Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-07-18FILED FINAL TOWN- )OF ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD LderU JULY 18, 1995 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 18, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, Herbert Finch, James Ainslie, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Mark Macera, Winsome Worthen, Ruth Newhall, Virginia Bryant, Joseph A. Cimmino, Alan D. Stewart, ? Seitz (Illegible), Anne Butler, Jeff Stimpson, Attorney Susan Brock, Nancy J. Stage, Martha Stage, John Confer, Nancy Frank, David Cowan, Fred Noetscher, Jeffrey Spenard, Noel Desch, Michael A. Robinson, Tony Lister, Emma Schutz, CB Ganoung, Ronda Engman, John A. Krout, Edward Hershey, Barbara Blanchard, Tom Niederkorn, John Yntema, Chris Pelkie, Peter Voorhees, Allyn Ley, John Whitcomb, Kara Hogedorn, Dave Rumsey, David ? (Illegible), Carl Guy, Charles Brodhead, Nancy Brown, Claudia & Jerry Weisburd, Kate Benjamin, Liz Walker, CD Smith, Jared Jones, Monty Berman, Steve Gaarder, Sara Pines, Arthur Goodin, Sue Bissell, David Anderson, Unknown, Joan Bokaer, Jay Jacobson, Pamels Carson, Doug Shire, Robert Wheeler, Lonnie Wheeler, Alan Pytcher. Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 19, 1995 and June 21, 1995, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town 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 June 21, 1995. (Affidavits of Posting and Publication is attached hereto as Exhibit #1) Chairperson 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. closed this segment of the meeting. Chairperson Smith Planning Board Minutes 2 Approved August 15, 1995 July 18, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, TO CONSIST OF A 115,000+ SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACARE COLLEGE, ON THAT 28± ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 39 -1 -3, DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO, 7, ITHACARE CENTER, APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7:35 p.m, and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Chairperson Smith stated that this is a Public Hearing on the SEQR and asked how many members of the public wished to speak. Approximately 20 people raised their hand and indicated that they would like to speak. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board will set a ten minute time limit for those that wish to speak on this matter to be sure that everyone has a change to speak. Chairperson Smith stated that if time permits, additional time would be allowed for further comments. Winsome Worthen, a resident of Ithacare and the president of beginning. On July 11, 1995 I looked at all the photographs provided at the Resident Council at Ithacare, stated that she had been asked to present the Board with a petition which has been signed by 75 residents in support of a new senior living center on South Hill. (Petition the original proposal do not is attached the building would severely compromise the hereto as Exhibit #2) John Yntema of 993 Danby Road, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to read a letter from Deborah Martin who also lives on Danby Road. Mr. Yntema read Ms. Martin's letter as follows: "I am scheduled to be out of town for the July 18th meeting so I have asked John Yntema to share my letter with the Planning Board. I have followed the progress of the Ithacare proposal from the beginning. On July 11, 1995 I looked at all the photographs provided at the site on Danby Road, Although I am (in) full favor of Ithacare building a new facility, I remain unconvinced that the site on which they are proposing to build is acceptable. the compromises that have been made in the original proposal do not change the fact that the building would severely compromise the Planning Board Minutes 3 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 view from the scenic viewpoint. Even more disturbing is the lack of concern for the safety of the residents and their visitors given the heavy traffic on 96B. I would fully support a new Ithacare facility at another location. The site could still have the advantages of a short commute for Ithaca College students and beautiful scenery, and at the same time could be built without losing one of the most beautiful views in the area and causing a serious traffic hazard." (Ms. Martin's letter, dated July 14, 1995, is attached hereto as Exhibit #3) Mr. Yntema stated, "I want to give you (the Board) a little history if you'd bare with me. There was a lawsuit, as you know, and the lawsuit came about because the judge determined, we determined, the judge determined that you (the Board) had not given it (the Ithacare proposal) a hard look. And I think two of the reasons why the hard look was not given, and it's not just the view, this is a hard look at everything, was that much of the original EAF was prepared by the Assistant Town Planner (George Frantz) who subsequently said on many many occasions the Board doesn't need to consider this, you don't need to consider that, that's already been decided, you approved this, this didn't matter,' and so on. And it happened many, many times. He (Mr. Frantz) is also the person who submitted an affidavit in the trial, the only person on the staff that I know of. Secondly, about a year ago I was not allowed to give my testimony on the EAF because Ms. Cornell (A Board Member) stated that this was not the proper time or forum to debate analysis of environmental fact and this topic was discussed already by the Board. This was a public hearing, no public input was allowed, so you (The Board) didn't get the opportunity to say here is some other viewpoints. Secondly, in the EAF on the, what I guess is the Town Planner's (Jonathan Kanter) recommendations in Part III, were ignored. And I noticed that in his memo to you (The Planning Board) dated June 15th, he's listed a number of other things and the Board ignored those also, both the alternatives and the mitigation measures. Now, what I really would like to discuss, because I did mention some of the other things, and I have to praise Mr. Wilcox for bringing it up, is that the Board did not discuss, at least in public presence what the public had brought up, they only discussed the view. I did not bring that up and would like to discus that view now. This (Appeared to be a newsletter) is from the Ithacare building bulletin, no date a couple years ago, it's a picture of a tree by the scenic overlook outlet next to the macadam. I wrote a letter to Mr. Macera because it says the view from the South Hill site is arguably Tompkins County's most breath taking panoramic vista of Cayuga Lake. And then this was their calendar head for 1994, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever ". Quite true. "Cayuga Planning Board Minutes 4 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Lake as seen from Ithacare's future South Hill site" This (photo) is on the overlook, this is not where the site is. And I said gee, it's too bad you didn't include the building in the picture. And Mr. Macera wrote back to me and said I'd be delighted to know that standing here next to the street, 200 feet away, you can't see the building. These are the kinds of things that are really concerns to me. There is also something in the DEIS, a couple of letters and also comments that the Chamber of Commerce, the Vistor's Bureau, the Finger Lakes Association basically don't really care about the view. They don't promote it, they don't get any inquiries and so on. I's like to give you (The Board) a few counter perspectives. Mr. Toomey testified December last year, "Historic Ithaca's concern is to preserve the spectacular historic trademark view of Ithaca that one has from the overlook on 96B for the taxpaying public who's dollars paid for that overlook." From the Finger Lakes Land Trust executive director, "The view from the overlook is indeed spectacular and deserves to be protected." So there's been a lot of negative comments about the view and it just was happenstance I ordered a book from the National Geographic, which as ,you know must be a national publication. And it's called "Scenic Highways and Byways" There is a section on New York, there is a section on Cayuga Lake, and low and behold, where did they take the picture of Cayuga Lake from? The overlook. It's a spectacular view. Mr. Yntema showed an enlarged copy of the picture of Cayuga Lake from the above - mentioned book. Mr. Yntema then showed another enlargement of the same picture with a cut out of the proposed Ithacare building taped to it and stated, "This is what part of the building 'is going to do to it (the view shown in the picture). I think that's a tragedy." Board Member Gregory Bell asked if Mr. Yntema would pass the photos around so that the Board could see them. Mr. Yntema stated that the Board could view them but that he would like them back because they were expensive. Mr. Yntema continued, by stating, "I'm a private individual, I don't have $8 million in my budget and I think Ithacare's protestations that everything is too expensive and the Planning Board accommodating them in every way, well they don't have to do that because it's expensive, indicates that Ithacare gets special dispensation when it comes to environmental problems and I don't think that's fair." Mr. Yntema asked if there were any questions. Board Member Gregory Bell asked Mr. Yntema if that was the extent of his testimony. Planning Board Minutes 5 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Mr. Yntema stated that he would submit written testimony later on because he did not want to take up a lot of time tonight. Board Member Bell asked if Mr. Yntema was going to make specific comments in his written testimony. Mr. Yntema responded, yes. Chairperson Smith stated that even at the close of the Public Hearing, there will be at least a ten day period in which the public can submit written comments. Joseph Cimmino addressed the Board and stated that he is a retired Air Force Officer residing at 1306 Oberon Drive in King Ferry, New York. Mr. Cimmino stated that he was representing his elderly mother -in -law, a resident of Ithacare, under her Power -of- Attorney. Mr. Cimmino read a prepared statement to the Planning Board. Part of Mr. Cimmino's statement included ten photographs, and two maps that he had attached to poster boards which can be reviewed in the Planning Department at Town Hall. (Mr. Cimmino's statement is attached hereto as Exhibit #4) Board Member Gregory Bell stated that Photograph Number 1 shows two signs. Mr. Cimmino stated that there are two signs shown in Photograph Number 1, one sign says "Parking Area" and below that sign is another one that shows an image of a camera. Board Member Bell asked Mr. Cimmino what the image of the camera meant? Mr. Cimmino responded that the image of the camera meant that there is a photographic opportunity available from the parking area. Board Member Bell asked if that indicated only a safety turn off area or does that indicate something about view. Mr. Cimmino stated that it indicates that one could use their camera, if this site was a scenic overlook designated by the State, it would say so, the sign has a very specific designation. Board Member Bell asked if Mr. Cimmino was indicating that the camera sign does not indicate that it's a scenic overlook no matter what its designation. Planning Board Minutes C* Approved August 15, 1995 July 18, 1995 Mr. Cimmino responded, that he is saying that it is a safety parking area with photographic opportunity. Mr. Cimmino stated, yes, there is a view from that site, there is no question. The sign that the community developed with the State says "Cayuga Lake City of Ithaca Overlook constructed with community support by the New York State Department of Transportation maintenance forces ". Mr. Cimmino stated that he had been to the site and watched people with cameras get out of their vehicles and get back into their cars because the lake was so hazy one could not get a decent photograph. Mr. Cimmino stated that there is a view that is possible, but he thinks that the evidence suggests that is not the primary purpose of that site. Mr. Cimmino stated that his evidence, looking at cars coming in and using the site, and the majority of cars use it for the purpose for which it was intended by the State, a safety parking area. Board Member Bell asked if observation of cars in December, January and March, when the place isn't even plowed, are appropriate for determining the use as a view. day, Mr. Cimmino stated that he was there at various times and some very beautiful days as indicated by his testimony, of the there cars are many out of 30 variables on various that need to be considered. But, days, some of which were very fine only 6 days, took a look at the view. Nancy Frank of 206 Klinewood Road addressed the Board and stated that she was a member of many national conservation groups, one of which is the Nature Conservancy which has a chapter in New York State, Ms. Frank stated that she is more than happy and pleased that Ithacare has done such a tremendous job in looking at the environment and changing their plans and bending over backwards to meet the needs of the requirements put upon them. Ms. Frank stated that she is also pleased that residents now and in the future can enjoy nature and all of its beauty which lends so much to their mental and physical health as they are in their twilight /golden years. Ms. Frank stated that she was a member of the Board of Ithaca ten years ago and she was the chairman of the Long Range Planning Committee when the dream was started to find a suitable place for Ithacare. Ms. Frank stated that there were numerous site visitations while looking for a place for the residents to live. Ms. Frank stated that the association with Ithaca College is exciting and she knows that it will be a benefit to Ithaca, Ithacare, the future residents and the community. Ms. Frank stated that her mother -in -law had spent approximately 4 years at Ithacare while she was in the middle stages of Alzheimer's Disease before she was transferred to Lakeside Nursing Home, Ms. Frank stated that the care and the love that she had received at Ithacare is indescribable. Ms. Frank stated that even after her mother -in -law had moved to Lakeside, staff from Ithacare still took Planning Board Minutes 7 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 the time to visit okay and that she that Ithaca cared for the residents Michael Robi statement to the her was for nson Plan there and make sure th comfortable. Ms. Frank Ithacare the way that I of 248 Floral Avenue, ping Board: at the transition was stated that she hoped thacare's staff cares read from a prepared "Mr. Chairman. Members of the board. My name is Michael A. Robinson. I live at 248 Floral Avenue, Ithaca, New York 14850. I am a writer and a professional consultant. I might add, at one point in life, I worked as a professional environmentalist with the organization that spearheaded the "Clean Water Act ", the "Clean Air Act ", New Jersey's "Clean Water Enforcement Act" and numerous other laws, policies and practices that have played extremely important parts in staving off environmental disasters. Were that organization, "Clean Water Action" active in Tompkins County, it would be appalled that you could possibly consider the Ithacare proposal of the DEIS under consideration with any level of seriousness. As I stated to you at an earlier meeting, Ithacare is a bad proposal and it's draft DEIS is woefully lacking and fails to meet the scoping outline and other requirements in numerous ways. As a matter of fact, it is so totally lacking in its obligations to meet specific requirements, it is beyond me how this board could have considered it acceptable for the basis of this hearing. Having said the aforementioned, I will now be specific. The DEIS mandates the inclusion of a wildlife census. What has been tendered by Ithacare is an insult to the intelligence of this board, the Town of Ithaca and the people of the State of New York. In listing Mammalia, the only creature I found listed was deer. Now, this does more than challenge one's intelligence. It is a direct violation of the spirit and the letter of the law and a demonstration of cavalier arrogance that should have led almost everyone in this room, apparently with the exception of Ithacare and its people, to be aware to the existence of rabbits, field mice, chipmunks, muskrats, woodchucks, squirrels and any number of other mammals maintaining a presence on that property. No reptiles are mentioned. This is thoroughly amazing, insofar as the property in question is the home of garter snakes, milk snakes, turtles, lizards and who knows how many more. The only way we'll ever know is for a legitimate assessment to be conducted by a professional firm with environmental credentials. Since I've already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Ithacare cannot be relied upon to conduct a comprehensive study of this kind. To further add insult to injury, Ithacare let us believe there are no amphibians existing on the property, when in reality it is the home to frogs, toads and eastern newts, as well as other creatures Ithacare intentionally failed to catalogue. Ithacare's bird census fails to mention the vast majority of the more than forty species Planning Board Minutes 8 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 of birds that have been documented by area bird watchers on that property, and equally as bad, there's no mention of other creatures that live there and play important ecological roles in both animal and human food chains. The bees that harvest pollen on that property were certainly worthy of mention and two (2) threatened insect species that have been found on that property received no mention, either as a result of cunning or ignorance. For the record, those insects are the Praying Mantis and the Walking Stick. Suffice it to say, the board is totally justified and obligated to reject Ithacare's DEIS for failing to property inventory the wildlife that `lives on, uses and depends on that property for its existence. As I mentioned to this board on an earlier date, when WTKO Radio sought to construct its towers on King Road in the Town of Ithaca in the early 70's, the board said no, that the open-air - latticed- structures would constitute "visual pollution ". Today, that property is covered with single- family homes and the towers, less than 1,000 feet from those homes, in the Town of Danby, in no way impair the visibility of the new residences that have been built. Still, this board chose to be safe rather than sorry, and it amazes me under the circumstances, how you (the Board) can possibly consider allowing a 115,000 square foot structure to devastate the existing views of adjacent and area homeowners and ruin their property values in the process. More germane to the DEIS, although Ithacare has attempted to obfuscate the real facts of what it wishes to perpetrate upon the property, the area, the Town of Ithaca and the State of New York, the truth is this project will totally disrupt the glorious view of West Hill, a portion of the Enfield Hills and have a major impact on the spectacular view of Cayuga Lake that led the State of New York to create a scenic overlook adjacent to the property in question. In addressing this, I might add, that there are signs there that say scenic overlook. I have viewed the signs that say scenic overlook and unless somebody has removed the signs that say scenic overlook, which is always possible, it was designated as a scenic overlook in addition to being a rest stop. I might also add that I can understand that comments of the former officer mentioning those things. If we take a look at the military's horrendous record of protecting the environment the almost $50 Billion in clean up of closed bases that is now being required by the environmental protection agency will understand the total disregard for nature that comes from that area. If my reading of the DEIS is correct, Ithacare suggests it may leave a slight view of the top of Enfield Hills and only infringe a little bit on the view of Cayuga Lake. In many ways this proposal reminds me of the suggestion that you can be a little bit pregnant, or that you can cut the lips and nose out of the Mona Planning Board Minutes 9 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Lisa and still have most of the beautiful painting left to enjoy. The documentation presented is misleading at best and maybe even criminal. In addition to permanently altering the visibility from the State designated scenic view, the spectacular views from automobiles heading north on Route 96B will forever be impaired by this development. From the point on the highway where the full vista comes into view, at forty miles an hour a passenger has approximately 32 seconds to luxuriate in the spectacular panorama. Where the proposed structure to be erected as suggested, that viewing time could be cut to as little as five seconds or less. These observations were made by me personally, and I believe they will pass any scrutiny. Figures lie and liars figure, and the figures and photos offered certainly fail in that category. The proposed lighting would undoubtedly detract from the beauty of the night time view of the lights outlining the lake and the long -range effect could cost our area untold sums as a result of marring this uncommon view of natural beauty. The only way to prevent this from happening is to tell Ithacare that in spite of its willingness to wreck nature, ruin homeowner's property values, and devastate potential tourism, to save the cost of pumping sewage up the hill, it will have to more this development 800 to 900 feet west of its intended site. Ithacare tells this board that without this development it could go out of business. It suggests it is some kind of special public service organization, and as such it should receive favored treatment no commercial developer could ever get. Let's set the record straight, Ithacare has presented no financial documentation of these statements. It has failed to address what it intends to do with the remaining portion of this prime property site. It is not a registered charity. Though it chose of incorporate as a not - for - profit corporation, it generates positive cash flow, and it might be added that some of the most successful corporations in America are incorporated as "not- for - profit ". In addition to the aforementioned failure of Ithacare to meet the minimum requirements of this DEIS, there are two more areas where it has offered little more than token recognition of what could develop into extremely serious problems. Namely, the handling of its sewage and the property displacement creating the potential for flooding of Stone Quarry Road and other areas to the west and north of the proposed facility. Much more detail should have been provided and it should have been prepared by top -notch hydrologists and engineers. No doubt, others will be able to address these questions with more knowledge than I, but it is imperative they be answered. To date, they have not be adequately answered and certainly not in the draft DEIS tendered by Ithacare. There is one other potential impact on the Town of Ithaca that I have not mentioned. Insofar as the State designated scenic view I s concerned, its obstruction is tortious; a wrongful act against all the people of the State of New York and it is incumbent upon Planning Board Minutes 10 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 the Town of Ithaca, its boards, agents and nominees to not allow it to be diminished in any way. Rather than me address the possible consequences, I have noted that one of the most famous litigators in the United States, CNN legal consultant J. Michael Kelly of Los Angeles, is present here this evening. Mr. Kelly, whose legal exploits include successfully arguing the first legal divorce of children from their parents, a $12,000,000.00 award for children abducted, and his work for Childhelp U.S.A., along with publishing three or four books, is a property owner immediately adjacent to the property in question. I will leave those areas to him. I thank you for your time and consideration and implore you to require Ithacare to meet both the spirit and the letter of the law. This board will eventually make a final determination, and in doing so I ask you to stop Ithacare from running roughshod over its proposed new neighbors, the people of the State of New York or anyone else. This can best be accomplished by notifying them if they want to build, they'll have to consider all interests, not just their own, and they can accomplish this by moving their proposed facility 800 to 900 feet due west. I thank you. If you have any questions, I'll try my best to answer them." Board Member James Ainslie asked Mr. Robinson if the Ithacare building obstruct the view of Cayuga Lake as one would come down Route 96 heading north. Mr. Robinson responded, partially. Board Member Ainslie stated that he had never seen a picture that shows that this building intrudes anything on the view of Cayuga Lake, Mr. Robinson stated that Mr. Ainslie needed to place himself "to the south of the proposed Ithacare facility, drive up toward a two story building with other would find that you now have an a portion of the lake view but and all but the very tops of th visible from that side." extensions of lighting, etc., one obstruction. Not only cutting off cutting off almost all of West Hill e Enfield Hills which are now fully Board Member Ainslie stated that he lives on West Hill and that what Mr. Robinson said was not a true statement. Mr. Robinson stated that he "lives at the bottom of West Hill but he went to Ithacare's proposed site to check it." Planning Board Minutes 11 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Board Member Ainslie stated, as farms out Danby way, Newfield way, an old farmer, there were and those fields were all many cut off, but now with no farming the fields are growing up and there is great haven there for every type of species there that has been mentioned. Mr. little imprint of Ainslie asked why Ithacare going to Mr. Robinson felt that destroy everything. this Mr. Robinson responded, "Because of its proximity to so much development already existing. The deer can't play in the court yards at Ithaca College. The other animals residing there aren't going to find safe haven in the old NCR building." A member of the audience asked Mr. Robinson to repeat his last statement. Mr. Robinson repeated that the deer can't play in the court yards at Ithaca College, Town Attorney Barney stated that one person speaks at a time and there is not going to be a debate, this is to receive comments from the public only. Chairperson Smith stated that unless it is for clarification, the Board members points for discussion can be held until after the Public Hearing is closed. Mr. Robinson stated, "I will complete his (Mr. Ainslie's) question by saying, and Stone Quarry Road would not be a very safe place for them." Nancy Stage of 39 Hillcrest Road, addressed the Board and stated: "I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this evening. I come wearing three hats, but as I've sat here, I have acquired a few more, and I will try to address those also." Ms. Stage then read from a prepared statement: "Dear Sir and Board Members: I implore the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to permit Ithacare to build a new senior living center as proposed on the identified South Hill site. I speak to you from three perspectives: as a former resident of South Hill, as a new resident to Ithaca, and as an impassioned relative of an Ithacare resident. I was born and raised in Ithaca and spent my happiest childhood years growing up on Hudson Street. I have witnessed many changes to this neighborhood. Ithaca College is a very positive aspect of 30 years of transitions on South Hill. The economic development that has occurred as a result of its relocation from downtown has encouraged numerous small businesses to emerge and Planning Board Minutes 12 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 flourish. The attractive physical plant, landscaping, and community resources developed by Ithaca College more than offset the effects of any additional traffic or student housing. I can't imagine the Fourth of July without the benefit of real fireworks displays. I can't imagine a more beautiful setting for my wedding 20 years ago. Consider the youth, productive adults today, that have passed through the nationally recognized Ithaca College programs. I want those studying in its Gerontology Institute to have the benefits programmatic ties and hands on experience that Ithacare can provide if situated on South Hill. This relationship will set Ithaca College students apart in the increasingly competitive health care professions. It will set Ithaca apart as a community where senior citizens are encouraged to contribute. South Hill can benefit again through the establishment of a symbiotic relationship between Ithaca College and Ithacare. Many seniors in the 1990's do not have the benefit of extended family and are faced with living longer. I remind you that we will be walking in these moccasins sooner than we realize. I see a lot of gray hair in this room. Most of us will be approaching this from the perspective of low or middle income persons who cannot afford the opportunity that a place such as Kendall offers. Yet, we are responsible caring citizens who deserve dignity, security and caring relationships in our prolonged frail old age. I have seen the difference that Ithacare has made in my own family. My 91 year old grandmother was an isolated, depressed, senior citizen unable to cope with her dying husband. She was fortunate in that she lived in a single family home in Belle Sherman and had nearby family to assist her with transportation, shopping and health care. Yet she and her only child (who herself is in her seventies) both found their respective caretaker demands overwhelming, as they waited for an opening in Ithacare. The demand exists in Ithaca and the surrounding communities for such a facility and the site that it deserves to have is South Hill, Today, Ruth, my grandmother, is an optimistic, engaged and very busy lady who continues to thrive physically, intellectually, "relationally" and spiritually. She is the product of her new environment, even as inadequate and as obsolete as it is. She is using her mind in new challenges as an Ithacare Board member and as a guest lecturer at Ithaca College. She is in charge of her dignity and secure in her knowledge that she is more independent at Ithacare than she was in her home. She has more stamina for daily activities, a better diet and friends who have common memories and life experiences. My mother is more confident about her mother's living arrangements and less overwhelmed herself. They now have quality time with and for each other. Our collective regret is that Ithacare did not have facilities to accommodate Ruth and her beloved husband. They would not have had to suffer the indignity of separation that so emotionally drained them the last six months Planning Board Minutes 13 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 of my grandfather's life had the new facility, as proposed, existed. The construction of the Ithacare facility on the South Hill site is a necessity in our community. The planned residential style senior housing is the best use of the rezoned land. It is in accordance with the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan. Any other type of approved construction by the Planning Board would adversely affect density and substantially increase negative impacts. The proposed architectural plan and site development plan have met and mitigated all measurable impact, including any perceived impact on "scenic views ". On July 5th, I made a specific research trip up South Hill to see the site for myself, and I used the parking turnoff that is there evidently for safety purposes. When I approached from the North, the,,signage for the site was right on top of the driveway. Had I been -doing the speed limit, I would not have been able to negotiate the turn. A tourist would have to be clairvoyant to take advantage of the overlook. I went one step further and took a walk around. While there was a scenic view of the lake valley, my foreground viewing spoiled the effect of the entire experience. I collected just a small portion of the waste that was under foot and in plain view. I question the purpose and use of this site when I see fast food garbage, spent cigarette butts and beer bottle caps. It is incomprehensible to me how Ithacare could devastate this site in such a comparable manner. Turkey, deer, backyard birds, wetland, reptiles, amphibians and human beings will all be accommodated and benefit from the approval of the Ithacare proposal before you. The minimally interrupted view will more than be offset by the enhanced landscaping and presence of caring senior citizens who take pride in their surroundings. Actions are worth a thousand words. I question the true motivation of the few opponents to Ithacare 's proposed construction on South Hill. It is a conscientious proposal and the only sensible alternative to Ithaca's dire need for senior living. Ithaca's Planning Board has an opportunity to put itself in the forefront of communities addressing the challenges of the aging and its demanding demographics. I fully expect you to meet the challenge on behalf of the Greater Ithaca Community. And, in closing, I had not intended to do this, but I'm a good old girl scout and I have been taught to pick up trash. On my July 5th research trip to this site, I picked up this trash, (Ms. Stage showed the Board a box of trash she had collected.) and I bring it here tonight as an example of what the view is like. I will be glad to remove it, but, for the record, I would like you (the Board) to view it. Thank you for your time." Planning Board Minutes 14 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 NOTE: At the close of the meeting, the box of trash Ms. Stage had shown the Board was left in the Board room with a note written on the box which read, "Left as fact." Board Member Gregory Bell asked if Members the Board members were allowed to ask questions of the members of the public that speak. Chairperson Smith stated that if the questions specific to clarify something, but we do not want this to become a debating session. Board Member Bell stated that there has been a string of concertions which are clearly false, and he thinks that if these comments are allowed to stand on the record, there should be an opportunity to be able to question what these people mean and let them stand behind their statements. Otherwise, I think we should strike them from the record. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board Members have the right to ask them any questions you want if you choose to ask them. Attorney Barney stated that in terms of the way the process will be, is that these comments are accepted and then the Planning Board has the obligation to consider those comments and respond to them as part of the final Environmental Impact Statement. In the response one can make the point as to whether the points have any validity or they are representing erroneous desertions of the fact. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she did not feel it would be constructive to try to set the record straight. Board Member Bell responded that he did not want the people that are making false statements to go away thinking that the Board is just accepting them all. Attorney Barney stated that he thought that the final proof of that would be when the final document comes out. Attorney Barney stated that he did not want to deter the Board Members from asking questions as to a point of information, which is proper, but he did not feel that debating the issue between Board Members and people of the public is going to advance the process very much. Board Member Bell stated that he agreed and that was why he was not asking all realize that some of his questions, but he wants of the statements are not true. the public to Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated.that if the Board members needed a member of the public to clarify something that they have said, they should ask for that clarification. Planning Board Minutes 15 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Board Member Cornell asked if Board Member Bell was thinking of responding to comments made, or asking for clarification. anybody views on could Board Member Bell responded that he wanted to find out if they really believe what they are saying. For example, Ms. Stage stated that wildlife will be benefited by the construction of this project. Mr. Bell stated that he found it hard to believe that anybody views on could project and the view. defend once said that that statement, but she made it. Attorney Barney stated that he had found the prior speaker's statement to be somewhat impassioned, people have a lot of emotional feelings about these issues. Attorney Barney stated that he did not feel that debating each particular point is going to advance the process very much. Attorney Barney suggested that the Board let the people speak and if there is a question for clarification ask it, otherwise let them speak. Chairperson Smith stated that there were a number of written comments received from the public over the last few weeks, and read a list of the names of the people that made written submissions. (A copy of said list is attached hereto as Exhibit #5) Ronda Engman of Danby, addressed the Board and stated, I had just intended to step up and say that my statement of June 20th stands, and that I feel that the EIS is inadequate. But sitting back here in the audience, I'd like to make one other comment and that is that I'm a little bit disappointed in the way that the proceeding have been conducted because I think that some of the comments have been totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the Draft DEIS, and a lot of the comments are based on emotional issues, particularly by people who have relatives at Ithacare or themselves are thinking of living at Ithacare some time in the future. I don't think anybody is asking Ithacare to disappear off the face of the earth, it's simply a matter of location. I would like to request of the Board that the Board instruct those people who are going to make further comments to keep their comments to the issue at hand, which is the draft DEIS. I would hope that when the Board makes its decision that it will make its decision based strictly and solely on the matter of facts and what has been presented in a factual manner rather than by some sort of emotional issue. Thank you." Chairperson Smith stated that the Board should stick to what is included the DEIS as much as possible. Edward Hershey of 1156 Danby Road, addressed the Board and stated, "I come here in response to a leaflet that was left in my mailbox urging me to come. It didn't say anything about DEIS statement, it urged me to come and please state my views on this project and the view. And I'm doing so. Somebody once said that Planning Board Minutes 16 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 you can judge a society by the way it treats its prison inmates. Based on what I have heard and seen in this debate, in the Ithaca Journal and on the air waves, since coming to Ithaca, I would add: You can judge a community in the 1990s by the way it treats its elderly. I visited Ithacare in its present location with a friend 1who was visiting someone she knows, and I came prepared for the worst looking at the outward condition of that elderly building, and knowing from my days as a newspaper reporter covering the nursing home, elderly facilities, and adult home scandals of 15 to 20 years ago and what goes on inside. For once I was shocked for a positive and knowing something about the proposal, I thought to myself, if this facility can operate at this level of efficiency and care and clear love where it is, my goodness, what will it be like where it wants to go ?. I enjoy the view, I drive every day down that hill. I can tell you it's more refreshing than my first cup of coffee. I can tell you there's one view that I think I and all of us would enjoy a lot more, and it may be emotional, but it's real. The view of the kind of people we're talking about, who if we're lucky enough we will all one day become, enjoying that view themselves as productive residents in the final years of their life. I urge you to support this proposal. It sounds like a very good idea. And it sounds like Ithaca. Thank you." John Krout, a resident of Ithaca and the Director of the Gerontology Institute at Ithaca College, addressed the Board and stated, "I just want to reiterate that the location of Ithacare is strategically placed to enhance the intergenerational caring and education that is going to go on between Ithacare and Ithaca College students, and that particular location is very important to that. I also value views, I consider myself an environmentalist and I think Ithaca is a beautiful place and I think it has many beautiful views. To my mind the most beautiful part of that view is of the Lake which will not be, as I can determine from the data, impacted by the building of Ithaca. I also believe that driving down Route 96B, if you look at that view for 40 seconds, you're probably a dead person, cause you haven't been paying attention to the traffic. I drive down that road a lot and I seriously do not believe that people spend that much time looking at it. And, I also believe that it is true the view will be changed, you can not build a building and not change the view. The question is will it be destroyed? I do not think so. Will there be environmental and economic ruin to this area because of the building of the building? No, I do not think so. Will there have been an accommodation to the building? Yes. Will people have to change the way they view West Hill from that location? Yes. There is going to be a change, but I think, when looking at an environmental impact statement, we do have to take into consideration the relative nature of that change, the relative impact of that structure on that view and in that whole environmental setting. In my opinion, since we have basically heard statements of opinion with some fact, in my opinion Planning Board Minutes 17 July 18, 1995 there will still f area and I think losing completely gaining something Approved August 15, 1995 a very breathtaking view of the people should keep that in mind the beautiful views of that ar very valuable. Thank you." lake from that We are not �a and we are Board Member Bell asked Mr. Krout as the Director of the Gerontology Institute, is the gerontology program at Ithaca Collage accredited. Mr. Krout responded that no where in the nation are gerontology programs accredited. Board Member Bell asked what its status was academically. Mr. Krout responded that the Gerontology Institute is itself an administrative unit operates college wide. There are two gerontology courses of study at IC, there is gerontology minor which any student at Ithaca College can take regardless of major course of study, and there is a gerontology concentration for community health education majors. We also have in preparation to go to the State Education Department for what is called review and registration because they do not use the word accreditation or approval, a gerontology certificate for continuing education students. IC will soon have three courses of study for students both traditional and "non- traditional" in gerontology; all of whom would benefit from the proximity of Ithacare and, in addition, we have many students that may not take that degree of interest in gerontology. Board Member Bell stated that much of the discussion about location deals with the location in terms of view. Mr. Bell asked Mr. Krout what he thought of the proposed location in terms of the lack of pedestrian access that residents would have to any sort of community, and whether it is hazardous to the students to be walking across Route 96B, Mr., Krout sta connection between discussion about an service available i currently cross the ted that the two underpaE f needed highway it is difficult to gage where the facilities would be. There has been �s, there would be some kind of shuttle Mr. Krout stated that the students all the time anyway. John Confer stated that he has had some professional involvement with the Draft Impact Statement and would like to respond to some of the criticisms of that Draft Impact Statement. Mr. Confer stated that he "would like to preface his remarks by contrasting this evening with other parts of the world where, when people disagree, they quite literally kill each other. I have found this evening and other meetings to be truly and really wonderfully inspiring. I think it's really a wonderful tribute to Planning Board Minutes 18 our civilizat disagreeing as disagree with t is inadequate, remarks." Approved August 15, 1995 ion to have people strongly civilly and elegantly as they can. -.he characterization that the Draft and I would like to comment on July 18, 1995 disagreeing and I very strongly Impact Statement several specific Board Member Cornell stated that in Mr. Confer's letter contained in the DEIS, there was a statement which said, unusual species are found in unusual habitats. Ms. Cornell asked Mr. Confer could explain what that meant, it may help people understand the basic principle. Mr. Confer stated that "Tompkins County, at the turn of the century was 95o active agriculture, it is now about 40o agriculture and abandoned farm land has gone through the stages of succession where there is shrubby habitat as seen at the proposed site. There is still much farmland which is being abandoned in Tompkins County. It is a very common kind of a habitat in Tompkins County. It might almost the most common-type of habitat in Tompkins County and the plants and animals that depend on patches of grass and shrubs and trees coming in are widely distributed in Tompkins County, Upstate New York, and throughout most of eastern North America. This is not an unusual site. It is a dirt common kind of habitat and the great majority, every animal and plant species that I know of there occurs widely throughout Tompkins County. Addressing specifically the amphibians which use the pond, the first proposed map of the parking area encroach a little bit on the existing pond there. I spoke with Tom Niederkorn, I spoke with the site engineers, I spoke with Mark Macera, and from all of them I have had assurances, in fact the revised map of the parking area has moved back from its encroachment on the pond. The amphibians are safe, I would say. The drainage from the pavement which was once routed into that pond and which in a storm would cause great "pulsatile" rises and dropping of the water level which could kill some of the frogs and toads, and larval stages of the Walking Stick, has been re- routed to the downstream portion of the pond. The parking area has been removed. Some of the nicest wildlife features on that site had some assurance that their particular habitat would be protected. We have heard reference to the rarity of Walking Sticks and Praying Mantis. You can buy Praying Mantis commercially by the thousands, they are not rare. If we are to take the statement that every place that has a Praying Mantis is no longer open for development, there wouldn't be a house, road, parking lot, or building built in Tompkins County because once in a while, this rather commonly distributed animal is going to occur there. It is not a rare organism. You can buy it commercially, I have seen a advertisement for that this year. I don't believe that it receives any protection. The Walking Stick is an aquatic organism most of its life, it emerges to terrestrial flying for a brief time. The longest part of its life cycle would be protected in the pond area. Planning Board Minutes 19 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 I am not all that familiar with mammals, I have seen deer tracks there, the mice, the rodents, the woodchuck, that would occur there. I have spent 15 trips of one to five hours walking around that site. I get paid to be an environmentalist. I write articles in professional journals. I have received a number of internationally juried research grants. I have never seen anything that is unusual there. I do environmental studies as my profession and when I don't get paid for it, I spend weeks doing it, I spend nights doing it, I spend weekends doing it. My vacations are canoeing and camping in wilderness areas to look, in their actual environment. The species that occur in this habitat are widely distributed and common. I am absolutely confident of that with regards to the birds which I have identified. That is certainly my professional opinion with regard to the other organisms, some of which I have not identified. We have to make a balance, you (the Board) have to make a balance, you have to come up with some kind of solomon -like decision. It is absolutely true that if you build a parking lot, and a roof, and a building, you're going to kill some green photosynthetic stuff that provides food and habitat for organisms and you are going to decrease the number of wild organisms living in Tompkins County. Against that, we have to weigh things of different kind and degree and value and talk about Ithacare providing housing for the elderly. In weighing these two different criteria, two different kinds of value situations, please keep in mind that we live in a world and a country where the demography says we are going to have far more elderly people shortly: We live in a county and in a state where this kind of a shrub habitat is very common and we are trading the ability or inability to build housing for the elderly against protection or non - protection for a very common type of habitat." Board Member Cornell asked if inference could be used to assume that a certain animal could exist on a site based solely on the habitat that is observed, even without seeing the species itself. Mr. Confer stated that one could be leery of lists because "lay people" makes that site really unique for a Ithacare site is a dirt common site, rare plant or a rare bird, I would not use inference, but he would would assume that the list common site. The proposed and "if I wanted to find a spend a minute there." Jay Mattison of 985 Danby Road, addressed the Board and stated, "First off I'd like to thank the lady (Ms. Stage) that picked up the trash, we live across the street from there and generally every Monday morning at six o'clock when I put our trash out for Superior Disposal, I go over and pick up most of the refuse that's left there. I've been doing that for about four years, so I appreciate the once you did that. Thank you." Planning Board Minutes M Approved August 15, 1995 Ms..Stage responded, "Thank you." July 18, 1995 Mr. Mattison stated, "Ithaca College doesn't take care of it (The overlook) . I have questions which I would like to ask as part of the DEIS and what we have seen and heard. I guess what I'd like to do is start last Tuesday, it was July 11th, they (The Town Planning staff) had the viewing of the pictures over at the overlook and I'd like to start by asking both Jim Ainslie and Mark Macera a question to respond to, and that is: "Why aren't you 17 feet tall ?" Board Member James Ainslie responded that he did not understand that inference. Mr. Mattison stated, "We were looking at the skyline and looking at the trees, and I believe that between the two of you (Mr. Ainslie and Mr. Macera) you made the comment, I think Mark said, that the trees grow about six inches a year. Is that fairly accurate in depicting what you said ?" Mr. Macera responded that he deferred that to Mr. Mattison because he had quoted him several times. Mr. Macera stated that he did indicate that trees grow. Mr. Mattison stated that "Harry made the same comment to us, that trees would grow up and.." Board Member Ainslie stated that he did not believe that he had said anything. Mr. Ainslie stated that he did not talk to Mr. Macera on the site. Mr. Mattison stated that "this was separate, you were talking to several people and you were talking about the trees, your wife was there and I was there. Mr. Ainslie stated that George Frantz had pointed out that one of the trees in the picture was that tree over there. Mr. Ainslie stated that he did mention anything about trees growing. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Mattison needed to make a statement and make a point without trying to engage us in a question and answer session. Mr. Mattison stated, "What I am trying to have understood is that it was some type of an inference that the trees would grow up and continue to grow to a height and continue to grow forever. But I think we know that there are genetic, and metabolic and biologic constraints." Planning Board Minutes 21 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Board Member Ainslie stated that he took exception to that, he is a farmer and he knows that things stop. Mr. Ainslie stated that he never said anything about trees growing forever. Mr. Mattison responded, "Then'I misunderstood you. So, the trees are not an issue and will not grow any more." Mr. Mattison stated that he would like to refer to his letter of June 20, 1994, where I make the statement that "I strongly feel that there is not enough accurate and credible data available" for the Town Planning Board to make an informed decision on this project. "It is my opinion that (this) considerable misinformation has been presented or information based on innuendo has been presented as fact." Mr. Mattison stated, "that was a year ago and I just want to reiterate that. I'd like to have the pictures brought up because I have a question about those." (A copy of Mr. Mattison's letter, which is actually dated December 20, 1994, is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6) Mr. 'Mattison directed everyone's attention to photo IV.H.2.c. and asked on what date the photos were taken? Mr. Mattison asked if they were they taken the day of the balloon test? Mr. Macera responded that he was unsure of the date that the photos were taken, but most of the photos were taken the day of the balloon test, but some were not. Mr. Mattison stated that the day of the balloon test, the parking area was full of cars, however, in the photos in question the parking spaces are empty. Mr. Mattison asked how the photos were generated, who generated them and on what dates they were taken on, and how they were prepared, because I think there is a credibility issue here, neither good nor bad, but just wanting to know the methodology. I think is part of the information and the data collection process and the discovery process that we are using to make judgements on. If we take timed series or start putting things together from different sites, different days, I am questioning if we (the public) are seeing the real accurate and precise information. Mr. Mattison continued and stated that he "had a question of good Esquire Barney, and that is when we talk and we have the affidavits that were submitted as part of the litigation, the lawsuit - those are I want to have clarified and those are just statements and all that the sworn part means is that they are sworn at a certain time and place by a notary public. The accuracy and information that's contained on them has not been judged for accuracy, preciseness or credibility. It's just a statement made by an individual." Attorney Barney responded that is typically what happens. Planning Board Minutes 22 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Mr. Mattison stated that he believed that if we read those affidavits there are several things that, particularly Mr. Frantz and Mr. Macera, have stated that would have to come into question about the context and the content of them. That, again, is part of the DEIS, and what we have before us and what his being reviewed by the public and the Town Planning Board. Mr. Mattison stated that he thought that we need the facts, we need accurate information and that we can sit down and meaningfully review it, and I'm questioning, as I did a year ago, whether that has really been presented to the Town Planning Board. Mr. Mattison stated "if we need to have litigation to test it, that may be where things go, but I think it needs to be fair and accurate to all sides. We have a responsibility to the public. We have a responsibility to the folks at Ithacare. We have a responsibility to the neighbors, and we have a responsibility as a government and the regulatory agents. I think that we need to take that very seriously." John Yntema addressed the Board and stated, on behalf of Mr. J. Michael Kelly, an attorney who was here to testify, had to leave because of an emergency and will be in contact with the Town staff. Tony Lister the Chaplin of Ithacare, addressed the Board and stated that one of his major jobs is to help transplant people from their home of many years and /or from other states. People are often like plants, in that if the environment is not favorable, they begin to wilt. Mr. Lister stated that when Ithacare first started talking about possible locations for new facilities, there were two sites mentioned in his hearing. One was near the hospital and one was near Ithaca College. Mr. Lister stated that he is glad that Ithacare chose to try to locate near the college. The people who come to Ithacare might be encouraged to keep their minds growing rather than gazing out toward the hospital. Mr. Lister stated that viewing the hospital would be diminishing to look at because it would not encourage their minds to grow as viewing beauty and the college. Mr. Lister stated that he would encourage that, as we are looking at environments, we think of the human environments that Ithacare is trying to give to the citizens that it seeks to serve. Board Member Bell asked Mr. Lister if only a small portion of residents at Ithacare are Tompkins County residents to begin with. Planning Board Minutes 23 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Mr. Lister stated that he had no numerical idea. Mr. Lister stated that certainly there are people who have lived in Ithaca all of their lives who come to Ithacare, but there are also many people who come from Pennsylvanian,Michigan, and places like that. When they are asked why they come to Ithacare they normally say that their children or family are in this community and they want to spend their golden years with their families. Mr. Macera stated that he cou- Mr. Macera stated that in the DEIS gives very specific figures over an identifies, not only the state, but _d answer Mr. Bell's question. under Resident Origin Studies extensive period of time that the townships as well. Chairperson Smith asked if there was anyone else from the public that wished to speak tonight. No one spoke. Attorney Barney stated that the official comment period would end no earlier than July 28, 1995 if the Public Hearing is closed at this meeting. Nancy Frank asked how the Board would determine who the view belongs to, whether it be to the current landowners, the future landowners, or to the public. Attorney Barney responded that the lawsuit was a procedural question and was resolved in favor of the applicants of the lawsuit. The question Ms. Frank has raised is really sort of indirectly the issue that has to be decided by this Board is whether the impact to the view is adverse and whether it can be mitigated in some fashion. That really does not relate to who has a right to the view. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the Board Members comments were to be considered as part of the Public Hearing. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the issue he had raised in his memo to the Board was that if Board Members had specific comments or questions that a Board Member wanted to be part of the record or to be answered by the applicant, this should be the time to bring those concerns up before the hearing is closed. Mr. Kanter stated that tonight's hearing will result in no specific action, except for closing the hearing and going on with the process of completing the final environmental impact statement. The preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement should have a complete record to work from. Planning Board Minutes 24 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Town Attorney John Barney stated that if someone has comments on the Draft EIS that they wish to make they could either make it now, or within the next ten days, in written form, after closing the Public Hearing, Attorney Barney stated that if it was a matter of discussing what was heard tonight and reacting to those statements, that can not be started until the ten day period is over. Town Planner Kanter stated that if there was something that needs to be addressed specifically in preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, those points would need to be made now or within the next ten days. Board Member Bell stated that there were a number of issues in the Draft EIS that he would like to discuss with either the applicant or the consultant. Mr. Bell stated that he did not feel that now was the appropriate time with further hearings scheduled. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she had discussed the possibility of moving the layout of the building in a different way and instead of moving it westerly as much as proposed in one of the alternatives, to move it just slightly. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she brought a copy of a composite plan, which is in the DEIS, of steep slopes, soils, wetlands, and waterways. Ms. Hoffmann stated that on this plan was a layout of the original proposed building (which is marked in yellow). On top of that layout, Ms. Hoffmann drew in the alternative B3 layout as indicated in drawings in the DEIS, (which is marked in green) . Ms. Hoffmann stated that she had also prepared a cut out of the B3 layout. Ms. Hoffmann stated that if one were to use the B3 layout and put it on the plan just slightly west of the B3 proposal, that was received from the applicant, about 30 feet or the approximate width of the front part of the building. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she believe that the applicant could thereby lower the whole building by 6 to 8 feet without encountering a lot of other problems. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it would encroach a little more on the steep slopes that the B3 proposal that is in the DEIS. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to look at the possibility she had described because she is wondering if one could not handle the construction on the steep slopes without much problems and one would gain a widened view and by lowering the building would make the impact of the building less disturbing on the view. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like the Board Members to look at her proposal and consider it for this project. Board Member Cornell stated that she was not sure this was the appropriate time to discuss this matter. Planning Board Minutes 25 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Board Member Bell stated that it is part of determining the adequacy that the of the DEIS regarding the alternatives. Board already ruled that it was adequate, Mr. Bell but that stated it did not mean that the Board needs to accept everything that is in the document. Mr. Bell stated that Alternatives were things that were required under law to consider. one of the major Board Member Cornell stated that tonight's meeting is to decide whether we have allowed the public enough time to review the DEIS. Town Planner Kanter stated that it was more than that. Kanter stated that it is closing the hearing and preparing Mr. the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Kanter stated that Ms. Hoffmann has raised a Board wants to consider it and address it, the address it. Mr. Kanter stated, if not, of the public record that it was discussed for this question the FEIS then it and the project. Mr. which, if the is the place could be part Board decided not to do that. Board Member Cornell stated if the Board Members submit their comments within the next ten days, would those comments be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Town Planner Kanter responded, yes,. those comments would be incorporated into the FEIS. Board Member Cornell asked what the difference was between the 10 day written comment period and discussing Ms. Hoffmann's suggestion at this meeting. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she did not feel that it needed to be discussed any further now, but that she would like to bring it up as something that the public should hear and see about at this Public Hearing and that the Planning Board members, Planning staff, and the applicant would look into it further, because she thinks that her proposal would lessen the environmental impact without having too great an impact on the construction of the building. Town Attorney John Barney stated that he thought it would be prudent to make the suggestion to the applicant and let the applicant provide a response to Ms. Hoffmann's suggestion, to be made a part of the FEIS. Chairperson Smith asked if there were any further comments regarding the Ithacare Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attorney Barney suggested that the Board vote on closing the Public Hearing. Planning Board Minutes 26 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Board Member Bell asked if comments made by Board Members have to be in writing in order to be considered, because he had found lots of little typos and some bigger things in the DEIS. Chairperson Smith stated that substantive things need to be addressed by the Board. Attorney Barney stated that when the EIS is finalized, will be this Board's document, in the course of discussing what the document is going to look like. Attorney Barney stated that if there are substantive comments, such as what Ms. Hoffmann. had raised, it would be wise to put those into some sort of format so that they are properly addressed and responded to as part of the FEIS. Attorney Barney stated that this document will probably be this draft, comments received during the comment period, responses (either specifically or summarized) to all of those comments, and then that becomes the Final EIS and from that the Board will derive some Findings. Attorney Barney stated that the only reason for suggesting the substantive issues be brought up tonight is because that can be discussed when the responses to all of the comments rather than raising a new issue the day before the Board votes on the document. Chairperson Smith called for a motion as to whether or not to close the Public Hearing, Board Member Herbert Finch made a MOTION to closed the Public Hearing regarding the proposed Ithacare Draft Environmental Impact Statement; which was Seconded by Candace Cornell. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Barney stated, in conjunction with the motion just made, the setting of July 28, 1995, or whatever date the Board chooses, as the final date for receipt of public comment. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. Board Member Candace Cornell made a motion to set the final date for receipt of written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be no later than July 28, 1995; which was Seconded by Herbert Finch. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board Minutes 27 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Town Planner Kanter stated that adopting the above -noted Motions sets the clock in motion for the 'preparation and acceptance for the Final Environmental Impact Statement; 45 days from the today unless the Board needs more time, in which case additional time can requested it. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the public hearing for the proposed Ithacare Draft Environmental Impact Statement duly closed at 9:29 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 22 -1 -1.30, LOCATED AT 3 EVERGREEN LANE, FOR CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 22 -1 -3, LOCATED AT 210 DUBOIS ROAD, AND FURTHER, MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION OF OCTOBER 4, 1988 GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF THE "POYER CLUSTER SUBDIVISION" TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER SUBDIVISIONS OF LOTS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. JEFFREY J. AND JODY D. BORONKAY, OWNERS; ROBERT WHEELER, APPLICANT. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing for the above - noted matter duly opened at 9:31 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Robert Wheeler of 210 DuBois Road, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to extend his back yard by consolidating a portion of the property at 3 Evergreen Lane with his property. Assistant Town subdivision portion of the problem being that the "foyer Cluster Sub be no further subdivis Planner George Frantz stated that the this proposal was fairly straight forward, in the original Planning Board approval for division," there was a condition that there ion of any of the lots. Attorney Barney stated that he thought that there was either no parkland or less than the amount required for parkland setaside, and the condition of no further subdivision was to assure that there be an ample amount of open space. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she had trouble finding the trail on the map. Planning Board Minutes 28 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the trail was not included on the map because it is not adjacent to the parcels that are being subdivided. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -1.30, located at 3 Evergreen Lane, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -3, located at 210 DuBois Road, and further, modification of the conditions set forth in the Planning Board resolution of October 4, 1988 granting Final Subdivision Approval to the "foyer Cluster Subdivision" to allow for further subdivisions of lots in certain circumstances. Residence District R -30, Jeffrey J. and Jody D. Boronkay, Owners; Robert Wheeler, 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, at a Public Hearing on July 18, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a survey entitled "Survey Map of a Lot on Evergreen, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S. and dated April 20, 1995, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed subdivision; 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board Minutes WE Approved August 15, 1995 Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Nay - None. July 18, 1995 Kenerson, Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, WHEREAS: seconded by Gregory Bell: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -1.30, located at 3 Evergreen Lane, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -3, located at 210 DuBois Road, and further, modification of the conditions set forth in the Planning Board resolution of October 4, 1988 granting Final Subdivision Approval to the "foyer Cluster Subdivision" to allow for further subdivisions of lots in certain circumstances. Residence District R -30. Jeffrey J. and Jody D. Boronkay, Owners; Robert Wheeler, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 18, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled Survey Map of a Lot on Evergreen, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S. and dated April 20, 1995, 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 with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on July 18, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby consents to amending Paragraph 4 of the "Declaration of Restrictive Page 818, to allow the Covenants" for the " Poyer Cluster Subdivision" for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted by the Planning Board on October 1989 at 4, the 1988, dated April 28, County Clerk's Office 1989, and recorded May 17, in Liber 33 of Miscellaneous Records at Page 818, to allow the subdivision as proposed, and Planning Board Minutes 30 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Approval for the proposed subdivision of 0.248 + acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -1.30, located at 3 Evergreen Lane, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -3, located at 210 Duboise Road, as shown on the survey entitled "Survey Map of a Lot on Evergreen, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S. and dated April 20, 1995, and other application materials, subject to the following condition(s) : a. Submission of the required Surveyor's Certificate signed and sealed by the applicant's surveyor prior to signing of the approved plat by the Planning Board Chair; b. Submission of the original or mylar copy, and four (4) copies of the plat to be signed by the Planning Board Chair prior to filing in the County Clerk's Office, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Planning Board hereby approves the modification of Paragraph 4 of the "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" for the "foyer Cluster Subdivision" for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted by the Planning Board on October 4, 1988, dated April 28, 1989 and recorded May 17, 1989 at the County Clerk's Office in Liber 33 of Miscellaneous Records at Page 818, to allow subdivisions of properties within the subdivision in those instances where such subdivision involves only the modification of lot lines between adjoining parcels of land, and no creation of additional lots, for building or any other purposes would result, conditioned upon Town Board approval of such modification. Attorney Barney suggested the following three modifications to the proposed resolution: 1. That a new 3.c. be added as follows: C, The 248 acre parcel be conveyed only to the owner of Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -3 and that such owner take all necessary steps to consolidate such .248 acre parcel with said Tax Parcel No. 22 -1 -3. 2. The modification of the Declarations of Restrictive Covenants requires Town Board approval because they approved the declarations of the original approval. Attorney Barney stated that a third "And be it further resolved" needed to be added as follows: Planning Board Minutes 31 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Planning Board hereby recommend to the Town Board that it approve the modification to the above - referenced "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" to allow subdivision of properties within the "Poyer Cluster Subdivision ". There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for 3 Evergreen Lane /210 DuBois Road duly closed at 9:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECO VILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE, PROPOSED,TO CONSIST OF 30 DWELLING UNITS IN 15 DUPLEXES, A COMMON HOUSE AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND LOCATED OFF MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79) JUST WEST OF WEST HAVEN ROAD, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD). ECO VILLAGE AT ITHACA, INC., OWNER; FIRST RESIDENTS' GROUP, APPLICANT; HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS, AGENTS. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9:42 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that one of the plants listed to be used on the site was the current, and it used to be that any of the Rhebus family plants could not be planted where there were White Pines because both plants would be needed as co -hosts for insects which would kill both plants eventually, and asked if the applicants were aware of that. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that it depended on the proximity of the two plants. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the applicants may want to check into that and omit the plants from that family. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that Utility Plan notes a gas main asked if there was going to be 5 meters or 30 meters. Planning Board Minutes 32 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Jerry Weisburd stated that. there would be five meters. Mr. Weisburd stated that they intended to bring the gas line in along the emergency access road instead of along the entrance road because it reduces the amount of gas main by approximately 800 feet, and there is someone on the existing access that has a house and is willing to share the cost with the First Residents' Group to have gas service to his house. Board Member Bell asked if gas would be used to heat the buildings before the alternative energy ideas are implemented. Mr. Weisburd stated that each single meter goes to an energy center, and in that energy center there would be a district heating plant that heats six or eight houses. Mr. Weisburd stated that the equipment runs more efficiently that way, and if they want to switch to a biomass fuel, it can be done more easily. Board Member Bell asked if, at this point, they were going to be heated by gas. Mr. Weisburd responded that they would be heating with gas. , Town Attorney John Barney asked if five of six houses would share the cost because there would be no separate metering system. Mr. Weisburd stated that there would be separate metering, which would be administered by the cooperative as part of the maintenance cost. Board Member Cornell stated that the houses were going to be super- insulated. Mr. Weisburd stated that Ms. Cornell was correct and that the anticipated annual heating bill is $125.00 to $150.00. Board Member Bell asked, referring to drawing AF3, what the exterior building material would be. Mr. Weisburd stated that the drawings were meant only to supplement what had been submitted- earlier, and there were specification and cross - section in the set of amended drawings provided to the Town at an earlier date. Mr. Weisburd stated that the exterior building materials would be either wood siding, horizontal bevelled siding, or wood composite horizontal bevelled siding, vertical board and batten siding, fiberglass reinforced asphalt shingles, except the steep roofs which are all metal roofs designed to accept solar panels. Mr. Weisburd stated that where there are cedar poles and there would be PVC pipe to hold the shades. Planning Board Minutes 33 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 Town Attorney John Barney stated that the First Residents' Group had requested that they be allowed to construct the carports ahead of time. Attorney Barney stated that the SLUD is very specific, so the Planning Board would recommend that the Town Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals that permission be granted to do that. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board does not have legal authority to grant permission to start construction contrary to what the SLUD is specifying. Town Planner resolution shows a to revise the SLUD from the SLUD prov ahead of schedule. Jonathan Kanter stated that the proposed recommendation of either going to the Town Board or to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance isions to get permission to start the carports Board Member Cornell asked why they wanted to construct the carports first. Town Attorney Barney stated that they had submitted a memo which said that it would be helpful for them, instead of building the houses first and then attaching a carport to it, and they wished to use the carports to store and protect the building materials. Attorney Barney stated that the SLUD specifically states no Building Permits for any structures will be issued until certain things occur. Ms. Weisburd stated that the SLUD reads that there will be no Building Permits issued until certain conditions are met, and the only condition that she feels that would be pending would be "b ", which says "Construction of the road to the extent of creating a usable, serviceable base." Ms. Weisburd stated that they would create a useable, serviceable base right away in order to get into and out of the site. Attorney Barney stated that if they feel that they felt that they meet the requirements set forth in the SLUD, then no permission is needed for the construction of the carport, but if they do not meet the requirements the Planning Board does not have the authority to waive that process. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. Planning Board Minutes 34 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Gregory Bell WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed development of the Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, to be located on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 28 -1 -26.2 designated Parcel B on the Eco Village subdivision map given final approval by this board at its meeting on June 27, 1995, which parcel is to be conveyed to the First Residents Group and which project is proposed to consist of 30 dwelling units in 15 duplexes, a Common House, +/- 4,800 linear feet of roads and driveways, parking for 52 +/- vehicles and other site improvements; Special Land Use District (SLUD) and Residence District R -30; Eco Village at Ithaca, Inc. Owner; First Residents Group, Applicant; House Craft Builders, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 18, 1995, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval with conditions for the proposed Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative, and 3. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on April 18, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 18, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings prepared by House Craft Builders numbered and labeled AF1 Final Site Plan - Whole Neighborhood, dated June 14, 1995, revised July 5, 1995, AF2 Grading and Drainage Plan - Whole Neighborhood, AF3 Elevations - Neighborhood North Section, AF4 Miscellaneous Drawings - Whole Neighborhood, (includes drawings: Cut /Fill, Soils, Erosion Control, Utilities Plan, Pond Profiles @ Section D - F, each dated June 14, 1995 and Drawings prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. Engineers and Surveyors entitled: Final Plat, Dated May 19, 1995, signed by Allen T. Fulkerson, Licensed Land Surveyor, Main Roadway Plan & Profile Sheets C01, CO2 and CO3, Emergency Roadway Plan & Profile Sheets CO4, CO5, CO6, Sanitary Sewer Main Plan & Profile Sheets CO7, CO8, Water Line Plan CO9, Roadway Cross Sections Sheets C10, C111 C12, C13, C14, Typical Details Sheet D01 and D03, Detail Sheet D02, Pump Station Site Plan and Details Sheet D04, Culvert Plan and Detail D05 all dated June 16, 1995, and other application materials. Planning Board Minutes 35 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants final site plan approval for the plans referred to in paragraph 4 above subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission to and approval by the appropriate Town authorities, of all of the items marked as "condition of approval," as set forth on the copy of the final site plan checklist attached to this resolution, including: a. Record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. Submit copies of all permits or approvals so granted. b. Record of approval for the water and sewer connection by the County Health Department and by the Town Engineer. C, Submission of final construction documents including drawings and specifications for approval by the Town Engineer. d. Original or mylar copy of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. 2. Submission of proof from the County Clerk's Office of filing of the Final Subdivision Plat that was approved by the Planning Board on June 27, 1995. 3. In accordance with the local law establishing the Special Land Use District, no building permit shall be issued for the construction of any structures within the Special Land Use District until the following actions have occurred, that include, but are not limited to, the following as outlined in Section 3, sub - section J and sub - section K: a. Marketable title, satisfactory to the Town Attorney, has been obtained to the entrance road. b. Construction of the entrance road is completed to the extent of providing, in the opinion of both the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, a useable, serviceable base for ingress and egress of emergency and service vehicles. Planning Board Minutes 36 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 C. Submission to, and approval by, the Town Planning Board, upon advice of the Attorney for the Town, copies of any cooperative proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners association documents, or other agreements among property owners containing suitable provisions to assure maintenance of the road to a standard which will allow unimpeded passage of emergency vehicles at all times and all seasons. d. A sign is posted at the intersection of the private road and Route 79 indicating that the road is not a Town Road. 4. In accordance with the local law establishing the Special Land Use District, no certificates of occupancy shall be issued and no permits shall be issued for the construction of more than ten dwelling units within the Special Land Use District until the following actions have occurred, that include, but are not limited to, the following as outlined in Section 3, sub- section K -2.: a. The entrance road has been completed in accordance with the applicable Town of Ithaca highway specifications except if the specifications require paving, the paving may be omitted. b. Adequate access, in the opinion of the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent has been constructed and completed for fire and other emergency vehicles from the terminus of the road as so constructed to the dwelling or other structure for which a certificate of occupancy is requested. 5. Approval by the Attorney for the Town of marketable title and easement for the emergency access road before issuance of Building Permits for any structure, and in addition, compliance with the following in accordance with Section 3, sub - section L. 1 & 2.: a. In accordance with the local law establishing the Special Land Use District, no certificates of occupancy shall be issued within the Special Land Use District until the construction of a road with a surface at least ten feet wide over the easement running from West Haven Road is completed in a manner to provide an adequate road, as determined by the Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent, for emergency vehicles access including fire truck and emergency medical vehicles sufficient to provide year round access for emergency vehicles. Planning Board Minutes 37 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 b. Submission to, and approval by, the Town Planning Board, upon advice of the Attorney for the Town, copies of any cooperative proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners association documents, or other agreements among property owners containing suitable provisions to assure maintenance of the road to a standard which will allow unimpeded passage of emergency vehicles at all times and all seasons. 6. Elimination of the Cul -de -Sac no later than six years from the date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy with the construction of an internal loop road and construction of a divided road to provide two means of access to and from public roads or construction of a secondary access road to assure that no dwelling is more than 1200 feet from a point providing two means of access to and from public roads, built to Town specifications, subject to approval by the Planning Board for a modified site plan. 7. All the open space shown on the site plan will be owned, maintained and controlled by the residents association or duly formed cooperative housing corporation for the purpose of recreation or agriculture for the residents of the Special Land Use District, 8. No certificates of occupancy will be issued, and no permits for construction of more than ten dwelling units within the Special Land Use District shall be issued until all Provisions of Sewer Facilities as listed in the local law for the Special Land Use District Section 3, sub - section R. have been met. 9. No certificates of occupancy will be issued, and no permits for construction of more than ten dwelling units within the Special Land Use District shall be issued until all Provisions Special Land use of Adequate Water Facilities as listed permit shall in the local law for the Special Land Use District Section 3, sub - section S. have been met. 10. Any change in the site plan as finally approved by the Town Planning Board shall not be made until an application for a modification of site plan is provided to and approved by the Planning Board, 11. Unless work has materially commenced in accordance with the final site plan within one year of the issuance of the building permit, or within thirty -six months of the date of final approval by the Planning Board, or within four years of the effective date of Local Law No. 1 for the Year 1995 establishing this Special Land use District, whichever is earlier, any building permit shall lapse, the site plan Planning Board Minutes 38 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 approval shall expire and the zoning change effected by the local law shall terminate and the zoning shall revert to that in effect prior to the adoption of the local law in accordance with Section 4. of the local law entitled'Reversion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board finds a reduction in the required number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the proposed site, will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies on the site, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community and accordingly such Board hereby authorizes the minimum number of parking spaces to be reduced by 25% thereby requiring there be shown 52 spaces. The reduction permitted by this resolution is subject to the following conditions: a. The conditions permitting increasing the required number of parking spaces set forth in the Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to business district parking reductions. b. There be .left adequate space in the vicinity of the parking lots for increasing the number of parking spaces to the minimum normally required in the event the Planning Board finds such increase is necessary after experience is obtained from the number of parking spaces authorized by this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals and /or the Town Board that, not withstanding the conditions set forth above and the terms of the Special Land Use District legislation, the developer be allowed to construct accessory carports and be granted Building Permits for same, prior to the completion of the entrance roads. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. Excused - Cornell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Final Site Plan approval for the proposed Eco Village Cohousing Cooperative duly closed at 10:00 p.m. Planning Board Minutes 39 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995. There was no action the Board had not had an on the Minutes of June appropriate amount of 20, time 1995, because to review the draft provided to them prior to the meeting. The minutes were tabled until the August 1, 1995, Planning Board Meeting, AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that there was some discussion at the meeting of June 27, 1995, while dealing with the Classen's Home Health modifications to the "Old 100" building. Mr. Bell stated that there was some people on the Board that were focusing on the historic preservation aspects of it. Mr. Bell stated that he thinks that the issue raises that the Board should look at the whole issue of historic preservation legislation and make sure that issue does not come up blindsiding the Board that way ever again. Mr. Bell stated that this issue had been lost in the shuffle of other priorities because the Town of Ithaca does not have a huge number of historic buildings, but it has some fairly significant ones and the "Old 100" is one of them. Mr. Bell stated that he did not know what the process was to get things proactively on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Bell stated that it seems that the Board is forced by urgency of applicants proposals to review them quickly. Mr. Bell stated that there is no procedure at all to protect the historic buildings in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Bell stated, for the record, that he is totally convinced that there is going to be significant damage to that building because of the Code requirements, and the Classen's don't know it. Board Member James Ainslie stated that to do that one would have to think far enough ahead to protect that area, and not allow the City of Ithaca to put a bus garage with 40 buses going around that corner twice a day, and the County Highway Department and all their heavy equipment to drive through the protected area. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that it is because things like that have happened in the past that it is important to come up with some legislation for the future. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Historic Ithaca has offered to help the town to work on a basic survey of historic structures. Mr. Kanter stated that if the town could have some assistance in developing an inventory of historic properties with members of town staff, then at least there is a base of information available to make some decisions on what to do. Planning Board Minutes 40 July 18, 1995 Approved August 15, 1995 ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Meeting of the Town of Ithaca at 10:38 p.m. 7/27/95. Smith declared the July 18, 1995, Planning Board to be duly adjourned Respectfully submitted, >�J � ` ' Z V Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary.