HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1998-09-01J :� t
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
111. /N C
PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Gregg Bell, Robert Kenerson, James Ainslie, Larry
Thayer, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney, (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director
of Engineering, 8:16 p.m.), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Christine Balestra (Planner).
ALSO PRESENT: George Hascup, Pat McNally, David Colt, Dean Mogelgaard, Vanya Rainova, Michelle
Londino, Lanny Joyce, Chuck Hurlbut, Amy Nettleton, Peggy Harris, L. Pearce Williams, Donald Weir, Frank
Perry, Laura Hogan, Chuck Henderson, Roslyn Lo Pinto, Shelly Mulvaney, Fred Rogers, John Gutenberger, Fay
Gougakis, Joe Francis, Pat Francis, Bob Congdon, Barbara Congdon, Nancy S. Brown, Karen Westmont, Sheila
Snyder, Al Snyder, Barbara Ebert, Liz Moran, Peter Veldnnizen, Linda Luciano, Gene Katz, Bruce Hatch, Tom
Salm, Doria Higgins, Henry Doney, George Breuhaus, Liz Vastbinder, Sylvia G. Wahl, Robert Bland, John V.
Heintz, Jeff Price, Rosa Murray, Ed Humulock, John Coleman, Noel Kurtz, Joe Maddock.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 p.m., and accepted for the record the
Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca
Journal on August 24, 1998, and August 26, 1998, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate,
upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants, and/or agents, as
appropriate, on August 26, 1998. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1).
Chairperson Wilcox 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. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding
extension of Special Approval to maintain a temporary modular classroom structure for an additional
year, located adjacent to Smiddy Hall on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-
30.2, Residence District R45. Said structure includes two classrooms and two restrooms and is ± 5,810
square feet in size. Said structure received approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1996 with the
condition that it be removed by June of 1998. Applicant is requesting an extension of the approval to the
end of June 1999. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Bruce Hatch, Agent.
Bruce Hatch, Director of Physical Plant at Ithaca College, stated the construction of the new HSHP
facility is taking longer than anticipated. Ithaca College would like to extend the approval of the HSHP modular
facility for another year. The construction of the HSHP facility will be complete in the spring of 1999 when the
occupants will move into the new facility.
R1.,AN114ING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROYFD - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m., and asked if any members of the public
wished to be heard. With no person present wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing
at 7:37 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the Zoning Board of Appeals was the lead agency so there was not a SEQR
Determination. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the temporary classrooms could be removed earlier.
Mr. Hatch responded Ithaca College would like to wait until after the graduation ceremony before
beginning the move.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the occupants of the temporary facility across from the tennis courts
would possibly move into the HSHP building in August.
Tom Salm, Ithaca College, stated there were renovations that need to be done in the summer of 1999 in
Smiddy Hall. The first temporary facility occupants will then move into the new building. Renovations will be
made on the second and third floor to allow the occupants of the second facility to move.
MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Lawrence Thayer:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding
the extension of Special Approval for maintaining a temporary modular classroom structure for an
additional year. The ZBA granted Special Approval for the structure on June 4, 1996, with the
condition that it be removed by the end of June 1998. Said structure is located adjacent to Smiddy Hall,
on the Ithaca College Campus; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R-IS.
Ithaca College, Owner; Bruce Hatch, Applicant /Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively
determined to act as lead agency in environmental review, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on September 1, 1998, has reviewed a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning
Department, and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the
following:
a. there is a need for the proposed extension of use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by
the applicant;
b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as
a result of the proposed extension;
' PLANNT4G BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
C, the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for extension of Special Approval, granted on June 4, 1996, be approved,
subject to the following condition:
That Special Approval for this project be limited to one additional year, expiring at the end of June,
1999.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Thayer, Kenerson, Ainslie.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Axiohm office space renovation, 950 Danby Road.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:42 p.m., and read aloud from the
Agenda.
George Breuhaus, 179 Graham Road, stated one and a half years ago Axiohm received permission for the
Axiohm Center. Ithaco would like to expand their office space. They would like to relocate their financial and
administrative offices upstairs to create more office space for engineers on the first floor. Ithaco assumes there
will be an additional fifteen to twenty employees with the addition. The exterior of the building would not be
affected. A stairway will be built for a fire exit off the second floor. The current parking on the lower lot would
be conveyed to Ithaco. All Axiohm parking would be behind the building.
Board Member Kenerson asked if there would be new equipment to vent noxious fumes.
Mr. Breuhaus responded the interior renovations would be administrative only.
Board Member Bell asked why the expansion is 8,000 square feet for twenty employees.
Mr. Breuhaus stated he did not know.
Joe Maddock, General Manager of Ithaco, stated they were moving closed offices to the area. To best
utilize the available space it would entail two additional corridors. It is minimal modification to make room for
finance and program management.
Board Member Hoffinann stated she only saw one corridor from the drawings provided.
Mr. Maddock replied the space on either side of the corridor would be expanded into two additional
corridors. The corridor will remain and a corridor will be constructed on either side.
Board Member Hoffmann stated the drawing did not imply the two additional corridors.
-PLANNING BOARD NIINUTES PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded it was a change in use. It is not required of the applicant to
provide detailed floor plans of the offices. The reason the project is before the board is because it exceeded the
cost threshold. The town does not require and does not need to have detailed floor plans. It is strictly an interior
renovation and it is because of the way the zoning ordinance is written that the applicant is before the board.
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the SEQR Determination for Axiohm office space at '7:50 p.m.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
renovation of approximately 8, 000 +/- sq. ft. of vacant interior office space on the upper level of the
engineering and administration wing in the Axiohm I.P.B. facility for use by Ithaco, Inc., located at 950
Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 39-1-1.1, 39 -1 -1.2 and 39-1-1.4, I - Industrial District.
Axiohm I.P.B., Owner /Applicant; George W Breuhaus, Agent, 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 Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on September 1, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town
Planning staff, and an application packet that includes, among other information, a floor plan entitled
"Composite Third Floor Plan, Axiohm I.P.B., "showing the area proposed to be renovated for Ithaco,
Inc., prepared by George W. Breuhaus, Architect, and other information related to the application, and
4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed site plan, as proposed;
NOWT THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Kenerson, Thayer, Ainslie.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
renovation of approximately 8,000 ± square feet of vacant interior office space onto he upper level of the
engineering and administration wing in the Axiohm I.P.B. facility for use by Ithaco, Inc., located at 950
PLANMNG BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPRO FED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3944.1, 3944.2 and 3944.4, I - Industrial District.
Axiohm I.P.B., Owner /Applicant; George W. Breuhaus, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m., and asked if any members of the public
wished to be heard. With no person present wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing
at 8:02 p.m.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
111211
L This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
renovation of approximately 8, 000 +/- sq. ft of vacant interior office space on the upper level of the
engineering and administration wing in the Axiohm I.P.B. facility for use by Ithaco, Inc., located at 950
Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 39-1-1.1, 39-1-1.2 and 39-1-1.4, 1- Industrial District.
Axiohm I.P.B., Owner /Applicant; George W. Breuhaus, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on September 1, 1998 made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short
Environmental Assessment Form part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town
Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on September 1, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
an application packet that includes, among other information, a floor plan entitled "Composite Third
Floor Plait, Axiohm I.P.B., " showing the area proposed to be renovated for Ithaco, Inc., prepared by
George W. Breuhaus, Architect, and other information related to the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from
the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
site plait control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
interior renovations as shown on the floor plan entitled "Composite Third Floor Platt, Axiohm LP.B.,"
prepared by George W. Breuhaus, Architect, and other information related to the application, subject to
the following condition:
a. Submission of one (1) original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final floor plait,
revised to include the date of said plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Bell, Thayer.
NAYS - Norte.
PLANMNG BOARD MINUTES PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 199 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Abstain - Ainslie.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of approval of correction to Condition 2 (e) in the adopted resolution
for East Hill Plaza Access Drive, dated August 4, 1998, regarding the reference to the dates of the
previously approved Landscape Improvements plan, Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C ". Cornell University, Owner,
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened this segment of the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the Resolution for the East Hill Plaza Access Drive needs to be
modified because the credit union would have two driveways. In the August 4, 1998, Resolution, staff had
referenced an earlier resolution from 1992. The Site Plan which should have been referenced is part of the July
3, 1996, Resolution.
Attorney Barney asked if the May 1992 Site Plan had more detail.
Director of Planning Kanter replied the entrance drives on the site plans were similar. The differences
were in the parking areas.
Attorney Barney suggested to have the resolution state "as amended by ".
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated there were minor changes. He presented a landscape plan to the
board. He explained it did show the planting schedule, number and location of the plants.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to be sure the May 1992 plan be referenced in the
amended resolution.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the Resolution of August 4, 1998, specifically referenced the
landscape improvements.
Attorney Barney stated Assistant Town Planner Frantz would like to have the landscape improvements
addressed in the amended resolution.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby amends its resolution of August 4, 1998 granting Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the site plan for the East Hill Plaza entrance drive off Ellis
Hollow Road, as shown on the drawing entitled, "Cornell Fingerlakes Credit Union, East Hill Plaza East Hill
Plaza Entrance ", prepared by T. G. Miller, P. G and dated July 7, 1998, to insert in condition "e " the words
"as amended by Sheet C06 of the submission packet for the P & C expansion project, entitled "Landscape
Plan " and dated July 39 1996, "following the phrase "May 28, 1992. "
TLANNMG BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That all other provisions of the Planning Board resolution of August 4, 1998 Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval remain in force.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Thayer.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the Planning Board meeting scheduled for September 15, 1998, has been
canceled due to lack of quorum.
Director of Engineering Walker has dealt with a minor lot line modification at 363 East King Road and
365 East King Road. It does to need to come before the Planning Board.
Attorney Barney stated the Mecklenburg Heights/Linderman Creek Apartments law suit has been
dismissed. It still may be appealed.
Chairperson Wilcox stated members of the interview committee interviewed a candidate for the vacancy
on the Planning Board. There is a possibility that an interview may be held with the second applicant and an
application has been received from a third person.
Director of Planning Kanter stated Planning Board members had asked that access be available through
the vault during Planning Board meetings. He explained he discussed it at a department head meeting. The vault
was closed to restrict access after hours. Supervisor Valentino requested the board follow the same procedures.
Attorney Barney stated the Town was only in this building temporarily. The new Town Hall will have
public facilities available.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 16, 1998.
MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
THE PLAAWING BOARD HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE JUNE 169 1998, MINUTES. A
VOTE DID NOT TAKE PLACE DUE TO THE OPENING OF THE LAKE SOURCE COOLING PUBLIC
HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Cornell University Lake Source Cooling project to consist of a chilled water plant and a
proposed route for chilled water lines, landscaping and other appurtenances, located at 983 East Shore
Drive on a 3.12 ± acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tag Parcel No. 194-5, Special Land Use District
(SLUD) No. 10, and additional lands within the Town of Ithaca affected by the pipeline route, Cornell
University, Owner /Applicant; W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E., Agent.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
Lanny Joyce, Project Manager of Cornell University Lake Source Cooling, stated the Site Plan included
the changes suggested by the Planning and Town Board, and the town residents. The building and the site
compliment the surrounding environment. The subdivision drawings and application have not changed.
George Hascup, Project Architect of Lake Source Cooling, stated the primary architectural challenge for
the facility is to place a pump building in a steep slope set back from the lake's edge. The challenge was to have
the building set and cut into the hill. The requirement is to balance the equation of how high to set the floor plan
in the building for the pumps. The higher, the more pumping energy is needed. The lower, the more excavation
is needed. The building is placed 15 -20 feet off the elevation of the road and a hundred feet back. The building
is cut significantly into the hill so that it is a semi- submerged landscape structure. The western and the southern
facades are revealed. The northern and easterly facades are cut into the side of the hill.
The other major aspect of the design was to provide access, emergency, functional, repair and delivery of
the pumps. The challenge of having a fire truck and a major vehicle access the building in a safe way is critical.
Adjacent to the building is a stratified, retaining wall that creates a turn around and empty plaza for the vehicles.
Mr. Hascup explained they upgraded the material of the building from a basic block structure to a precast
masonry material that has the advantage of cut, color and texture. It can also be stratified horizontally and is the
primary strategy of the facade. There will be a texture in the precast so that it does not have a flat surface when
the light hits the building. They introduced a much larger clerestory window that is a high story window that
lowers the mass of the building. They took away the corner of the building to allow for entry identity and to
demise the corner of the building. There is a large 16x20 foot window to accommodate a clear entry and identity
to the building. Another response was to break up the wall. They introduced canopies to reinforce the larger,
low clerestory windows that are horizontal. There are structural brackets that give a detailed animation to the
facade. The retaining walls bring the building into the ground plane. There was a concern about the size of the
high retaining wall that allows the access point. This was broken up into a series of layers. The scale was broken
down with gardens, terraces put into the retaining we to allow a landscape quality.
Mr. Hascup stated they inserted small, square windows to break up the facade. A middle scale canopy
that identifies a porch. As people come to visit the building there is a large porch with benches. It also provides
an area for the handicap parking and ramps. The coloration of steel detailing the accent points will be a subdued
terra -cotta. The glass will be neutral and will not be reflective. The building will have low level, subdued
lighting. The back of the building will have safety lights. The canopies provide a device for down lighting. The
source of the lighting will not glare. There are two small sconces to indicate the entry area of the building.
There is signage on a perpendicular retaining wall. The parking area was a challenge because it is located next to
a stream with a very steep slope. There is a requirement for a gravel access road that is properly edged to allow
for maintenance vehicles to get to the right -of -way. The slope will be layered.
Amy Nettleton, Elemental Landscape, stated they were clearing an area and revegetating it. They are
keeping the required buffer on either side of Renwick Brook. In revegetating the site they developed a landscape
scheme that uses large native plant material, non - invasive species in a natural style. Ms. Nettleton explained they
were using the vegetation to anchor the horizontal building. They did augment the shrub plantings in the open
area in response to town comments. The retaining walls provide a landscape feature that allows for climbing
plants. They carefully revised plant species at the corner of the building so that it screens the service area. South
of Renwick Brook is the soil, fill area. They cut a fifty foot buffer between the fill area and Route 34. Some of
the existing vegetation in the buffer is weak. They are proposing to add soil and plants in the area to improve the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
quality of the buffer. Plantings were added to the slope so from a distance the area will be vegetated. Cornell
University has negotiated with the town to have a town park. In conjuction with the town there will be improved
parking and a seasonal tent structure. They also improved the shore line stabilization by adding multi - colored
stone and plantings.
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. and asked if any members of the public
wished to speak.
Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive, stated the board and Mr. Kanter seemed to be under misapprehension.
Mr. Kanter was quoted in the paper as saying the larger environmental issues, while relevant issues to their
overall project, are not things the Planning Board would be getting into in the Site Plan Review. She checked
with Victor Gallow, Attorney for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, whose area of
expertise is SEQRA. He quoted the decision in the case of the Town of Henrietta versus New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. It was ruled that a lead agency may consider environmental issues
outside their jurisdiction. Since SEQRA says a lead agency is also an involved agency it seems reasonable that
the same rule applies to involved agencies. The responsibilities of the Planning Board are in the zoning ordinance
of the town. Ms. Higgins provided a hand-out to the board and read a brief summary of the hand -out. It says
the Planning Board's review of a general and a preliminary or a final site plan shall include but not be limited to
the following considerations. At item nine it states the effects of the proposed development on environmentally
sensitive areas are including but not limited to wetlands.
Ms. Higgins stated the town's zoning ordinance stated in the Final Site Plan review the board must
consider these issues. For Mr. Kanter to have said what he did sounds as if he was trying to keep the board and
the public quiet. She stated she assumed Mr. Kanter did it on the advice of John Barney. The only power the
community has left in negotiating with Cornell University on the Lake Source Cooling Project lies in the Planning
Board's vote on the Final Site Plan. Once the board has voted, Cornell University has free reign. Do not
prematurely give up the little bit of power left. If the board does not want to be honorable statesmen and
withhold, at least be good poker players. Do not contemplate the vote tonight.
Ms. Higgins explained the SPEDES permit issued by New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation to Cornell University to construct Lake Source Cooling lists the specifications which Cornell
University is legally required to include in Cornell University's monitoring plan for Lake Source Cooling. The
plan was delivered on Monday, August 31, 1998, to New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will need time to review and
evaluate it before approving or disapproving it. She was informed it would take a month to review and decide if
it was adequate. The suggestions for baseline data before start up of the project in the draft permit was deleted
from the final permit. The specification that phosphorous testing be done near the Lake Source Cooling out fall
pipe in the draft permit was deleted from the final permit. These two items are clearly necessities for any
adequate monitoring system of the Lake Source Cooling. If Cornell has not included them in the plan, the board
should insist they do so. If the board votes, they will not have power with Cornell. The fact is even with a good
monitoring plan it is almost impossible to determine by monitoring who or what is responsible for addition to the
lake of destructive elements.
One of the Cornell scientists said Cornell was worried that they would be blamed for contamination that
is not their fault. It is known by the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Cornell research associates
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
that Cornell will be contributing additional phosphorous to the lake. Those estimates may be underestimates.
Changes in any assumptions have the potential to alter the conclusions of the relative impact of Lake Source
Cooling on Cayuga Lake. If the external phosphorous sources had been overestimated, then the Lake Source
Cooling relative contributions would be underestimated. They are admitting they do not know what the facts
will be. Whatever the Cornell contribution percentage is, Lake Source Cooling will be contributing to the
phosphorous loading of the lake and that is bad. Considering Bill Foster's warning in yesterday's Journal about
federal demands for lake clean-up by year 2003 is cause for serious concern. When the Federal Ambient Water
Quality Criteria is established with enforceable standards, the community will have to pay for the clean-up. Does
the board have the moral, or ethical right to add to the financial tax burden on the citizens and to add to the
deterioration of the lake to appease Cornell. Seventeen Cornell scientists wrote in 1968 that deterioration of
Cayuga Lake is no more acceptable if none of us responsible for decisions to hasten its deterioration are alive
when it happens. The community has an obligation to pass this resource onto posterity as clean and unpolluted
as possible. There are no known means of withholding all nutrients entering Cayuga Lake from sewage or
agricultural run -off. The thermal pollution they were talking about was the proposed nuclear power plant.
Thermal pollution is controllable. Lake Source Cooling is controllable by the board. The scientists believed that
no utility company or other single interest group has any right to impose such a threat adding to the deterioration
of the lake.
Edward Humulock, 308 North Titus Ave, stated he and his wife own a cottage a short distance from
where the in -take is for Lake Source Cooling. The cottage has been in the family for fifty years. He does not
want to see anything done so that they can not enjoy the cottage. He wanted to say many people he has talked to
are confused and mislead about the discharge chilled water pipe line. It is his understanding that the water will
be discharged 500 feet from shore in eight feet of water, from a pipe five feet, three inches in diameter, so there
will be less than three feet of water over the top of the pipe. The water will flow at the rate of 31,000 gallons a
minute. At a temperature of fifty -five degrees, and the water starting from Stewart Park out a mile and a half at
twenty feet maximum depth. He explained he talked to someone who said the pipe would be 100 feet below.
When the water comes out of the pipe, there will be geiser of water. Mr. Humulock asked the total cost of the
building and its contents.
Noel Kurtz, 186 Besemer Hill Road, stated new information in the last few months shows the premise of
Lake Source Cooling is false. The Final Site Plan approval is contingent upon the premise of Lake Source
Cooling being true. It means the board must delay Final Site Plan approval because it is based upon a false
premise. He wanted to remind the board the purpose of the project is to phase out the CFC chillers at Cornell.
There are many means to do so, but Cornell has asserted that Lake Source Cooling is the most economical
means of doing so. Cornell feels they need to take care of their CFCs and Lake Source Cooling is the most cost
effective means to do so. In the fine print of the Environmental Impact Statement it appears that Lake Source
Cooling would not accomplish the purpose of the project which is to phase out CFC chillers. The fine print says
decommissioning of the chillers would be done after Lake Source Cooling as a separate project. In other words,
once Lake Source Cooling is finished, Cornell will still have CFC chillers.
Mr. Kurtz explained Lake Source
according to Cornell numbers. It would
project would take thirty years before it
economics would not willingly undertal
mistake. Mr. Kurtz stated he did not
Cooling would cost Cornell $30,000,000 more than chiller replacement
supposedly save $1,000,000 a year in energy savings. That means this
generates any savings for Cornell. Anyone who knows anything about
,e such a project. The question is how could Cornell make such a
know the answer, but everyone knows that bureaucracies do make
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
mistakes. It appears that it has happened here. The internal workings of Cornell means that the project belongs
to the Department of Facilities and Campus Services. They conceived and promoted the project within Cornell.
He felt that persons within Facilities and Planning convinced themselves this was a good project and went onto
sell the university on that basis. Cornell Administration trusted Facilities, as they should, and no one checked
their work. This process has continued throughout the approval process.
Mr. Kurtz stated Final Site Plan approval is directly contingent upon the premise of Lake Source Cooling
being true. Site Plan approval is contingent upon approval of the Findings Statement that the Planning Board
voted to accept. It is now known that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's finding
statement is grossly deficient. They did not adequately examine economic analysis of Lake Source Cooling. If
they had, they would have discovered the basis of the project is false and would not have approved it. Given the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's findings statement has been discredited, and that
the Preliminary Site Plan approval was based upon the acceptance of the findings statement, the board can not in
good conscience grant Final Site Plan approval.
Mr. Kurtz suggested the Planning Board vote to repeal their prior approval of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation Findings Statement. Mr. Wilcox stated that in voting to accept the
findings statement, the board was putting their trust in the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. The trust was clearly misplaced. It is appropriate for the Planning Board to disassociate
themselves and the town from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's error.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the Planning Board did receive a letter from Mr. Kurtz dated August 22,
1998, and it also included a copy of his letter to President Rawlings, and a two page document.
Chuck Hurlbut, 175 Williams Glenn Road, stated it has been several weeks since the public addressed the
board and stated their objections to the Lake Source Cooling Project. The public is still strongly opposed to it
and the facts and evidence presented then are still valid. In many instances they have been strengthened with
additional information. At the last public hearing the public's words had little effect and did not receive any
attention. It was evident the board had already made up its mind and were not going to allow the public to
interfere with the prearranged decisions. He felt the hearing was a perfunctory gesture and only held because it
was mandated by law. He hoped this hearing would be more democratic. There are two sides to every question
and to date the board has chosen to only hear one side. Cornell has presented well orchestrated presentations
and has been most successful in convincing this board and other local officials to further their cause.
Cornell already has the confidence and assurance the Planning Board will approve their Site Plan. It has
not been approved and Cornell is ready to build. He wondered if one of the other kcal organizations had
submitted a similar request, but lacked Cornell's power and resources, would they have received the same
favoritism. Cornell has even offered air conditioning hook -ups to the high school, street repairs, and a park on
East Shore Drive. These are minor concessions, but he felt they made a strong impression on the town
representatives. Cornell has offered the town $50,000 over five years for monitoring. Does the board believe
that a group of qualified technicians with the necessary equipment could do regular, adequate testing for that
price. What happens after five years? He stated the monitoring will be a matter of approving Cornell's findings.
This board has accepted Cornell's claims at face value and have found it unnecessary to conduct their own
evaluations or contact outside experts. The board has relied heavily on New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's assessment. Their investigation was less than adequate. The New York State
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPRO LED -APPROVED -APPROVED
Department of Environmental Conservation does
their duties. The deplorable conditions of the
negligence. He understood the board was about
for Cornell's chilled water plant. This building is
is unworkable. The board is in a position to decid
not have a good track record and are most inept to perform
lake in front of Stewart Park is a prime example of their
to consider approving or disproving the zoning and site plans
the key element to the entire system and without it the project
e whether the cooling project proceeds or not.
He hoped since the last meeting the board has had second thoughts and given this matter full and through
consideration. Also that the board does not have questions or misgivings about particular points that the board
feels requires further deliberation. He urged the board to pay attention to Mr. Foster's article in the Ithaca
Journal. There is not a need for haste in this matter. Air conditioning for Cornell is not that urgent. The best
interest of the community and the protection of the lake are far more important. Cornell is a non -tax paying
member of the community and must not be granted special privileges. Despite their power and influence, they
can not expect the town to sacrifice a beautiful lake, the well -being and the best interest of the Ithaca community
for their private interest. The board's prejudicial actions in this matter has hurt their reputation throughout the
community. The board has an opportunity to redeem themselves and regain their credibility. As constituents, the
public expects the board to acknowledge their concerns and represent the community in an equitable, unbiased
manner.
Don Weir, 930 East Shore Drive, stated he has come to the realization that the plant is going in. He
hears consistently that information was presented to the board that may or may not have been correct. People
made decisions based on that information that could or could not be correct. Mr. Weir asked that a reasonable
monitoring system be put into place so that finger pointing when actions do occur can be correctly placed. He
would not deem to say that phosphorous by itself would cause a total disruption to the lake. Mr. Weir stated as
a biologist it would cause some. Concerns about an additional 5 -15 degrees of heat added to the south end of
the lake that already has two sewer plants entering into it. He feels a monitoring system in place before the
pumping starts, during and after the pumping the starts. It could be that Lake Source Cooling will not cause
major effects. If it does cause effect, the board would be in the position to say they made their decisions based
on the information. The board would be in a position to demand the equipment be shut down.
Chuck Henderson, 839 Taughanock Boulevard, stated he was concerned that Cornell would build this
cooling system and return water to the lake that was brought from the deep part of the lake. It is a major cause
of concern and he does not understand why the pipe can not be extended out into an area that will not affect the
local people. Several years ago a sewer system was brought in on both sides of the lake and people did a lot of
work to improve the lake. He does not feel Cornell should be allowed to do anything less than the best they can
do. If Cornell is trying to force this through, he hoped they would not be allowed to cut corners at this early
date.
Shelly Mulvaney, 1042 East Shore Drive, stated Cayuga Lake was one of the greatest natural resources.
When Mother Nature is toyed with something will happen. It is hard to predict what will :happen, but something
will. The southern end of the lake is the most shallow and will be affected. She hoped the board was listening to
details and would really consider the project before they made their decision.
Sylvia Wahl, 1426 Hanshaw Road, stated she was concerned about Lake Source Cooling and to urge the
board to delay their vote. She feels there are many questions that have been raised. It is important for the board
to take some additional time to think the project through. Another month's delay will not make that much
difference in the overall project. Several times people have referred to the opinion piece of Bill Foster in today's
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Ithaca Journal. When she spoke before the Town Board one of her questions was who would mitigate the
adverse affects of this project on the lake. Mr. Foster said Ithaca and Cornell had failed to recognize the expense
of future cost and liabilities they may be occurring by proceeding. Ms. Wahl stated Cornell was not accepting
any responsibility for any kind of adverse affects this may bring forth. It is important to realize the lake is a
resource for the entire area. The community was asking the board to help them protect the lake. The lake would
be changed forever.
Joe Francis, 865 Taughannock Boulevard, stated Lake Source Cooling was a high risk project for the
community. Cornell is not a tax paying unit. If a clean-up program is needed the tax payers will take the burden.
There are three practical suggestions. One to extend the out flow pipe to a deeper depth. He knows there is a
diffuser involved in the pipe. He knows the diffuser will help to some degree. Secondly require a monitoring
program and extend it beyond a five year period. Third to consider a clean-up program should something go
wrong. If Cornell believes in this project then they should be willing to back it up financially. The board should
indicate an amount of money would be forthcoming from Cornell to clean-up the lake.
Rosa Murray, Ithaca, stated she was present to say a word in defense of and in praise of Cayuga Lake. In
1939, she moved to Ithaca. That year she and a friend rented a cottage on East Shore Drive. She does not know
if people present had never sailed, swam, boated, rowed on the lake. Ms. Murray had a boat from 1946 and
traveled to many lakes. Every time they came back, Cayuga Lake was the most beautiful. 'They gave up boating
in 1968. This August she boated on Cayuga Lake and there are developments where forests were. Every one of
these buildings are attacking the lake and getting the water from the lake. One time when they were working on
their boat and dropped a bolt in the lake. Her husband was able to see to the bottom of the lake and find the
bolt. Ms. Murray stated if a sledge hammer were in Cayuga Lake now, it would not be found. There is sea weed
on both sides of the lake where one used to be able to enter the beaches. Now there is nothing but grass on the
bottom of the lake. The shore line has even changed. The lake is not the same. Cayuga Lake is a little lake. It
is not right to put pipes into the lake when the deepest point is only 400 feet deep. This is personal and I am
talking from my heart. It is a privilege to live here.
Rosalyn Lo Pinto, 1162 East Shore Drive, stated she objected to the site for Lake Source Cooling and
felt it was the worst and fragile part of the lake. She wanted to say more and more people were going to be
drinking its water. Ms. Lo Pinto stated the board did not have a right to vote on anything so important without a
referendum or public input.
Dean Mogelgard, 119 Middaugh Road Brooktondale, stated he attended an Environmental Management
Council Meeting about one year ago. He suggested a environmental protection agency be consulted and asked
to review what was happening. It is his understanding attempts were made at this. Bill Foster's involvement is
coincidental. The better way to have done this would be to contact Daniel Patrick Moynihan and do it from the
top. If his office was contacted and asked to have a consultation, then maybe it could be delayed.
Barbara Ebert, 206 Lake Ave, stated she wanted to remind the board that the Tompkins County
Environmental Management Council passed a resolution at their June 1998 meeting, asking this project to be
reconsidered due to reservation by the board. Ms. Ebert stated they stood by their resolution and asked the
board to listen to what the public is saying. She explained that while the town may have received certain offers
for its consideration in this project such as an amount of money, she wanted to see evidence that the town has
found someone for the type of work needed for the amount of money needed. It would leave the town in a
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 14 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - J.4NU.ARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
financial crunch. The board as officers of the town would then be responsible. Many people have come before
the board to speak and get the board to address their concerns. It is not the most comfortable position to be in.
Fay Gougakis, P.O. Box 6764, stated this is a very historic moment for the Town of Ithaca. There may
not be a thousand people protesting, but even the handful of people in the room speaks for the way Cornell
University has presented the project. There are a lot of unanswered questions. How could the town pass this
project without these questions being answered.
Ms. Gougakis stated she came to Ithaca in 1981 because of Wells College. She swam in Cayuga Lake
for the first time and she was amazed at the clarity and the beauty of the lake. Even before 1981 a person could
drop a penny and see it hit the ground. The issues brought before the board are true. The bottom of the lake is
murky. May be this project would work well in a different situation. Cornell University is forcing this project
down our throats. The town needs to have a second opinion and that has not been done. How does the public
know if Cornell is right? The findings are being based on Cornell scientists and the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation that allowed the toxic waste dump. Cornell said at the toxic waste dump meeting
that toxic waste would not reach the lake.
Ms. Gougakis stated she spoke before the County Board earlier in the evening. She explained she told
the board it bothered her that they allowed Cornell to go ahead with the project without any money for the town
and the city for using the lake. Cornell is profiting from the lake. Cornell is not doing the community a favor.
How well did Cornell inform other residents around the lake? Ms. Gougakis felt it is a conspiracy. There is a
major university that is very powerful with a lot of connections with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, the media, and the powers to be in the community. Cornell has not allowed a
second opinion to come in and they are keeping a cap on the project. She feels it is not too late to stop or delay
the project. The lake needs to be monitored from the beginning and until the project ends.
Ms. Gougakis stated she heard someone from Cornell state someone needs to prove Cornell damaged the
lake. When there is a problem with the lake, Cornell is going to say how can it be proven it is Cornell. Lake.
Source Cooling is the first of its kind. This project is an experiment. Milliken Station cools the water before it is
returned to the lake. Cornell is not going to cool it. She stated there is not a vote of the whole lake on the
project. It is only the City, County and Town. Has everyone on the lake voted on the project? If the board
would like serious input, everyone needs to vote. She noticed with the project that it has slowly gathered
momentum. If this project was really an environmental plus, all the alternatives would have been investigated. It
is very clear Cornell is focusing on Lake Source Cooling alone. When people come before the board and speak
about the economics and the lack of alternatives, and who have investigated the project. It is clear the emphasis
is only on Lake Source Cooling. She stated she could not trust Cornell. Ms. Gougakis felt Ithaca could still be a
beautiful community even without Cornell and she did not mean to bash Cornell. She only wanted to speak the
truth and bring justice into the world. Ithaca has an environment that is unique. The town is being destroyed by
the monopoly of Cornell, infiltration of druggies from NYC, and creating a drug cartel. Properties are being
allowed to deteriorate. She asked the Planning Board to give the project a red light.
L Pearce Williams, 207 Iradell Road, stated he considered Cayuga Lake to be one of the most beautiful
parts of living in Ithaca. He stated he came to Ithaca in 1948 because of Cornell. Mr. Williams explained he took
three years of chemical engineering at Cornell. His main field is the History of Science and Technology. One of
the lessons of history is at no period in history of mankind will everything be known. There is always an area
'PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 15 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPRO LED
where it is not just gray, but blind. That is the position Ithaca is in. No one can predict with any assurance what
is going to happen. If the project goes through it will not have a beneficial affect on the lake. The town does
owe it to the voters to hold a referendum. Ask people to consider the problem and the alternatives and to
consider the risks. People should have the right to vote if they feel the project is worth doing. Given the fact
that no one can predict what will happen, it should be a condition of approval that Cornell be held to full fiscal
responsibility. Mr. Williams stated he was very upset about the monitoring. He wanted to know how much
affluent was entering the lake from Cornell. The History of Science and Technology is filled with disasters that
result from people not probing far enough. Please take into consideration the disorder that will result when the
streets are torn up.
Al Snyder, 857 Taughannock Boulevard, stated he believed the negative effect would be aesthetic to
nature. To resolve the problem the pipe could be extended out to deeper water. One of the largest tax bases for
the Town of Ithaca are the East and West shores of the lake. The tax assessments are based on aesthetic value.
John Coleman, 75 Turkey Hill Road, stated he has been a Cornell professor for 28 years and Cornell can
make an occasional mistake. There are many reservations being expressed. Many are legitimate. The
community should be better consulted and given the opportunity to express more widely its views on the risks to
the lake. Some of the other communities should be consulted as the affects are not only going to be confined to
the southern portion of the lake.
Karen Westmont, 206 Forest Home Drive, stated she is in the City Planning Department. One of the
recent trends they study is the appropriation of public resources by private enterprises. Her point is if the project
is such a good idea and this last increment of phosphorous contamination in the lake is reasonable, then why does
a private entity get to take that. It is a public good and a finite resource. Cornell is taking the water and
profiting from it. If this is a good idea, why shouldn't the public benefit from it. Society has changed and it no
longer allows the first grab at a resource to be the last. The Planning Board is the town's custodians of the
public resource. If this is such a good idea and worth the risk, why is it not the county's instead.
Nancy Brown, 102 Rachel Carson Way, stated the address should sound familiar becomes the board gave
EcoVillage a hard time. Eco Village was present to make a good impact on the world. She was before the
board to ask them to give the project much consideration. The public trusts the board to be very serious in their
decision.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if any other persons of the public wished to be heard. With no other persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the public hearing at 9:55 p.m.
Mr. Joyce stated the outflow pipe has nine feet of water over the top. The outfall pipe is four feet in
diameter. The depth of water at the outflow pipe is about thirteen feet. The outfall diffuser is designed with
smaller diameter nosels coming off the side pointed in a northerly direction. They are designed to mix with the
ambient water in the area and to not scour the bottom. There will not be an indication the diffuser is present.
The cost of the building is $3 million and the equipment and furnishing inside equal up to $10 million. There was
a comment that Cornell would be adding 10 -15 degrees to the soup in the southern end of the lake. In the
southern end of the lake basin, the outfall water will be 1045 degrees colder than the water there. The water
quality is higher than what is present in the summer. By putting the water in the southern basin, it will move the
water there more quickly. Many people stated Cornell would not accept adverse affects to the lake. The New
' PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 16 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
York State Department of Environmental Conservation very clearly regulates the water quality. The SPEDES
permit for Lake Source Cooling is much more stringent than any other one issued on Cayuga Lake. It does have
a detailed monitoring plan in it. The monitoring has been submitted to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and includes monitoring plans near the outfall area. The permit also states as a
special condition if there was a problem as a result of Lake Source Cooling at the southern end of the lake, the
outfall would have to be extended at that time. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
felt along with the scientists that the extra $2 million to extend the outfall was not warranted at this point.
Mr. Joyce stated he appreciated Mr. Kurtz's concern about the financial health of Cornell University and
in particular if this project made sense financially. Cornell University has never characterized the project as a
money maker. It is a way to minimize their expenses for cooling. Cooling costs the university money. It is a
feature provided in laboratories, classrooms, and office spaces. A thorough analysis has been done. The analysis
was done by well qualified and informed consultants. It was reviewed in detail by the administration and
trustees. The university did decide Lake Source Cooling makes sense versus the conventional alternatives. The
trustees and university fully understood that.
Director of Planning Kanter stated he would like to respond to Doria Higgins's comment. First by saying
it is a mistake to believe everything exactly as it appears in the newspapers. He did not say that the Planning
Board should consider environmental issues during Final Site Plan Review process. He did say the Planning
Board and staff have considered environmental issues and the Planning Board adopted a statement of
Environmental Findings on April 7, 1998. This was prior to proceeding with Preliminary Site Plan Approval.
Mr. Kanter stated he did say the Planning Board should at this point be focusing on elements such as building
design, landscaping, drainage, parking, erosion and sedimentation control and the types of things normally
considered upon Site Plan review. It is a normal procedure for the board and he expected the board to do the
same with this project. He also stated the town staff was aware of the state laws and regulations. Mr. Kanter
explained he did and would not try to mislead board members or the public regarding the Planning Board's
responsibilities. Mr. Kanter addressed Ms. Higgins directly by saying shame on her for trying to use
inflammatory charges as she did to try and sway the board's decision. The best arguments are based on fact and.
not fiction.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she felt it would be best to take one part at a time.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the board has already dealt with the environmental issues. The board was
being asked to look at Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision. Whether the environmental issues that many people
have spoken about are relevant this evening is open for debate.
Board Member Hoffmann stated there are some new issues that have come up. It has only been in the
last couple months that she has been aware of the new regulations from the federal level. It makes a difference to
her if they are going to deal with clean -up the lake. The other item she was not aware of is the monitoring plan.
It was something they did not really deal with at the Planning Board level. If there are questions about the
monitoring plan it is something the Planning Board needs to think about. As a citizen of the town she would also
like to know about monitoring specifications. It is too early for the board to make a decision.
Mr. Joyce stated they could explain the board's concerns.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 17 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated it was not a matter of addressing concerns. She would like to see what
the monitoring plan is before making a decision. Board Member Hoffmann stated someone made a comment
that the plans were detailed. The plans need to be detailed if the board were to make a final decision on them.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if Board Member Hoffmann would be interested in seeing the monitoring plan
to be approved by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Mr. Joyce replied the monitoring plan was well outlined in the SPEDES permit which has been reviewed
before. The perimeters to be measured are clearly outlined in the SPEDES permit.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the plan was exactly the same.
Mr. Joyce stated they needed to take the detail in the SPEDES permit and take it to a level of field guide
for the researchers that take the data. They need to specify quality control methods and tools and techniques. In
addition Cornell University added six more monitoring sites in the southern basin. The community will be
pleased with the monitoring plan.
Board Member Thayer asked if the monitoring would continue after five years.
Mr. Joyce stated the monitoring lasted for the life of each permit. The permit lasts five years from
effective date of the permit. The permit is renewed every five years. In 2002, Lake Source Cooling will be
reevaluated and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will decide to renew the permit
or not. The monitoring and involvement of the community will be extensive before and after the project becomes
on -line.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there was baseline data.
Mr. Joyce responded there would be two years of baseline data plus there is three years of baseline data
in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if Cornell would be taking more measurements in such a way that data
can be compared with the data after the project is on-line.
Board Member Ainslie stated the public feels the board is cheating them out of a referendum. Has the
board gone so far in their past deliberations that a public referendum is not possible?
Attorney Barney replied there is an application for a Site Plan Approval. There is not a provision in state
or town law that provides for a referendum on whether to approve or disapprove a Site Plan Approval. The
public is not being cheated out of a referendum. There is not a provision in the law to have a referendum.
Board Member Ainslie stated the public feels they should have a referendum and he wondered what could
be the rebuttal from this board because the board does try to represent them.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 18 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Attorney Barney stated the Planning Board did not have the authority to require a referendum and
whether or not there was a referendum, or the outcome, this board stills has to make the decision of granting site
plan approval. There is a process of reviewing the decision of this board in court.
Board Member Ainslie stated after hearing everyone, no one can say what the outcome might be in a
negative way.
Board Member Bell asked if there was any way for the consultant to be involved in the review of whether
or not the monitoring system is being set up in the right way. The board is being asked to accept Cornell's
structuring of how the project will be monitored. It is not a question of reviewing after. The consultant can only
review after the project is running. Often questions do not get answered at that point. The question needs to be
answered at the beginning.
Mr. Joyce stated the agreement that was structured with the Town Board and the Town of Ithaca was for
the consultant to be available after the project came on -line in 2000. The town was concerned about that and
that is what they asked for. It was a suggestion by the town.
Attorney Barney stated the $50,000 is for the town to hire a consultant to review any aspect of the
project. The consultant does what the town directs them to do.
Board Member Bell asked if a consultant could be hired before the monitoring plan is on-line.
Attorney Barney stated the Town Board could hire a consultant the first five years of operation.
Board Member Bell asked who would represent the town and tell the town whether or not the monitoring
plan was even adequate.
Attorney Barney asked at what point.
Board Member Bell replied at the present time while it was being designed. He does not feel anyone on
the board has the scientific expertise to be able to know if the monitoring is being done correctly. There are
many questions that the board does not know the answer to. This project is on the fast track.
Attorney Barney stated with any project the town makes the choices as to what level of supervision it is
going to require. The Town Board could hire a consultant with the town money to make that type of review.
The Town Board was relying on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to take care of
that area rather than spend local tax payer's money. There is no one here today to do that. The question is if the
town as a body is going to hire someone that the majority of the Town Board felt the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation was the proper entity to do that.
Board Member Bell asked if that was the case, then why did they want someone to monitor the project
once it was in operation if the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was going to do such
a great job.
Attorney Barney responded he was unable to answer all of the questions. What is in the contract is there.
It came out of a negotiated process with Cornell. They had a feeling they wanted someone independent from
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 19 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Cornell to determine whether Cornell's monitoring system was appropriate and whether the data was being
interpreted in the proper way. He stated he could not speak for the Town Board.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the concerns the Town Board had was that if some part of the process
during the monitoring was raising a red flag, then the Town Board would be able to indicate to New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation that something was not going right.
Board Member Thayer stated the public said the dollar amount was not enough to buy a consultant. If
the town had to pay for the monitoring the community felt it was not fair.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the person who asked that thought the money included the equipment. The
consultant will receive the data and the consultant's job is to review the data and report back to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Board Member Ainslie asked if this project would improve the lake.
Mr. Joyce responded that what they had talked about in the southern basin is that there would not be a
discernible change in water quality. They needed to analyze it as if it was a closed body of water in the southern
basin. He explained the water they were putting in the southern basin is cleaner, colder, lower phosphorous.
Board Member Ainslie asked how the water could be different if it was in a closed body.
Mr. Joyce responded that the lake was different at the southern end because of the tributaries and the
sewage treatment plants. There was a small volume of lake at the southern lake and an enormous volume of the
rest of the lake. The water quality in the rest of the lake is extremely high. By moving that water to the southern
lake basin, it is better water.
Board Member Ainslie stated Cornell should say they are going to make the southern end of the lake
better.
Mr. Joyce replied they were unable to say that for sure. The important thing about the Environmental
Impact Statement was that they showed with data both existing conditions. The impact would be so small it is
imperceptible. It will be difficult to see positive or negative benefit.
Board Member Bell asked for a one word response.
Mr. Joyce stated it would be neutral.
Robert Bland, Cornell University Environmental Engineer, stated it will be a negligible impact. He felt
what swayed the Town Board was that it does have the potential to make the lake better due to the amount of
data taken. In the absence of this project the data would not have been taken. More information will be found
out about the lake, especially the southern end. That in itself is a value. The amount of data taken in the past
four years has added to the body of information on Cayuga Lake. The analysis that was done in the
Environmental Impact Statement was very conservative to get at what the worst would be. The southern basin
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 20 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
was treated as a closed basin. Cornell looked at weather extremes, and if the flow from Lake Source Cooling
was high. There was a lot of effort by the people involved to look at what could happen.
Board Member Ainslie asked how it could be neutral.
Mr. Bland stated they started not wanting to add anything to the water. They are moving water from
below to the shelf. There will be less phosphorous because it is actually being diluted by bringing it up from the
bottom.
Board Member Bell stated he did not feel Board Member Ainslie's question had been answered. The
answers to many of the questions was what happened during the summer months. There are many months that
are not the summer months during which this project will be in operation. Is Cornell saying that it is negligible to
extend the growing season of algae by having the warmer temperatures during the non - summer months? Are
they also saying that it is a negligible impact on the algae to add a higher concentration of phosphorous?
Mr. Bland responded yes. The analysis was done in the Environmental Impact Statement and reviewed
by many people who asked the same questions.
Board Member Bell asked why they increased the temperature and increased the nutrient level and did
not have an impact.
Mr. Bland stated it was a question of scale. It was asked if it was a negligible impact and it is. In the
winter the lake is well mixed so there is only a transfer of phosphorous in the summer.
Elizabeth Moran, Aquatic Scientist, stated Cayuga Lake from November to June mixes completely
naturally from top to bottom. The winds mix the water. Lake Source Cooling is helping the natural process.
When they looked at the phosphorous budget, they looked at the period when the lake does not mix. The heat
budget they did look at year round. In the Environmental Impact Statement they presented the amount of heat
that is added to the lake from Lake Source Cooling is equivalent to about four to five extra hours of sunlight on
the lake surface each year. It is very small and within the natural variability of the system. If it is looked at near
the outfall the temperature affects will not be measurable within several hundred meters of the outfall at anytime
of the year.
Board Member Bell stated he did not trust Cornell. Is not it true that the temperature elevation is
equivalent to four or five hours of sunlight a year over the entire lake. They are taking the BTUs that hit the
lake, adding up the acres of the lake and figuring out the total BTUs are added to the lake.
Ms. Moran responded that was correct.
Board Member Bell stated the number of BTUs was then being concentrated in the eight foot deep shelf.
Ms. Moran responded it was true, but they did more than a cursory analysis of that by looking at the
thermal impacts in the area of the outfall. They used a well accepted EPA model to help predict the size of the
thermal mixing zone created during each month of the year. That was done on a conservative basis looking at
maximum floor and addition of heat as the water flows through the heat exchanger. The analysis shows the area
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 21 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
of temperature change in the region of the outfall is very small within several hundred meters of the outfall
because of the diffuser and the natural mixing of the lake. A thermal zone of that size was concluded to not have
an impact on the biological community. She also pointed out their environmental review was carefully reviewed
by the scientists that were the independent reviewers as well as New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and EPA. The EPA did review and pass the Environmental Impact Statement.
Board Member Bell asked why the board had not seen that.
Ms. Moran responded the EPA does not have to issue its own formal approval for this project. The EPA
review is done under the joint permit for which the lead was taken by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army
Corps of Engineers incorporated the EPA review into their findings.
Mr. Joyce stated it is important to know that the EPA Water Quality Program is delegated to the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation for implementation. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation does the EPA rules and regulations as incorporated in their own program and made
more stringent.
Board Member Ainslie asked where the study took place.
Ms. Moran replied they used a model and Cayuga Lake for their thermal analysis. There were a string of
thermisters in Cayuga Lake that measured temperatures at 10 meter intervals for a period of over a year. The
thermisters are temperature sensors that continually measure temperature in the lake. They used the data to help
test the modeling approach. Lake Source Cooling is not built so they needed a mathematical model to help them
predict what would happen.
Board Member Ainslie asked what the size of the model was.
Ms. Moran stated for the lake wide model they used a model developed through the Army Corps of
Engineers that divides the lake into many boxes. It lets the tributaries flow in , the sun shine down on the
surface, and allows for the meterological conditions of wind and rain. It then predicts the thermal structure of
the lake. They ran the model for a ten year period from 1986 until 1995 to simulate temperature. Then they had
the 1995 actual measured conditions to test it. This analysis is presented in the Environmental Impact Statement
and it demonstrates that the model actually performs extremely well. The model was in a computer. It is not a
physical model. It is a mathematical model. It is a series of equations that do thermal heat transfer and mixing.
Mr. Joyce stated they had often compared Lake Source Cooling to what Milliken station is currently
doing on the lake. They are talking about an annual flow that is less than a tenth of what Milliken is putting into
the lake for heat and recirculating water from a 45 foot depth to the surface. There are not negative affects at
Milliken as a result either thermally or algae in the area of the outfall.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Kanter if he was aware of any grant applications or intermunicipal
cooperation that may be going on to address Southern Lake Basin issues.
Director of Planning Kanter responded there were several areas where things were happening. One is a
grant application under the Clean Water Bond Act the city put together on behalf of the Town of Ithaca, and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Cayuga Heights to look at combining sewer facilities and upgrading sewage treatment plant. The hope is the
overall water quality in the southern basin is significantly improved. It could lead to facility improvements.
When the Town of Lansing proposed their new individual sewage treatment plant, the state did not approve it.
Their rationale was they would rather not see a new sewage treatment plant facility. They would prefer to see
connections and improvements to existing facilities and systems. It is one of the reasons why this new grant
application was submitted. The town has received a grant through State Local Waterfront revitalization program
and will be administered through Cornell 41 s local government program to develop a handbook on septic system
improvements. The town government has a committee set up called the Water Resource Ordinance Committee
to look at the possibility of new storm water regulations that would be imposed on new development projects.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the EPA initiatives that Mr. Foster outlined in his editorial have
been appearing in a number of the professional journals. What he was saying in his letter about potential future
EPA initiatives has not come as a surprise for any of the town staff. They have all been attending conferences
and workshops addressing these issues.
Board Member Ainslie stated when Cayuga Lake was clean at the southern end there were less people.
Now there are sewage plants and many homes that have septic systems. Septic systems have septic tanks which
are pumped regularly. The septic tank pumper goes to the city plant, pays a fee, and the waste then goes into the
lake. The problem with the southern end of Cayuga Lake is too many people.
Board Member Hoffmann stated there is much concern about the phosphorous. Over the years many
people have talked about having a closed loop in the lake. Has Cornell thought about that.
Mr. Joyce replied they have explained why that is technically infeasible. The campus chilled water loop
would have to be extended into the lake. It is hundreds of pounds per square inch pressure higher than the lake
water. Many acres of radiators at the bottom of the lake would need to be installed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she was talking about two loops. One to the heat exchanger from
campus. Another from the heat exchanger to the lake.
Mr. Joyce stated the same amount of acre space would be needed. It would be very complicated and
extremely large. It is something Cornell University would not do. It does not make sense.
Board Member Kenerson stated he was hearing repeats of things he does not think the Planning Board
has the authority to act on. He felt the board should see where they are and see what they are going to do. One
thing is to put the proposition on the floor and see what happens. The other is to adjourn and arrive at questions
that relate to decisions that the Planning Board can make. There are a lot of misunderstandings on the part of the
people as to what the Planning Board can do. The board needs to clarify that and do it. There will be some
happy and some unhappy people.
Chairperson Wilcox stated Board Member Hoffmann has expressed the opinion that she would like to see
the monitoring plan that Cornell University submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. He assumed that without seeing it, Board Member Hoffmann would not be in favor of the
proposed resolution in front of the board.
PLAN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 23 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROP D -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 - .APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated he was correct. The board also has not talked about the site plan and
the changes to that.
Board Member Bell stated he wanted an outside opinion selected by the town.
Chairperson Wilcox stated he did not want to adjourn the discussion until October 6, 1998. He did not
want to adjourn to another meeting without making clear if there was any information members of the board
desired from Cornell University. If there is something somebody wants, please ask for it now. The public has
spoken about environmental issues. The board's task is site plan.
Board Member Bell stated the findings statement that the board approved in April 1998, was clearly
about the environmental issues. Just because a findings statement was adopted does not mean that the board
turns their back on environmental issues. There are three outstanding areas of inquiry. One is monitoring. Mr.
Foster's argument about the financial liabilities the tax payers may end up with is important. The third is if the
project has an economic basis. When this project first came out, he was for the project. Over time many
questions have come up. The project may be without an economic basis, but it is Cornell's problem because they
are paying for it. If Cornell were using their own money, they are using Industrial Development Agency tax
supported bonds. It is an entity created by public bodies and there is a public element to it. There is a direct
public involvement in the financing of this project. If in fact this project is 30 million dollars more than a feasible
alternative, it is wrong to be supporting it. The economic and phosphorous/EPA issues are new area. Within the
Planning Board procedures there is a certain assumption about the relationship between a Preliminary Site Plan
approval and a Final Site Plan approval. The presumption is that when an applicant comes before the board and
asks for Preliminary Site Plan approval much time is spent reviewing the details. If new issues come up and they
have not been addressed, it is the board's obligation to continue to examine the new issues. His recommendation
is to request the applicant to have a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address these two
questions. The Planning Board is well within their rights to request a supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement.
Attorney Barney stated it was a prerogative of the lead agency and the Planning Board was not the lead
agency.
Director of Planning Kanter stated he felt Board Member Bell's two new issues were not new issues.
Financial liabilities and responsibility of tax payers to take on responsibilities of failures of other government
agencies is nothing new. Everyone knows those are risks associated with federal, state and other approvals that
may be issued. Everyone should have been aware of that. The board does not need someone to write them a
letter to inform them of it. In terms of future EPA guidelines that might be applied to Cayuga Lake is not new
information. Assistant Town Planner Frantz mentioned that the town has known about pending possible
regulation. They have been pending because Congress is not settled on what those should be and how the
guidelines should be established. The Planning Board should not be withholding decisions based on some future
pending actions. The economic basis for the project is something that is not necessarily an Environmental Impact
Statement issue. It is something the applicant has spent many hours and dollars analyzing themselves. That kind
of analysis is not necessarily a required element of an Environmental Impact Statement. If it is going to become
one then it needs to be included in the original scoping document of the Environmental Impact Statement. It was
not and this board and other agencies had plenty of opportunities to ask for those types of analysis. It is not
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 24 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 199 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
appropriate to go back to that point of the project. If the board is going to delay a decision on the project, or
disapprove the project, the board needs to be very specific about what their reasons are.
Attorney Barney stated the lead agency may require a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed, or inadequately addressed in the
Environmental Impact Statement that arise from changes proposed for the project, newly discovered information,
or a change in circumstances in the project. The Planning Board can not direct a supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement. This board could request the lead agency to request a supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement based upon section 617.9A7i.
Board Member Bell stated he was assured it could be done by a source that should know. The fact that
the staff knew about the debates in Congress is good but, it never entered into the Planning Board's discussions.
The members of the Planning Board never heard about it until Bill Foster's letter.
Attorney Barney asked if that gave him grounds to demand the applicant to do a supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement. Whether the board knew about it or should have looked at it is one thing. If
we knew about it and decided not to look at it is not grounds for this board to say to the lead agency they want
the applicant to produce additional information the board should have been thinking about before.
Director of Planning Kanter stated it does not matter if there are pending regulations they knew about or
not. The point is if there are aspects of what Bill Foster stated that significantly impact information the board
has. Much of what Bill Foster wrote was opinion not fact. People have different opinions. Mr. Foster's letter is
largely opinion and if there is nothing beyond the fact that there are EPA pending regulations, what will the
board be requesting be done in terms of analyzing additional information.
Board Member Bell replied Bill Foster listed ten different questions and anyone who reads the questions
will realize the fiscal responsibility the town may be getting themselves into. He would like to have those
questions answered.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated Cayuga Lake is one of the higher quality lakes in the northeast, if
not the country. There are many other lakes that are far worse in nutrient impairment than Cayuga Lake is.
Board Member Bell replied it talked about 23 micrograms per year during the summer on peaks.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Town of Ithaca has in place storm water management
controls. The town is ahead of the game. In Atlanta, Georgia, he saw things that scared him in terms of
development, run -off, and nutrient loading because they do not have the protections the Town of Ithaca has.
There are mandatory septic systems up- grade. Around 75% of the homes in the Town of Ithaca are hooked up
to public sewer. The joint grant application includes phosphorous filters. Additional agricultural management
practices can be as little as requiring buffer strips, or can be state supported programs. It is not new information.
Board Member Ainslie stated the public hearing should not have been on the environmental aspects. It
should have been on the Final Site Plan Review. The project as presented looks good. The board has confused
the issue with the public hearing and bringing up old concerns. The board is voting on what has been presented.
PLANNING BOARD NUNUTES PAGE 25 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - .APPROVED -APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated she had questions based on the presentation.
Board Member Thayer stated he felt the staff was for the project. They are paid and know more about
the project. He trusts their judgment and the environmental issues are beyond the Planning Board's control. The
Final Site Plan looks good.
Attorney Barney stated he was neutral, but whatever the board decided he wanted them to do in a legal
way. The board needs to be careful when asking for additional information. There needs to be a foundation that
permits them to do it.
Director of Planning Kanter stated he thought Board Member Thayer meant the staff is trying to have
the Planning Board focused on the issues that can be addressed in order to proceed. The staff does not want to
be represented as being for or against the project. He wanted to make sure the town does what it is supposed to
do.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there was a way to keep visitors out of the drive -way.
Mr. Joyce stated the road would have a chain across it to allow NYSEG access to their right- of-way,
Lansing access to their right -of- -way, and the New York State Department of Transportation access to their
structures on the highway right -of -way.
Board Member Hoffmann stated in the drawings, there is shown a barge by the water. She assumed the
dredgings were going to be put on the barge and disposed of Board Member Hoffmann stated she did not
remember where they were going to be disposed of
Mr. Joyce responded the two sites talked about in the Environmental Impact Statement remained their
sites. One is the airport, to build berms and landscape the area between Route 13 and the various buildings at the
airport. The other option was agricultural on Hanshaw Road. Both were acceptable ideas to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and required some design to have the sediments there.
Director of Engineering Walker stated both sites were outside the Town of Ithaca and would not require
additional fill permits from the Town of Ithaca.
Board Member Hoffmann stated drawing number 1142SP07 has a west elevation which looked different
from the others.
town.
Mr. Joyce stated it was an engineering drawing and it was included for review by engineering staff of the
Board Member Hoffmann stated it was missing windows on the facade.
Mr. Joyce stated they should be there and they would be corrected.
Board Member Hoffmann stated in drawing 1142SP, she saw provisions shown to prevent run -oil She
wanted to know if what was shown was sufficient to protect the creek.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 26 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Director of Engineering Walker stated the sedimentation control plan was very thorough and will be
monitored during construction. Straw bales will keep sediment out of the creek. The excavation work will result
in a deeper hole away from the creek. The material will be trapped on site.
Board Member Hoffmann stated on the colored drawing, 1142SP18 it said summer pavilion.
Mr. Joyce stated it was the park and was the seasonal tent structure. It is a shelter for the park.
Director of Engineering Walker stated the drawing showed Cornell's concept of a pavilion. The town's
concept is more of a wooden structure with a shingled roof.
Mr. Joyce stated Cornell would maintain the park and Cornell would put it in.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the drawing was not going to be what the pavilion would look like.
Mr. Joyce stated the town had the final say.
Director of Engineering Walker stated the structure shown was not intended to be up year round. In the
town parks, they try to keep structures available year round.
Board Member Hoffmann stated how it is seen makes a difference.
Mr. Joyce stated they intended it to be a minimal maintenance structure. Cornell would work with
Director of Engineering Walker and make sure the board was comfortable with it.
Board Member Hoffmann stated when she looked at the outline of the park, Exhibit A and B, she saw
most of the lake frontage was rocky edging that will be built to replace what was there now. Only a small part of
the southern most edge did not have the rocky edging. It is also adjacent to the stream. If that was the only
public access, she felt it was not appropriate.
Attorney Barney stated the purpose of the park was to observe the lake, not launch boats or swim.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that was not what she understood access to the lake to mean.
Director of Planning Kanter stated it meant public access to the shoreline. In the agreement the Town
Board also obtained a right of first offering to acquire the remainder of the shoreline property if it ever became
available for sale.
Attorney Barney stated it was intended by the Town Board not to be a swimming area, or boat launching
area. It was an opportunity for people to picnic by the lake.
Mr. Joyce stated Councilwoman Harrison was very concerned about launching canoes, or sailboats from
a car. It was explained to her as being a north west facing beach and is pounded on by the waves. The largest
waves come down perpendicular to the shore line. The erosion control present is concrete. It is very unsafe and
is not friendly. At the north end of the town park is Conrail property. Many people launch boats from there in
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 27 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JANLARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
the off season and fish. The casual access to the lake now will not be prohibited by what they are doing. The
area will be improved.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she was disappointed when she saw the area for the town park. She
hoped it would have been possible to include that area.
Mr. Joyce stated the Town Board members were very concerned about liability. The idea of owning a
marina was something they did not want to contemplate immediately, but wanted the ability to contemplate later.
Attorney Barney stated it was the configuration that was before the board at Preliminary Site Plan. The
board is rehashing out things that have already been decided and approved.
Board Member Hoffmann stated regarding the letter from the Cornell representative suggesting there
should be a team of people of which there would be a representative from the town. The town representative
would be able to receive information about what is happening. In the letter it sounded as if the person
representing the town would be from the county.
Attorney Barney stated the town will have a representative. Who it will be is designated by the Town
Supervisor.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if it would be someone from the county or someone from the town.
Attorney Barney stated it could be a Town Board member or someone they nominate. It is the town's
decision who it will be.
Board Member Thayer asked if it was possible to have a secret ballot vote.
Chairperson Wilcox stated they vote in public.
Board Member Bell asked if the board voted, how did the vote impact on the request that the board not
vote until they had the monitoring plan review.
Director of Planning Kanter stated it would supersede that because it was not made in a motion.
Board Member Bell stated it sounded as the board was not going to vote until they had the monitoring
plan. If the board votes, the town loses its power. He felt the town needs an outside consultant who is able to
answer this board's questions. The Ithaca Journal's editorial was false saying there have been experts who have
looked at the project. It was stated that the environmental issues were beyond the board's control. He felt it
was false. Board Member Bell stated he was prepared to bring legal precedents before the board. If the board is
voting on that premise, it is a false premise, and is opening the town up to law suits. He stated he would also
bring in legal precedents on the idea that the board as an involved agency can request a supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement. Before the board votes, they need to have legal experts research it. It is a
serious mistake if the board votes without questions being answered and the monitoring plan be acted upon.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 28 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated from the beginning she has felt positively toward the project, but she can
not in good conscience vote for the project until she has seen the monitoring plan.
MOTION by Lawrence Thayer, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
14 This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Cornell University Lake Source Cooling project, proposed to consist of a chilled water plant and a
proposed route for chilled water lines , landscaping and other appurtenances, located at 983 East Shore
Drive on a 3.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 1941 , Special Land Use District, and
additional lands within the Town of Ithaca affected by the pipeline route. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E., Agent, and
2. This is a Type 1 Action for which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review for said Lake Source Cooling Project and pursuant to Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617, has: 1) made a positive determination
of environmental significance; and 2) overseen the preparation, completion and acceptance of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Environmental Impact Statement; and 3) issued its own
Findings Statement with regard to said Project, and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as an Involved Agency with regard to site plan approval
and subdivision approval, has pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and
6NYCRR Part 617, issued its own Findings Statement with regard to said Project, and
4. The Planning Board, on April 7, 1998 did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, and
Preliminary Subdivision Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and
S. The Town Board on June 11, 1998 rezoned the site of the proposed chilled water plant from Business
"E" to Special Land use District, and
6 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on September 1, 1998, has reviewed an application
submission which includes a set of maps, drawings and renderings as listed in Appendix A and Appendix
B attached hereto, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands to be Conveyed to Lowery
and the Village of Cayuga Heights, East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY", prepared
by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and dated December 17, 1996, and other information and application
materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell
University Lake Source Cooling project, proposed to consist of a chilled water plant and a proposed route for chilled
water lines, landscaping and other appurtenances, located at 983 East Shore Drive on a 3.12 +/- acre portion of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 1941 5, Special Land Use District ", and additional lands within the Town of Ithaca
affected by the pipeline route, subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 29 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
a. submission of a list of applications for and copies of all necessary permits from county, state or federal
agencies, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
b. Modification of Sheet 1142 SP06 & 1142 SP07 to show the smaller windows in the building, and all other
current design elements;
C, submission of construction details of all proposed structures, roads, and other improvements, and detailed
sizing and final material specifications of all improvements, prior to the issuance of a building permit;
d A device be placed across the gravel drive to preclude public access to facilities behind the building, said
device to be shown on revised plans;
e. submission of an original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town
of Ithaca, prior to issuance of a building permit;
f. The park structure is to be constructed by Cornell based upon a design approved by the Town Engineer,
Town Planner and Town Park's Manager.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of +/- 0.71 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 194-5 and 19 -1 -7 for consolidation with Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -1 -6, and +/- 0.19 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-1 -7 for consolidation
with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 7 -1 -1, as shown on a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands
to be Conveyed to Lowery and the Village of Cayuga Heights, East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, NY by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., and dated December 12, 1996, subject to the following
conditions:
a. submission of an original or mylar copy and four paper copies of the approved subdivision map,
certified by the surveyor, for signing by the Planning Board Chairman;
b, within two years of this approval, or prior to the issuance of a building permit, whichever is earlier,
conveyance of the +/- 0.71 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 194-5 and 19-1 -7 to the owners of
Tax Parcel No. 19 -1 -6 for consolidation with said Tax Parcel No. 19 -1 -6, and submission to the Town
Planning Department of a copy of the deed conveying said parcel and a copy of the request to the
Tompkins County Assessment Department for consolidation of said parcel with Tax Parcel No 194-6;
C, within two years of this approval, or prior to the issuance of a building permit, whichever is earlier,
conveyance of the +/- 0.19 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -1 -7 to the owners of Tax Parcel
No. 74-1 for consolidation with said Tax Parcel No. 744, and submission to the Town Planning
Department of a copy of the deed conveying said parcel and a copy of the request to the Tompkins
County Assessment Department for consolidation of said parcel with Tax Parcel No 74-1.
Appendix A
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 30 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Figure No.
1142SP01 -PE Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - Existing Site Plan
1142SP02 -PG Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - New Site Plan
1142SP03 -PE Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - Typical Wall Sections
1142SP04 -PC Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - Existing & Proposed Site Plan
1142SP05 -PC Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchanger Facility - Existing & Proposed Site Sections
1142SP06PB Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - General Arrangement
1142SP07PB Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - West Elevation
1142SP08PB Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - South Elevation
1142SP09PA Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - Parking, Access & Lighting Plan
1142SPIOPA Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - Utility Site Plan
1142SPIIPA Town of Ithaca - Heat Exchange Facility - Construction Limits & Erosion Control
1142SP12PA Town of Ithaca - Soil Disposal Area - Construction Limits & Erosion Control
1142SP13PA Town of Ithaca - Contractor Parking & Staging Area - Construction Limits & Erosion
Control
1142SP14PA Town of Ithaca - Marina Site Construction & Erosion Control
March 1997 Site Location Map
November 8, 1997 Lake Source Cooling Project - Boundary Map
December 17, 1996 Subdivision Map
July 28, 1998 Summary of Arcl
1142SPI5- 7128198 Town of Ithaca -
1142SP16- 7/28/98 Town of Ithaca -
1142SP17- 7/28/98 Town of Ithaca -
1142SP18- 7/28/98 Town of Ithaca -
1142SP19- 7/28/98 Town of Ithaca -
1142SP20- 7/281198 Town of Ithaca -
1142SP22- 7/28198 Town of Ithaca -
8/3/98
Fi re No.
Showing lands to be conveyed to Lowery and Village of Cayuga Heights
ritectural Changes from Preliminary to Final Site Plan Review
South Elevation
West Elevation
View From Stewart Park
View from Mid-lake - Summer Pavilion in Foreground
Corner Viewing Porch & Canopy Handicap Access
West Perspective
Color - Lighting - Signage
Appendix B: List of Attachments of Pipeline Route Landscaping, and Sediment
and Erosion Control Methods - Lake Source Cooling
7N13BL01 Basemap
TN14BL01 Basemap
TNI SBL 01 Basemap
MOL01 Basemap
TN17BL 01 Basemap
TN18BL01 Basemap
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
LIST OF FIGURES
of Ithaca
of Ithaca
of Ithaca
of Ithaca
of Ithaca
of Ithaca
Landscape
Landscape
Landscape
Landscape
Landscape
Landscape
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 31 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 - APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED
TN19BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
77V20BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
77V21BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
TN22BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
TN23BLOI Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Platt
TN24BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
7N25BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Platt
TN26BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
7N27BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
TN28BL01 Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
TN29BLOI Basemap Town of Ithaca Landscape Plan
1101BA10 Figure C -16-8 Stream and Drainageway Crossings Town of Ithaca
Figure C46 -3 Typical Trench Breaker Detail
Figure C4641 Pleasant Grove Brook Steam Crossing
I IOISW01 Erosion Control - Figure C46-28 Renwick Brook - Drainageway A Town of Ithaca
I101SW02 Figure C46-29 Erosion Control - Drainageway B Town of Ithaca
1101SW03 Figure C -16-30 Erosion Control - Drainageways C&D Town of Ithaca
1101 SW04 Figure C -16-31 Erosion Control - Drainageway E Town of Ithaca
1101SW05 Figure C46 -32 Erosion Control - Drainageway F Town of Ithaca
1141SW06 Figure C46-33 Erosion Control - Drainageway G Town of Ithaca
1101 SW07 Figure C -16 -34 Erosion Control - Drainageway H Town of Ithaca
1101 SW08 Figure C46-35 Erosion Control - Drainageway I Town of Ithaca
1101SW09 Figure C -16 -36 DEC Stream #70 - Drainageway J Town of Ithaca
1101SW10 Erosion Control Figure C46 -37 Pleasant Grove Brook - Drainageway K
Town of Ithaca
II01SWII Figure C46 -38 Erosion Control at Boynton Middle School Town of Ithaca
1101 SW12 Figure C46 -39 Erosion Control - Drainageways L&M Town of Ithaca
1101SW13 Figure C -16 -40 Erosion Control - Between Culverts at Boynton School Town of Ithaca
Figure C -16 -15 Typical Sod Drop Inlet Protection
Figure C -16 -16 Typical Excavated Drop Inlet Protection
Figure C46 -17 Typical Erosion Control Details
AYES- Wilcox, Kenerson, Thayer, Ainslie.
NAYS- Hoffmann, Bell.
ABSTAIN- None,
Ae MOTION was declared to he carried.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT,
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the September 1, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
Prepared by:
PLANNING BOARD NUNUTES PAGE 32 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
APPRO11FD -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 19, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
Carrie L. Coates,
Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder
Mary Bryant,
Administrative Secretary for the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, September 1, 1998
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard.
7 :35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding extension of Special Approval to maintain a temporary modular classroom structure for
an additional year, located adjacent to Smiddy Hall on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. Said structure includes two classrooms and two
restrooms and is +/- 5,810 square feet in size. Said structure received approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals in 1996 with the condition that it be removed by June of 1998. Applicant is
requesting an extension of the approval to the end of June 1999. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant;
Bruce Hatch, Agent.
7:50 P.M. SEQR Determination, Axiohm office space renovation, 950 Danby Road,
8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed renovation of approximately 8,000 +/- sq. ft. of vacant interior office space on the
upper level of the engineering and administration wing in the Axiohm I.P.B. facility for use by
Ithaco, Inc., located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 39- 1 -1.1, 39 -1 -1.2 and
39- 1 -1.4, I - Industrial District. Axiohm I.P.B., Owner /Applicant; George W. Breuhaus, Agent.
8 :15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed Cornell University Lake Source Cooling project to consist of a chilled water plant
and a proposed route for chilled water lines, landscaping and other appurtenances, located at 983
East Shore Drive on a 3.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -1 -5, Special Land
Use District (SLUD) No. 10, and additional lands within the Town of Ithaca affected by the
pipeline route, Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E., Agent.
7. Consideration of approval of correction to Condition 2 (e) in the adopted resolution for East Hill
Plaza Access Drive, dated August 4, 1998, regarding the reference to the dates of the previously
approved Landscape Improvements plan, Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2-
1.121, Business District "C ". Cornell University, Owner.
8. Approval of Minutes: June 16, 1998 (in packet).
9. Other Business,
10. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY
BRYANT AT 273 -1747,
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, September 1, 1998
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on
Tuesday, September 1, 1998, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the
following times and on the following matters:
7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding extension of Special Approval to maintain a temporary modular
classroom structure for an additional year, located adjacent to Smiddy
Hall on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1-
30.2, Residence District R -15. Said structure includes two classrooms
and two restrooms and is +/- 5,810 square feet in size. Said structure
received approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1996 with the
condition that it be removed by June of 1998. Applicant is requesting
an extension of the approval to the end of June 1999, Ithaca College,
Owner /Applicant; Bruce Hatch, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed renovation of approximately 8,000 +/- sq, ft. of vacant
interior office space on the upper level of the engineering and
administration wing in the Axiohm I.P.B. facility for use by Ithaco,
Inc., located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No, 39 -1-
1.1, 39 -1 -1.2 and 39- 1 -1.4, I - Industrial District. Axiohm I.P.B.,
Owner /Applicant; George W. Breuhaus, Agent,
8:15 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed Cornell University Lake Source Cooling project to
consist of a chilled water plant and a proposed route for chilled water
lines, landscaping and other appurtenances, located at 983 East Shore
Drive on a 3.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -1-
5, Special Land Use District (SLUR) No. 10, and additional lands within
the Town of Ithaca affected by the pipeline route, Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E., Agent,
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support
of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs,
will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring
assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the
public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, August 24, 1998
Publish: Wednesday, August 26, 1998
p ' •
TOWN OF ITHACA PLAN- ;
NING BOARD NOTICE
OF PUBUC F :EARINGS The Ithaca Joumal Wednesday August 26 1998 Tuesday, _-
Sept. ' 1, 1998
By. direction of the
Chairperson of the Planning
Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held bYy the Planning t
on Tesday, September .1,
19980 at 126 East Seneca P
Street, Ithaca, NY, at the fol.
lowing times and on the fol.
lowing matters:
7:35 P.M. Consideration of a
Recommendation to the Zon-
ing Board of Appeals regard.
ing extension of Speciol Ap-
proval to maintain a
temporary modular
classroom structure for an
additional yyear located
adjancent to Smiddy Hall on
the Ithaca College Campus,
two
5,81
Said
is r
the
41.1.30.2, Residence I
f R -15. Said' structure .
es two classrooms and
> st rooms and is i
square feet in-size.
structure received ap•
by the Zoning Board
)eols in 1996 with the
ion that it be removed
Ie of 1998. Applicant _
Testing an extension of
T roval. to the end of
999. Ithaca College, -
r /Applicant; Bruce
8:00 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the pro.
posed ,renovation of
approximately 8,000 t, sq.
ft. of vacant interior office
space on the upper level of
the engineering and admin-
istration wing in the Axiohm
I.P.B. facility for use by
Ithaca, Inc., located at 950
Donby Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No. 39- 1.1.1,
39 -1 -1.2 and 39.1 -1.4, 1 -
Industrial District. Axiohm
I.P.B., Owner Applicant;
George W. Breu oust Agent.
8:15 P.M. Consideration of
Final Site Plan Approval and
Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed Cornell
University Lake Source
Cooling project to consist of
a chilled water plant and a
proposed route for chilled
water lines, landscaping and
other appurtenances, located
at 983 East Shore Drive on
a 3.12 t acre portion of
Town -of Ithaca ,Tax parcel
No. 19 -15, Special Land
Use district (SLUD) No. 10,
and additional lands within
the Town of Ithaca affected
I, I
University, Owner /Applicant;
W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E.,
Agent.
Said planning Board will at
said times and said place I
hear all persons in support of -
such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual impair-
ments, hearing impairments
or other special needs, will
be provided with assistance
as necessary, upon request.
Persons desiring assistance
must make such a request not
less than 48 hours pprior to the
time of the public hearin
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
August 26, .1998
0 4 •
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFADAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Karen Van Etten being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca.
Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday. September 1, 1998,
commencing at 7:30 P.M. as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board, Front & Entrance of Town Hall.
Date of Posting :
Date of Publication:
August 24, 1998
August 26, 1998
Karen Van Etten
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this,' Aay of August 1998,
Mary J. Saxton
Notary Public, State of New York
Registration #01SA5044003
Qualified in Tioga Coun
1v Commission Expires S 9�