Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-02-15TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 15, 2000, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; James Ainslie, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:42 p.m.); Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (8:25 p.m.), Michael Smith, Planner. EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Raymond J. Mayo, 6885 Route 227; John C. Shepardson, 80 Muzzy Road; Robert Silsbee, 915 Coddington Road; Ralph W. Nash, 115 West Green Street; Andy Sciarabba, 9664 Kingtown Road; Bruce D. Abbott, 559 Ridge Road; J. Wetmore, 128 Glenside. 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 February 7, 2000, and February 9, 2000, 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 February 9, 2000. (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. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m., and asked if any persons wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed PERSONS TO BE HEARD at 7:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Silsbee Two -Lot Subdivision, Burns Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Robert Silsbee, 915 Coddington Road, stated that he and his wife purchased the lot under consideration about 10 years ago. It adjoins their current property. Last fall they started talking with the Finger Lakes Land Trust about a conservation easement on the property. They wish to subdivide the lot and sell the portion labeled parcel A. They would like to consolidate the remaining land with their main property. The conservation easement on the property would be given to the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Parcel A is 7- acres. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox asked if there are any environmental concerns. Mr. Silsbee stated that there are none that he is aware of. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are positive environmental impacts. The parcel being subdivided out for sale is 7 acres. It is environmentally beneficial. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she saw a couple of markers on the property. One is at the northwest end of the property and one is in the middle. Mr. Silsbee stated that the other marker is the southern boundary. The line is between the two markers. Mr. Kanter stated that he walked down the driveway that is on the old railroad grade. There is a good view of the property from that location. There were some markers. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:40 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -10 - SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Silsbee Two -Lot Subdivision. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.62, consisting of 17.8 f acres in area and located on the east side of Burns Road approximately 530 feet north of the intersection with Coddington Road, into two lots, 10.8 f acres and 7.0 f acres in size respectively, with the 10.8 f acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 47 -2 -3, a. k. a. 915 Coddington Road. Said parcel is located in the R -30 Residence District and CD- Conservation District. Ann L. Silsbee, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on February 15, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part Il prepared by the Town Planning staff, a plat entitled "Survey Map of 803 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, Professional Land Surveyor, dated 2110187 and amended 11129199, and other application materials, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.62, consisting of 17.8 ± acres in area and located on the east side of Burns Road approximately 530 feet north of the intersection with Coddington Road, into two lots, 10.8 ± acres and 7.0 ± acres in size respectively, with the 10.8 ± acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 47 -2 -3, a.k.a. 915 Coddington Road. Said parcel is located in the R -30 Residence District and CD- Conservation District. Ann L. Silsbee, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann asked if only Parcel B would be included in a Conservation District. Mr. Silsbee stated that it would be Parcel B plus about another 45 acres. The principal result of the conservation easement would be a restriction for a single dwelling. Mr. Kanter stated that this parcel does not abut the City watershed property. Mr. Silsbee stated that the other piece does go down to Six -Mile Creek and does abut the City property. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would like to thank Mr. Silsbee for the conservation easement on 45 plus acres. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he appreciates Mr. Silsbee's patience in allowing for the board to cancel 2 meetings. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that the surveyor put the original tax parcel number on the large map. It was the original number when it was part of a larger piece. For reference purposes the tax parcel number needs to be changed. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -11 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Silsbee Two -Lot .fit ihHh1i,zinn MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.62, consisting of 17.8 f acres in area and located on the east side of Burns Road approximately 530 feet north of the intersection with Coddington Road, into two lots, 10.8 f acres and 7.0 f acres in size respectively, with the 10.8 f acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 47 -2 -3, a. k. a. 915 Coddington Road. Said parcel is located in the R -30 Residence District and CD- Conservation District. Ann L. Silsbee, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on February 15, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 15, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled "Survey Map of 803 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, Professional Land Surveyor, dated 2110187 and amended 11129199, and other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.62, consisting of 17.8 n- acres in area and located on the east side of Burns Road approximately 530 feet north of the intersection with Coddington Road, into two lots, 10.8 f acres and 7.0 f acres in size respectively, R -30 Residence District and CD- Conservation District, as shown on a plat entitled, "Survey Map of 803 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, Professional Land Surveyor, dated 2110187 and amended 11129199, subject to the following conditions: a. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 10.8 acres parcel ( "B1') with Tax Parcel No. 47 -2 -3, a.k.a. 915 Coddington Road, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Office for consolidation of said parcels, and b. revision of the plat to show the correct current tax parcel number of the parcel proposed for subdivision as "48 -1- 14.62'; and C. submission for signing by the Chair of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark line prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation at this time. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSENT. None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, South Hill Cemetery Association Subdivision, Coddington Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Ralph Nash, Attorney, stated the Cemetery Association is expanding its current cemetery site on Coddington Road to include another acre of property. This will allow the Cemetery Association to obtain an additional 200 to 300 gravesites. With current projections, they will run out of room in the next 2 or 3 years. Mr. Nash stated that they did not see any environmental impacts. The Planning Department indicated that there should be none. The only structures are gravestones. An extension of the current access road will be needed. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the extended access road would be gravel. Mr. Nash responded that he was correct. Chairperson Wilcox stated that on the environmental assessment form under item 10, park, forest or open space needs to be checked. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -12 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval South Hill Cemetery Subdivision. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by James Ainslie. WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1.0 +/- acre of land from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, consisting of 80 +/- acres of vacant land, to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -9, owned by the South Hill Cemetery Association, located on the south side of Coddington Road between the intersections of East King Road and Updike Road, R -30 Residence District. The purpose of said subdivision is for the expansion of the South Hill Cemetery to provide room for more gravesites. Noel and Janet Desch and Montgomery and Eleanor May, Owners; Ralph Nash, South Hill Cemetery Association, Applicant /Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 2. The Planning Board, on February 15, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a plat entitled, "Portion of Lands of Noel Desch, Janet G. Desch, Eleanor P. May and Montgomery May," prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, Professional Land Surveyor, dated 1017199, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Conneman stated that in the Town of Ithaca there is a strict sign ordinance. There was a confrontation over Burger King. In North Carolina they have large signs indicating that Burger King is 2 miles ahead. One business owner in North Carolina bought a Ferris wheel and advertises for his business by putting signs around the Ferris wheel. Board Member Conneman stated that the Burger King does look rather nice. Chairperson Wilcox asked if Burger King had opened. Mr. Kanter stated that they are planning to open Thursday, February 17th Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was happy to see the extra plants. She had hoped that there would be low evergreens. Mr. Kanter stated that there are to be more plantings. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board required that all the plantings be done before they were to open. Attorney Barney stated that if the time of year is such that it is not feasible, they could be issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a limited period of time. If the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy expires and it is not done, they need to shut down. Mr. Kanter stated that the North Campus Residential Initiative project received special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. It will be coming back to the board for Final Site Plan approval on March 7th Board Member Thayer stated that he will not be able to attend the following two meetings. Board Member Conneman stated that he would not be able to attend the March 7th meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not think that having all members should be an issue. Board Member Conneman stated that there are some items that he hopes the board raises at the meeting if he is not present. Attorney Barney stated that once the board has granted Preliminary approval, the test for Final approval is if the conditions set at Preliminary approval have been met. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not a re- review of the entire project. It is a check to see if they have met the conditions. Board Member Hoffmann stated that is true unless there has been a significant change. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is on record as voting against Preliminary approval. When Final Site Plan comes before the board, he will be making an independent decision on whether or not the conditions were met. It is a different vote. Board Member Conneman stated that he thinks that there were some issues on traffic raised at the Zoning Board of Appeals. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1.0 ± acres of land from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, consisting of 80.0 ± acres of vacant land, to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -9, owned by the South Hill Cemetery Association, located on the south side of Coddington Road between the intersections of East King Road and Updike Road, R -30 Residence District. The purpose of said subdivision is for the expansion of the South Hill Cemetery to provide room for more gravesites. Said expansion will require special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Noel and Janet Desch and Montgomery and Eleanor May, Owners; Ralph Nash, South Hill Cemetery Association, Applicant /Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann asked how old is the cemetery. Mr. Nash responded that the cemetery was incorporated in 1877. Board Member Ainslie stated that he is President of the West Hill Cemetery Association. They only use 6 -acres of Memorial Park and they have 25 more acres. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -13 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval South Hill Ceme .St ihrlivicinn MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1.0 +/- acres of land from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, consisting of 80 +/- acres of vacant land, to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -9, owned by the South Hill Cemetery Association, located on the south side of Coddington Road between the intersections of East King Road and Updike Road, R -30 Residence District. The purpose of said subdivision is for the expansion of the South Hill Cemetery to provide room for more gravesites. Noel and Janet Desch and Montgomery and Eleanor May, Owners; Ralph Nash, South Hill Cemetery Association, Applicant /Agent. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on February 15, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 15, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a plat entitled "Portion of Lands of Noel Desch, Janet G. Desch, Eleanor P. May and Montgomery May," prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, Professional Land Surveyor, dated 1017199, and other application material; NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1.0 +/- acre of land from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, consisting of 80 +/- acres of vacant land, to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -9, owned by the South Hill Cemetery Association, as shown on the plat entitled "Portion of Lands of Noel Desch, Janet G. Desch, Eleanor P. May and Montgomery May, " prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, dated 1017100, subject to the following conditions: a. obtaining of the required special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for expansion of the cemetery use prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board; b. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office; C. within six months of this approval, conveyance of the 1 +/- acre parcel, as shown on the plat, to the owner of Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -9; and submission of a copy of the deed for such conveyance to the Town Planning Department; d. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 1 +/- acre parcel, with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -9; and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the requests to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for consolidation of said parcels. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED ABSENT: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Maple Hill Apartments Site Plan Modification, 301 Maple Avenue. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Bruce Abbott, Abbott Associates, stated that they are the beneficial owner of two complexes, West Village Apartments and Maple Hill Apartments. They are linked by the same mortgage. They were initiated by the New York State Urban Development Corporation in 1970. They have owned and maintained the project. Mr. Abbott stated that they are in their 27th year of operation. Things wear out and things need to be corrected. They are improving their property. Mr. Abbott explained that they are not adding any factors to the property that would require a great deal of consideration. They received the land from Cornell University on a land lease for 40 years. Cornell's motive was to provide housing for their graduate students. They were given experimental fields to build on. To the west is Maplewood Apartments. Those apartments house graduate students only. They also inherited a very strange drainage situation. They receive all the run -off from the Cornell experimental field and drainage from the cemetery. The cemetery is about 15 feet above the grade of the apartments. It slopes in a fairly subtle fashion to the west. The new apartment complex has a series of ponding areas, which catch their drainage water. It is on the west of their property. The moving of water has created a subsurface condition, which has gradually eroded underneath the driveways. They are now ponding a certain amount of water that should be handled. In order for the driveway to be repaired, they need to remove the current blacktop and check the subsurface condition under the blacktop. They are slowly losing subsurface gravel and earth. They are creating a lake in various places on the property. They would like to remove the blacktop, examine the subsurface conditions, repair where necessary, repack it and then put down a new driveway. It will not only serve to shed water away from the building, but it will eliminate the ponding affect. Cornell does not want to receive their drainage water. They are proposing an additional berm along the west side of the property to further protect Cornell's interest. They will retain the water there for eventual evaporation. The site plan shows the proposed berming, which will retain the water. The area does have a playground. It is not very attractive and it has been there for 27 years. They would like to remove the playground. The characteristics of the children have changed. There are some very young children who cannot use it because they are too small. The proposal is to have a small half -court for basketball in that area for adult recreation. The lighting will be eliminated because they do not want to encourage after dark play. They do not want light shining into the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED apartments. A new play structure will replace the old play structure. It will be more suitable for younger children. The water will be handled more efficiently. There will not be more water created. They are aware of Cornell's concerns and they will not receive their drainage. There is a swale that collects the water. It was originally an open pond. It was found to be an impractical situation when there are small children. It was filled in years ago with a lot of fill. They are proposing to make it a little deeper by bringing in 1600 cubic yards of fill and making it a little less of a sinkhole. The basketball court will be put on top of it. It will provide some recreational opportunity. A few more drains will be added to allow them to drain the driveway area more efficiently and preserve the value of the property. The driveway will be redefined with concrete curbing. It will make it a little easier to park. It will create a few more parking spaces. They ask for the ability to improve their property and preserve its value. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the berm would be in the area along the western boundary just west of the playing field. Mr. Abbott stated that Cornell's project is adjacent to the area. Andy Sciarabba, Thomas Associates, stated that the berm that they are proposing is west of the proposed basketball court. It would be about 25 to 30 feet west of the basketball court. Board Member Hoffmann asked that since they are calling it a berm, would it go up from the area of the basketball court and then down again towards the Maplewood Apartments. Mr. Sciarabba stated that it would be an embankment and then a slight berm to keep the water in the area from shedding onto Cornell's property. Mr. Abbott stated that there is a depression now. It will not block anyone's view. It will help to retain additional water. They are not creating more water. It is being re- channeled. Board Member Hoffmann asked how high is the highest point of the berm compared to the surface of the playing field. Mr. Sciarabba stated that the top of the berm would be about' /2 foot higher. Attorney Barney asked if it would be six inches above the basketball court. Mr. Sciarabba responded it would be off the basketball court and then it will crest back up. The lands to the west of the basketball court will come down slightly and be bermed back up. It will prevent the basketball court from being flooded. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Abbott stated that the basketball court is over an area that will absorb the water like a sponge. It will retain the water underneath the pavement. Chairperson Wilcox asked if this area was previously farmland. Mr. Abbott stated that it was experimental fields maintained by Cornell. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there was good drainage on the land. Board Member Ainslie stated that it is comparable to drainage in the area. Attorney Barney asked if Mr. Sciarabba could read the contour levels that are being suggested near the basketball court. Mr. Sciarabba stated that the edge of the basketball court is 926. It will run down to an elevation of 900. It will then be raised up 6 inches to the west. The detail of the berm is not on the plan. Mr. Kanter stated that it would create a softer edge than what is presently there, but a fairly abrupt edge going down to the Cornell property. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is a beautiful wooded area. It is not clear how many trees are on this property and how many are on the Maplewood Apartments property. Will some trees be removed? Mr. Abbott responded no. They are filling in the pit and ensuring that water run -off will not end up on Cornell property. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it would be soggy around the basketball court. Mr. Abbott responded no. It is not soggy now and they are improving the area. They do not expect it to change. Board Member Ainslie asked if the basketball court would be black topped. Mr. Abbott stated that it would be the same material that they are putting on the road. The reason for the basketball court is because there is interest in an adult recreation area. There is a natural amphi- theatre created at the swale. Mr. Abbott stated that there are not children old enough to play on the large play equipment. They will have a small play area near the laundry area. There are currently large swings, but there will be swings for toddlers that are enclosed. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that at the other end of the open space there is a curved wall. Will the wall remain? Mr. Abbott stated that the wall would remain. It is the perimeter for the playground. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is a row of plants on the inside of the wall towards the apartments. Mr. Abbott stated that they are going to modify the surface to a softer surface. Board Member Thayer asked Mr. Kanter if he is happy with the drainage situation. Mr. Kanter responded that he asked Mr. Walker to look at it. He did not seem to have any problems. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there is an overall slight increase in impervious surface from the basketball court. There will be a significant improvement in the drainage. It clearly outweighs any slight increase in impervious surface. Sixteen hundred cubic yards of fill is a lot of fill. Mr. Abbott responded that some portion of the fill would be coming from the existing area. They will not need to bring in all the fill. Mr. Kanter stated that he is interested in the timing of the construction. Is fill going to be happening at the same time as the repaving? Mr. Abbott stated that they would have to open up a portion of the area. They need to create a channel between the buildings. It involves removing a current wing wall and replacing it. It will be done simultaneously to the cutting aspect. They will create the berm before the final pavement. Mr. Abbott asked if they could get a variance if needed as to where he is going to put 82 tenants' cars in a critical 1 or 2 week period. Maple Avenue is a sensitive topic. He wondered if anyone had an opinion about parking along the road. If not, they need to figure out where they can put our tenants' cars. There might be some help from Cornell. They have a parking area adjacent to the property line near the swale that is not overly used. It is very difficult to deal with Cornell. They do not want anything to do with this project. He cannot assume that they will get cooperation from them. The alternative is Judd Falls Plaza. He would have to run a mini -bus to help transport people. The only place they really could park would be along Maple Avenue. Attorney Barney stated that is not an issue for the Planning Board. The Town Board regulates parking in the Town of Ithaca. The Town Board would need to be addressed on the issue. Mr. Kanter asked if Mr. Abbott had discussed this with Mr. Noteboom, Highway Superintendent. Mr. Frost has mentioned it to Mr. Noteboom. It would be a good idea to contact Mr. Noteboom. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann asked where they are going to add a new granite curb. Is there a special reason why it is being done? Mr. Abbott responded that the new curb is necessary to pitch the sidewalk, which is sinking due to natural processes slightly toward the building. They need to cant it slightly to provide for drainage. The water tends to shed off the front of the building. In doing so, it can create an icy surface. They are trying to mitigate it by creating more of a pitch toward the gutter down to the primary drain. The primary drain will be widened so that most of the water that comes off the hill will be caught before it is able to penetrate further into the pavement. One of the problems now is that the considerable grade of the driveway causes the water to run on top and below the surface. It is creating the imperfections in the surface that are there. This is why the pavement needs to be removed. Originally, he wanted to grind the pavement and keep it in place and reconstitute it. If they do that, they will not be able to inspect the subsurface. If the subsurface is not inspected, it is prolonging the problem and putting a Band -Aid on something that should be corrected. He thought that it would be a nightmare getting rid of the asphalt. He has been told that a good contractor can get rid of the asphalt. It is not going to end up in the gorge. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Walker if he had any comments on the proposed revised drainage plans. Mr. Walker stated that there are not any major significant changes in impervious surface area. They are improving some existing underground structures that have been failing in the past. It will be an improvement to the system. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:26 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -14 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Maple Hill Apartments — Site Alterations and Paving. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site alterations at the Maple Hill Apartments, located at 301 Maple Avenue on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 2 -7.1, MR Multiple Residence District. Said alterations include installation of a new half -court basketball court, placement of fill and regrading of the area adjacent to the new basketball court, removal of existing play structures and installation of a new play structure, installation of new underdrainage and three additional storm inlets, replacement of curbing and walkway pavement along the entry drive and parking areas, and repaving of existing drives and parking areas. Bruce Abbott, Abbott Associates, Owner /Applicant; Scott Hughes, Thomas Associates, Agent, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 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 February 15, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Maple Hill Apartments Paving and Drainage Plan," dated June 19, 1999, prepared by Thomas Associates Architects + Engineers PC, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site alterations at the Maple Hill Apartments, located at 301 Maple Avenue on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 2 -7.1, MR Multiple Residence District. Said alterations include installation of a new half -court basketball court, placement of fill and regrading of the area adjacent to the new basketball court, removal of existing play structures and installation of a new play structure, installation of new underdrainage and three additional storm inlets, replacement of curbing and walkway pavement along the entry drive and parking area, and repaving of existing drives and parking areas. Bruce Abbott, Abbott Associates, Owner /Applicant; Scott Hughes, Thomas Associates, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Abbott if he was aware of the suggested changes to the site plan. Mr. Abbott responded no. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are two proposed changes. One is to include a fence or plantings of evergreens along the top of the slope created by the fill to the west of the basketball court. It will soften the view over the berm. The other change is a revision of the plan to include two benches near the new play structure and landscaping on the inside of the wall that separates the drive from the new play area. The benches are for the adults to have a place to sit while the kids are playing on the structures. The additional landscaping softens the view of the wall. Mr. Abbott stated that there is an existing concrete bench adjacent to the laundry area. It is a contoured bench. They would be happy to add another bench. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the issue becomes is it appropriate for that site to have a concrete bench and are children going to run into it. Another issue is if it is sufficient for what would be the expected number of parents. The location would also have to be noted on the site plan. Mr. Abbott stated that it is labeled as the existing wall to remain. Chairperson Wilcox asked if that was the bench. Mr. Sciarabba stated that it is a retaining wall that becomes a seat wall on the lower side. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Smith if he had seen the wall. Mr. Smith responded that he has not seen the wall. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not labeled as a bench. It is labeled as a wall. Mr. Kanter stated that it does not seem it would be immediately approximate to where the play structure would be proposed. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if it is not immediate, it should remain. The benches that are proposed to be near the play structure should be closer to the play structure. Does staff have any suggestions about the placement of benches? Mr. Smith stated that there is not a specific location. They need to be located where it would be convenient for parents to watch the children on the play structure. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the wall has a bench attached to it. Mr. Abbott responded that it is a concrete sitting area. About 15 people could sit on it at a time. It is about 5 -feet from the edge of the proposed play structure. It is more than adequate in the number of people it could accommodate. If the board would like plantings added, there would not be a lot of room to do plantings and more seating. A park bench could be located to the other side of the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED play structure from where the wall is located. It would be located on the north side of the proposed play structure. Attorney Barney asked on which side of the wall is the play structure located. Mr. Abbott responded that the play structure would be to the south of the existing wall. Attorney Barney asked if the wall faced both ways. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the wall is the bench. Mr. Abbott stated that the square behind the wall is a gas house. It is a square bunker that is completely closed in that houses the gas regulators. Much cannot be done to the other side. The limits of the playground would be from the existing wall to where the curvature precludes doing anything. There needs to be space to walk to the laundry room. The laundry room is adjacent to the gas house. There is a picture window in the laundry room where people can watch the children on the playground. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the angle of the wall with respect to the playground is not straight on. It might not be too easy to look out. Attorney Barney stated that they would be able to see over the wall. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is not talking about the seating wall. She is talking about the wall of the building where the laundry is. It is at an angle with respect to the playground. It might not be easy to look out. Mr. Abbott responded that there is not that much visual contact necessary there. You are able to see out. It is not a very large area. It looks larger on the site plan. Mr. Sciarabba stated that they would need to get the approval from the Director of Planning on specific plants, location and benches. It would be easier to walk the site after the snow melts to look at the seat wall and then decide where it would be best to locate the bench and additional plantings. This way a drawing is not being submitted based on a brief discussion. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to propose that since the other seating is made of concrete, the additional bench be made of another substance. It needs to be made of something more usable in certain seasons. It might be nice to have some benches at the other end of the open area near the basketball court. Mr. Abbott stated that it is possible to have a couple benches in the area. Board Member Hoffmann asked staff the reason they proposed a low hedge or fence along the berm. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Smith responded that it was proposed for safety reasons. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is a good idea. She would want to make sure that it is a low fence or hedge so that it does not obstruct views. Board Member Hoffmann asked if staff checked on evergreen plants that might be suitable that would not grow taller than 3 feet. Mr. Smith stated that he did not check on specific species. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it should be a native plant. It should not be exotic plantings. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to see benches near the basketball court. Board Member Thayer stated that he does not think that the benches are necessary in that area. People are able to sit on the grass. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the natural edge would remain with the fill coming in. Mr. Sciarabba stated that they are not proposing any grade changes in the area. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not see support from the board for benches. Board Member Thayer stated that he read that the number of parking spaces is going to be increased. Mr. Abbott responded that they are going to use the existing space more efficiently. They are not able to expand. If they redefine the spaces then they can add another 10 spaces to the area. It has become very difficult with everyone having a car. People will park their cars at the apartments during the day and then go to class. They have started to ticket cars. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -15 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Maple Hill Apartments — Site Alterations and Paving. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Rod Howe. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site alterations at the Maple Hill Apartments, located at 301 Maple Avenue on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 2 -7.1, MR Multiple Residence District. Said alterations include installation of a new half -court basketball court, placement of fill and regrading of the area adjacent to the new basketball court, removal of existing play structures and installation of a new play structure, installation of new underdrainage and three additional storm inlets, replacement of curbing and walkway pavement along the entry drive and parking areas, and repaving of existing drives and parking PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED areas. Bruce Abbott, Abbott Associates, Owner /Applicant; Scott Hughes, Thomas Associates, 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 February 15, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 15, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Maple Hill Apartments Paving and Drainage Plan," dated June 19, 1999, prepared by Thomas Associates Architects + Engineers PC, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE I T 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 Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site alterations and paving to the Maple Hill Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 2 -7.1, located at 301 Maple Avenue, MR Multiple Residence District, as shown on plans entitled "Maple Hill Apartments Paving and Drainage Plan" dated June 19, 1999, subject to the follow conditions to be completed prior to issuance of any building permits: a. revision of the plan to include plantings of a low evergreen hedge along the top of the slope created by the fill to the west of the new basketball court, for review and approval of the Director of Planning; b. revision of the plan to more accurately show the seat wall and wall along the current drive on the east side of the project, to add a bench to the south of the new play structure and to add landscaping on the inside of the wall and to show spot elevation on the berm on the west side of the project that separates the drive from the new play area, subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning; C. all trees in the area to be re- graded on the west side of the proposed basketball court shall be preserved, and a notation to that effect shall be added on a revised site plan; d. revision of the site plan to delete Detail # 13 "Typical Pole Base Detail;" PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED e. submission of an original or mylar copy of the revised final site plan, reflecting the above conditions, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSENT. None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Comments regarding City of Ithaca dGEIS for the Southwest Area Land Use Plan. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this is an opportunity for this board to add its comments to ones made by the Town Board and Conservation Board. It becomes the Town of Ithaca's official response. Joseph Wetmore, 128 Glenside, stated that he has read the report and he has given comments to the City of Ithaca. He wanted to address the Planning Board to point out things that he has seen in the report that he would like to see stressed by the board. It is important to note that the study focuses on the effects to the City of Ithaca. The Triphammer Road corridor is outside the study area. They are saying if it is not in the City, they are not looking at any detrimental effects. It is important for the Town of Ithaca to realize that the study is making no effort to see potential problems that will occur outside the City of Ithaca. One of the areas it does not look at is West Hill, specifically the Coy Glen neighborhood. This neighborhood overlooks the major area of the site. The noise and sound pollution would affect it. During the scoping session, citizens asked that this be one of the viewpoints that is considered and it was not. It is almost comic the way that they described that people listen to lawn mowers on a regular basis and therefore they set it as a standard for what people would withstand within their neighborhoods. Mr. Wetmore stated that in his neighborhood they do not listen to lawn mowers 7 days a week. They are comparing the lawn mower noise to the truck noise that they will have to listen to. The trucks will be making deliveries in the middle of the night. They will be happening on a regular basis. This board should state that it is an unacceptable noise threshold. It also discusses the new people that will be coming into the region. Approximately 70% of the new residents will reside outside of the City. Considering the location of the site, it will be the Town of Ithaca. The report makes no effort to describe what the effect will be on the Town of Ithaca of all the new people coming in. It does not discuss it in terms of the schools. They are going to be adding children to the Ithaca City School District. The report does not count those children when they are talking about the effect. It is going to affect the Town of Ithaca by an increase of buildings both residential and commercial. The report does not mention it as a possibility. It does not mention the effects that the Town of Ithaca is going to have to deal with in terms of added infrastructure to deal with the new homes and businesses. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The City of Ithaca does not seem to be waiting for this plan to be implemented before they start acting on it. The Wide Water site is an example. Town of Ithaca residents had to go to the City to appeal the decision in order to keep the new construction from causing flood damage to their homes. The Town should take note and object to the fact that this plan seems to be implemented before the Town has had a formal chance to implement it. Board Member Ainslie stated that he always likes to talk to people who work in different businesses in Ithaca. The interesting thing is that there are many people who work in those places who live in Schuyler and Tioga Counties. They do not live in the Town of Ithaca because of the price of homes. He does not know if this one situation would create a lot of new homes in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Wetmore stated that the report does not address it at all. When the Pyramid Mall was built, homes were built between the City of Ithaca and Pyramid Mall. It would be safe to say that a similar type of growth would occur. It would not happen immediately, but it would be the general sprawl pattern that has been seen all over the country. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the letter states that municipal boundaries should not be used as a cutoff for determining potential impacts in analysis of large -scale development such as described. One needs to understand why the study area stopped and why certain intersections were not studied. There is a section in the letter regarding visual impacts to the view -shed. Chairperson Wilcox stated that you can stand at the proposed development site and look up at the hills and see the areas that will be affected in the Town of Ithaca. Coy Glenn is a special and unique area on West Hill. Board Member Ainslie stated that it would be very interesting to sit on a Planning Board in the Midwest where it is very flat. People would not be able to see what was built 3 miles away. Chairperson Wilcox stated that some of the view -shed issues that this board has to deal with are very unique. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in most of the Town of Ithaca people are able to see across the City and over to the other hills. The City does look very attractive. In this particular piece of land, it is like a little peninsula, surrounded on 3 sides by Town land. This is where a lot of the intensive business commercial use is being placed. It seems extremely insensitive for the City not to consider the impact on the Town. Board Member Ainslie stated that there are more buildings being torn down on Elmira Road. There is massive space being opened up. Chairperson Wilcox stated that property owners have realized that their property might be more saleable if they tear down the existing structure first and then try to sell the parcel. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that there does seem to be a lot of new development going on. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he must question the wisdom, however many years ago, of the Town in giving up the lands. The other towns in the County are a rectangular shape. He assumes that the City annexed much of the land that is Southwest Park. Attorney Barney stated that there are a lot of railroads in that area. It might have had something to do with the railroads. Board Member Ainslie stated that up until they put the flood control channel in, it flooded every year. Before the flood control channel came in, the area could be sold for $10 an acre. Board Member Thayer stated that he remembers when the fairgrounds were there and they had a flood while the fair was going on. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the fairground was there before it was a dump. Board Member Thayer stated that the dump was adjacent to it. The dump was in the location of Nate's. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the fairgrounds were where the Tops and Wegman's parking lots front on Route 13. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there is always a potential for an increase in residential units outside the City, inside the Town of Ithaca as a result of the commercial development. It is hard to say if it will occur on a significant scale. Should the draft Environmental Impact Statement address the issue? The fact that he thinks it might be insignificant does not mean that it should be addressed to make a determination. There will be some jobs created. It is hard to tell if people who already live in the area will fill the jobs or if people will move into the area to fill the jobs. Many of the jobs will be service jobs and are not going to pay very well. Mr. Wetmore stated that the report predicts that 70% will be migratory jobs. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is one alternative that is most likely. Mr. Kanter stated that the alternative most likely to occur is alternative 5. It would be one million square feet overall. Eight hundred thousand square feet of retail and 200,000 square feet would be office space. Chairperson Wilcox stated that they missed studying one alternative. What happens under existing zoning? It is clearly an oversight. Mr. Kanter stated that there was some reference to that in the traffic study, but it was not carried over. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is an excellent letter. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board would like to get into the issue of the City of Ithaca allowing Wide Water to begin. He stated that he is confused as to the process that occurred that allowed the segmentation of the filling of the property from the rest of the development. They are operating under the opinion of the City Attorney that they could segment it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is disturbing because the same thing has seemed to happen in the other parcel it the Town of Ithaca near Treman State Park. Board Member Ainslie stated that they brought in a lot of fill in the area of Tops and Wegman's. They had to let it settle. Wegman's had to move because the back portion of the building started to sink. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the issue is not necessarily the fill, but it is the permitting process that allowed the fill. It should not have been separated from the development of the site. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this is his opinion. Attorney Barney stated that Wide Water owns 2 of the 8 parcels that are talked about. What Wide Water is doing might be legal with respect to the one parcel regardless of whether this ever gets off the ground. He does not know whether the Town of Ithaca wants to start critiquing the procedures of a fellow municipality. The letter is a great letter, but the Town might not want to get into the issue of whether they did properly issue the permit. It is a matter of dispute in the City. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if they are doing something that has a negative impact on Town of Ithaca residents, it is appropriate for the Town to criticize the process by which it happened. Attorney Barney stated that it is a policy issue for the Town Board. The Town Board speaks for the Town of Ithaca. The Planning Board speaks for issues that come before the board. It does not speak for the Town of Ithaca on a policy matter. It is the job of the elected representatives. Board Member Ainslie stated that he could buy anything that he wants in the City of Ithaca or Town of Ithaca except clothes. He cannot go into a store to get a size 50 jacket. It causes him to shop out of town. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the beginning of section 2.2, it talks about the surrounding areas in the Town of Ithaca. There is no description of land uses or zoning. There also is no reference to the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Whereever it talks about the Town of Ithaca surrounding this, could one strengthen it and say that all the impacts seem greater because there is this very narrow strip of land from the City coming into the Town. It has a stronger impact because the Town surrounds it very closely on 3 sides. Mr. Kanter stated that he was trying not to characterize the magnitude of impacts, but making the observation that they ignored the impact on the Town of Ithaca surrounding the site. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney asked if it is true that there is no analysis of any of the impacts in the Town. Mr. Wetmore stated that they specifically state that they will not look at anything outside City. Mr. Kanter stated that they do look at one point in Buttermilk State Park that is in the Town of Ithaca Attorney Barney stated that the Town could state that municipal boundaries should not be used as a cutoff. The dGEIS failed to analyze significant impacts outside the City's boundaries. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town Board discussed these items in the same nature. The Planning Board is going into a little more detail. Board Member Howe stated that he would like Mr. Kanter to explain how the County Planning Board works. When he worked for Cayuga County, the County Planning Board helped people who are in adjoining towns think about the impacts. Mr. Kanter stated that there is no longer a County Planning Board. They abolished it a few years ago. The intermunicipal review authority lies directly with the County Planning Department. Mr. Kanter stated that he assumes they have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and are providing comments to the City. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there is a Planning Advisory Board and a County Planning Federation. The Planning Federation has a representative from each of the municipalities in the County. He is the chair for 2000. The board adopted a project plan where the first six months of the year they have 4 specific intermunicipal issues that they would like to address. The development of Southwest Park is one of the them. They are not a Planning Board or have review power. Board Member Ainslie asked if it is necessary to have a County Planner. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has to believe that the County has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement and has or will provide written comments. They take their job seriously. Planning in New York State is delegated to the Towns. In the Town of Ithaca much of it has been delegated to the Planning Board. Board Member Ainslie stated that he was on the County Planning Board. It is a different entity now than it was then. It seemed to be more into a County plan. Mr. Kanter stated that the County Planning Department is doing a lot of things dealing with grant acquisitions, regionalized planning. They purposely try to stay out of the local development hassles that are going on. They do become politically sensitive. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Ainslie stated that Jim Hanson dissolved the Economic Advisory Board. They made an annual report and businesses would come in to look at the report. It was valuable to businesses and the community. It did change a lot. Mr. Kanter stated that they are having quorum problems. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the problem is that there are 16 municipalities in the County. Many municipalities have not designated a representative to the board. Due to that, it becomes very difficult to get a quorum of 9. Since he has taken over as chair, they have decided that they are not going to worry about the quorum issue. They decided to provide feedback to the municipalities, create a newsletter, hold a training session. If they do their job and do it right, they will attract people. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board was pleased with the letter. The board was comfortable with the letter. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:28 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of Town of Ithaca Planning Department Annual Report for 1999, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board only took 46 actions. Mr. Kanter stated that there are items that do not show up in the annual report. For example, the North Campus review. It was not finalized in 1999. The board did spend a lot of time reviewing the application. He stated that he finds it interesting to go back through the Planning Board reviews to see what has been the result of the actions taken. With the 2000 census coming up, they looked back to 1990 to see the progression in building permits. There has not been a huge amount of development in the Town other than a few large developments. In terms of single and two - family dwellings, the Town has paralleled what the census estimates showed. Mr. Smith has done a great job handling the development review accounting. The department is able to track the dollars that they are supposed to be collecting. The monies are put into special holding accounts. They need to carefully match up staff hours spent reviewing the projects and make sure that they match the accounts. Then they need to refund money that is due to applicants once the projects are closed out. Board Member Ainslie stated that he drove past Old Hundred. They are doing the work that they are required to do. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Thaler would make them do the right thing. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would like to thank the Planning Staff for what they have done. The Zoning PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board of Appeals do not have resolutions when they start their work. They write their resolutions during the meetings. The Planning Board receives prepared resolutions. Attorney Barney stated that on the major, controversial issues, they do have prepared resolutions. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Attorney Barney is very important as a guide in helping to put together resolutions. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 7, 1999. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -17 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 7, 1999. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the December 7, 1999 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Thayer. NA YS: NONE. ABSTENTION: Howe. The MOTION was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has 3 sets of minutes that he needs to review. Board Member Conneman asked what is going to happen when Cornell comes back the next time. Can the board impose any conditions on them? There are two issues. One is the new northern entrance to campus. The second issue is traffic through Forest Home. It would be nice to have a benchmark of what the traffic was in Forest Home. Cornell did not want to benchmark. Attorney Barney stated that it came up in the context of approving the project, but conditioning approval on Cornell taking traffic counts now. Whatever happens with traffic may or may not be attributed to the North Campus Residential Initiative. It could be other development. Even if traffic counts were taken, what would be done with them? The Town is not in the position to say to Cornell change your project because the traffic counts are 20% higher than estimated. The Town can on its own take traffic counts. There were traffic counts taken in conjunction with the NESTS study. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 27 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Conneman stated that they should be willing to do a traffic count. The Zoning Board of Appeals ignored it. Attorney Barney stated that they did not ignore it. They decided it was difficult to impose that condition. Board Member Conneman stated that someone asked if Cornell trucks travel through Forest Home. Everyone knows that they do. Cornell could issue something stating that trucks should not go through Forest Home. Attorney Barney stated that it is an enforcement issue. He cannot believe that it is happening that much. Forest Home is not a quiet community. They could raise all kinds of havoc. The credibility of some of the people has been suspect based on prior presentations. When they come in stating that there are millions of trucks going through Forest Home, it is difficult to know. They might be right or they might not because the last time they made that type of claim the Town was shown clear evidence against their arguments. There is a little hyperbole that comes into play. They are well meaning people. If there are problems with the trucks, there are mechanisms in place that can address it. Board Member Conneman stated that he thought Cornell could have been more cooperative. Whatever anyone says about Mr. Rowe and Burger King, he conceded to most of the people's concerns. Cornell could have offered to put out a directive stating that there were to be no trucks through Forest Home. Mr. Kanter stated that it would be interesting to do a case study of the approaches taken by the two developers. It is amazing how narrowly focused Cornell's approach was in terms of things that people thought were impacts and their denial of it. Burger King was very willing to address the concerns that people had even if they seemed liked fairly unreasonable types of concerns. Board Member Conneman stated that if people believe that drinking at Cornell University is going to be lower because a soccer field is going to be built, they believe in the tooth fairy. Mr. Kanter stated that the Transportation Council is doing a freight movement study. They will be targeting some of the problem areas in the Town. Forest Home will be on of them. If there were Cornell trucks that are predominately the problem, it would show up in the study. There will be monitoring of traffic. It has been over the years. Board Member Howe stated that he thought that benchmarking could be explored. He does understand the reason against it. Attorney Barney stated that it is being benchmarked. There have been counts taken. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 28 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that the NESTS study provided good background documentation of the entire area. Someone will have to go in periodically to do updated counts. The State and County have helped to do a lot of the counts. Board Member Howe stated that the Town couldn't ask Cornell to help fund some of the studies. Attorney Barney stated that he thinks that they have. They are on the NESTS Committee. Board Member Conneman stated that if they had some initiative that pushed the north entrance he would feel much better. Mr. Kanter stated that he is on the committee that is looking at the new north entrance. They are making progress. The Town Board discussed it and they feel that it should be a Cornell project. The committee should help them along and coordinate, but in the long run, Cornell should do the design work and studies. It was mentioned in a letter to Cornell. Cornell felt that it was not their responsibility. Board Member Hoffmann stated that someone mentioned that there is no reason to have a traffic count as a base number to see if traffic increased or decreased. It is precisely the north entrance that one could influence if one had a traffic count. If traffic increased because of it, it could be used to speed up the work on the north entrance. It could also be proven that it was Cornell's project that made the traffic increase. Attorney Barney stated that the question is if it is appropriate for a Town body to impose as a condition on Cornell that they do a study after the project has been approved or disapproved. He has difficulty with it. There was a case that involved water wetlands. The Planning Board approved a project. It was then decided that the board wanted more studies done. There was then a lawsuit on the project. The court felt that the board had not made their final decision because they were looking for more data and information. The decision should have been made on the information that they had or deferred the decision. The other issue is pinpointing where the traffic is generated. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there were four conditions under which the board could deny final approval. One was new information, second is misrepresentation by the applicant, third is failure to comply with conditions attached to preliminary approval. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he couldn't remember the fourth condition. He hopes that the public will restrict their comments to new information. He will explain that the purpose of the board is to review the preliminary site plan approval and the conditions attached. It is not a complete re- review of the project. The vote for final approval is different than the vote for preliminary. There were not that many people at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Board Member Howe asked what happened at the Ethics Committee. Does everyone know that this was brought before the Ethics Committee? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 29 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that there was a request by a Town Board member to present to the Ethics Committee the propriety of Board Member Mitrano and Board Member Howe voting on the North Campus Residential Initiative because of their affiliation with Cornell. The Ethics Committee decided that there was no ethical deviation. They were well within their rights. Board Member Conneman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals did address the traffic concerns. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she went into the Liquor Store at the East Hill Plaza a few weeks ago. The owner was very unhappy with the fact that the new entrance to the P &C is obscuring his sign. It has been hurting his business since before Christmas. She was very disturbed to hear and see this. She did not realize that this would happen. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she remembers Gregg Bell talked about the possibility. She thought that the board took care of it. Mr. Kanter stated that it was addressed, but not taken care of. It was acknowledged in the minutes. They found the section in the minutes and Mr. Bell was quite accurate in pointing out that it would visually block the entrance to the Liquor Store. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is anything that can be done to fix it. Mr. Kanter stated that the owner of the Liquor Store is negotiating with P &C and East Hill Plaza to try and get another sign. Board Member Ainslie stated that the businesses are visible from the parking lot. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is not visible from the intersection. Mr. Kanter stated that the North Campus Residential Initiative project will be before the board on March 7t". There will also be a short item for PRI for the board to see a revised form of the site plan before they bring in the detailed plan. They have done some modifications. Preliminary approval is scheduled for the following meeting. Board Member Conneman stated that he would not be present for the March 7t" meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he urges Board Member Conneman to put any comments or concerns he has about North Campus Residential Initiative in writing. Mr. Kanter stated that Mickey Herzing has had the site plan revised for Big AI's. It will be before the board March 21 st or April 4t" Board Member Ainslie asked if he has new lighting. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 30 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that he is proposing an alternate configuration of the lighting. It is not going to be the flush lighting. He is proposing to re- install some other shields that would provide for less spillage. Board Member Ainslie stated that he has never seen the lighting at nighttime. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board gave Mr. Herzing a hard time the last time he was before the board. He had a good site plan and during the building of the store he changed the site plan on the fly. Then he came before the board with an inadequate site plan. Most of the problems stem from an elevation problem. They were not able to put the building down as far as they wanted. They hit bedrock. He changed the lighting. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the February 15, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie L. Coates, Deputy Town Clerk. Comments from: Joseph Wetmore 128 Glenside Ithaca, NY 14850 273-4896 on the Southwest Area Land Use Plan Draft Generic EnAronmental Impact Statement February 15, 2000 The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Southwest Area Land Use Plan states, Appendix J Page III-10: It is important to note that this study focuses on the effects on the city of Ithaca. The Triphammer Road Corridor is outside of the study area, and it is beyond the scope of this inquiry to examine the potential blighted conditions along in this area. It is troubling that the report makes no effort to study the problematic effects on the towns and o cities surrounding Ithaca. This is a project on the edge of the city. How will this effect the Town (.__j of Ithaca? The effects should be incorporated into every section of the report. The concerns of the residents of West Hill are nearly absent. The Coy Glen Neighborhood overlooks the main body of the site. There small neighborhood near Buttermilk Falls as well. Why were impacts on these these neighborhoods not considered? They were certainly discussed during the public scooping sessions. The viewsheds picked look like they were picked so as to not find fault with the project. It is this kind of ignoring of neighboring communities that allowed developers to play one community off another. Ithaca needs to consider the impacts of its actions on the neighboring communities,just as they have to consider Ithaca. We are all in this together. And it is clear what this plan would do to the Town of Ithaca. In both the Town and City of Ithaca, there are neighborhoods that will suffer greatly increased noise and light pollution, along with destruction of a scenic viewshed, if the Southwest Area plan proceeds. Further, there would be a large increase in home building in a relatively sparse area of the city and town. You don't need a special study to determine this, look what happened when Pyramid Mall was built. Is this what we want to happen to our park area south of town? What kind of expenses will the town incur,if these areas are suddenly subjected to major increase in residential and/or commercial construction?. Even when looking at some of the negative impacts that this project will have on the surrounding neighborhoods is uses odd logic to dismiss serious concerns. Noise, for example, is a major concern when reviewing development. Page 2-53 makes the absurd comparison between the intermittent noise of lawn mowers and snow plows and normal background noise. Does anyone who worked on this study live in a residential neighborhood? I rarely hear either of these noises, and none of my neighbors consider thein normal background noise. There are local noise ordinances that forbid me from mowing my lawn at midnight. On the other hand, the trucks the report is suggesting will be running 24 hours a day 365 days a year. They should get a real background level. Field measurements are appropriate here. Mitigation measures such as limiting the hours trucks can travel to and from the proposed project area should be implemented. Size limits, as well as outright bans, on trucks in certain neighborhoods (especially residential ones) needs to be implemented. If development won't leave our quiet neighborhood, quiet, then we should look for a different kind of development. Appendix J, PP IV-3 through IV-5. This section talks about new residents as a result of the proposed project. "Assuming one out of ten jobs are managerial or supervisory, this could create up to 200 new jobs at this level." Why should we assume this ratio? What is the industry standard? Why is the study guessing numbers that could.easily be looked up? Next the study looks at the "200 jobs" and their impact on the City. It does not talk at all about the non-supervisory jobs, which are 90%of the new jobs. If one were to accept their numbers (which my experience says are low)there are an additional 1800 jobs to talk about. Or, using the studies multipliers, 1012(101 supervisors and 911 employees and their families in the city of Ithaca) more ' people in the city. The impact on schools, housing, etc. would be much higher for this number of people. The irnpacts of the surrounding communities should be explored as well. The study says that only 30 %of the new residents will be in the City of Ithaca. Why is there no look at the 70%who will reside just outside of the city. When talking about the Ithaca City Schools, one has to talk about the surrounding towns, because the school district covers them as well. But the report should also consider the impact on the communities outside of Ithaca of all these additional people as well. How will the Town of Ithaca be affected when it has to build an infrastructure for a population and the City is the one who gains the sales tax revenue. The Town of Ithaca should also be concerned that the City is appearing to institute this plan before it has received comments from the Town. The Widewater site has been given approval for development under cloudy conditions. Citizens had to appeal the City's decision, and possibly go to court, in order to protect themselves from future flood damage. Why is controversial 'development being started before the DGEIS is complete and without impute from the public, including the Town of Ithaca? The County is trying to implement tax sharing which would make most of the reasons cited for this development moot. Given this area's proximity to Buttermilk Falls, the Black Diamond Trail, and the Cayuga inlet, we should wait to develop this green area, seeing how the tax sharing plan goes. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday,February 15,2000 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard(no more than five minutes). 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination,Silsbee Two-lot Subdivision,Burns Road. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.48-1-14.62,consisting of 17.8+/-acres in area and located on the east side of Burns Road approximately 530 feet north of the intersection with Coddington Road,into two lots, 10.8+/-acres and 7.0+/-acres in size respectively,with the 10.8+/-acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No.47-2-3,a.k.a.915 Coddington Road. Said parcel is located in the R-30 Residence District and CD-Conservation District. Ann L. Silsbee,Owner/Applicant. 7:50 P.M. SEQR Determination,South Hill Cemetery Association Subdivision,Coddington Road. 7:55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1.0+/-acres of land from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.46-1-15.2,consisting of 80.0+/- acres of vacant land,to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.46-1-9,owned by the South Hill Cemetery Association,located on the south side of Coddington Road between the intersections of East King Road and Updike Road,R-30 Residence District. The purpose of said subdivision is for the expansion of the South Hill Cemetery to provide room for more grave sites. Said expansion will require special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Noel and Janet Desch and Montgomery and Eleanor May,Owners;Ralph Nash,South Hill Cemetery Association,Applicant/Agent. 8:15 P.M. SEQR Determination,Maple Hill Apartments Site Plan Modification,301 Maple Avenue. 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site alterations at the Maple Hill Apartments,located at 301 Maple Avenue on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.63-2-7.1,MR Multiple Residence District. Said alterations include installation of a new half-court basketball court, placement of fill and regrading of the area adjacent to the new basketball court,removal of existing play structures and installation of a new play structure,installation of new underdrainage and three additional storm inlets,replacement of curbing and walkway pavement along the entry drive and parking areas,and repaving of existing drives and parking areas. Bruce Abbott,Abbott Associates,Owner/Applicant;Scott Hughes,Thomas Associates,Agent. 8. Consideration of Comments regarding City of Ithaca dGEIS for the Southwest Area Land Use Plan. 9. Presentation of Town of Ithaca Planning Department Annual Report for 1999,Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning. 10. Persons to be heard(continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 11. Approval of Minutes: December 7, 1999(Distributed at Jan.4,2000 meeting) 12. Other Business. 13. 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,February 15,2000 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, February 15, 2000, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.,at the following times and on the following matters: 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48-1-14.62, consisting of 17.8 +/- acres in area and located on the east side of Burns Road approximately 530 feet north of the intersection with Coddington Road, into two lots, 10.8+/-acres and 7.0+/-acres in size respectively,with the 10.8 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No.47-2-3, a.k.a. 915 Coddington Road. Said parcel is located in the R-30 Residence District and CD-Conservation District. Ann L. Silsbee, Owner/Applicant. 7:55 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1.0 +/- acres of land from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.2, consisting of 80.0 +/- acres of vacant land, to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-9, owned by the South Hill Cemetery Association, located on the south side of Coddington Road between the intersections of East King Road and Updike Road, R-30 Residence District. The purpose of said subdivision is for the expansion of the South Hill Cemetery to provide room for more grave sites. Said expansion will require special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Noel and Janet Desch and Montgomery and Eleanor May, Owners; Ralph Nash, South Hill Cemetery Association, Applicant/Agent. 8:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site alterations at the Maple Hill Apartments, located at 301 Maple Avenue on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-2-7.1, MR Multiple Residence District. Said alterations include installation of a new half-court basketball court, placement of fill and regrading of the area adjacent to the new basketball court, removal of existing play structures and installation of a new play structure, installation of new underdrainage and three additional storm inlets, replacement of curbing and walkway pavement along the entry drive and parking areas, and repaving of existing drives and parking areas. Bruce Abbott, Abbott Associates, Owner/Applicant; Scott Hughes,Thomas Associates,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,February 7,2000 Publish:Wednesday,February 9,2000 '4ua6y/4uoayddV 'uoyo -!bossy Aja4awaa II!H ,-S 'ysON ydlpa 'sjaunn� AoW JOUDD13 PUO A=SluoW PUG yz.se�7 4eunt pup IaON -stooddy to pjoog 6w OOOZ '6 DnjgeduoZ ay4 Aq IDnojddD IDpaads 000L ai!nbai II!M uolsuDdxa p!oS 'Z Ajonjgo j Aopuoyy apwoa sa4!s an6i6 ajow jot wo0j grz t-£LZ ap!wojd o4 Aialawe7 IVH u!uuOld to 104"'!(3 yynos ey4 to uoisupdxe ayy d��V 'ja4uD)l uoyyouot io}s1 uo!sln!pgns pps fo asod u_upay �!Iqn ay }o awy -jnd aqj -pp4s!g, anuap!say ayoy roll sjnoy 817uDy4 ssal 6t;-s'Pooy-vp n pup pooh 4ou ysanbei o 4ins Blow 4snw u!N 4so3 to suo!Foasiatul By a:)u01s1ss0 6uuis9p suOsjad uaem4ag poog uo46u!ppOD ysanbej uodn 'AjossaDau so to a�!s y4nos By uo "03 a:)uD4s!ssO Wm Pe p!nojd aq -01 uog0possy AJOjewa0 II!M 'speau lop.cls jayyo jo JVH y4noS By Aq paumo quawjipdw! 6uuDey 's4uew 6-t-917'ON 103JOd xpl ODDy4I nodw!ljons!A g4!m slonp!n!pUl 10 umol y4!m Pa4DP!iOsuo�aq uosja u! jo lue56o Ag 01 'puol 4uoa0A to SGJDD•/+ jooddD ADW sUOsjad 040jayy 0,08 jo 6U!Is!suoa'Z o,i-t-91r suos4�olgO JO sjaupw vans 'ON 1e3jod xDl PDO441 jo pOddns u!sUosjed glo may to nmol wojt punt to sejaO mold p!os pup sawg4 pgos +O.1 to UO"!n!pgns pesod 4D II!M PJDog bu!uuold P!DS aid ey4 jOt IDnoj d / y uo!s!A!p 4ua6y 'sa40I3 -qnS Ioutj pup Ajou!wyajd ossV sDwoyl 'seg6nH 40n JO Uor4ojePISUOD •yyd S9:L '4uo3!Iddy/jeump 'Sa4D!7 -4uDo!iddy/jeUmq -ssy uoggy "uOggy a�njg aagsl!S 1 uuy -ppis!0 -spajO 6u!ijOd pup san!Jp&I UOk4Dnr99UU'-0:)PUD 43W!(3 -4s!x8 go 601wodaj puo 'SI301D &DUOP!soy OF-a ayy u!payoaolI 6uiljpd puo anup Aj4ua s! IGDJDd PICS -PDON 0040 ayE bUOiD luawausd Aomjllom -UTPOD S 16 '0 TO '£-Z-/1' pup 6u!gjnD to 4uowewoid 'ON IOaJOd xol 411m pa413P -aj 'SIBIU! wjO4s IDUOypPPO -!Iosuo:)aq o4 la:)jpd ejm-/+ 88,44 pup a6ouaDjpjapun 8 Ot ayy y4!M 'Alanpds paej Mau jo u014GIlolsu! az!s ui sam -/+ 0-z pup 'ajn4xu4s Aold Mau D to uo!4 salup-/+ BB O t '5401 0m4 04u! -DII04su! Pup sajrwmm Aold poogi u048u!Ppo' *- -!I 6uowa tD Ionpwaj 'NnoD -aasjalu!ey4 o 44jou"0£9 IlOadolsog moll ey4 04 4ua� Ala4ow!xojd�D PooN suing DIPD DajD By to bu!poj6ej go opts Isoa By uo pat000l pub II't to 4uawaoDld 'Vno3 Pup Gait) u! sajpD -/+ g'Ll IID9411jispq lint)-cloy Mau 0 go bugs}suoa 'ZQ'dt-t-qp to uop401104su! apripu, suo!40 'ON IODJOd xDJ oDo441 -JB1ID PiOS .13!,4510 aauap to UmOJ JO Uolspn!��gns posod -!sags ald!4InW aW 'L L-Z-£4 ojd a44 jot pAojddy uo!s+A!P 'ON 187"Dd xpl OaDy4l •qnS tou!j pup Ajou!w!lald jo umul uo anuanV aldoyy io uo!IDjaP!suoJ Wd OWL to£ 10 Pa4DDOI 'Sjuaw4j y :sjauow 6u!mol IM oIdDW By 40 suo!4D -lot ey4 uo pup sawiy Buimoi je410 a4!s JCt IOAOjddy UDId -Iot 844 41) AN 'pz'p441 laaj1S aIIS IDU!j pup AIDUIwI jd O3auag ;$D3 4Z� 4D '()()OZ to uO!4Djeptsuo� 'S 1 Onjged apsenl uo DoD4yl to umo1 By to pjoog y d4 6UIUUpld s play aq ll!m s6uuoaH :,!Ignd my N3AJO A9383H SI 3JIi0NqTJoog U!uuold 044 to UOSJ j!oyy� 944 io uo!4aaj!p {g St)NIbV3H omnd 10 33I10N OMV09 9NINNV'Id VDVH11 JO NMOl 000 '6 fuunagaj `Ai2psaupa,M lauanor uoewi aq-L TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ATTENDANCE SHEET DATE: February 15, 2000 PLEASE PRINT'YOUR NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS/AFFILIATION (Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes.) Se �- r1(d F; �lVrlr R7 ���U� IUM ✓1> / � -1 E 6 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 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 : February 7,2000 Date of Publication: February 9, 2000 �r 1 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of February 2000. Notar .;Public ,,DEBORAH KELLEY ^`wry Public,=_State of New Yo* ;No.�01 KE6025073 Oualifled-In Schuyler County `Commissfon-Eipires May 17.211 U