Coy Glen Rd. &Elm Street Ext.,Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York", prepared by
T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav-
ing
aving determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration
of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town
Board;
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Exten-
sion)and Coy Glen Road (between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, as shown on the survey map described in
Whereas#3 above, subject to the following conditions:
a. Receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.2
with a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7.12.4, in order to create "Parcel C,"
c. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7.12.12 (small par-
cel along Coy Glen Road), 29.-7-12.5 (southernmost parcel near Coy Glen Road) and a por-
tion of 29.-7-12.2 (large parcel in the middle) in order to create "Parcel D",
d. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three
dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk
Office and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning De-
partment.
Planning Board 09.05-2017
Page 8 of 12
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill
AGENDA ITEM
SEAR Determination: T Mobile Co-Location on Tompkins County South Hill Communication
Tower, Ithaca College Campus
Michael Baroody, project manager working on behalf of Network Building+ Consulting and T
Mobile, gave a brief overview.T-Mobile is proposing to co-locate on the existing wireless telecommu-
nications facility on the Ithaca College campus. The antennas will be installed at 123 feet,which is
substantially lower than the existing top of the tower,which is 197 feet.The height of the tower will
not change nor will the footprint of the existing compound.They're leasing a 10'x 26' area,which
will house all their equipment.There will be no disturbance of the existing ground.The visual
aesthetics of the site won't change.
Mr.Wilcox asked what problem they're trying to solve.
Mr. Baroody responded that they want to improve coverage for the surrounding campus and
roadways. For the last year and a half,NB+C has done a large new site build program with T Mobile,
and they're looking to "paint the map," or aggressively trying to provide full coverage to current and
future subscribers. In terms of their network, in-building is their preferred coverage. Outdoor
coverage and in vehicle coverage is okay, but not good enough to keep subscribers happy and staying
with that carrier.
Mr. Wilcox asked whether any existing equipment on the tower will have to be moved to accommo-
date the new antennas and whether it will interfere with the county system or radio station.
Mr. Baroody responded that one piece of dead equipment will be removed. There will be no
interference with the county equipment or the campus radio station.T-Mobile can only operate
within the frequency that they purchase.
Mr. Bosak asked whether their co-locators will physically take up the remaining real estate on the
good parts of the monopole.
Mr. Baroody responded that the tower was designed for two wireless co-locators; they are one and the
second was going to be substantially lower. He doesn't know whether the lower spot will work for
another carrier.
Mr. Bosak said the plans call for three future equipment cabinets.
Mr. Barooday said when they lease a 10'x 26' area, they give the board a ballpark approximate of the
current dimensions of the equipment and what the space could be utilized for. Right now, that's what
they put on the plan to identify their space.
Ms. Brock pointed out that on sheet A4, they have six proposed antennas listed: three are listed as
open, and three are grayed-out as future. On sheet G1, it made it look like there were nine antennas.
PB Resolution No. 2017-057: SEQR
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Mountin 4-Lot Subdivision
Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road
Tax Parcel No.'s 29--7-12-2, 29.-7-12.4, 29--7-12.5, and 29--7-12.12
Town of Ithaca Planning Board,September 5, 2017
Moved by Linda Collins; seconded Yvonne Fogarty
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-
lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and
Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29--7-
12.2,
9:7-
12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-742.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension(Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre
parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin
&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the project;
3. The Planning Board on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared
by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David
Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on Coy Glen Rd. &Elm Street Ext.,Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017,and other
application materials; and
4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part
617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed,
based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3,
and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill
PB Resolution No. 2017.058: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Mountin 44,ot Subdivision
Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road
Tax Parcel No.'s 29--7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29--7-12.12
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 5, 2017
Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-
lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension(between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and
Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-
12.2,
9:7-
12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension(Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension(Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre
parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin
&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the project, has on September 5, 2017, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3
prepared by the Town Planning staff; and
3. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map
entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on
Coy Glen Rd. & Elm Street Ext.,Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County,New York", prepared by
T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant
alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board;
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision located on Elm Street Extension(between 517 and 531 Elm Street
Extension) and Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road),Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 29.7.12.2, 29-,742A 29,7-12.5, and 29:7-12.12, as shown on the survey map
described in Whereas #3 above,subject to the following conditions:
a. Receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.7-12.2
with a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.4, in order to create "Parcel C,"
Page 2 of 3
c. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of Tax Parcel No.'s 29:7-12.12 (small
parcel along Coy Glen Road), 29.-7-12.5 (southernmost parcel near Coy Glen Road) and
or==portion of 29:7-12.2 (large parcel in the middle) in order to create "Parcel D",
d. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three
dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk
Office and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department.
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill
Page 3 of 3
ZBA Appeal of David Mountin, 11/20/2017-Paulette Rosa https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&Ite...
ZBA Appeal of David Mountin, 11/20/2017
John Young <jack@youngbros.com>
Thu 11/9/2017 10:02 PM
To:Paulette Rosa <PRosa@townJthaca.ny.us>;
Dear Mr. Rosen and ZBA members,
I'm writing in regards to the David Mountin variance request scheduled for your November 20th meeting. As one of the
neighboring property owners I have an opinion regarding the variance request at hand which I will plan to pass along in
person on the 20th. My purpose for writing to the board in advance, however, is to correct the record regarding certain
statements made in the minutes to the September 5th Planning Board meeting which are posted on your website.
Prior to the September 5th meeting, I sent a brief letter to the Planning Board stating my concerns regarding the Mountin
proposal. I wasn't available to attend that meeting in person, however, because I was chairing a meeting of the Cayuga
Heights Zoning Board of Appeals which had been scheduled at the same time. I was shocked when I eventually got to
read the minutes of the Planning Board meeting I missed and saw what had been said about me in my absence.
First, I was very surprised that Mr. Mountin claimed publicly that I am "a developer(by)profession,he purchases land,
builds as many houses as he can, and moves on" and "wants to.. put in as many houses to make as much money as he
can" and nobody in attendance asked for any evidence of that. I've never built a single house in Tompkins County or
elsewhere.And now that inaccurate statement has been posted again, this time by your board as part of the 11/20/17
meeting agenda. Personal attacks aren't allowed during the ZBA hearings I chair, and I'm surprised that this was wasn't
treated similarly by the Planning Board.
Contrary to what was suggested by others at the 9/5 meeting, my expectations regarding access to our property through
the Mountin property weren't part of the 2004 subdivision process when I gave up all but one of the three access points
my adjacent property originally had. So it's not surprising that nothing related was in the minutes for that particular
meeting.The discussions I referenced in my letter to the Planning Board took place during a planning department review
of a proposed subdivision plan by a prior owner of the Mountin property that took place around the same time.Will
Burbank was involved in those (he was a neighbor and a Town Board member) and Jonathan Kantor handled this for the
planning staff.That's when we were assured that no subdivision of the Muckey (now Mountin) property was likely that
didn't give us a second access point. No formal promises were possible, of course, but I certainly felt that I was
protected. So while I was disappointed by the Planning Board's recent action, it's not surprising that the board (and even
Mr. Mountin)wasn't aware of the prior history of development proposals for the Mountin property.
In recent years I've donated land to Buttermilk Park, Habitat for Humanity, the Town of Enfield, the Town of Ithaca, the
NY DEC (over% mile of Cayuga Lake lakefront), the PA Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, the Erie Wildlife Refuge and other governmental agencies in New York and Pennsylvania. I note that Mr.
Mountin isn't offering anything to anyone in his current development proposal. In the 9/5 minutes you may note that at
one point he states that "he has no intention of doing what Mr. Young wants to do". Sadly, that appears to be the only
accurate statement he made in this matter.
I would appreciate it if you would pass this message along to the rest of the ZBA so they will be aware of the inaccuracies
contained in the September 5th Planning Board minutes. And I would like to request that the false statements made by
Mr. Mountin in the Planning Board's 9/5 minutes be removed from the Town's website. It's bad enough that he said
those things publicly, and unfortunate that they were repeated in the Planning board minutes. But nobody knew any
1 of 2 11/11/2017, 10:32 AM
ZBA Appeal of David Mountin, 11/20/2017-Paulette Rosa https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&Ite...
better then, and now you do.
Jack Young
Ithaca, NY
2 of 2 11/11/2017, 10:32 AM
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty.
NAY. None
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Glenside Park 5-Lot Subdivision, Glenside
Road and Five Mile Drive.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Representing the owners is this gentleman.
Male voice — Can 1 use your map? It is a lot more colorful than mine.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen if you are here for this particular item and
you wish to come around in order to view. Will is sitting there nodding his head. You
know this area by heart, don't you? If you would like to come up and gather around
behind us, you are welcome to so that you can see the map while the gentleman is
speaking. Name, address. It can be professional or otherwise.
Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Road — I'm acting as the agent for Mr. John Young, who is
the owner of the property. I have been working with him on this for some time. We'd like
to ask for preliminary approval on the Glenside Park Subdivision, which is basically a
five plot subdivision of a 44 acre plot, located at the intersections of Coy Glen, Glenside
Road and Floral Avenue. There is a lot going on here so, if I may, I will just run through,
kind of piece by piece what we envisioned. By way of background, it seems to us that
back in the 1920's there was plans to build this little neighborhood out, but only a few
houses every really were built along Glenside Road. Over the years, quite
unintentionally and, I think at no ill-will to the other neighbors, there were some
encroachments by some of the individuals along Glenside Road or maybe
encroachment is not the right word. There is really only one encroachment of that other
building. I think just areas where some of the neighbors were using land that maybe
were a little beyond their boundaries. We noticed that when working on this project so
we thought it made sense to try to adjust some of those in the process. So, what we did,
basically, was we cut it into six plots. Let me run through them. Lot number 1 has
already come to this Planning Board for approval and it was conveyed to the Town for
the construction of the new pump station. Lot number 2 is a lot that we proposed, which
you'll notice doesn't meet the minimum road frontage requirements. This right-of-way
here, some years ago, might have been cleared away to build a road, but the road was
never built, which would have provided frontage to Lot 2 and also to this plot here,
which is the Turco plot. We envision, hopefully getting approval for that lot and then
getting approval for that lot and then getting the necessary easement language so that
we can access that lot.
18
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
Lot number 3 is a sever acre parcel, which we would like to propose donating to
the Town for a park. My understanding is that there is at least a preliminary discussion
at the Town Board meeting to discuss this and I think the feedback was pretty positive.
It's not suitable, really, for a playing field, but we think that it would make a really nice
park for hiking or picnicking or what have you. I have tow kids so that if you want to put
a "tot lot" in there or something, we would certainly be one of the users of it. It would
have access both off of Flora Avenue, with a little 15 foot strip here, as well as, we'd
also include language to allow access this 32 foot right-of-way.
Lot 4 would be a second lot that we might put up for sale, which we believe
meets all of the R-9 Residential zoning requirements, as does Lot 5 here on Floral Ave.
Then the idea that Mr. Young has is to retain Lot 6 for future purposes. Although, at this
time there are no specific plans to develop this. If he were to, I guess the thinking is
there is enough frontage here on Coy Glen Road to build a public road and it would
probably have to be a cul-de-sac of some kind with a number of lots off of that. As I
mentioned, he has no plans at this point to develop that land.
These parcels A through G are all areas that are donations form Mr. Young to the
adjoining neighbors o settle some of those encroachment issues that were discovered
in the process. So, our hope is that, provided we got the easement language sorted out,
we got the approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we got the final maps together,
went to the Town Board for final approval of the park, that we might be able to get final
approval for this.
Chairperson Wilcox — There was something in the papers that we were presented about
the potential that one of the neighbors might buys one of the lots?
Mr. Leahy — Yes. I am sorry, I should have mentioned that. There have already been
conversations with the Cooks that own this lot, here, to potentially buy Lot 2. Now, I do
not envision them consolidating it, but rather keeping it as a separate lot as a buffer
perhaps or some other future development. Those discussions have taken place.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there something about maybe Mr. Turco or Mrs. Turco possibly
buying that Lot 2?
Mr. Leahy — To be honest, I am not aware of that. It was my understanding that the
Cooks were most interested.
Chairperson Wilcox —Alright. Environmental concerns, issues?
Mr. Leahy — Not that we are aware of, no.
Chairperson Wilcox — We are creating three building lots, three potential building lots.
Mr. Leahy — Right.
19
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — We have the potential for park land, which is an environmental
asset, a plus. I'm all set for now.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question, actually, about the park. It came up in
Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment; it was something you prepared, Jonathan.
You mentioned that this land in Lot 3 would be used for passive park purposes, rather
then active ones. Then you say that it also could accommodate storm water
management improvements, if necessary. I assume that would only be necessary if Lot
6 would be developed, but I am a little concerned about a Town Park being accepted
and then may be used for purposes for like that. Could you explain what you had in
mind?
Mr. Kanter— Well, that was my own wording. That was not the applicant's and I was not
intending to imply that the park would be used for storm water management purposes
for further development of the remaining lot. Simply that sometimes properties that are
turned over to the Town, if there is a reason to put in any kind of storm water
improvements, whether it be for the park itself or other surrounding issues, that may be
something the Town would consider doing. Again, it had nothing to do with the future
development of the remaining parcel. If that is developed, that would obviously have to
take care of it's own storm water.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I guess my concern would be that it could potentially
diminish the value as a park if one were to use it as a park if one were to use it for other
purposes.
Mr. Kanter— It would be easy enough for me to strike that wording from the EAF and
you can approve it without the wording in it. It's just discussions that we've had amongst
ourselves as staff.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but you wouldn't have mentioned it if there wasn't
reason, I imagine.
Mr. Kanter— Well, there really was no specific purpose or reason for my putting that in
there. Again, I was reflecting discussions that we'd had. That's as simple as it is.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox — If the large lot should ever be developed, potentially the donation
of the land of the land to the Town for a Town park, would also potentially deal with the
need to have open space for the additional lots that would be created if the Town should
accept the park, for example. That might meet the future open space needs of the area.
Is there anything else you would like to say? Members of the Board? Okay. My feeling
is that there might be some environmental issues that people would like to speak about.
If there isn't, that's fine. So, before I actually get to the Public Hearing with regard to the
proposed subdivision, is there anybody here who would like to address the Board about
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
the environmental issues related to this, given the area. If you speak now, you will still
get the chance to speak as part of the Public Hearing when we consider the preliminary
subdivision.
Inaudible male voice from the audience
Mr. Kanter— They are all up and available for discussion.
Steve Sweet, 115 Glenside Road — In fact, if I could, my property is on this side of the
road and so my property doesn't abut the proposed park. I would just like to speak on,
essentially, what that current parcel of property is being used for families like mine in the
neighborhood. Where it's sort of been socially defined as being a public zone. So a
typical afternoon with me with the kids is to go out and wander through that property
and we would go and turn over rocks and we would look for salamanders and that type
of thing. If that property remained in sort of a communal stage, I would see it as really
contributing to the continued positive climate of the neighborhood. If you haven't been to
the Glenside Neighborhood before, it's really quite unique because it's architecturally
unique, it's in keeping with a real historical feel to that part of Town and it's a very
interesting place. The land, as it is, undeveloped is a very, very positive, positive thing.
A modest park like that is really keeping the keep the neighborhood with a form that
really works well for my family. So, that's very quickly kind of it. Do you guys have
anything to add?
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much.
Matthia Hesse, 112 Glenside Road — I actually live right here attached to one of the
properties that is probably going to be sold and developed. We obviously, have a huge
interest that it basically stays as it is. We have a nine year old daughter, she goes out
there almost every afternoon, plays in the woods. So, one of the reasons why we
actually bought this property a little bit more than a year ago was actually that it is quiet
and not very much developed and so we would like to save this.
Chairperson Wilcox — On, the other hand, you wouldn't deny the owner the right to
subdivide his own property?
Mr. Hesse — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, okay. Thank you.
Dan Aneshansley, 118 Glenside Road — Part of the missing ten seconds. Just a couple
of spots up from where was just pointed out to you. We've lived there since 1976. Our
children are all grown for the most part, but that particular area that you see in green is
a place that has been used by children in that area as long as we have been there and
before. I see this as a great opportunity to save that and preserve it in this particular
fashion as just an open space. Environmentally, I think it's a marvelous area with lots of
nature. We get wild turkey back in there, we get deer, a whole variety of species of
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
animal that just make it, I think, a very unique area. We see it as a very positive step to
take.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Anybody else? Will?
Will Burbank, 132 Glenside — Which is adjacent to this. I just wanted clarification. I also,
as you know, am on the Town Board and talking with both the neighborhood and with
the Board, the thinking was that this would be a passive park. The wording, actually, is
recreational. There is a potential that at some point, there might be development in
surrounding areas that might cause the passivity to be changed and it would become
more active. There is, as you may know, within the City, to the north, a proposed
subdivision on the failed Wiesbread development off of 13A and I'm not too sure what is
happening, but something is happening. So, this, once again, provides a buffer between
the existing neighborhood and whatever may come in the future. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Thank you all. Comments, in regard to Environmental
Review? Eva is thinking.
Board Member Hoffmann — No, I don't have anything more.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Comments from staff? Who would like to move the SEAR
Review? So, moved by Road Howe. Seconded by George Conneman. Any further
discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye". Anyone
opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-013: SEAR: Preliminary Subdivision Approval,
Glenside Park Subdivision, Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 30-
1-1
MOTION made by Rod Howe, Seconded by George Conneman
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed
5-lot subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route
13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30-1-1, Residence Districts R-15 and R-9.
The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots
for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational
park, and the remaining 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible
future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off 7 small parcels
to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment
problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant,
and
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on March 2, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Glenside Park
Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York," prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 10/30/2003, and other application
materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty.
NAY: None
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 5-lot Glenside Park subdivision located along Glenside
Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30-1-1,
Residence Districts R-15 and R-9. The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/-
acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to
the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the
owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing
off seven small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct
existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners;
Patrick Leahy, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else you wish to say at this point?
Male voice- No.
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the Board, at this point? There are none. Ladies
and gentlemen you can speak again if you so choose. This is a Public Hearing. If you
wish to address the Planning Board, you know the drill, name and address, have a seat.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is Mr. Young here by the way?
Mr. Leahy — No he is not.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to thank him. It seems to be a sensitive... we don't
know what's going to happen with the large parcel, but if he truly is in fact donating
those small parcels to the adjacent land owners, again the park is, at some point he
would have to create some open space, potentially would have to have some open
space if he were to divide the large parcel, but doing it up front is certainly a nice
gesture. It certainly is appreciated.
Mr. Kanter—And also, this is larger than he normally would need to.
Chairperson Wilcox —All right. Mr. Barney.
Mr. Barney — I was just asking Jon or Dan, the 32 feet for the access, is that adequate
for getting to park in the back?
Mr. Walker — Yeah, the roadway is basically built. This also coincides with our 20 foot
wide waterline easement. They maintain that and keep that mowed. The only area
where we'd maybe need more width is down at the bottom of the gorge, where we
would have to get in there is we were going to put a culvert in, but I think the 32 feet is
still adequate for that for a ten foot wide driveway type entrance.
Mr. Barney — There's not two way traffic going down it?
Mr. Walker —No, it would basically be a driveway into the park, not a roadway, no. This
is envisioned as more of a neighborhood type park, so we would not anticipate putting a
parking lot in there at all. It would basically be accessed by maintenance vehicles.
Mr. Kanter — And then there's the 15 foot strip that actually goes down, physically to
Five Mile Drive, that could be a walkway or some kind of a pedestrian access. If
needed, it could also serve as an emergency way to get maintenance vehicles in there
is we needed to.
Chairperson Wilcox — The 32 foot right-of-way is, essentially, going to be a long
driveway to serve the lots that are there, plus this new flag lot that's being created.
Okay. Mr. Barney , any other questions?
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
Mr. Barney — That was all.
Mr. Kanter—Also, I'll just emphasize the variances needed, especially because the park
parcel itself requires a variance, so that will definitely be a requirement for frontage.
Chairperson Wilcox — As Mr. Barney is pretty fond of saying, just helicopter them in,
right? Any further discussion? So moved by the Chair. Seconded by Eva Hoffmann. All
those in favor, please signal by saying "aye". Is anyone opposed? There is no one
opposed. There are no abstentions. Thank you very much. You'll be back, potentially,
when this comes back to us, should it come back to us.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-014: Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Glenside Park
Subdivision, Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 30-1-1
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, Seconded by Eva Hoffmann
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed
5-lot subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route
13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30-1-1, Residence Districts R-15 and R-9.
The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots
for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational
park, and the remaining 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible
future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off 7 small parcels
to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment
problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners, Patrick Leahy, Applicant,
and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has
on March 2, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 2, 2004, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Glenside Park Subdivision,
Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,"
prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 10/30/2003, and other application
materials,
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 2, 2004
APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision
Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will
result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor
the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Glenside Park Subdivision located at Glenside Road and Five Mile
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30-1-1, as shown on a survey map entitled
"Glenside Park Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York,"prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 10/30/2003,
subject to the following conditions, to be met prior to Final Subdivision Approval
unless otherwise indicated.
a. Obtaining the necessary lot width variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals (Lots 2 and 3) and variance for modifying a non-conforming lot
(by adding Parcel G to Tax Parcel No. 30-1-12, which does not have
frontage on a public road), and
b. Acceptance by the Town Board of the concept and location of the
proposed park area (Lot 3), and
c. Submission of one mylar and four dark line prints of the subdivision plat,
all signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey,
for signing by the Planning Board Chair, and
d. Submission of access easement language providing the owner of Lot 3 (to
be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as parkland) a right-of-way for ingress
and egress across Lot 2 to Glenside Road, for review and approval of the
Attorney for the Town, and
e. Consolidation of Parcels A, B, C, D, E, F and G with adjoining Tax
Parcels, as indicated in Note 5 on the Subdivision Map, within six months
after Final Subdivision Approval, and submission to the Town of Ithaca
Planning Department of a copy of the requests to the Tompkins County
Assessment Department for said consolidations.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board finds that proposed Lot 3 to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca
as a recreational park meets the goals and objectives of the Town of Ithaca Park,
Recreation and Open Space Plan, which designates the need for a future neighborhood
park in this general location in the Town, and that the 7 +/- acres of the proposed park
26
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Linda Collins, John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty,
Jon Bosak, and Melissa Hill
Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; David
O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Torn; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Torn
Clerk
Call to Order
Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM
SEQR Determination: Mountin 4-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension& Coy Glen Road
Mr. Mountin said he and his wife bought the 20-acre parcel ten years ago.They bought four lots and
two of them are landlocked. He wants to re-subdivide the four lots into four legal lots.They currently
have no plans to develop any of the parcels, but this makes it so that in the future, they will have legal
lots they can sell or build on.
Mr.Wilcox asked why lot D, with a 60-foot frontage on Coy Glen Road, won't need a variance
whereas lot C,with a 60-foot frontage onto Elm Street,will.
Ms. Balestra said that lot D is a preexisting lot; it's not being widened or narrowed, so you're not
changing the existing non-conformity.
Ms. Brock commented that she didn't think they needed to have the answer because the proposed
resolution reads "receipt of any necessary variances" from the ZBA, so it doesn't need to be discussed.
Mr.Wilcox added that the need for variances is something the planning board should not take into
account when considering subdivisions; that's the zoning board's job.
Mr. Bosak said it seems the motivation for this proposal is to give road frontage to all the landlocked
parcels, but that could be accomplished just by consolidating the three lots into lot D. But this goes
even further: he's moving lot lines, creating a new A, B, and C. Mr. Bosak was having trouble
reconciling this additional and rather problematic subdivision with the assertion that Mr. Mountin
doesn't have any plans.
Mr. Mountin said there are four existing lots, two of which are landlocked, so he's asking for a re-
subdivision to create four lots, all with road frontage: four lots to four lots. He could put a house on
A or leave it green; he could put a house on B, where there was an existing house at one time and
which he tore down because it was uninhabitable and an eyesore.
Mr. Bosak asked which properties would remain landlocked if all he did was consolidate the three
lots into D.
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 2 of 12
Mr. Mountin responded that none would.
Mr. Bosak said that in order to accomplish the stated goal, which is providing road access to all these
properties, he could simply by consolidate those three lots.
Mr. Mountin said that's one option; he can come up with a lot of options. He's going further because
there are four existing lots; he's just re-subdividing them to make four new lots.
Mr.Wilcox said he had four lots and will still have four lots. His goal is to get rid of the landlocked
parcels and retain four lots. Mr. Mountin agreed.
Ms. Fogarty suggested having a conversation about the letter from Jack Young.
Mr.Wilcox said that we received a letter from Jack Young, who owns adjacent property to the south.
In a late afternoon email, Ms. Balestra responded by providing excerpts from the planning board
packet of February 24, 2004, when the board considered a subdivision proposal from Mr.Young to
subdivide off a parcel of land for the pump station, a parcel of land for a future torn park, and a
series of tiny parcels to be given to neighboring properties to resolve instances where buildings may
have crossed property lines.
• Jon Kanter's staff memo to the planning board stated that "the applicant has indicated that he has
no immediate plans to further develop Lot 6 (32.5+/-acres) at this time. It has the potential to be
developed with lots that could be served by a cul-de-sac road.There is adequate frontage on Coy
Glen Road ... to construct an access road, although this will become the only access point for Lot
6.This will tend to minimize the number of additional lots that could be developed on Lot 6 ...
which is probably desirable given the steep character of the site."
• In the applicant's narrative, Mr.Young stated regarding Lot 6 that this "large lot will remain
undeveloped in the immediate term. If a decision were made to develop this 32-acre parcel at
some future date, it would probably feature a short cul-de-sac, accessed from Coy Glen Road
where the lot has usable road frontage. There are, however, no plans to develop this portion of
the property in the near term."
• Finally, in Part 2 of the SEQR form used at the time, it was stated that the "Comprehensive Plan
anticipates additional residential growth in this general area. Lot 6 has additional development
potential. It is zoned R-15 Residence and could be served by a dead-end cul-de-sac road, since
there will be only one remaining point of access to the parcel. Site-specific environmental impacts
would have to be evaluated if and when Lot 6 is proposed for further subdivision. Based on the
above, the proposed subdivision would not have any growth inducing impacts, but would include
the opportunity for subsequent development of Lot 6."
Mr.Wilcox stated that the point here is that Mr.Young knew 13 years ago that in proceeding with
the subdivision, what he would end up with was a 32-acre parcel with access from only one point, and
it was to be further subdivided and developed, he would probably need to build a cul-de-sac.
Ms. Balestra said that the town restricts the length of cul-de-sacs to 1000 feet; that would reach into
the middle of the property.
Mr. Bosak asked why Mr. Young cares about Mr. Mountin's proposal.
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 3 of 12
Mr.Wilcox said he was also confused; that's the point of looking at the notes from the meeting in
2004. Mr.Young has a concern, but we have information from 13 years ago which indicates that he
was well aware of the situation at the time, and the subdivision went through regardless, creating this
situation where he has that one piece of frontage left and would need to build a cul-de-sac. Mr.
Mountin indicates that he talked to the previous owner of Mr. Mountin's property. Mr.Young is
saying this would preclude him from getting access from Mr. Mountin's parcel.
Mr. Bosak says that Mr.Young asserts that if the proposed subdivision goes through, he will be left
with"a 33 acre property that will be primarily undevelopable due to the lack of a second access." Is
that true?
Ms. Balestra responded that it's not true. If he wants to do a major subdivision that wouldn't
necessarily be allowed by zoning right now, he would be required to have two access points, but if he
wanted to subdivide into, say, six lots off a cul-de-sac, we would do an environmental review and the
board would go through their regular process. There's nothing illegal about it, and we're not
preventing it from happening.
To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Mountin said he met with Mr.Young and Supervisor Bill
Goodman about two years ago. He didn't say Mr.Young could have access through his property. Mr.
Young is a developer as a profession; he purchases land,builds as many houses as he can, and moves
on. Mr. Mountin said he lives on West Hill, he lives on Elm Street, he lives in the neighborhood. He
has no intention of doing what Mr.Young wants to do, which is to put in as many houses to make as
much money as he can. It is zoned medium density,which would allow three houses per acre; he has
no intention of doing that. Mr.Young came to that meeting with the expectation and understanding
that he would be able to go through Mr. Mountin's land with a driveway. This is not in writing.
Mr.Wilcox said it's clear from the materials from 2004 that he was well aware of what he was
agreeing to then.
Ms. Fogarty said she feels there's a piece of information about the meeting she doesn't know.
Ms. Brock asked why it would matter, legally.We have all the information Mr.Wilcox read into the
record that the applicant, Mr.Young, knew that he would be left with a lot with only one access
point. What wasn't read was that in the planning board minutes, his agent said exactly the same
thing: that it would have to be a cul-de-sac with a number of lots off that. She is not sure why
anything else matters. He also said in his letter that his understanding from discussions with planning
staff for the original subdivision in 2004 was that the board wouldn't approve any subdivision of what
is now the Mountin property if it didn't leave future access for adjoining properties. The record
completely belies that. She doesn't know why he's making those assertions, since we have a record of
what was said and what was put in writing at the time.
PB Resolution No. 2017.057: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin 4-Lot
Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-
12.5, and 29.-7-12.12
Moved by Linda Collins; seconded Yvonne Fogarty
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 4 of 12
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-
lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and
Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-
12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension (Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre
parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/- acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin
&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the project;
3. The Planning Board on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared
by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David
Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on Coy Glen Rd. & Elm Street Ext., Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, and other
application materials; and
4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Torn of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part
617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed,
based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3,
and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Vote
Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-lot
subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and Coy
Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-
12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves re-
subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel
A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin&Sarah Locke
Mountin, Owners/Applicants
Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m.
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 5 of 12
Gail Sakai, Coy Glen Road, asked what the applicant can develop on the land without further
planning board approval. Her concern is the 10-acre lot on Coy Glen and how many more homes
could be built there.
Mr.Wilcox said if this is approved, Mr. Mountin can build one structure on parcel D, either a one-or
two-family home.
Ms. Balestra said he couldn't build an apartment building on parcel D with the way the zoning is
written now.
Mr.Wilcox added that he couldn't build multiple structures unless he comes back before this board
and re-subdivides parcel D into smaller parcels.
Ms. Balestra said that, in that case, in terms of how many houses he could put there, we would look at
all the environmental considerations.
Ms. Sakai said Coy Glen is having much more traffic at much higher speeds these days. It's a curving
road.
Mr.Wilcox said that if and when the owner of parcel D wishes to put a subdivision on the lot, they
would have to come before the board; we would look at traffic, site lines on the road, slopes in the
area - all considerations as to what's a reasonable number of individual homes that could be built.
Right now, he has four lots, which means four residential structures.
Pamela Peabody, Coy Glen native for the last 18 years, said she wasn't aware of the 2004 event. She
didn't have enough opportunity to look over all the 60 pages of review that was online today. She
requested that the board consider postponing any further progress because a lot of people didn't
receive a mailer. She went all down her street and down Elm Street Extension, and nobody was aware
this was happening. She received it on the Thursday before a holiday weekend, so she couldn't even
begin to review it. She would like to have time to study of the magnitude of what they're asking to
take place on Coy Glen because the environmental impact is huge. She doesn't believe the notice
complied with the torn regulations to inform all the residents that this affects. She's well aware of the
speed factor, the people walking, the animals, the change in the water lines, the high power lines that
are off Elm Street Extension. The magnitude is huge and more people should be given the opportuni-
ty of what we're getting into.
Mr.Wilcox said responded that the town mails to owners within 500 feet of the proposed project,
although it is not legally required. So the fact that property owners within 500 feet of this subdivision
got a notice, that's a courtesy. He had the affidavit in front of him indicating that the notice of the
public hearing was posted on the bulletin board and published in the Ithaca Journal last Wednesday,
which is the legal requirement. There aren't 60 pages of materials. She may have seen a document
with the materials for both applications, one of which is the cell phone tower.The materials for this
proposal are ten or 15 pages at most. Ms. Peabody is also asking the board to consider the environ-
mental impact of moving lot lines around. Mr. Mountin has four lots; he will still have four lots.We
aren't approving building houses. That's another action. The only thing this action proposes is to
move lot lines. This might make it easier for him to build houses in the future, but we are not
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 6 of 12
approving him building houses; to do that, he would have to come back to the town to apply for
building permits.
Ms. Peabody said she did not know what they are trying to do on Coy Glen, and she's not just
speaking for herself.
Mr.Wilcox asked what she meant by "trying to do."
Ms. Peabody responded that we're moving in a direction that the Mountins are looking towards. It
was turned down at one point by Mr.Young, who wanted to do a large construction back there.
Mr.Wilcox said Mr.Young has a 33-acre parcel and at some point in the future, he might come
before the board and ask that it be subdivided so he can put in multiple structures. That's not in
front of us tonight. Mr. Mountin is here for two reasons: the first is to deal with the fact that there are
two landlocked parcels, and this board would be happy to eliminate landlocked parcels, and the other
is to retain the four parcels in the future that he has now, with the potential for building four housing
units in the future. But we're not approving him building anything.We're simply approving moving
lot lines.
Ms. Peabody continued to petition for a postponement to allow people to understand what's
happening before it happens.
Cathy Cook, 209 Coy Glen Road, said she is very familiar with Jack Young and what was done there.
The pump station is in her back yard. She was fearful because of living in that beautiful portion of the
town of Ithaca that is so close to town, but feels like you're far away, and we all want to protect it. But
things worked out fine. She agrees with her neighbor regarding traffic issues. She realizes there is a
process to go through, and she survived the process when the 50 acres owned by Jack Young was
subdivided. She was a beneficiary of the last process.
Ms. Collins said it's unfortunate that the technical term "subdivision" is part of the discussion. This
has happened many times over the years she's been on the board. Any time any of us hears there's
going to be a subdivision in our neighborhood, that term suggests that someone is going to come and
build a lot of houses. That's not what's happening in this case. If a subdivision is going to be built on
the property, it would be a lengthy process with many steps. That's not what this is about; it's simply
moving some lot lines. The applicant said he has no plans at this point, but that's not what we're
considering tonight. Concerns about traffic and other environmental issues are not part of what we're
doing. They would be addressed in the future if any development were proposed.
Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
PB Resolution No. 2017.058: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin 4-Lot
Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-
12.5, and 29.-7-12.12
Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty
WHEREAS:
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 7 of 12
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-
lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and
Coy Glen Road (between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-
12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street
Extension (Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre
parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/- acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin
&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the project, has on September 5, 2017, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3
prepared by the Town Planning staff; and
3. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map
entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on
Coy Glen Rd. & Elm Street Ext., Torn of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by
T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Torn of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav-
ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration
of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town
Board;
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Exten-
sion) and Coy Glen Road (between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, as shorn on the survey map described in
Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions:
a. Receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.2
with a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.4, in order to create "Parcel C,"
c. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.12 (small par-
cel along Coy Glen Road), 29.-7-12.5 (southernmost parcel near Coy Glen Road) and a por-
tion of 29.-7-12.2 (large parcel in the middle) in order to create "Parcel D",
d. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three
dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk
Office and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Torn of Ithaca Planning De-
partment.
Planning Board 09.05.2017
Page 8 of 12
Vote
Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill
AGENDA ITEM
SEQR Determination: T Mobile Co-Location on Tompkins County South Hill Communication
Tower, Ithaca College Campus
Michael Baroody, project manager working on behalf of Network Building + Consulting and T-
Mobile, gave a brief overview. T-Mobile is proposing to co-locate on the existing wireless telecommu-
nications facility on the Ithaca College campus. The antennas will be installed at 123 feet, which is
substantially lower than the existing top of the tower, which is 197 feet. The height of the tower will
not change nor will the footprint of the existing compound. They're leasing a 10' x 26' area,which
will house all their equipment. There will be no disturbance of the existing ground. The visual
aesthetics of the site won't change.
Mr.Wilcox asked what problem they're trying to solve.
Mr. Baroody responded that they want to improve coverage for the surrounding campus and
roadways. For the last year and a half, NB+C has done a large new site build program with T-Mobile,
and they're looking to "paint the map," or aggressively trying to provide full coverage to current and
future subscribers. In terms of their network, in-building is their preferred coverage. Outdoor
coverage and in vehicle coverage is okay,but not good enough to keep subscribers happy and staying
with that carrier.
Mr.Wilcox asked whether any existing equipment on the tower will have to be moved to accommo-
date the new antennas and whether it will interfere with the county system or radio station.
Mr. Baroody responded that one piece of dead equipment will be removed. There will be no
interference with the county equipment or the campus radio station.T-Mobile can only operate
within the frequency that they purchase.
Mr. Bosak asked whether their co-locators will physically take up the remaining real estate on the
good parts of the monopole.
Mr. Baroody responded that the tower was designed for two wireless co-locators; they are one and the
second was going to be substantially lower. He doesn't know whether the lower spot will work for
another carrier.
Mr. Bosak said the plans call for three future equipment cabinets.
Mr. Barooday said when they lease a 10' x 26' area, they give the board a ballpark approximate of the
current dimensions of the equipment and what the space could be utilized for. Right now, that's what
they put on the plan to identify their space.
Ms. Brock pointed out that on sheet A-1, they have six proposed antennas listed: three are listed as
open, and three are grayed-out as future. On sheet C-1, it made it look like there were nine antennas.