Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-02-17s FILE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; David Dubow, Acting Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; . - EXCUSED: Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Harold Babcock, 262 Bundy Road; Carol Babcock, 262 Bundy Road; Anna Smith, 242 DuBois Road; John Bowers, 1406 Trumansburg Road; Celia Bowers, 1406 Trumansburg Road; Sharon M. Marx; 156 Bundy Road; Margaret F. Dill, Human Services Coalition, 100 West Seneca Street; Pat Hall, 1307 Trumansburg Road; Jerry Hall, 1307 Trumansburg Road; Gordon Walden, 121 Hopkins Road; June Walden, 121 Hopkins Road; Andrew Brink, 137 Hopkins Road; Denise McEnemy, 131 Hopkins Road; Joe McEnemy, 131 Hopkins Road; Dom Garcia, Tompkins County Action; Ted Bassani, Eagle Broadcasting; Joyce Merritt, 127 Woolf Lane; Sidney Merritt; 127 Woolf Lane; Alex Arker (no address given); Paul Mazzarella; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing, 115 West Clinton Street, Bruce Rich, 253 DuBois Road; Margot Chiuten, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP.; Joel Harlan; Newfield; Herb Engman, 120 Warren Road; Karen Governati, 1 Perry Lane; Daniel Governanti; 1 Perry Lane; Rhonda Bickford, 1466 Trumansburg Road; Albert Burkhardt, 3 Perry Lane; Mary Burkhardt; 3 Perry Lane; Uigiman Marques, 208 DuBois Road; David Gombay, 1452 Trumansburg Road; Robin Hamlish, 1230 Trumansburg Road; Steven Daughhetee, 245 Haytes Road; Carmen Blankinship, 222 Bundy Road; Daniel, Yohum, 208 DuBois Road; Robin Tessell, 135 Campbell Avenue, Tim Ciaschi, 120 Grove Road; Rhonda Bickford, 1466 Trumansburg Road; Virginia Markee, 208 DuBois Road; Don Crittendon, 173 Bundy Road; David Gombash, 1452 Trumansburg Road Chairperson Wilcox. declared the meeting duly opened at 7:06 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 February 9, 2004 and February .11, 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on February 11, 2004. . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 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. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, is it your birthday today? Board Member Thayer — How did you know that? Chairperson Wilcox — Casey Stevens. Happy Birthday. Board Member Thayer — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to point out that David Dubow is with us from Barney, Grossman, Dubow and Marcus, and he will be acting as the Town Attorney this evening. We welcome him. I would like to remind those of us up here in front to please speak in the microphones and speak clearly so that members of the public and the applicant can hear us as best as possible. Having said that the first item on this evening's agenda is persons to be heard. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m., if there was any member of the public who wished to be heard. With present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the 7:12 p.m. Male — I would just like to ask a question if I may. Chairperson Wilcox — Please do. Board Member Hoffmann — He has to come to the microphone. Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead, ask the question. and asked no persons meeting at Board Member Hoffmann — But you have to come to the microphone, otherwise we won't get proper minutes. I would like to emphasize to everyone who is speaking tonight that you have to speak into the microphones and you have to .carry that little portable microphone with you when you go over to drawings and such because we have had too many instances of it not being recorded. Male — I think this is a live one. Can you hear me Merritt. I reside on 127 Woolf Lane in the Town of the serious matter concerning the rezoning of the Road. And my question... Chairperson Wilcox — Sir? okay? My name is Sydney Ithaca. I am here tonight on land at 1290 Trumansburg 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Mr. Merritt —Yes? Chairperson Wilcox — Does this have to do with the Overlook project and the affordable housing project? Mr. Merritt — Is that what it is known by? This name? Chairperson Wilcox — Overlook at West Hill, yes. Mr. Merritt — So my first question is for the Planning Board, and I would like to know if any of you ladies and gentlemen have any personal business or otherwise interest... Chairperson Wilcox -- Sir...what the Planning Board is doing right now is we will give the applicant a chance to make their .presentation then we will open the public hearing. I have not opened the public hearing yet. Mr. Merritt — Then why am I here? Chairperson Wilcox — Because you said you wanted to ask a question and I wasn't sure whether you wanted to speak as part of... Mr. Merritt — Then I will wait for the answer. Board Member Talty — Unrelated to tonight's topic... Mr. Merritt — I think really, the status of the board is very seriously related to... Chairperson Wilcox — Then you are welcome to bring that up when we have the public hearing. Thank you. Joel. Harlan - You guys do a good job. Chairperson Wilcox -- Good evening, Joel. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — All right...at 7:13 p.m. the next item is the proposed Overlook at West Hill. AGENDA ITEM: Overlook at West Hill, 1290 Trumansburg Road Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a presentation this evening? Male voice -- Yes, sir. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Chris Papamichael, Aris Investments .— I would like. to discuss some of the changes that we have. made since the last meeting of December. A common concern that we have heard from the adjacent residents is the preservation of their view corridor and the amount of homes that will be abutting their site. Female voice from the audience Mr. Papamichael — So what we have done in order to alleviate some of this problem is to reduce the amount of for sale homes from 25 units to 15 units, with the larger lots facing towards the west end of the property. These are the lots that actually abut the homes on Hopkins Road. You can see the number of lots back here is drastically reduced. This will number one, further support their view corridor and will reduce the amount of homes that are adjacent to them. Another reason for the reduction in. the homes on the for -sale side was that for -sale homes generate more traffic than do the affordable homes. So the ten -home reduction will reduce the traffic count from the previous study. Another point to keep in mind in regard to density is that this is a 43 -acre site. It is a very large parcel of land. In-terms of density, although we are asking for rezoning to a multiple residence district the density is much more in line with the R -15 district, which under law allows 3.5 dwelling units per acre. So the amount of units proposed is actually less than the 3.5 units per acre. Under the multiple residence district, ,the zone requires a minimum of 2500 square feet per dwelling unit, which equates to the maximum density of 17 units per acre. While we realize this type of density is not realistic or feasible in this type of illustration, this does point out that our proposal of just over 3 units per acre is a low density, multifamily development. To further this point., we have researched other affordable housing. communities within the Ithaca market to compare their density versus the Overlook at West Hill. As an example, Linderman Creek the first phase was 56 units on 9.5 acres, which equates to a density of 6 units per acre. West Village, also on.west hill, is a 235 -unit development on .15 acres, which equates to a density of. 15 units per acre. Ellis Hollow, which is 100 units, is on 416 acres, which equates to a density of 21 units per acre. Longview, which is 161 units on 28 acres equates to 5.75 units per acre. .So a certain density clustering economies of scale is required to create and maintain feasible affordable housing developments. We feel that we have done whatever possible to maintain the balance of lower density and the feasibility of the Overlook at West Hill. The comprehensive plan for the Town does recognize the need for clustering and incentive zoning mechanisms to provide for much needed affordable housing. We are hoping that the community and Planning Board recognize this as well. At this time I would Like to hand over the floor to Peter Trowbridge. M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf — Thanks, Chris. I am going to reference primarily page 2 in the revised report that we provided the Planning Board. What that outlines on that page are all the revisions to the previous presentations and previous reports that we have provided the board. Rather than go through the entire presentation again, I know the board has seen this on a number of occasions; I would like to highlight the items that are primary changes. As Chris pointed out, the biggest change in the reduction in density, especially density immediately adjacent to the homes on Hopkins Road. Last time the .board was very interested in seeing a cross section across the entire site from Hopkins Road down to Trumansburg Road and we have.provided that. There is a certain amount of clarity I think you will see with the elevations at Hopkins Road at 1,045 feet where the highest elevation of units in the affordable housing section is 983 feet. So we are looking at a difference in the finished floor of housing on Hopkins Road and the highest elevation here at the first unit of approximately 60 feet in elevation change. So even with a 30 -foot or 35 foot high building, the view is well over the top of any of the rooms. I know last time the board was given a photograph that showed ... were provided a copy of the photograph by staff... Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, may I ask you to stop for a moment? Mr. Trowbridge — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen, you may come around if you wish and stand behind us or to the side so that,you can see. Thank you, Peter. Mr. Trowbridge — There was a photograph provided by the Burns from their home on Hopkins Road and we've studied the photograph and studied the section. The neighbors are absolutely; they will see the units as they look down the hill. If you see the Kyong house and Burn complex, the affordable housing units will be seen in the view much like the existing building on the site. So as you look down the slope, you will see the buildings, however the broad sweep of view to. the Cayuga Lake basin will be uninterrupted by the buildings as they are proposed, at least in this phase. Clearly, when there is single family homes built in near proximity to homes on Hopkins Road, the placement of those units could affect the view. However, as Chris said, we have looked at creating lots that are almost 2 acres in size in their proximity to the Hopkins Road homes so that the potential for view and reduction in density is greatest near adjacent homes. Board Member Hoffmann— Can I interrupt you for a second? Mr. Trowbridge — Yes. 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 212004 Board Member Hoffmann — Would you be able to show in that photograph from side to side where one Would be able to see the low income housing and also where one would see the other housing? Mr. Trowbridge = Well, Eva, the other housing, if you look in the foreground at this ridge, the market range housing certainly would be in this. foreground range. However, there is a military crest here and as I can show you from the section, the affordable housing is behind that crest and down the hill. So when you look at the site plan, the housing will primarily be in this location, the left hand side of the photograph and down the slope. Because if you put the Kyong buildings relative to the affordable housing units, what you see is that there roughly immediately west of the Kyong buildings. So they are right in this left half of the photograph. Board Member Thayer — Can you see 96 there, Peter? Mr. Trowbridge — Um, you can't see 96, but you can see the tops of the buildings. Board Member Thayer — And in the sketch, where is the Hopkins Road ... in the other sketch behind that. Mr. Trowbridge - Hopkins Road is right here. So this is a house that would be one of the homes on Hopkins Road. This other end of the cross section shows the Kyong buildings and route 96. So we are showing everything from the hospital property up through Hopkins Road. Board Member Hoffmann - And to continue on what I was just asking you, I am now seeing the cross section, which helps, but how much higher are the highest points of the new affordable houses compared to the highest point of the Kyong property buildings. Mr. Trowbridge — Um, the Kyong property buildings are approximately 910 feet and so the highest building is 70 feet higher in elevation than the Kyong buildings. Board Member Hoffmann — And would you be able to show in the photograph how high those roofs would look? Mr. Trowbridge — Again, they are. roughly... if you imagine the barns being approximately 45 to 50 feet tall, they are right about this dark line here. It would be the upper elevation of the roofs. Board Member Hoffmann — So you don't think that they would stick up above the tree line that is visible? 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Mr. Trowbridge = No. I think they are going to be right in line with the tree line that we see over at PRI and the hospital property. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Thank you. Mr. Trowbridge — So in addition to view, I know that the board was also interested in some.other site modifications last time. A few.other items that did come up, we talked with Brian Wilbur a couple of weeks ago because I think there was a concern at the community level that there wasn't adequate fire equipment and service on West Hill. I think the board has a letter saying clearly that Brian is quite satisfied with the level of service that they are able to provide on west hill. We did talk to Dwight Mingle regarding TCAT service and he would like to continue to have a conversation with the municipality perhaps with the Supervisor at some later date to talk about TCAT service. Clearly they are interested in providing public transportation to. the site. There are a few other issues that did get brought up by staff that we will be providing additional information at final site plan approval. The developer has selected an ensemble of play equipment, benches, surfaces and we will provide greater detail near the community center as well as site furnishings and bike racks. We have graded out the playing .field so that it is at a 3 percent gradient, a relatively flat grade for this half sized playing field.. And probably the biggest issues and I'll turn it over to Steve Forante in a minute, was the ongoing conversation and approval from New York State DOT regarding the intersection design that we've provided at the signal with the hospital. I just want to cover.a couple of other points. As you know, archeological studies have been complete,. both Phase la and b and SHIPO has reviewed and signed off on the project. We have done habitat assessment for the site and there are no new scarce or rare species that are available on the site. One of the other issues that did get brought up last time was the earthwork. David Herrick is here from TG Miller's this evening, but what we did do and Dan Walker can speak to this as well, did provide staff with a comprehensive grading plan that looks at grading the area of market rate housing and drainage and sedimentation controls for that area that have shown us that there really is no impact on any drainage relative to any houses on Hopkins Road, given the proposed fill and grade that will happen in that area. Unless there are some specific questions that board has about the overall site plan, what I would like to do is turn it over to Steve Forante, FRA Associates from Rochester. FRA Associates has done the traffic study for projects in the City limits, for PRI, and they have also done the assessment for hospital site. So they are very familiar with all the abutting users and have in -depth information. Steve Forante, SRF Associates — As Peter said, my name is Steven Forante, however Peter, I am with SRF and Associates, not our competitor FRA 7 r PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 2, 2004 Engineering. I needed to start over again. We have done extensive work in the City. We have worked in the Town and worked on 96 and a number of the roads in the project in the area. So we are familiar with it. We do a lot of work with New York State Department of Transportation. One of our main products and services is to provide reports, information to communities, information to boards relative to potential projects and that is what the traffic impact study reports are and do. We performed a full study for this project. As one might expect, access is proposed opposite of an existing signal that almost by itself dictates the need for a particular study. We submitted a study to New York State Department of Transportation. Our study was completed in September of last year. They responded to that with comments and subsequent to those comments, there has been changes. in the project as have been mentioned tonight, .specifically changes in density. Fewer numbers of single family units and there was a change in information that we were unaware of when we prepared our report that is the type of housing targeted for this area. It is not just typical apartments, but affordable apartments. We know we have worked on projects of that nature and we have better information and more accurate information relative to projects of that nature in their trip generating characteristics. So what we did is based upon the reduction in density and the type of use, we revised our analysis, that we submitted to New York State DOT with the new numbers that show the reduction in volumes. In particular, the volume of most concern to the New York State Department of Transportation is the left turn movement on 96 turning into the site once developed. The initial report, for everyone' benefit, we projected 6 left turns in the morning and 56 left turns in the evening, peak hour periods. That is a one - hour period. With the revised analysis, the numbers show that we anticipate 3 left turns in the morning and 35 in the afternoon peak hour. Very important because it is that number that potentially could hinder or restrict northbound flow, which in the afternoon peak hour is the heaviest: The peak directional flow is on the order of 700, 800 vehicles per hour in that one direction. We go through our analysis and we have done this with subsequent information submitted to the State to look at the need.for a left turn lane or any mitigation... any appropriate mitigation at this location. Taking into account the context of this project, the community values, the community goals, the intent of maximizing traffic safety and good. traffic operations. We went through our discussion and our analysis with the New York State DOT in a meeting in December. We summarized our comments to their letter and in essence, the items brought up at our. December., meeting we summarized that in a December 23, 2003 letter to NYS DOT. Specifically, what came out of our letters is that there are many factors that contribute to looking at what is most appropriate for an intersection of this nature, taking. into account all of the factors that include pedestrian activity, not just moving cars through a point as quick as we can that is the old school of thinking. We don't do that any more. Taking into account the nature of the traffic, taking into account what a road E PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 2, 2004 widening potentially would do and most importantly taking into account the safety issue and how that relates to the risk involved of the traffic, the future traffic as we project it, what risk. is there attached with that plan. We summarized all that with our arguments, with our positions in that letter. New York State has since reviewed that, reviewed the information and revised analysis and they responded in a January 8, 2004 letter, which in essence they conclude that a left turn lane as originally thought is not .appropriate in that area and that some .mitigation attached to the right turn lane that exists and in place is needed. We need to sign it. We need to put pavement markings down. Given the geometry and nature of this intersection, they felt that the risk and we felt that the risk, that was most important as I said, risk involved in traveling this area has been minimized or reduced significantly to the point of not justifying a.left turn lane. That in essence is what transpired since the last meeting here at the Town. I don't know if there are any other items you have questions for. Board Member Thayer – I'm not sure why the traffic would reduce because it is affordable housing. as opposed to some other kind of housing. Mr. Forante – As opposed to typical rental units of any sort. Board Member Thayer – Yeah. Why does that reduce the traffic flow. over 20 cars? Mr. Forante - A number of reasons. Often times with affordable housing the transit usage is much higher with projects similar in this nature. An example of this is the development of Linderman Creek. on Mecklenburg Road. .Across the street there is a transit stop. Transit is generally associated with affordable housing. People ride the bus versus driving. There is less car ownership with affordable housing than there is with typical rentals. Those are some of the factors and also, there is the likelihood, and we didn't factor this in, but there is a likelihood that a number of the population living in the proposed development would potentially work at the hospital and walk across. We didn't take a reduction for that, but I am just pointing it out. Those are factors that are real. Board Member Thayer -What is the percentage of the unit that is going to be affordable housing? Mr. Forante – I'm not the one to answer that exact figure. Mr. Papamichael – The full 128 units are proposed as affordable housing. Board Member Thayer – Is it all affordable? Mr. Papamichael – Correct, just as Linderman Creek. I believe that Steve has done the pre- Linderman Creek projections and post Linderman Creek.occupancy I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 study and the statistics in that study show in fact that the post occupancy study showed far less than projected in the original proposal. Board Member Thayer — And the other question I have is that you mentioned that quite a few people may be living there that would walk across the intersection. Mr. Forante — Potentially. Board Member Thayer — Potentially. What provisions do you have for letting them walk across? Mr. I Forante — We have discussed that with NYSDOT and with the traffic signal that is there, it needs modifications. We need to obviously put traffic signal heads on the proposed approach and well as pedestrian indications, such as pedestrian signal push buttons. Board Member Thayer — So you would have a walk lane there? Mr. Forante — Correct. If put in place, it would be put on the north side of the intersection or where you have the least number of cars in conflict with pedestrians. Mr. Kanter — Larry, also I think partly in response of your question, the Institute of Transportation Engineers tells you that when you look at their trip generation report to use local samples when you have none available. So SRF Associates did look at the actual trip generations of Phase I of Linderman Creek so that was part of the resubmission to State DOT. That obviously helps supplement numbers that are generated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Mr. Forante — That was a key factor that the State looked at. They made sure that we documented... it was fortunate that we did an after study as Mr. Papamichael said. We did an after study up to Linderman Creek to see exactly how much traffic is entering and exiting. We get a trip rate for that and we can apply it here. As Jonathan says, the Institute of Transportation says when you have information like that, they consider that better information than using national standards, and you have local rates and local information to base your projections on for comparable use. Any other questions? Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to talk briefly of level of service at the intersections? Mr. Forante — I can. Chairperson Wilcox — If you could, briefly based upon the revised analysis. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 29 2004 Mr. Forante — In our December 23`d letter to NYSDOT, we did a revised level of service analysis and for everyone's benefit, level of services is a way that traffic engineers use a method they use to qualify the operation of an intersection. The level of service ranges from A to F. Think of it like a report card. Level service A is pre -flow conditions, little if any delay. Traffic is moving freely at its convenience. Level service F is gridlock. Level service C is average conditions for most areas. For urbanized areas, level service D is considered acceptable conditions. Some particular movements at intersections generally left turn movements at an intersection, levels of service E are acceptable. It just depends on what the community's value, also on what is acceptable. But by national standards, level service D for urban conditions and level service C for rural conditions. When we did our revised analysis and we have results for every approach at this intersection for the am and pm peak hour conditions. We study those traffic periods because that is when the traffic is the highest. That is when you .would have. the so- called. poorest operating conditions; all other times of the day would operate better. During these time periods under full development, what we are projecting is a level service B condition overall for this intersection. That is a generalization.. I will be the first to tell you because if you want. to elaborate I could read off every approach for you and every movement for you and they range all from level service A to level service C, for all movements at the intersection. During the pm peak hour, which is the heaviest peak condition that is on page 5 of the December 23`d letter. Anything else? Board Member Hoffmann — You mentioned the affect of the change on the traffic flow coming from the south to the north and turning into this site in the morning and afternoon peak hour. Were there any other changes that made a difference at other ... not at other times, but at peak hours turning in other directions? Like turning out of the site, for instance, to go south on Route 96, Mr. Forante — Yes, to answer your question. With reduction in the number of units as well as making the adjustment to account for the type of housing that is proposed, all traffic movements will be reduced, are reduced. I just mentioned the reduction to the most where we call critical movement in NYSDOT's eyes, but all traffic movements and the total traffic generated by project is reduced _ as a result of those changes. Board Member Hoffmann — Is it reduced as significantly as in the example that you gave us? Mr. Forante — Yes, it is. I just gave it for one movement. It is the predominant entering movement in the afternoon, but the predominant exiting movement, for example, in the morning, the right turn out, would be reduced at a commensurate level. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Board Member Thayer — I understand that you are going to reserve some land for a left turn lane in the future? Mr. Forante — NYSDOT's letter mentioned that particular item. Board Member Thayer — Do they require that? Mr. Forante — I don't know if they required it. Mr. Kanter — It is a statement in their letter. Mr. Forante — It is a statement. Why I am not answering that directly, because the amount of right of way or space absolutely necessary for any future widening is a function of the design and what is it we are designing. Once you get into a design, if indeed it is for a left turn lane, then more detailed information is needed to answer... needed relative to shoulder width, travel lane width, alignment of the lanes going through the intersection. All these factors are typical preliminary design factors that then will tell us if we need that right of way. Board Member Thayer — Who will determine if and when that is needed? Mr. Forante — Either NYSDOT or a consultant that would submit a plan and the DOT would review and approve or disapprove of it. Board Member Thayer — And who would pay for it at that time? Mr. Forante — Depends who the applicant is. The applicant may be NYSDOT with a capital project coming through. It may be the hospital across the street. It may be this applicant. Board Member Thayer — But it wouldn't be the Town? Mr. Forante — No. This is a State highway. It definitely would not be the Town. Mr. Kanter — Just to clarify in the State's letter, they do mention the word require and the State will require the following measures and they talk about requiring the dedication of a right of way strip. I think what we will have to do is talk about what that means and what form we want that to be. in. State DOT was pretty clear that they were going to want to see something. Board Member Thayer — Right. That is. what I thought. Mr. Forante — What is important that I would like to share with you, we've been through exercises like this a number of times. We have learned to treat every project, every issue within the context of what it is. Do not go by the textbooks because there are a lot of changes that have taken place over the years where 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH .2, 2004 there is a little more flexibility in providing a more context sensitive solution to the issue. So that is the reason why I can't say unequivocally we need this amount of right of way here until such time as you go to the next level. . Thank you. I would like to turn it over to Paul Mazzarella: Paul Mazzarella, Executive Director of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services — Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services is a partner in -this project. Female — Louder. Mr. Mazzarella — I have been asked to address two issues that the Planning Board has raised in previous meetings. One is what is the impact that this project will have on the school population. And the second is does this project represent a concentration of affordable housing in the West Hill area that would be undesirable. So let me talk about the first one. The issue of school_ aged children is one that I think comes up with every single kind of housing project and in this case what we have tried to do is estimate the number of school aged children based on real information that we have with similar projects in this.area. So we looked . very closely at Linderman Creek and the existing rental- housing portfolio that is owned by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. We documented the number and ages of the school aged children living in those two projects and used that number to make an estimate of the number of children that would be living in the Overlook project. What we found was that first of all, not surprisingly the number of children living in any particular apartment unit is directly related to the size of that unit. One - bedroom units tend to have almost no children living there. Two bed units have more and three bedroom units have even more. This project will be a mixture of one, two, and three bedroom units with 25% one, 50% two, and 25% three bedroom units. Based upon the information that we got from Linderman Creek and the INHS portfolio, we estimated that there would be 101 school -aged children residing in the Overlook project. I should say that not all of them are school aged; these are children from 1 to 18 years of age. Based on that estimate of 101 children, we further estimated that 34 children would be attending the elementary school at Enfield. That Enfield is a number that I have discussed with Officials form the school district on several different occasions. I talked with May Burtliss, who is the principal at Enfield and I talked with Dr. Creig Evans, who is the assistant superintendent. He currently is in charge of the redistricting effort by.the Ithaca City School district. Both of those officials assured me that that number of 34 of even a higher number would not pose a problem for the population at Enfield school. That school has the capacity to absorb that number of additional children. They didn't fell like that was going to be an issue. I would also like to refer to a newspaper article from the Ithaca Journal last week, dated February. 11th in which Dr. Evans reported to the Ithaca School Board about this very issue of redistricting. And what was recorded last week wad the 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Dr. Evans and a consultant had been working on a study looking ahead the next 5 years to try and determine the number of students in the Ithaca City School District. What they are projecting is that there will be an actual decrease of 72 students overall in the whole district over the next 5 years. Dr. Evans is quoted as saying, "there is no space crunch in general". 1 think that is especially true for the Enfield school is because one of the things that I learned in this discussion was that Enfield as a, district within the Ithaca City School District tends to have more of its students open enrolling in other elementary schools like Bell Sherman or Cayuga Heights than any of the other schools. It certainly is more prevalent for students in the Enfield district to go to other elementary school districts than it is the reverse. So the conclusion here is that the number of students that would be living in the Overlook project would not pose a problem for Enfield or any of the other elementary schools in the district. I'm going to pause and ask if any of you have any questions. Okay. The second issue is what is the impact of Overlook on the overall distribution of low income or affordable housing in the Town of Ithaca. And really to answer that question I attempted to answer the question how much is too much low- income housing. There is very little guidance on that topic to be quite honest. I looked at the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan, which has a fairly extensive discussion about the need for affordable housing and the desirability of affordable housing and documents the fact that rental housing is very unaffordable for a lot of low- income residents of the Town of Ithaca. This is a Comprehensive Plan that was developed almost a decade ago and I would have to say in my professional opinion that was described then has only gotten worse for low- income renters. So, I think it is .a stated public policy of the Town of Ithaca to try to promote the development of affordable housing. However, there is nothing that says where it should be developed or how much of it should be developed. There is absolutely no guidance on that topic in your Comprehensive Plan. There is mention of the fact, however, that the area on West Hill along Route 96 near the hospital is seen as a desirable area for higher density development. Another way of trying to answer this question is to look at affordable housing as a percentage of all the other existing housing in the Town of Ithaca. What I found in mapping all the affordable housing projects in the Town and I did this for all of Tompkins County, I found that here are currently 329 affordable housing units and I want to define what I mean by that. By affordable housing or low income housing, we tend to use those terms interchangeably, I mean that is housing that is built and operated using some federal or state subsidy that requires that housing to be rented to people of low income at rents that are below market rate rents. In other words, this is a very formal regulatory type of housing that is provided. Of those 329 units, which represent slightly 5% of all the units in Town of Ithaca, 201 of those are currently senior housing and 128 are family units. With the addition of the 128 units at Overlook, it would bring the total portfolio of affordable rental units to 457 in the Town of Ithaca, which is about 6.61/o of all the IV PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 housing units in the Town of Ithaca. And just for the sake of reference, the 2000 census showed in the Town of Ithaca almost 50% of the renters who live in the Town of Ithaca are paying more than 30% of their income for rent with 30% being the generally recognized guideline for what is affordable versus what is not affordable. So we have a population or at least we had in 2000 of renters in the Town of Ithaca almost half of who are paying more than what is considered to be affordable for their rental housing. So the question of whether this housing. is need I think is really a moot question. I think it is obviously needed and a lot of discussion has been going on in Tompkins County lately about. this. Last week, for example, there was a meeting sponsored by Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of Tompkins County that brought together over 125 people who were interested in talking about the need for affordable housing in Tompkins County as a whole. So the final question I guess you have to answer for yourselves is whether this housing, which is near Linderman, about a mile way, it is near West Village about 1.5 miles away, represents too much concentration of affordable housing in one area. I think in answering that question, you also have to ask yourself what is it about affordable housing or what is 'it about low income housing that is seen as undesirable. I have heard a lot of people comment about the fact that this seems like too much, but very little specific information about why it is too much has been presented. My own opinion as a practitioner in this field is that many of the misperceptions about affordable housing are simply that. They are misperceptions about the, people that live there and the impacts on the community.. One of the things that I have found is that many of the people who are living in affordable housing are people that you know, work with. and have decent paying jobs, but still need affordable housing. We expect that many of the people that live in Overlook will fall exactly into that category of wage earners that simply need a little more help to make their housing affordable. Are there any questions? Chairperson Wilcox — There are none. Mr. Mazzarella — Thank you. Mr. Papamichael — I remember last time that Mr. Conneman has asked for other affordable housing developments or other developments and we had referred to Meadows Town Homes that we own in Lansing, NY as one of our properties. We would also like to show a couple of the developments that our development partner has developed. These are both affordable housing complexes. These are a little bit higher density. These are located in NYC in East New York, Brooklyn. They are both tax credit properties under the 4% tax credit program. They both cater to low income or affordable residents at the 60 and 50% area medium income area. If you were in this neighborhood, you would see that this project looks better or equal to the market rate product available in that are. By looking at the picture, you can see that design, thought, landscape were all key 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 elements on this development. To illustrate that afford housing can blend in well with the surrounding areas and can be quite attractive. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a financial interest in this? Mr. Papamichael — Our development partner does, yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a financial interest in this? Mr. Papamichael - I personally don't. Chairperson Wilcox — But the company you represent does? Mr. Papamichael — No. One of our development partners in this development has a financial interest in those developments. So the Overlook limited partnership that would develop this partnership has a financial interest in that part. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Comments? Board Member Thayer — I am concerned about the concentration on No mention was made of the 64 units that were approved on Cliff Street, west hill. Chairperson Wilcox — They are in the City. Board Member Thayer — They are in the City, but still West Hill. With Linderman Creek and this one, it seems like it is pretty weighted toward west hill, but I have no objection to the affordable housing. I think it should be in smaller units in more neighborhoods so that it can be absorbed in, in little easier steps than just pushing 100 and some odd units in one area and then another 200 in another area and 64 in another area, all within 2 to 3 miles of each other. Applause from audience. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments? Please hold your applause to the end. Board Member Hoffmann —.In one of the letters that we got in our packets, there was mention of this City development and that was the first, well it wasn't the very first, I think I had seen it in the newspaper maybe the day before, but that was the first time that I had even heard about it. I wasn't aware of that and the implication was that this had been known. It certainly wasn't known to me. Board Member Thayer — It wasn't in the paper for some reason. 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 21 2004 Mr. Kanter — I did check with the City. Planning Department about that. project today and I did not get any information that it was an affordable housing proposal. They did confirm that it was 63 dwelling units in 8 buildings. My understanding is that it is market rate apartments, but if you know something that don't... Board Member Thayer — No. I don't, but that was my question earlier. Affordable housing as opposed to market rate housing seems to be kind of a shady difference there. Mr. Kanter — Market rate is without any kind of subsidies or low- income housing tax credits or any other... Board Member Thayer — That is what I was concerned about. I didn't think that this project was totally affordable, but I guess it is and Marinelli who is one of the developers down there in the 64 units on Cliff Street just told me it was affordable. So that was the information that I had. Chairperson Wilcox - Any other comments at this point? All right, we will give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and gentlemen, at 8:00 p.m, the next item is a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of SEAR Determination regarding subdivision approval, site plan approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change, Overlook at West Hill, 1290 Trumansburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — For those of you who were here when we last met on this topic and began the public hearing, I will ask you to raise your hands. I will call on you. It is not my intention to impose time limits; therefore, I ask that you stick to the subject. I ask that you be polite. We will try not to interrupt you. I ask the audience to sit and listen and I ask the applicants to do the same. If you get off topic, I just might interrupt you and ask you to get back on topic. I had one person who came up before the meeting and asked to speak early, so Marg Dill if you are out there, why don't you take advantage of that and then I will open it up to everybody. Marge Dill, Director of Human Services Coalition (please see attached letter, attachment #1) — My remarks resemble those of Paul Mazzarella. I have a fact sheet on the Town of Ithaca in great part based on a 1.5 year long study that we did on the needs in the Tompkins including all the residences. This is the study that we did. If you go by size, it is a big fat one. It is also posted on the United Way site. So some of what .I am giving you is coming from here. So what I am providing information about is to demonstrate the need for ... I realize the issues 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 that are coming up today are not all about simply affordable housing. They are about issues of placement and all of that. I'm speaking to the issue of affordable housing, the need for affordable housing in the Town and to look at income data. Nearly 40 percent, and this is census, of the Town of Ithaca's households have incomes of less. than $35,000 per year Nearly 30 percent of the Town of Ithaca households have incomes of less than $25,000 a year. So, to my way of thinking this makes the affordable housing that is being proposed housing for your neighbors and residents of the Town of Ithaca. Of the 128 units, as [understand it, 64 are for families at 60 percent of the federal median income. Sixty percent of the median income for a family of four in Tompkins County defined by HUD is $34,320. So that would be the income of the families seeking or assume allowed to rent. Forty -four units are at 50 percent of the family median income and that would be again, according to HUD for Tompkins County, to $28,600 and 20. of the apartments are for families at or below 30 percent of family median income defined for Tompkins County by US HUD as $17,150. Those below 30 percent and maybe even a little higher, I know from. my other work .would be eligible for family vouchers or what people call Section 8. At the moment, people have those vouchers and cannot even find housing with them. That is the desperate situation we are in with safe, affordable housing. We did something very special. It hasn't been done in 10, 15 or ever in Tompkins. We actually did a household survey. We phoned 1500 people and reached 500, so our veracity level is pretty high and asked them what their needs. So in addition to the usual suspects, stakeholders, experts, the kinds of folks that have a pretty good opinion in their area of work, we asked the people what we thought the needs were in their homes and in their communities. They came up with a greater or lesser degree with the same issues, but they weighed them differently. But. the response from the Town of Ithaca was that 54 percent of the Town of Ithaca residents said a shortage of affordable housing was a critical problem in their community and 9 percent of the Town of Ithaca residents said not having enough money to pay for housing was a critical problem in the last year. Seventeen percent of the Town residents said they had not been able to afford to move to a new home was a critical problem in the last year. That.one kind of surprised us a bit. So those are the facts that we have. As I said, I realize that there are multiple issues here and I commend you all for struggling with them. I hesitated to say this, but I grew up in I guess what you would call now affordable housing, housing projects in Boston. Lord knows they weren't talking about safety and density then. They were known, which made people who moved into them quite proud. They called them the Veteran's projects. They did have some small apartments with one bedroom, but they had three and then they had a building with four bedroom apartments and that is where we lived because there were seven children. That hallway had 36 kids in it and it was six apartments. The mothers took turns polishing the mailboxes, hanging the lace curtains and they were very proud of these new spaces they had. And in my E PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH.2, 2004 seven kids with the six that were there, there is an accountant, a nurse, two post office workers, and a nurse practioner and then there is the black sheep, the human services administrator, that's me. I. never can understand what I do. think what I am saying is these are your neighbors now. These are the people of the Town of Ithaca that you are discussing housing for. Thank you for your time. Board Member Hoffmann — Before you leave, can I ask you a question:. Ms. Dill - Sure. Certainly. Board Member Hoffmann Since you did such a detailed study, do you know if any of the people who qualified here are student families? Ms. Dill — Of the people that we called? Board Member Hoffmann. — Of all the people that you found who have incomes that make them qualify for affordable housing. Ms. Dill — That data came from the census. So if the census used the students then it would include students. Mr. Kanter — The census does include students. Ms. Dill — There are some data and maybe I can get it for you, it has just been developed by the County itself where they extracted the students from the census, not that we want to do that, but they did. So we can come up with different, for all of our planning, we can come up with different incomes so I can get that to you. But that is a very good point. Board Member Hoffmann — But you don't have that information? Ms. Dill — Not now. It has just come out. Thank you for reminding me. Any questions? Board Member Talty — I have a question. It sounds like where you grew you are very proud and I love to hear when people shine their mailboxes and things of that sort. My question is, have you been to that neighborhood recently and how has is it now? Ms. Dill — Well, I grew up in two housing projects. One was in Charlestown and one was in Jamaica Plain. When I went back to Charlestown I was little there, it was all broken apart and everything had plywood all over it and it was a mess. I was trying to show my husband where I had grew .up. When I went back 10 years after that to show my.daughter, who was going to college in Boston, it had all been spiffed up again. New playground equipment, new doorways, new windows, but Charlestown had had a renovation. The houses my father used to 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 212004 live in, which were extraordinarily poor are now selling as condominiums. The same thing happened in Jamaica Plain. It became very, very low income as we moved out and people moved in and went very down hill and then took another turn around and now it is called the other Cambridge and I probably could not afford to live there. So, it is a cycle within urban society. I'm not part of that any more. Board Member Talty — Thank you. Ms. Dill — Your welcome. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me see a show of hands. John Bowers, 1406 Trumansburg Road — (Please see attached statement, attachment # 2) Mr. Bowers — So, that is basically what I have to say. The idea I think is fairly simple, but it seems that nobody has quite interpreted the data in the way that I think it emerges very clearly when you just look at the facts. So for that reason I really feel that approving a major zoning change in the Town of Ithaca on West Hill where we already have several major "affordable" housing projects would be .a big mistake. The HUD guidelines, I am sure you are all aware, currently advocate spreading affordable housing around. They specifically say it is not a good idea to concentrate affordable housing and housing for low- income people in one particular area, which is another reason for not putting up another major development here. Finally, I would simply like to say that I am not opposed to affordable housing. I am not opposed to housing for people with low, income. The, problem is ... the real problem is the very low, lowest income people. That is where the problem is. Overlook is not going to solve that problem. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Applause Chairperson Wilcox Ladies and gentlemen, I may have said it in a way that you may have thought that I was kidding, but please hold your applause to the end. This gentleman has been waiting very patiently. I apologize for not letting you come up sooner. Sydney Merritt, 127 Woolf Lane — The Overlook presentation was very professionally introduced, almost as though its implementation was a done deal. But as a resident of the Town of Ithaca, I just don't want it there. It is just that simply expressed and I am expressing the sediments of only myself, but I am here at the bequest of others expressing the same concerns. Now, we are tax- paying residents and I don't know how the residents of this Town of Ithaca were PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 2, 2004 considered regarding this project. But I think if you did, or if you did it extensively, you would discover that very few if any people would want it.. I seriously doubt if any of these gentlemen would move into the Overlook project. That is all that I have to say. Board Member Talty — Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin. Board Member Talty — Before you walk away, sir, he had a question with regards to if any of the board members had an interest in this project. I would like to make sure that we all address that. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to raise that point? Mr. Merritt — No. I'll pass on that one. I think your integrity is beyond reproach. Celia Bowers, 1406, Trumansburg Road (please see attached statement, attachment #3) = First of all I would like to thank the board for actually acting on a couple of the proposals that I made earlier about the 15 year limit and the placement of the playground for small children, which in the earlier plan was inside the traffic. circle where the buses went around an I see that has been changed. I think those are two changes that will really promote safety. Because my statement was based on the older plan and some. changes are brand new, some of this will be outdated and I will try to adapt it because I still think there are serious problems of safety in this development. I have lived on Trumansburg Road for 25 years and I. have seen a lot of families come and go, buying houses on this road and leaving. It has been quite apparent over the last 15 years that traffic concerns are such that parents with young children are not buying on Trumansburg Road. I only know one family currently on Trumansburg Road, which has young children. There are four families in Candlewick who have children, but I think most of those are preschool and they are student families, I believe. There is only one residence that has children of school age in it. Now this has been a trend that we have seen over time and it is a trend we have seen overtime for a reason. When my oldest two children were 14 and 15, which is 12 years ago and being British I said, "hey, there is bus down at the medical center. I'm not driving you kids around any more. Go use it." Within less than a month, I had three near accidents. The third one was serious enough that my oldest son had to leap out of the way of a car and hit the ditch and had some serious injuries. At that point, I admit, I'm lucky. I was able to say okay, you can still take the bus, but I will take you to the Professional Building and I will pick you up from the Professional Building. I realize. I am lucky. I have a husband. I could afford to do this, but we have to...and I'm not saying that I am a better parent than any of the parents who will live in this development, I am sure they are very nice people, but they will be 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 living away from most of the centers of work. We have to face facts. The lower income level people in any community in the United States tend to be women with children. They may not have ... we have been told by the developers that these people will be very much less likely than the average population to have cars. We have a situation where their children, the children of this development, will be going to and from the bus. I did ask the developers early if they would put in a sidewalk. I know that if this development goes through that there is going to be a sidewalk to the Professional Building where the bus stops and downtown in Ithaca where the sidewalk starts. It is either going .to be put in before you approve this or it is going to be put in after kids are killed. I have absolutely no doubt about this. I just beg you to walk the Trumansburg Road. Walk it in the morning. Walk it on a Saturday morning. Walk it at night. I don't know if you realize, the buses from downtown stop at 7:00 p.m. There are only three buses on Sunday. If children want to access all the child services downtown; especially for teenagers, the young kids are probably fine here, but the teenagers are not going to want four computers in a computer room, they are going to want to play basketball at the youth center. They are going to want to go and swim in.the two swimming pools. downtown. They younger ones may want to go to GIAC. They will want to go to the library. They might want after school jobs at Tops and Wegmans and after 5:00 p.m. on Sunday and 7:00 p.m. weekdays; those kids are going to be walking home. I have no objection to that. I don't see why any member of the board should have any objection to the kids walking home, but they have a right to walk home in safety. This project is big enough so it doubles the population on Trumansburg Road in Town of Ithaca. I went to a map and it is very hard to estimate how many families are living in one house and whatever, but as far as I could find out, this project doubles the amount of families and it increases the number of children by a factor of ten. We absolutely as a first priority to make sure these kids are safe and I don't think they will be safe without a pedestrian crossing light and a sidewalk that leads downtown. I had some more comments about the specifics of this development, but actually, .I think they are less important than this. It the board feels that this is an exaggeration, I just really beg you to walk the road. This is the truth. When I visit my friend who lives across the road, I get in my car. I grew up in Brittain, we don't do that kind of thing, but .I don't cross the Trumansburg Road. I get in my car and drive, literally 25 yards into her driveway because just crossing the road I had so many near accidents. Several residents of the road have recently petitioned the post office to allow mailboxes on both sides of the road because it is getting so difficult to access the mailboxes. The Trumansburg Road is a State road. It is not a local road. All the trucks that are going to Geneva and Rochester go along our road and they speed. Just recently one of those articulated trucks went into the ditch, just by the site in front of the Kyong 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH.2, 2004 property. It must have been going 80 miles per hour. It cut a swale along the ditch that was at least 100 yards long. If kids had been walking along the side of the road at that time, they would be dead. They would be dead. I counted from, my house, which is about 0.5 mile from this property. I am not going to see it. I'm not going to hear it, but I've counted, in November alone, 28 dead deer by the side of the road, 28 in 3/4 of a mile. Okay, so there is too many deer, but there aren't too many children. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, ma'am. Dan Governanti, 1 Perry Lane — My wife Karen and I moved here in 2000. We enjoy living on west hill and Perry Lane. I have a few questions. I think our main concern as being residents here really involves these traffic issues and not the traffic issues of. where the intersection will be, but everyday we travel to and from work and downtown. It appears that 96 as it goes into the City is getting worse in terms of traffic. I don't know about the level of service ratings, but certainly I have encountered. many "F" days of gridlock both in the morning and in the evening. There has been numerous times where I have pulled out on Bundy, if I can get out from Bundy to 96 in the morning, the line of cars is just steady. I have to wait until the hospital traffic light changes to get a shot to get out'. And there has been many of time that I have been surprised recently,. especially this year, that as soon as you turn right from Bundy onto 96 headed south, right past Altera, I have been .faced with bumper, bumper traffic all the Way down through the octopus, Buffalo to Route 13, really bumper to bumper and stopped and not just because the train came through. I think our main concerns are the worsening traffic issues on 96 from downtown right straight up. 1 am also concerned, this is the first time I have seen the project, that there appears to be a back entrance or back exit. on to what I guess is Hayts Road and then traffic could travel Hopkins and then onto Bundy. That concerns me that people .having difficulty on 96 will find that alternative. My advice is, really, the Planning Board has to look at the traffic in that situation. I can't imagine all these additional families and whether it is buses or cars or people walking that the road can really handle that much more. Although I am not an expert, it appears from what I see of the road especially down on Cliff Street; there really is no room for growth. No room to widen the road without major access. Another concern is coordinated planning with other municipalities. We have already heard the City limits on 96 have something going on. I don't know if that is going to enter or exit on 96 or onto the lower road. What is north of the Town and what are those municipalities doing. It is a'major corridor. You can't just plan for the Town of Ithaca on this segment without considering what is going on below and above and how all is going to add up. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 In terms of the scope of the project, I am learning tonight about Phase I and Phase II and I would just ask you to ask the developers is all their analysis and all their projections based upon both of those phases included. I haven't seen any of the information. Another question that comes to mind is, is there any other phases, Phase III, Phase IV, Phase V or anything like that. The question about taxes, again I don't know I received some information that there is going to be some sort of tax credits or abatements. Certainly that is an important question. Are we providing tax credits and tax abatements for how long and for what reasons? All those things. Questions about financing:..we have heard that it is going to be affordable subsidized and somehow that means federal and .state. Are these federal and state loans being used as housing loans that require subsidies? Are any of the subsidies going to be rent subsidies? Section 8 subsidies and all those other kinds of things? I think the previous public speakers have made excellent points. More so than I even thought of when came here. Again, based upon what I have heard so far tonight, I would have to say I would not be in favor of the project, especially concerning the traffic and the safety issues on Route 96 and I urge you to consider those factors. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. All the way in the back I see a hand, don't see who is attached to it, but I see a hand. Can I speculate that you are going to be a 5, 10, or 15 minutes? Female — Yes, you can, but when I get up to ask a question about this picture, what is the protocol for this so that I don't get screamed at? Chairperson Wilcox — Take the microphone and take it with you. Can you grant me two minutes to run down the hall? Female — I can grant you two minutes. Anne Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road — (please see attached petitions, attachments 4 & 5),I would like to Thank you for listening to me and what I have to present tonight. Hopefully, I will be articulate and clear and if you have questions, I'd love to have them directed to me now and not afterwards because last time when I spoke somebody on the Board said that I should be taking my concerns to the police department, to the schools and to other places of which point, I already had and was trying to make a point about the problems that we have. I begin tonight by telling you that I agree with most of my neighbors that zoning is a pretty sacred agreement between a town and it's residents. I decided to take a percentage of people in an area to find out if they felt the same ways that I do or what they feel about it. So, I went up and down Bundy Road, I asked the residents and I have before me a petition that everybody on Bundy Road, every resident but four signed. The reason four did not sign was because they were not home. They were either in Florida or our of town and they had gone away for the ►. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 winter. I present that with you because they felt as I do, that when you make a re- zoning change, such as this, there should be strong community support and I think when you get 100 percent of residents telling you in one area that this is not strong support. So, I would like you to take a look at this and to consider this. I also just asked people around in the Town of Ithaca and people that I saw and asked me questions about it because they knew that I was interested in it and they said they'd like me to get a petition going for them so that when I had it, they said do you have anything for me to sign and I would. So, I present you more signatures and, to be honest with you, I didn't do a full count of all of them. I probably should. Maybe I can do that and report back. The other questions of concern, there are many questions brought up that don't seen to be answered and, for me, I think this developer- has been a little bit, at best, I guess, I'd say misleading. Today, he spoke, from Trowbridge, said they had talked with Brian Wilbur, who is the Fire Chief about our concerns about having enough fire trucks on West Hill and how well we'd be provided and their letter said that several residents expressed concerns that there is not enough fire - fighting equipment capacity on West Hill, specifically that there is only one fire truck for all of West Hill. In his response back, he said the truth of the,matter is that there is only one fire pumper in service at any of our four fire stations, West, South, East Hill and Central Station downtown. Central Fire Station has an aerial ladder and service. Each of these fire trucks generally has a crew of just . two fire- fighters. He goes on to talk about how when a fire is reported, it takes more than just one of these fire trucks. At least two engines and an aerial will respond to a fire alarm activation. The letter continues to say "This is not to say that additional growth is of no concern because it is. Added growth will increase demands on the fire department the same as it will place additional burdens on other elements of the community's infrastructure. The greater the demand, the higher the probability that response times will increase." When I listen to him say that there wasn't a problem, that alarmed me because, quite clearly, in this letter, he does deem that there is a problem and that we do need to take this into consideration. He may have been talking about regards to their project, Overlook, and says that they've done, I will interpret, additionally our discussion on the fire protections issues, including fire department access and hydrant locations will help to ensure that the Fire Department's needs relating to this project are properly considered. So, putting in sprinklers and fire hydrants, hopefully will prevent a fire, but that doesn't mean that we're still protected. The other issue of concern was about traffic. I spoke with John P. Ettinger, who did the traffic study and I've spoken with him several times. The last time I spoke with him was in January, before the cancelled meeting, a week before that cancelled meeting. I said, could you give me an update on what's going on because the last time we had spoke, he said that there was required left hand turning lanes to be put in by this development. The reason given was that it was a dangerous. intersection and the traffic flow and what not. So I asked him what the update was and he said that they have backed off on the required turning F PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 lanes from the developer because that Linderman Creek assessments, when they did the traffic study, were very similar to the people that were going to be living here. He also told me that this was a dangerous intersection. I repeated that because I don't think the Town Planning Board or people that are coming. to these meetings. are hea.ring this, you still are saying this is a dangerous intersections. He said, Yes I am." What needs to be done was, he told me, " There was a lot of work that still needed to be done on this, one was that the signal needs a work permit .and there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the signal." Also that they are requiring donated land. The fact that he didn't know that alarms me because he was quite clear that the land needed to be donated to the Town "...at further -which the Town could pay for this turning land." I quote. him. Also that they had to move the retention pond farther to the west and put in a pole at the light and he talked about stresses of poles. I asked him about when the traffic study was done and we had talked quite a bit about the raw count because we thought the raw count was pretty important at Linderman Creek. I brought at that this traffic study was done in August, when schools weren't in session at that time. He said "Yes, .that's why we wanted the raw counts from Linderman Creek so we could process this. The raw counts at Linderman Creek were done in July of 2001, which 56 units. I.wonder how many units were even vacated at that time. Who was living there, if anybody? Was it 100 percent vacancy? Not? I would like to know the answer to that question. He also said that the last historical. data was in the mid- 1990's at that .could also use an updating. So, I would like you to take into consideration or even call him and ask him his interpretation of what this was before you make an decision on it. My impression was that this still is a dangerous interception, regardless of how many cars go in and out of there and it is a real problem and it needs to be fixed. The other issues of concern that haven't been answered..One is TCAT and, when I talked to the DOT, he had also told me that the developer provided new information on TCAT, that they were actually going to go into the housing development and have a turnaround there: 1 didn't hear that tonight and I didn't see any evidence that that is going on. In fact, I've heard that TCAT is still in communication and they are having conversation. So, how can you put this forward when we don't even know if TCAT is on board to provide services to the people that are going to live there. I think that is something what we need to ask and get answered. The Environmental Impact Statement earlier said that this wasn't an appropriate site and I haven't heard anything more about it. The long- term planning, I'm not sure what is in the long -term planning. Are you going to re- zone another district and change that again and not have the residents know it. We just put in a long -term. plan, which didn't have this zone, which didn't talk about the high density that they are talking about, so I am a little confused there. Also, the police burden hasn't been addressed and the schools, which were brought up, clearly haven't been brought up again about the kids with special needs, that there is not room for them in Ithaca. If 30 percent of the people are coming from outside our community, we can't provide services for these children. There is much information that says children are, and .this is according to Dr. 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES • FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Creig Evens that in this type of housing you are going to get more kids with special needs, it is inevitable, they have research on it from the school. They have no place for them. They keep saying "Well nobody has a place for them in the Ithaca City School District, so it's not a big deal." It is a big deal is you are one of those kids without services and you are a family- that is trying to get this service. The sidewalks are something that were brought up at point, but they are not back in the picture. When I look at these pictures, I still don't see where the parking is, although, last time at the meeting, we were told " Oh ignore those, we'll fix those, we'll get in parking." There's not parking shown there, .there is lots of green grass and some trees that have been added. There is also housing now on the water easements, which weren't on the original plan, so how does that happen? Why is that okay and who gave permission for;that? Now it's in this new plan here. Now I would like to just get up and talk about the picture a little bit because I am confused. As you look at this picture, they're telling you, he said that this housing is going to come in through here. Well, when .I looked at the maps, quite specifically, they have this tree marked there as a forty.foot pine and on that site, it's one of many of these units. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I interrupt you by asking you to specifically say, for the record, which pictures you are looking at. In the first place, it's a photograph, but it might have some information that might tell us specifically. Ms. Byrne — It's the view from 137 Hopkins Road. Chairperson Wilcox — It's her photograph. Ms. Byrne — The second one is an illustrative site plan. Is that what this is? So, when I look at this illustrative site plan, that tree, according to how I can figure. it out is somewhere in here, like, on this building. So, if you go back to this picture, that would mean that it's here and if you notice all of these come around to the front and here's my property, so I am going to be looking at all of this and I don't see how that doesn't take up all of this space right in here. It does not make any sense to me, the way that they've diagramed it out and I've looked at it very carefully. So, I.ask for better clarification because this brush, in through here is where they are gong to put the fill from the excavation, as much as. I can understand this. I don't know if that brush is going to stay there or where the 25 feet back to the line, but you are looking at my property line and this is 25 feet back. It kind of drops down, they have left this brush all in here. It kind of dips down again and then you have all this up here. If this is a forty foot tree and this is 30 feet high, these buildings, we're looking at it up in here. So, I'm very confused by this and it doesn't make sense to me. I thank you for listening to me and hope that you would also recognize that of the neighbors that I went to and spoke to, not a. single one of them said that they are against affordable house, not one and I never heard them say anything about the stigma that is attached to 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 people that live in affordable housing, of trying to talk about what kind of people live there and that they are afraid of them, none of that came out. So, I want you to know that the people behind this are sincere. They feel that their houses are not affordable anymore because their taxes are so high, go talk to them, they will fill your ear with that. They are very good people and wan to work with the community. This is just not the way it should be done. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, you have your hand up. Give us a second Joel. Just for the record, may I call you Ann, you've handed me a petition with two pages of signatures. And then I have one, two, .three, four, five additional, which says "We the undersigned are . against the proposed re- zoning of 1290 Trumansburg Road. Good evening Joel, name and address. Joel Harlan, Newfield- I don't know. I just am. astounded. With all the meetings I go to, it is the same attitude. You want to bring in money, bring in development, but then you've got the anti - developers coming on full throttle no matter where it is in this County, especially around the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca. All you guys up here in front of me should know that. I don't know how many meetings I've been to here, anything that comes in this Town, they come out to stop it, Burger King, you name it, on and on. Also the City of Ithaca. Everybody says, well, we're getting something for ourselves, but watch the anti - developers. Oh yeah, the come out, they're like communism, they are coming out of the trees, they're saying things. These developers should know what Ithaca is all about, they've been here. They've been a City trying to get developed and they're getting pushed against a wall for no development because they don't want it in their back yards. Take a look at that Ithaca Gun Company. How long is that Ithaca Gun Company going to be vacant? They turned down a guy, wanted to make a developed net , condos, money. That building probably won't have nothing there for another seven, eight years. Chairperson Wilcox = Joel, stay on the topic please. Mr. Harlan — What I'm going to say is when it comes to development, no matter if it is the Town of Ithaca of Ithaca or Lansing, there is too many people coming out of the wood work to stop it or slow it down. A lot of you guys, especially the Common Council, the new Mayor. I `m trying to say is, if you want money, go for it, if you don't, pay it down, because it's only going to deteriorate anyways. It's coming. I can see you guys are backed up against a wall. Well, at least one thing I've got to say about this, I have a high respect for Alan Cohen because he stuck to his guns on development and he didn't listen to thses anti - developers. You guys have got to do the same thing. You've got to stick to your gun if you want development. If not, turn it down, you're losing money. Well, I'm glad Alan Cohen stuck to his gun. We wouldn't have a thing in this Town. Walmart, all that development. We wouldn't have it if he didn't stick to his gun because the new administration will probably work the Hoffin way and not even do anything with it 111M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH.2, 2004 to bring in development to make money. The thing is nowadays is money and you. are passing it bay. I'm .glad Alan didn't pass it by and he went against what you are facing now. He stuck to his guns. You've got to stick to your guns if you want this development and the next development coming up. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel. Tim Ciaschi, 120 Grove Road — I promise to be the quickest speaker up here. First of all, I think there is not a person in this room that is against affordable housing. I think it's good for a community. The real question is do we have too much of that on one hill and one hill only. In other words, I think it needs to be dotted throughout the community, not just West Hill. So' I think I'm here to speak for the rest of the land owners to say that it is a pretty lopsided egg that is going on our side and you'll probably get about 99.9 percent of the people against this, only because we've already got enough over there, just like Larry said earlier. So, I think you, as a Planning Board have to decide what is fair for the whole community. You need to take into consideration this side of the room over here, with all the tax payers who live there as opposed to this side of the room, that is a limited liability partnership and because it has a little tag and. nothing against Ithaca Neighborhood Housing or Cornell or IC, but it seems like every time those names are associated with limited liability and corporations, you all get blown away and it is for the good of the community automatically because it has Cornell's name on it or Ithaca Neighborhood Housing. I think we have to realize that this is your neighborhood back here, we live here, we drive through that traffic. As an example, there was a big issue with the pumping station and there wasn't a single person for it, but it went through and we could almost..learn from that because, in the. long run, it did benefit a lot of people in Ulysses and further up the line, so it made a lot. of sense. It was something really hard to take, but it was for the betterment of the community. Here, I think there are a lot of other areas that could be developed for this kind of housing and you have to drive by to believe what Linderman just did up there and now we're looking at a whole other scenario on the same hill. I think all the issues with traffic, police, fire fighters, these are all things that are going to be coming into consideration with that many homes up there and it is just not a good fit and I'm not for it at all. Chairperson Wilcox — I see a hand back there. Yes, that's all I see, the hand. Rhonda Bickford, 1466 Trumansburg Road — I can tell you the road is very, very busy right now. In the summertime, when we have our windows open and the trucks and the motorcycles go by we. can't hear each other talk, we can't hear the radio. We have to wait until they pass and that's a lot, there is a lot of traffic on that road. I just can't imagine a development with 128 units not bringing a lot more traffic down the road and we are not even talking about driving it, we're talking about the quality of life in our own home. That has to affect everybody who lives on Route 96 and our house is set back a bit from the road. In the 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 summertime, it is very, very disturbing. I hope you will consider, in addition to the traffic issues, the noise issues, just the heavy use issues f Route 96. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — The gentleman in the back with the beard. Denise McEnerney, 131 Hopkins Road — We are going to be even quicker than everybody else. I just need to express my opposition. I am. concerned about the school issue. I had talked about this at.the last meeting. I know that Enfield can't take the number of kids. We have fourth and _fifth grade girls there and we've watched the classes keep increasing and increasing and I am a member of the PTA there and I know Mary Burless very well and she has said that maybe.six, seven kids and then we have to start adding on and increasing the number of rooms. Joe McEnerney , 131 Hopkins Road- (please see attached petition, attachment #6) 1 have collected over sixty signatures from the world wide web in opposition to a zoning change. May I present this to you. Chairperson Wilcox — I was going to bring your name up eventually because I went a figured out who owned the site. Have a seat please. I just want to acknowledge the fact that you've handed me. I. assume it is based upon your website that you have ran. Mr. McEnerney — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — It has 57 plus two. Mr. McEnerney — Well there is doubles, husbands and wife. Chairperson Wilcox —There are 57 lines shown, plus two additional written in. Mr. McEnerney — All I can really do is echo what I have heard in opposition. I am not opposed to affordable housing. 20 units on that property , with market rate housing would be fine with me. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, ma'am. Joyce Merritt, 127 Woolf Lane — I just have a few questions. May I address the panel and also the developers? Chairperson Wilcox I would ask that you address us. If you have some _questions, they could either elect to address them now or address them later, but would ask that you address just us at this point. Ms. Merritt — Why wasn't it considered to include senior housing. The man who talked earlier proposed such a sensible plan. You can't answer questions for me? 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to let the applicant address .that. I think; procedurally, it might be just easier if you ask you questions, they are behind you taking notes. Ms. Merritt — I also wasn't certain about what Ann Byrne said that the property was donated. Is that correct ?. Can anyone answer that for me? Chairperson Wilcox — The applicant is shaking his head, the property was not donated. I assume, it's under option right now. Ms. Merritt — She did say or indicated that it was donated for housing. Chairperson Wilcox — I just looked at the applicant ma'am and he shook his head no. Mr. Trowbridge — Maybe I can just comment, I think that reference was to the portion of the property that the DOT has requested be dedicated to the Town for purposes of the turning lane. Chairperson Wilcox — And my assumption is that if this should get to that point, the owners would dedicated that land, they would have to set is aside. Mr. Trowbridge — If that is a condition of this Board and the DOT recommends it. Ms. Merritt — And I certainly echo the others on the fact that it is. too much subsidized housing in one area and I can't imagine why it would go this far. My next question is it already a done deal? When we had our Public Hearing over the pumping station, by the time we go to the end, we realized it was done, it was all sealed and delivered and we just wasted our energies and breath trying to reason with the project. So, that's a big questions, is it already done? I noticed that the property has all been cleared. It was mowed and all the brush removed and the shrubs and so forth. That was my first indication that something was going on there. So, it makes me think that probably it was all settled before and are we, taxpayers, just wasting our breath? Most of my questions have been answered. I would say that this plan, the long range plan that was done by the City, I don't know, it's in the papers that we received, where can I see this plan that the City has proposed on a long -range plan for developing on West Hill? Chairperson Wilcox — Let me do a couple of things. If you are asking about something that the City did, I would encourage you to go to the City and ask them. Ms. Merritt — I am just asking where to go, okay. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — I want to comment about "is it a done deal" because that irritates me. I will let you make your own interpretation about whether it is a done deal or not because it isn't going to matter what I say, but we have five members sitting here, we have staff, we have an attorney, we've been here tonight, who knows how long we will be here, we were here a month ago, we were here before that for a sketch plan review, if you are going to leave and think that it is a done deal, there's nothing that I can say, but it's not a done deal to .me and I don't think it's a done deal to anybody here. Alright/ The most important thing that I can do as Chairman of this Board is to instill trust in the members of the audience and the public. That's what I hope that we are doing by giving everybody the opportunity to speak, we are putting no time limits on it, we're giving everybody an opportunity to express their opinion so that we can take that into account in formulating our decision. I hope you walk away with that. Whether you like the decision or not that we make, I hope you walk away thinking that we were fair. That's what I ask. Ms. Merritt — I didn't hear about it. Why weren't we notified? Chairperson Wilcox — Don't go there. There are legal requirements for posting of public hearings, those legal requirements have been met. Whether it's posting on the bulletin board, whether it's posting the legal notices in the paper and then the Town goes beyond that and provides and sends notices out to neighbors within a certain distance, which they do not have to do. There has also been plenty of notice in the paper. The Ithaca Journal has covered it, they are covering it tonight. Eagle Broadcasting is here again, there has been plenty of notification. Ms. Merritt — That's all the questions I had, thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to address the issue right now in terms of the senior component. Mr. Papamichael — That is actually incorrect. What the market study does is exclude seniors from the study for the mere fact that often times seniors above that age are not included in the market study, which is to be submitted to DHCR. That, however, does not mean that this project is not marketed towards .seniors or seniors cannot live there. That is, in-fact, against the law, the Fair Housing Laws, to exclude seniors from any project. This specific market study excluded them for that certain reason because of the DHCR application. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to do it one more time? Do you want to pull the microphone up closer. Mr. Papamichael — That is incorrect that seniors are excluded from this complex. In fact, quite the opposed, we do plan to have seniors in the complex. The third party market analyst that did the study did exclude seniors just as that is the criteria that DHCR requires and they did not include them in this market study. In KH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ` FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 fact, if you did include seniors in this market study, the demand for the affordable housing that we have proposed would be even greater than shown in the market study. Anna Smith, 242 DuBois Road — Just off the edge of Route 96. Although the previous speakers have expressed my concerns, I want to voice my dismay about this project as presented to night because there is far, far too many housing units there, it will be way too dense and it will spoil the character of the neighborhood. I believe large developments of.any sort, of any category should be scattered around the County. In this case, it is affordable housing, I think that West Hill has it's share and I note that most members of this Planning Board and most members of the Town Board don't live on West Hill, but in fact live on the opposite side of the County and I would suggest that might be an appropriate site for large developments. I'm curios why the Planning Board would consider a zoning change for this project having just recently finished, as I understand it, it's long term zoning plan and to turn around and change it is a little, confusing to me. I don't' know if this is correct or not, but I understand that for this project, as proposed, there's 15 years of tax credits at 1.35 million dollars annually for 15 years. If that is correct, I am wondering what we citizen tax payers will get in return. Do we get a comparable tax credit also? As I'm sure you know, you're all tax payers yourself, we're all suffocating under current tax rates and I just think it's unconscionable that the Board would even consider making us tax payers subsidize a developer so that they can profit. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — I was going to say do you want do it now or later. I figured you would. Mr. Papamichael — That's actually misinformation as well. I had noticed as well on the web site, it had talked about a 15 year tax abatement. A tax abatement is something very different than what a tax credit is. A tax credit is something issued by the federal government. The federal government then portions tax credits to each state. In New York State those tax credits are handled by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, The Division of Housing and Community Renewal takes applications for tax credits that are given to projects which have certain income restrictions. In this case, our income restrictions are 50 percent of the units at the sixty percent level. 35 percent of the units at the 50 percent level and 15 percent of the units at the 30 percent level. So, in exchange for us committing to keeping those affordability requirements for a certain period, if successful in our application, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal will issue us those tax credits, which we then syndicate and sell to people and that money made from the syndication of tax credits subsidizes the development of this, potential project. This, in now way effects anybody in the Town of Ithaca or the surrounding area by saying that we are not paying any real estate taxes because, in fact, we will pay real estate taxes and the property will be assessed .r. by Tompkins County. So, this is a very different program from what some people may understand it to be. 33 Chairperson County? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Wilcox — Have you asked for any reduction in property taxes to the Mr. Papamichael — No, we haven't. Board Member Talty — I have a question, what happens if you don't qualify under the terms and conditions that are set forth? Mr. Papamichael — If we are not awarded the tax credits or if we do not comply. Board Member Talty — No, not comply. I'm sure you'll, go and try to meet the criteria to receive those tax credits. What happens if you fall short of them. There are certain guide lines that have to be met. Mr. Papamichael — You're talking about during the operation of the property? Board Member Talty —.That is correct. Mr. Papamichael — During the operation of the property, DHCR will require us to meet requirements each year. So , in other words, they .will check all the. records of the property each year and make sure that each resident is, in fact, an affordable qualified resident. We are guaranteeing to DHCR and to our equity investors that we will meet those criteria each year. So, there are strict penalties, if in fact a certain percentage of the property falls out of compliance. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to go? Andy Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road — I just wanted to show this map of Ithaca. At the last meeting we were somewhat confused over the different types of housing that were spread around the Town of Ithaca, so I kind of blew it up. I think it shows that there is a significant amount of subsidized housing, affordable housing on West Hill. You can see on the east side, number eight is student housing, number fourteen is senior housing, number 16, which is Longview is also senior housing. Most of the affordable subsidized housing. for that median income clientele is on West Hill. You are going to add another major project right here. Mr. Kanter - I think that map is also in applicants report. Mr. Byrne — It's a map that you gave us. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that you omitted the housing units that are in the City of Ithaca. You included only the ones that.are in the Town of Ithaca in your copy because I think most of them are in the City of Ithaca. 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Mr. Byrne — I was concerned with the distribution of the subsidized housing in the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Hoffmann— Right. Mr. Byrne — It has been brought up already the HUD has discouraged cities from clustering subsidized affordable housing in one section. I feel this is an example of economic segregation. I think that the Town needs to take a good look at this and make sure that it is distributed fairly. In the Comprehensive Plan, it does identify West Hill as an area for intensive housing development, but it does not refer to it as an area of intensive subsidized housing development. This land is zoned at the R -15 level, then that's the way it should be developed. Mr. Mazarrella also talked about the fact that the long -rang plan lacks information about subsidized housing. I think it would be irresponsible to approve another large plan without having numbers in terms of the number of subsidized housing units that are needed in the Town and also a plan for geographic distribution of those units throughout the Town. We need to do more planning before we approve another large development on West Hill and make sure that we have a. clear plan and that subsidized housing is fitting in to that plan. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — I wonder if we could look at that map again and you tell me which are the numbers that you showed on the West Hill there. Mr. Byrne — 13 is Tower View, 11 is West Village, 12 is Overlook Terrace, 15 is Linderman Creek and the blank one is the proposed Overlook Project, Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Now, numbers 11, 12 and 13 are in the City of Ithaca, that you show as being in the Town there. Do you realize that? Mr. Byrne- I didn't show them anything. I showed what was west of Route 13, Board Member Hoffmann — But you were excluding some of the City ones, but leaving some of them in. That creates a somewhat confusing picture. Mr. Byrne — Well, actually, I was trying to make it less confusing by taking some of the ones out. Board Member Hoffmann Yes, but if you were telling us that you were trying to show the situation in the Town of Ithaca — Mr. Byrne — I was trying to show the situation on West Hill, in the West Hill area as opposed to east and south. 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES' FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann I though you said you wanted to show the situation in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Byrne — I guess I spoke incorrectly then. I apologize. Chairperson Wilcox — You all set? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Thank you. I do see a hand over here. Virginia Markee, 208 DuBois Road .— I just have one short comment. I do, agree with most of the people in opposition and the main thing for me is that, I noticed that when my neighbors wanted to change their zoning that letters were sent out to other neighbors requesting their agreement with it, or if not, to appear and, when you have a. limited liability company or you have a corporation, there are no such letters send out asking for neighbors in agreement and I feel that that disparity tips the scales to the corporations and gives them more power to come into a meeting like this and ask for a zoning change. I don't feel that a zoning change should be granted for this. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you what re- Zoning you're talking about? Ms. Markee — Aren't you re- zoning the property from R -t 5 to a more dense- Chairperson Wilcox — No, you mentioned another one. Ms. Markee — No, I'm talking about like my neighbor, Ken Poyer, re -zoned his property. I received a letter in the mail saying "your neighbor is wanting to re- zone your property, do you agree with that." Mr. Kanter — I think you are talking about a variance versus a re- zoning. I don't think the Poyer property was re- zoned. Chairperson Wilcox — I just want to make sure we're clear here. Ms. Markee — Okay. So there's a difference? Chairperson Wilcox — A variance would be granted by the Zoning Board for a deficient side yard or not enough feet in the front yard, or maybe some extra height on the building. Something like that. Ms. Markee — So, if a neighbor changed the zoning, there would be no notification? Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board sets the zoning because they set the policy of the Town. If the Town Board is going to change the zoning, they must hold a public hearing. They probably would hold, I'm not going to speculate, they 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 could hold more than one, but they must hold a public hearing to change. the zoning. Ms. Markee — And this is it? Chairperson Wilcox — No, we are the Planning Board. Ms. Markee — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — We are the Planning Board and we do not set zoning. We are being asked to give a recommendation to the Town Board. That is what is in front of us, as well ass site plan and subdivision, but we haven't even gotten to that. We are still doing the Environmental Review. If we get through the Environmental Review, then we still have to get to the recommendation. MS. Markee — Well, I'm asking you not to re -zone. Chairperson Wilcox - It's getting down to the end. We've got one more in the back. A familiar face, but I can't put a name on it. Don Crittendon, 173 Bundy Road — Yes, I have spoken before you in opposition to this and I want to speak briefly tonight, just about the re- zoning. As you know, the purpose of zoning is to define the nature of development and provide for a planned, balanced and .comprehensive community. The Town has just expended a great deal of time and money in formulating a new zoning plan. This new plan was approved after much community involvement and chance for comment. Now, immediately after its adoption, this out -of -town developer wants to change our plan and therefore upset the delicate structure and balance outlined for our community. This is not acceptable to me, it's not acceptable to all I speak with about this proposed project and it should not, but any stretch of the imagination, be acceptable to you members of the Planning Board who must look out for the interest of the residents of our community. I recently spoke to a woman who had extensive experience on a planning board and she said something that sort of stuck in my mind. She said no developer should dictate re- zoning. Well, let's face it, this developer really wants to put in a large apartment complex. And why? Profit. Let's take a closer look: if a land owner sells single family lots, the profit is limited to a one -time sale and capital gains tax, but put in a large apartment complex, better, one with guaranteed income and /or tax credit/abatements and the owner has a steady monthly income stream of great profit and unlimited duration. That's what we have before us. This developer has stated to this Board there are no plans for single- family homes without this large apartment complex, and one not even located in a suitable area. It breaks my heart when I hear neighbors say that they will have to move out of this community if this project is approved. The developer is using a key phrase "low- income /affordable housing" in the hope this key will unlock our zoning plan, disrupt our neighborhoods and weigh it's 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 29 2004 pockets down with gold. Simply put, by allowing this charred, you'd be giving tax credits and /or abatements to a large corporation to develop apartments where some residents pay less rent based on income. No developer. should dictate re- zoning. This woman with the planning board experience also said to me that it is appropriate for the planning boards to ask the developer what they are contributing in land or homes in exchange for development rights or zoning changes and it is incumbent upon this board to seriously probe this developer to determine its true nature. Is this developer acting out of charity of self- interest? I've sat through a few meetings and, quite simply, I don't think we have all the information and this project seems to keep changing without enough time for public comment or input. I really don't see where they have overcome a burden to show the need to re -zone. So, I hope and trust I live in a town where the rights and wishes of the residents and the promise of a well- planned balanced community out -weigh the need for greed. The decision you make tonight is far - reaching, so please remember, no developer show dictate re- zoning. Board Member Hoffmann — I can only repeat what Fred Wilcox said, would you please keep the applause until the end? I will continue asking if there is anyone else who wants to make any comments until Mr. Wilcox comes back? Okay. Would you tell us your name and.your address please? I . David Gombash, 1452 Trumansburg Road -- Do we have to wait for Mr. Wilcox? Board Member Hoffmann — No, you can go ahead. Mr. Gombash — I think the traffic impact, if this gentleman lived on Trumansburg Road, I don't think he would have any question in his mind that there would be a huge impact on traffic. As far as any kind, of tractor trailer with any kind of weight hauling that grade has to stop several times, it will backed up into Ithaca. The other question I have is why did you downsize the development? Did it fail a perk test or if the water supply wasn't great enough? Chairperson Wilcox — Sir, please address the Board. Mr. Gombash — If the perk test failed for septic. They say they downsized to benefit us or were they forced to? I wasn't really clear on that. That's it. Thank you. Chairperson. Wilcox — Do you want to address it now. The downsizing, which would be the 25 market -rate units. Mr. Papamichael — We downsized it in response to a comment that you and others made at the last meeting that you wanted to . see a lower density. There was no. reason of any infrastructure that we downsized that portion. It was really to try and make some concessions, primarily for the neighbors along Bundy Road, as well as to mitigate some of the traffic concerns. ff PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else this evening? Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 9:35 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — To members of the Board, we have received numerous letters and correspondence over the couple months. Three. of the more recent ones the writer has asked that the letter be read into the record. I will take care of that right now. (See attached letter from Martha Robertson, dated 212104, attachment number 7) Letter number 2, dated February 3, 2004, again addressed to me (please see attached letter from Barbara Blanchard, attachment # 8): The last one is dated February 10th from Mary E. Prosperi, again addressed to me: Mr. Wilcox, 1 have recently spoken with Joanne Cornish, City Planner about the property. located north of the 821 Cliff Street Medical Office Building and have. to following information: The City has approved Chiappa Marionelli Primary Developers proposal, 12116103. The proposal is for five to eight three -story buildings with approximately . 63 rental units. Number three of the buildings would be constructed close to Cliff Street, at least in the beginning. ! am sure you and the Town Planning Board are well aware of this approval. With. this approval comes the question, again, of traffic on Route 96 feeding into the Octopus. With this approval comes many more cars on the road and feeding into the intersection. With this approval comes many more delays in getting to the jobs that enable us to pay property taxes. Has the Town Board taken this new approved apartment complex and it's traffic implications into account in when discussing for approval of the Kyong Development. Thank you for your consideration of this new information. Very Truly Yours, Mary Prosperi. Chairperson Wilcox — We should also note, for the record, the number of letters that we have received, either copies of statements, e- mails. Board Member Hoffmann — I haven't gotten any e -mail. Chairperson Wilcox -- You haven't gotten e- mails? You've gotten copies of e- mails, such. as Brian Wilbur's, the Fire Chief, for example. With that out of the way, comments? Questions? Board Member Howe — Do we want to give the applicant a chance to respond to anything? 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — If they want to, that's up to them, yes. Board Member Tally — Before you start Fred, I was just handed some documentation. Board Member Howe -- In particular, I am interested in hearing a response to what John Bowers had to say about his read on this not meeting where the real need is. Mr. Papamichael— I think that's untrue. We did do a third -party market study. We did try and tailor their incomes as best we could. You have to understand there is a certain level of feasibility that needs to be done in a project. If we could do all the units at the lowest level, we could. There are certain operating expenses that a property needs to pay in order to be feasible and to be maintained as part of the community. So, 15 percent of the units are at the lowest level, which is the 30 percent level. 35 percent units are at half of what the median income is and the remaining 50 percent are at the 60 percent level. So, these are the minimum guideline for the tax credit. application is the 60 percent level. We have gone beyond the 60 percent level to the 50 percent level and the 30 percent level. There is no additional tax credits or subsidies given by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal for us to further skew those rents down, in .order to meet those needs. So, I think that's untrue. In terms of the market study, as you've seen in the packet, the 128 units is only going to capture about ten or eleven percent of the total need for affordable housing just within a five -mile radius of this property. So, you can see where the rents are and I can tell you as an owner of market -rate apartments in this area, these rents are :well -below where the market -rents currently are and there is not a whole lot of vacancy in terms of market rents. We have, for example, a property, which is not a student property, it is in Lansing and our rents, for two- bedroom units are $865 and we very rarely have vacancies. I think the highest rent here is in the $670 range, that is for the 60 percent level. So, there is anywhere from between a 22 to 67 percent discount to the market rents in the area. I'd like to address a couple of other points that were made, if I may. Number one, everybody is saying, "I am not opposed to affordable housing, I just don't want it in my back yard." Why have we chosen West Hill? Well, you need one very important thing to develop housing and that's land. Fortunately, West Hill has land that can be purchased at a price which makes affordable housing feasible. Why is this a larger, scale project, well, it is a 43 acres site, which is a large site, number one. Number two, you need a certain amount of economies of scale to run an apartment complex the way an apartment complex needs to be run. You cannot scatter sites one place and another and expect the site to run smoothly because there are certain staffing that needs to be on -site. You need an on -site manager. You need, at least, one and a half maintenance people so that if there are any problems, these problems can be dealt with as soon as the problem occurs. There are also certain infrastructure improvements that need to be made, that need to be supported by a larger -scale development. So, to say, " a smaller complex here .M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 and another one there" you cannot support it based on your day to day operations that need to be taken care of. West Hill, while there are two other major complexes, they are one three very different thoroughfares. One is on 13A , one is on 79 and one is one 96. They really are very different sub markets within the West Hill area. We did look for over a year for sites for this complex and this is the only area where we can find land that made the affordable housing feasible. The land costs in the other areas were just too high to afford such a complex. You cannot pay any dollar amount and be able to achieve the feasibility of this type of project. That was my thoughts on that. If it's not affordable that you are opposed to, then what is it? In an R -15 Zone, you would still have some impact on traffic, you would have some impact on schools, you would have some impact on view corridor, the question is how great is that impact and what we've done in the reports through our traffic engineers and our market study and everything we've submitted to the Town has assessed what that impact is going to be and it is up to you as a planning board to decide if that is enough of a significant impact or if that impact is acceptable for this project to go.forward. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Questions for the applicant and /or the agent? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I wondered if you could, I guess I should ask Mr. Trowbridge about this, if you would, again, go over that photograph and how the buildings will be seen based upon what one of the audience told us. The photograph is one that she provided, I understand, Ms. Byrne, Mr. Trowbridge — That's right. It is a photograph from their home. Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, could I get you to grab a microphone. Mr. Trowbridge — We need to go back to the cross section to fully understand the condition because looking at the photograph, it is a little deceiving. The buildings aren't going to. sit on the landscape, as it currently exists. I think everyone understands that the very first units, you can see that over a story of fill material ahs been taken out so the units sit quite far down in the site, further down then they currently exist. So, just imagining the building sitting out in the landscape is not fully representational because the buildings are pushed down on the site and don't sit on the topography as you see it or as you experience it out doors. The only thing that we could do is to look at particular elevations that we know from T.G. Miller survey that give us relative heights for things and what we see is the difference between the lowest level here at 923 and the upper level at 983, that there is 60 feet of difference and when we start to look at the photograph, we know that the Kyong barn is about 35 feet in height and so we understand that if we look at something like 60 feet, the difference would be twice the height of the barn and that would be a conservative value. So, when we go to the photograph and imagine how high the highest building would be, it would be roughly twice the height of barn because we know that from the technical cross sections in the grading plans we've done. So, the highest building, as I've said, looking at the 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 barn height, really is, roughly at that tree line, as I expressed it before. You need to realize that, from a perspective view, even though we have this pine tree in this location, when we go out and look at other markers that we can imagine from a perspective view, looking at the Oddfellows Home and we get a sense where PRI is, that the buildings really do occupy this part of the site from this perspective. Obviously, it changes as you move around the site. So, it's our best estimate looking at the photograph, looking at the grading plans, looking at the buildings relative to heights of .buildings that we know. The Kyong barn and house. Those are our best estimates of where those things occur in the landscape. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. That helps a lot.; . Mr. Kanter — Fred, I was just going to add to Rod's question on the affordable housing issue. I think all Board Members got this Tompkins County Housing background report material that we got at the affordable housing meeting. ,Kevin and Eva both attended that, as well as myself. I think if you look through it a little bit further, you'll see .other, aspects of the rental market, such as cost burden rental information, which indicates there is quite a high proportion in, not only the Town of Ithaca, but surrounding communities of people paying more than the 30 percent or so of your income, which really qualifies as affordable housing. The benchmark, really, is if you are paying more than 30 percent of you income towards rent or ownership, then you're cost - burdened. That is part of what this report is also demonstrating so you really have to read the whole packet of information. Board Member Hoffmann — It was a very interesting session, I thought. I mentioned students before and I am quite concerned about the fact that somebody said that there are students living at Linderman Creek and the possibility of students living in this project because I don't think that's the group of low - income people. There are definitely low - income student families, there is no question about it, but I don't think that's the group that we have been trying to help. Maybe we should discuss that. Chairperson Wilcox — By low- income students, you mean husband and wife, one may be a graduate student, for example? Board Member Hoffmann — That's right. Or it could even be an undergraduate student with children where is one is a student and the other one is trying to support the family with some job they have here temporarily. Mr. Mazzarella - I think there is pretty widespread agreement on what you just said which is that as a matter of public policy it's not really our role to try to support students, per se. As a housing provider here in the community, I would like to talk a little bit about how Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services does this. The first thing is that in order to be eligible to live in this housing, you have to be 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 income qualifies. In almost every instance, from a student's point of view, that means you have to be financially independent. So, virtually all of the undergraduate students in this community are not eligible because they are not financially independent from their parents and therefore their parents income would have to be counted. Now, there are instances where there are graduate students, either individuals or families who are financially independent and would qualify, under the income guidelines for this project and, this is where it gets extremely tricky for a housing provider because it is illegal, under the fair housing laws to blatantly discriminate and just say we are excluding a class of people, students. At INHS we've had a long - standing policy that our purpose is to try to assist the permanent residents of the community first and if there is resources available, then to allow students to be housed in our housing. In practical matters, the resources are so limited, that when we prioritize who lives in the affordable housing that we operate, students are almost always excluded and I believe that would be the policy that we would operate under here. To, not violate the law, but to be discriminatory to the degree that the law lets us to try to assist those people that need the help the most. Does that help? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes it does. But I actually think that maybe the Town Board has to discuss this question. It's maybe a policy question. We haven't talked about it before when it comes to other projects. I was quite surprised to hear that there are students at Linderman Creek. I didn't think that there would be. Chairperson Wilcox = I'm sitting here smirking to myself wondering about the levels of discrimination or legal issues. That's a tough line to walk, I assume. It's just like single - family housing. The husband and wife and one or two children no longer applies. There are other family units that qualify now.. So, you have to be very, very careful. If you believe that there is a need for this housing, then one would hope that it would go towards anybody that has a need for housing of this sort. I'm not going to sit here and try to draw distinctions between the person trying to better their life going to school or the person with a child trying to better their life and working a job and getting an education and trying to get ahead, they both need affordable housing. I don't want to be in a position — now, that's not to say that the Town Board might, we've seen some language about they might consider audits and other things to ensure that the developer rents to the appropriate income families that they say they do. Board Member Howe — Doesn't that happen automatically through DHCR? Chairperson Wilcox — I was looking at the draft of the local law that John Barney wrote and it had a lot of language about the Town also, I was thinking about like Lake Source Cooling, where a lot of agencies have requested water testing and the Town has wanted to have it's own consultant look at it as well. Back over here to this side. 43 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 2, 2004 Mr. Kanter — One other thing that was discussed at that affordable housing forum was trying to get Cornell and Ithaca College to do more, in terms of affordable housing. That's another end of it. If they do that, I know Supervisor Valentino has already discussed this with both Colleges and if they can meet their share of the need, then that would be not only for students, but for employees of those schools. That would relieve some of the pressure from, for instance graduate students trying to get units in. this kind. of development. So, it is a multiple solution that really needs to be pursued here. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we go for another half hour or so? Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not too keen on that actually. I need to get up early in the morning to take care of a sick child. Board Member Howe — Well, Fred then maybe we need to clarify, well SEQR is the next issue. Chairperson Wilcox — SEQR is-in front of us. Board Member Howe — So, Eva if we are just trying to get- I'm willing to spend another half hour. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to get through the SEQR process pro or con. Board Member Talty — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to give that a good shot. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to and .I would be willing to go for, I guess, Half and hour, but that is it. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you think that we can get you to go one way or another with regard to the SEQR determination? Board Member Hoffmann I don't know. I think there are, maybe there are some things that would need more thought or discussion. Board Member Thayer — Can I tell you what I am going to do? Chairperson Wilcox — Why don't you tell me what you are going to do; the birthday boy. Board Member Thayer — 70 of them. Chairperson Wilcox — You're 70? Congratulations. 44 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Board Member Thayer — Thank you. Because of the strong opinions of my neighbors and the emotions of my neighbors, who are also neighbors of this project and because my son has an excellent business relationship with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing, I am going to abstain. Chairperson Wilcox- For the members of the public who are sitting here and for the applicant, because we are missing two Board members tonight for various reasons, if we're going to do anything tonight, that means all four of us are going to have to agree one way or the other. Board Member Thayer — That's why I wanted to get that on the table.. Chairperson Wilcox — Yep, thank you very much. Straw poll here guys? Board Member Howe — In terms of the SEQR, I am willing to move forward on it. Chairperson Wilcox — As am I and I will explain my reasoning if we have the time. Kevin? I don't mean to put you on the spot. Board Member Talty — I am not in favor. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Board Member Howe —Kevin, what does that mean, that there are still some things that you want to discuss. Can you clarify for SEQR. Board Member Talty — As far as SEQR is concerned, based upon a lot of information that has been re- presented this evening, I don't feel as though I am in a position to approve SEQR. I need to digest a-lot more of the information that has been presented this evening. Board Member Hoffmann — It is a very dig and complicated project and we have heard differing views and opinions. Board Member Howe — If we more forward on SEQR, are we afraid that that's sending a message that it's a done deal? That's not how I view it. Board Member Hoffmann —.Not necessarily. Chairperson Wilcox — The. purpose of SEQR is the determination of significant environmental impact. Board Member Talty — Fred can you explain that to these folks? Chairperson Wilcox — I would be glad to explain it. The first thing that this Board must do is make a determination of Environmental Impact. Everything that we 45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 have done so far, the public hearings, the presentations, has been geared towards that end. If this Board makes a negative determination of Environmental Impact, then and only then can we move forward with consideration of site plan, subdivision an recommendation to the Town Board. Now, this is not an issue of will there be any environmental impacts, of course there will be environmental impacts. There are environmental impacts when building a single - family home. The question before this Planning Board is whether those environmental impacts are significant and whether they have been sufficiently mitigated by the applicant and that is what's before us. That's where we start. If we get through that, then we move to the next step.. Let me tell you where I am, just to get that out there. I'll just kind of go through the issues as I-see them and the notes that I've made.. Traffic, I think is the biggest issues, well one of the biggest issues. I have to rely upon the unbiased experts, which is the Department of Transportation, that has reviewed the original traffic study, they have reviewed the revised traffic study. The New York State. Department of Transportation Engineers have made. their determination. They've studied the 'materials presented, I remember in the first traffic study, they pointed out minor errors in the calculations as asked that they be done so there is no doubt that the DOT has studied these numbers in great detail Are the residents pleased with the current level of service available to them on Route 96, on Trumansburg Road and the various intersections? No they are not, but under the NYS DOT grading of intersections, the levels of service at the intersections studied will not change. I believe they all .stay a and b. That's not to say that people like it, but it means that it is certainly acceptable. Also, .interesting rhetorical question that I have to ask. When we were considering a bank with multiple drive through's on East Hill, we had had a traffic study done, no one came to talk about traffic, but a bank with three of four drive through's generates a lot of traffic. Subsequently, next door to that, we had a proposal for the Burger King with one drive through and we had a room full of people talking about traffic. Here now, on West Hill, a short time ago, we had a request for -a museum extension. We had a traffic study done. Does anybody remember a member of the public coming and talking about the traffic impact of the museum expansion, which was significant? Not a word. We get to affordable housing, there they are. It's their right, but we didn't hear anything. So I am wondering if there is good traffic and bad traffic going on. Public safely, Joe Scagiione provided us with some reports form the Sheriff's Office, they indicate roughly 25 to 30, I'm excluding the first year, .they indicate roughly 25 to 30 Sheriff's Department responses to Linderman Creek, ignoring the first year, which I think is a partial year. That's two to two and a half call per month to the Sheriff's Department a month, that does not strike me as a huge burden. One could probably expect something similar here. Fire protection, it would have been nice if Fire Chief Wilbur has said one way or another, but he didn't. He kind of said "thank you Town of Ithaca because you require sprinklers '° EMS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 and he said that he's worked with the applicant and the applicant has worked with the Fire Department and the roads are sufficient and the facilities, the fire hydrants and everything are there. The Fire Chief is not going to endorse a project, but if he has a real, significant problem with it, he is going to say something. He hasn't said anything, Does the Fire Chief want more trucks? Sure he does. Does the Fire Chief want more people? Sure he does. Does the Town of Ithaca want more paid fire fighters? They are on records as such. But, neither has Fire Chief Wilbur said this is a bad idea. Schools. Emotional issue. Somebody mentioned an article in the Ithaca Journal. I brought the article in from the Ithaca Journal, dated December 20th, where again, Creig Evens said Beverly J. Martin, Caroline and, to a lesser extend, Enfield have more available space then the rest of the schools. I don't want to get into a, pardon the expression, pissing match about is there enough room,' is there not enough room, what mitigates the issues right now is that the district is looking at re- districting of the elementary schools and if this proposal. is approved, then the school district can take into account the number of students that will be living there and going to Enfield and take that into account as part of the re- districting.. So, I don't have to worry about are there 100 students, f which 30 are going to go to Enfield or are there going to be 300 bedroom and therefore 200 students, the school district can take that into account as they work through the re- districting, which, it has been delayed and won't be out until later this spring. Let's see what else I have here that I want to talk about. Drainage, storm water management and other related issues I think they've. been well- addressed, we have comments from Dan Walker, they were in front of us. He's made comments before that they were appropriate in all ways. Let me talk about neighborhood character because I think that is also very, very important too. It's an interesting area in that part of West Hill. You've got some single- family residences. 1/4, 1/2 mile away, you have the professional office building, you have the Cayuga Medical Center, you have the PRI, Museum of the Earth, we have the School of Massage, we have the soy product manufacturing, I can't think of what it is called in Mr. Ciaschi's building. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I don't remember either, but it is in the same building as the massage school. Chairperson Wilcox — And the cemeteries and then we have office space in the Bigg's Complex. Board Member Hoffmann — The fire station. Chairperson Wilcox — It's an interesting neighborhood. Then we have this 40 plus acre piece of land that is in the middle that's zoned residential. Now, what's the best thing to put on that land? The answer is residences, not businesses, not 47 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 right now at least, not commercial development. Now, what is, the best way to do it. Do you do a typical subdivision with 50, 60, 70 single-family homes or duplexes laid out on third acre lots with all of the infrastructure that comes with it? The roads that have to be built? The blacktop driveways that have to be built? The increased runoff that results? Talk about visual impact to people on Hopkins Road, there will be more houses, more units closer to them at higher elevations. If. a developer came and said, we want to cluster or this Board said to a developer who wanted to build single - family homes, "We want you to cluster it in a certain part of the area to leave more open space. That would. probably be well - received by the residents in the neighborhood and certainly well- received by me. It's keeping with what the Comprehensive Plan refers to as Rural Residential, which is R -15 and 15,000 square foot lots. That would ' be a good idea. This proposal, though not clustering in the technical sense of the word, does group the buildings in such a way that keeps more open space. Why are they grouping them? In order to keep the development and the building costs down. Less infrastructure, less road, less driveway, less water and sewer that has to be buried underground, etcetera, etcetera, part of creating affordable housing. I'm not sure whether putting 50 or 60 duplexes, these are single - family or duplexes, will have a greater impact on the characteristic of this neighborhood or clustering apartments, whether they would be low - income or affordable or otherwise on the part of this 40 plus acre piece of land. I don't see it as affecting the character of the neighborhood; given what is already there and given that this is residential development. That's where I stand. Board Member Howe — I'm fairly similar to what you said. Chairperson Wilcox — I have somebody who would wants to think about it more and then we have Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — I just have a couple of questions still. One of the things that I remember being talked about early on was the possibility or the probability, I don't know what's the right word, of employees of the hospital living here. I thought that was a great idea because very often employees at a.hospital are people that are not high- income people. This would be very good for them. I'm not sure what that situation is. I would like to hear from the developer if there is some definite agreement that this is going to happen or if it is just a hope. Mr. Papamichael — There is no agreement in place. In fact., we can not discriminate from whom we can receive our housing from and the hospital is a private organization and cannot share their income specific information with us, but because it is right across the street and because the do have many of their employees traveling from many different communities, we do feel that there will be a significant portion of the employees there. We cannot guarantee to you how many of those employees will be there, but typically, when you put a housing development in close proximity to a major employment center, such as the .• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 hospital, you do find that many of those residents choose to live in those facilities. Board Member Hoffmann —Okay, so it's a hope, really that this will happen. Is there any way on your part that you can maybe give preference to applicants? Mr. Papamichael — What we can do is have a waiting list for hospital employees. and working with the hospital personnel, they can develop a waiting list of employees that they have that hope to live, in the complex and, as a unit becomes available, we can inform them of such. That's one way that we can market the units to serve that need. Board Member Hoffmann — I like that idea for many reasons, but one of them was, because it would certainly diminish the amount of automobile traffic somewhat. People wouldn't have to drive to and from work quite the same way, so there wouldn't be quite as much of a traffic impact on Route 96. 1 sympathize with.people who have problems with.the traffic on Route 96. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, please. Board Member Hoffmann — It's a serious concern, but I must say also that as many proposals as we might get for developing more intense or more dense housing closer in to the center of Ithaca, the better because there are going to be fewer people affected by that traffic then if it's developed further out. if it's denied in the Town of Ithaca, then maybe they have to go further out into Trumansburg and so on to get the land that is affordab.le enough for them to be able to build this kind of housing and that would mean more increased traffic over a longer stretch of road so more people would be impacted by it There was a mention that I wanted to bring up about children with special needs, perhaps coming more from developments like this than from other housing. I would like to see, if we are even going to consider that, I would like to see-some written up information about this, in fact being so. That's, I guess, the comments that I have at the moment. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to make a decision this evening? Or is Kevin prepared to make a decision? Board Member Talty — Ladies before gentlemen Chairperson Wilcox No pressure. I just want to see if we have four votes to more forward or not. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to do it, on the other hand I feel a little uncertain about it still. I think, in general, that the things that we look at for the &I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH. 2, 2004 SEQR review, the Environmental Review, are not so huge. that they are truly significant. I just want to be sure that we've covered everything. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure if you answered my question or not. Maybe you did. Mr. Kanter — Fred, could I address one thing? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may. Mr. Kanter — It does not really pertain to anything that Eva just mentioned, but in general, to the issue of re- zoning to multiple residences. a few times and we've also heard comments that the Town just finished our comprehensive re- zoning process and why are we now considering something different than that. First of all, the Multiple Residence Zone has always been approached by the Town Board as something in the way of a floating zone. In fact, in the Multiple Residence introduction in our current zoning, it basically says that, with the approval of the Town Board, a Multiple Residence District may be established in any residence district and the past history of Town Board re- zoning to Multiple .Residence is that they do not do it ahead of time. They have not targeted any Multiple Residence types of areas in the Comprehensive Plan. What they do is, basically, the look at proposals for specific sites and specific developments as the come up and try to put those in the context of the generalized statements that the comprehensive plan makes. So, the anticipated land use patterns maps, over on the wall over there is really all they have to go on and. you'll see -if, you look at it fairly closely, it doesn't really identify any new area for higher density Multiple Residence types of development. That was actually considered when we did the comprehensive re- zoning recently, the Town Board made a specific decision not to add any significant new areas of Multiple Residence for that very reason. In fact, they added some new statements in the purpose section in the Multiple Residence Zone that clarified, to some degree, where and when. these types of re- zonings could occur and they looked at things like, is there existing infrastructure in the area and they included public transportation in that calculation. So, it's not like the Town Board looked all over the Town 'and re- zoned areas to MR and now we can't do anymore. It's really the opposite, they didn't do any of that consciously knowing that they prefer looking at individual case by case situations in the overall context of the Comprehensive Plan, which is, again, very generalized, so, that is sort of the story about Multiple Residence zoning. I, at least, tried to answer that question that came up. Board Member Thayer — We learned something. Board Member Howe — I move the motion. 50 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by. Rod Howe, seconded by the Chair. You know me well enough. to know that I am not going to force anything. It would be nice to move forward with this. We still have another Public Hearing and a debate on the site plan and the subdivision and the recommendation. Board Member Thayer - I will be in Arizona for the next two weeks. Chairperson Wilcox — We need to get four votes. If we do not get four votes one way or another, for or against, then we have not passed any motion; we have not made nay progress. What we can do is either.push this off to the next meeting, which is March 2"d or I might talk to Jon Kanter and see if we can schedule a special meeting. We had some applications that were originally on tonight's agenda, that have been pushed back two weeks, I would not want to push them back any further. We could hold a special meeting. If we want to hold a Public Hearing as part of that, we would have to probably properly notice it, but we could also hold a special meeting to just consider SEAR, which would not require the normal notice requirements. Mr. Kanter — I think we would have to re- advertise the Public Hearing for the site plan. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, should that be part of a special meeting. A special meeting could also be to just deal with the SEQR determination. Mr. Kanter — So, therefore the soonest we could hold a special meeting would be approximately, a little more that a week, seven or eight days. Chairperson Wilcox -713y that you mean a meeting with a Public Hearing? Mr. Kanter — Right. Mr. Dubow — If they want to make a SEQR determination, you've completed your Public Hearing, so you could have a special meeting notice, simply by the usual notice about a special meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — To the appropriate media Board Member Hoffmann — Fred, I am not ready to vote tonight. Chairperson Wilcox -- Okay, then there is no sense. Do you withdraw your motion? Board Member Howe — Sure. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll withdraw the motion. 51 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH.2, 2004 The Motion to declare a negative determination of environmental significance regarding subdivision approval, site plan approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change, Overlook at West Hill,. 1290 Trumansburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox — We will address this at our next meeting, whenever that is. We can, hopefully, expect George has recovered. I haven't heard anything good or bad, but George hopefully will be with us. Tracy will be in Town, we will have at least six. It doesn't guarantee a four on either side, but it gives us a better possibility of reaching enough folks to move one way or another. Before we go, it's getting late, we have a couple more things to do, really quickly with regard to the minutes. I want to thank those members of the general public who are still here, we do value you input. At the same time, my own conscious requires me to do this. December 12, 2003 in an e-mail, a West Hill resident, Joe Scaglione, wrote. "The Town seems to want to dump all the trash on West Hill." and in another part he writes about dumping more trash on West Hill. I find Mr. Scaglione's comments offensive. Mr. Papamichael — If there's anything specific that we can do to clarify your judgment. If there are any specific issues that we can address... Chairperson Wilcox — Good question. Eva and Kevin? Is there something specific that you need or you need to review the information, the public input or what? Board Member Talty — I just want to say that I am a traveling sales rep and traffic is out of control in the State and, with all do respect to all the studies and surveys because I do believe that gentlemen like yourself and the people that support him do work very hard and articulate the finding that they actually go hour by hour and things of that such, it never turns out that way, it just doesn't. I don't care if it is Watertown, Syracuse, Ithaca, Binghamton. It used to be a one car household, now it is a two -car household, now it's a three car household. When we develop these properties, I feel as though, although Fred, you properly articulated and kind of swung me on a.couple of issues, I'm still not swung on this whole traffic and safety issue and I don't know, in my own mind, if there is anything else that you could actually put forward. I think you've done a great job, but coming down those routes, I come down 96, 1 come down 89, 1 come down 90 on the other side of the Lake, traffic is fast and there is a lot of it. I'm not so sure that by building these developments close or even adjacent to these major routes, that we are not going to bottleneck ourselves into even more dangerous situations. So, with that being said, I guess I am all muddled, but I am not prepared to move forward on this issue because I think that there is an environmental impact with regard to safety. Chairperson Wilcox — You want to look at it a little longer? 5 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — I do. I can't tell you anything specific tonight, I'm .sorry. Other than what I already said. Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, I'll give you a call. Mr. Kanter — I think all of us who are here tonight should try to figure out how we are going to coordinate this because I think at this point, my impression is that we are going to have to ask the Town Board to cancel _their special meeting that was set for February 26th Chairperson Wilcox — When is the best time for us to get back together? Kevin? Board Member Talty — I have a pretty open schedule, except for Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Mr. Kanter — We may have February 26th open, which is a Thursday. Board Member Howe — February 26th would work for me. We're talking about the evening, seven o'clock? _ Chairperson Wilcox — Are you hearing what we are talking about? Mr. Kanter —That's tentative. Chairperson Wilcox — It's also advantageous to get seven members of the Board. Mr. Kanter — Six. Chairperson Wilcox So that we can get four on one side or the other.. That is fair to you, that is fair to the public and to us, as well. So we will have to find a date soon, so that we can deal with the environmental review. As far as I'm concerned I would like to do it next week. Mr. Kanter - I think that that is the soonest that we can do it. Chairperson Wilcox — And we can address the other applicants who have already waited two weeks and who are expected us to deal with their issues on the 2nd of March. Okay, special meeting for, tentatively, the 26th. You and I will talk tomorrow and canvas. Board Member Howe — And that is being set up where is will just be to continue this discussion? Chairperson Wilcox — No, if we schedule a specie meeting , we'll do the site plan. We will re- notice the Public Hearing. 5 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH 2, 2004 Mr. Kanter — We've closed the Public Hearing on the Environmental Review, we are not going to re -open that, but we will advertise the Public Hearing on the site plan so that, if we get through the SEQR determination, we can hold that hearing. If the Board makes a positive determination of environmental significance, that means that we won't go to the hearing because then it means that an Environmental Impact Statement will be required, which probably is not the thing to do if the actual recommendation is going to be not to re -zone because I don't think you want to require the developer to proceed with an Environmental Impact Statement knowing that you are likely to not approve the zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — SEQR is not a tool for forcing the developer to do one thing or another, it is simply a review of the environmental issues. Mr. Kanter — On the other hand, the SEQR determination, if you do make a neg dec, the way I'm looking at it, it doesn't prejudge what your ultimate decision will be, but it makes it very specific the kinds of things that you can look at in terms of recommendation against the actions. To me, it would be kind of confusing to issue a neg dec and take the next step to issue not a positive recommendation of re- zoning. You'd have to find some pretty interesting ways of phrasing non - environmental issues to do that. .Chairperson Wilcox — Not an environmental issue, but a site plan, subdivision recommendation and re- zoning issue, for example. I agree. Also, we have gone through the site plan in a lot of detail and we have seen examples of the siding and the windows and the shingles. We've spent a lot of time on the site plan as part of the Environmental Review. Let's hope we can get another meeting scheduled. You all set? Thank you very much. AGENDA ITEM : Approval of January 20, 2004 Minutes I move the approval of the minutes of January 20c ". Seconded by Rod Howe. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -005: Approval of Minutes — January 20, 2004 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the January 20, 2004 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, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty, NAYS: None. 54 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 APPROVED MARCH, 2, 2004 The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM : OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to report. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the February 17, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10: 35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lori Love 0 PB 2/17/04 Attachemnt #1 HUMAN SERVICES COALITION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, INC. HUMAN SERVICE PLANNING I INFORMATION & REFERRAL SERVICE • HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL To: Town of Ithaca Planting Board From: Margaret F. Dill Date: February 17, 2004 TOWN OF ITHACA.FACT SHEET I am providing the following information 1, To demonstrate the need for affordable housing in the community and in the Town of Ithaca and 2. To demonstrate with income data that the families this housing is being built for are a reflection of the economic make -up of the current residents of the Town of Ithaca. Nearly 40% of the Town of Ithaca households have incomes of less than $35,000 /year. Nearly 30% of the Town of Ithaca households have incomes of less than $25,000 /year. Of the 128 units currently proposed to be built in the Overlook Development, 64 units are for families at 60% of the family median income (60% of the median income fora family of four in Tompkins County is defined by U.S. Housing and Urban Development to be $34,320.) 44 units are for families at 50% of the family median income (defined for Tompkins County by the-U.S. HUD to be $28,600.) 20 are for families at or below 30% of family median income (defined for Tompkins County by the US HUD to be $17,150) Compass II, a community needs assessment, was recently completed in Tompkins County. The top priority needs revealed were: Affordable housing, Health Care, Affordable Child Care, Employment, and Poverty. Compass Il used extensive surveys with different sectors of the community and interviews with key informants and services providers. A thirty- member partnership committee represented key sectors of the county. In addition, Compass II volunteers telephoned over 1500 people, reaching 500 for interviews. Individuals reached for interviews were asked what their needs were and what they thought the community's needs were. The household survey was representative of the towns and represents 95% validity in its findings. RESPONSES FROM THE TOWN OF ITHACA RESIDENTS Nearly 54% of the Town of Ithaca residents said a shortage of affordable housing was a critical problem in their community. Over 9% of Town of Ithaca residents said not having enough money to pay for housing was. a critical problem in the last year. Almost 17% of Town of Ithaca residents said that not being able to afford to move to a new home was a critical problem in the last year 100 WEST SENECA STREET, SUITE 300, ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850-4 138 PHONE:(607) 273 -8686 a FAX:(607 )273 -3002 ■ wm/nithsctc.org INFORMATION b REFERRAL AssISTANCE (607)272 -93.31 r r February 17, 2004 PB 2/17/04 Attachment #2 Comments to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board On the Impact of "Overlook" on Housing Affordability Last week I had the privilege of attending a Roundtable on Housing organized by the Community Foundation of Tompkins County and the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce. The discussion at this meeting, together with the information compiled in the "Tompkins County Housing Forum Background Report" that was distributed ahead. of time to the participants, turned out to be very informative and highly relevant to the Overlook project under consideration here tonight. (1) The data summarized in the "Affordable Housing Unit Gaps Analysis" chart (p. 2) makes it very clear what the fundamental housing problem in Tompkins County is. On the one hand, there is an enormous shortage of rental units (in excess of 3,100) available at the very lowest end of the rental market ($250 or below) to families with incomes below $10,000, while at the same time, somewhat surprisingly, there is an almost equally large shortage (just under 2,500) of units available at the higher end of the rental market ($900 and above) to families with incomes above $35,000. On the other hand, there is a huge excess of housing (just over 5,600) at rent levels clustered around the median rent of $611. To quote from the Background Report: "The local market compresses housing costs near the median, producing too few lower income units as well as too few higher income units." The result is that the very lowest income households and the very highest income households are Putting pressure on the rental units available at the median, thus driving up rents at that level. [Much the same true of home ownership, except shortage most acute at higher end of the market, particularly $1504200,000 range.] (2) How are these basic facts relevant to Overlook? The question that has to be answered is this: will Overlook help alleviate the housing situation in Tompkins County? The answer is clearly no. Rather than providing more rental units at the very lowest level or at the highest level, where the need is most acute, Overlook will simply provide more rental units around the already . swollen median level. Apart from 20 units at the 30% rent level, the gross rents of all units at Overlook. are either well above the median of $611 (ranging from $640 -$892) or (in the case of the eleven 1 BRM apartments at the 50% level) just below the median ($536). In fact, even the lowest level rents at the 30% level ($321 -$446) are still within the range (between $250 and $499) where there is an excess of units available to renters with incomes be $10,000 and $20,000. In other words, Overlook will neither provide new units at the very lowest level, where the need is clearly most acute, nor at the highest level, where there is also a clear need. Instead, it will simply provide more housing around the median; where there is already an excess. (3) Why, then, are these apartments claimed to be "affordable "? A quick look at the figures provided by the developers explains why. Rather than comparing their proposed rents with those at the median, the developers compare them to what they claim is the average. According to their figures, for example, the average market rent for l BRM apartments is $820, making Overlook's gross rent of $640 look affordable. However, as everyone who deals with statistics knows, the average in a case of this sort is much less informative than the median, since an average can easily be skewed by a few high -end rental complexes (e.g. the new student.housing in Collegetown), by high summer rents on the lake, etc. The point is, as the.median figures make clear, that there is already more than enough rental property available (to renters of any income level) at the rent levels proposed for Overlook. (4) Furthermore, there are.indications that even the developers themselves are . aware that the local rental market at this level is very near the saturation point. For one thing, they refer in their market study to the "contribution of graduate student population." Though no details are given, it is clearly anticipated that a certain percentage of these apartments will rent to graduate students. This is further confirmed by the fact that there are already ten graduate student families in residence at Linderman Creek. An inquiry to the office of the Attorney General of New York State confirmed my suspicion that while renting apartments financed through tax credits to graduate students may not be technically illegal, it certainly violates the intent of the law, which was not to provide subsidized housing to students. Second, the developers anticipate that "many of the tenants will come from surrounding regions, and tertiary market from outside of the Tompkins County area is expected to contribute approximately. 10% to 20% of the tenant base." Why is it necessary to fill out the tenant base of Overlook with graduate students and immigrants from outside Tompkins County? The obvious answer is that there is in fact a glut of housing at the level provided by Overlook, which means that the project simply cannot be filled up with local non - student renters in the right income range. I urge the members of the Planning Board to ask themselves whether it is in the interests of the Town of Ithaca or of the taxpayers of New York State to provide subsidized housing for Cornell graduate students and to pay for. lower- income families from outside Tompkins County to move into an area where affordable housing is claimed to be in such short supply. (5) Finally, another highly relevant observation in the Background Report concerns housing for the elderly. The sector of the population of Tompkins County projected to undergo the greatest increase between 2010 and 2020 is that of seniors aged 65 and over (26.6 %). Will Overlook help to deal with this huge increase in the senior population? Unfortunately, the answer is emphatically no: seniors are specifically excluded from Overlook. I quote: "households aged 65 and above will be deducted" [from the renter pool]. This is particularly surprising in view of the close proximity of Overlook to the hospital —a natural place, one would have thought, for housing for the elderly. 9 (6) In conclusion, approving a major zoning change in order- to permit the construction of Overlook is a bad strategy for addressing the housing needs of Tompkins County. What is really needed is much more housing for families at the lowest income level (below $250), together with more housing at higher levels (above $900). Overlook will not help to accomplish either of these goals. Instead, it will simply add to the excess of housing already available around the median. At the same time it will do nothing to address the next major problem on the horizon, namely, housing for the senior population. (7) I would like to end these remarks on a more positive note, by asking the Planning Board to consider a number of "low- impact" approaches to our local housing problems. (a) At the Roundtable and in the Background Report, the point was made repeatedly that'the reason many low income families cannot find housing. is not because apartments are unavailable at a rent they can afford but because of the financial hurdles that are placed in their way, specifically, security deposit +final month's rent, credit checks, etc. [See the anecdotal example in the 2/13 Ithaca Journal.] Though some funds are available through the Tompkins County Homeownership Program to help renters in this situation, there is no reason why the Town of Ithaca could not, at . minimal expense, provide another source of funds for this purpose. Has the Planning Board considered this possibility? (b) Currently INNS rehabilitates housing in the Ithaca area and sells it at a fraction of its market value to low- income families. However, this housing can later- be resold at market rate. Would it be possible for.the Town of Ithaca to encourage INHS to require that these properties always be resold at the same fraction of market value to genuine low income families? In this way, it would be possible to build up a permanent core of truly low income housing spread around the community in accordance with the latest HUD guidelines. (c) Finally, I would like to note that the Village of Trumansburg has recently approved a far less ambitious project that will provide 24 apartments for low income families and the elderly. If Trumansburg is capable of finding a developer interested in building a more limited project that provides for both the needs of low income families and the growing population of seniors in a less disruptive and more measured fashion, surely it is possible for the Town of Ithaca to do so too. John Bowers 1406 Trumansburg Road February 17, 2004 PB 2/17/04 Attachment #3 Child Safety Issues at Overlook There are 159 non - master bedrooms in the plans for Overlook. One of the illustrations in the developers' brochure shows two single beds in the non - master bedroom. It follows that if Overlook were filled to capacity, there would be between 159 and 318 children in residence. The Board should bear this in mind, even though the developers claim that only 101 children will be living on the site. However, as their tenant base includes .10 -20% from outside Tompkins County, it is hard too how they can predict accurately how many children will be living at Overlook. Even 101 children represents a staggering increase in the number of children on the Trumansburg Road. I have three basic questions to put to the Planning Board: (1)What facilities are available for the children in the apartment complex? (2) How are these children, especially those between the ages of 10 and 18, supposed to get safely to and from downtown, where all the services for children and teenagers are located (library, Youth Center, gym facilities, swimming pools, skating rink, etc. etc.)? (3) What provisions have been made for the safety of these children? The answer to (1) will not take long. The sum total of facilities for children provided for in the developers plans is: (a) a computer room with four terminals;. (b) a 12` x 15' fitness room; (c) a small playground for young children. There is also a small, flat area adjacent to the main driveway and the Trumansburg Rd. labeled "playing field." The utter inadequacy of (a) and (b) surely requires no comment. The playground has been re -sited to a safer location, but it is now very close to a natural pond of unspecified depth. In addition, the drainage pond in the center of the meadow in the final plans has been greatly enlarged. What safety measures are planned to.prevent children from drowning? I am sure everybody remembers the tragic death of three children in an apartment complex in the Ithaca area that was caused by an inadequately protected pool. What about question (2)? The developers have claimed that the increase in traffic due to Overlook will be minimal because many of the residents will not have cars. This means that a very large number of children will either be taking the city bus to and from downtown or else walking. This brings us immediately to question (3). How are these children to get safely across Rt. 96 to access the bus at the professional building, especially in rush hour, given that DOT has not mandated a pedestrian crosswalk and given that TCAT has not at this time agreed to stop in front of Overlook? Even if TCAT were to agree to stop at Overlook, there is a fifteen minute wait at the professional building before the buses return downtown. How many teenagers do you suppose are going to sit and wait on the bus for fifteen minutes when they can walk down Rt. 96 and get home in 7 -8 minutes? Suppose these children decide to walk to or from downtown. Is the Board aware that there are no sidewalks on Rt. 96 for one mile between Overlook and the City of Ithaca? Suppose a teenager needs to get home in the evening. Since the last bus is at 7:00 PM six days a week and 5:00 PM on Sundays, he or she will have no choice but to walk home at dusk on one of the most dangerous and badly lit roads in the county for a mile without sidewalks. Those of us who drive regularly up and down Rt. 96 rarely see an adult walking on the road because it is simply too dangerous, yet it is apparently all Z�� right for children to do so. At one of the informational meetings at the hospital, I specifically asked the developers if they planned to put in a sidewalk on Rt. 96, but was told that it would be far too expensive. These investors are getting $20 million worth of tax credits over 15 years, guaranteed by the state of New York and paid for by New York State taxpayers, yet they are unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to ensure the safety of our children. It is quite apparent that neither the developers of Overlook nor the Town have come to grips with the impact of doubling the number of families on the Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca and multiplying the number of children by a factor of at least ten. Until detailed and specific answers to these very basic issues of safety and services for children have been have been provided, I do not see how the Planning Board can in good conscience even consider recommending approval of the zoning change that is required for a project of this density to go forward. Celia Bowers 1406 Trumansburg Road PB 2/17/04 Attachment #4 Please accept the attached petition presented to .the Town Planning Board. December 16, 2003 We, the undersigned, are against the rezoning proposal for the Kyong Property. F / 10 a .'I �• r... w Ste 1 rY !J w'( i /. i,l / ' L !.' f V'�'' /'l.f C -f• L-/ , l • ice;; � 1. Lo I��,V:•i � �w � � 'jam . /.• \ _ +tea +� l- 1 . Z 157 / , r r.. Ip ace Vii..` ... !.•� �-.i,^ � 7 ! � fi /. �, ^, /'�!-. �. .- ter: �•i` /(. `,� •,.GL"•l. ^ , � t 1 � .1 ill w lie Lon /� /►� 171. I�_ 3 ,. 166 FI rs t Sf c ' `; C. t ;3 lfG� a ca; l� Y r YS6 i :5` d �) is •r. A"'' I �jl i 6.�•Z � . J �/� �1 L Y��'I� L'/ Z . 1 5 % `7 VW ' l 7�• 17 AL 1.3-7 gel c i . PB 2/17/04 Attchment #5 CD r-r . CD CD '-3 a O CD O O O O En CD C � CD O O CD j=W" O CA N 1' j Ono 37 OEM& CF l = Z c r CAD -- Oro, �'� IS. rN �1 ' r L CD j.� Im Y P 1 �. r 3 �C r r (Py 1� N )Lj It PJ J CD .J N %J v� o 'PQ M%R o 0o N 7*L jD CD r-r . CD CD '-3 a O CD O O O O En CD C � CD O O CD j=W" O CA N 1' j CD v CD CD y ¢. CD O CD ►b o . CD N O O l I O I 3 Q cs f ozir Of t co J C . ; ��•... R ir ♦ �.y CD v CD CD y ¢. CD O CD ►b o . CD N O O l I O I 4 } Ac�� CD CD a CD C CD V `y O CD O O� V O CA C C • CD N O UQ CD L )EM" O r%t6 1f1 r. a E 7�7 7- % T ro rz n ce ,T , i ?o , h r�. L \ Ac�� CD CD a CD C CD V `y O CD O O� V O CA C C • CD N O UQ CD L )EM" O _ ' F rory �- o r _ �-- 7-:5 j o� u _ re 66 CD CD s ONE". CL (J� a i Q' OCD CL C N O w N � N N jU �) � • 6` s N U CD O C .� C C O a D Q a cad M z 0 n a c o o' a OMMIL O O O 0 g X O O O O O O O� O a n a a a . O n. . m 6 a a. to N O NJ N N W too p iii . F DI e CD CL CD vQ y CD CL 0 rn Iii e--1� o CD DD Iwo � ► O � 0 0 0 En CD CD . CD N o QQ 0 � u NJ Wu TV ;TA l s j ' . A� r �• r S, t �f CD r i rte• �`' v' 4Jt CD. `k .0 CD ' n Zx CD . DI e CD CL CD vQ y CD CL 0 rn Iii e--1� o CD DD Iwo � ► O � 0 0 0 En CD CD . CD N o QQ 0 � u DI e CD CL CD vQ y CD CL 0 rn Iii e--1� o CD DD Iwo � ► O � 0 0 0 En CD CD . CD N o QQ 0 PB 2/17/04 Petition Attchment #6 We request that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny the request for rezoning the 24+ acres at 1290 Trumansburg Rd. 1 Joseph R. Mc Enemey 131 Hopkins Rd Ithaca jmoe @macrep.com . 2 Robert S. Romanowski 160 Bundy Rd. Ithaca elborom @usadatanet.net 3 Peter N Rukavena 2 Peaceful Dr. Ithaca ruk @twcny.rr.com 4 Gorden Walden Hopkins Rd Ithaca 5 Pat Amato 1261 East Shore Drive Ithaca pamato @tvmy.rr.com 6 Robert Nevin 1261 East Shore Drive Ithaca mevin@twc ny.rr.00m 7 Ben Kopf Interlaken benkopf@zoom- dsl.00m. 8 Kang Ku 324 richard pl Ithaca kang_ku @hotmaD.00m 9 Denise McEnemey 131 Hopkins Rd. Ithaca denise.mcenemey@autodesk.com 10 Elaine Chiu 324 richard pl Ithaca elaine1220@yahoo.00m 11 Joan Reppert f 229 Hector St Ithaca jreppert@twcny.rr.00mu 12 Bonnie Enzuan 268 Bundy Road Ithaca enzian @lightlink.com 13 George Enzian 268 Bundy Road Ithaca. enzian @Ightlink.00m 14 Sonya Harper 408 N Aurora St Ithaca sharpen @ithaca.edu 15 Judy L Singer 124 Woolf Lane Ithaca 11s10@oomeQ.edu . 16 Stephen M. Bowman 238 Bundy Road Ithaca smbi@Ighdink.com Luanne M. Prosped 17 Stefanuoci 1223 Trumansburg Road Ithaca Impstefanuoci @sciencenter.org 18 joseph scaglione A 223 trmansburg rd Ithaca joescag @twcny.rr.00m 19 Virginia Marques 208 Dubois Rd. Ithaca vfm78@yahoo.com 20 Cheryl Gaydosh 1295 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca 21 Mary Beth Bunge 1122 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca mbburrge @twcny.rr.com .22 Daniel Yokum 208 Dubois Rd Ithaca dan@yokumdesgns.com 23 Rob Licht 459 Sheffield Rd Ithaca 24 Carolyn Kreisel 157 Bundy Rd Ithaca ckl @baka.com 25 Sharon M. Marx 156 Bundy Road Ithaca marx@darityoonnecLoom 26 John N. Mahool 156 Bundy Road Ithaca marx @clarkyoonnecLoom 27 Chris Bogdan 1359 Taughannock Blvd Ithaca cbogden I @twcny.rr.00m 28 Bill King 130 West Haven Rd. Ithaca mhbk@Ightlink.00m 29 Danielle Steffey 418 Chestnut St Ithaca d_steffey @hotmail.00m 30 Jim Eavenson 1117 Trumansburg Road Ithaca jim.eavenson @att.net .31 Rosalind Grippi 9 Orchard Hill Rd. Ithaca 32 Salvatore Grippi 9 Orchard Hill Rd. Ithaca 33 John Magacs 293 Bundy road Ithaca jdmagacs @lightllnk.00m 34 Doda Higgins 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca 35 John Bowers 1406 Trumansburg Road Ithaca jsb2@oomell.edu 36 Celia Bowers 1406 Trumansburg Road Ithaca 37 David & Cheryl Gombas 1452 Trumansburg Road Ithaca cag45@oomell.edu 38 MaryDawn Wright 1121 Trumansburg Road Ithaca marydawn .wtht @intlfoodnetwork.00m 39 charies Conley 1121 Trumqnsburg Road Ithaca maddog000ks @msn.00m 40 Patricia A. Hall 1307 Trumansburg Road Ithaca phall @ithaca.edu 41 Gerald D. Hall 1307 Trumansburg Road Ithaca r-- ;t 42 K Houpt 1515 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca 43 Helen Danielson 1604 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca 44 Anna Smith 242 DuBois Road Ithaca 45 Daniel Clement 5027 Dubois Rd, Ithaca 46 Deborah Campbell 1445 Trumansburg Rd, Ithaca 47 mr&mrs wafter carman 1012trumansburg id Ithaca 48 David Schwed 12 Perry Lane Ithaca 49 Sydney Merritt 127 Woolf Lane Ithaca 50 Steve Walden 122 Woolf Lane. Ithaca 51 . Sejin Han 118 Woolf Lane Ithaca 52 joO Boronkay 3 Evergreen Lane Ithaca 53 Ann byme hopkins road Ithaca 54. Andy Byrne hopkins road Ithaca 55 Don R. Crittenden 173 Bundy Road Ithaca 56 Marsha Kardon 2 Perry Lane Ithaca 57 Joyce Merritt 127 Woolf Lane Ithaca f'cbinTks.se.11 ("!arkp&ci(Atoot Pjhon�G PA,66nQ 146 7 -hilrg I kah3@oomell.edu. hcd627 @hotmaH.com asm ith@tompkins-co.org danieldementl @cs.00m dc20 @oomell.edu dpostime@aol.00m rebschwed @aol.com oldhorsema @aol.00m . swalden @twcny.rr com sejin @nanoflow.00m Egreenns@twcny. rr.00m byme @Ithaca.edu icsocoer@ithaca.edu don@crfttendenlaw.com mk2486@pol.net joyoewmerritt@earthlink.net 7-4kkcgt m��c_KFO? -c, P PB 2/17/04 Attachment #7 7 . I TOMPKINS OUN1 320 Noi Telephone: February 2, 2004 Mr. Fred Wilcox Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Fred, `\ Y LEGISLATURE 14850 274 -5430 .,� FEB 4 2004 { Please accept this letter as my statement in favor of the housing project known as Overlook at West Hill, which you are considering on February 3. As you know the County Legislature meets at the same time as the Planning Board does, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could read this into the record at your meeting on Tuesday night. For the past seven months the county's Health and Human Services Committee has been looking into the crisis in affordable housing in our county. I do not use the word "crisis" lightly. Since the stock market and interest rates fell in 2000, housing prices (including rentals) throughout the price range have skyrocketed. The squeeze has been. greatest in the low- to moderate -price range, so that working families around the median income ($43,000) are priced out of the market. The median home price was $146,000 in 2003, up 22% from the 2000 level of $119,000. Housing is more expensive in Tompkins County than anywhere in New York west of the Hudson River. I cite these numbers to make the point that the need for affordable housing in Tompkins County is critical and growing. For example, a salesperson in retail will work fulltime for $14,040, while an administrative assistant will start at $26,104. Many single parents must raise their children on these salaries; many senior citizens are on similar fixed incomes. When median -income families can't find homes they can afford, price pressure increases for those with even fewer resources. People who are at -risk of losing their housing are in fact pushed out. In Tompkins County the use of our emergency shelters has risen since 1997, to the point that in 2003 the number of bednights needed (15,353) was more than double the number in 1999 (7,474). This amounts to an average of 42 people per night having nowhere else to go, and we know that additional. people are not using the shelters. The Homeless and Housing Task Force conducted a "street count" to document a point in time: on June 18, 2003, 60 people were in the shelter and 45 more were unsheltered, in other words, living on the streets. The housing shortage affects everyone. Complaints about traffic and high property assessments, which are all too familiar in our community, are directly related to this ��� Recycled paper crisis. In adjacent counties the supply of affordable homes is so much greater that many workers commute into Tompkins County because they can't afford to live here. Property assessments have jumped because the demand is greater than the supply, pushing price competition at every level. And Tompkins County's struggle to provide shelter for the homeless cost local taxpayers nearly $1 million last year. These are problems that affect us all. Overlook at West Hill will be a much - needed part of the solution. The Town of Ithaca is well - positioned to help meet the need for affordable housing, with well - developed transportation and infrastructure networks so that the net cost to local government of new facilities is minimized. The Overlook project will provide a good mix of quality homes in the price ranges that are desperately needed here. Thank you for reading this letter to the Planning Board, and for considering my thoughts on this important matter. Sincerely, NCX Martha Robertson Legislator, District 13 Town of Dryden P13 2/17/04 R4 Attachment #8 Tompk><nsCount;yLyeg><slature ' �� W� t4� 0.r 320 North"Tioga,S�tree ,,1thaca,, Y. 14850 Telephone�(66.7) il"! 434 ax: (607) 274 -5430 wwwaompkin`s- eo:org/legislaiu re 3 February 2004 Fred Wilcox, Chair_ Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 No. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Fred, I am writing to lend my support to the housing development. you will be considering tonight at the Planning Board meeting. I cannot attend in person to offer these comments as the County Legislature meets at the same time. My position will undoubtedly pit me against the views of some of my friends and probably former supporters in the Is' District but I feel obliged to speak out on this important subject 1 believe the proposed development has been unfairly characterized in a petition that has been circulated in the area. There are misstatements of fact in the petition that probably resulted in a number of people signing who might not have otherwise done so if they had correct information. Probably the most outstanding example is a claim that the project would require a 50 year property.tax abatement. As I understand the project overview provided by your planning department, there is no property tax abatement at all. Instead, the developers will be using income tax credits earned by investors which is the most common financial. tool being used these days to develop affordable housing. Perhaps the most distressing thing about the opposition's position is the blatant NIMBYism it represents. As I.have pointed out before — in particular with respect to. the Linderman Creek development — these people we are trying to "keep out of our neighbohood" are people who in many instances are gainfully employed in Tompkins County earning somewhat limited wages or whose income is fixed. A review of the wage and salary schedule for county government indicates that many employees in clerical and stenographic positions as well as technical support personnel and some heavy equipment operators would meet income eligibility requirements. Many retired persons would also be eligible. Those of us who are. working to improve the County's economy hear regularly how important an adequate supply of affordable housing is to local businesses and industries trying to recruit employees. We also know that a huge percentage of our local work :force lives outside of Tompkins County — and spends its paychecks outside the County — because they cannot afford to live here. We need to reverse this trend and capture those dollars locally. I am not familiar with the sponsors of this development so I cannot comment on their reputation or track record. I do, however, have a deep respect for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing and its leadership. as well as the Town of Ithaca's rigorous review processes so I .feel confident in supporting this badly needed addition to the community's housing supply. I don't think Tompkins County residents ever want to be in the position of turning our backs on. the needs of our friends e and neighbors even if we haven't met them yet! I hope the West Hill community can broaden its sights to welcome these new neighbors. You have a tough job but the Town of Ithaca's fair minded approach to developments such as this does a real service to Tompkins County and it is greatly appreciated by many of us. Very truly yours Barbara Blanchard. Representative I` District TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no'more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Overlook at West Hill, 1290 Trumansburg Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of SEQR Determination regarding subdivision approval, site plan approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change, Overlook at West Hill, 1290 Trumansburg Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town. Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed residential development, Overlook at West Hill, located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 =14.2, Residential District R -15. The proposal consists of two phases of residential development, consisting of 128 affordable rental apartment units in 16 buildings and a community center in Phase I on a 24 +/- acre portion of Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 -14.2, and 15 lots for single - family, market rate homes in Phase 1I on about 19 acres of the subject property. The current owners would retain about 5 acres containing the existing medical practice fronting on Trumansburg Road. The applicant is currently requesting consideration of rezoning the 24 +/- acres for affordable rental apartments from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence and preliminary subdivision and site plan approval for the Phase I apartments. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant; Grace Chiang, HOLT Architects and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, Agents. 4. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 5. Approval of Minutes: January 20, 2004. 6. Other Business: 7, 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 February 17, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Continuation of SEQR Determination regarding subdivision approval, site plan approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change, Overlook at West. Hill, 1290 Trumansburg Road. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed residential development, Overlook at West Hill, located at 1290 Trumansburg .Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 -14.2, Residential District R -15. The proposal consists of two phases of residential development, consisting of 128 affordable rental apartment units in 16 buildings and a community center in Phase I on a 24 +/- acre portion of Tax Parcel No. 24-4 - 14.2, and 15 lots for single- family, market rate homes in Phase II on about 19 acres of the subject property. The current owners would retain about 5 acres containing the existing medical practice fronting on Trumansburg Road. The applicant is currently requesting consideration of rezoning the 24 +/- acres for affordable rental. apartments from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence and preliminary subdivision and site plan approval for the Phase I apartments. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant; Grace Chiang, HOLT Architects and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, Agents. 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. Dated: Monday, February 9, 2004. Publish: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 The Ithaca Journal Nednesdayl�Febyuaryr�l�.1, ?004 TOWWOF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD t. NOTICE`OF Pllool $oa�d blithe Town a4 lthacao 7t� HEARINGS. - 'r 'on - ues 1e bruary 17; d bt,215 North Tioga:�i Tuesday, ''" ; Sheet `Ithaca, N Y ? at eF '.February , l7, 2004 1 ;'following> times and -on the tfollowirig:matters : � By' direction of 4t the< -Char 7 05'P.M Continuation, mfr:: the., Plarimngi IofeSEQR "Determination'ie eld by�the`Plonn ng' :'andl` ?a' tecommendotion`to ;theiTOwo- Board regdrding p >,. ),zoning changge,'Ovedook a1:' Wesf7" Hill,.' '- 1290 TrumgnsburQ Rood.+:'t.'4 j'... ...... .i r.:_, ;Al r'..Knn -and: to the S Poll loo- toad ?INYS Route�96j; Town.' if; lt6aco Tax' Pbk6l No. 24• , 4 =14:2; Residential District R -_; 1'5: _ :The: propasal `consisfa'- of'two phases of.residential`k development,' consisting''0 4' 1'28"''. affordable rental aportmentvnits in:16 build- ings:;ond•a,,community, : ter, iE= Phased on :q-i 4 +/- ,ocre'pci i on-Of' 0 x Paicel Mn - 94.4.14:2. and 15 lots* low, -... U. -f__ Ihames-in.Ph6se'II on.oboo1) 19' •acres' of.i the' tosubjectn ,property., The'current,owo-:! terse would retain about_;6q acres canto ninge existing) me- ical` practice fronting en Tnimansburg %Road. =They;, applicant „is! currently re; -' questing ;consideration _,,pfv lezoning.I e.24 + /•', acres! foi offordoble' rental apart, ments: from :R-15- Residence :,to' MR o, Multiple* Residence 0rfd - preliminary'subdivisi&r and site plan <approval for- "he' Phase: I '-apartments. (.Song,.' Ja.: Kyong;- .Owner,;. �;Aris Investmenlsl, Arflicanl� IGrdce Chiang; HOLT ArchF, tects and Peter Trowbridge;; Trowbridge & Wolf, tandc scapeArchitects, Agents. Said Planning Board. wihl 0 Said times and ,said' place. :hear all persons in supporil t. of . such matters oi. objection's; therelo. 'Person "s may -afi pear by :agent or in; person', Individuals. with 'visual • im•' .,pairments, 'hearing; impair ments or'- other': special. needs; will be provided.wit�. assistance, 'as . necessory;f upon_ .request. Persons de'sir•! ing' assistance' must make•: such a request not.less'than% 46 hours prior to, the`.time of;, the publicrhe'rings_ ' ��' pirec}cr of, Planning'. •273- 1747; Dated:'Mbnda February 9, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, *' February i11, 2004',' '. 4 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME /lop-% i PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION A 1 J/ / f � /J SC /—�• /- 11 .C.. Yy� r`7LG) C '' �� � � iyIJ (/ LEA � ��'���Q f �/ / U k�. er C-f l •i u 3 L� C v ? ! 4 i- i'l vi.. A n- I `1 k r- -� 1� CLr2. — 0 J L 4 �= i ' L i'c l �/� 1 Siv�i C i ' •�;. � � °� '" ice' �, r..I'v!�. r- �- ��(''�.., �,;5 r,,L:� � , , � Ica s ZL41 , l �1 � (0, �Js►�oTCl,/i ���� �w,ereiD�aB 1�°- �ly�C/�iF� ,�woGF �G�• () xm TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION r og kot"I &Zpv'4/ lilt Ll i �rlvaa"j� ii r .' r 1-n 3�' * SG''l c' i CL `i �� U� 2 elf A)l_ etc IV) '- let _ 1 i t .--a TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca .Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: February 9, 2004 Date of Publication: February 11, 2004 A-(jk. Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this l l th day of February 2004, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 C�6