Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-10-210 FILE r. wr�rnr�mornrr DATE 4, 1;4�'ac� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eva Hoffmann, Vice Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:12 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:12 p.m.); Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner, ALSO PRESENT: Rosair Karij, 193 Kendall Avenue; Anthony Ponchalek, 574 King Road West; Louis Bonanni Jr, 148 Coddington Road; Joesph Moore, 229 Cliff Park Road; Jutta and Joe lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Avenue; Bob Martin, 180 Kendall Avenue; Jeff Burness, 185 Kendall Avenue; Alfred and Betty George, 117 Kendall Avenue; Mark Lee, 315 Blackstone Avenue; Steve Randall, 201 Dates Drive, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and • accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 10, 2003 and October 15, 2003, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 15, 2003, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Steve Randall, 201 Dates Drive Mr. Randall - My issue is with the minutes of the last meeting. I would like to point out that there. was certain misinformation presented at that meeting, which I think was pertinent to the result of the vote of the meeting. It is the project of the hospital concerning their radiation therapy. Mr. Fitzgerald testified that they had preliminary approval from the State Department of Health for their project and in fact, they do not have preliminary approval. What they have is preliminary approval for moving the utilities, which is relocating outside utilities for $700,000 and not $5.5 million. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Fitzgerald further went on to state that preliminary approval was almost the same as permanent approval. This is not the case. According to the State Department of Health, their rule is that a project may not begin. There may be not building until they have approval. I would ask that the board reconsider their vote on the building permit based on true and correct information. Also, you should have a letter in your records from a doctor in our group, Doctor Manuel Dalope. (Letter attached) Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I was not at this meeting, but I would like to hear if any other board member has any comments. Board Member Howe — Jonathan, can you shed some light on whether there was different information offered. Mr. Kanter — The only light that I would add is that I had a conversation with John Barney this afternoon. John had spoken with an attorney that is somehow involved in this matter. I think we probably should not discuss it any further until John is here. I think the question of whether incorrect information was provided by the Medical Center certainly would be a concern to the board. I don't know how or when we would be able to document that. Other than that, I would say that we should probably wait until John gets here to discuss it any further. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — That sounds like a good idea. Is there anything else you would like to add? Mr. Randall — No. Thank you for your time. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Ponchalek 2 -Lot Subdivision, Kendall Avenue Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this agenda item at 7:08 p.m. Joseph Moore, 229 Cliff Park Road Mr. Moore — We were told that we needed 9,000 square feet on each piece of property to build a two - family house. So we redrew the map from its original subdivision, which they said is no longer a subdivision and I don't know why it is no longer a subdivision. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Who said that? Mr. Moore — Andy Frost. We should have been able to build on it as it was, but because he said he needed these 9,000 + square feet requirements, we had a surveyor redraw the map. He never presented his claim with any documents. As I understood, it was grand fathered in. Louis Bonnani, previous owner of the property is here. He 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED consolidated the property into one tax parcel for the ease of payment or whatever back in 1972, but the land was never surveyed to wipe out those borders. Anyways, through a lot of discussion with the Planning Department and Michael Smith, we decided to have an engineer move the line to be more accommodating with the Town. As far as I know, we are asking for a couple requirements that weren't grand fathered because we are asking to have the line moved so it is the new parcel that we are proposing that is pretty close to what you had in mind. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well, as I understand this, there cannot be a house built on this lot, as it exists today without a variance. But if it were to be subdivided into two lots, there would need to be several variances because the lots would be created do not conform to the requirements that the Town has for this R -9 district. Let me ask you ... it is not quite clear what you said. Was it one parcel from the beginning, which was...? Mr. Moore — No. It was always two parcels that I understood. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — But you mentioned that it had been consolidate din 1972. Mr. Moore — The tax had been consolidated, not the parcels, just the payment. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So it was consolidated for tax purposes... Mr. Moore — For one payment. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Right, but it was not turned into one lot? Mr. Moore — To my knowledge, no. Mr. Smith — The tax maps show it as one tax parcel right now. It was originally labeled as it is on here as numbers 220 and 221 with the old numbers on it. Then it was consolidated into one tax parcel, the way it is now. It does not have road frontage to do anything on the lot. A variance is needed for any time of single family or two - family home construction. The applicant is looking to subdivide it into two lots, which will, as you said, require more variances along with the road frontage. Mr. Moore — Excuse me, but the property next door uses this road that is not a City road and they got a variance to build next to and almost on the property line of the subdevelopment in question that we are proposing. That road is used by the neighbor on 219 and back in the day, 25 feet of this property was deeded back to the Town of Ithaca because the Town said they were going to put in a road. The Town never put in a road. The property was compromised by 25 feet of frontage for over 30 years. There is still not a road there today. We want to use the existing road that the neighbor uses now to enter her driveway, extend our own road to access these two lots in the subdivision. Our proposed road would have 18 inches of crushed limestone with a 3 inch top that we would be willing to provide wide enough for emergency access as is 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED stated in the preliminary resolution. A couple of the things in question was one of the frontages on 220 was 59.9 feet with a 60 foot requirement. So it only misses it by 3 inches. We are hoping the Zoning Board of Appeals will waive the deck. But to consider that this was once or is or may in fact be a grand fathered two - parcel lot and if it is grand fathered then our access is really, according to the old map, 49 feet which is probably not much more than the neighbor has and her grand fathered clause that they built on. We are just looking to cooperate with the Town and give the Town what they want and to access these locked up properties and to put some money in the City pot for taxes and building instead of raising everybody else's property taxes 26 %, maybe we could get some more people in here paying taxes and that will ease everybody's pockets a little bit. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Lets start out by not confusing the City and the Town. This is in the Town. This is not a City street; it is a Town street. Anyway, it sounds as if you are not sure if the parcel is one or two. Mr. Kanter — We are sure it is one parcel now and that is why it had to come in for subdivision approval. Mr. Moore — Anyways, what I said was that I was referring to the old subdivision as it was. Maybe Mr. Jonathan Kanter is sure, but I haven't seen anything since 1972 that says if you consolidate your tax bill where it changes your subdivision. I don't know what the rules were in 1972 when the tax was consolidated. So anyways, besides all that, we are trying to conform to the way the rules are now. I think we have made a pretty decent proposal for that. Mr. Kanter — I will clarify. If you want to know what the rules say now, you look at our subdivision regulations, which say if you consolidate two previously existing lots they become one lot. Then, if you want to resubdivide them they have to come back through the subdivision process. That is in our subdivision regulations. Board Member Mitrano — That is what they are doing here, right? Mr. Moore — My question was what were they in 1972? Mr. Kanter — I wasn't here in 1972. 1 don't know. Mr. Moore — That should be the law that is upheld is when it was changed. Not today's law. Mr. Kanter — That is not correct. Mr. Moore — And where is the letter that said it changed? Board Member Mitrano — I assume that is what we are doing tonight. Is that correct? El PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Kanter — That is exactly why we are here tonight. Board Member Mitrano — We are separating. That is all the motion is. We are on your side. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — The problem is even where you have tried very hard; there are still some shortcomings in these two parcels. I guess I didn't quite understand that in parcel 2, what the problem was. It had something to do with how the distance is measured from the road and to the back line. Mr. Smith — That is what the variance would need. It needs to have 120 feet in lot depth, but it depends upon where you measure it from and where the road is considered because you have to measure perpendicular from the road. So if you measured from the longest point from where Pennsylvania Ave is going back, you don't have 120 feet. If you measured at the point corner between the Kendall Ave and the Pennsylvania Ave you have 140 feet in the back. I wasn't clear on where to measure from to get the dimension. I was not sure if it would require a variance. Mr. Moore — One side is plenty and the other side is shy of not enough. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well, I think I need some guidance from staff. Attorney Barney — It is not a public road at this point, as I understand it. It is a private road. Mr. Moore — It should have been a public road. Attorney Barney — What should have been and what happened are two different things. We are looking at a subdivision, as I recall, that was done back in 1902 or 1903. It is a very old subdivision, which has obviously quite a bit different requirements 100 years ago than we have today. Mr. Moore — I'm pretty sure the lands of the 25 feet were deeded back not too long ago. If you are using 1902 as a reference, I think it was deeded back in 1972 or 1963 as the earliest. Attorney Barney — What 25 feet are you talking about? Mr. Moore — Twenty -five feet of this property that originally was road frontage that belonged to Mr. Bonnani and it had to be deeded to the Town because the Town insisted they were going to build a road there. Louis Bonanni Jr, 148 Coddington Road Mr. Bonanni — I own the property. What he is referring to as road frontage was already confiscated from that lot. It should have been probably before they took 145 feet depth, 6i PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED 50 feet frontage and then the rest of the dimension on the second lot, before my father doubled the lot. Attorney Barney — What was taken from what lot? Was there something taken from parcel one? Mr. Bonanni — The 25 foot road frontage was already appropriated to the Town for the road on each side of those lots, my side and Martin's side and so forth. When they came in front of the board about 15 or 20 years ago, you were sitting there sir and we were discussing about an issue relating to a building on the lot as it is today without subdividing it. They indicated that I could build two individual buildings with two apartments on said lot. They said nothing about grand fathering or losing grandfathering or anything of the sort. In addition to that, they refused to put in the road and stated that they would deed me back the 25 -foot frontage that was allotted to... Attorney Barney — What you are trying to tell me that I said 15 years ago may or may not be so because I can't remember what I said yesterday quite frankly. My problem is I need to know what it is you are talking about today on this map. We have rules that apply today that my not have applied 15 years ago. Mr. Bonanni — I agree with that whole - heartedly. Attorney Barney — Could you just answer my question? On parcel one, was there something taken to make parcel one the size it is now? Mr. Bonanni — No. Attorney Barney — What is the 25 feet you are talking about with respect to the Town? Mr. Bonanni — From the edge of my line to the center of the road is 25 feet. Attorney Barney — Kendall Avenue? Mr. Bonanni - The center of Kendall Ave over as well as from Pennsylvania Ave over to lot 221 and 222. There is no road there, sir. Do you follow me? Had they put a road in there, the road would be right up to my property line. The 25 feet would have been deeded back to me. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — We have established that it is one lot. The 25 feet is standard for setback. Mr. Walker — The road right -of -way, the property lines here show 50 feet for road space. The subdivision was created and I'm sure the intent was to have a town road all through that area, but it was never built so the Town has never accepted it. The lots that were created left a space for the right -of -way. There has been a lot of discussion about who owns that land with other landowners in that area. Pennsylvania Avenue is the same 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED situation. At one point, we probably, 10 or 12 years ago when we built the trail for South Hill Recreation Way, we were looking at ... with the landowners there, there was some thoughts about continuing Kendall Avenue and finishing Pennsylvania Avenue, but that met with a lot of opposition from some of the landowners there. There was also a thought that Kendall Avenue could be brought around to Juniper Drive. The subdivision was back around 1970 or 1975. 1 remember seeing a map that showed the parcel to the south being developed and having Kendall Avenue being extended and also a road coming down from Juniper Drive. That changed. I think the City owns the large parcel now. I believe what the 25 foot reference is probably meant to, if there is a Town road and it is ever abandon, which I don't think there ever was a Town road so we can't be abandoning it if it wasn't there. The lands that would have been part of that town road would have gone from the centerline of the road to the property owner on either side of the road. So that is where a 25 -foot strip of land, if the Town abandoned that land, would then become part of the parcel that it was adjacent to. Attorney Barney can correct me. Attorney Barney — No, that's correct. Mr. Walker - When the subdivision was created there was a 50 -foot right -of -way for a future road. Attorney Barney — There was quite a bit of discussion, maybe 15 years ago, about the neighborhood wanting to have it turned into a road. There was some discussion about how we might be able to do it. It never went anywhere. We talked about getting quick claim deeds from everybody along the road and that sort of stuff. Quite frankly, it petered out and nothing ever happened. I think there was also the issue of who was going to bear the expense of making it a road. Mr. Moore — Where the line was on Kendall Ave, the request was just to go to the end of Kendall Ave meaning Pennsylvania. We are talking a matter of a couple hundred feet perhaps, maybe 300 feet at the most. They did not want to do that as well. The proposal was to continue Kendall Ave down to where it meets Pennsylvania Ave and then there was a section that I saw on another map that I don't have available to me right now going over and connecting up with Juniper. Pennsylvania Ave was going to go up to the Coddington Road. They were going to have that all connected for development. They failed to do that because there was a property right on the line and that was where the problem was. So they canned the idea. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — What is the status on most of Kendall Avenue? Is it a Town road or is it a private road? Mr. Walker — It is a Town road up to lot 217. There is a house with a white roof on it. You can see that the driveway is just at the end of the road. The westerly boundary of that lot is officially where the road ends. It is my recollection of what has been paved and maintained by the Town. The driveway into the white house and the house located 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED in the parcel adjacent to these parcels is privately maintained. It has been kind of headache because we don't have any place to put snow and stuff. Mr. Kanter — There is not a turn around spot. Mr. Walker — The snow plows use parts of those driveways to turn around. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Was that road built by a developer at some point? Mr. Walker — Kendall Avenue over the years has been maintained by the Town up to the driveway of the white roofed house. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Right, but who built it? Mr. Walker — Construction started around the turn of the century. It was probably a dirt, gravel road for a long time and then the Town started surface treating it. Attorney Barney — Did lacovelli extend it a little bit? Mr. Moore — It was way before him that they had it paved all the way up to presently where Martin lives. Attorney Barney — This has been a problem since I have been involved with the Town because the road was never official conveyed. The owner was an outfit called the Ithaca Land Company. No one knows whatever happened to Ithaca Land Company. I believe it is a 1902 subdivision. The road, I think, to the extent that it was improved and added to was something done by the Town in little bits of pieces along the way for one reason or another. It has surfaced as more of a problem as more of these lots are attempted to be developed. We lack the title to land to even build a road. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Typically what happens in a development is that the developer builds the road to the Town's specifications. Then when it is done the Town may take it over. Mr. Bonnani — It would not be much of a road. We are talking my property to probably 200 feet, which I don't think is too bad. Attorney Barney — Am I hearing you say that you are willing to build the road? Mr. Bonnani — I guess we are going to have to; otherwise we are at an impasse. I am not here to argue with anyone. I'm hopeful we can just get along and agree on something. Mr. Moore — We wanted to build a road that is at least as comparable as the road that is there. I don't think that is really defined to the specs of the engineered or regulation road or street. What I proposed was 18 inches of crushed limestone, 3 inches of top E: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED and bon rolled. It would be like a driveway, but better. It would be better than the road that is there probably. Mr. Walker — Our Town road specs are basically 12 inches of gravel, 6 inches of crushed limestone, and then 3 inches of binder and then 1.5 inches of top. What you are talking about is pretty close to that. It appears on the tax map that the end of the road that they indicate as paved, which is across from Martins' property. I think there would probably be a legal challenge if we attempted to build a Town road there, probably by Mr. Martin. I would propose to make this best ... we continue the road...I would recommend before we approve any more building in that area is to continue the road with an appropriate cul -de -sac turn around that the Town Highway Superintendent approves in the Pennsylvania right -of -way of that. Then I would feel comfortable that all those lots would have good access. We do have a sewer line that extends out to Kendall Avenue. We have an easement on part of that for a sewer line and the water line also extends out. Then the sewer lines come down Pennsylvania Avenue. Attorney Barney — In the photograph there appears to be some sort of shed or something just to west of the last house. It looks like a big stone. Mr. Walker — That may be a big piece of concrete. We put some big pieces of concrete and stuff in there to keep people from driving back in because when we opened up and cleared the South Hill Trail we had a lot of activity. The current property owner said they did not want them in there. So we put some physical barriers in there. Mr. Moore — I would like to propose to bring that road from lot 219 to access that property. I don't see where we should be required to build it across 4 other city lots at our own expense. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Town lots. Mr. Moore — Town lots. Lot 219 uses the road now and if we built what I am proposing to the Town Engineer from that point to our parcel, we could probably afford to extend the cul -de -sac. If the Town would accept the bridging of the 4 other properties or just let us use what is already being used by lot 219 and then build the road from there to our parcels with a cul -de -sac for the Town. Mr. Walker — I could not recommend accepting any part of that road to the Town Board unless it is built to Town standards. We would have to maintain that and have access to keep it open. There is liability to keep it open. I think that whole road would have to be completed. I cannot recommend that the Town contribute anything to that construction at this time. Mr. Smith — The access down to 219 is just a very narrow driveway. Mr. Walker — It is very narrow and it doesn't meet anywhere near our specs. It would have to be completely rebuilt. X PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Talty — How did that occur? How did these houses have that access when the road ended there? Why are they being allowed to drive on to that? Mr. Walker — That is a very good question. The Zoning Board granted variances. Attorney Barney — Lot 219 probably has what we call a Section 280 -a variance. It is a variance that allows you to construct off a public road if you have access with at least 15 feet and meet some other criteria. My guess is that is what happened here. I don't recall. Board Member Talty — Really, the applicant can go and ask for that same variance. Is that correct? Mr. Kanter — For his current lot, yes. Board Member Talty — So what you really need to know is that is it "a" you can go for that variance the same way that these folks did or "b" work with the Town Engineer and staff and see if you can get a more permanent type of road. Right? Mr. Walker — I believe the Highway Superintendent and the Engineering staff's recommendation was not to grant that variance unless the road was constructed. I believe people claim some form of hardship because they own the lot or they might have started the house without a building permit. I don't remember what the case was on that one. We made recommendation not to accept it. It was probably recorded in the record that we are not recommending any other construction back there until the road was built. Board Member Howe — Is it the Town Board that would make the decision whether to extend the Town Road? Mr. Walker — The Town Board would have to make that decision. Board Member Talty — Where does that leave us at this point right now? Attorney Barney — It all depends upon what conditions you want to impose if you are in the mode to approve the subdivision. There are several things you can do. You can deny it because there is not road access. The lot shown at the present time does not front on a public road. You could grant it conditional on a road being constructed roughly the point that Dan has indicated or you could grant it conditional on the road being constructed, but leave to the developer, the Town staff and Town Board to work out who is going to pay for it. What I hear from Dan, the likelihood is that it is not going to go too far, which means your subdivision won't go too far. Or, I suppose, you could grant a subdivision conditional on them getting a 280a variance from the ZBA. It is the board's decision, but what Dan recommends and I would say the vast majority of cases the recommendation of staff is given a great deal of consideration. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I assume that a road constructed to Town specifications would take care of the need to have emergency access. Mr. Walker — Oh, yes. It would be big enough for us to maintain it and for the fire department to have access. Attorney Barney — Are we comfortable with extending the cul -de -sac way beyond the 1,000 feet? Mr. Walker — We are way beyond the 1,000 feet for Kendall Avenue. We are really pushing it right now. I couldn't recommend in good conscience any possible increase in density or numbers down there. I mean building a house on the existing lot I suppose could be considered a hardship because somebody owns the lot and they need to get something out of it. But putting in four units down there, I ... well that is the Zoning Board to make a decision on hardship. Mr. Kanter — I think the only saving factor in terms of a further extension of this hugely long dead end road is the fact that you could accomplish a better turn around area than we have now. That would probably be worth quite a bit for the Town. Board Member Talty — Well, it sounds to me as if the applicant is willing to do almost whatever it takes. It looks as though with the specifications of the road that you want to put in are not too far away from what the Town mandates. I'm sure if you work with staff, you could come to some sort of solution. Mr. Moore — I don't think we have the funds to extend the road 1,000 feet. We were thinking a couple hundred. Mr. Walker — It is about 300 feet that you would have to extend it. Mr. Moore — If there is some kind of matching fund or grant or something because we are opening up these other properties for people to build and pay school tax and that must have something to do with the Town doesn't it? School tax? I think it is an asset to have that road in there. Attorney Barney — It probably is, but maybe the people you ought to be talking to are the people who have those lots that would benefit from it rather than the Town. The Town is not really, for the reasons I indicated, we would like to get the turn around for snow plowing but this is a stretch. Under normal circumstances I don't think they would even consider the extension of the road because we are well beyond ... we have a rule that basically says you go 1200 feet to the cul -de -sac and then you must have a secondary means of getting in there. We don't want more than 1200 foot of road to be inaccessible without another way. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Kanter — For the reasons that Dan mentioned, it seems very unlikely that the Pennsylvania Avenue part of it would extend through Kendall Avenue at this point. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — One of my concerns after I was up there and saw the houses in this neighborhood, it is clear that there are still some single family, owner occupied houses. There are an awful lot of them, especially towards this end that are big houses with large parking lots with room for 20 cars. It is clear as Mike already told us, there are students living there. I think it is fine to provide housing for students, but we have to make sure it is safe housing and we don't have the type of problems that could occur if there was a fire for instance and the access wasn't available. The rules right now are that a cul -de -sac road shouldn't be more than 1,000 and this is 2,500 already and this is with an additional extension. It doesn't sound too good to me. That concerns me. They are asking to divide the parcel and have a house on each parcel. It is worrisome. How do most of you feel about allowing the subdivision to begin and to allow two, two family houses rather than allowing just one, two family house? Board Member Talty — I think I like John Barney's suggestion on choice b. Right now it is like a dead end anyway. I don't see an issue with extending it when it is already that way anyway. A few minutes of discussion is missing due to tape distortion. Mr. Moore — If they do develop where the road stops, what is going to happen about that driveway and those people at 193 Kendall Avenue? Attorney Barney — They are going to have access on a public road. Mr. Moore — We would not have a problem with them doing that, would we? Attorney Barney — I would say no. I can't guarantee that because of the title to this road, Kendall Avenue, is somewhere in limbo. I think we could take the position that the subdivision map legally is an offer by the subdivider to convey a road to the Town. Granted this offer was made in 1902 and the Town hasn't taken advantage of it. I don't think they have any greater right to it than you do because they don't have the title to it either. Kendall Avenue has been treated in large part as a public road down to this point. I don't know how somebody could claim that the rest of it is not legally subdivided. As a title attorney, I would be much more comfortable getting quick claim deeds from everybody along the road for their piece. I suspect some people would be reluctant to do so. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Everyone is comfortable with this option "b" from John Barney? Could you say that again, John? 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Attorney Barney — It would be granting subdivision approval subject to the condition that the road be extended from the end of its current pavement down to the paper road of Pennsylvania Avenue with a turn around acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent with the construction done to Town standards. The Town Board would also have to accept the road. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Was there anything from the other possible alternatives? know that you might have mentioned something, too, that we had to be aware of as we were talking about this. Mr. Moore — I have a question. Without the subdivision, is it not possible to build one two - family home on this as is? Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — You would need one variance to do that. Attorney Barney — That would be the road variance, the 280a. Right now you are going on a paper road, but not a public road. Mr. Moore — The other variance is if it is two parcels, you need one more variance to access the other parcel. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — You need two additional variances. Attorney Barney — You need a variance because your frontage is slightly short of what you need and parcel two does not meet the depth required. Mr. Moore — It depends on where you pull your measuring tape. Attorney Barney — It is generally perpendicular from the highway. Mr. Kanter — Well, actually that is interesting because parcel 2 would actually become quite deficient in terms of the actual road frontage depending on where the cul -de -sac was built. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So there would be two additional variances and possibly still another one. Mr. Smith — There would also be another variance in parcel 1 for the 75 feet at the setback line. It only has approximately 66 feet where it needs 75 feet. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann read the memo from Mike Smith that was included in the board's packet. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — We are still discussing it all, but what we are trying to get to first is the environmental quality review resolution. Lets take everything that we need 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED to think about, but also other things because if there is some big stumbling block why go through environmental review. Attorney Barney — We have taken the position with environmental review if the board is going to turn down the application, since you are not acting and your not approving, we have taken the position to not even deal with the environmental review. Quite frankly, from the lawsuit standpoint it is the desirable way to be doing it. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I get the impression that most of you feel that it would be all right to go ahead and do the subdivision. Board Member Talty — Yes. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — You are not interested in denying it. I'm not either, although I do have some concern about the density of the development. Not only because of the concerns about the safety of the people living there, but also because it is close to the Six Mile Creek area and there has already been a lot of misbehavior around the trails there. Board Member Howe — Does this area change in the new zoning at all? viM:►C.7 Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — What is the situation with the Town Park that I thought was going to be built on Juniper Drive? Mr. Walker — Its there. We have already vandalism and noise complaints. Mr. Kanter — It is pretty easy access from this area by the Recreation Way. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So this wooded area at the bottom of the page is the park. Board Member Howe — So if we are inclined to move forward with plan "b ", we should address SEAR? Attorney Barney — Yes. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Is anybody ready to move the resolution? Board Member Mitrano — I'll move it. Board Member Howe — I'll second it. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — All in favor say aye. 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board — Aye. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -088 — SEQR, Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Ponchalek 2 -Lot Subdivision, End of Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54 -4 -15 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at the end of Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -4 -15, Residence District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.437 +/- acre parcel into two lots for construction of a two - family dwelling on each lot. Anthony Ponchalek, Owner /Applicant, and 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 October 21, 2003, has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a map entitled, "Boundary Survey of Lands to be Conveyed to Anthony Ponchalek'; prepared by Paul B. Koerts, dated July 25, 2003 and revised August 27, 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: Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at the end of Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -4 -15, Residence District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.437 +/- acre parcel into two lots for construction of a two - family dwelling on each lot. Anthony Ponchalek, Owner /Applicant. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Rosair Karij, 193 Kendall Avenue Ms. Karij read from a prepared statement and submitted her comments. Bob Martin, 180 Kendall Avenue Mr. Martin — Basically, I have no personal things against the builders. What I am worried about is a lot of what she just got done telling you. I am sick and tired of rebuilding my mailbox, fence, and urination on my property, bare -naked volleyball and games, hundreds of students at parties in that beautiful park. I don't think a weekend has gone by this year that we could actually sleep without turning on the air conditioning or putting the windows down because of the noise. I am not against any family home in the area. I would love to have a family home next to me. But the point of the student housing is getting so outrageous that it has to be stopped sometime. It has really ruined everything. I own the three last lots on Pennsylvania Avenue. They are next to the watershed. I would love to just keep them like that environmentally. I also own four or five more lots on Pennsylvania Avenue and I own two or three lots right up to then end of Kendall Avenue. The area is beautiful. When you put students there on a road that you cannot pass at the moment. If a car is coming, that car would have to go off the road to allow the other car to come through. The expense to the Town would be enormous. So I am asking if they would like to put a family home there, no objections. But, please stop the student population from ruining that area. That is all I have to say and thank you very much. Jeff Burness, 185 Kendall Avenue Mr. Burness — I am the house with the white roof. I have owned my home for 11 years. There are only at the present time left at that end of the road three single - family homes. You are speaking to the third one tonight. I have replaced my mailbox three times. I have had my fence smashed into. I have had trees taken down due to the student population. I do not mind having any single - family dwelling built. I would love to have neighbors like that, but watching the neighborhood go in the 11 years from family homes being sold going down that way. It has to be stopped. The road in front of mine is dirt. It has big ruts in it. It is my problem going in and out of my driveway. I have to deal with that. Extending the road would help in that aspect if that is the avenue that we are looking at, but it is a narrow path. I wouldn't even call it a road. Going into her house at 193 Kendall Ave, is a path that her car goes into. The road ends where my driveway begins. I am opposed to this in the sense of the students and the amount of traffic that is going to increase in that area. Thanks. MO PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Jutta lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Avenue Ms. lacovelli — I am here just like everyone else to oppose the addition of these two new houses in our neighborhood. We are already overpopulated. There are too many houses. Again, too many students. We know that with these two new houses coming in, it means more students moving to the neighborhood. It means more traffic. It means more speeding up and down the street. It means more cars parked up and down the street, louder drunken out of control parties that we have already been dealing with this year. It has been intolerable in our neighborhood. It means more work for the police department to answer more calls to come and break up these parties. It means more property destruction. Again, the mailboxes, the fences, the trash thrown in the neighborhood after these parties. We shouldn't really have to live like this. We live here year round as a permanent residence. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay taxes, yet no one listens to us. The community bends over backwards to give these students a break and yet what do they give back to us? Not much as far as I can see, not from our perspective. We wonder doesn't the Town Planning Board or the Ithaca Town Board ... don't you have a responsibility to look out for the good of the neighborhood? From where we sit, living on Kendall and Pennsylvania Ave, we can see no good by adding two more houses where we know that students will be moving in. Legally, that might mean six students per each duplex, but in reality there probably is going to be 12 to 15 students living in each one of these houses because a friend will be staying over night or whatever. So that is 15 additional cars in the neighborhood. am here to ask, like everyone else, please don't allow this. Don't make an intolerable situation even worse by allowing more students to move in the neighborhood and yet more housing to go up. We don't have the room and we can't support it. I don't think the Town can support and the neighborhood can't support it. Thank you. Joe lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Avenue Mr. lacovelli — I would like to describe some of these parties that we have been witnessing this year. There are hundreds of kids that come to these parties. They yell. They scream. They have no respect for other people's property. I have sat on my front steps for three hours watching the kids go up and down the street. They come off the street and use my yard as a toilet with me sitting there. It was incredible to me to witness it this year. Its been the worse it has ever been. This year my wife and myself decided to get a petition and go up and down the street. We had a lot of signatures from our neighbors, a lot that I met for the first time. Some of them are here now. We are here to ask you to not allow any more student housing. You are our only hope. I have had to go to work with 2 hours of sleep because of the previous night's parties. That has happened several times this year. Again, we are here to ask your help to try to alleviate this problem. Board Member Mitrano — Mr. lacovelli, before you go, George Conneman and I were just wondering are any of you folks calling the Sheriff's? Mr. lacovelli — The response this year and last year has been phenomenal. They come in force, but why should we be woken up at 12, 1, 2 o'clock in the morning? Why 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED should that have to happen in our neighborhood? Would you like me to come over in your neighborhood tonight about 1 or 2 o'clock and start screaming at the top of my lungs? I doubt it. Board Member Mitrano — I wasn't challenging your distress. Board Member Conneman — If the Sheriff is called there must be a Sheriff's report that indicates your complaint. Mr. lacovelli — Yes. We have several reports from the Sheriff's Department. They are doing a really good job, but they shouldn't have to come up here. It seems like the kids say lets have a party until the cops come. Okay. They have a party until 1 or 2 o'clock. The police come and they all leave. Now, I have been awake all this time. So I can't say enough about the response of the Sheriff's Department, but it is not really something that I look forward to the weekends any more. I used to look forward to a few days off, but not anymore. It is a nightmare. We had a really great weekend last weekend because it was fall break at Ithaca College. Again, thank you very much. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I sympathize with this problem, too. It's a terrible problem. I am also concerned about what I hear from some of you that there are more people living in each unit than there should be. That is another thing when I see this in my neighborhood, when I see too many cars outside of a house, I get on the phone and I call people about it. Sometimes things happen and the number of students living in a house is cut down to the number it is supposed to. I think that is what one has to do consistently if this happens. I feel, also, like you do Mr. lacovelli that I shouldn't have to do that. I think unless we do that it is just going to continue and get worse. It really is the owner's of the properties that shouldn't rent out to so many people. If we are vigilant about getting on their backs about it, then maybe they will not do it so much. That is it for now. Alfred George, 117 Kendall Avenue Mr. George — I have been a resident for 25 or 28 years. I would like to see this about Kendall and Pennsylvania Avenue; it used to be a family neighborhood. The reason I moved there was that it was a nice place to raise my children. They could ride their bikes up and down the street. It was quiet, but not so anymore. It has changed. As of now, I do not know of one elementary or high school student that lives on Kendall or Pennsylvania Avenue. My thing is this ... we have had enough of student housing on our streets. Thank you for your time. Betty George, 117 Kendall Avenue Mrs. George — I was not prepared to do this and this is just a last minute thing. My husband and I have lived up at Kendall Avenue. We built up there in 1975. We are in our twilight years. We raised two children of own. They are adults now. We are used to noise and we are used to a lot of things. It has been really bad lately. All due respect to you people here, I don't think any of you live on Kendall or Pennsylvania Avenue. I think if you did you would have a different light on this sort of thing. I don't think two M-0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED dead end streets in the Town of Ithaca are both dead end and there is more traffic and speed up there in the last how many years. I don't know what the big attraction is accept for there is a lot of student housing up there. I am a pretty tolerant person. I worked at Ithaca College and I'm used to students, but when you have to live in the middle of all that chaos and destruction of property, it gets to be a little much after a while. We are not at a point where we can move. Financially it is not all that possible at our age. I think if the Town would just consider our problem here with student parties and that sort of thing we just might be able to come to some kind of agreement. Thank you. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I think I will keep the public hearing open just a little bit more. Mr. Moore, you wanted to come back and make some additional statement. Mr. Moore — I just wanted to say that it is not necessarily our intention to rent to students at all. Perhaps we'll rent to a couple of Sheriff's at the end of Kendall Ave and the neighborhood will get a lot safer. I think if that road is widened or has a cul -de -sac, then police can come in and out of there more conveniently. We don't want any property destruction of a large investment anymore than anyone else living on that street. I don't particularly go for the parties and the yelling and I live in a nice neighborhood on Cliff Park Road. I'd like that neighborhood to remain a nice neighborhood or become a nice neighborhood. A lot of the people that spoke, it seems like their issues are with their existing neighbors and we would hope to be a good neighbor on Kendall Ave. We don't plan on building any box piece of property. It would be a small building that would accommodate two families. It is sculpted and would fit into the area with the environment quite nicely I think. I also wanted to mention that if it wasn't for the variances granted to the woman at lot 219, she wouldn't be enjoying the nice area that she is in now. She can only extend the condolences to her future neighbors. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I thought I remembered seeing in these papers that this was supposed to be housing for students. Mr. Moore — It might have been proposed because that is the area, but not necessarily. We don't' have to rent to students if we mention that would be one of the uses. We are still able to rent to anybody else, aren't we not? Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I suppose you are, but if you had stated, which I thought you did, I don't know where it is right now in the papers that you were planning to build and rent to students then we would have to take that into consideration. It just mentions a two family home. It doesn't say anything about students that I know of. Mr. Smith — It just says two family home. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I don't know where I got that. Mr. Kanter — I had mentioned this to Eva before the meeting briefly, but there is a particular provision in the R -9 district that allows by special permit through the board of 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED appeals for more than the normal number of occupants to legally occupy these buildings. That has actually happened in a number of houses along Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenue where legally an owner can come in, request a special permit and that is where you see the 6, 8, 10 cars in these big parking lots. They are almost entirely student rentals. By nature of the zoning, that could happen regardless of what the current applicant's intent was. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well, that is a problem. Board Member Thayer — Of which we have no control. Board Member Howe — Who grants that? Attorney Barney — BZA. I would say that in most of those instances where there have been more granted it has been in conjunction with an agreement to consolidate a couple of lots together so that you have a large house on two lots than separate lots. Frankly, I don't ever recall if there was ever one where it was a straight two family residence. There may have been one or two over the years, but they are generally a negotiating thing. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So, it sounds as if we are dealing with many more students than we typically do then around town. In this case you can't get on the phone and say that there are too many people living in this house necessarily. Attorney Barney — That is when the special permit is granted. The BZA has granted in the past, but in the large majority of instances where they have granted it, it has been where there are two lots and the builder could build two, two family houses on it and create four units. He comes in and says he will build a one, big two family house if he is allowed to have more than allowed. It is usually a trade off from what legally they would be able to get. Mr. Kanter — I think if I recall, some of those were lots that were substandard R -9 by virtue of the fact that they were from the 1902 subdivision and were much tinier lots. In some cases we might have been able to add three lots together and still not have a very large lot. It is amazing how many lots were approved in that ancient subdivision. Board Member Mitrano — We just did the environmental review. What is the scope of what we can look at there? My specific question is are some of the issues that folks have been raising about the nature of student life in that neighborhood appropriate to assess within the context of the environmental review? Or is that in the context of...? Attorney Barney — Both. Board Member Mitrano — It would be? 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Attorney Barney — If this is new information than you can always go back and reconsider your environmental review decision if you chose to. Board Member Howe — How would we do that? Attorney Barney — Make a motion to reconsider. Board Member Mitrano — I'll make that motion. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — All right. We are reconsidering the State Environmental Review resolution. Attorney Barney — The motion should state that new information has come to light, which you did not have at the time you decided environmental review. You are finding that information relevant, therefore, you want to reconsider the environmental review. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Which of the information did you feel was relevant? Board Member Mitrano — The information regarding the impact that the large student population has in that area on the existing homes and particularly in light of the non- existing road that is worthy of reconsideration. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — All in favor of this reconsideration of the vote say aye. Board — Aye. PB RESOLUTION 2003 -089 - RESCIND PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -088, SEQR, Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Ponchalek 2 -Lot Subdivision, End of Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54 -4 -15 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board rescinds the negative determination made in PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -088 and will reconsider a new Environmental Assessment Form based upon information provided to the board during the Public Hearing on October 21, 2003. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — Do we ordinarily have a discussion before SEAR review? I noticed we didn't tonight. Is that usual? Attorney Barney — You don't normally have a public hearing for SEQR review. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — What he has sometimes done is, Fred has asked for people's comments before the public hearing, but I didn't do that today. Board Member Mitrano — Now I see why he does it. Board Member Conneman — In a sense, all the people who testified at the public hearing could have brought their concerns up at the SEQR. Attorney Barney — No, without the offering as a public hearing, no one has the right to speak. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — The public hearing has been open. I guess I could invite more comments, but I'm not sure that is appropriate since we have now changed our vote on the environmental review. So I think I will close the public hearing at this point (8:35 p.m.) Mr. Moore — Could you explain to me what just happened? Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — We changed our vote on the environmental review. Attorney Barney — You haven't changed your vote. You voted to reconsider. I think the correct term is that you voted to rescind your determination. Mr. Moore — In regards to the land use, or was there some paper that was waived originally... you had said that you waived the environmental review. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — No. We don't waive any environmental review. After we heard the comments during the public hearing, there was new information that we weren't aware of that we decided to take into consideration and therefore, we decided to reconsider our vote. Is that the right word? Attorney Barney — I think actually you probably want the vote to rescind the negative determination that you made and reconsider the environmental review. Board Member Mitrano — Now I guess the question is maybe just opening it up because now we have to vote on the SEQR again. So if someone wants to mention anything then we'll take that into consideration and make our determination. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — This is getting very confusing. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Attorney Barney — You have heard the information. I don't think you need to have everyone come up and say what they just said. Now, if your inclination is not to approve it, then you can skip SEAR. Board Member Mitrano — I'll go with that. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — You have to help me here. I don't know where I'm going next. Attorney Barney — The statute involving the State Environmental Quality Review Acts says that before a board can act upon or approve a matter, before you take action upon or approve a matter you have to consider the environmental relevance. If you were are choosing to vote against it, you are not acting and you are not approving and you are not funding, so basically you are not taking action subject to SEQR. The other problem with going ahead with SEQR, if your choice is to find a positive or a significant environmental problem, do you stop the process at that point and the developer has to go out and do an environmental impact statement in those areas that you think there is a problem with. If you are only not going to pass the thing after the final analysis, then it might be wiser not to vote on SEQR. On the other hand, if you think there are possibilities that after the Environmental Impact Statement that people want to precede the vote then you can certainly vote for a positive declaration of environmental significance. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — That doesn't seem the best way here. I guess what we are doing is we are indicating that the subdivision with all that entails is not what we would like to see. It doesn't mean that the developer can't do anything with this piece of land because they can build a two family house there with one variance needed. So it is not as if we are creating an impossible situation. Mr. Kanter — It is also possible that it could go to the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board could condition a variance on only one family occupying the house because of the access problem. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Okay. So what do I have to do? Attorney Barney — Well, you have a choice. If the sense of the board is not to approve the subdivision, then I would recommend that be put to a vote in the form of a motion. If it is the will of the board that you are willing to approve the subdivision, then I think you need to deal with if there is a significant environmental impact that needs to be studies. Board Member Howe — I think there is further study on looking at the impact of a neighborhood if there were to be two, two family units on each lot. I'm not saying would never approve a subdivision, but I think there is further research on the environmental issue. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — It is very unusual for us to take that position. The applicant can withdraw their application. What it sounds like ... we don't know the whole scope of what the impact of the student population is on that land. Board Member Talty — I do remember two weeks ago Fred Wilcox specifically stating that he would not utilize an environmental impact statement in putting that developer through all the expense if we're not going to vote in a positive nature anyway. I feel as though that is very close to what is happening today as what happened two weeks ago. I think that is precedent setting what happened two weeks ago. Board Member Mitrano — I disagree with that. I think what Fred was saying is that he did not want us to use, which I agree with him, the environmental impact as a way to take a proposal that we didn't like. I think truly we are on the substance on what an environmental impact statement is all about here. We do not know the full impact, environmentally, of the student population on this area and until we do, I am unable to move forward and consider the entire proposal. Board Member Talty — There was also, if I'm not mistaken, a verbal vote amongst the board on if this were to proceed and we did enact an environmental impact statement that we would not turn around and put the developer through all that cost. I see something very similar to that. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to environmental impact statement, I'm just saying that I don't want the developer to spin his wheels and go through all that unnecessary aggravation, details and expense if we are going to tank it. I think there is enough information here to guide us in a general proximity to where we are leaning. I think that by mandating the developer to do that is not necessarily in everyone's best interest. It might very well be, but I just feel it is fairly close in my eyes what happened two weeks ago is happening again tonight. That is my opinion. Attorney Barney — The question is, are there four of you who are presently of the mind that you can't conceive of anything coming up in an environmental impact study that would convince you to approve the subdivision. If that is the case, I suggest you make a motion to deny it and get it over with for the reasons that you indicated. If, on the other hand, four of you or more feel that you really are not sure whether you should or should not deny this subdivision, but think you would be able to make a better decision or have more information about it, and you feel that this particular problem is a significant environmental affect, then your duty is to say that in a motion and vote on it and start the environmental impact statement. I agree 100% with what Fred said. If the board is in the mind to turn it down, don't put the developer through the expense of having to put together an environmental impact statement just to turn it down again, it is better to say upfront and save everybody the headache and the cost. I don't sense from what you are saying that that is necessarily how you feel. Board Member Mitrano — And my evidence is that until I heard the information about the student environment, I was prepared to move forward in something that would work for the applicant. I am hardly suggesting that this is a pretext not to allow the proposal. I am simply at a place where I need more information before I can. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Attorney Barney — One question I would ask is what information might develop that would... Board Member Howe — It is probably C2 that we are talking about, right? Where it talks about neighborhood character. Mr. Kanter — That is one of the most difficult areas for an environmental impact statement to address. You could go through that whole process and I'm not quite sure what information you would end up that would really help you much more than what you heard tonight. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — That is my concern, too. I must say based on what I heard tonight, not only from the members of the audience... but thanks for brining it up again, Jonathan, about the specific characteristics of the R -9 zone and being able to have more students per unit there after applying to do it than in other parts and other zoning areas. After having heard year after year after year complaints from other neighborhoods around Ithaca College about the problems that they have with students... though I must say in this neighborhood it sounds excessive. I don't feel I need any more information. I think that a study would not give me very much more. I feel already at this point that I would not want to approve this subdivision that would allow two houses, which might be rented to students. I know that it can be developed with one house. Board Member Thayer — It seems to me that it goes back to the root issue, basically. Mr. Walker — The subdivision that you are being asked to approve is creating two non- conforming lots. I'm not on the Planning Board, but in my mind the board's first purpose for subdivision is to make sure that the lots conform unless there is real special mitigating. Board Member Thayer — That is where I was going. We can't approve anything that is not up to standards. The road is not up to standards. Mr. Walker — The lot size isn't even up to standards. Board Member Thayer — Exactly. That seems to me that it would make it rather easy. Board Member Mitrano — Given the history of the neighborhood, I was willing to let that go. If this were a brand new development, I would feel very differently about it. Mr. Walker — The last two projects that we've had in front of this Planning Board that involve subdivisions, actually combined three lots and created two lots to make larger lots. As has been mentioned today, a lot of the construction there is created on double lots because the smaller lots did not conform because they need a 75 foot wide lot and they are all 60 foot wide lots up there. 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Howe — The lots don't bother me. I see us going to maybe eventually there being two lots there, but a one family home on each. Board Member Mitrano — I would be in favor of that. Mr. Walker — You will have very small lot lines from the corners of the buildings because of the small triangular lots. Board Member Talty - I really like what Dan said. We should go back to the nuts and bolts. I would like to say if and when you get the specs down and this is to the developer, it was fairly recent that a developer came in here and there were folks like yourselves that came in and indicated the same things ... and the developers came back with a plan that was not contusive to have students in the house. That seemed to be fairly acceptable. If and when we get the nuts and bolts straightened out on what we are supposed to vote on tonight, you may want to look at that type of architectural plan that would not be contusive to student housing and more contusive to family. Board Member Conneman — Are you suggesting, Kevin, that they build one big beautiful one family home that that would be okay? Board Member Talty — Yeah. I don't remember the developer off the top of my head, but he came in here and he said okay. He altered his plans so students wouldn't want to live in there. Mr. Kanter — I think you are talking about Auble's Holly Creek. One difference, Kevin, is that that was a multiple family apartment development that had to go through site plan review where floor plans and building plans are typically part of that process. Not that it can't be, but it typically is not part of subdivision. Board Member Talty — Well, I'm thinking we can have a happy marriage here if and when. Mr. Kanter — The board could certainly ask for submission of those kinds of plans in order to move ahead with that kind of approval. We have the authority to do that. Board Member Mitrano — I would be happy to move forward with whatever combination of things would be appropriate such that it ends up being requested single variance for a single family home. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Did we have the option here? Attorney Barney — Denying it accomplishes that. You are basically saying no subdivision. Then they can go for the 280a variance to build on the lot. K1: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — That is what I was thinking. I wanted to get a feeling for if there was anybody else that would go along with my feelings that way ... that we actually deny this subdivision and the developer would still have the option of developing a single family home. Board Member Mitrano — You have my vote, Eva. Board Member Howe — What if they came back with a proposal to subdivide if they were willing to do the road and one house on each lot? Does it preclude them from coming back? Board Member Thayer — Again, the road has to be built. Board Member Howe — Right. That would be part of the condition. Attorney Barney — It would not preclude that. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — It sounds like we have enough people to... Mr. Kanter — I think to do that also, the applicant would also have to be willing to voluntarily agree to deed restrictions to that affect as well. I don't think it is typical in a subdivision to dictate occupancy. There are cases in cluster where we have done that, but I don't see any authority to do that. Attorney Barney — I think under the State law you can condition your approval and impose such a condition. Mr. Kanter — I know it has been done with variances. I don't think I've ever seen it done with a subdivision. Mr. Moore — Is it possible to build two, one family homes there? Is that what you are saying if the road was in as we had discussed earlier? So what you don't want to see is two, two family homes but it is okay to get two buildings, hopefully, if we get the variances for somebody to slide that 3 inches over so that it becomes 60 instead of 59 -9 and some bedroom plan that is acceptable to the board. Is that okay? We need to get moving on something. We are not rich people. We are doing what we went to school for. We are trying to do a bit of construction. I lived in the area all my life and so hasn't Tony. We've got a chance to make a nice building here on this land. It would bring up the value of the property. I think it would secure that end of the Town with somebody that has an investment down there that doesn't want their mailboxes knocked over either. Board Member Mitrano — Would it be possible for the applicant to withdraw his application this evening and then come back flushed out in this direction and we could consider it fresh? 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Attorney Barney — Sure. Mr. Moore — So much times goes by. We were hoping to get on the ground with something so we can have it mortgageable by winter. Our incomes depend on it. Board Member Mitrano — I understand that. Mr. Moore — We've already been through push and pull and push and pull just to submit an application here for 5 months. Finally, we get our day in court and people that have issues with their neighbors now not their future neighbors are winning the day. Board Member Talty — As it stands right now, it is not up to spec. We can't or we won't take a vote because it is not up to spec right now. Is that correct? Board Member Mitrano — We can vote, but we will deny it. So if you want to have a happier resolution this evening, simply withdraw. Go back, redo your plans, resubmit them here and we will reconsider it. Mr. Moore — So... Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — And look at your plans keeping in mind what you as well as we heard tonight from the other residents in the area. Mr. Moore — I invite this bedroom plan that is discouraging student rental to incorporate that into the buildings that we proposed. I'd still like to go ahead if possible with two, two family units and this discouraged bedroom plan with the requirements that maybe the map redrawn a fifth time trying to get these frontages right. In fact, I would invite a proposed map by the Planning Board to see how they can construe such a diagram that would accommodate. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I think if you go ahead with two, two family homes on subdivided lots that you are taking a chance of it being voted down. Board Member Mitrano — I agree. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Because that is what we would do tonight. Board Member Mitrano — Right. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — You can choose to withdraw this proposal and come back with something else that is more like two, one family homes or one, one family home. Mr. Kanter — Then he doesn't have to come back here. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — That's right. 4: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Conneman — That might be very attractive. If everyone says that this neighborhood is so attractive, I would think that you would be able to sell one, one family home that would be spectacular. It is a nice area. Mr. Moore — And perhaps later get the map redrawn to have another lot. Is that possible? Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I'm sorry, but I don't think we can sit here and decide this tonight based on loose ideas. Attorney Barney — I think this board would possibly favorably entertain an application to subdivide the two lots provided no more than a single family house was placed on each lot. That is what I'm hearing. Board Member Mitrano — That's correct. Attorney Barney — That is not what you have presented in the proposal. I think rather than have this board adopt a resolution conditional upon it being a single family; we need to take a look what it is you want to do. I think staff understands what this board is asking and they are very helpful and can probably fit you on the agenda as soon as possible. Mr. Moore — See, I was told if there was 9,000 square feet of frontage then we could have a two family home. Attorney Barney — Technically, under the statute that covers R -9 zones that is correct. But you are not on a public road, so you have a different situation than the statute. The question is how do you eliminate the problem not being on a public road and the problems of the multiplicity of people living in a two family house. I think the board has made it clear that they are a little uncomfortable based on what folks have talked to them about. I would suggest that you withdraw. If you don't want to withdraw, then we can take a vote taking an action. If we take an action turning it down, you can come back and start all over again. My guess is that you are going to get a denial. Sometimes it is a little better to take a withdrawal and come back with a proposal than to be turned down, but that is your call. Mr. Kanter — I would add that with two single - family houses, the road issue still has to be ratified. Mr. Moore — Well, for a single - family house, would we need to build the road as we proposed with a cul -de -sac? Everyone else seems to use a simpler road for their single - family houses. Attorney Barney — If you were coming in and not subdividing, I would probably strongly recommend to the ZBA that you could build a single family home on this lot ... one single family house and one lot. When you start creating more lots, you are creating more 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED traffic. We can't deny you a reasonable economic return on your property and we don't want to. On the other hand, we don't have to create a situation where because of a greater profit; we have a problem with greater traffic and a problem with a very substandard means of access to the property. I think your choices are pretty well laid out. I think you want to go back and rethink them. The question is do you want to withdraw or for the board to vote. Mr. Moore — We will withdraw. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Thank you and thank you all for coming and speaking up. AGENDA ITEM: Presentation and discussion of Tompkins County Agricultural District #1 8 -year review, Deborah L. Teeter, Extension Community Educator, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this segment of the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Deborah L. Teeter, Tompkins County Cooperative Extension Ms. Teeter — We are in the beginning stages of the 8 -year review plan of agricultural district #1. The Town of Ithaca is one of two towns in Tompkins County, which has land in both agricultural districts, so we were here four years ago when we reviewed Ag district 2. As you can see, Agricultural District 1 has much land in the Town of Ithaca than Ag District 2. 1 suspect this will be very brief. This is an opportunity for us to take a snap shot of agricultural in the county for the state and for ourselves. What we are doing is showing the state where we are with agricultural in Ag district 1 at this point. What we need to do is show the state that at least half the land in Ag district 1 is actively farm. I think talking about the land in Town of Ithaca in Ag District 1, there really isn't a lot of need for discussion, I don't think. I think Mike has done a great job of giving me a list of land that we might want to consider for removal from the district. I didn't see any land in this section of the Town that looked like it was being farmed that wasn't included in the Ag district, which is something we look at. If we spot that, then we write the landowner and asked if it is farm and if they are interested in being included in the Ag district. We generally don't pull land out of the district simply because it is not being farmed. Our goal is to keep as much land surrounding farmland in the district as possible because the district provides some protections for farmers. However, in the Town of Ithaca I don't think that is a concern. We would notify the landowners and see if there were any concerns. Are there any questions about the process? Board Member Talty — What is it rezoned as? Attorney Barney — It is not rezoned. The Ag district gives them certain privilege with respect to tax abatement. They are also governed in someway with what Town's regulations can do are subject to Ag and Markets rules and regulations and laws and limits sometimes the Town's ability to zone the way it would like to zone. For example, [ill, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED if you own a property that is purely a residential subdivision, it makes no sense to have it in an agricultural zone because it is not going to be developed or used as agricultural. By the same token, if it is in Ag zone and you want to place a restriction on it that Ag and markets deems to be one that is not favorable to the maintenance of an agricultural environment, that restriction can found to be invalid. Our hope there, I think, in dealing with the County is to suggest there are some areas which are in county Ag districts which really ought to come out because they are not really, truly likely to become agricultural lands. They are not getting the agricultural tax exemption because they are not farmed. Mr. Kanter — The proposed zoning map shows the southeastern side of Town is not an area where we were proposing our agricultural zone, although some of the Six Mile Creek area is covered in the current Conservation District. Taking any of the developed lands out of the Ag district in that area I think would be a good think to do. There are still some lands that could be farmed. There is a pretty big lot with some undeveloped land owned by the Walkers, VanValens and other landowners. I think a good portion of it has a conservation easement on it. So I think some of those areas probably would be legitimate to stay in the district. Board Member Howe —So we don't take a formal vote. Its just do we generally agree with the recommendations you are presenting. Ms. Teeter — I don't think you need to take formal action. I think its really just an information sharing and gathering process at this point. We will make recommendations. First the Ag and Farmland Protection Board and then County Planning and then it would go before the County Legislature. Throughout the process we are in touch with landowners. Sometimes we find that the landowners actually do have an agricultural enterprise on their ten acres. We want them to have some input. It makes sense for them to be removed from the district and they have reservations about that we try to talk to them about the greater good is that we need to keep active farmland in the district. Board Member Conneman — You would remove Southwoods. Ms. Teeter — The first step would be to contact the landowners in that area and explain to them what the agricultural district is about and that we are considering recommending its removal and see if there are any concerns about that. Board Member Conneman — What else would you do the same thing? Ms. Teeter — The remaining parcels to the south of Coddington and then the smaller residential lots located along Coddington and Burns Road that have been developed. Directly across the road, the property is already out of the Ag district. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — The parcels to the south of Coddington Road where it says little potential for agriculture, why is there little potential for agricultural there? 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Ms. Teeter — I believe it is the topography. Mr. Kanter — It is a large property, but it hasn't been farmed in many years. It is pretty steep going up towards the preserve. Ms. Teeter — Is this the area that the AG and Environmental Protection Board had to look at for an extension of a waterline along Burns Road. Mr. Kanter — It was the other lots. Ms. Teeter — There is no reason to take it all out because there might be something going on in the future, but it does make sense to take some of it out. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I think I would be hesitant to remove land, which has some potential for agricultural. Ms. Teeter — WE are not talking about doing that at all. Our goal is to keep as much in the district as possible. In fact, I think that this little chunk over here on its own, there is a horticultural enterprise. Mr. Walker — It is the winery. Mr. Kanter — I think the owners of the winery were quite happy that they were put in the district. I think they would like to continue in it. Ms. Teeter — I did look to see if there was anything that shows inactive or active farming. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Is there any land that is being added? Ms. Teeter — Not in this section of the Town. We did add significant land in the Town of Ithaca that we identified through the satellite land use land cover maps. Mr. Kanter — There were also some properties we suggested you take out and they were left in like the Linderman Creek property that was developing with affordable apartments. I was hoping in this review was to have another round of opportunity once the preliminary recommendations have gone through the County Ag board so that staff could take a look at actual maps. I think that is part of the problem sometimes is that when we are communicating these recommendations verbally and we don't know exactly which parcels are which, sometimes things do tend to slip through I think. It would help to have another opportunity I think. Ms. Teeter — We have identified the first six weeks of the year for outings to Town Boards for additional input. K% PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Any more questions? Thank you and I'm sorry it took so long to get to you. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 9:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Tape distortion occurred during this part of the minutes. Conversation that was audible was transcribed. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this segment of the meeting at 9:16 p.m. Board Member Talty — Have you had a chance to read this memo? Attorney Barney — I not only had a chance, I got a call from the attorney for the group of doctors. I'm a little reluctant to get in the middle of it, but I went ahead called Mr. Mullen. His statement to me that the letter he gave approving the facility changes in the plan is independent of any consideration for the radiology oncology facility. I may have missed the meeting when they made the representation was made as to what that letter meant, but the lawyer for the doctors' group said we may have acted on misleading information that the hospital put that letter forward as evidence of preliminary approval of the oncology facility. Mr. Hall was quite clear that it was not that. I asked if a certificate of need was a necessity before you started construction and how many times a project is started before a certificate of need was issued. He said a lot of the time because of the process takes so long and the weather circumstances in the State of New York. It is a simple project in terms of construction. I think there might of have been a misunderstanding of the significance of that letter as it was presented. The certificate of need application is scheduled for a hearing in December at the State Health Department. Board Member Conneman — My recollection is that on page 6 of the minutes, we asked Mr. Fitzgerald about conditional approval and he said, "I don't think they are going to allow us to spend that kind of money and not approve project ". That is the basis of the decision. Board Member Howe — It was indicated that they felt that it was a guarantee. Attorney Barney — Based on what I was told today, technically a certificate of need should be issued before you start construction. Board Member Conneman — So what is going to happen on December 4? Attorney Barney — New York State Department of Health reviews the application for a certificate of need. 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Talty — I would just like to say, John, the documentation that was rendered at that time definitely influenced my personal decision. Attorney Barney — I would suggest if there is a majority of you inclined to do so is a motion be made to reconsider the decision granting approval conditional upon the certificate of need. I think before you change your mind, you probably want to give the hospital an opportunity to appear before the board. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I wasn't at this meeting. Board Member Talty — When discrepancies arise in front of this board, I think it is our responsibility to the public to place all the cards face up as they get turned. I like John's idea a lot to have the hospital back in here with these folks in a very civilized manner. For us to make a decision whether or not it is going to matter in a few weeks or a month, I'm not comfortable with that. I think all the correct information should be presented to us whether it is a simple subdivided lot or something like this. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — You would like to have this come up at another meeting with everybody concerned being here. Board Member Talty — Correct. Mr. Kanter — The board will need to do something tonight to cause that to happen. Attorney Barney — It would be appropriate to make a motion to reconsider your decision on the waiver of the certificate of need and publish a notice of public hearing. Board Member Talty — I would like to move that motion as stated by Attorney Barney. Board Member Conneman — I second that. Does that affect approving the minutes? Attorney Barney — The minutes state what happen. You can't rewrite history. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — All in favor say aye. Board Member Conneman, Board Member Howe Board Member Talty voting aye. Board Member Thayer voting nay and Vice Chairperson Hoffmann voting abstention. Mr. Kanter — That's not a vote. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — If I could vote to do this I would do it, but since I wasn't here and it wasn't involved, I feel it is not appropriate for me take a vote on it. Attorney Barney — I don't know if that is a reason to not to vote to reconsider. It is up to you. I don't want to tell you how to vote. 011 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — If I felt it was appropriate for me to vote I would do it. I don't want to do it if its not appropriate. Attorney Barney — I don't see a major problem with you voting. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — In that case I will change my abstention to a vote for. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -090 - Reconsideration of Site Plan Approval Resolution, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3 -2.1 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. RESOL VED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will reconsider its determination on the Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Oncology Addition modification of condition, approved by the Board at the October 7, 2003 meeting, based upon new evidence to the board indicating that the hospital may have made misrepresentations regarding the Waiver and Certificate of Need under review by the Project Review Committee of the State Health Department; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Director of Planning is hereby directed to issue a Notice of Public Hearing in the Ithaca Journal. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAYS: Thayer. ABSENT. Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. Attorney Barney — The only issue is that it makes it moot if we go to December 4t" Board Member Thayer — After December 4t ", it doesn't matter on way or another. Mr. Kanter — We would attempt to put it on at one of the November meetings, I just can't guarantee it will be the first November meeting. At any rate we can certainly notify the representative at the hospital. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Does that take care of this item then? Thank you. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 9:25 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes — October 7, 2003 K PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2003 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 -APPROVED • PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 =091 = Approval of Minutes — October 7, 2003 MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the October 7, 2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None, ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Kanter — The Remington Inn is coming back for sketch plan at the next meeting. Then if the Ithaca Town Board refers the affordable housing proposal on West Hill that will come to the board at the next meeting. The Indian Creek site proposal has been withdrawn. They are looking at other sites within the Town. They have one lined up that we can't mention where it is yet because they haven't applied yet. They will be coming in with another proposal. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann declared the October 21, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, �OAt( Cam to d ,t`to Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk • 36 OCT -21 -2003 TUE 05'01 PM RADIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 3154756926 4� \PPY ✓�[bS � A OF UpsA� Now YORK %D10�•tPr ASSOCns Cunwr *tl�el 8><kmul d "�^ R1d'auan flruchytherapy • Nwielimn H h Dam lute) Therapy - pPO�I rtC Rndluattive Seed (mnl✓•Illotion Nt)Mf)s Cun(urmil Inlarolty M,dulucd R,Wlatim Therlpy (IMWI) • Thrraplun 3D •rn:Anrcn[ Planmug I'll ,NIL 11111, wahll.l A 1 IhaJ 1. �ltt. I'h II ALuubll ti. Ualul'e. Mu n(uhamm,,d Y. Igh,fl. �1u NNI;Ilhcn I1. NA1141.dl. t 111 )'ill Nil 111% IL„ Ill (1un. 1'h It Ih,hrrl (,ill, r„ lot) 1) .Y. lull 11L:: I hill) 5211 1104 r IJ7i, 110, }gl,l:uw K I S Lnno,'it SylWil1g. NY f taut IA 310 •(71••117. • 121031 }.17SAV;a oil /aiellI a fall l,nlLwad N \)Iwvu.w. NY 1 1:111 lal 115 17' 751111 I ax 315 17.1.3�0l) 1.1, e1110411 %I 11. we .l Tall ltd l INigmul. N1 IMINN 1i,1 01145.1 22 Q4 I nV )15 45!• ?•10(l MINIM% uA I,,.1lu A%a pU Itim Alt 'ltIh1114, NY 1 111121 511 Its 2s,.1.1n1 Tilt 30 2Sy.1 p,I 11.11 n 2111 Ua1c:, 11„21 Sulk 1UN llUacn, Nl I -16 tU lel hill 217 13 %6 1.21[ 6111 277 -Y)Ns I nx•uta any 50110,21 tit 11Ia1da,NY 11421 h;l 1I5 300 .1542 I d� 3I5 Inl•SdtG • alln) a: Alit N I,,%Nw1�4d $yNlr Cl, `r \' 1 4_21:, — 1.1315.111.1'153 171 -,IA to October 21, 2003 fawn of Ithac(V l'I•anniltg Board 215 N. '1'ioga St. lthitca, NY 14850 John Ilat ncy, 14'sq Attorney :it Law 1191.. Seneca St., tt400 Ithaca, NY 14850 VIA FACSIMILE VIA FACSIMiLF ftl�: Town of Ithaca Planning Board October 7, 2003 approval of Application of Cayuga Medical Center Dear Town of lthac•a Planning Board and Mr. Barney: Pe 01 It is +'(ay ((nderstandint;, that on the even he October f tlae Ocoobeh 7 2003 mce0ing, pl;►nnilip Hoard is expected to constdcr and, if acceptable, approve 01050 minutes tior tiling with the Town of Ithaca Clerk. We reshectlillly, request, that the Town of Ithaca, in reviewing those minutes, resolve to reconsider the application of October 7, 2003, made by the CaY1193 Medical Center, by which it seeks to nmdi y a condition set on the September ?, 20034 as a condition precedent to the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed radiation oncologry addition io the Cayuga Medical Center. Upon information and belief, at the October 7, 2003 ho 0210 according to the mon,t s Planning Board heard from Mr. Joseph Fitzgerald, w � maintained with regard to that meeting, stated (sec page 3 of draft ntinutcs), " handed to Mr. Wilcox a cjpy of an approval that the Health Department gave ,Is on what they call Et limited review, and the purpose of this limited review, was the fact that because they recognize that this is a project that they are S1.ippo1111t9, that this would enable the hospital to get the site work, and relocate utilities, 21116 cvely,iting else. That was what the letter was talking about that he has received last web -.'I It is allpdr(;ttt from rc�tdin�; the October 7, 2003 draft minutes, that the Town c Io Ithaca i Tannin Board members were led to believe that the New York State &1ealth L)ci�arhiit;nt had granted some foTill of "preliminary'' approval to the radiatior. therapy project thlt was before the JamosvHalt Registered �nArc Board, cct Upon cur 1S 'a letter of September 29, 2003, o OCTOBER 21, 2003 MINUTES ATTACHMENT #1 OCT -21 -2003 TUE 05'02 PM RADIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATES M FAX NO, 3154756928 P, 04 'Inquiry, h4r. Efall has indicated that the application to which he was corresponding on September 29, 2003, has absolutely no relationship whatsoever with regard to the hospital's application for a Certificate of Need now pending before the New York, State Health Department, for permission to construct and operate a radiation oncology center. We ask the Town of Ithaca Planning; Board to defer on formalizing any approval, either prcliruinary or otherwise, of the site plan of the Cayuga Medical Center radiation oncology center, to authorize Mr. Barney, as its attorney, to investigate the scope of the letter of Mr. Hall, by contacting Mr. flail at (S 18) 402-0904, and to take any other action consistent with this request. llpon information tend belief, there has been no emergency or preliminary approval of the hospital's Certificate of Need application. Moreover, the Augrtst S, 2003 letter of I )iana M. Smith, Acting Director of Information and 'technology Services Group, of the State of New York Department of health, written to Mr. Joseph Fitzgerald, stated "'The mandatory review of your; project for the criteria of public need, financial feasibility, and the character and competence, as required by Public Health Law, may determine that the proposal is uhapptovable. Therefore, prior to entering into any contractual commitments, or co nmencing construct, the final determination of the Director of the OfiSM, or Public Health Council, if the establishment is involved, must be obtained." We understand that the consideration of the hospital's Certification of Need application, is tentatively scheduled for the December 4, 2004 meeting of the State Hospital Review and Planning Council. It is therefore our request, as an interested party, that determination, which approved the Cayuga Medical C Site Plan Approval, be vacated, that the September 2, subject to filrther investigation by the Town of Ithaca course of action. ltespectf.illy slibinitted, Manuel G. Datope, Attachments: "Draft Minutes" . page 3 the October 7, 2003 enter's Preliminary and final 2003 condition be reinstated, Planning Board, wand further C • Town of Ithaca Planning Board October 21, 2003 Dear Planning Board Members, My name is Rosaire Kanj and I live at 193 Kendall Ave. (Lots 218 & 219), the property just adjacent to the proposed subdivision. I am here to speak against the granting of the numerous variances to allow the construction of 2 student rental units on Parcel 54 -4 -15. I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment completed by the Town Environmental Planner and find that it falls far short of the mark in several areas: The report states there would be small to moderate impacts associated with: 1. The potential increase of traffic on the unpaved road. There are currently only 2 cars that use this road on a regular basis. The proposed development would increase that usage to at least 10 cars (I figured on a minimum of 4 cars for each of the units). I don't know how one could consider a 400 % increase in traffic on an unpaved road small to moderate. If recent developments in other areas of Kendall Ave are at all predictive, the traffic increase could be even more dramatic. Many of these college rentals are occupied by as many as 8 -10 students, . even though the zoning ordinance lists 4 as the maximum. Then one must consider the inevitable student parties — with comings and goings at all hours of the day and night - on a gravel road where you can hear the crunch of a dog walking. The report addresses these so- called "small to moderate" issues by recommending the submission of a maintenance agreement between myself and Mr.Ponchalek as a condition of approval. This really misses the point and I have no intention of signing such an agreement for the proposed usage of this property. 2. Continuing the trend of increasing the college rentals in this neighborhood. While this statement is true of much of Kendall and Pennsylvania Avenues, it is a trend that many property - owners are distressed about. The properties immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision are all single -family, owner- occupied homes. We take pride in our homes and in our neighborhood and don't consider the prospect of being subjected to the noise, property destruction, and sheer annoyance of students carousing in the streets at 1 AM as a small to moderate impact. This has become a plague to our neighbors on lower Kendall Ave as well as Pennsylvania Ave. and it's time to say "Enough!" 3. The number of variances being created. To my way of thinking, the zoning ordinances were created to allow for thoughtful development that preserves the character of a neighborhood and is protective of the environment. Variances may sometimes make sense if they further these objectives, even though they do not meet the letter of the law. The variances in question do not fall into this category. They will significantly detract from the quality of life of neighboring property OCTOBER 21, 2003 MINUTES AZ:TACHvff ' #2 owners and are not respectful of the unique natural beauty of the area. It is • counter - productive to approve variances that will only have negative impacts. The report also makes light of any potential impact on the natural environment, stating that "the property is currently a mix of brush and early succession woods." Well, I suppose that's a technical description of the property, but I can tell you that when I bought my house a little less than one year ago, I thought I died and went to heaven. It is like a wooded oasis only 5 minutes from downtown Ithaca. Many of our backyards abut the South Hill Rec Way and the majority of homes in the area (even the student rentals down the street) are on double lots which allow a reasonable distance and therefore, some privacy, between dwellings. While I realized that future development of the adjacent property was possible, it was large enough that even the construction of a two - family unit would allow the preservation of some wooded area between our properties. The idea of someone wanting to build right on top of me, to clear -cut this wooded area in order to squeeze two duplexes on lots that do not meet the minimum zoning requirements never entered my mind as even a remote possibility. In addition, no mention is made in the report of the seasonal stream that runs through the proposed subdivision. It begins at the street side between my property and Parcel I and then meanders to the right. About 60 feet back from the street, it is smack in the middle of Parcel 1. I don't know how anyone could build a duplex on this lot without building right on top of the stream. A final objection relates to the emergency access issues that I believe were understated in O the report. Extending the narrow, unpaved dead -end road another 200 feet to allow access to 2 college rental units is an invitation to disaster. Although there certainly are exceptions, college students are not particularly known for their respect of fire safety precautions or the need to keep roadways clear in the event of an emergency. How will these minimal lots provide enough parking to keep the tenants off the roadway? ,What happens when the inevitable parties occur? There is already a problem of parking spillover from further down the street during parties (with students knocking over fences and blocking roadways.) I can't imagine a driveway design that will eliminate these concerns. I hope that the Planning Board will consider my objections and the objections of other property - owners in the area and deny approval of this project. Sincerely, �?t2J af�_O �' I Rosaire Karij 193 Kendall Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 • • U • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, October 21, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ponchalek 2 -Lot Subdivision, Kendall Avenue. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at the end of Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -4 -15, Residence District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.437 + /- acre parcel into two lots for construction of a two - family . dwelling on each lot. Anthony Ponchalek, Owner /Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Presentation and discussion of Tompkins County Agricultural District #1 8 -year review, Deborah L. Teeter, Extension Community Educator, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: October 7, 2003. 7. Other Business: 8. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of Tour (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, October 21, 2003 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at the end of Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -4 -15, Residence District R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.437 +/- acre parcel into two lots for construction of a two - family dwelling on each lot. Anthony Ponchalek, Owner /Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Dated: Friday, October 10, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 • • Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 • • • The Ithaca Journal' Wednesday, October_ 15, 2003 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF, PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, October 21, 2003 By direction of the Chair - person of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the Poroposed 2 -lot subdivision coted at the end of :Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54.4- 15, Residence District R -9. 'The proposal includes sub- dividing the 0.437 +/- acre parcel into two lots for con- struction of a two-family dwelling on each lot. An- thony Ponchalek, Owner/ Applicant. Said Planning Board will at. 'said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may'op- pear by agent or in person. Ilndividuals with visual im- pairments, hearing 'impair - ments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make such a request not less than '48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 ' Dated: Friday, October 10, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, October 15, 2003, • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: October 21, 2003 (PEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTE5) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION 1 / (� 5 / d V�' � l kA UZ� AAomb(Ck C:�10 ace I- L4 C D -� 7 41n �- ��e coveOke S lc�c��� CA. /85 V-1; - Irnp o� �-e / Ch d f //7 Ax k L 31 s f3kAc6hoptt Ae Ardis L-A • • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 commencina at 7:00 P.M.. as ner attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication: October 10, 2003 October 15; 2003 �� j a-ew Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of October 2003. Notary Public Danl L. Holbrd NOtSry No* 01 H06052879w Yolk Seneca County My Commission Expires Dec. 26.�Q�,o