Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-12-02FIE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 The. Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on. Tuesday, December 2, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p. m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member, Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter, Planner; Christine Balestra; Planner EXCUSED: Mike Smith, Environmental Planner ALSO PRESENT:. Harold Cox, 348 Coddington Road; Joyce Cox, 348 Coddington Road; Diane Florini, 1603 Slaterville Road; Grace Saatman; 1585 Slaterville Road; Elena Flash; 202 East State Street; Al Gillis; 112 Burns Road; Sue Gillis, 112 Burns Road; Fred Vanderburg, Ithaca College; Wendi Dowst, 502 West Court Street; Larry Hoffman, HOLT Architects; David Herrick, T.G. Miller; Joe Fitzgerald, Cayuga Medical Center; Dana Batley, Empire State Forestry Service, 140 Genung Circle Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and, accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 24, 2003 and November 26, 2003, 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 November 26, 2003, 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 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item or a topic that is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to come to the microphone, give us your name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. . AGENDA ITEM : SEQR Determination: Wiedmaier Five -Lot Subdivision, Corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome David. Are you going to make the presentation tonight? David Herrick, TG Miller - Our five -lot project includes four lots, it is in the R -15 zone, approximately an acre each and we have one large twelve -acre parcel, which is located in the conservation district, R -30. I think those. issues that are relevant to the SEQR determination tonight, that I would like, to focus on, deal primarily with storm water management and concerns about water;quality within the watershed for the Ithaca City Water System. What we have designed with this project, in terms of grading the situation to minimize the channelization of storm water runoff . So we're looking at creating minimal ditching so that there is more deposited sheet flow drainage off the site and less channelization. We have shown to the Town what we think is a reasonable footprint for removal of vegetation to accommodate the construction of both the common access drive and the individual lots. We have prepared erosion sediment control plans, two of them or at least sequencing for two of them that describes how we'll take measures to control construction related sediment siltation, for both the road and for the individual home construction .sites. One thing that has some up in staff review of the documentation is concerns about introducing vegetation to replace that that's been disturbed. One thing that I would like to suggest is that, this is kind of an issue that the Board is concerned with, is that we look providing what I call some vegetative buffer strips between what would be a common lawn area and the edge of the natural vegetation. These vegetative buffer strips could be a select of grass seed mixed species. that would be a no maintenance, no mow grass mixture. If it does revert to the existing condition, so be it. George is comfortable with that if it's an amendment that we need to make with in the details of our erosion control. The other issue is whether or not the lots will be limited in the use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer that might ultimately run off and'find their way into the City watershed. George is willing to make such an accommodation if the Board feels that it is a significant issue. My reaction to the concern is that it probably would not be a significant factor. The actual amount of lawn area that is left at these sites would be very minimal, l don't think that fertilization is likely to be commonplace. My preference would be not to have that contingency, but George certainly is willing to abide by that if that is what the Board feels is necessary. The last impact that I think is a mitigation measure is our use of a common 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 driveway. We have one access off of Slaterville Road that serves all five of the parcels. There will be a final agreement for sharing those maintenances. That minimizes the number of entry points onto the local road system from these five parcels. I think those are the highlights, as I see them with respect to environmental impact. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Chairperson Wilcox — .Questions, with regard to environmental review? Board Member Conneman —.I just have questions. Could you re -state again for everyone why these driveways come from Slaterville Road? I think I know the answer to that. Mr. Herrick — Well the cross slope on Burns Road is quite excessive. There really isn't any user - friend slope condition along the whole frontage of- George's property. That's my understanding as to why the location has been chosen. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you show us on the plan where the vegetative buffers would be, that you mentioned? Mr. Herrick — (Inaudible) Board Member Hoffmann —But if it's a grass mix, what would prevent the owners of the property from mowing it? Mr. Herrick — (Inaudible) Board Member Hoffmann — And who would put in some language in the deed when he sells the property to indicate that these strips are not to be mowed? Mr. Herrick — (Inaudible) Board Member Hoffmann — You've pointed to the map, but how wide would you say that these strips would be? Mr. Herrick — I would say ten feet. (Inaudible) Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand, looking at lot one, I'm assuming the others are similar; the ten -foot vegetative area around the house is an insignificant part of the total lot size. We're talking ten foot wide and maybe linear of 200 feet, maybe 150 feet linear of this buffer that we are talking about. Mr. Herrick — Well, the buffer would be up against the remnant vegetation, so. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Chairperson Wilcox — Exactly and at least three sides of the house. Mr. Herrick — Well, in the case of Lot 2 and 4, no. Chairperson Wilcox — You're on two sides. Mr. Herrick — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure in my mind, whether, given the size of the lots, which are 8/10 of an acre and greater, and given the history of the house in the disturbed area, I'm not sure that a ten foot buffer is necessary. Board Member Hoffmann — No. The lot, especially the one facing Burns Road, are quite large and the area to be disturbed is really, fortunately, not very large. Chairperson Wilcox — Given the zoning of 15,000 square foot Lots, these are really two or three times larger. Anybody else? I guess, I wish Mr. Walker was here to see if he had any comments with regard.to the measures that are proposed in regard to drainage and sedimentation. I don't see anything in the materials that we have. Mr. Kanter — Would you like me to go back and see if he is here. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you please. If he's here, I would expect him to be out here. I don't think he would be in the building and not here. Mr. Barney — He wasn't back there about three minutes ago. Board Member Hoffmann — I think, in general, compared to a lot of other proposals that we see, this one is a very good one. It is very friendly to the environment and to the general area around there. Mr. Herrick - We have completed all of the required DOT permit materials and turned them into the State. It's an unfortunate time of year because no-one is there. It will probably be January before we get a permit back. Chairperson Wilcox- Good evening Dan. We're talking about the Wiedmaier subdivision and we wanted to know if you have had a chance to review the technical details in the submission provided by T.G. Miller. Mr. Walker — A very basic design to minimize the impact of runoff by keeping it distributed. There's not a tremendous amount of impervious surface there because there are fairly large lots. By diverting the water through swales, they spread out:. rd PLANI Chairperson Wilcox — Sometimes we see projects where and sometimes we see projects where it is sheets flow is has talked about the sheet flow. Why is that better in this 4ING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 the water is channeled preferred. David Herrick case? Mr. Walker — You're not concentrating the flow, it is more natural. Rain falls in this pattern. It's pretty much the woodland type of situation that (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who may not normally attend our meetings, normally we finish the Environmental Determination, then we go to an actual site plan review, in this case, a subdivision review and, at that point, we open the Public Hearing. It's my impression, and I believe other members of the Board as well, that many of you have come here this evening to talk about the environmental issues. If we deal with that and then go to the Public Hearing, you won't have that opportunity. What I'd like to do is for any of you who are here this evening wish to address the Planning Board with regard to Environmental Issues. I'm going to give you the opportunity now to come to the microphone, give us your name and address, tell us what you have to say. You will still have a chance to speak again when we open the Public Hearing. It's like there is a second bite of the apple, if you will, but it gives us of the Board a chance to hear what you opinions might be while we are in the environmental review. So, if anybody wishes, please come up, have a seat, name and address. Diane Florini, 1603 Slaterville Road - I'm on the upper corner of Burns. I just would like to know, are these properties going to be on the sewer? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Florini — And they are going to be on the public water? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Florini - So, down in that valley, we used to hike a lot because the Nausbaums were the people who sold us the property and they owned that whole section. It's very steep and when you're talking about the runoff, I'm not envisioning where this runoff is going to be. Nothing is going to be leveled back there? You're going to have the driveway, the common driveway going down, there's going to be a significant slope in there and significant runoff just on the driveway. So could you clarify a bit where this storm water is going? Mr. Walker — The design of the storm water is basically, here's the roadway, the upper part of the roadway kind of cuts across the slope somewhat so that the water would be sheeting off the roadway onto, it will be a fairly steep bank that will be vegetated with a conservation mix that will grow fairly dense, a meadow 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /16/03 type mix. I will slow down the water. It is not being collected in ditches so .it's channeled to one point. It is being allowed to spread, as it goes. Then, for each house, it's being picked up and then spread back out again along.the hillside. In other words, in a lot of subdivisions, drainage is all brought to one point in a road ditch, it runs down to the end of the road and then it just goes and flows away. The intent here is to cut that water off with diversions and let it gently spread out back into the woodlands again and yes, it is a fairly steep hill, so the water will be coming down in pretty much the pattern it is, but not in large increases .in quantities.at any one point. Chairperson Wilcox — It is also to mimic the existing natural conditions as best as possible. Mr. Walker — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — There being no one else, we'll bring it back to the Board for right now. Board Member Mitrano — Could we hear .a from fertilization and runoff? Chairperson Wilcox — From who? little bit more about the protections Board Member Mitrano — Well, it was brought up as something for us to consider, so I suppose Dan or some other staff member. IS there something that you would recommend? Ms. Balestra — It's not exactly something that we would recommend, it's something that we thought of as potential environmental impact, given the location of the Six Mile Creek Watershed down at the southern edge. It's not something that the Town has the authority to really impose. We were kind of talking about what we could potentially do. Whether you would notify people who would be moving in that you are within a conservation district or the drainage from your property runs into the Six Mile Creek Watershed, the City of Ithaca Water District and you should be aware of that. If it is that sort of a notification that would go in the deed or what, we weren't really sure, so we were hoping to look to you. Board Member Mitrano — Have you ever heard of anything, John? Mr. Barney — Well, as you know, the County has a requirement now that you can't use pesticides without notifying your next -door neighbor if you're using a commercial applicator. I'm not quite sure if that applies to a homeowner applying his own. I would assume that the applicant is willing to consent to that condition. Chairperson Wilcox — How would it be implemented? on PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Barney — Well, I suspect that that depends how rigorous you want to be about it. I don't know if you could go as far as to say you can't put any herbicides down without notifying the Town. Then it would be enforced, I suppose if somebody was repeatedly dumping pesticide, I'm sure a neighbor would bring it to the attention of the Code Enforcement Officer. Chairperson Wilcox —.Does that answer your question? Board Member Mitrano — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — You're welcome. Board Member Howe -I 'move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — The SERQ Resolution? Board Member Howe — The SEQR. Chairperson Wilcox — SEQR resolution moved. Do I have a second? Seconded by Larry Thayer. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? And are the any abstentions, there are none. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 099:SEQR :Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Wiedmaier. Court Five -Lot Subdivision, Slaterville Road & Burns Road, Tax Parcel No. 564-1.22 MOVED by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 5644.22, Residence District R45 and Conservation District. The proposal includes subdividing the 16.7 + 1- acre parcel into four residential lots located primarily within the R -15 District and one 12.3 +A acre lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be accessed by one common private drive off Slaterville Road. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Frank L. Santelli, P. E., T. G. Miller, P. C., 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 i� PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /16/03 3. The Planning Board, on December 2, 2003, has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant,. and a Part Il prepared by Town Planning staff, a report entitled "Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Final Subdivision Plat Submission" prepared by T.G. Miller, P. C, Engineers & Surveyors, dated 10130103, 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 IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty, NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-4 -1.22, Residence District R -15 and Conservation District. The proposal includes subdividing the 16.7 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots located primarily within the R -15 District and one 12.3 +/- acre residential lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be accessed by one common private drive off Slaterville Road. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicants Frank L. Santelli, P.E., T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we need Mr. Herrick to come back to answer any questions that we may have? Mr. Barney — I have a couple questions. Chairperson Wilcox — David, are you representing the applicant for everything tonight? Go ahead John. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Barney — The agreement for the driveway, it sounds like it is going to be an agreement between all five lot owners. I'm assuming that you are not going to sell these four lots simultaneously. Do you have five buyers already lined up? Mr. Herrick — No, they will not be sold simultaneously. Mr. Barney — Could this be converted into some sort of a declaration that is recorded even with the first deed? Mr. Herrick — We'd have to work that out. Mr. Barney — Right now there is a Lot 1 name, basically, you are having an agreement with George with himself four different times. The second thing, when going through it was the way of prorating costs was a little bit strange because it was prorating in. proportion to the frontage on the driveway, but the benefit that was conferred, Lots 1 and 2 really don't need much of a driveway, but yet they have a somewhat higher proportion than lots 3 and 4 do. I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to determine right now what would be the fair proportion and built that right into the agreement. Mr. Herrick — I would tell you because there have been further deliberations and considerations since this point has been raised. Chairperson Wilcox — All set then? Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing..lf you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to come to the microphone. Sue Gillis, 112 Burns Road — We are directly across the street. I have two questions. May I ask you? Chairperson Wilcox Absolutely. We may not be able to answer you, but you can ask. Ms. Gillis — It says in the description that these are residences. Are these single I homes or does this mean a unit, a building with a couple of units that you call "cluster housing with a common green area" ? Can you clarify that? Mr. Barney.— They would be single family homes, but with an option to put in a subsidiary apartment. Ms. Gillis — So, potentially, there could be two families in each of those four units and I assume the one in the Conservation District is the same, that could be more than one family? 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /16/03 Chairperson Wilcox — Now, the accessory apartment cannot be more than 50 percent. Mr. Barney — Unless it's all in the basement. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, unless it's all in the basement. It can't be more than 50 percent of the size of the main unit. So, it's meant to be an accessory. Mr. Barney — Under the current zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — Under current zoning yes, thank you. Ms. Gillis — Well that makes the question then — the current zoning- Mr. Barney — No, the only change, we have a proposed zoning ordinance that is coming up for possible adoption in a week. The change there would be to permit . that second unit to be in a separate building for main residence. It still limits it to two units. Ms. Gillis — The other question I have is the roadway onto Slaterville, is that depicted in this curved driveway or is it the straight line going up? Chairperson Wilcox — It's the curved. Mr. Walker — The lines that run perpendicular to Slaterville Road are easement lines for the utilities and water and sewer. Chairperson Wilcox — That moves the curb cut, if you will, further away from the intersection of Burns Road. We were talking this evening that Slaterville Road is very busy, the speed limit is 45, people do 50. Burns Road, the speed limit is 55 and people do 55. On the other hand, the zoning is R -15, 15,000 square foot lots and I'm not sure if the owner could pack in lots of 15,000 square feet, given the grade here, but nonetheless, these are 8/10 of an acre lots, instead of 113 acre lots. They are quite large, given the zoning. I think they've been very sensitive to uniqueness of this property and the difficulty of trying to build on it. You know better than anybody what the slope is. Board Member Conneman - Did your first question have some hidden message behind it or something. Ms. Gillis — Well, just having lived in the Town for a number of years, I'm always curious when it says residential. Does that mean this whole notion of cluster house? In my mind, it is pack as many people as you can in this corner and leave a little green space as a park. That's what my question was. Yes, there was an agenda. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .12/2/03 APPROVED1 2/16/03 Chairperson Wilcox — No, that is not what they have proposed. Board Member Hoffmann — If I can just clarify what cluster housing really means. It doesn't mean that you can put any more housing units in than you could if you laid them out conventionally. It's just that instead of having little square lots with a house in the middle of each one all over the big piece of land, you allow the houses to be clustered in a small corner of the property in order to free up some open space, which we look .at as a positive thing and I think most people would too, rather than having wall to wall houses and yards. The other thing that wanted to add is that in most areas of the Town we already have allowed, for a long time, single family homes to have an apartment in them. This is nothing new. It is the option of the homeowner whether they want to have a house for themselves or if they want to create an apartment. Ms. Gillis - Well, that clarifies it. Just as long as there wasn't an apartment building with six units. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else this evening? You are going to have to give your first and last name again. Ms. Florini — I'm just curious to know, how far actually is the driveway from the Burns Road intersection? Chairperson Wilcox — David is going to come up, he is going to look at the scale. Mr. Herrick — I told them to put it on here. Chairperson Wilcox — It might be on a different sheet. Ms. Florini — I don't see the building that's currently there, close to the corner. Where is the property? Where is the Rightmeyer property that he rents, that is close to the corner, the little white house? I don't see that property. Chairperson Wilcox- I'm not sure where- Ms. Florini — There is a rental house, as you come from Burns, going east, you hit a house. Chairperson Wilcox — But not on this property? Ms. Florini — Well, I don't know how far this — So this driveway comes up before that property does? Chairperson Wilcox — There is no structure on this property right now. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Ms. Balestra — Are you talking about on Slaterville or on Burns? Ms. Florini — On Slaterville. Mr. Kanter — That is the last house in the Town. Ms. Florini — It is exactly the last house in the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — It's just down east, thank you. Ms. Florini — Okay, so you're significantly close to the intersection. Is the Town going to do anything about slowing down the traffic? That is question number one. Question number two is does it matter if on the agenda there is a typo saying southwestern corner, instead of southeastern corner? Mr. Kanter — It's not really a typo.. It's hard tc north arrow and you look at Slaterville Road, people say they are going east on Slaterville, are going southeast.. So, it's sort of, I gi southwest or southeast. .directionally, when you look at the they don't match up and so, when really they are not going east, they ess, interpretational, in terms of Chairperson Wilcox — And yes,. it can matter, but in this case, it doesn't matter. If a parcel number was wrong, maybe that would be a significant defect. And you have said, you have applied to the Department of Transportation, New York State DOT for the permit for the curb cut. Chairperson Wilcox — Then they will make the determination whether it meets their guidelines. Thank you Dave. Anybody else. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted? So moved by Kevin Talty, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. All right, Mr. Barney? Mr. Barney — In 1 a. I would suggest "Obtaining the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, including variances related to a minimum lot width at street line and minimum lot width at front yard setback line and minimum lot size for lot 4, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair." In f. just add, after the work "agreement" "to be approved by the Attorney for the Town." And then in h. —David is there going to be any problem with kind of a general obligation on the part of the developer when he conveys to include in his deed just a statement that pesticide and herbicide use on that property should be limited as the entire area drains into the Six Mile Creek Watershed and City of Ithaca water supply? 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Herrick — Well, I asked George if he has any hesitations about that and he has none. Mr. Barney — Could the h. be changed to read " Incorporation in all deeds a statement that all pesticide and herbicide use on their properties should be limited as the entire area drains into the Six Mile Creek Watershed and City of Ithaca water supply." Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin,. those changes acceptable? Board Member Talty — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Ms. Balestra — Just one thing, talking about re- vegetating some of the areas of disturbance and then you had talked about not re- vegetating, g. suggests the re- vegetation. So, either yes or no. We can either delete that part from g. or just keep it there. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I thought this was separate than the grassy strips that we heard about. Chairperson Wilcox — David, do you have a copy of the resolution as proposed? I imagine it is fine the way it is. It doesn't require a ten foot, it just says do what is necessary to put it back to what it was before construction. Ms. Balestra — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm very comfortable with g. Thank you Chris. There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? Are there any abstentions? The motion is passed. Thank you very much. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -100: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Wiedmaier Court Five -Lot Subdivision: Slaterville Road & Burns Road Tax Parcel No. 56-4 -1.22 MOTION by Kevin Ta/ty, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /16/03, 56- 44.22, Residence District R45 and Conservation District. The proposal includes subdividing the 16.7 + /- acre parcel into four residential lots located primarily within the R -15 District and one 12.3 + 1- acre lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be accessed by one common private drive off Slaterville Road. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Frank L. Santelli, P, Ely T. G. Miller, P. C., 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 December 2, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning.staff, and 3. The Planning Board, has held a public hearing on December 2, 2003, and has reviewed and accepted as adequate a report entitled, "Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Final Subdivision Plat. Submission," prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated 10130103, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No: 5644.22, located on the southwest corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, as shown on a report entitled "Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Final Subdivision Plat Submission, " subject to the following conditions: a. Obtaining the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, including variances relating to minimum lot width at street line and minimum lot width at front yard setback line and minimum lot size for lot 4, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, b. Submission of evidence of County Health Department approval for the water and sewer connections, prior to filing of the plat with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, c. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the plat, for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 d. Approval of the proposed water and sewer system and proposed driveway by the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit, e. Submission of a copy of the NYSDOT highway permit for the road cut and associated work on Slaterville Road /NYS Route 79. East, prior to the issuance of a building permit, f. Conveyance of all utility easements to the Town of Ithaca and submission of the final driveway easement/maintenance agreement, to be approved by the Attorney for.the, Town prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, g. The applicant shall preserve as much existing vegetation on the site as is possible during construction, and shall re- vegetate areas of disturbance in a manner that does not impede the function of the drainage and stormwater runoff swales on all parcels, and h. Incorporation in all deeds. to future homeowners of a statement that pesticide and herbicide use on their properties should be limited as the entire area drains into the Six Mile Creek Watershed and City of Ithaca water supply. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation at this time. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Reconsider Modification of Condition, Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I believe I saw Mr. Fitzgerald walk in, there he is. Okay. We've got a whole team tonight. May I call you Joe? 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /16/03 This Board, met two meetings ago and decided that it would be appropriate to bring you back here to re -look at this. I have been in consultation with staff today because I wanted to get some additional information about this and I have some information in front I don't think any of you have seen, so let me go through what I have. I have a copy of the letter from the Radiotherapy Associates of Upstate New York to. the Town Planning Board and to John Barney where they raised the issue that lead us back to the reconsideration and I will talk about that in a second. I have a copy of the letter from the Department of Health to Mr. Fitzgerald which he presented to us when we looked at the reconsideration of the original approval, the minutes, of course, a comment from Steve Randall, made at the October 21 st meeting, which I was not at, where he made some comments about this, and finally I have a copy of the limited review application, which is the Hospital's submission to the State for the movement of utilities. They were asking for permission.to move the utilities. Now, what is the dollar amount on that. Mr. Barney - $700,000. Chairperson Wilcox — I know what it is, but I'm going to look at it, it's $700,000 on the nose. Do you want to know their architect's fee? Okay, now, I know John .Barney might have a few things to say, but here's where I'm coming from, having reviewed these various documents. Radiotherapy Associates and their letter of October 21 st states as follows: they quote the October 7th minutes about Mr. Fitzgerald handing to Mr. Wilcox a copy of an approval that the Health Department gave as what they call a Limited Review. That's fine, that is taken from the minutes. They go on to say that it is apparent from reading the October 7, 2003 draft minutes that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members were lead to believe that the New York State Health Department had been granted some sort of "preliminary approval" to the Radiation Therapy Project. I have gone through the minutes, both the copy that I have and the copy that Sue provided and there is no use of the word preliminary by the applicant. In fact, I asked the applicant, Mr. Fitzgerald, specifically- it said " Would you call this a preliminary approval, a conditioned approval, what would you call it ?" His response: " In this case, I think it's where they call it, under the law, a limited review approval. We have had that conversation with them and obviously they are not going to allow us to spend this kind of money and then not approve the project." I can not find any place in the minutes where he calls it a preliminary approval. That same statement is made by Mr. Randall in his comment on October 21St, he says Mr. Fitzgerald testified that they had preliminary approval from the State Department ,of Health for this project, I don't see it in my reading. The next item, in, again, this letter from Radiotherapy Associates of Upstate New York, they quote Mr. Hall, who is the person who wrote the letter on Department of Health letterhead to Mr. Fitzgerald giving what they call limited approval for the utilities and site work, the letter from the Radiotherapy Associates says " Mr. Hall has indicated that the application to which he was responding on September 20th. has absolutely no relationship whatsoever with regard to the Hospital's application for a Certificate of Need now pending before the New York State Health. Department for i.0• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 permission to construct and operate a radiation /oncology center." There is no proof provided that Mr. Hall said it, it only says that Mr. Hall indicated. When I look at the limited review application, it says the following: " On May of 2002 the Hospital completed and ambulatory services assessment which identified functions in the department which require additional area. This document subsequently provided the basis for the facilities master plan, which was the reason for this proposed project, meaning the utility relocation, as well as proposed radiation oncology suite addition, Certificate of Need submitted July 16, 2003 and the proposed addition and renovations Certificate of Needs submitted 12th of September.2003." Therefore the statement that Mr. Hall supposedly said that the application has nothing to do with the oncology center just doesn't seem to hold water, as far as I'm concerned. Given that, I will give anyone here a chance to speak and I will give Mr. Barney a chance to speak. I'm pleased we brought you back. You may not be pleased you're here again, but I am pleased we brought you back. It has given me a chance to review these documents and I don't see an issue with what was said and that information that we had available to us when we made the modification of the approval so that the Certificate of Needs could be presented before they could occupy the building, instead of before they could get the building permit. I have a first, if anybody withes to- Board Member Thayer — You know how I feel. Chairperson Wilcox — I know how you feel, but state it for the record. Board Member Thayer — I voted not to bring them back because I was comfortable with the original agreement. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney. Mr. Barney — It's not my role to get into the policy decision - making. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. I spoke with Mr. Hall and he was adamant that this Limited Review Document that you are looking at was for the utilities (inaudible). My concern was that when I went back and looked at this, I think that that letter was presented perhaps erroneously. I'm not describing any motive improper or otherwise, but was presented as an indication that the State would grant an approval for the oncology project. In talking with Mr. Hall, I didn't think that that was accurate . My concern was that you had a piece of. paper that was given to you with a different understanding than, I think Mr. Hall had when he wrote it. Whether you choose to change your mind on the issue or not, that is clearly up to you, that is a policy issue, but I was concerned that the decision that has been made had been made on what turns out to be erroneous information. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to say anything? 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Fitzgerald = I'll just make a couple of comments. First of all, I would agree with Mr. Barney's interpretation that the Limited Review Application legally is not part of the Radiation /Oncology application, never was, never was intended to be. I think it is important that you recognize that we were following two processes. The first process, which we had begun in July, was a full review Certificate of Need application. You are required to do that if you are starting a new service that the Health Code specifically states that you must get a Certificate of Need for. Or., if you are building a facility in excess of ten million dollars. It was the first part, not the second part that required us to get a full Certificate of Need. As we were working with the Health Department for July to September the second, when we came here the first time. We, the Health Department and we were trying to fast -track this process. The full review process typically takes a minimum of nine months. Typically more, twelve to 18. I will come back in a minute and tell you where we are with that because we are almost completed with it. I indicated to them in a meeting, sometime between the second and the 15, which is the date I met with the Health Department the last time to talk about certain aspects of the program, that this Board had stated that they would not provide us with an approval without a Certificate of Need. It was their recommendation. They called me a few days later, they had a couple of department heads, a couple of staff people, including Jim Hall, who was on the telephone, who said "We have an idea for you, if you're trying to get your project moving forward, we recognize that if we get this thing looked at in November, reviewed, you really need to do site work, you are going to have to move utilities, you're going to have to do other things, do that now, it will be legally separated and then we can move forward." That was the purpose that I brought that letter. It was you folks that said, you can not do anything without a Certificate of Need. I wanted to get that project moving forward. I also recognized at the time that I did have, excuse me, I don't mean to sound arrogant, I've done this now for about 30 years, 16 here. I know. the staff out there well. There are times that we agree with each other, there are times where we don't agree with each other, but we have good reppor. I've had a sense from the beginning of this project that, in fact, they were very supportive of this protect. In fact, the time that they have already moved it, it has already gone past the project review within five months. Let me explain where we are right now. With the way that this thing works, is once a project is submitted, it's accepted, it has to be deemed, the staff agrees to do it's fairest analysis, whether or not it's financial, whether or not is it programming, whether or not it's architectural or whatever. That's when you have a number of meetings with them. The Central New York Health System's Agency, which is located in Syracuse, may or may not rule on this, Radiotherapy Associates asked for a hearing because they wanted to convey to them so they would convey the project review that this project was not needed. We did have a hearing on October 151h, that Board did send a recommendation to the Project Review Committee that they supported the project by a vote of ten for, one in opposition. The staff does do a formal recommendation. They recommend it to the Project Review Committee and they recommend it to the board above it, called the State PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Hospital Review and Planning Council. That frankly, the staff recommendation is critical as to how the recommend. They came up about two or three weeks ago with an extremely strong recommendation. We met last week, last Thursday, with the project review. At that time, the way the Project Review Committee works, it is hearing, the opposition has 15 minutes to explain why they don't think the project is necessary, then anyone they want from the public speaks, the applicant has 15 minutes, then it has it's opportunity to have anyone from the public speak. After Radiotherapy Associates spoke, I went up to present the Hospital's case, we had a number of physicians and patients who were in the audience who wanted to speak, after about five minutes, the Chairman asked me if I. would mind relinquishing my time and asked that the speakers for the Hospital support, not speak because they wanted to vote and they voted unanimously in favor of it, by a vote of twelve to nothing. On Thursday a couple of :us with be in Albany again because that is when the State Hospital Planning and Review Council will meet. It is an open meeting. It is not a meeting where there is a hearing. It is just a meeting where they have their own discussions, they have their own reports, they do more than just projects. Typically, if you have a strong vote, you will get approval from that and then it will go up to the next level, which is when you get the final approval and that is at the Public Health Council. If I made a statement there at the end of my comment, actually I believe that either Mr. Wilcox or Mr. Thayer and I don't think it was in the record, but I recall it, looked at me and said, "Joe, that is a lot of money, are you sure that you want to do this without approval ?" That is why I answered that as I did, which is " I do not personally think that the staff would have recommended that we do a Limited Review and approved the Limited Review and have me go up as far as $700,0001" That was my personal belief, I stated it. It was not to convey and kind of misunderstanding, if I did, I apologize. That was not it. It was in response to either Mr. Thayer or Mr. Wilcox, who I recall vividly saying to me, "Joe, are you sure you are willing to take the risk ?", and I said we were. As conservative as I am, I felt that this was a risk worth taking for the health of the community. Since that meeting, however, we have not done anything. I thought it would be inappropriate, even though we did have your approval prior to that time to do anything, we withheld. Mr. Hoffman is here today. We are willing, with you approval, we would like to get started. We feel that the service, which was out of service, by the way, until last week. It was out of service for ten months. It did not start in September, as. you were told and we would like to get this project moving. Mr. Barney — I sit at many board meetings and I think it is an interesting process to try and read what the Board is going to do on a particular project. I think sitting here and listening to them, there is no question that the Board is really in favor of this project itself , that has not raised any issues at all I think they think it is good for the community, if my vote as a non - voting member counts for anything, agree with them. What concerned me as a lawyer and as a representative of this Board was that we need to make decisions based upon correct information and we have a long- standing history with the Hospital, a good one, by and large, you come in from time to time because you need to do something and in every IM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 decision that I can recall has had. a favorable outcome. I was concerned about this situation because I don't want to see a situation develop where you.were making decisions based upon erroneous information and not make you folks aware of that. So, that's what we are back here for. I have one other question for you and that is, . you have indicated that you want to get started. Mr. Fitzgerald — With the site work and moving the utilities. Mr. Barney — As opposed to the Oncology project itself? Mr. Fitzgerald — I don't have the Certificate of Need to do that yet. I won't get that until January. Mr. Barney — Now, you're going to have to refresh my memory a little bit. Was the site work, part of — Mr. Fitzgerald — The site work was what the letter that I gave to Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Barney — I. understand that, but with the site work in terms of our approval, was the site work part of the other approval? Our approval is for the project as a whole. .Chairperson Wilcox — The project as a whole, which includes the site work and the building. Mr0 Fitzgerald — We just pieced the site work out. That was what the Health Department advised me to do. Mr. Barney — Because in my discussions, again with Mr.-, Hall, it has become clear that the Certificate of Need is a precondition for starting the construction of the Oncology Project. Mr. Fitzgerald — Correct. Mr., Barney — So, what you are looking for right now is permission or authority to begin construction of the site removal material or site change or whatever which relate to the letter. If we, the board, instead of going back and saying that you need a Certificate of Need, prior to condition to the building permit, we'll just say that the Certificate of Need is to be provided prior to any. work that is specifically related to the Oncology /Radiation project, that would be acceptable. Al can see that Mr. Hoffman is wincing. Mr. Fitzgerald — I guess Mr. Barney, I am not clear. I believe that the Zoning had said that the approval of the Certificate of Need would be a requirement for occupancy. WE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1212/03 APPROVED 121 16103 Mr. Barney — Right. Mr. Fitzgerald — And that's what this Board had said and that's what I want to do. don't have the Certificate of Need yet. I don't anticipate I'm going to have it for another three to four weeks. It is meaningless to me now to even try to do anything. The site work will take us a couple of months. If I just have approval to do the site work as part of the limited review, I'm happy at that point. Mr. Barney — That is my question to you. Mr. Fitzgerald — I think the only thing and I don't want to get into, this is not the time and the place, I think at some point, however, I think we've been asked to go to a higher level of review by utilizing the Certificate of Need. I think it is a process that I think Mr. Barney, perhaps, I confused the issue because I am so' used to working with them, maybe I mislead you at some point unwillingly. I also think that, given you an example, if a private physician would have come into your town and wanted to do .a radiation /oncology, I would have been interested to see how you would have dealt with that because they don't need a Certificate of Need. So when you are talking about do we need another radiation /oncology program. Mr. Barney — One of the pre- conditions of this Board's action must be a determination if there is a need for the project. That relates to virtually anything that they make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals on. So, as part of our determination, make that. When you are involved in a situation like this where the State is making a determination and they are clearly far more qualified to make that determination, I don't want to put you folks down at all, but for these folks that sit here, it seems to be the easiest way to go. Mr. Fitzgerald — I realize that, but what would you have done if a private physician would come here. Mr. Barney -- If it was a private physician, I think we would have analyzed it more carefully to determine whether there was a need or not or tried to the extent of our capability to do that and made a determination. Whether we would have come to the same conclusion or not, very possibly we would have. That, unfortunately, is not what we are presented with here. I want to hear what you have to say, we can resolve this one way or another. Larry Hoffmann, HOLT Architects — John, I think what you are asking us to do is address whether the early construction is work that we want to start very soon, has,' in fact, anything to do with radiation /oncology. The initial phase of the work and the reason that this system that the State encouraged us to go into makes sense, is because the site work is something that was necessary to do before we could build the structure that the radiation /oncology is housed in. Among other 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1212103 APPROVED 12/16/03 things, it involves re= locating some utility fines, which means that you are going to be doing some excavations where you for utility lines. What I can't tell you is that some of the excavation that we're doing might not also be relative to the radiation /oncology center that's coming later on. If you dig a hole and r you are going to put two things in the hole, can you say that the first thing that you are going to put in the hole is the only reason that you dug it? Normally, I would have no problems about saying that, but given this situation, I am trying to be sensitive to the way that people might think about it. There are several aspects of the construction that will certainly assist, they will aid, they will make it unnecessary to re -do that work when we are actually building the radiation /oncology project. The work that we want to do initially is to get the- construction fence up, get the utilities re- located. My guess is that the contractor might need to do some ordering of materials so that when that when that work is done and we dor get subsequent approval we can go right into the construction of the radiation /oncology building, but that's sort of a gray line. Chairperson Wilcox Would someone like to move the SEAR Motions? Mr. Kanter — First you're going to have to decide whether you are going to make a motionw. Chairperson Wilcox — If we vote to affirm our prior decision. Mr. Barney — This would be a vote to change what was already decided. Chairperson Wilcox — Because that's what was advertised. What was advertised was reconsideration. We don't need an affirmative vote, we just let it- What about the Public Hearing? Mr. Barney — Open it. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition originally required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca, but was modified to submission prior to certificate of occupancy on October 7, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owners HOLT Architects; PC, Applicant. (Attache_ cents : 10121103 letter from Dr. Dalope to Planning Board, 9129103 letter from J. Hall to J. Fitzgerald) Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1212103 APPROVED 12/16/03 Board Member Talty — I have a question for John. I understood exactly what was presented here this evening, it was very articulate and well organized and I want to compliment you. My question is, this Board, when we go to vote, we are voting on reconsideration of modification of preliminary and final site plan approval, is that correct? Chairperson Wilcox — We granted approval. Mr. Barney — You're talking about the preliminary and final site plan approval, that's what was already granted. Chairperson Wilcox — We granted final site plan approval on September 2Id. On September 2"d, we gave preliminary and final site plan approval with the condition that the New York State Certificate of Need was required prior to issuance of the Building Permit, On October 7th we modified our approval and changed it to say that the New York State Certificate of .Need was required for the Certificate of Occupancy and that way they could start building. That's the modification that we made. What's before us tonight, is a potential. reconsideration of that modification if we think it's appropriate. Board Member Talty - This sounds like a two prong event that slightly overlaps, given the event that you need to have utilities moved, there is no need to dig up the same hole twice. By us passing this, should we be separating the two or should we be including it under one umbrella or is it already there? Mr. Barney — The first thing that you need to do is to determine whether you want to reconsider your decision. That's the first thing. If your answer is "no.,`tthen that's the end of the discussion. If the answer is "yes ", you have to go back and do the SEAR. Board Member Talty — If, given what is in front of us, you feel comfortable from a. legal aspect on how it is currently written? Mr. Barney - Yes Chairperson Wilcox — We've already given an approval and we modified the approval, the question is do. we want to review that. Mr. Barney — Do you want to modify one condition of the already modified conditions? Board Member Hoffmann — I would just like to say that I will abstain from the vote because l was not here on October 7th and so, even with the help of the minutes, I cannot have a good idea, exactly of what was said and what it meant because it depends not only on the words on the paper, but on other things as well, on how you understand what is being said. So, I will have to abstain from that. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Board Member Mitrano — Well, I wasn't here four weeks ago when the Board went into Executive Session. I'm glad that people came back because it was confusing, that's all it was. We've had this time to sort it out and I think it has been a very favorable thing to do. Board Member Howe — I. basically feel the same way. I think that there were things that were said that could be misconstrued that evening and I'm glad that you've all come back. Board Member Conneman — The letter that you read will be part of the minutes? Chairperson Wilcox- Is there any member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item. There being none, I will close the Public Hearing. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox- Would someone .like to move the Reconsideration of Modification of Condition 2 C? No Motion was Made in Reference to Reconsideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence. District R -30. Said condition originally required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca, but was modified to submission prior to certificate of occupancy on October 7, 2003, Chairperson Wilcox — If no one wishes to move reconsideration, the Board will not reconsider it and our previous approval of September 2nd, modified October 7 c stands. Thank you very much. Are we all set? AGENDA ITEM: Presentation and discussion of a Forest Stewardship Plan prepared by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Ithaca College, Mark L. Zubal, NYSDEC Senior Forester, and Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College — I'm Senior Assistant Director for Construction Planning and Designs. This is a little different than what we usually are here for. Some time ago, I was walking Ithaca College properties, which I do quite often to see what is out there and what we're doing and taking care of 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /16/03 things, I got looking at a lot of this forest land that we own, not only in Ithaca, but. in Newfield to see what we could do as far as managing it. I inherited a number of pieces of paper from Tom Salm when he retired and part of it was a proposed conservation zoning project that you folks have been working on with Ithaca College and probably other folks in the Town of Ithaca. At that time, when I read what was in there, I thought I better give Jonathan a call and see if this is going to require anything from us as far as presenting something to the Board on managing our forest land. At the time, Jonathan and Sue Ritter advised me to the fact that in the conservation, proposed conservation zone writing, there was a portion for management, which included management of forest property and how it should be managed. It was vague, but it was there. So, in doing that, .I contacted consulting foresters that I was familiar with, which is Dana Batley, that's who's with me tonight. Dana owns Empire State Forestry Service. He came to Ithaca College.and walked the properties and came back to me with a plan. that we thought we should elaborate on, made us aware of this service that you've got in front of you, the Forest Stewardship Program. It is done by the State of New York for anybody that wants . it done for their property, It's free of charge, it's a service that they have and if you look at it, it's pretty encompassing, all encompassing of what they think you should do and how you should do it. I brought this plan to Jonathan, probably two or three months ago so that he could look at it. I know that you folks, maybe in the future will be involved in more of this and maybe it will kind of set the base work. It would be the front end of where we can get started and it would help you maybe advise people of funding projects like this, not only that this service is available, but what you see as pitfalls or qualities or whatever, just put out on the table so that we 'can talk about it so that in the future, if there's problems or how to address these types of projects. Mark Zubal walked our property, did this extensive plan, which I shared with Dana. Dana agrees with him, Ithaca College agrees with him and.l guess we're here to see what your thoughts are. I'll drop it at that. Chairperson Wilcox You property has been divided up into a number of smaller parcels, based upon either the current vegetation that exits or the type of trees or whatever. Mr. Vanderburg — They're segregated into stands. I think there are 43. Chairperson Wilcox — 43 different subsections of the existing property. A different plan in essence has been presented to for each one of those 43 sections of the property. Mr. Vanderburg — That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — You know what, you've been here before, we've gotten angry at you before, I'm thinking of a parking lot in particular. In this case, I think you should be commended for being proactive. Obviously, you had to do it at some point, or most likely you'had to do it at some point. But the fact that it is 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 being done now, the college is being proactive and that is to be commended. I don't know much about forest stewardship and obviously I have to trust, as many of us do, the experts in the field. But as I read through the document, let this grow five to ten years, thin this out now, this has got this sort of tree. Someone took the time to go through and delineate 43 sub - .parcels and make the determination as to what's to be done on each one. If they're going to cut trees, make sure that they are the correct caliper and all that stuff. I don't know if a report like this should have more or not because this is the first one I have seen, but I'm pleased to see it. Mr. Vanderburg — It is very comprehensive. We sent the message out quite strongly to .both Dana and to Mark Zubal that we're not only interested in harvesting the renewable resource in the trees, but we were interested in the recreational part of it. It's a multiuse area and a lot of these trails and roads that they'll use and groom and rehabilitate after they are done logging will make the recreation in that area even more enhanced. There are a lot of things here that are just plusses. Chairperson Wilcox There is one couple behind you who has been sitting here waiting for this presentation. Does anyone have a problem if I gave them a copy of the material? Mr. Vanderburg — No, that's fine. Board Member Hoffmann — I think this is just fine as a forestry management report, but I'm very concerned about the fact that it doesn't mention, as far as was able to tell, anything about the unique natural area and some of the special plants that have been documented before for us by people like Nancy Ostman and Bob Wesley, who are plant specialists, but who looked at plants in a different way. A forester looks at a way of managing land to be able to harvest trees and to be able-to make use of the trees, not necessarily to protect unique, rare, scarce plants, which there are. There have been documented plants up there. The reason we originally started looking at creating at Conservation Zone for this area was because of the south hill swamp and the area surrounding the wetlands. I am bothered, I see mentioned, for instance, of taking care to save some trees at mass, which it's called when you save trees that have acorns and nuts and fruit for wildlife. There is mention of doing other things to help wildlife, meaning animals, but I haven't seen any mention of saving some of the other things that have been documented there, the rare and scarce plants. That concerns me. I'm also worried about, I mean this talks about how to manage the trees, when to cut them down, which trees to cut down and so on, but it doesn't say anything about how to get the logged wood out of there and that can be a very damaging thing for the land and the other plants. You have to build special trails, that might take heavy equipment, unless you are doing it so carefully that you have horses pulling the logs out individually. I doubt that that's what you 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12116/03 have in mind here. There are many opportunities to damage this very fragile environment and the very fragile plants that are there by doing this. Mr. Vanderburg — I'm going to ask Dana to come up for this portion of it. I can tell you that they were made aware of that. There are many trails, many old logging roads on the property as it is today. Those roads would be utilized again. They also have recommended to us that we do all our logging in the winter, when the ground is frozen so you have minimal damage, for erosion and a lot of,other reasons up there and it's nothing more than unsightliness on campus. The logging processes will take place in the winter months so that there is minimal amount of restoration work that has to be done to repair any damages that would be caused there. We have been sensitive to the plants that are there and I think, probably and I don't want to speak for Dana, but once you. open up this umbrella that is there now, you're going to see.a lot more of those species thrive in that wood lot. Board Member Hoffmann - Unless the ground where the logging is done is damaged to the point where those plants won't survive, either by compacting the soil too much by bringing heavy.equipment over it or having a lot of trees fall down and it's true, you leave maybe just three feet high of underbrush and stumps and so on, but I would like to know what those things would do to some of those scarce plants. Dana Batley, Empire State Forestry Service, 140 Genung Circle — We do have a bit of a problem, even state -wide with rare and endangered plants because the state themselves did a listing of where they are, what they are, but we're not privy to that. I think it's a political aspect that they won't even explain to us Whether they are rare or .whether they are not on a given property. So, unless we are able to identify them ourselves, it becomes a very difficult thing to take special precautions for them. Board Member Hoffmann — If I could interrupt you, were you aware that there have been inventories done of this specific site of the plants? Mr. Batley — No, I wasn't, but I do know Nancy. I've worked with her on projects before when I was working in conjunction with landowners for Cornell University. So, on this particular piece of property, it would be a very simple thing for me to get a hold of Nancy. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the Town has copies of those documents too You can get it through the Town. Mr. Kanter — There have actually been a series of reports including one that. was actually done by the College. Board Member Hoffmann — Did Mark Zubal have access to that information? 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Vanderburg — Not to my knowledge. Mr. Batley — This plan that he provided for you, basically is an advanced stewardship plan. IT does try to take into account aesthetics and wildlife and recreation. The other considerations that Fred has made sure that we knew were a consideration or were a very strong consideration on their part. So, it shouldn't be construed as just a plan where. the only interest here is in just growing the trees and removing the trees or whatever it may be. As foresters, we do have the interest to grow trees and at the best ability that we have to grown them, but in the same token, we also have to take consideration for wildlife, for den trees, for endangered species, for wetlands. We have to take special consideration when we are doing all this. To actually do the operations that are called for in the plan, I don't think presents too large a problem because there is an existing road system through the property as it is. The property itself is very fragmented, it used to be a number of different farms, so that you can actually find old hedgerows and farm lanes and stone walls and wire fences that this property is a conglomeration of other old farmsteads. There are different areas that do grow different plants and we try to treat them differently. It's not to be treated just as a garden to take out timber and not have any other considerations. Board Member Hoffmann — No, and I'm aware of that and that's why I think it's a good plan of the forestry plan, but I was disappointed that I didn't see any mention of the other consideration that went into our desire to turn this into a Conservation Zone which Ithaca College is very aware of too, I'm sure of because we have. talked about it together a number of times. Ms. Ritter — (Inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — I think you're being hard on them. Board Member Hoffmann - I don't think I am. I would like to know what Susan Ritter feels about this. Chairperson Wilcox — All that information is important, but, in all fairness to the College, they said " We have a forestry plan that we would like to share with you." and it is a forestry plan and the DEC, I didn't realize it, but as you said will give back some of the tax dollars and do it for free. Yes, it is important to know the other issues that you brought up. My expectations were met. Mr. Vanderburg — We can certainly take the information, I will get it from Susan, and we will share it with Dana. We'll go to these areas and see what we can do to protect this stuff, when we are doing our work there. I think that's what you're looking for or would be looking for and I think we've got a responsibility to do that too. Ithaca College wants to do everything in the right manner here. This is like money in the bank. My grandfather used to log his farm and I have a stand PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12 /.16/03 myself. If you go in there and ruin what's there, you don't have any more and if you take a little bit all the time and manage it well, it's just like interest coming from a bank account to you..That's what Ithaca College :wants out of this and they even want more than most people want out of it because we want it as a recreation area, we want it to be ecologically sound. We just want to, make sure. that manage it in the proper way and that's why we've gone to this expense to have these people do it for us and we'd be more than happy to share our information and what information you have with whoever. Dana is not the logger per se. Dana is a consultant. He will go in and he will mark these trees and he will watch the process to make sure that they follow this plan. Then in the end, he will make sure that everything is groomed and cleaned up when they leave. He's our go- between guy with the loggers. Board Member Hoffmann — As I understand, those are very important things. Mr. Vanderburg — Yes they are. Board Member Hoffmann — I needed to say what I said so that it is clear that we understand each other and you understand what the Town is trying to achieve and you keep that in mind as you do what you need to do. Mr. Batley — I haven't looked into the exact history of this particular parcel: It is just part of what you do when you are looking at a property. You can actually tell the past uses of the property by what's growing and how it is growing at that time period. If you look at maps just in general, if you look at maps of New York State back in the early 1900's about 80 percent of it was open agricultural land. Most of the woods that we have are something that grew up either from an old field or from an old pasture area. If you know what you are looking for, you can find the old fences, you can find the old lane lines, you can find the old hedgerows. In this particular piece, I think why it came out to be so many fragmented separate stands was that it wasn't one contiguous farm, it obviously pieces that were put together from different farms. Some of it is older wooded because it is steeper slopes so that was always a wooded property. Some of it has been cut in the past. differently than other parts of it. Some of it has not been cut in a long time. Some of it has been cut fairly recently, maybe within 30 or 40 years and some of it has done well and some of it has not done well: It's just typical of what you do find when you go down into the wood lots that are around here. Board Member Mitrano — Did Ithaca College buy from individual farmers? Mr. Vanderburg — Yeah, Ithaca College has a lot of deeds for the different parcels. Board Member Conneman — Well, I want to commend you for putting these things together. It's so much more refreshing than building a parking lot. I wasn't saying that to be mean, this looks like there is a plan. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Vanderburg = The other thing that you don't have in front of you, if you look at these maps, this one that the Conservation Department gave us is actually done with infared camera. They pull this off of satellite and then they lay these parcels out. The way they do, if you look at the red areas, they give off more heat because they are greener. They actually can show them from the air that these are stands of pine versus hardwood and different types if trees by the color delineation on the map. So, I mean a lot of what they do is not only on foot, but it's off this actual infared. It's pretty amazing how you can see the fields at Ithaca College, they are almost bright red where the athletic fields are. That's because of the heat that they give off because they are green matter. It's pretty amazing what they can do. Chairperson Wilcox — We only have the black and white. Mr.- Vanderburg —.You're welcome to pass this around if you'd like. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not sure that I am reading this right, but I have a feeling that the main part of the South Hill Swamp is in this area which is partially covered by the label here. It would have been interesting to see that Mr. Vanderburg — The label on mine covers none of the property that Ithaca College owns. Board Member Hoffmann = I know, but the main part of the South Hill Swamp is Cornell University land. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is not part of this plan. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but it still would have been interesting to see that on this photo because it is connected with the rest of the conservation zone: Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have any'-questions, Mr. Kanter — I have a quick observation. Chairperson Wilcox — I didn't ask for observations. There being no questions, do we have observations? Mr. Kanter — One thing I was looking at I thought it was interesting where it talks about when they combine White Pine, Pitch Pine areas. In this one, in particular, it says that it is a young stand and it's under -stock and it needs more time to develop and they recommend holding off and not doing anything with it. I think that is very interesting compared to some of the things we have heard in discussions about the Pitch Pine trees that might not be able to survive. It sounds to me like they are saying let them go and see if they do okay. 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Mr. Batley — Pitch pine, as a species, isn't indigenous to this area and actually to have planted it there, probably was a very poor choice of trees. Pitch Pines grow very well in sandy, welkdrained soil. Mr. Kanter — We're not sure they were planted. They basically came from outside the area and survived there because of the strange combination of soil and water. If you have information that they were planted, that would also be interesting, but we don't have any. Mr. Batley — I'll have to take a closer look, it would be very strange if they were not planted there. I would guess that they were planted there because often times what you will find is from 40 and 50 years ago when the DEC was pushing a lot of people to do plantings in old open fields that they considered just to be. open land that they wanted to put back into production. They would often time give groups of trees to people to plant, some Scotch Pine, some White Pine, some Norway Spruce and I'll guarantee you some Pitch Pine got snuck into the bundles that they did. Board Member Conneman — That was a big thing at one time to plant on all these farm fields. Mr. Batley — I have. seen Pitch Pines in other stands of the same type of things, where they are mixed in with Red Pine and Scotch Pine and some other plantings. It's indigenous more to costal area with very sandy soil. I worked in Massachusetts for ten years before I came here. Pitch Pines were the natural component in the. costal areas. Board Member Hoffmann — But, those reports, if you will look into them please, will point out to you there are other unusual plants there too. It has to do with a very unusual microclimate in that area around the South Hill Swamp. Mr. Vanderburg — Thanks for your time. I know you had to stay late tonight to hear this. Chairperson Wilcox — This is hardly late. Mr. Vanderburg - I know I've been here later with you. I'm glad we could share it with you and I think it's a very good plan. I think it's a good comprehensive plan. think it's the way we ought to be doing business with our forest land and we will look into the special unique plants that people have found up there and see if we share that same feeling once we look at it. Thank you. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 Agenda Item: Approval of Minutes: November 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Alrighty, I hereby move approval of the minutes of November 181h. Do I have a second? I've got a second from George Conneman. Any changes ladies and gentleman? After some discussion, the first name in the "Other" section of the minutes was eliminated and Chairperson Wilcox `s fourth statement on page 13 was reconfigured to read "He is welcome to come back to the Planning Board. He will be treated fairly, but I don't think he is going to be getting the benefit of the doubt. " PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 =101: Approval of Minutes - November 18, 2003 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the November 18, 2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Hoffmann The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Other Business. Chairperson Wilcox — Did everyone see the article in the Ithaca Journal "Say No to Sapsucker Woods Development" from last Friday? The letter to the editor. Did everybody get something in the mail about the end of year party, celebration. It's always in the afternoon, the last day of the year. I've already sent in my money. It's fun, it's a good dinner. I took a half day off so I could do it. Hopefully everybody can go. That's all I have Board Member Hoffmann — And we get gifts. Chairperson Wilcox — Sometimes we get gifts. They have prizes, that they give 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12/2/03 APPROVED 12/16/03 away and things like that. Anything from this end? AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the December 2, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Res ctfully S bmitted, Lo i e 33 7:00 P.M 7:05 P.M TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday December 2, 2003 AGENDA Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). SEQR Determination: Wiedmaier Five -Lot Subdivision, Corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22, Residence District R -15 and Conservation District. The proposal includes subdividing the 16.7 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots located primarily within the R- 15 District and one 12.3 +/- acre residential lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be accessed by one common private drive off Slaterville Road. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Frank L. Santelli, P.E., T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Reconsider Modification of Condition, Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition originally required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca, but was modified to submission prior to certificate of occupancy on October 7, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. 7:40 P.M. Presentation and discussion of a Forest Stewardship Plan prepared by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Ithaca College, Mark L. Zubal, NYSDEC Senior Forester, and Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca. College. 7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 2003. 0. Other Business: 10, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 2, 2003 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, December 2, 2003, at 215 North.Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22, Residence District R -15 and Conservation District. The proposal includes subdividing the 16.7 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots located primarily within the R -15 District and one 12.3 +/- acre residential lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be accessed by one common private drive off Slaterville Road. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Frank L. Santelli, P.E., T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent. 7:30 P.M. Reconsideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition originally required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca, but was modified to submission prior to certificate of occupancy on October 7, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca;.Owner HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. 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, November 24, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 The;lthaoa,`J our rlai L A Wednesday, November 26 2003:- TOWNsOF ITHACA `•_= 'PLANNING BOARD; :.�" PIIBLICsHEARING''; i Tuesday, • December 2, 2003 I; . •f By direct .0 the Chair - n Tuesdayy Dkember112,'z !0031 at 215'North,,Tio "ga> treat, Ithaca,` NN at the', :)Ilowing times and, an their allowing matters::- r 7:15 P M.,- Consideration= xner•• of` ;Slaterville Aocd.i nit ,Bums: •Road;;` =Town'• :of. i haca. Tax Parcel ", No: .22, Residence District I R- " 5 .and`. Conseryation:"rDis ict.' :TFien roposol` includes ib i i in I. the: cre ppaarcel' - .into- four • resi ential:lots'located primarily rittlm,the• R,15. District and +` residerr�`� al.' lot ?located'.witf in the.;; onservafi istrict ve lots 'will': e- access., . I; e comm on private "drive,; ff Slaterville'Road;''Clare; ieorge "•, W�edmaier`, ?" haver /Appplicant; Frank antelh,'P:E:, T.G. 'Miller,` C Agent`:' _ 7.30 ,P..M; •Reconsider''? on; of;modificafion `of -Coo-' lition s2x ,of the °September: 2003 P.Ianning::Boardl esolution :grantingg; :P.reliimr,; ary ':and . Fin ahISite,'PI n 1pprovol. ..for :the proposed enter located'at•'T r 0 Ha Bt Dates: Drive,'Jown'of'- iaca- T6ktParcel'No 24.3: 1; Residerice Dishi&'R -30 _6 Ad`condaion originally,re -; Aredjhe applica*to'su6 if',copy of 1he;Cer 4icate; 4. Need 'from': -.New ;,Y.ork, ate; : Health• =D6 '�aiiment' •ior.to issuance'o. 6 Build' - 6- Permit frornAe;Tow'h of'. iaca,.but was modified to;- bmis* *ion .- prior, to ceRifiso ,. rte-of 6ccup8ncy on: cO :r' 7_2003.',Cayuga Med al -- enterat`Ithaca, HOLT, Architects, PC pplicdnt: iid•Planning•B' will '.at' rid -times and said place' §ar all '..personslri, support such matters orobjections' i;Peai uy•uycm vim Noiwu..., Ilndmduals -.with visual . i� *irments hearing :;impau':> II� ments• or ''t other; "special needs, will be provided with ssistance - its :- necessary': II t.; n•_request. Pers6ns1desir :'. in assistance must .make: such a request not less than . �`48 hours prior to the time of, -the pubhnheanngs . ,r• I',`. Jonathan Kanter; AICP` Directer -of Planning 273-1747 :'D6tedo Monday-j- °'. :v - CNovember- 24,:2003 =' - {cia: PubWh:'Wednesday,' ,:November 26 2003;.;;:,.;. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION /'_ /% ! / .J n4,ia J D -yZ d - C�-o ut- 6�