HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-04-04TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 4, 2000, in Town Hall,
126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; James Ainslie, Board
Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney
for the Town (7:48 p.m.); Dan Walker, Director of Planning (8:40 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Environmental
Planner (8:05 p.m.); Mike Smith, Planner.
EXCUSED: George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board
Member; George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner.
ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Gettinger, Audrey Edelman Real Estate; Michelle Bicek, State University
of NY College of Environmental Science; Orlando lacovelli, 347 Coddington Road; Warren Allmon,
PRI; Stephen Ferranti, SRF & Associates; Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Amy Nettleton,
Elemental Landscapes; David Herrick, TG Miller; Michael Manfredi, Weiss- Manfredi Architects;
Marion Weiss, Weiss- Manfredi Architects; Chris Ballentine, Weiss- Manfredi Architects; Tammi Aiken,
TG Miller; Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Joel Harlan, Dryden; Les
Reizes, Cayuga Cliffs Development Corp; Muriel Brink, 206 Tudor Road; Diana Yee, 206 Tudor
Road; Martha Robertson, 1655 Ellis Hollow Road; Beverly Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road; Caroline
Webber, 310 North Geneva Street; Tom Murray, 15 Stormy View.
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 March 27, 2000, and March 29, 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 March 29, 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
members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox
closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Ruggles Lot Line Modification, 253/257 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Johanna Gettinger, Audrey Edelman & Associates, stated that she is the realtor representing
the Ruggles. The Ruggles purchased two lots. One lot has a house and the other lot is a vacant lot.
Their intention when they purchased the two parcels was to retain the house and sell the lot. The
next door neighbor has offered to buy the lot. Both parties have come to an agreement, but there is
an extra driveway on the Ruggles property that belongs to their house. The driveway is located on
the vacant lot. They hired TG Miller to survey the lot so that each lot is adjusted by 0.038 acres. It
enables the Ruggles to retain their driveway with their house and sell only the vacant lot. The line
modification is very small.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the applicant knew of any environmental issues related to the
subdivision.
Ms. Gettinger responded no.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -27 - Ruggles 2 -Lot Subdivision, SEAR, Preliminary & Final Subdivision
Approval.
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of 0.038 +/- acre of land from a parcel at 253 Pennsylvania Avenue; Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3; Residence District R -9. The 0.038 +/ acre triangle parcel is to be
consolidated with the parcel at 257 Pennsylvania Avenue; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6-
5. The 0.038 +/-acre triangle parcel includes an asphalt parking area that the owners wish to
keep with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -5 when Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3 is
sold. Edward & Beverly Ruggles, Owner /Applicant; Johanna L. Gettinger, Audrey Edelman &
Associates Real Estate, 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 Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 4, 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, "Survey Map, No. 257 Pennsylvania Avenue," prepared by
Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 2110100, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
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, neither a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 0.038 ± acres of land from a parcel at 253 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3, Residence District R -9. The 0.038 ± acre triangular
parcel is to be consolidated with the adjacent parcel at 257 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -5. The 0.038 ± acre parcel includes an asphalt parking area that the
owners wish to keep with their house on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -5 when Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3 is sold. Edward & Beverly Ruggles, Owner /Applicant; Johanna L.
Gettinger, Agent.
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.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -28 — Ruggles 2 -Lot Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of 0.038 +/- acre of land from a parcel at 253 Pennsylvania Avenue; Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3; Residence District R -9. The 0.038 +/ acre triangle parcel is to be
consolidated with the parcel at 257 Pennsylvania Avenue; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6-
5. The 0.038 +/-acre triangle parcel includes an asphalt parking area that the owners wish to
keep with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -5 when Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3 is
sold. Edward & Beverly Ruggles, Owner /Applicant; Johanna L. Gettinger, Audrey Edelman &
Associates Real Estate, Agent, and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 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 April 4, 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 II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate, a plat entitled, "Survey Map, No. 257 Pennsylvania Avenue," prepared by Lee
Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 2110100, 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 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 0.038 +/- acre of land from a parcel at 253
Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -3, to be consolidated with Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6 -5, as shown on the plat entitled "Survey Map, No. 257
Pennsylvania Avenue," prepared by Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor, dated 2110100,
subject to the following condition:
a. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.038 +/- acre parcel, with Tax
Parcel No. 54 -6 -5; and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the
requests to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for consolidation of said
parcels.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, lacovelli Two -Lot Subdivision, 210 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road, stated that the proposal is to split what once were three of
the Ithaca Land Tract parcels. They were consolidated into one lot. The proposal before the board is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
to divide it into two lots. They are splitting 150 foot of frontage into two lots. The location of the
house will require a variance because of the front yard setback.
The site is mainly lawn. There is a gradual rise from Pennsylvania Avenue up to the Town
walkway /bikeway. The old 66 -foot railroad right -of -way is the back yard neighbor to this property.
One of their proposals would meet the requirements of the square footage for each lot. The front
yard setback would not be met. Both proposals would allow for a legal side yard for the existing lot.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she could understand why staff prefers the solution which
divides the parcels so that each lot has the required number of square feet. It does create two odd
shaped lots. It is hard to tell if there are problems with the setback from the new line to the patio.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is a concrete patio. It is not a building.
Mr. Kanter stated that the only variance that would be needed on alternative number 1 is the
lot width at the setback line.
Chairperson Wilcox asked the board if they had a preference as to what is the best alternative.
Board Member Howe stated that it does not matter.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he prefers alternative 1.
Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Fabbroni what is the preference of the applicant.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that alternative number 1 makes awkward lots.
The board agreed that they preferred alternative 1.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:56 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -29 - lacovelli 2 -Lot Subdivision, SEQR, Preliminary Subdivision Approval.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of
the parcel at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue into two lots, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -6,
Residence District R -9. The subdivision would create two 9,000 square foot lots. Orlando
lacovelli, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent, and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 6 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 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 Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part Il prepared by
Town Planning staff, a plat entitled, "Final Subdivision Plat, 2 -Lot Subdivision of Lots 99, 100,
101 of the Old Ithaca Land Tract, " Alternate #1, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E., L. S.,
dated March 2, 2000, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval,
NOW THEREFORE BE 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, neither a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of the parcel at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue into two lots, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -6, Residence District R -9. The proposal includes two alternatives for
subdividing the property. One alternative would create two 9,000 square foot lots while the
second alternative would create lots of 10,440 and 7,560 square feet. Both alternatives will
require obtaining one or more variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Orlando lacovelli,
Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:58 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 8:00 p.m.
Attorney Barney stated that there has been a history with some lots being consolidated in
exchange for greater occupancy on other lots. Was this lot the subject of any of those agreements?
Mr. Fabbroni responded no.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -30 — lacovelli 2 -Lot Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision Approval.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by James Ainslie.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of
the parcel at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue into two lots, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -6,
Residence District R -9. The subdivision would create two 9,000 square foot lots. Orlando
lacovelli, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., 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 Subdivision Approval, has, on April 4, 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 II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate, for Preliminary Approval, a plat entitled, "Final Subdivision Plat, 2 -Lot Subdivision of
Lots 99, 100, 101 of the Old Ithaca Land Tract," Alternate #11 prepared by Lawrence P.
Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., dated March 2, 2000, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision Checklist, having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the
purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of the parcel at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue into two lots, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -6, creating two 9,000 square foot lots, as shown on the plat entitled "Final
Subdivision Plat, 2 -Lot Subdivision of Lots 99, 100, 101 of the Old Ithaca Land Tract,"
Alternate #1, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., dated March 2, 2000, subject to
the following conditions, to be met prior to Final Subdivision Approval:
a. Obtaining of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
b. Revision of the Plat to include the Surveyor's Certificate, location of new pipes, pins, or
other surveyed marking to be installed delineating all corners of the new lot line created,
labeling of the new lots as Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" (or similar), labeling of the adjacent
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -50 as "Town of Ithaca South Hill Recreation Way,"
and
C. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the plat, revised as indicated in condition "b, "
and three dark -line prints, for signing by the Planning Board Chair.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 8 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Paleontological Research Institution — Proposed
Museum of the Earth, 1259 Trumansburg Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Warren Allmon, Director of PRI, stated that they are before the board to show the updated
project. They have taken into account the issues that the board raised at the previous meetings.
They have made a number of modifications to the site. Over the last few months, they have
consulted with their neighbors. The Cayuga Cliffs Development is to the east and Joe Ciaschi is to
the south. The comments that the board will be hearing have been discussed with their neighbors.
They are happy to report that they are in agreement with most of the fundamentals. They will
continue to stay in close contact with the two parties.
Michael Manfredi, Weiss /Manfredi Architects, stated that they see the design of the museum
as celebrating the region. The intent is for this to be a National museum that uses the geology and
biology of this area to tell a story about how the earth has evolved. They have met with a State
Historic Preservation Officer and received the State Office's approval. The key is to use the site in a
way to tell a story. They try to develop ways of breaking the parking into smaller precincts. They also
tried to break the massing of the 18,000 square foot museum with the two smaller wings. Since the
board has last seen the project, they have simplified the site circulation. They have consolidated the
parking into 3 bays instead of 4. They have adjusted the entrance and exit on Trumansburg Road.
Mr. Manfredi stated that they would like to use local materials. There are a series of retaining
walls which help to retain the earth. They are likely to use a local material. They would also like to
use certain pattered walls. The terracing on the site are described by the sections. An attempt has
been made to mitigate the change of grade from Trumansburg Road to the site. They are still
working with the idea of burying the museum to reduce the bulk and to make for a more compatible
relationship with the existing building. They are looking at a combination of pattered walls on part of
the site parking areas and then there is a series of vertical retaining walls. The parking lots are also
defined by landscaping.
The existing spruce tree will be retained. They developed a linear water detention area down
the center of the site and maintained the existing wet area. They also increased the landscaping
associated with the configuration. The loading dock is to the rear of the site. It is concealed and the
connection is also concealed by the change in grade.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 9 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the wall in the second section looks much higher
compared to the wall in the first section.
Mr. Manfredi stated that the wall slopes from a low point to a high point.
Board Member Hoffmann asked how high is the highest point.
Mr. Manfredi stated that the highest point is about 8 feet high. The lowest point is about 2 to
2.5 feet. There is a shallow pitch.
They have also looked at the issue of lighting. The intent is to keep the light levels very low.
They are looking at between one and three foot - candles. The system of lighting is light fixtures
positioned 3 feet high on the retaining walls. There are 3 10 -foot high light poles that will provide a
little spill light at the entrance to each parking lots. They are proposing to light the sign located
perpendicular to Trumansburg Road. There is a series of low -level 3 -foot high accent lights in the
entry plaza.
Board Member Ainslie asked if the lights will be on a timer.
Mr. Manfredi stated that the lights would be on a timer. The lights will automatically come on if
it becomes dark during the day during a storm. The intent is to turn the lights off when the museum is
closed. Mr. Manfredi showed examples of the light fixtures to the board. Their intent is to use
incandescent light. They do like the idea of a warm light and not a flourescent light. They also think
that connecting the light quality to the lighting in the museum will be important. The lights are located
on the retaining walls at about 3 feet. They do continue in the plaza along the face of the building.
Marion Weiss, Weiss /Manfredi, stated that the important element here was to envision the
lighting as something that had continuity with the building design. The entire concept would be seen
as one. It links the design of the building and the design of the landscape as one.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the fixtures would be shielded in any way. They are going
to be sticking out from the walls.
Mr. Manfredi stated that they would be using the retaining wall to reflect some of the lights.
The proposed sign will be a concrete garden wall. They are proposing brushed aluminum or
brushed stainless steel lettering. The sign is perpendicular to Trumansburg Road and will be lit. It is
sitting approximately 30 feet back from the road. They are looking to develop something that is
elegant and in contrast to the tinted concrete. There is a play of textures. They are not going to rely
on the sign being backlit.
Board Member Hoffmann asked how high are the letters.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 10 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Manfredi stated that the letters range from about 1 foot to 6 inches. Each letter will be
individually cut. The logo will also be cut out of brushed aluminum or brushed stainless steel.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the lighting for the sign could be described.
Mr. Manfredi responded that the lighting will be mounted 2 -feet off the grass. There will be 4
light fixtures. Two lights will be located on either side of the wall. The light fixture has very little light
spillage. The light will be controlled.
Mr. Manfredi responded that it is a rectangular fixture pointed towards the sign.
Stephen Ferranti, SRF & Associates, stated that they were retained to do a traffic impact study
consistent with New York State Department of Transportation requirements. They must fulfill all the
State's requirements of doing studies. They also needed to satisfy the local concerns. They met with
staff to go over the issues and to address as many of the issues that they could see.
Mr. Ferranti stated that they did a full traffic study. They looked at traffic operations. The study
looked at operations of the Hospital driveway and at Bundy Road. They also looked at the adjacent
driveways for the property. It was not easy to study the use of the museum. They had to go through
extensive research to find out as much as they could about the operations of museum. They were
allowed access to the visitation records at the existing PRI Museum and consulted with 5 more
museums. This allowed them to get a sense of what to expect time wise relative to traffic peaks for
museums. They also needed to know the street peaks. This information was obtained from the New
York State Department of Transportation. The time periods that they looked at that would produce
the highest volumes are referred to as the worst case conditions. Volumes at any other time periods
are less than that and traffic operations are generally better than the worst case conditions.
The numbers had to be seasonally adjusted. Traffic counts could be done now to get up to
date, accurate driveway counts at the surrounding driveways. It would not do any good because it is
January. The peak month of operation for this facility is July. There were excellent records from the
State Department of Transportation that give information. They factored all the numbers to account
for peak summertime conditions with the museum in operation with Route 96 experiencing vacation
traffic. It is a higher volume from what is seen this time of year.
They do expect approximately 20 vehicles to enter the facility in am peak. In the afternoon
peak there were 24 cars exiting. On Saturday it is about 18 vehicles. There is not a lot of traffic. It
does need to be looked at in detail. They design from the outside in when they look at any
development. They look to see what they need on the roadway to accommodate this project. They
looked at the need for left turn lanes into the site if they were needed or if right turn lanes were
needed. They do not recommend, need or satisfy warrants that the State has for justifying those
improvements. The State has concurred with their report. They recommended that this intersection
be designed for a bus. They have indicated what the intersection would look like. There is a need for
30 feet of pavement width and with a corner radius of 45 feet. The State has their own standard that
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 11 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
is not as simple as a simple radius. It is designed to allow buses and cars to turn in without
encroaching on exiting traffic. It allows exiting traffic to turn without encroaching on entering traffic.
The adjacent intersections still work at comparable levels of service. They do not see any
significant adverse impact at any of the locations. There is two -way traffic to service the parking lots.
At first they considered two -way traffic in front of the main entrance to the facility. It can be
accommodated, but there are shortcomings. Cars would have to yield for one another. The one -way
flow is a safer site layout than two -way flow. They are proposing a one -way flow from in front of the
museum and throughout the loop.
The one -way flow addresses the concern of the sharp turn for buses or cars. A bus can be
parked dropping passengers off and there is still an emergency lane available for cars. It is seen as
being sufficient. The frequency of having the bus waiting on the curb is infrequent.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he is always disturbed with the DOT. When Alterra came in,
there should have been a turning lane on Bundy Road. When a bus stops on 96, cars are unable to
go around the bus unless someone crosses the line. He would like to see turning lanes at the
entrance.
Mr. Ferranti stated that the design aspect they have included in the plan is transit friendly. The
bus does not have to stop on Route 96 to let off passengers. The buses will be able to pull into the
site, maneuver on site safely. There is ample room to drop passengers off and circulate around to
Route 96.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is concerned about where the loop road turns to one -way.
Why not move it back to the north a little near the third parking bay?
Mr. Ferranti responded that it does turn into one -way near the third parking bay.
Board Member Howe asked if there could be a circumstance where 2 or 3 school buses might
be at the museum at any one time. Where would they park and still allow access around the loop
road?
Mr. Ferranti responded that 3 buses could be accommodated in the area in front of the
museum and still allow room for passenger cars. They do not anticipate that there would be 3 buses
at the museum at one time.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the buses would park and remain in that location.
Mr. Allmon stated that they could accommodate 3 buses. He would love to have that as the
standard situation. Realistically, they could expect one bus at a time on any on -going basis.
Occasionally, there might be 2 buses at a time. This would occur no more than once a day. If there
were 3 buses at a time they could be accommodated there. After the buses discharge their
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 12 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
passengers, there is an area set aside on the loop road for bus parking. They then circulate back
around to pick up their passengers.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is possible for Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit
(TCAT) to drive into the site to drop off and pick up passengers. Has this been discussed with TCAT
to see if they are willing to come into the site?
Mr. Ferranti stated that they talked with TCAT. They did not ask if they were willing to come
into the site. They asked them if this would be feasible and asked the number of runs to the Cayuga
Medical Center.
Mr. Kanter stated that they wanted the site to be designed for the buses so that TCAT would
have the ability. If TCAT is unable to come onto site, then they need to look at having sufficient room
on the main road. Charter buses do bring groups of people to the museum.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if charter buses are larger than school buses.
Mr. Ferranti stated that charter buses are not much larger than a school buses.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the buses are a standard 8 feet.
Mr. Manfredi stated that there is a dropped curb in front of the museum. This would allow
large trucks or buses to encroach onto the dropped curb for an effective turning radius.
David Herrick, TG Miller, stated that there has been much information sent to the board
regarding storm water drainage. The PRI property is located at the top of a very narrow water shed.
The narrow water shed begins with the PRI property on Trumansburg Road. There is a ditch on the
uphill side of Trumansburg Road that intercepts anything coming further off the hill. It passes the flow
down Trumansburg Road and then crosses over to the other side. The water shed ultimately finds its
way into a drainage system that crosses the old railroad grade and onto Route 89. There are many
little tributaries that work their way up into the Cayuga Cliffs Development property. It is very skinny
and it is very long.
They have focused on quality and what to do with the increases in the peak rates of runoff.
The actual disturbance to the project is less than the 5 -acre trigger that would require a SPEDES
permit. They are working with the Town Engineer to develop a strategy for handling water from this
property in a reasonable manner. They have 2 outlets for storm water on the existing property. The
flow currently comes off the lawn areas and the paved areas. Mr. Ciaschi has a storm sewer system
that discharges the water down to the Cayuga Cliffs property. There is a discharge pipe partway up
the east property line. It discharges onto the Cayuga Cliffs property. The two discharge points end
up at Route 89.
Mr. Herrick stated that they are not graced with large areas of land that could accommodate
some larger storm water detention structures. They have developed a strategy that would minimize
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 13 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
flows onto Mr. Ciaschi's property. In collecting runoff along the east side of the property, they were
allowed to pass the water over the property line onto Cayuga Cliffs in a manner that is not
concentrated. They have created a plateau where they expect to dissipate energy as water does
come out of the storm sewer pipes in a flat level area. The water will then flow across the property in
a shallow concentrated flow and allow them to recollect through the vegetation, fields, undergrowth
and down under Route 89.
The reduction is significant to the Ciaschi property. They do have the two discharge points
and they both affect Cayuga Cliffs. Two of the larger parking lots will be crushed stone. It is up to
PRI to decide whether or not it will be converted to pavement. They have modeled the runoff from
this project using paved surfaces. The parking lots are pitched back into the hillside at a 1 -% slope.
There are grass lined swales adjacent to the parking areas. There is a French drain system
underneath the grass swale. The water that runs off the parking area collects in the swale into the 6-
inch perforated pipe surrounded in stone. Top soil and a special seed mixture is applied to the top of
the pipe. The water will infiltrate through it much as it does in a agricultural condition of a field. It will
ultimately find its way into the long lineal narrow water feature.
They have water treatment, which is consistent with current standards and expectations. They
are taking care of the pollutants that would run off the paved surfaces. One of the issues that has
come up in the documents is the selection of the materials for the swale.
Amy Nettleton, Elemental Landscapes, stated that regarding the swale, Tompkins County
Planning has recommended the use of a particular plant species. They need to choose a species
that has to be adaptable to a very variable water condition. Even though it is designed to hold water,
most of the time it will be dry. It is only going to be wet in storm events. They have selected a range
of species that will take the variable water condition. The section through the swale will have the
grass species standing at a full height so that they perform a good filtering of the soil below them.
This will be the filter that filters out the pollutants before the oil and gas enters into the drainage
system. They also wanted to consider the aesthetics. The grass is an important feature along the
base of the wall. They wanted to keep a standard height mix of grass.
The existing wet area will be preserved. They will be turning over the mowed lawn area to
switch grass. It is a native grass. It is much thicker compared to lawn grasses. It has a very deep
root system. There is much less runoff with this type of grass vegetation compared to mowed lawn.
It will improve the runoff in that area. The switch grass also provides aesthetic advantages in that
they will have the 4 to 5 foot high meadow. The grasses have stiff stems. They are able to withstand
the winter months.
Board Member Ainslie asked if this will need to be maintained year after year.
Ms. Nettleton stated that it will be mowed annually.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 14 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann asked whether the area is covered in switch grass and it is able to
absorb extra moisture, would it be possible to connect this area to the drainage area of the parking
area and driveway. There might be a possibility to diminish the amount of water that would need to
go around the building.
Mr. Herrick stated that it will occur in some areas. The other area would be relying upon the
treatment effort of the swales. It would not find its way over to the switch grass unless they remove
the entire water feature.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be a way of allowing a limited amount of water
to spill over into the switch grass area to help divide up the drainage.
Mr. Herrick responded that they are vertically challenged. It is the inverts of what is collecting
the water versus the grades of the switch grass area.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the switch grass could survive in relatively dry conditions as well.
Ms. Nettleton responded yes. This is the reason why the species was selected.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the wet area never dries out.
Ms. Nettleton stated that they are preserving the spruce tree. It becomes one of the focal
points of the design. They are doing substantial protection of the tree during construction.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the roots of the tree would be protected.
Ms. Nettleton responded yes.
Mr. Herrick stated that they designed the parking lots to flood for the occasions when there are
high volumes of runoff. There is the opportunity to flood the parking lots and use it for storage. It is
an innovative practice, but it is common. There are going to be more innovative practices as the
Environmental Protection Agency regulations change over the next several years. They are looking
to develop treatment and storage from the parking lot runoff at the source. It is responsible. There is
also some storage in the water feature. The water will fill up to a certain level, crest over, crest down
to the next pool, and fill up and crest down until it gets down to the water feature at the bottom. There
is an expectation to have a permanent pool at the bottom of the plaza and drop -off area. There is
some vertical storage in the bottom water feature. They have made efforts to provide volume and
storage where they can. Then the task is for the areas that do not fall into the water feature. This is
where they are looking at the concept of the dispersing terrace. The strategy is a responsible one for
passing flow over the property line. There are areas where flow crosses. There is the discharge pipe
with water running out of it. There are also several areas where the water finds its way into a natural
channel. The natural channel crosses into a sewer main, small culvert, and then finds its way through
to Route 89. There is a concern about the 50 -year storm with respect to this path and the capacity of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 15 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
the culvert. It is information that we can pull together for DOT. It could be a condition that states
before they can obtain their highway work permit that they provide the information to DOT.
The Environmental Review Committee had some comments relative to water flow. They can
go back if need be and look at balancing the water flow off the property. They have a case where a
single pipe outlet is channeling the flow. They have elected to minimize it. Mr. Herrick stated he
does endorse the approach they have taken.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the applicant does acknowledge the increases in storm water
runoff. They are getting something in return for that. What benefit do they expect to gain by
increasing storm water runoff at peak times? What is the advantage? Why is it a reasonable
alternative?
Mr. Herrick responded that the volume of runoff will not change unless there is infiltration.
Infiltration is not commonly accepted or a reasonable approach to soils of this type. In highly gravelly
soils and valleys there is the potential for infiltration. There are always going to be increases in
volumes with any development. There are slight increases in the peaks. They have tried to mitigate
the peaks with the parking lot detention and the water feature detention. They do not have large land
areas downstream of their project site to accommodate the traditional big, open storm water detention
space. There will still be increases in volume regardless of peak mitigation. The tradeoff is that they
acknowledge increases in the peak rate of runoff, but they are looking to mitigate the quality issues
and to put flow back into the system in a more reasonable approach.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that one potential benefit is that less storm water runoff goes into
Mr. Ciaschi's property. If it does not go into Mr. Ciaschi's property then it is going to go into the
Cayuga Cliffs property. Is there an issue with the pipe in the rear of Mr. Ciaschi's property in terms of
its capacity?
Mr. Herrick stated that it was a concept that they looked at. They did explore piping some of
that area that does drain onto Ciaschi and keeping that part piped into the system. They were trading
off piped versus dispersed. They had to choose one or the other. It was acknowledged that the
dispersed flow from one property owner to the other was more reasonable than having the channeled
pipe flow.
Attorney Barney asked if there has been any discussion with the adjoining property as to their
preference.
Mr. Herrick responded that he has shared these general concepts with Mr. Reizes. He does
not know what their preference is. If DOT needs to be satisfied as to the capacity of the culverts, it is
an analysis that they can provide them. The watershed is very narrow and very long. It is not typical
of a light bulb shaped watershed that would have other implications. He feels very confident that they
are going to convince DOT that they do not have issues to be concerned with at their highway.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 16 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Manfredi stated that there was a paragraph mentioned in the ERC review questioning how
water would run off the roofs. The drawing did not indicate the path. There is heat tracing in the
downspouts. They also have foundation drainage, which was not apparent in the two drawings being
reviewed. If water or ice flows over the roofs it will be collected at the foundation drainage. They are
proposing a metal roof system. The roof pitches are well within acceptable standards for standing
seam metal roofs.
Mr. Herrick stated that there was a concern that the downspout would freeze up and that the
runoff from the roof would find its way through the terrace area and across the property line. There
are flat roofs across central New York that have heat tracing and down spouts.
Board Member Ainslie stated that there were two inches of rain the evening before. He came
in on Route 89. The water does flow rapidly through the pipes.
Mr. Herrick stated that there is the ability to mitigate some of these changes in volume of rates.
The underbrush, the growth, and the way the channels flow help to have a beneficial impact to the
capacity down at the bottom. Anything that they are doing does not preclude the ability to pick up and
manage at the property line what they have done. There would need to be a consideration for the
flows that do come off. This could easily be combined with a future plan. The analysis that is being
done is information that could be shared.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the drainage lines are already established.
Mr. Herrick stated that there is roughly a 3 -acre shift in the water drainage.
Chairperson Wilcox asked why the decision was made to go with this drainage plan.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is hearing that the drainage channels are there from
before, but there is a change in how much water goes out from this property onto the Cayuga Cliffs
property. What happened to the concept that when there was development there is no net increase
in runoff?
Mr. Herrick stated that they have done as much as they can with the parking lots. If they had
substantially more area on the downstream side, then they would be looking at more conventional
storm water detention basins. They are not looking to provide the typical 2, 10, 100 -year peak rates.
It is a goal to strive for. In years coming it will be effective for projects of 1 -acre in size. A lot of
innovate ways will need to be considered for mitigating and managing storm water. They have done
all that they can do up to this point. They do have the option of expanding the dissipation terrace
some more. They could run the analysis to see if providing some additional storage would reduce the
peaks. His analysis suggested that they had to have a fairly large area available for the peak flow.
When they were out of options for that large area, they tried to look at the best next management
approach for conveying the water. The volumes would be consistent.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 17 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there is something about taking the water that currently runs
across where the parking lots would be and sheeting it across the Ciaschi property as it does now,
versus taking that water, collecting it and moving it back to the north.
Mr. Walker stated that the water does not sheet across the Ciaschi property now. The Ciaschi
property, Cayuga Cliffs property and the PRI property were all part of the original complexes. One
group owned everything. The Ciaschi drainage system is probably 60 years old. The Town has had
some experience that increasing the water flow into the older drainage system would not be a wise
idea. The Town does have a sewer line downhill from the PRI property. Up until 5 years ago the
Town did not know where the sewer pipe was. The first time the Town tried to clean out the sewer,
the Town lost a loader. They had to get a bigger loader to pull the other loader out. It is very wet this
time of year. The condition is not being changed much. The diversion into the Ciaschi parcel to the
south is less natural than what the proposal is. The water was artificially converted by the access
road. He does not believe all the water drained to the Ciaschi property. The drainage system would
not take it all and it would flow over top the road.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he prefers the plan presented because the water from the
parking lot is retained on the property longer. The water is moved back into the water feature.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Walker if he believed that this is the best plan.
Mr. Walker stated that given the limited space on the site, the topography of the site, this is the
best plan. DOT is not very familiar with this site. They are being conservative when they asked the
applicant to tell them what is going to happen. It is a reasonable request to look at the impact down
the hill.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if they are reasonable in their concerns.
Mr. Walker responded that the amount of flow increase and the volume increase is fairly
insignificant. The State letter talked about 150% increase in discharge. It was a 150% increase from
one area. The overall site has a 20% increase in peak flow. It occurs over a period of 10 to 15
minutes. When it is raining at 1/2 inch per hour rate there will be a lot of water running off. It will end
very quickly. It is 5 cubic feet per second. The discharge spread out over the width of that dispersion
trench will be less of an impact because it is a 5 cubic feet per second increase. It is not all
happening at one point. It is happening spread out over a couple hundred feet.
Mr. Herrick stated that the objective with a shallow concentrated flow is to get down to a tenth
of a foot or less. The shallow concentrated flow in the hydrological world is a tenth of a foot of flow.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the possibility of increasing the size the of dissipation
area was mentioned. What would be the practical limits of doing so? What would be the effect?
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 18 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Herrick stated that the longer the area the shallower the flow that goes over the top. They
also looked at this for an opportunity to add some other features. If they develop this in a manner that
has some permanent water feature to it, then there is a possibility for some landscaping elements.
Mr. Manfredi stated that they tried to make the back portion as porous as possible. The loading
dock area is gravel. There is also a small water feature. They have made an attempt at various
levels from the issues of civil engineering to landscaping to keep that area of the site as porous as
possible.
Board Member Ainslie asked what is the depth to rock behind the building.
Mr. Herrick stated that they had soil borings done and they were down 15 feet. There is a little
waterfall on the watershed. It occurs where the property changes from Cayuga Cliffs to Tompkins
County.
Mr. Manfredi stated that the borings were done in this area. They indicated that bedrock was
at a lower elevation.
Board Member Howe stated that he heard that the owner of the Cayuga Cliffs Development is
aware of this plan.
Mr. Herrick responded that Mr. Reizes is present and they shared the concepts with him.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Walker what he thought about the idea of enlarging and
deepening the dissipation area.
Mr. Walker stated that the site is limited. He does not think that it can be excavated very
deeply. They would not have a way to get the water out and still be on the property of PRI. The
cross slope is 4 or 5 %. There is a small natural basin. They did look at that when they added the
storage addition. He does not think that there is too much that can be done to deepen it and get an
outlet that stays on the property.
Mr. Herrick stated that if there is to be a depression here it might not have an outlet. It might
be a holding basin during the summer that will infiltrate minimally. There could be some more
introduction of storage. It is something that could be explored further.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the existing drainage plan would remain and still be used.
Mr. Herrick stated that they are bringing flow pipes in facing into each other. It would dissipate
the velocity and allow it to spread out.
Mr. Walker stated that the way that the applicant has the parking lot designed to flow back, the
gravel French drain system, then the treatment within the water feature, and the dissipation of the
flow to spread it out is minimizing any impacts.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 19 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox asked if it could have been done in a more conventional way.
Mr. Walker stated that if the buildings were moved up by Trumansburg Road and there was a
pond below the buildings it could have been done. The site has many constraints.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he understands the problem with the drainage. There are
various tradeoff that were considered. He is comfortable with what he heard from Mr. Herrick and Mr.
Walker. It is a difficult site. There is a possibility that some of the new innovative techniques might
not work as well as the model predicts. They may work better. The idea of using the parking lots for
storage is innovative.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has questions about how some of the figures were
arrived at. The site is 6.4 acres. In a few places she has seen that 4 acres will not be disturbed by
the project. It is true that only part of the site will be impervious surfaces. The parts that are added in
the berms and around the buildings do disturb the site. It should be counted in what is disturbed by
the project.
Mr. Herrick asked if there is a specific reference.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II. The
figures came out of the figures given by the applicant.
Mr. Herrick stated that they were pointing out that there is 2.3 acres of the total parcel that will
be existing and new impervious surfaces. They did look at the disturbance of the proposed area.
The amount of disturbance is about 4.3 acres. It included all of the grading and the berming.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it did not indicate that. It states that roughly 2.3 acres of
the 6.4 -acre parcel is comprised of existing and new impervious surfaces. It leaves 4.4 acres.
Mr. Herrick stated that there is 2 acres of area that is disturbed, but is returned to vegetation.
It states that 4 acres is undeveloped. Undeveloped could include landscaping.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would be interesting to know how much of the land is
undisturbed.
Mr. Herrick stated that 2.1 acres will be undisturbed.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Reizes if he wished to address the board on any of the
environmental issues. The board deals with the environmental issues first. Once that is finished, it is
considered a complete application and then the public hearing is opened. Given the importance of
the drainage, it is important to let Mr. Reizes speak.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 20 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Les Reizes, Cayuga Cliffs Development Corporation, stated that Cayuga Cliffs Development
owns approximately 102 acres to the east of the PRI property. He and his client were not aware of
the plan until one week ago. It is a fine project, but they are increasing the water flow directly east
onto the Cayuga Cliffs property by 400 %. It is being decreased to the Ciaschi property by 80 %. They
are taking the problem that they do not have enough acreage to deal with and dumping it onto the
neighbor's property. Mr. Reizes feels that this is not a proper way to take care of the problem.
Mr. Reizes stated that they were never approached to see if they could put a pond in or to
divert the water. They are going to take the piece of land that the Zoning Board of Appeals
considered most developable and make it a swamp. The water could be moved to a less desirable
place. They are putting the water right over the property line in a big sheet. It is going to be useless.
It is not a proper way to take care of the problem looking at the future development of the hillside.
They need to work out a plan that takes into consideration the whole property. A plan should be done
now to accommodate the future development of the 102 - acres. The applicant never approached
Cayuga Cliffs to purchase land for a pond. They feel that moving the current water flow is going to
create a nuisance.
Attorney Barney asked if Cayuga Cliffs would consider concentrating the flow into one area
and putting the water into an existing natural channel.
Mr. Reizes responded yes. It would do less damage to what could be developed later on.
Attorney Barney asked if they would be willing to give an easement.
Mr. Reizes responded yes. They do not want a sheet of water ruining the best portion of the
property.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Walker if they remove some of the human engineering that has
already happened on this lot, where would the water that flows from Trumansburg Road go.
Mr. Walker stated that it would flow directly east.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that Cayuga Cliffs benefits from the current diversion.
Mr. Walker stated that on a 100 -year storm it is going to go directly through Cayuga Cliffs
property because the drainage system will not handle it. It will overflow the road.
Attorney Barney asked if there is a way to channel the water to accommodate most of the
drainage.
Mr. Walker stated that the drainage from this property and the drainage from the Ciaschi parcel
follow fairly narrow flow paths as it goes down the hill. The area above the sewer line that has been
in there since the 1920's is a natural terrace. There is a wet band where the water accumulates and
then needs to build up to go over the features that may have been put in when they built the sewer.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 21 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Herrick stated that there is a thicket on the property. It is about 100 feet from the thicket
that the channel begins. There is a culvert there that allows people to drive over the sewer easement.
If a pipe were extended it would be about 200 feet from the property line.
flow
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it would channel the water. It would increase the velocity of the
Attorney Barney asked if it would be a desirable alternative.
Mr. Walker stated that it would not be as desirable. It would cause the State to have a concern
down at Route 89. As the water sheet flows, it creates natural storage because it is spread out over a
larger area. If 150 feet of water that is flowing 1/8 of an inch deep into a ditch that it 2 feet wide, the
ditch would be flowing at a velocity that is 10 times the sheet flow.
Attorney Barney stated that right now there is water flowing that way. How much is the volume
going to increase with what PRI is planning on doing?
Mr. Herrick stated that there might be some natural evaporation and percolation into the soil.
The volume would be consistently the same. The rates would be different.
Mr. Reizes stated that it is not a natural flow. It is something that is being created by what is
being done on the site.
Mr. Herrick stated that the water would be flowing under gravity through that type of
vegetation.
Mr. Kanter stated that from the State DOT letter they are concerned with the potential impact
on the culverts at Route 89. They would be more concerned if the water were channeled at faster
rates.
Attorney Barney asked if a pond or detention area were put just off the PRI property with a
pipe would that take care of the rate and the flow.
Mr. Herrick responded yes.
Board Member Howe asked if there had been any discussions about approaching Cayuga
Cliffs to buy some acreage.
Mr. Herrick stated that he has not had any of those discussions.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Reizes made the comment that his client might be willing to
undertake such a discussion.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 22 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Reizes stated earlier that they would be willing to give an
easement.
Mr. Reizes stated that they are open to discussion. They could work out something that
would prevent that entire area from becoming a swamp.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Herrick if he would have more options with more land.
Mr. Herrick responded that there are more conventional approaches with additional space.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is such a pond, would not it decrease the water that
flows down to Route 89 by evaporation from the pond or infiltration into the soil from the pond.
Mr. Walker stated that it would reduce it. There is not going to be a lot of evaporation loss or a
lot of infiltration loss. The State's primary concern is that their culverts not be over topped. They do
not want more water than their pipes can handle. A larger pond would reduce the peak discharges
from what they are today. It would address all their concerns. A level spread of 150 feet makes the
water not generate in a rush of velocity that starts cutting a channel. They would need to look at
water management around the properties to determine the handling of development. There are
cases where developers have built houses in low spots and the water runs right into them. There are
ways to build on that and divert water around the buildings. Given the size of the site and the
configuration of the buildings on the site, this is about the best that can be done.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if adding a pond off site would help.
Mr. Walker stated that another 2 acres would give them enough space to build a big enough
retention area to maintain the peak flow at lower than what is present.
Board Member Ainslie stated that regardless of anything done on the site there always will be
water going over this property. When a developer comes in and buys property in a situation down a
hill, they would love to have all the water diverted. Unfortunately, they are going to have problems.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that this is a situation where by added development there is
added drainage.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the added development does not cause all of the problems.
The topography causes the problem.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the development causes additional problems that were
not present before.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the alternative is that the drainage is handled on site, or they
cannot build. There is no such stated policy that he is aware of. The board does operate under the
policy that they would like to mitigate all the issues on site. It is difficult on this parcel given the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 23 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
location of the existing structure and the location of the proposed structure. The board does want
them at the rear of the property to preserve the expanse in front. It does make it difficult.
Attorney Barney stated that there is one issue before the board. It is whether there are any
significant environmental effects from this proposal. There is enough concern for the board to say
that there is. If the board were to vote on the issue, it would require the applicant to go through the
aspects of an environmental impact statement dealing with that issue. The board could also
determine that there is no environmental effect.
Attorney Barney stated that he has heard that there has not been a lot of communication
between the two groups. The two parties could mitigate the issue. The board might then be more
comfortable finding that there is no significant environmental effect. The board could adjourn the
matter and let the two parties communicate.
Mr. Kanter stated that he is concerned about that and accommodating the DOT. There could
be some opportunity to solve the problems at the same time.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board should adjourn the discussion on the SEQR.
Attorney Barney stated that there is an incentive on the applicant's part to reach an acceptable
arrangement.
Mr. Herrick asked that if they are able to come to an agreement, is there a possibility to come
back in April.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not want to delay the project. The board does not
know if there is going to be a meeting on April 18th
Mr. Kanter stated that it does look like there will not be a meeting on April 18th
Attorney Barney asked if the board would consider meeting April 25th
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would not be able to attend the April 25th meeting.
Attorney Barney stated that staff would need to know if there is something worth scheduling for
the meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that 3 weeks is not a lot of time to come up with new plans and
submit them to the Town.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -31 - Adiournment of SEQR Determination for Paleontological Research
Institution — Museum of the Earth.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 24 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie.
RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the SEQR Determination of the Paleontological Research
Institution — Museum of the Earth until Tuesday, April 25, 2000.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendations to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval and a sign variance for the proposed
Museum of the Earth, Paleontological Research Institution's new public educational and
exhibit facility. The new museum will be an 18,000 ± square foot, two -story expansion partially
below grade. New parking areas will accommodate approximately 64 cars that will be
concealed from the road. The project site is located at 1259 Trumansburg Road (State Route
96) on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -3.1, Residence District R -30. Warren Allmon,
Executive Director, Paleontological Research Institution, Owner /Applicant; T.G. Miller, P.C.,
Engineers and Surveyors and Weiss- Manfredi, Architects, Agents.
Attorney Barney stated that the board needs to cancel the public hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -32 - Cancellation of Paleontological Research Institution — Museum of the
Earth Public Hearing.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
RESOLVED, that this board cancels the scheduled public hearing for the consideration of Preliminary
Site Plan Approval and Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special
Approval and a sign variance for the proposed Museum of the Earth, Paleontological Research
Institution.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding
enactment of a proposed Local Law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance relating
to drive - through businesses and maximum size businesses.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 25 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox asked what is being proposed and why.
Attorney Barney stated that a Local Law is being proposed to limit overall size of businesses to
no more than 25,000 square feet. It would also prohibit any future drive - through businesses in the
Town of Ithaca. These two limitations would be put into the current Zoning Ordinance and would
remain there until the revision of the Zoning Ordinance is complete. As part of that overall revision
the Town is continuing to look at if there should be an overall limitation on the size of business and
what the status of drive - through businesses should be in the Town. As a result of the Burger King
process, the Town Board adopted a moratorium on drive - through business, gas stations, and large
businesses. This was done 6 months ago and expires April 11, 2000. There was some discussion
about extending the moratorium. From a legal standpoint it is not desirable. The Codes and
Ordinances Committee felt that it would be appropriate to place right into the Ordinance these
limitations until a new Ordinance was developed.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it will be near the end of the year before the Town is in a
position to enact a new Zoning Ordinance.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he does not like the restriction of drive - through for elderly
people. He voted the last time that it should not be included in the moratorium. He stated that he has
artificial knees. When it is icy he uses the drive - through drug stores. There are a lot of older people
around. He would like to vote against the drive - through provision.
Board Member Howe stated that 25,000 square feet is the size between what is considered a
big box store and the current 7,500 square feet.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does endorse the Codes and Ordinances Committee
recommendation that until the committee is sure what they are going to come up with, it is a
reasonable number.
Board Member Howe stated that this is not meant to reflect the square footage the Town might
decide upon.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Codes and Ordinances Committee made observations in a
letter to the Town Board regarding businesses uses. The number 25,000 square feet is included.
Mr. Kanter stated that when they looked through some of the planning literature and some of
the ordinances that deal with these items, there are different numbers and ranges. The typical big
box developments start at 45,000 to 50,000 square feet. The main concern that the Town Board
gave to Codes and Ordinances Committee was to look at traffic generation and how business areas
might affect surrounding residential areas. It might not be the number that they decide.
The business zones in the Town total about 109 acres. There are 6 commercially zoned areas
in the Town of Ithaca. At this point they are not talking about changing the areas currently zoned
Commercial. The next task for the Codes and Ordinances Committee is to look at the commercially
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 26 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
zoned areas and make some recommendations back to the Town Board on how they should be in the
future.
Board Member Ainslie asked if the drive - through provision had to be part of this
recommendation.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that one of the main reasons for the moratorium was to
protect against drive - throughs. It does need to be part of this. This is temporary.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does agree with Board Member Ainslie's position. He does
draw a distinction between a drive - through restaurant or a drive - through attached to a drug store.
One seems different from the other. The problem is that the Town needs something now because
the moratorium expires next week. There needs to be something to protect the Town. He does not
want to get into allowing certain drive - through and not allowing others. The safest course of action is
not to allow new drive - throughs.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 10:23 p.m.
Joel Harlan, Dryden, stated that he has given the board an article on Walmart regarding what
the big box stores can do. There is no equalization. There is no fairness between the campus and
the Town. When it comes to something that Cornell University or Ithaca College wants it is given to
them. When something comes up around the Town, it is the opposite. There needs to be
equalization and fairness. It is not fair to send this message. It is making a lot of people on the out
skirts of this County mad. People are going elsewhere. The message is being sent to go outside the
County. There are people present who are trying to stop the growth. When are people going to start
thinking of themselves? If people want to stop growth, then stop the campuses from growing. People
cannot stop the campuses because of money. If you go against the money they will sue. There are
the votes to stop the growth. People will come out to try and defeat the growth. The Town is in a
sandwich in between where you do not know what you want to do. The Town needs to stand up to
the rights and back down Cornell University. Bring in businesses. Money needs to be brought into
the County, not run it out. Many of the stores are going to be going out of businesses.
The shootouts are going to be coming here. The County is becoming isolated. Everyone is
going to be dead. Prepare to die if you do not make any adjustments to the area. If you are going to
stop the growth here, have enough guts to stand up to Cornell.
Beverly Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road, stated that she would like to read a letter to the board
from Ruth Mahr. See Attachment #2.
Ms. Livesay stated that she would like to congratulate the Codes and Ordinances Committee
for considering this issue and all of their hard work that they have done. She is concerned with 2
items. The first is that the size is too large without considering the use. For example a Blockbuster
Video of 25,000 square feet is one of the largest traffic generators. It could create more traffic than
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 27 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
one would wish to see. The other concern is that there are no commercial areas in Town that are
adequate to handle development of 25,000 square feet.
East Hill Plaza was originally to be a neighborhood shopping center. Just because the Plaza is
there and it has grown does not make it suitable for that type of development and traffic. It is a
concern.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road, stated that with the understanding that this is intended to
cover the Town for several months until the new Zoning Ordinance in place, she thanks the board for
proposing this law. She does find it very reasonable. She urges the board to vote for it.
Ms. Erb stated that she does have a concern about the square footage threshold. Traffic
concerns and preservation of residential neighborhoods is one of her uppermost concerns. She
shares the concern of Board Member Ainslie. A complete restriction against all types of drive -
throughs is unreasonable. In the long run there is some wiggle room. She would like to thank the
board for proposing this in the interim.
Tom Murray, Courtside, stated that he has some concerns with regards to the limitation on the
square footage. He has had conversations with people. The issue of legal actions being brought
against the Town for this arbitrary size or restriction on property. His neighbor could construct a
55,000 square foot building. He is sure that if a large enough developer came and wanted to take the
Town to task on it that they would.
The second concern would be to add to the economic impact statement portion a review of all
not - for - profit and tax exempt organizations that want to start new ventures on their properties. If they
want to start a fitness club, there should be some serious review of the economic impact on the local
fitness club providers and to see if there is a need. If this was placed in this portion of the review
process then it could be very useful. It could bring to light to the community the negative impact that
Cornell University, Ithaca College and other not - for - profit businesses have on the tax paying
businesses in the community. He does not know if there is an opportunity for that type of review. He
does know that there is free reign for not - for - profit businesses to do what they choose to do.
Mr. Murray stated that if the board is going to provide some room to move then the board is
discriminating. Burger King no, Rite Aid yes. There are 109 acres of commercial land in the Town.
That is not much. What is the percentage?
His other concern is leaving this open- ended. There needs to be a date to make a decision. If
he comes back in 5 or 7 years and he wants to build a new facility that is 30,000 square feet, the next
board could say no. If Mr. Hamilton wanted to tear down his bowling alley he could not rebuild.
There needs to be a date to have this resolved.
Martha Robertson, 1655 Ellis Hollow Road, stated that Supervisor Valentino has said many
times that she believes in intermunicipal cooperation and understands how what happens in one town
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 28 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
affects the residents of the next town. She would also like to thank and congratulate the Codes and
Ordinances Committee on their hard work. It is a very encouraging proposal. She is in favor of it.
They have started to form a group called "The Alliance for Sensible Area Planning ". There are
about 315 people on an e -mail list that are interested in these issues. About 125 of the members live
in the Town of Ithaca. She is in touch with a lot of people who share her views.
Ms. Robertson stated that she does think that the drive - through ordinance is very progressive.
It is a wise thing to do. There is a Rite Aid drive - through on Elmira Road. Board Member Ainslie lives
on the west side. He would have to drive past the Rite Aid on Elmira Road.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he does use the one on Elmira Road.
Ms. Robertson stated that they do not need another one in the Town of Ithaca. The
Comprehensive Plan for the Town wisely notes that certain services appropriately already exist in the
City or should be developed in the City. She would hate to see a drive - through Rite Aid at East Hill
Plaza and put the smaller Rite Aid out of business.
She is concerned that there is no space limitation in this proposal on building sizes. There is a
25,000 square foot limit on business sizes. It does sound like any number of businesses could be
clustered into a building. There could be a shopping center of 100,000 square feet. The
accumulative effect of 4 stores that are 25,000 square feet is going to be significant. According to this
law there is no way to turn it down or regulate it. This is a point where the proposed law should be
very conservative. In the final deliberations the limits can be raised. In this interim period it would be
a prudent course to put more of a limit on the total size of new construction. In a newspaper article
Supervisor Valentino was quoted as saying she knew of no proposals for large scale retail waiting in
the wings. Ms. Robertson stated that she spoke with a representative from Cornell Development last
summer and they had several applications waiting in the wings for Tops Market, drive - through Rite
Aid and other possibilities. The board should assume that these are a possibility.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 10:43 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that Ms. Mahr's letter talked about permitting businesses that rely
on high traffic volumes and high turnover. There need to be limits that are easy to measure, easy to
enforce.
Attorney Barney stated that there was some discussion at the Codes and Ordinances
Committee meeting as to whether this should be structured in the form of traffic generation based on
the Institute of Traffic Engineers Studies. They concluded that it was difficult to say that a business
that generated "X" number of vehicle traffic was permitted, but a business that generated "Y" number
of vehicles was not permitted. The figures are not completely reliable. They are based on nationwide
statistical data. It would be hard to define a high turnover business. It was easier and more clear to
somebody as to whether they would qualify or not to draw a line based on size. Generally, bigger
stores generated more traffic.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 29 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Attorney Barney stated that the Codes and Ordinances Committee also looked at aesthetics
and character of the community. The thought was that a 55,000 square foot building is permitted.
There could only be two 25,000 square foot businesses and one smaller businesses. It was thought
that this would encourage a character of the community that was for smaller types of operations than
for the larger operations. There is not a location in the Town where a 55,000 square foot building
could be constructed without destroying an existing building.
Mr. Kanter stated that there is one location on Danby Road that is available. It is the Auble
property. The limitations of the individual uses also had to do with the types of businesses and the
market that they would serve. The larger individual businesses tend to generate and draw from a
much larger area. If the Town wanted to primarily allow uses that serve and attract people from more
nearby areas, then smaller individual businesses are more appropriate.
Attorney Barney stated that there are some limitations in the current Zoning Ordinance. The
25,000 square feet is the absolute limit. Most retail operations over 10,000 square feet require a
special approval. All commercial uses require site plan approval.
Ms. Robertson asked if there is a limit on the overall size.
Attorney Barney stated that they did the mathematics on the Judd Falls Plaza. There are
setback requirements, open space requirements, and parking requirements. When all the
requirements are combined, the largest building that can be built on that site is a 55,000 square foot
building.
Ms. Hollis stated that the figure is the maximum that could possibly happen under the current
laws if someone were to choose to level the property.
Attorney Barney stated that is the maximum for Judd Falls Plaza. They did not do the
mathematics on King Road.
Mr. Murray stated that Burger King was a very successful situation. There was a lot of
community input. The bottom line is that the Town has a very nice service there that is working. The
system worked. The moratorium was put in place because of Burger King. The process did work for
Burger King. The law was upheld. The result is that the site had a number of additional plantings
added at the last minute. It is a beautiful site. Why is the law needed? The board took the heat from
the community on that issue. The board stood up to those who were against it. The project moved
forward as it was needed.
Attorney Barney stated that the answer is that there is an overall concern as the Town goes
through the revision of the Ordinance trying to determine what kinds of businesses do create
significant amounts of traffic that is going to be a problem for the neighborhood. The businesses
need to be put in the appropriate location. For example on Elmira Road where there is high traffic as
opposed to up at East Hill where there is more community and families in the area. That type of
determination is going to be thought about and discussed at the Codes and Ordinances Committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 30 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
It was very difficult to deal with just drive - throughs. The practical matter with the Cornell University
limitations and their lease with Burger King, there is not going to be another drive - through at East Hill.
There might be if they level Judd Falls Plaza. There would need to be a fair amount of study on just
that one issue. They knew it would slow down the overall process of trying to get a new ordinance in
place that would deal comprehensively with everything. Drive - throughs are typically thought of as
being high traffic generators. The effort was to try and not permit more of them until the Town
decided where they should be permitted. The sense of the committee is that they would consider
drive - throughs and where they should be permitted.
Mr. Harlan stated that people are happy to have Burger King in the Plaza. The buffering has
changed the Plaza. People now travel with caution through the parking lot. Big box stores do a lot
for communities.
Board Member Howe stated that he is in support of the local law. There does need to be a
response to the Tompkins County Planning Department that the Town does not see this as being a
way of increasing or encouraging the sprawl. See Attachment #3.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the letter came out of the blue.
Mr. Kanter stated that the County's finding is one of significant deleterious impact. They find it
is not a good proposal. They recommend against the proposal. In order for the Town Board to adopt
the local law, they need to have a majority plus one vote.
Mr. Kanter stated that he spoke with Mr. Hanson. He did understand the Town's concern with
receiving the letter. He did apologize for not calling ahead of time to discuss the letter. They usually
call ahead of time to discuss the proposal. Mr. Kanter stated that his opinion is that it is an
outrageous finding. It is off base. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan specifically indicates that
large scale business should be focused in the City of Ithaca. It almost seems as if the County is
considering the Town of Ithaca as part of the urbanized area, therefore saying that the Town should
accommodate the big uses. He felt that the County comment was overstepping its bounds in terms of
telling a municipality what they should and should not be doing. If the County had done a better job
of land use planning on a countywide basis then they might have more of a basis to tell the Town
something along those lines. They have not. The County has dragged its feet on countywide
planning. It is a difficult issue. They need to back up what they say. It needs to be supported with
evidence and facts. The County letter did not do that. It was an off base opinion. It is the opposite of
the purpose and the effect. It is trying to focus development in the urban core and in the City. They
do have good points about design guidelines for big box and retail development. The Town does
have a lot of that in the site plan review process. It does not get to the main issues of traffic and
impacts on surrounding areas. The County should refocus its comments to those outlying
communities where there is very little planning and zoning that is encouraging sprawl. The Town of
Ithaca is not encouraging sprawl. Mr. Kanter stated that he is going to send a letter to the County.
Ms. Livesay stated that the Town of Ithaca is very narrow. If there is big development in the
City, which has been the policy for more than 30 years, it is not needed in the next mile.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 31 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter stated that the areas are in close proximity to one another.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he does appreciate that there is some concern. He does
know some people from Cornell University that are using Burger King. There have been letters to the
editors that Burger King is acceptable. He is disturbed that the board continues to have people telling
them what lousy people they were to allow Burger King. He does not find it objectionable.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he feels that there is not enough commercial area in the
Town that makes him concerned. He will not vote against the local law.
Chairperson Wilcox asked what about his concern over drive - throughs and the need for drive -
throughs for senior citizens.
Board Member Ainslie responded that there is not enough area to cause any development.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -33 - Local Law Amendinq the Town of Ithaca Zoninq Ordinance Relating to
Drive - through Businesses And Maximum Size of Businesses Recommendation to the Town Board.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
Relating to Drive - through Businesses and Maximum Size of Businesses, " and
2. Said proposed local law would be an interim measure that would prohibit additional drive -
through businesses and limit the maximum size of all new retail sales or service
establishments to a maximum of 25, 000 square feet of total floor area. This would apply to all
existing business zones in the Town, and
3. The Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for
their recommendation, and
4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2000, had reviewed the above -
referenced local law, and a Long Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II, prepared by
the Town planning staff for the Town Board, which will act as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of the proposed local law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 32 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
a. There is a need for the proposed local law amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to
drive - through businesses and maximum size of businesses; and
b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected;
and
C. The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of
the Town; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town
Board enact the proposed "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
Relating to Drive - through Businesses and Maximum Size of Businesses."
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Motion made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Hoffmann to enter into an
Executive Session to consider a possible litigation matter. Carried unanimously. The Board entered
Executive Session at 11:04 p.m.
Motion made by Board Member Hoffmann, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox to resume regular
session. Carried unanimously. The Board resumed regular session at 11:12 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -34 - Planning Board Direction to the Attorney for the Town Regarding
Cornell North Campus Residential Initiative Final Site Plan Resolution.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board authorizes the Attorney for the Town to enter into a stipulation
with Cornell University on behalf of this Board pursuant to which this Board agrees that it will not raise
as an affirmative defense in any Article 78 proceedings challenging the final site plan approval of the
Cornell North Campus Residential Initiative that the action is not timely instituted if such proceeding is
commenced no later than June 9, 2000, or such earlier date to which the Attorney for the Town may
stipulate.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 33 APRIL 4, 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Kanter stated that the board needs to cancel the April 18th meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox asked what is the progress on Big AI's.
Mr. Kanter stated that it is getting more work on the retention area and the gravel parking area.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -35 - Cancellation of the Town of Ithaca Planninq Board Meeting of April 18,
9nnn
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie.
RESOLVED, that this board cancels the meeting of April 18, 2000.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Howe.
NA YS: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 4, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Carrie L. Coates,
Deputy Town Clerk.
8A Star-Gazette,Sunday,March 12,2000 LOCAL
ATTACHMENT 111
i ,��• a >;: ;
"'BigFlats �a1-Mart• • raisp
,,■Even competitors
say store has been ;
positive force since'
opening in 1993. s;
.l By JEFF MURRAY
Star-Gazelle
" /murreyestargarefte.com
'
BIG FLATS—While some rest.,
'dents In Erwin and Watkins Glen rY;; j ty
voice concerns over the possibility n
of new Wal-Mart stores in their z; v.• +'
communities,Terra Ellis of Elmira
Is thankful that the retail giant put
s ,
,.a store in Big Flats. J is e
M Ellis,a manager of the Consumer r, {
,.Square Wal-Mart, said her lite
changed Immeasurably for the bet- JI?;,.
ter when she was hired by Wal-Mart
seven'yearsa�;o. a`
"t started here at Just over mint• Kf 1 . :E •,
mum wage—$5.50 an hour,"said
Ellis, 26. "This company.has (+ '• „ { ii,
allowed me to advance not based on
age or college education,but based
on the work i do.Now I'm making !
"$M,000•plus a year. (
1 am very grateful for this con- s ,
pany, because without'them I
wouldn't be where I am today,ll said tit
Ellis,who is married and has three ;r_?�;•
i.children."I'm able to provide with-
L,out having to live paycheck to pay. �.
check." x.
Ellis is one of several*people'
Inside and outside the company ,
willing to sing the praises of Wal. tMRIA TRINNVSmr•oazene'
Mart and what it's done for the com• JOY Carnagle,of Elmira,fits a tennis shoe on her son Joshua,4;at Wal-Mart In Consumer
munity. Square In Big Flats.-Camegle,a mother of three,said she likes Wal-Mart because of product sgLeec=
•" There was some opposition to the tions and prices.
Big Flats Wal-Mart when it carte to
town to anchor Consumer Square •:n'' . •^: .1-X gC,r,,, Watkins Glen gets a Wal-Mart,
11Va !'
in 1993.Some people feared theVol
me those areas will see even more can.
giant retail chain would drive out :...,''v'!+,� + '.'i! tributions•she said.
f ,
� established merchants. ,, The people who may be happiest
+ That hasn't happened, saidt Cheb1 NtolUdesS Wal Mart,Sem s Club and an Interna to have aural-Mart store in Big
Chuck Dvansak,manager d jq ,,. , (.. :il; Flats are the customers.
n Roebuck at Arnot MaD,another d •e '{ "It's a good place to shop for kids'
the area's 1 10, f, 721 , I
large retailers. s r 'r stuff,because d the prices,"said
'a1tie'11 0111nterrtiadbfial stores.
"The,Mix of merchandise we sell ny ! Joy Carnegie,36,of Elmira,who
is different than Wal-Mart" Nuunber of. More than 885,000 lit the United.;:° wanted shoes for her 4-year-old son
Dvorzsak said."in our situation,it •c3tatett intoe than 000Innl it,relgn coubtriea.' ... ,.: Joshua on Wednesday."I used to go
i hes added to the mix d customers, �` .,"' a" �!y e•,.•,.. to Hill's.I come-here two or three I
We haven't seen an adverse 8liding'Jajl',31,2000,.
Y , a times a north."
dependsur on the merchants them " reported• S$1.92blllbn Agnes Burley dHornellalso took
im ct•whatsosver.I don't'=it
has hurt anybody at the mall It
iJ www•wifnr(Werii 9 y time to shop at Wal-Mart Wednes•
I day even though there Is a We[-
n selves.Good merchant-41--y..,wilr
Mart store Hornell.Burley and
,.•no matter who comes Into the area lion in sales tax revenues,accord• ed out$70,000 iA contributions from her husband
were in Big Flats to
if they treat their customers well.".'Ang to Chemung County Executive the Wal-Mart Foundation for a vari• shop at Lowe's,a big box home
Dvorzsak said Wal-Mart has G.Th Tranterdr. et dcommunit
helped Sean-by drawing customers `Wal,Maah also paid$107,592 in the most recent pear forects which•store,and decided to check out the
I
from outlying areas,and those cus• property taxes last Y Consumer Square Wal-Mart.
n ytlar,Tranter numbersareavaUable,ahesaid. Wal-Mart also met some resis-
t tomes then shop at other stores. said. The local store also makes tance before it built a store in Hor-
a The Big Flats Wal-Mart has Between that and sales tax, monthly contributions to churches, nell,Burley said,but It's been a
pproximately 300 employees• they're certainly contributing to the Scout troops,nonprofit organize-
great asset in the three years it's
almost half of them full time,Ellis eca munity,"he said."What's also tions and law enforcement agen• been there.
said.That generates about a S2o0,o0o beneficial is they bring people to cies,Bills said.Store associates also
payroll every month Just among the our county from other areas.When raise money for the United Way and "1like everything about It,"said
hourly workers,she said. they come to go to Wal-Mart the Children's Miracle Network,she Burley,tie."Igo there once a week.
In addition to creating Jobs,Wal• also shop atother•phlces" said. It has been good to us.There has
I Mart benefits the economy in other Wal-Mart also has a corporate Grants are currently distributed been some little businesses down-
ways.With estimated annual sales Policy of contributing directly to to programs in Chemung,Steuben, town that went out of business.But
m
I
of$W million to$40 million,the Big charitable causes intheircomurd- Schuyler, Tompkins and Tioga• they should have stayed competi-
I Flats store generates about$2.8 mil. ties,Ellis said.The local store hand- N.Y.,counties,Ellis said.If Erwin or tive."
ATTACHMENT #2
Ruth M Mahr, 07 :34 PM 4/3/00 -, Attn. J. Kanter
0 Return-Path: <rm201corne11.edu>
X-Sender: rm20@postoffice.maii.cornell.edu (Unverified`, lrJ U L5
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:34:21 -0400
To: toi.planning@clarityconnect.com
From: Ruth M Mahr <rm20@corne11.edu>
Subject: Attn. J. Kanter APR 4 2000
103 Judd Falls Road
Ithaca, NY 14850 TOWN OF ITHACA
April 3, 2000 IPLANNING,ZONING,I`NGINEERING
Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
121 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Planning Board Member-.
This is to comment, generally affirmatively, on the proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
regarding the prohibition on "big box"stores and drive throughs in the Town of Ithaca.
I support the rationale for this amendment as it is stated in the resolution, namely the potential of these
establishments to generate large traffic impacts in the Town. And, although I support this resolution, 1 would more
warmly endorse alternative wording of a more general nature. By singling out a particular threshold size and
drivethroughs,the amendment fails to capture other specific uses and other sizes that may have the same or
greater negative impacts.
Since the purpose of these amendments is to prohibit commercial developments with the potential for large,
negative traffic impacts, substitute wording would indicate that intent—e.g. "prohibit businesses that rely on
high traffic volume and/or high turnover. " Specific uses, such as drive throughs and "big bo)"stores could then
be cited in the amendment as examples of such businesses.
Not only would alternative, more general, wording leave the Town more"wiggle room" regarding proposed uses
that are neither"big box"nor drivethroughs but that may have large traffic impacts, but it would also obviate
problems that could arise should a developer approach the Town with a potentially high traffic impact proposal for
a store of less than 25,000 square feet,for example, 24,999 square feet.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth M. Mahr
{
Printed for Planning Department <toi.planning@clarityconnect. . . 1
gpR-03-200 1654 ATTACHMENT #3 P.03.03
DEPART p ,ANING
. x 7
James W.Hamm,Jr. Telepbune(607)2745560
Commissioner of Planning
Fax(607)2745578
April 3,2000
Mr.]onathsn ,Director of Planning
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca hVet
Ithaca,ICY 1485
Re: Review m uant to §239-1 and-m of&C New York State Genera!Municipal Law
Action: LocalLbw amending the Town of I a Zoning Ordinance relating to drive-thru
businessc.3and maximum size of bus' esses
Dear W Kanter.
This letter ackno ledges your referral of the p posal identified above for review and comment
by the Tompkins unty Planning Department uant to §239 4 and-m of the New York State
General Municipi X Law.
' ed that the proposal, as submitted,may
The Tompkins unty Planning Department h determined P P
have a significant deleterious impact on int erco unity,County,and State interests. This
determination of `significant impact"is based c n the long-term intermunicipal and regional
impacts that may rc=IL
Given the locati sof the Town of Ithaca,pro icing drive-thru businesses and large retail
establishments inthe Town could promote sue development in outlying areas.
From a long
term,regional perspective,this could enco "up sprawl. This has the potential act
roadways and transportation,water,sewer,dr ge,and safety services(fire,police,
emergency);poteal loss of open space in pri arily rural areas;and concomitant environmental
impacts(air poll on,mnofl etc.).
Your memo,dated Manch 2,2000,
from the es and Ordinances Committee to the Town
Board states that a subject Local Law amend g the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance would
be an"interim rn�a ';the language in the al Law,however,contains no provision for a
time frame or ex sration of said"interim me :' Our concerns would be diminished if a
sunset provision ere included. Alternatively, a Town could continue the mardtorium to allow
additional time continue studying impacts 01 drive-thrus and large retail establishments.
The department i Iso,has comments unrelated t the finding of"significant impact."
The Town shoal consider such measures as ption of design guidelines to address issues
related to drive.tl n-us and retail establishments f a certain threshold. Such measures would
APR-03-2000 16.54 P.04
allow the Town to;impose requirements related to lighting,parking, signage,architectural style,
site layout,etc.to 'hieve a desired result.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record
' incerely,
es . anon,Jr.
A)
mmissioner of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Tuesday,April 42000
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard(no more than five minutes).
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination,Ruggles Lot Line Modification,253/257 Pennsylvania Avenue.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING:Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of 0.038+/-acres of land from a parcel at 253 Pennsylvania Avenue,Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.54-6-3,Residence District R-9. The 0.038+/-acre triangular parcel is to be consolidated with
the adjacent parcel at 257 Pennsylvania Avenue,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.54-6-5. The 0.038+/-acre
parcel includes an asphalt parking area that the owners wish to keep with their house on Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.54-6-5 when Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.54-6-3 is sold. Edward&Beverly Ruggles,
Owner/Applicant;Johanna L.Gettinger,Agent.
7:50 P.M. SEQR Determination,Iacovelli Two-Lot Subdivision,210 Pennsylvania Avenue.
7:55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of
the parcel at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue into two lots,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.54-7-6,Residence
District R-9. The proposal includes two alternatives for subdividing the property. One alternative would
create two 9,000 square foot lots while the second alternative would create lots of 10,440 and 7,560 square
feet. Both alternatives will require obtaining one or more variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Orlando lacovelli,Owner/Applicant:Lawrence P.Fabbroni,P.E.,L.S.,Agent.
/ 8:15 P.M. SEQR Determination,Paleontological Research Institution—Proposed Museum of the Earth, 1259
�J Trumansburg Road.
8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING:Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendations to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval and a sign variance for the proposed Museum of the
Earth,Paleontological Research Institution's new public educational and exhibit facility. The new museum
will be an 18,000+/-square fool,two-story expansion partially below grade. New parking areas will
accommodate approximately 64 cars that will be concealed from the road. The project site is located at
1259 Trumansburg Road(State Route 96)on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.24-3-3.1,Residence District
R-30. Warren Allmon,Executive Director,Paleontological Research Institution,Owner/Applicant;T.G.
Miller,P.C.,Engineers and Surveyors and Weiss-Manfredi,Architects,Agents.
9:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING:Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding enactment of a
proposed Local Law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance relating to drive-through businesses
and maximum size of businesses.
9. Persons to be heard(continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
10. Approval of Minutes: (None available at time of mailout).
11. Other Business.
12. 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 or four(4)members Is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
i
TOWN OF 1THACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
0 Tuesday, Anril4.2000
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, April 4. 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
0.038 +/- acres of land from a parcel at 253 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
54-6-3, Residence District R-9. The 0.038 +/- acre triangular parcel is to be consolidated with the
adjacent parcel at 257 Pennsylvania Avenue,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-6-5. The 0.038 +/-
acre parcel includes an asphalt parking area that the owners wish to keep with their house on Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-6-5 when Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-6-3 is sold. Edward &
Beverly Ruggles, Owner/Applicant; Johanna L.Gettinger, Agent.
7:55 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of the parcel at
210 Pennsylvania Avenue into two lots, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-6, Residence District
R-9. The proposal includes two alternatives for subdividing the property. One alternative would
create two 9,000 square foot lots while the second alternative would create lots of 10,440 and 7,560
square feet. Both alternatives will require obtaining one or more variances from the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Orlando Iacovelli, Owner/Applicant-, Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E.,L.S., Agent.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendations to the Zoning Board of
( Appeals regarding Special Approval and a sign variance for the proposed Museum of the Earth,
`M Paleontological Research Institution's new public educational and exhibit facility. The new
museum will be an 18,000 +/- square foot, two-story expansion partially below grade. New
parking areas will accommodate approximately 64 cars that will be concealed from the road. The
project site is located at 1259 Trumansburg Road (State Route 96) on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 24-3-3.1, Residence District R-30. Warren Allmon, Executive Director, Paleontological
Research Institution, Owner/Applicant; T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors and Weiss-
Manfredi, Architects, Agents.
9:30 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding enactment of a proposed Local
Law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance relating to drive-through businesses and
maximum size of businesses.
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,March 27,2000
Publish: Wednesday,March 29,2000
The Ithaca Journal
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
PLANNOF nHA"
ING BOARD
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
by ddeirseanciron or the
Chairpnnin
Board, NOTICE of l5 HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
wtR ba held T the Planning
Board aF tine Tawe of ItI112
on *~touchy, cif 4, 2000,
of 126 East Street.
Ithaca,N Y at The Eolk„wtng
Times and on the Following
matters. ®30 .m Considarolian
7:40 Ph1. Consideration o) Preliminary Site Plan Ap-
of Preliminary and final Sub. proval and Recommendation
division Anarovol Far the P- fa the Zoning Board of Ap-
posed su ivnsion of 0:038± pools regarding Special All-
acres of land from a parcel pprroval and a signed vor'ionce
at 253 Pennsylvania Avenue for the ppry Museum of
Town of Ithaca Tax pan} the Earth,Paleontological Re-
No 54.6,9 Residence Dis. watch Inslilo6on's new public
trict R-9. Tie 0.038± acre educational and exhibit
triangular parcel is to be facility.The new museum will
consdklated wtlh the adia. be an 18„000*square fool,
cent parcel, 257 Pennsvlvo- w ry expansion partially
T. A onus, Town of Itfiaw below grade New parking
Tax Parcel No 5465. The areas will accommodate
0 038#acre parcel includes appr oximately 64 cars that
an asphalt pocking area drat wi0 6e concealed from the
r"1 the owners wish to keep with ,oad. The prod siFa is Io-
I�J} their house on Town of INacn mlad at 125q Trumarisburg
Tax parcel No. 54b5 when Road ISlate Route 96) on
Town of Ithaca Tax parcel Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 54-&3 is sold. Edwhrd No.24-X3.1,Residence Dh-
& Beverly R�ugglee, Owner/ hitt R-30. Warren Allmon,
Applicant: Johonna 1. Get. Executive Director, Poleoo-
tfngtr nit. blogkaf Research Institution,
7! .5 1 F. Consideration Owner Applicant, T:G.
of Preliminary Subdivision M;Iter, (C., Engineers and
Pt"n For the proposed Surveyors and Weiss-
suhdasion of the parcel at Manfredi,Architects,Agents.
into two 210 Pennsylvania
Toown of Ithaca 9.30 p.m. Considxation
int parcel Na.wn7r I Resi• of Recommendation to tiro
dente Dl l N R5 The ppro- Town Board regarding enol,
posat includes two alter. meet of proposed Local law
hatives For subdivide the a"mng nOg the Town of Ntnoca
p Pe ty subdividing drivZoning Ordinance relating d
ro t One alternative dnve�tftrough businesses and
would creole two 9000 maximum size of businesses.
square Foot lots while the sea Said Planning Board will of
and alternative would create said times and said place
10,440 and 7560 squar� hear all persons in support of
feel.Both alternatives will m such matters or objections
quire obtaining one or more thereto. Persons may appear
variances gEcpo�mgthe loni"fl by agent or in person.
locoBoavelli, C}wnarls' firdiviifuals with visual impair-
APP1K meets, heariN impairments
Lawrence P. F oni, P E., or other special needs, will
L,S. Agent provided with assistance
as necessary, upon request
Persons desiring assistance
must make ateh a regvesf not
less than 48 hours prior to the
time of theppuublic hearitrgs
J"otCn Kanter,AICP
Director of'Planni
273.174
Dated.
Monday March 27, 2000
March 29, 2000
0
O TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
ATTENDANCE SHEET
DATE: April 4. 2000
PLEASE PRINTYOUR NAME PLEASE PUNTADDRESS/AFFILIATION
(Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes)
sus[-. NY
vArr-eLA'
{1 Et crtA- �Z
2 �
lV /Qe, Z
Awllvlovl
14DIli s EA 1lg Sn c-(Q-r PCC{ k^'�
L't ,c
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
ATTENDANCE SHEET
DATE: Aril 4 2000
PLEASE PRINTYOUR NAME PLEA5E PRINTADDRE55/AFFILIATI0N
(Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes)
IZ e v_
of I cz:�Z�
{tZitiCC
i c) k-'3 .dvz ua S
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Poke 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, Aril 4. 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 : March 27, 2000
Date of Publication: March 29, 2000
a Qq�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of March 2000.
9 V-��
Notary Public
JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM
Notary PLbliC.state of New York
Ftesidmg in Tompkins County
Reg. No 4994047
Hy Commission Expires March 30 &-9