Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-03-01M FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 1, 1994 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date =- o Cler The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March 1, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Vice - Chairperson Stephen Smith, Virginia Langhans, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Candace Cornell, Daniel Walker (Town Engineer) , George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Louise Raimondo (Planner I), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Elena Salerno - Flash, Noel Desch, Richard Couch, John Yntema, Ephraim Tomlinson III, Carl Guy, Chuck Brodhead, Fred Noetscher, Mark Macera, James & Kathleen Teeter, Wendy Skinner, Amy Desson, George Sheldrake, Ephraim Mark Tomlinson, William Albern, David St. George, Ben Minteer, Robert Russcon, Tammo Steenhuis. Vice - Chairperson Stephen Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40 p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 21, 1994, and February 24, 1993, respectively together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, 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 February 24, 19946 Vice - Chairperson Stephen Smith 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. There were no persons present to be heard. Vice - Chairperson Stephen Smith closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 39 -1 -1.3 66.6 + /- ACRES TOTAL, INTO TWO LOTS, 27.5 + /- ACRES AND 39.1 + /- ACRES RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS DISTRICT. ITHACA COLLEGE, OWNER; ITHACARE, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA. AGENT. Vice - Chairperson Stephen Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:42 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mark Macera addressed the Board and stated that he had no presentation to make, but was prepared to answer any questions that the Planning Board may have. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that all of the necessary information was received and that it was a 2 -lot subdivision, staff had done an Environmental Assessment of the project, and made the recommendation of negative determination of environmental significance for this subdivision. Mr. Frantz stated that Town staff recommended approval of the subdivision. f V Planning Board 2 March 1, 1994 Vice - Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that the action before the Planning Board was subdivision of the land not site plan approval. John Yntema of 933 Danby Road, addressed the Board and asked when the site plan hearing would be held. Mr. Yntema stated that since the land had already been specified as a Special Land Use District (SLUD), what is the purpose of the subdivision hearing. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the subdivision hearing was a legal requirement. Mr. Yntema stated that instead of reading a letter which he had submitted to the Planning Board and Town of Ithaca Staff, he would consider it read by mention of it. (Mr. Yntema's letters are hereto attached as Exhibit #1) Mr. Yntema stated that he was opposed to the subdivision because of what Ithacare intends to do with the property they want to subdivide. Vice - Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone else present wished to speak. No one spoke. Vice - Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that there is a lot of concern in the community regarding the potential visual impact. Ms. Cornell stated that it would be fair if the possible visual impacts were tested, by going to the site and setting up balloons that would show the dimensions and height of the building. Ms. Cornell stated that another suggestion would be video imaging. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the site .line does show some obstruction of the view of the hospital westward and southward to just south of Coy Glen. The bulk of the West Hill massif will still Frantz stated that there would be a complete view that the view of Cayuga Lake, in his opinion, was be of the visible over, the building. Mr. Cayuga Lake. Mr. Frantz stated key view to be preserved. 96, The Board discussed possible obstruction of the views from the overlook on Route Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the building's location could be moved if necessary. Mark Macera responded this was a subdivision process, not a site plan process before the Board tonight. Mr. Macera stated that nothing was concrete and could not be changed. Mr. Macera stated that from the onset of this project there were no questions that there would "block some view ", the question is are the amount of view that are blocked significant. Mr. Macera stated that the idea of floating the balloons in order to see where the roof lines could be. Mr. Macera stated that the building could be relocated five feet down the hill or the roofs could be changed, there is flexibility on the part of Ithacare. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the SLUD has set down is maximum elevation and a footprint for the building in which the site plan which protects the wetland areas, wildlife, and protected areas on the site. Mr. Walker stated that the use is appropriate for the proposed site, which is what the SLUD set forth.. Mr. Walker stated that after Ithacare gets the final assurance for the subdivision, then Ithacare would begin the final design phase. b IV Planning Board 3 March 1, 1994 Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she understood what Mr. Walker had stated, but that she wanted to know if there was flexibility within the constraints set forth within the SLUR. Mark Macera responded and stated definitely. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare needed the subdivision approval prior to going into the design development with the architects. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that Ithacare has addressed the concerns regarding steep slopes, stream corridors, wetlands, and the views, from the start of the project. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 1.3, 66.6 + /- acres total, into two lots, 28.0 + /- and 38.6 + /- acres respectively, located on the west side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to Ithaca College, Special Land Use District and Industrial Products District. Ithaca College, Owner; Ithacare, Inc, Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent, 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, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town planning staff, a subdivision plat entitled "Final Plat Showing Lands to be Subdivided by Ithaca College Located Between Danby Road and Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and dated November 15, 1993, and revised February 8, 1994, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action. • i:J . • • m 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 Long Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement, will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Planning Board LA MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Candace Cornell: V1 :i.40: ;:�.`ii March 1, 1994 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 1.3, 66.6 + /- acres total, into two lots, 28.0 + /- and 38.6 + /- acres respectively, located on the west side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to Ithaca College, Special Land Use District and Industrial Products District. Ithaca College, Owner; Ithacare, Inc, Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent. 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town planning staff, a subdivision plat entitled "Final Plat Showing Lands to be Subdivided by Ithaca College Located Between Danby Road and Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and dated November 15, 1993, and revised February 8, 1994, and other application materials, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on March 1, 1994, made a negative determination of significance. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.3 into two lots, 28.0 + /- and 38.6 + /- acres respectively, as shown on the subdivision plat entitled "Final Plat Showing Lands to be Subdivided by Ithaca College Located between Danby Road and Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and dated November 15, 1993, and revised February 8, 19940 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith. (Kenerson had left the meeting) Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Vice - Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Subdivision for Ithacare, Inc., duly closed at 8:11 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF THOSE PORTIONS OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, AND 31- 6-1.2 SHOWN AS PARCEL "D" ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT ENTITLED "PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION SHOWING PARCELS TO BE CONVEYED BY TOMLINSON* BOSTWICK ROAD, CULVER. ROAD, & SEVEN MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY" GRANTED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION � 1 Planning Board 5 March 1, 1994 APPROVAL ON AUGUST 3, 1993, 55.74 + /- ACRES TOTAL, INTO 21 LOTS, A DEDICATION OF 8.3 +/- ACRES FOR PUBLIC PARK AND OPEN SPACE PURPOSES, AND A 60 FT. BY 430 FT. STRIP FOR FUTURE PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES, AND FURTHER, FINAL APPROVAL OF A LOT LINE MODIFICATION FOR THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PARCEL "C" AND PARCEL "D" AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON AUGUST 3, 1993. SUBJECT PARCELS ARE LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF BOSTWICK ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF CULVER ROAD AND SEVEN MILE DRIVE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. EPHRAIM TOMLINSON III, AND DAVID CLARKIN TOMLINSON, OWNERS; EPHRAIM TOMLINSON III, APPLICANT. Vice - Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:15 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Ephraim Tomlinson addressed the Board and gave a brief summary of the preliminary plat for the proposed subdivision request. (Hereto attached as Exhibit #2) Mr. Tomlinson stated that Lot #1 is 8.10 acres and would be for public use as a Town park. Mr. Tomlinson stated that Lot #2 what intended to be used for a church. Mr. Tomlinson stated that the other 19 lots are for residential use. Mr. Tomlinson stated that Lots #1 to 11 are served by public sewer and sewer. Mr. Tomlinson stated that Lots #12 to 19 can not be served by public water but can be served by public sewer. Lot #20 and #21 are in areas with steep terrain changes and heavily wooded, so they would exceed 5 acres. Mr. Tomlinson stated that the purpose of the requested boundary line change would be to allow Lot #20 to exceed 5 acres. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that Lot #20 is 4.996 acres, and the lot line would need to be moved in order to meet the County Health Department Regulations. Mr. Frantz stated that the lot line change would add .008 acres to make the lot 5.004 acres in compliance with the regulations. The Board discussed the location of the sewer lines in that area and whether or not there were intentions by the Town to extend the sewer lines further up into the Bostwick Road area. Town Engineer Daniel Walker asked Mr. Tomlinson if he owned :Lot #20 and the lot east of Lot #20, and if he had the permission of his son to change the lot line. Mr. Tomlinson stated that the lot East of Lot #20 belonged had written permission from his son to change the lot line. Mr. he was asking the Board for preliminary approval for 56 acres at the plat. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he would come before the Bo on the 27 acres (Lots 1 through 11) which are served by public later date if he receives preliminary approval at this time. Mr. the balance of the 56 acres which is not serviced by public water engineering work before he could come before the Board for final lotse to his son and that he Tomlinson stated that this time as shown on and for final approval water and sewer at a Tomlinson stated that and sewer require more approval on the other The Board discussed the potential impact on the highway system due to the number of fairly large developments that are proposed. Staff answered many of the Board members' concerns, and gave statistics on the possible impacts of traffic if the developments go through the system successfully. The discussion was in response to the State of New York Department of Transportation's letter, addressed to George Frantz, and dated February 10, 1994. (Hereto attached as Exhibit #3) The Board felt that the issue had been adequately addressed by the Town's staff. Vice - Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. 1 Planning Board 6 March 1, 1994 Tammo Steenhuis of Bostwick Road, addressed the Board and stated that he had not received proper notification of this plan. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that because his property was subdivided and purchased in August of 1993, that he name had not yet appeared in the tax rolls that the secretary uses to get the names and addresses of the neighbors to notify of the meetings that may concern them. David St. George addressed the Board and stated that he was concerned with the traffic impacts in the area. Mr. Steenhuis addressed the Board and asked if the park could be relocated. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the reason for the location of the park, as shown on the plat, was because that site is extremely undesirable for house lots because it is located across from the city bus garage and the public works. Mr. Frantz stated that this site was the flattest portion of the parcel, which could be developed at some time in the future. Mr. Frantz stated that there was evidence of a correorgonel Town site in the lot that had been set aside for the park. Mr. Frantz stated that the professor in charge of the archeological dig had written a letter regarding the possible findings and progress of the archeological. dig, addressed to George Frantz, dated March 1, 1994. (Professor Baugher's letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #4) Board Member Candace Cornell stated that the design for the park gives the maximum amount open space with the least amount of frontage on the bus garage. James Teeter of Seven Mile Drive, addressed the Board and asked if the Town staff had considered the traffic that would be generated by the park usage and the church usage. Mr. Frantz stated that the traffic that would possibly be generated by the park and church were considered when he reviewed the site. There being no further discussion, the Chair closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. The Board discussed several other contiguous subdivisions that have been proposed in the Town of Ithaca. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie: i. This action is the Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, and 31 -6 -1.2 shown as Parcel "D" on the subdivision plat entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Showing Parcels to be Conveyed by Tomlinson: Bostwick Road, Culver Road, & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY" granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on August 3, 1993, 55.74 + /- acres total, into 21 lots, dedication of 8.3 +/- acres for public park and open space purposes, and a 60 ft. by 430 ft. strip for future public road purposes, and further.;, Final Approval of Planning Board h March 1, 1994 a Lot Line Modification for the boundary between Parcel "C`I and Parcel "D" as approved by the Planning Board on August 3, 1993. Residence District R -30. Ephraim Tomlinson III, and David Clarkin Tomlinson, Owners; Ephraim Tomlinson III, Applicant. 24 This is a Type I 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, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Preliminary Plat, Glendale Farm Subdivision, Bostwick Road, Culver Road & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by David A. Herrick, P.E. and Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated January 25, 1994, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action, as proposed; 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 reference action as proposed and, therefore, no Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith. (Kenerson had left the meeting) Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried. MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Virginia Langhans: C.l. 10 This action is the Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, and 31 -6 -1.2 shown as Parcel "D" on the subdivision plat entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Showing Parcels to be Conveyed by Tomlinson: Bostwick Road, Culver Road, & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY" granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on August 3, 1993, 55.74 + /- acres total, into 21 lots, dedication of 8.3 +/- acres for public park and open space purposes, and a 60 ft. by 430 ft. strip for future public road purposes, and further., Final Approval of a Lot Line Modification for the boundary between Parcel "C" and Parcel "D" as approved by the Planning Board on August 3, 1993. Residence District R -30. Ephraim Tomlinson III, and David Clarkin Tomlinson, Owners; Ephraim Tomlinson III, Applicant, 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a preliminary Planning Board E:3 March 1, 1994 subdivision plat entitled "Preliminary Plat, Glendale Farm Subdivision, Bostwick Road, Culver Road & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by David A. Herrick, P.E. and Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated January 25, 1994, and other application materials, and 3. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on March 1, 1994, made a negative determination of environmental significance. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 29 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, and 31 -6 -1.2 shown as Parcel "D" on the subdivision plat entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Showing Parcels to be Conveyed by Tomlinson: Bostwick Road, Culver Road, & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY" granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on August 3, 1993, as shown as Lots 1 - 21 (with a slight deviation of the east line of Lot 20 to enlarge Lot 20 to slightly in excess of 5 acres) on the plat entitled "Preliminary Plat, Glendale Farm Subdivision, Bostwick Road, Culver Road & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by David A. Herrick, P.E. and Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated January 25, 1994, with the following conditions: a. Approval by the Town Board of the location of the proposed street reservation and other facilities proposed for dedication to the Town, including the location of the proposed 8.3 acre public park site, b. Approval by the Tompkins County Department of Health of onsite sewer facilities for those lots which will not be served by public sewer, and c. No building permit shall be issued for construction on any of the lots until the area denominated as a Park and reserved for the road are transferred in fee simple absolute to the Town, and d. Prior to issuance of any building permit on any lot, stormwater management and erosion control plans, conforming to New York State guidelines for reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff in new developments be approved by the Town Engineer. 3. In making the above decision, the Planning Board acknowledges receipt of the letter of the Tompkins County Department of Planning dated February 25, 1994, but grants preliminary approval notwithstanding the concerns expressed in such letter, finding that: 1. While there are several curb cuts, the large size of the lots minimizes the amount of additional traffic to be generated, and based on visits by members of the Board and a report of the Assistant Town Planner who showed on a map the approximate sight distances, all of which exceed 350 feet; Planning Board 9 March 1, 1994 ® 2. In this instance, contrary to the usual case, clustering the subdivision would require construction of substantially more infrastructure (in particular roads) than the present plan, and would also result in diminished amenities obtained by large lots; x`11 3. Because the lots are large, and the typical construction would be one building per lot, the open spaces would continue to be large, thus there is little impact on the scenic quality of the area; 4. The Town has several traffic studies which, together with recognized traffic generation manuals, suggest the additional traffic of the proposal, particularly when compared to other potential uses, would not result in a significant deleterious effect; 50 Drainage calculations by the Town Engineer indicate there does not appear to be a problem with potential stormwater runoff; 6. Bill Dress Woods has not yet been declared a Unique Natural Area, and is, in any event, some 500 feet northwest of the proposed subdivision, 7. Lot 20 has sufficient space for the location of a house; 8. Lot 2 may be subsequently subdivided, although its present intended use is for a church, but any subdivision in the future would be subject to further review by this Board at the time of any such proposed subdivision. The existence of the school bus garage and highway facility in and of themselves cannot preclude subdivision of other lands in the vicinity. . • :i 1 That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Apl Modification for the boundary between Parcel "C" Planning Board on August 3, 1993, as shown on the Glendale Farm Subdivision, Bostwick Road, Culver Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated January 25, 1994. )roval for the proposed Lot Line and Parcel "D" as approved by the plat entitled "Preliminary Plat, Road & Seven Mile Drive, Town of David A. Herrick, P.E. and Allen There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Board Member Candace Cornell read portions of the Environmental Review Committee's comments regarding the Glendale Farm subdivision. (Hereto attached as Exhibit #5) Vice - Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the Glendale Farm Subdivision for Ephraim Tomlinson III duly closed at 9:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION THROUGH 32 OF THE PROPOSED "SAP( AND INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 4,800 AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION, AND ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 33- 3 -1.2, OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT NOS. 1 )NI MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION, PROPOSED TO BE 53 LOTS TOTAL, FT. OF PROPOSED PUBLIC ROADS, AN 8.4 +/- ACRE PUBLIC PARK PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, LOCATED ON TOWN OF 80 +/- ACRES TOTAL, ON THE EAST SIDE OF SEVEN MILE DRIVE Planning Board 10 March 1, 1994 APPROXIMATELY 700 FT. SOUTH OF BOSTWICK ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. EDDY HILL, INC., OWNER; WILLIAM F. ALBERN, P.E., AGENT. Vice - Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. William Albern addressed the Board and stated that the configuration of the project is the same as shown to the Board in the sketch plan phase of the project, with only minor changes. Mr. Albern stated that he and his clients had the potential of subdividing up to 52 lots, but that they were looking for preliminary approval for Lots #1 through #32 only. Mr. Albern stated that the erosion problem was addressed in the engineering drawings for this project. Mr. Albern stated that the South Section and the park are waiting for the outcome of the archeological study that is being conducted there by Cornell University students and George Frantz. ( Saponi Meadows Map is hereto attached as Exhibit #6) Assistant Town Planner George Frantz reviewed the comments made by Professor Sherene Baugher regarding the archeological study that was conducted on the Saponi Meadows site. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that there are significant improvement that need to be made to the roads and water and sewer construction. Mr. Walker stated that construction of this site would fall under the federal regulations for stormwater management and sediment erosion control plan, which states that any construction site that exceeds five acres must have a blanket permit from the EPA. The requirements for the permit are that a sediment erosion control plan be prepared and be available on site before the construction begins. Tammo Steenhuis addressed the Board and stated that he was not against development but that he was very upset and that South Hill would turn into one big mess. Mr. Steenhuis stated that the octopus could only handle so much traffic. The Board discussed the matter of the traffic and the proposed subdivisions around the octopus area with Mr. Steenhuis, Board Member Candace Cornell read portions from the Environmental Review Committee regarding the Saponi Meadows subdivision. (Hereto attached as Exhibit #7) Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she would suggest a vegetative buffer near the streams. Mr. Albern stated that the development of the project would not have an impact on the stream because they would be protected by the homes. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that a lawn would be preferable to agricultural fields for a buffer area and that the mature trees should be preserved as an additional buffer area. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie: WHER$AS0 . Planning Board 11 March 1, 1994 10 This action is the Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Lot Nos. 1 through 32 of the proposed "Saponi Meadows" subdivision, proposed to be 53 lots total, and include approximately 4,800 ft. of proposed public roads, an 8.4 +/- acre public park and open space dedication, and public water and sewer facilities, located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -1.2, 80 +/- acres total, on the east side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 700 ft. south of Bostwick Road, Residence District R -30. Eddy Hill, Inc., Owner; William F. Albern, P.E., Agent. 2. This is a Type I 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, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat showing Lot Nos. 1 through 32 entitled "Plat - Middle and North Sections Saponi Meadows, Saponi Meadows Subdivision, Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S., and dated January 14, 1994, a plan of the entire subdivision entitled "Saponi Meadows" prepared by William F. Albern, P.E. and dated February 24, 1994, showing 52 proposed residential and 1 light industrial lots, and a proposed 8.4 acre public park dedication, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action, as proposed; 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, no Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by James Ainslie. 10 This action is the Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Lot Nos. 1 through 32 of the proposed "Saponi Meadows" subdivision, proposed to be 53 lots total, and include approximately 4,800 ft. of proposed public roads, an 8.4 +/- acre public park and open space dedication, and public water and sewer facilities, located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -1.2, 80 +/- acres total, on the east side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 700 ft. south of Bostwick Road, Residence District R -30. Eddy Hill, Inc., Owner; William F. Albern, P.E., Agent. 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat Planning Board OK March 1, 1994 showing Lots No. 1 through 32 entitled "Plat - Middle and North Sections Saponi Meadows, Saponi Meadows Subdivision, Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S., and dated January 14, 1994, a plan of the entire subdivision entitled "Saponi Meadows" prepared by William F. Albern, P.E. and dated February 24, 1994, showing 52 proposed residential and 1 light industrial lots, and a proposed 8.4 acre public park dedication, and other application materials, and 3. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on March 1, 1994, made a negative determination of environmental significance. • 10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Lot Nos. 1 through 32 of the proposed "Saponi Meadows" subdivision, as shown on the subdivision plat showing Lots No. 1 through 32 entitled "Plat - Middle and North Sections Saponi Meadows, Saponi Meadows Subdivision, Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S., and dated January 14, 1994, with the following conditions: a. Approval by the Town Board of the location of all proposed streets and other facilities proposed for dedication to the Town, including the initial location of the proposed 8.4 acre public park site; b. Submission for consideration and approval modified plat for final approval showing the by the Planning Board of a location of the park as part of the final approval of this conveyance to the Town, the information is developed that phase with the location may would warrant understanding that, prior to be altered if archeological such change; c. Transfer to the Town of Ithaca of the proposed public park prior to the issuance of building permits for construction on more than ten lots; d. No building permits shall be issued for construction of any structures or any lots fronting on proposed roads until the roads are conveyed to the Town and, if not constructed, adequate financial security as determined by the Town Engineer is provided to the Town to assure construction of same in a timely fashion; e. Modification of the width of the proposed pedestrian right of way between lots 26 and 27 to increase its size to 20 feet or more; f. Before any building permit is issued for any construction on each lot there shall be submitted a sedimentation and erosion control plan satisfactory to the Town Engineer for such lot; Planning Board 13 March 1, 1994 g. Prior to final subdivision approval there shall be presented to this Board a plan acceptable to this Board for buffering the water courses crossing the subdivision. 3. In making the foregoing decision, the Board acknowledges receipt of the letter dated February 25, 1994, from the Tompkins County Department of Planning, but grants approval notwithstanding the concerns expressed in said letter, finding that: a. Based upon reports of the Assistant Town Planner, the sight distances are more than adequate, with the minimum sight distance being 400 feet; b. Relocating the road to avoid the possible occasional illumination of a house on the opposite side of Seven Mile Drive would be nearly impossible as it would require lots that would not meet minimum frontage, and could also conflict with the 600 -foot separation requirement between road entries on Seven Mile Drive; c. Lots 4 and 27 are adequate in size to permit location of a house on the lot in a manner so as to avoid the problem of lights shining into houses on these lots; d. Based on existing traffic studies and nationally recognized traffic generation manuals, the impact of traffic on the Route 13 /Seven Mile Drive intersection will not be significant; e. Preliminary drainage calculation, by the project's engineer and by the Town Engineer, indicate storm water runoff will be adequately controlled. Final drainage calculations will be required before final approval to confirm the conclusions derived from the preliminary calculations; f. The EAF reference to insufficient utility capacity was an error. Based upon a report of the Town Engineer there exists adequate utility capacity for this project. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The Board discussed the archeological study being conducted in the area of the two subdivisions passed by the Planning Board at the beginning of the meeting. The Board also discussed the Park and what could change if something was found during the archeological study. The board decided that the Park should be shown on a map as its own lot, the Light Industrial section of the property as a lot, the South section as one lot, and then the 32 lots that approval is being sought for. To summarize what is needed, is a final subdivision plat with 35 lots. Vice- Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision approval for Saponi Meadows duly closed at 10:32 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: STAFF REPORT ON CORNELL UNIVERSITY FINAL G /EIS. . Planning Board 14 March 1, 1994 Planner I Louise Raimondo addressed the Board and stated that Cornell University representatives, Town staff members, and various Planning Board Members met and revised the latest draft of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Raimondo asked that each of the Planning Board members review the statement and let her know if there were any changes that they felt were necessary. Ms. Raimondo stated that there would be an additional meeting with Cornell representatives on March 8, 1994. Ms. Raimondo stated that she would bring the Final GEIS back to the Board at the next meeting (March 15, 1994) for discussion. OTHER BUSINESS Planner I Louise Raimondo addressed the Board and stated that she had given each of the Board Members a copy of the Final Impact Statement regarding the Peregrine Hollow Subdivision located in the Town of Dryden from the Town of Dryden Planning Board. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that the Town of Dryden Planning Board did not address the Town of Ithaca Planning Boards' comments in the Final Impact Statement. Ms. Cornell stated that she would suggest that the Planning Board prepare a statement to the Town of Dryden Planning Board. Ms. Cornell read a statement that she had prepared as a draft to send to the Town of Dryden Planning Board. The Board unanimously decided to send a letter to the Town of Dryden Planning Board in regards to the Peregrine Hollow Subdivision. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Candace Cornell: WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Dryden Planning Board has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Peregrine Hollow and requested comments from interested parties, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has some concerns about the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed comments drafted by Candace Cornell, comments member of expressing the Planning Board, and feels that they are appropriate the Town's concerns about the Peregrine Hollow proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board authorizes the Chairman, Robert Kenerson, to sign a letter incorporating the comments to Barbara Caldwell, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden Planning Board, and, that this letter be mailed to the Town of Dryden prior to the deadline of March 3, 1994 at 3:00 p.m. [Letter addressed to Barbara Caldwell, Chair, Town of Dryden Planning Board, from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chair, Robert Kenerson, dated March 2, 1994, attached hereto]. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. Planning Board ON The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (The above -noted letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #8) March 1, 1994 Vice - Chairman Smith declared the matter of the Peregrine Hollow Subdivision duly adjourned. Vice - Chairperson Smith asked if there were any further business to be discussed at this meeting. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Little's Subdivision resolutions had been sent to the Town Board and is on the agenda for the park land issue. Mr. Walker stated that Mr. Little had meeting with Supervisor John Whitcomb and Mr. Walker, and Mr. Little stated that he had talked with the land trust about dedicating a conservation easement to the land trust in the area around the wetlands that were identified in the 24 acre parcel. Mr. Walker stated that included in the easement was access to both Ridgecrest Road and Troy Road. Mr. Walker stated that Mr. Little had offered to contribute $200.00 per lot to a fund for the Park and Open Space Acquisition Fund, which is reasonable. Chairperson Kenerson stated that he had drafted a memorandum regarding Planning Board project assignments and asked if the Board members felt that it was an idea worth pursuing. (Memorandum from Chairperson Kenerson, dated March 2, 1994, is hereto attached as Exhibit #9) The Planning Board decided that they did not wish to have project assignments. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the March 1, 1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, StarrRae Ha s, Recording Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board • n YNTEMA 993 DANBY ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 -5719 22 February 1994 Re: Ithacare's proposal at Rte. 96B scenic overlook Dear Town Planning Board Member: The enclosures relate to a matter that should be of immediate concern and importance to all local town, county, and city officials, representatives, and business people; to several state departments, as well as to South Hill residents and the estimated 200,000 people who use the overlook annually. I believe this matter deserves your immediate attention and early intervention. The Ithaca Town Board has already passed a special land use law permitting Ithacare's project. The next public hearing, on the matter of sub - dividing the parcel of land on which Ithacare proposes to build, is scheduled only days away -- for March 1 st, before the Ithaca Town Planning Board. If the sub - division is approved, only a soon -to- follow site plan hearing is needed before Ithacare's huge structure could become reality. The differences expressed in the enclosed letters depend on definitions and facts; they definitely do not favor Ithacare's plans. Whether by intent or not, Ithacare's pro- posal for a three -story building, 48 ft. high, spanning 600 ft., and adjacent to the over- look would forever degrade what they, themselves, describe as "Tompkins County's most breathtaking, panoramic vista ". Also, there is at least one very serious question about Ithacare's documentation accuracy (my 2/19 letter, page 5). If allowed to occur, the proposed development can only be considered as seriously detrimental to the local environment and quality of life, and to our tourist - oriented economy. It also is bound to have an additional negative effect on the already- serious traffic hazards in the area. Please give this matter your prompt attention. If you have any questions about the enclosures, please do not hesitate to call me at any time: (607) 272 -7864. encl.: 3 Sincerely, Jo n A. Yntema Exhibit #1 3/1/94 Minutes , f • YNTEMA 993 DANBY ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 -5719 Fib , 19 Jaaarq 1994 Mr. Mark A. Macera, Executive Director Ithacare 115 South Quarry Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Sir: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of 4 February 1994. In view of your tone and your many unsupported statements, I sincerely doubt that any response will alter your position or feelings. However, since you chose to distribute your comments to so many people, a rather lengthy reply seems warranted. First and foremost, you should be made aware that I (a senior citizen, by the way) and everyone I have spoken with about the matter are totally in favor of an Ithacare expansion, per se. The controversy has arisen from the unfortunate site selection, your absolute intransigence about any alternative locations or any design modifications to the structure, and an obvious ultra- defensive position concerning the public's alarm at your choices and stance. You may find the following responses and comments interesting: (1) The Planning Board agendas, for both the 7 December and its subsequent hearing, refer to "a 115,000 sq, ft, building"; that is about three acres. The EAF, page 3, item B.1.b., states that the "Project acreage to be developed [is] ± 7.0 acres initially." I used those figures in my letter to the Ithaca Journal because those were the figures provided in the documentation. I did not invent these numbers. (2) The wing -span -- of a bird, a plane, or a building -- is customarily measured between the outstretched tips. The distance between the tips of the two main wings of your proposed structure, on Preliminary Site Plan LS -2, scales out to about 600 feet , which is why I used that number. Your attempt to redefine "span" in terms of only one wing is novel, but incorrect. (3) Regardless of how you choose to alter definitions to suit your argument, the fact • remains that the design on Schematic Section & Elevation Sheet LS -3 shows, and even states, that there are three "floors" (lower, first, and second), clearly defining that the structure is, indeed, a "three -story building", as I stated in my Journal letter. -2- (4) Simple subtraction of the elevation numbers on Sheet I'_S -2 (i.e., 607 minus 559) clearly shows that the proposed building is, indeed, 48 feet high, as I stated (not the 38 feet you suggested). This far exceeds the 30/34 feet elevations permitted elsewhere in the town of Ithaca. I did not invent the numbers or make the drawing, but merely used the figures Ithacare provided on the drawing. (5) 1 am impressed with your high sensitivity, relative to the size and dimensions of the proposed structure. It certainly seems that you are willing to re- invent definitions and arithmetic to make it seem the building is going to be far smaller than it is proposed to be. This suggests that you are indeed concerned about how the public now perceives the visual impact of the proposed Ithacare building. However, you have repeatedly given the impression that your concern will evaporatfl once (and if) the various approvals are obtained. One can only wonder why this is so. (6) 1 have no general objection to special land use district designations, particularly when they don't permit obstruction of scenic views from public overlooks. However, the details of this particular SLUD are truly unfortunate. It is worth noting that your EAF indicates that 200,00 people annually would be subjected to an obstructed scenic overlook view if the proposed project goes through. Your (undated) Ithacare Building Bulletin shows a view from the overlook (N.B., from the extreme north, or lower, end) and describes it as "Tompkins: County's most breathtaking, panoramic vista ". It does not escape me that the picture, which also appears on your 1994 calendar, rather cleverly does not show where your proposed development to the west would be or how it would affect the view. Of course it would be nice for the proposed 180 Ithacare residents to have a lovely view (or is it only 90 on the inner part of the main wings who would have lake views ?), but at the expense of degrading the view for 200,000 other people every year? That is a most peculiar balancing of human "priorities ". The plans can hardly be said to show even the slightest "sensitivity to neighbors" which Town Supervisor Whitcomb recommends in his remarks which appeared in today's Journal.. (7) Your assertion that Ithacare's SLUD will "protect" the land, because it obviates the industrial development there, is amusing. Ithacare is an "industry" (long -term care) in every sense, except, perhaps that you don't intend to manufacture anything besides an eyesore and traffic problems. It's unfortunate that no one was allowed to respond to this "protection" theory espoused by Board member Karl Niklas, and which you are now claiming as a "very important fact ". 10 0 -3- It would be far more appropriate if those 28.01 acres were used instead for private family homes, in keeping with the neighborhood, rather than to see it used to poorly site a huge building with a 600 foot wing -span. Ideally, of course, Ithaca College would donate the 28.01 acre section (or even better, the entire parcel) to a suitable government entity for preservation in its current scenic state. Considering that the College paid only about $84,000 for the 66.6 acres in 1976, and, being tax - exempt, has presumably paid no taxes on the property since then, it would be a gift that would not "break their bank ". Perhaps the town or county could even purchase the whole parcel, at the same price Ithacare would have paid, to save this "most breathtaking, panoramic vista" for all time. would like to acknowledge George Frantz's comment that the proposed siting of the proposed Ithacare structure is fine, from a landscape architectural standpoint (emphasis mine). But from the viewpoint of the neighboring community, the scenic overlook, and the 200,000 people using the overlook, the location is a catastrophe. (8) Your comments about the relative elevations of the proposed building and the overlook are amazing, in that I think you must believe them. Perhaps you should visit the overlook and see for yourself. First of all, no one stands at the Kelly property line (elevation "601.00 ") at the south end of the overlook to see the view. Invariably, people are at or very near the north end. Why else do you suppose the overlook sign was moved from the north end? The elevation at the north end is "594.00 ", and the high roof rigde (sic) elevation is 14601.0011, not to mention the peak at "607.00 ". What this means, quite simply, is that a person at or near the invariably -used north end of the overlook would have to have an eye level of seven (7) feet, or a height of perhaps 7 ".6 ", just to see over the roof! For your edification, I am enclosing a map on which I have sited the proposed building as accurately as I can, and have indicated the very broad sweep of obstructed view of West Hill to an approximate elevation of 980 feet above sea level, which the proposed building would cause. This hardly correlates with your insistence that there would be an "unobstructed view of West Hill with the exception of the view at the base of the valley " (emphasis mine) . Your claim is patently incorrect. If I have not sited the building correctly (a good possibility on a map of this scale), there is every chance that more of the west shore and the lake would also be obstructed from view at the overlook. -4- With reference to siting, it seems appropriate to mention that on both maps which follow the L. Robert Kimball & Associates letters of October 1993, after Appendix 6 in the EAF, the "SITE" is incorrectly shown to be about 500 feet north of its correct location. I cannot help but wonder why this error occurred. (9) Your reference to a siting analysis raises questions, but answers none. That the proposed Ithacare site "mitigates developing larger portions of Rand to the north" is a cute oxymoron. What indication is there that putting the Ithacare building at the north end of the IC parcel, near the NCR parking lot, would cause "direct obstruction of views" (which you state is avoided by the south location) -- or are you referring to views from the proposed building? Today I stood at the north end of the lookout, and I have some interesting news: if the proposed Ithacare building were put at the other end of the Ithaca College parcel, near the NCR parking lot, it would not be an eyesore from the lookout. In fact, it would be nearly invisible. What a delightful discovery! Since Ithacare presented absolutely no data on the "birds, deer and other resident and migratory animals" on the proposed site by the overlook, where did you get the data to support your contention that a more northerly site is "more productive habitat "? (10) In my letter which the Journal published, "...some extra earthmoving..." refers to volume, and not to surface area, since wherever the proposed structure were to be built, there would be the same disturbance of the same surface area, by bulldozing or grading. There is no contradiction between my concern for the view from the lookout and the environment. Your conclusion to the contrary has no merit. I did not express a concern about the "size of the budget although you should get some kind of points for trying to attribute to me words that weren't mine. I suggest you read my letter more carefully. (11) That the DEC said "their information indicated ... no endangered or protected animals on, or anywhere near the site" (emphasis mine) is no proof that a survey was not warranted. A certain truism in the field of science can be utilized in other fields as well: no studies or surveys can be considered unnecessary or unwarranted until after they have been done. Even then, if nothing was found, the investigator has learned something he did not know before. Assuming something on the basis of "indications" is a form of prejudice, which is forming an opinion without determining the facts. • 0 -5- • Saying that basically there aren't any indications of something doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be something: it's a way of avoiding the work of on -site, multi- season investigations. In light of your proposed S8 million budget, that avoidance is unconscionable. would refer you to the EAF, page 3, item A.1 1., which responds negatively to a question about threatened or endangered plant and animal life, and to the Kimball Meeting Notes #6, included in the EAF. The Notes give rather alarming evidence that your EAF response and your letter both seriously misquote the DEC representative. I quote from those Notes, where the underlining is not mine, but the italics are: "Ms. March stated that the site is outside the Managed Area. However, some species to zones of interest, (see attached [note: no EAF I inspected]). She did not know the full state that if Endangered Species were no development would be allowed in Endangered Species ma occur on the site due attachments were seen in the ramifications of this, but did found on the site, perhaps that specific location." Your apparently intentional misrepresentation of the DEC position, which is something I consider an extremely serious error on Ithacare's part, should be enough, in and of itself, to at least postpone the proposed project until an appropriate series of year -long seasonal inventories have been made on the site. What is clear to me is that you have not corrected any misunderstandings or misleading information which you attributed to me. I had none and had made none, respectively, but it appears that you have supported a number of both. In no way can it be truthfully said that your proposed development is "protecting wildlife habitats and maintaining scenic views ". Such a claim is so preposterous that I can hardly believe you made it. If any characterizations are to be made, they would seem to apply to the proposed development, such as: (A) There has been a total lack of concern for, and interest in, public opinion or wildlife, with a displayed unwillingness to consider any criticism as possibly being accurate or constructive. -6- (B) On Ithacare's part, there has been a notable lack of interest in any alternatives, either in design or location. I don't recall any Ithacare offers -- or even a suggestion of willingness -- to even consider possible changes or alternatives. Every Ithacare response has been defensive, rigidly insisting that there is a need to do exactly what Ithacare has proposed, and that it must be done immediately, no matter what concerns have been raised. Must the building be 48 ft, high, have a 600 ft. wing -span, and be sited immediately adjacent to the county's "most breathtaking" view'? Are the needs of long- term care really that rigid? Perhaps you should check the Kendal -at- Ithaca site and architectural plans, to see what can be done with a little thought and consideration. While Kendal's project is larger in both size and budget, the design is sensitive and tasteful, words that can't be used to describe the Ithacare proposal. I don't believe I " [inaccurately] described [your] development", nor was the "information [1] shared with the public ... misleading ". It is at least peculiar that you would expect me to have the responsibility to "reflect the breadth and depth of [your] efforts to carefully balance.,. in fact, I think you have made almost no such efforts; only the plant survey would qualify for that terminology. (Incidentally, Dr. Wesley did an apparently masterful and thorough job on that survey.) I want to point out that your intent has always seemed to be to tell people what Ithacare is going to do, which despite your invitation of questions and comments, never seems to deviate the proverbial "one iota" from your original plan. That is not what I consider a "carefully balanced" approach; it is extremely narrow and one - sided. In closing, I repeat that everyone favors an Ithacare expansion, but the proposed site and structure are about as inappropriate as they could be. I hope you will modify both, and come up with a proposal everyone can support. Surely there is some other more appropriate site in Tompkins County. How about a location near the proposed Hospicare facility on King Road? That's still quite close to Ithaca College. Sincerely, John A. Ynh (na encl, cc: as appropriate • 0 I ' p 'Ilui ��� -- ---- -CGRp— -r - BUY r. iv(Cj If L� .� ?•,1, light :'�•. J • i �`. > _...6 ill. lip 0. Oill `,I . ©vv�/Dr. ROAD'1' \'�.'t \. \ A1.1\" 1I: b: )I 1v p; lilt :3'y1 JI f If 957 Of ill Irk �. 1 I^Sp ,._ .. \� 1 AI \ICI \'I. 1� '•,. 1 11;1. \ ',C._�� war - o t t dk i`. V�'' 111 :; •.' 'd ...\ _\_ J.) ��/ • \L,\ (I rl • ;�I 11 Go,( Course 1y t! •1 - r 1h 1 11:11• . \;. I I!it1. 01 if dim 1 ��'!r0` \ !, \\ r /. '. �, 1 1).l , 1'. . ar /!,' - , N ,• ,t1 �� Rol i(II• )'� (�sewO�uP \ \ • \'� \\ rJ t tl', I 7 ., ..Il +••' .l�t� :1,1 111 �,' 411'•/; .1 9' Disposal �7U�rJ r�E .. 11� I.0 1 F-J, 7- 1.' l,l i-�' •I'I ,' .� - T-1 ;} }fjll�, 111+'(1! �i '� ��i •. t—lifir it T. �_ ,•\ 1 )d 1 , III )1': ' to ^g... ' 1111 v �s ). Pit r,,c 'I / .11•. at .1 .J Olp f�, 1 / ` i WiV:r lank .: ): ; },, , �'` ( Park i'I n l' ''/ '' 1�,U ,)1 c IU� •�'1 \' 1 'I/ ta' J'' 1Y�1)) HUF A 6 P. tot 1 I� i 1. 79 I. -�, > � y , t� \� \ /Qfjb \ •may tE� � ) d % 7^ J 1(2 100�`\ -� O,. �" r a�iv �� ' �I • ST T£ ST l l = $� �.� ; J Ire to alp, /'T'••��`��''1 "i. ' 'I / \ - ' r'. r7 i i' 1 J1'ti /l • °'•(��\ ,�y — ^i 79 If t<r ' ROn fi. II I /<`Y,t,1\ „If. '�' .j ,' •, r J 1 r ! f. At .' �, ; . 71 1 i �, J F I .� i \1W�� • I r r+ s r pt I, �9Ae; a \. �) \\ L C'b, ./ '� ..�0 ' 1�.:Ji /�� i%' I .'' J9 ,,1,, �}�yJ , �, I II Park If ,,,f BaRer i000 ,))�l lime, '•! /, �•'.,(; /'' 'L.:1% i ��' — Park / If 'C ri' q Y „IV':� ..i.. • v ± - -_ I y -_ -�� �; ” - " , (fir ' t /•� 1 ,': � � �� �ff_�� \I � obstructed �� \� -i1 _ view of West Hill ' 1 1 / d1 I'1 \ I �C'1� II' '�I I- -- i•fr �1 {4\ t / "1" •. , �Uh/ / ij�•�� !' y�i/ ; !)1 ` l� \t• Jot PII It ' �/y \�' i , j J ( 1 �• i 'J �/ i I I _) II r` 11\1 �J 1}1 '/� '1 Jr'/', •r/ 1 / 1 / t•• / If oo ���i ��! �,),) \)111 � /',L�11• J ° rl ��I �/, i,i• /, 0.,., �'' 'I' / 11 \ � •'(,O � � � i, // 1 e /i .. 'I� � l) /;, >l j(�1 /� '/ ''�,h.111, It °'. `(fo ;r. f • /�r).� r � � �•..,, �, ,�:, �; �� � ,� / J /�� ����; !� I / �!/ •'i� Zi. I "�2 i �� 1�- � � f j��, ), .,,'.• : I '- .�, � /iii � � /;; : o �, PI 0 Ib Q "s -flit tt, -',)) jJl;, ) /i�; r�'r'' 'C' ,1 � �� � ti� �. r'� .✓� _ c ` /opt r; ]list all rf 1 �Ij ', ,•y,_.: ,iJ' �.�I. �,% ,�1In IC( VdfleY ! 4i , .5� �i ` — Y at ;• I���Jj Ilv� -�l1r .,' � _ 0 r' ! :T4••.�►;; I,, ��,,�;/ �.• ,1,,,: 1�� ,, .Q ,. ,�,, k -�, -, =�1,� � � `�� � � "�l � (11 I � �, ' ♦fy � cer. . � ,�:/ .i .,> ) r ) f ,� ,. . 1 (j 1I p \ Vtl(1�/ 1 ( \\ I I, 11 1.1 r �\ 'fit - L :J I I \G�• (,� I\ \ °' ,�, I��' . fi ' I /' '1 .. 1�� 1., �'. Q�' / % (r'• 1 '`1 I l.. ('� \. \J( \_�.� W if I all attoppip all rj its c— fillip, ; ' +' 1 It \..- oa;� it lip. c— it Of it l ft 1 l .. ii, — - ,O� ,/ `�;yl o� -SSO I�I //K/.PP�I r( /r ', /I ��• •��1 `1 Ji %._L_.. _.'... i(, rJPr�- .� "•`�L� -1� I� �(•����' \I• / / .i���) t)1 ail I.��Y rr,, �,1� y ��� _ vAI��,(i i 7RD n- ) If �( r u lJ Mr. John Yntema 993 Danby Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Yntema. ITHACARE ... a home ... a community ... a way of life I read your letter published in the January 17, column, "Our Readers Write." Quite frankly, I TA and sadden by your characterizations of Ithacare' Hill senior living community. Unfortunately, shared with the public was misleading. It described our development nor did it reflect the February 4, 1994 1994 Ithaca Journal ras disappointed with s proposed new South the information you neither accurately depth and breadth of our efforts to carefully balance the needs of providing desperately needed care and housing for the elderly while protecting wildlife habitats and maintaining scenic views. I would like to address each of your points specifically. You stated: "The building itself would cover almost three acres - with the extensive roadways and parking areas adding another four acres to the facility." Response: The total area covered including buildings, roads and all other paved surfaces is limited to approximately 2.75 acres. You stated: "It has two wings spanning about 600 feet." Response: Ithacare's residence includes four wings, the shortest of which is approximately 140 feet and the longest, approximately 200 feet. These wings are in many ways distinct residences that are separate from the congregate community. However, they are physically attached to common areas to offer elderly residents protection from extreme weather conditions that could be threatening to their health and safety. 115 South Quarry St. • Ithaca, New York 14850 . 607 -273 -4080 Mr. John Yntema -2- February 4, 1994 You stated: "Because the three story building height of 48 feet and other features of the project e:xceed the allowable legal restrictions, special legislation has been proposed to make many exceptions for this facility." Response. All building portions are two stories. Building heights will range from 25 to 32 feet in height. The only exception is a narrow peak over the building entrance that reaches a height of 313 feet. The "special legislation," known as special land use district #7 (SLUD) stems from the fact that existing zoning descriptions do not include residential care facilities. Consequently, the SLUD was proposed to recognize such an entity. This type of "special legislation" would be required regardless of the location of Ithacare's community. Please, let's also not forget that this site was zoned heavy industry until Ithacare received approval of its application for a special land use district. In effect, Ithacare has protected the land and the neighbors from industrial development. Certainly, you can appreciate this very important fact. You stated: "...would include permitting obstruction of the view from the overlook. Even without the obstruction, the facility would be a three story eyesore underlying and detracting from the entire view of the lake, the city and West Hill blocking out the view of woods which make up the rest of the scenery now visible from the overlook." Response: The elevations proposed for the new senior community place the complex at, or below, the highest level of the overlook. The only exception is the modest peak over the entrance, standing six feet above the highest overlook elevation. Consequently, people standing at the overlook will look over the senior residence and continue to enjoy an unobstructed view of West Hill with the exception of the view at the base of the valley. There will be no obstruction of city and lake views. Some views of the woods behind the building will be obstructed. However, views of the woods to the south and north of the complex will not be blocked by the complex's profile. 0 0 . Mr. John Yntema You stated. "... one can that portion furthest from -3- February 4, 1994 only wonder why the site is proposed for of IC's 66 acres in the area which is the college ..." Response: Our site analysis determined that placing the complex in its currently proposed location maintains the continuity of the balance of the college's 66.6 acre parcel of land. It also avoids direct obstruction of views of the city and the lake. What's more, it mitigates developing larger portions of land to the north, which incidentally, is a more productive habitat for birds, deer and other resident and migratory animals than is the current location. Your suggestion that a location further to the north could have been chosen resulting in a more auspicious location with only modest cost increases due to "... some extra earth moving ..." contradicts your statements expressing concern for the views, environment and size of the budget. You stated: "... although Ithacare had a survey done on the plants they have not indicated any concern or interest in checking on the resident or migratory animals that utilize the proposed site." Response: Your statement is not supported by Ithacare's actions. We carefully examined the possible environmental impact associated with developing a project on this site. Ithacare contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conversation for help reviewing the project: They indicated that due to "zones of influence" associated with the Buttermilk Falls wildlife preserve, a survey of flora on the site may be warranted. Ithacare took the initiative and proceeded to conduct such a study with the assistance of an independent botanist. Our investigation determined that there were no protected plant species on this property. With respect to animals, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation responded to our inquiry by stating their information indicated there were no endangered or protected animals on, or anywhere near, the site. Consequently, no detailed survey or inventory of animals was warranted. Certainly you can appreciate our interest in avoiding the expense of conducting unnecessary and unproductive studies, particularly in light of the fact that these resources can more appropriately be used to provide housing and care for the elderly. Mr. John Yntema -4- February 4, 1994 10 Thank you for the opportunity to address the points contained in your letter to the Ithaca Journal and correct any misunderstandings that may exist regarding our project. We will continue to keep you and other residents of South Hill apprised of our progress. We invite your questions and comments. I encourage you to accept our invitations to meet )periodically with us to discuss our project. I will contact you personally in the next few days and inquire about your interest in meeting with me to discuss this matter further. S Mark A. Macera Executive Director cc: Ithacare Board of Directors South Hill Residents U a I • 8A The Ithaca Jcurnal Monday, January 1 ; . 1994 Pkegarding Ithacare • 1 loca ' plans t* Your Dec. 18 article about the 160 -unit facility Ithacare plans to build on Danby Road 96B, was a bit misleading. The site is not "across from the college." since there is an almost continuous row of private: residences on the east side of 96B opposite the site. Thc only part of the campus to the cast of' those residences consists of soccer fields. Describing the proposed building size and location more fully would have helped explain the impact this project would have. The build- ing itself would cover almost three acres —with the extensive roadways and parking areas adding another four acres to the facility. It has two wings, spanning about 6(X) feet. The location selected is adjacent to rest - ential properties; as well as to the Cayuga ke scenic overlook. Because the three -story wilding height of 413 feet and other features of the project exceed the allowable legal restric- tions, special legislation has been proposed to make many exceptions for this facility. These exceptions would include permitting obstruction of the view from the overlook. Even without the obstruction, the facility would still be a three -story eyesore, underlying and detracting from the entire view of the lake, the city, and West Hill, blocking out all view of the woods which make up the rest of the scenery now visible from the overlook. . Considering that Ithacare's plans include 0 OUR UW%MM READERS - _ WRITE purchasing the land from Ithaca College. one can only wonder why the site is proposed for that portion of IC's 66 acres in the area which is furthest from the college and closest to the overlook and neighboring residences. With the S8.5 million budget, it would seem that a location further to the north could have been chosen. Even if sonic extra earth - moving might he rcyuired in tt site Llosct' to NCR, surely its cost Wendel he minor in com- parison to the huge hudget. Ane) the huge building would he it lesser eyesore, or maybe none at all, much as the large Emerson -Morse building at the north end of Danby Road is not even visible from 96B. Another notable oddity of this application for so many exceptions is that. although Ithacarc has had a survey clone on the plants, they have not indicated any concern or inter- est in checking on the resident or migratory animals that utilize the proposed site. John A. Yntema Town of Ithaca • vOMI mm NLW me W aa101 �aO OM{1l • . IIOtM1 � �a W IM lam Mn INq LL OR 4a1.OIO► AL 1[ NaIOR 11•= -a yN�Ill • / M M hIIM7L 0-1-, I At \ l i . RIIM [ IInJt 1t 111701 /01101/11 La11 / • R/al. +M1a Im Iq OSy11R ly ' a lr040A a R l Mill' • `aana — _ fw l0 N /-- -- - - - --- ---- - - - - -7 Awl in 40 lipform f awil lala 1aOp1141a�a1 r± jF 1$0rW►a Mar . / 'R r star% ,nl tie t so N`j 0 so Pool F as It E J /- le 1 ` VLC��J1��� s IS 1 �i- it- r raj 1 t r .\ `— 1 r na /r i uaals il l►a,a► l IRar vm e 1� t IP• I I off I I 1 it "al • — il:iah'wl"�o""a r Ns I I I dAl ` a., J ob so, 4�04 t•l+alft 1r a E "Li. �E Woo - - -- -7 ff4wt mww.a,b,.. 4 4 1 � -Lao Vr 9 i� G* + iEdie soft"Or so Jill pt i. CIO E 111 f !gill }{ '1t{! III Vii 1l�Jill .i {lL�1 �• !f!�filillfif!f il fl;i�'j!111,i!; ij! !alt f {rt�•fi!l t fit i 'ffl ft ! tll1�11 �i 111 1 R 't Ito 11 aamr 0 i ii E j lie 11111*1 lips E � i t ���• t! Tie loxIMJ• R _M ; �/ r ,' , A0 1 4� F05400 10s 1 1`�� ��• p.a i I •:roj0 i �� i �. GLENDALE FARM SUBDIVISION Ito 1 in t 'a f rr it1 EPHRAIM TOMUNSON III ���iIt bill ��'1 ■r ' —' —' q• •� L�O=C>X ROAD, WLYER RW A SEVE)J MILE DRIVE M14 II' D -{ I 1 ?00 a "Wak 1040"e mm", In role � 1 n G • HARRY CARLSON REGIONAL DIRECTOR February 10, 1994 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202 Mr. George R. Frantz Assistant Town Planner Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 E C E I U 11 7a . ITHACA f.NCII JU JOHN C. EGAN COMMISSIONER Dear Mr. Frantz. j RE: SEQR - LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION GLENDALE FARM SUBDIVISION & SAPONI MEADOWS SUBDIVISION We have received the material on each of the above projects. It appears neither project will require a permit from the Region. In both cases we are therefore an "interested agency" for SEQR purposes and not a party to the lead agency determination process. While the projects, either alone or together, do not appear to affect the State highway system, the impact on both the town road, Seven Mile Drive, and the county road, Bostwick Road, may require closer examination. We appreciate the opportunity these projects. If you have my staff, at (315)428 -4409. Very truly yours, to participate in the review of any questions, contact W. Egloff, of HARRY CARLSON, P.E. Regional Director of Transportation I 'iis M. Gross sociate 0 Transportation Analyst Exhibit #3 3/1/94 Minutes CORNELL U N I V E R S I T Y Department of City and Regional Planning •106 West Siblev Hall Ithaca, NY 11853 Nlarch 1, 1994 George Frantz. Planning Department, Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Frantz: Telephone: (607) 255 -1332 Fax: (607) 255-6681 We are working on the analysis of the material from the Inlet Valley archaeological excavation. The New York State required Phase I report for the Inlet Valley Project will be completed by the end of April 1994. However, for the April 5, 1994 Planning Board meeting I will be able to provide a map showing the exact locations where additional archaeological testing will be needed. As we discussed on the phone today I will outline our preliminary findings. 1) Field Number 3 on the Saponi Meadows property. Most of this field has little or no archaeological potential. The artifacts from this field are primarily very small fragments of Middle flint that are probably flakes from stone tools. There are a few spots where we would like Section to put in about 10 additional shovel tests to determine if these artifacts are just "stray finds" rather than evidence of a. village site. I do not think we will find evidence of a village on this field, but the SHPO archaeologists will probably require this additional testing just to be sure. 21 Field Number 1 on the Saponi Meadows property. Most of this field has little or no archaeological potential. The artifacts from this field are primarily very small. fragments of Sow Section flint that are probably flakes from stone tools. However, a hearth was found near the road and will require further excavation. In addition,there are a few spots where we would like to put in additional shovel tests to determine if these flint flakes are just "stray finds" rather than evidence of a village site. 3. Field Number 2 on the Saponi Meadows property. Most of this field has moderate to South excellent archaeological potential. Four roasting pits (that may be 2,000 years old) were n found near the road and will require further excavation. A potential house foundation was 1 Exhibit #4 3/1%94 Minutes • • located near the stream and an additional potential house foundation was located in a corn field. The artifacts from this field are primarily very small fragments of flint that are probably flakes from stone tools plus burnt animal bones. This field requires extensive testing to determine the boundaries of this potential village site. The archaeological field work can be completed during the five week Cornell archaeological field school scheduled for May 23 -June 24, 1994. 4) Tomlinson Property. The corn field has little or no archaeological potential. The minute amount of artifacts from this field are primarily very tiny fragments of flint that could be human -made or naturally occurring material. However, we will need to undertake testing in the alfalfa field and on the low hill in order to determine the archaeological potential of these other two sites. I do think that the additional archaeological work in Fields 1 and 3 on the Saponi Meadows property can be undertaken without any burdens to the planned construction schedule. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sherene Baugher, Assistant Professor Cornell University 2 0 February 22, 1994 To. Mr. Robert Kenerson and Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Janet E. Hawkes, Acting Chairperson Environmental Review Committee, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Re: Glendale Farm /Tomlinson Subdivision, Project No. 9401126 The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) evaluated the possible environmental impacts of subdividing the Glendale Farm/Tomlinson parcel "D", Tax Parcel No. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, and 31- 6 -1.2, into 21 lots and park/open space. The committee supported Preliminary Subdivision but recommends contingencies for approval. The ERC recommends that final approval of the subdivision be conditional upon written confirmation of an archaeologist that development would have no archaeological impact. ® For the identified streams on the property the ERC recommends that the applicant use best management practices during construction. It is further recommended that the applicant preserve a buffer area of the existing native vegetation around any streams on the property to protect water quality and to act as a visual separation between land uses. The ERC was concerned about the steep slopes on the property and recommends that best management practices be followed to prevent erosion. cc: D. Walker, Town Engineer G. Frantz, Assistant Town . Exhibit #5 3/1/94 Minutes Planner • ► w � r- �roto ,rr U, n n A O 0 TI D N N A to A W' D V 0 Z K 1 1 D 0 e°°t 0\. mm IV O (D C U) /) CD o I I O' 1 1 1 I 1 1 , '1 ` i ' to LL CD \ ! ' X ` j to •i ' ' Poo omo C •�. 1 1�i 1 i i Z \ ' � O ool N / N (D L n ,� ♦♦ �� foo f. O �� \ < ` CD Z \ n O \ i ` \ � f O 1 ! p O (A CD n CL (D (D n O D KA N� Z N N 1 i \ I I I \ I 1 \ I U) /) CD o I I O' 1 1 1 I 1 1 , '1 ` i ' to LL CD \ ! ' X ` j to •i ' ' Poo omo C •�. 1 1�i 1 i i Z \ ' � O ool N / N (D L n ,� ♦♦ �� foo f. O �� \ < ` CD Z \ n O \ i ` \ � f O 1 ! p O (A CD n CL (D (D n O D KA a- 0 0 A February 22, 1994 To. Mr, Robert Kenerson and Town of Ithaca Planning Board From. Janet E. Hawkes, Acting Chairperson Environmental Review Committee, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Re: Saponi Meadows Subdivision, Project No. 9312122 The Environmental Review Committee environmental impacts of subdividing No. 33- 3 -1.2, into 54 pieces including an area zoned Light Industrial. (ERC) evaluated the possible the Saponi Meadow site, Tax Parcel 52 building lots, one Town park and Our comments, outlined below, focused on the archaeological significance of the site, preserving water quality, and preserving wetlands on the property. The committee supported Preliminary Subdivision but recommends contingencies for approval. The ERC recommends that final approval upon completion of further study of the contain artifacts and a full report of an F. Albern, dated 11/4/93). of the subdivision be conditional areas identified to potentially archaeologist (see letter from W. For the four identified streams on the property the ERC recommends that the applicant use best management practices during construction. It is further recommended that the applicant preserve a buffer area of the existing native vegetation around the four streams to protect water quality and to act as a visual separation between land uses. To the extent possible, the ERC would urge the applicant to preserve the wetland associated with the stream going through lots #37 and #38 as identified on the Site Plan dated November 30, 19930 The ERC strongly encourages the preservation of the 1.3 acres wetland in the Southeastern corner of the property. Although there was no specific development plan for this section of the property indicated on the January 77 1994 Site Plan, the applicants proposed reducing the wetland by one acre, with the resulting wetland being .3 acre. The ERC recommends preservation of this wetland for several sound reasons: 1) this particular wetland is essential to the drainage of the area; 2) No culvert or other drainage exists under Route 13 to drain the area if the wetland was reduced; 3) the wetland is a classic example of a glacial kettle and is a unique feature and should be preserved intact; 4) this feature has educational value and because of its close proximity to the road, has been used by Cornell and other classes to demonstrate an ice age feature. cc: D. Walker, Town Engineer G. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Exhibit #7 3/1/94 Minutes 4 0 0 OF TOWN OF ITHACA 0, 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 �� -W, 4 TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -3035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1747 March 2, 1994 Barbara Caldwell, Chair Town of Dryden Planning Board 65 East Main Street Dryden, New York 13053 Dear Ms. Caldwell: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board appreciates this second opportunity to comment on the proposed Peregrine Hollow Cluster Development the supplemented (Town of Dryden Tax Parcel No Final Environmental 69- 2 -3.2). We reviewed Impact Statement dated February 18, completeness. address the 1994 and found it difficult to ascertain Specifically, the FEIS does not satisfactorily Town's concerns outlined in Carolyn Grigorov's its letter of December 10, 1993. The Town of Ithaca requested review and approval authority for all site drainage considerations on watershed areas flowing into the Town of Ithaca. There has been no response to this petition. The EIS establishes all impact analyses on 225 proposed units. In reality, there could be as many as 327 possible units if all 98 single family houses (As shown on Page 27 of the Environmental Impact Statement dated June 1993) build their allowed accessory apartments. This is a 45% increase in density not considered in calculating potential impacts on community services such as schools, traffic, water and sewer demands, recreation facilities, public transportation, garbage service, mail delivery, and emergency services. Many of these impacts, especially the increased use of the Town's roads and neighborhood park, will directly affect the Town of Ithaca residents and taxpayers. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board urges greater intermunicipal cooperation with the hope that our concerns will be satisfactorily addressed before the granting of final approval for the Peregrine Hollow Development. Sincerely, • Robert L. Kenerson, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board RK /srh Exhibit #8 3/1/94 P4inutes 1 1% • • TOWN OF ITHACA MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Robert L. Kenerson, Chair DATE: March 15, 1994 RE: Planning Board Member Project Assignments As we discussed at a Planning Board meeting several weeks ago, it would be helpful members of the Planning Board to become more involved in projects earlier in the review process. For many projects, we do not get to pass judgement until after all the groundwork has been completed by staff for our approval. The sketch plan phase helps to give applicants informal feedback from the Board, but often much time elapses between the sketch plan and preliminary phases, during which staff and applicant discuss the project independently of the Board. Getting Board members more involved in the sketch plan and preliminary phases of the process would make us a more pro - active Board. This need not involve significant additional time on the part of the Board. For the FGEIS, Candace and Steve met with Planning Staff for about 2 hours once per week for a period of three weeks. Most projects will require significantly less time over a longer time period. I propose that Board Member project assignments be made using a team approach, using our official Town of Ithaca Roster (attached). Since Steve and Candace were involved in the FGEIS, the next two Board Members on the list are Herb and Virginia. The next project on our agenda is Sanctuary Woods, and I propose that these two Board Members take on this project. Staff can send you the appropriate information as it becomes available, and consult with you on appropriate times to meet to discuss the project as fits everyone's schedules. The next two Board Members on the list are Eva and Jim. One of the next items of note on our agenda is the Ithacare site plan. I propose that they take on this project. For future project assignments, we can begin with myself, at the top of the roster. We can evaluate this system in a few month's time to see how it is working. I would appreciate feedback from Board Members and staff on this system. PC: Planning and Engineering Staff Exhibit .r9 3/1/94 Minutes 1