HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-05-04j
FILE
DATE 16e r
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2004
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special regular on Tuesday, May 4, 2004, in
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; .Tracy
Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member;
Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Christine Balestra, Planner;
Michael Smith, Environmental Planner.
EXCUSED: Eva Hoffmann, Board Member
OTHERS:. Gerald Hall, 1302 Trumansburg Road; Patricia Hall, 1302 Trumansburg
Road; Herb Engman, 120 Warren Road; Laura Johnson - Kelly, 48 Comfort Road; Bruce
Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Sydney Merritt, 127 Woolf
Lane; Joyce Merritt, 127 Woolf Lane; Faith Chase, 106 Comfort Road; Jeffrey Juran,
614 North Aurora Street; Robert Drake, 354 Sheffield Road; Dave Auble, 111 West King
Road; S. Castillo- Davis, 1312 Hanshaw Road; Bill Goddman, 231 Rachel Carson Way;
Brent Katzmann, 1335 Mecklenburg Road; Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road;. Peter
Trowbrigde, 1345 Mecklenburg Road; Kim Michaels, 1345 Mecklenburg Road; Paul
Levesques, 217 North Aurora Street; Grace Chang, HOLT; Joan Jurkowich, Tompkins
County Deputy Commissioner of Planning; Abby Lyons,. 154 West Haven Road; Bill
Aibern, Sunny Slope Terrace; Boris Simkin, 217 Buttermilk Lane; Frank Santelli, TG
Miller; Joe Fitzgerald, Cayuga Medical Center.
Meeting called to order at 7:06 p.m.
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 April 26, 2004 and April 28, 20045
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 April 28, 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.
AGENDA ITEM: Presentation and discussion of the Draft County Comprehensive
Plan, Tompkins County Planning Department.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
,r
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Joan Jerkawitz, Tompkins County Deputy Commissioner of Planning — Good evening,
Fred. Good evening everybody. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight
about the County's work on the next Comprehensive Plan. It is my privilege to give the
presentation, even though everybody on staff worked on it. So, don't take my
presentation to mean that I did all the work, far from it. I'm here to give an overview of
the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan and through the nature of the
comprehensiveness of this plan and also I understand that you have a tight time on your
agenda, I am going to ask you to hold your questions until the end of the presentation
and we can deal with them then. I'm going to have some handouts and people will start
circulating now with those that include the principals, policies and action items in our
Comprehensive Plan, at least in the draft, as well as a comment sheet. If you have
questions, you might want to jot them down on the comments sheet, as we go.
So, why is the County preparing a Comprehensive Plan? As you are well aware,
planning helps maintain and promote high - quality communities. Local municipalities, of
course. play a really key role in this by developing and implementing local
comprehensive plans that reflect the goals of their communities. The County
comprehensive plan is an opportunity to coordinate these efforts and to create a shared
community vision that we can all work.towards. In addition, the County Comprehensive
Plan provides and opportunity for us to, as a community to grasp regional and. municipal
issues that maybe overlooked by local planning efforts. It is one of the overriding issues
that Tompkins County should and will work proactively with the towns, villages, the City
of Ithaca, as well as state and federal agencies to cooperatively address regional
issues, such as natural resources, public infrastructure and consumer and employment
markets. This line describes where we are now in the planning process. Some of you
may recall in 2001 we began work on the vital communities initiative, which was an
effort to involve the communities defining a very broad vision of how, where and what
kind of development should occur in the future. That process resulted in the County
Legislature adopting interim development and preservation principals in 2002.
The next step was to reach out to the public to help determine the purpose and content
of this comprehensive plan. In the Fall and Summer of 2003, staff reviewed the existing
documents of municipal plans, other agency plans, and other work that has been done
in the pasta We researched and analyzed the various elements of the plan. Now we are
at the draft plan review stage. We are bringing out the draft plan to the public for review
and for feedback to .various community groups, advisory board meetings, open houses
and public meetings, such as this one this evening. After this public outreach effort, we
will revise the plan, based on the comments we have received. We will. also conduct a
fiscal impact analysis of the recommendation and develop .an implementation plan for
the key action items.
The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is organized around ten basic principals
which fall. under three broad headings: housing, transportation and jobs; the
environmental; and. neighborhoods and communities. As I present the information
tonight, 'I hope to. highlight how these areas are interconnected and how they influence
2
PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
the quality of life in Tompkins County. You have a handout that lists all the principal,
policies and action items that fit under these three broad headings. As I go through the
presentation this evening, I will single out some of those items that we think are
particularly interesting or that are new initiatives. We would like to near from you about
the relevance of the action items and get your feedback about prioritizing which actions
are the most important.
Much of our everyday lives revolve around the first piece of this. puzzle, housing,
employments and transportation. The interconnectedness of these three elements have
been in the news a lot recently with articles in local papers highlighting the link between
housing affordability, job creation, traffic congestion and in commuting from outside the
community. You will see in an upcoming slide that Tompkins-County is clearly a growing
employment center, drawing workers from other areas for job opportunities here. Unless
we have housing that is affordable for those workers, they will find housing outside of
the community and most will need to drive greater distances to reach their places of
employment; this results in traffic congestion increases.
Chairperson Wilcox — Joan, can I stop you?
Ms. Jerkawitz — Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox —.Can you pull the microphone over closer? The people in the back
are having a hard time hearing you. Pull it up nice and close to you.
Ms. Jerkawitz - Again, increasing in commuting, results in traffic congestion increases,
higher transportation costs in mobile commutes for local workers, increased. wear, and
tear on our roads and bridges, and increase cost to plow and maintain roadways. Let's
take a look first a.t housing; the cost of buying a home here is significantly higher than it
is in adjacent towns. The sales price of a single- family home in Tompkins County has
really soared in the last few years, from a median of $100,000 in -year 2000 to $134;000
in 2002. In part due to the high number of students in our community, many people in
Tompkins County rent their living space, but this also comes at a premium. The median
monthly rental rate per household in 2000 was $611, the highest in the region and in
fact, that same figure, the leading rent in the Town of Ithaca was $704. So we are quite
a bit above the adjoining counties, well over $100 more pre monthly rent. The generally
accepted definition of housing affordability is that household should spend no more that
30. percent of their income on housing. In 2000, about one in three households in
Tompkins County had housing affordability problems by this definition. As you can see
in the chart on the left hand side of the. slide, everything to the right of the black line
represents households that are spending more than one -third of their income on
housing. The blue columns indicate that the burden is more acute for renters than for
homeowners, with fully half of all renters paying more than 30 percent of their incomes
on housing. Another distinguishing feature of the Tompkins County housing market is
that only about a half of all households own their own home, compared to nearly three
quarters in adjacent counties and two- thirds nationwide. The Town of Ithaca, pretty well
reflects the county average of 52 percent homeownership rate.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Looking at transportation, the 2000 census reported that 60 percent of total commuters
in the county drove alone to work, that's compare the 75 percent nationwide. So, fully
40 percent of commuters use some kind of an alternative mode of transportation.
Tompkins County has higher percentages of residents using public transportation,
carpooling, walking and even working at home,. than in New York State or the U.S. as a
whole. Percentages, of course are higher in the City of Ithaca and in other areas where
development is compact.. Typically if people need to walk more than five or ten minutes
to reach a destination, they choose to drive. Since low density suburban and strip mall
developments rarely are located within ten minutes walks of destinations, these types of
development patterns result in increased traffic and congestion. We can reduce traffic
and alternative modes of transportation by encouraging compact development and by
providing affordable housing near employment centers, doing so, will not only promote
livable communities, but it will also keep overall transpirations maintenance costs down.
Even now, caring for our transportation network is a significant cost to tax payers, with
transportation expenditures in Tompkins County totaling about $35 million per year.. It
will continue to expand it's infrastructure beyond existing population centers and these
costs will rise.
The chart on the left shows total job growth from 1997 to 2003 and indicates that
Tompkins County has experienced relatively more job growth than the United States of
New York State as a whole. This is primarily attributable to our County's success in new
business formation in. light manufacturing and high tech. There were also significant
gains in education, health care and social service sector jobs. The result is a wide
variety of good. jobs and a stronger resistance to recessionary forces because the
customers for these businesses are so diverse. On the right, you can see that local job
growth has out -paced local population growth in the last decade. As you can see, our
population growth was about three percent and job growth thirteen percent. That which
is reflected in the third column, of course, is who's filing those jobs and that is in-
commuters, which increased 20 percent between 1990. and 2000. So, while. this
signifies a strong local economy, it also suggests a need to understand why so many
people are choosing to live in housing outside of the County. Availability of affordable
housing near to where people work is important to our businesses, the transportation
network and our quality of life.
Another piece of the jobs picture is the rural economy. Farming . contributes
approximately 50 million dollars to the local economy each year, but beyond the
agricultural sector, it is really unknown exactly how much rural actively contributes to the
economy as a whole, but driving down rural roads in our community, I am often stuck by
the number and diversity of services that you see offered, not just related to the natural
resources, businesses in an agricultural community that you would expect, but other
services as well scattered throughout the County. In fact, according to the 2000 census,
over half of all self - employed workers live in the rural portions of our County. If we can
.better nurture the entrepreneur of spirit of rural business owners, there is a greater
potential . to increase the standards of living in our rural communities. Although
agricultural operation exists throughout the County, several areas are considered to be
0
PLANNING.-BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
strategic in terms of keeping agriculture viable and thriving. These areas have the best
soils to grow crops and high concentrations of continuous actively farmed parcels of
land. The map on the slide shows where those areas have been identified in Tompkins
County. By identifying and implementing programs that long term viability and profit
ability of agriculture, especially in these key areas,, will promote agriculture growth
throughout the County and the region.
You can see from some of the trends that I have presented that we are ,doing well in
some areas, like creating jobs and not so well in others,.: like supporting affordable
housing for those workers. As I mentioned earlier, the Comprehensive Plan itself is
organized around ten basic principals, these principals provide a framework for where
we want to see our community move in the future. The principals for housing, jobs and
transportation are: Housing in Tompkins County should be 'affordable and .appealing to
all residents regardless of their income or whether they rent or own their homes. The
functional capacity of the highway system should be maintained, the capacity and
participation rates for transportation alternatives, including public transit, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities should be enhanced. The. local economy should be enhanced by
building on important community assets. Such as our highly educated work force,
entrepreneurial spirit, dynamic academic institutions, and our high quality of life. The
working rural landscapes of farms and forests and the livelihoods of those who depend
upon them should be preserved and enhanced.
Action items in the plan are the priority tasks that should be implemented sometime in
the next three to five years to support these principals. I am going to go over just some
of the action items that are included in the plan intended to promote affordable housing,
a better functioning transportation system, and jobs and economic opportunities. Under
housing, a sampling of action items from the draft plan include, produce a three to five
year affordable housing needs assessment to guide development of appropriate
subsidized rental and ownership housing to meet local needs. Develop efforts to
coordinate services for seniors who are having difficulty identifying or accessing those
services they need to stay in there homes. Provide education and training programs for
elected officials, board members, community leaders, developers and builders and the
general public on the need for and benefits of affordable housing development.
Simultaneously with the development of the Tompkins County draft Comprehensive
Plan; the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council is developing a 2026 long -
range transportation plan. That document will be incorporated into the County's
Comprehensive Plan as a companion document when it was completed. Some of the
key action items from that draft transportation plan are to develop a countywide bicycle
route map, to identify infill opportunities at nodes along transit lines and to develop at
State Route 13 corridor access plan.
Similar to the long -rang transportation plan update, Tompkins County Area
Development is simultaneously updating the County's economic development strategy.
Similarly, that plan's recommendations will be incorporated into the County's
Comprehensive Plan. Some of the key action items form the economic development
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
strategy are to improve' workforcer resources and training, to improve air service,
including frequency, destinations and cost, and study the feasibility of business
attraction initiative, using specific Cornell research and development programs as the
key element. The plan also recommends some action items related to the rural
economy. A couple of examples include, .determining the feasibility of establishing a
rural micro enterprise program, including adding a component to the County's already
existing economic development revolving. loan fund, and updating the 1998 agriculture
and farmland protection plan with 'a particular focus on promoting the viability and
profitability of agriculture in the county.
The next major element of the Comprehensive Plan is the natural environment.
Tompkins County is a particularly . resource -rich and beautiful area. Protecting and
.sustaining these finite natural resources and features and using them for the most
appropriate. purposes are essential. Tompkins County is blessed with diverse water
resources that provide for domestic, commercial and recreational needs in the
community. The map on the slides shows the major water sheds in the County., as well
as beyond, highlighting the regional nature of water flow and the need for a regional
approach for water management. Approximately 80 percent of Tompkins County drains
into the Finger Lakes and eventually, Lake Ontario. You can see on the map everything
above the red dividing line. 20 percent drains south to the Susquehanna River and
eventually the Chesapeake Bay. The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation reported improvements in water quality throughout New York State
between 1972 and 1992, but a general decline in water quality, again, throughout the
state, from 1992 to 2002. They attribute this trend in declining water quality to changes
in land use and changes in the intensity of land use, which result in increases in non -
point source pollution. Development can impact water resources by increasing runoff,
which is the primary way for sediments and pollutants to enter the water. Watersheds in
Tompkins County that have been identified as key contributors of sediment to the
southern end of Cayuga Lake include, Cayuga Inlet, Six Mile Creek, Fall Creels and
Salmon Creek. Over half of Tompkins County residents rely on surface water for
drinking and another 45 percent rely on ground water. It is in everyone's best interest to
protect that valuable and finite resource. Water recourses are. just one of the natural
resources worth protecting in Tompkins County. We are also fortunate to have here
nearly 39,000 acres of protected natural areas, four state parks, 200 miles of hiking and
multi -use trails, of course, Cayuga Lake, and a vast number of streams, gorges,
waterfalls, wetlands, lakes and forests. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan has
tried to be proactive in identifying and mapping the natural features we value, based on
the location, and concentration of ' those resources, such as unique natural areas,
wetlands, stream corridors and other resources, the Planning Department has identified
fourteen distinct and significant natural feature focus areas. These range in size from
400 to 40,000 acres. Conservation in these areas should be determined through public
education, development of detailed protection plan, and public and private partnerships.
Sustaining profitable and function landscapes will be key to protecting these areas over
the long term, therefore identification of protection measures should be tailored to the
functions of the focus areas, as well as to the financial needs of the existing land
ril
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
owners. As you can see, several of these natural features focus areas are located in the
Town of Ithaca and they number about 74,000 acres.
Again, the plan is organized around principals and the. principal supporting the
environment are, finite resources that provide needed community goods, services,
recreation opportunities or environmental benefits should be protected and used
appropriately. The natural features that define the community should be preserved and
.enhanced. Some of the action items in the draft plan that promote these principal are,
conduct watershed and aquifer assessments for drinking water sources, update the
County's flood hazard mitigation program to incorporate water shed based approaches
to reduce the risk of flood damages and develop boat docking, boat service areas and a
waterfront commercial district on and in the vicinity of Inlet Island in the City of Ithaca.
Establish and open space program to protect to protect or preserve natural resources,
recreation amenities and working landscapes in the focus areas identified in the
Comprehensive Plan to find stream corridor developers for the major tributaries to
Cayuga Lake and encourage . the use of appropriate measures to preserve the
designated stream corridors. Conduct a scenic resources inventory and prepare a
scenic resources preservation plan.
The third interlocking piece of the puzzle is our neighborhoods and communities. We
are a county of nearly 100,000 people with diverse abilities, backgrounds and interests,
however each of us deserves a quality of life that meets standards for basic comfort,
health and community amenities. Building and maintaining strong communities and
centers of development can protect and enhance our overall quality of life. Strong
communities come in many different packages: Some strong communities can be found
in clusters of houses in rural areas, others in busy urban neighborhoods, and still others
in cul -de -sacs in suburban areas. Some things that strong communizes have in
common are friendly relation between neighbors, containment with the quality of the
built -in environment and the feeling that residents can live a safe and healthy life. One
indicator of a strong community is how frequently people walk around their
neighborhoods. When people walk for exercise or to reach destinations, they tend to
have interactions with their neighbors, talking about community events and really
fostering the feeling that they are part of a larger community. People who walk often
tend to be healthier, as walking is one of the easiest and least costly forms of
exercising. People choose to walk more frequently, of course, in communities that are
designed to be more pleasant and inviting places for walking. These areas tend to have
sidewalks or paths that are connected to a broader trail network. They have buildings,
parking lots and plantings that are attractive and not intimidating to walkers. They have
lighting and building setbacks that promote a feeling of safety both for the residents and
the pedestrians.
One of the key issues that are being faced by communities throughout the nation is that
land is being developed at a far greater rate than the rate of population growth. Between
1982 and 1997 in upstate New York, the amount of developed land increased by 30
percent, while population increased by less than three percent. The consequences of
this accelerated and disproportional use of land, outside of community center, include
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June ?, 2004
requiring more linear feet of utility lines than compact communities, and creating ever
spiraling needs for services, while those areas already served may be stagnating .or in
decline. On the other hand, by encouraging development in existing areas, communities
benefit from a stronger tax base, closer proximately of jobs and services, increased
efficiency of already developed land and infrastructure and reduced development
pressure in fringe areas, while leading to the preservation of farm areas and more open
space. The principals for neighborhoods and communizes are: residents should be
safe, healthy and comfortable with the aesthetics of their communities and have daily
opportunities. to interact with neighbors and community members to build strong,
cohesive communities. The development patterns already reflected in the existing
villages, hamlets and the City of Ithaca Is downtown area and neighborhoods are key
components of the built environment and greatly contribute to the vitality of the local
economy and community life. The effectiveness of taxpayer dollars should be
maximized by investing government funds in public infrastructure and facilities in the
most efficient manner possible. Some of the action items in the draft plan that promote
these principals are advancing implementation of a countywide multi -use trail network.
Conducting pedestrian level of service, . and walk ability studies in interested
neighborhoods throughout the County and identify population centers and community
facilities that are underserved by the existing transit system, work with municipalities to
identify and map areas appropriate for infill development. Developer identified model
development design standards that address how to maintain a distinct edge between an
urban or a village area and the rural countryside. Develop or identify model land
development regulations and design standards that support dense development ' in
areas with water and sewer services and limited development in areas without such
services, an evaluated downtown office plan for future County facility needs.
This. evening I have talked a little bit about housing, transportation and jobs, the
environment, and neighborhoods and community, and how they are all interrelated.
Perhaps, it is easiest to think about these interrelationships at a regional level, which is
what makes this County Comprehensive Plan so important. Tompkins County is part of
a broader geographic area and economic market, which influences everything from
where we choose to shop and live, to what areas visit to hike and swim. Although New
York State clearly places. land use authority in the hands of it's town, villages and cities,
Intermunicipal planning can help communities to cooperatively address issues that are
more regional in nature. We invite you to plan an import role in helping guide our future.
We would like to hear your thoughts and ideas. Tonight I have highlighted just some of
the. action items included in the draft plan, but please refer to the handout that has been
passed out and identifies, I think, it's 66 or 67 proposed. action items, as well as the
principals and policies, which these action items are meant to support. The final plan is
highly unlikely to include all 66 or 67, whatever it is, action items. That list is going to be
culled down. We are also looking for any thoughts you have on additions that should be
included. The blue comment sheet that has been passed out, you can make some
comments and leave it with us or mail it in, you can visit out website to read the plan
itself or other information about the plan and it allows you a feedback form to e-mail us
or you can stop by our office or give us a phone call to discuss your ideas. We really are
looking for ideas and the thoughts of people who are learning about the Comprehensive
�
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4; 2004
APPROVED June ?, 2004
Plan. Thank you and I will leave it there and however you want to conduct the next
piece:
Chairperson Wilcox - Do we have any questions or commend? I should point out to the
members of the audience who are here, there are a least four members of the County.
Planning Department who are here and you will be here until about 8:00.
Ms. Jerkawitz - At least until 8:00 and if people are still wanting to talk with us, we will
still be there.
Chairperson Wilcox - People can go out there and look at the presentation that is there
and talk with the wonderful members of the Tompkins County Planning Department.
Mr. Kanter - Joan, how long do you think the process to complete the plan will take?
Ms. Jerkawitz - We are aiming to present the plan for adoption to the Legislature
September or October of this year. Really the next steps once we are done with this
input process are to develop the detailed implementation plan and prepare the fiscal
impact analysis. That analysis will look at the impact, not just on the county, but also on
the school districts in Tompkins County.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you have to do an environmental impact statement?
Ms. Jerkawitz - We will be doing an environmental review as part of this process.
Chairperson Wilcox -- Are we all set ladies and gentlemen? Very good. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Jerkawitz - Thank you so much for your time.
Inaudible male voice from the audience.
Chairperson Wilcox - Public comments should be addressed to the members of the
Tompkins County Planning Department who are planning it. We have- persons to be
heard at the very end, you could address us at that point.
PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding an amendment
to Section 31, Subsection 1, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to
allow cluster subdivisions in an Agricultural Zone,
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Kanter, if you would please.
Mr. Kanter - Thank you. I'll make this brief. I think the board had some materials that
explained this. It is really a pretty simple matter, but I wanted to just say a couple of
9
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 43 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
words so that any members of the public interested in this would understand what this is
about.
Our new zoning went into effect April 15t and as with any lengthy document like
that, we very quickly saw a potential conflict in some of our existing regulations with the
new zoning. In this particular case, it had to do with the provision in our subdivision
regulations in the clustering article, which basically for whatever reasons when we first
.did the subdivision regulations a number of years ago says that you cannot bring a
cluster subdivision plan to the Planning Board if it is in an Agricultural Zone, and it if is,
you can only do that if, you rezone the Agricultural Zone to a Residential Zone. So the
conflict with that is that in our new Agricultural Zoning district, we in fact want to
encourage clustering of lots in the Agricultural Zone because by doing that you can
concentrate any residential lots that you might end up with on a fairly small piece of the
property -and presumably preserve large tracts of open land that would be permanently
protected for farmland or other open space. So that is where the conflict .lies. So
basically, this is a very simple amendment that simply deletes the wording that we refer
to that basically says that you cannot cluster in an Agricultural Zone. Then there is a
little bit of more clean up in there. I don't know, John, if you wanted to expand on that
but basically what we are asking the board to do tonight is give a recommendation to
the Town Board. The Town Board will be setting a public hearing on this amendment
and I think they will be hearing that at their June meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — And the entire reason for the amendment is to bring the
subdivision regulations into conformance with the Zoning regulations.
Mr. Kanter — Also, I'll add that this has nothing to do with any of the actions on tonights
or any other agenda specifically. It really is a general amendment to address all future
subdivisions that might come before the board. It may or may not be able to apply to
one or more of the subdivisions here tonight, but it was not intended to simply address
those.
Chairperson Wilcox — The agricultural zoning now is seven -acre lots and the last thing
that we want in an agricultural zone is a whole bunch of seven -acre lots, frankly. It
would be much nicer if you have 50 acres, I don't want seven 'lots of seven acres
apiece. I would rather have seven lots clustered together of, lets say two acres a piece,
over on one side and then 36 acres of open space. I think that is really what we want to
encourage. That is what we are encouraging, I think, with the zoning. We should bring
the subdivision regulations up to be consistent. Questions? Comments?
Board Member Howe — It sounds good as proposed.
Chairperson Wilcox Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. We ask you to
come to the microphone. We ask that you give us your name and address and we will
be.very interested to hear what you have to say this evening.
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Abby Lyons, 154 West Haven Road - I am.all in favor of preserving open space. My
concern is and maybe this is because of my ignorance. Will the same number-of lots,
houses be on the same number of lots even if they are clustered together? Would it
allow for more dense development than we already have?
Attorney Barney - The answer is no.
Ms. Lyons -So, it wouldn't, increase any density?
Attorney Barney - No. Our clustering regulations basically..say that first you make a
determination of how- many lots or how many units can be placed on a particular piece
of land if it wasn't clustered and that sets the limit on the amount that you will have on
the clustering.
Ms. Lyons - Well, I'm concerned about that because I live on West Hill, which seems to
be the hot spot for development and I'm feeling a lot of pressure coming in on our little
neighborhood, which the County presentation so eloquently said that you know when
people feel like they are in a neighborhood and I feel like our neighborhood is in parallel.
Chairperson Wilcox - You see in color that Conifer, the . Linderman Creek
subdivision... we have proposals that we have see from Sky Gardens and now for the
Drake subdivision, which we'll get our first look at tonight. So, yes, there are certainly
development pressures on West Hill. But just to repeat what John said, this doesn't
change the zoning. We are not changing the zoning, we are changing. the subdivision
regulations to be consistent with the zoning is what we are being asked to recommend
this evening.
Ms. Lyons - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Your welcome. Thank you. Mr. Merritt, sir.
Sydney Merritt, 127 Woolf Lane - I have some very positive comments to make with
respect to the County Planning Comprehensive Plan, which I think is one that we could
all aspire to. I read the. report yesterday and I read portions of it today and I was out in
the lobby this afternoon trying to get a little more background with respect to it. But one
of the items that struck me as being of concern was on page 26 of that report, which
says that Tompkins County Planners advocate retaining agricultural land for agricultural
use and rezoning for clustered subdivision seems to be a contradiction to this. So I
would like to see haw you people respond to that and even though you break down
agricultural land into little tiny pieces, it is still agricultural land and they also pointed out
the fact that agriculture is a $50 million business employing any number of farmers and
why it is acceptable to take this land away from them is not understood by me. Now, I
mentioned that agricultural land that hasn't been farmed last year or this year or next
year can be farmed, but if you put buildings on it, it can never be farmed and that is
where I am leaving it to have you folks explain it to me and thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox - Stay right there. Can you sit there for a second?
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Merritt — Sure
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you understand that what is before us this evening is a
recommendation to change the subdivision regulations under which we operate? I just
want to make sure that we are clear here. We are not being asked to change the...
Mr. Merritt — As I understand, it is requesting the rezoning of agricultural land for
subdivisions.. That is what it says here in this agenda item.
Chairperson Wilcox — No. No. There is no rezoning before this board this evening. I'll
let you read it.
Mr. Merritt It says recommendation to the Town Board regarding an amendment to
Section 31, Subsection 1, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to allow cluster
subdivisions in an Agricultural Zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right.
Mr. Merritt - Now, I only interpreted that last sentence. I don't .know what all of the 31
subsections and sections consist of.
Attorney Barney — Maybe I could make it slightly clear and then Jon can make it even
clearer. Subdivisions are permitted now in our agricultural zone and they always have
been. The question is can you require those subdivisions to be smaller in lot size than
is permitted in the zone. For example in the old zoning ordinance, we had an R -30
requirement which meant that a lot in an agricultural zone had to be 30,000 square feet.
In the new zoning ordinance, we are requiring a density limitation of seven acres per
dwelling unit or house. So that you could today, you could go into an agricultural piece
of land and subdivide it, but without the cluster limitation you could only subdivide it-into
seven acre pieced. What this local law that we are submitting today does, allows us to
take this, as Mr. Wilcox said, a 49 -acre piece of land, you can subdivide that into seven
pieces. This allows us to say that of those seven pieces, six of them are going to be
small lots and the seventh one is going to be a 40 -acre lot.
Mr. Merritt — Do I understand you correctly to say that any cluster subdivision can go
into agricultural land and build on it?
Attorney Barney A subdivision is permitted in an agricultural zone, always has been.
There is no change in our zoning on that.
Mr. Merritt — Now, where are those subdivisions identified?
Attorney Barney — Anybody that comes in with a plan to develop the land in accordance
with the lot sizes prescribed by the zoning ordinance for a particular zone as a matter of
right has the ability to do that.
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
0
Mr. Merritt — I appreciate your explanation, but lack of mentality prevents me from fully
understanding it. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else this evening? Yes, sir.
Brent Katzman, 1335 Mecklenburg Road — Good evening. I'll be very brief because I
hope that I read the room as suggesting that there is some support for this amendment.
I just simply wanted to say that I, too, support the amendment and encourage you to
adopt it as proposed. Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There being no one else, I will close the public
hearing. at 7:47 p.m. Discussion? Would someone like to move the draft proposed
resolution in front of us?
Board Member Howe — So moved.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by the Chair. There being
no further discussion on the recommendation to the Town Board, all those in favor
please signal by saying aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox = Anybody opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is passed.
Thank you all very much. The Town Board will be taking this up at their first regular
meeting in June.
Mr. Kanter — I think we will be setting the hearing at this upcoming meeting for June.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 036: Recommendation to Town Board on a Proposed
Amendment to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations Regarding Rules and
Re_gulations for Clustered Subdivisions
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 31(1) of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations
contains Rules and Regulations for Clustered Subdivisions, including the following
requirement: "Clustered subdivisions are permitted only in any residential district of the
Town of Ithaca. Agricultural lands must first be rezoned to a residential designation
before a clustered subdivision plan may be brought before the Planning Board for
review'; and
WHEREAS, Section 610 of the new Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1,
2004) regarding the Agricultural Zone states the following: "Clustering of the lots may be
required by the Planning Board as a, condition to granting any subdivision approval."
That section goes on to state that clustered lots should avoid prime agricultural soils,
should not interfere with natural drainage patterns, and should provide for the largest
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4; 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
amount of contiguous acreage for open space or agricultural use reasonably possible,
and
WHEREAS, the current clustering provisions in Article V, Section 31(1) of the Town of
Ithaca Subdivision Regulations referenced above are in direct conflict with the purpose
and intent of Section 610 of the new Zoning Ordinance, which encourages . the
clustering of residential units in the Agricultural Zone in order to preserve as much open,
agricultural land as possible, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has held a public hearing on May 4, 2004 to consider a
recommendation to the Town Board regarding a draft local law to amend Article V,
Section 31(1) of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations by deleting the current
provisions that allow clustering only in residential zones,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board
adopt a local law amending Article V, Section 31(1) of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision
Regulations by deleting the following: "Clustered subdivisions are permitted only in any
residential district of the Town of Ithaca. Agricultural lands:must first be rezoned to a
residential designation before a clustered subdivision plan may be brought.before the
Planning Board for review", and by inserting a new second sentence in that section
stating that "Clustered subdivisions are permitted only with respect to residential
dwelling units" to clarify that the clustering regulations do not apply to commercial or
industrial lots or buildings.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision, Schickel
Road and Danby Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
Bill Albern, Sunny Slope Terrace, Ithaca — I am representing the developer, Boris
Simkin.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would ask that you give an overview of the pioject and then we
will get into asking you ... if you can, talk about the environmental impacts and mitigation
measures and then we'll get into the discussion.
IVA
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Albern — The project is a 33 -lot subdivision on Danby Road, extension of Schickel
Road. There are actually 32 lots to be sold. The 33rd lot is a park.
Board Member Talty — Can I stop you fora second? Is that on? Is that microphone on?
Mr. Albern — No. It wasn't.. I'll start over.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Kevin.
Mr. Albern — The project is a 33 -lot subdivision on Danby Road, extending from Schickel
Road. It is actually 32 lots for sale; the 33rd lot is a park. It sometimes gets confusing.
When I first read it, I saw the write up on it and I thought we're not going to have 33 lots.
We are only going to 32, but we do have 33. So that is the subdivision,.
We come in off Schickel Road and have a loop and it is relatively very simple.
We have been here twice before, three times before. If you have any questions; I would
be happy to try and answer them.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would like you to talk about what you are doing about the
drainage in the area. Lets start there.
Mr. Albern — I do not have the drainage plan up here. I have a copy sitting in my hole -
par here, but there is a complete drainage plan developed by Eric, who is a licensed
engineer and does storm water plans. And basically, although this drawing still refers to
a pond area, which I have. never erased from my drawing, it has got to come off, but
basically the overall concept is that between each lot, there is a relatively shallow swale.
The shallow swale will accumulate water. There will be an outlet pipe from the shallow
swale to the roadside ditch so that as water accumulates in the swale it will slowly
permit water to come down through the end of the road and into the Danby Road. But it
is all controlled drainage plan. There should not be any flooding. There should not be
any rapid runoff. It is all slowed and very small increments rather than funneling it all to
a pond and then have to have it out from the pond. Ponds are not very desirable these
days, I don't think for the owners or for the Town. Eric has come up with a very unique
idea with these swales between each lot that will accumulate a small volume of water
and permit it to exit the swale on a controlled basis.
Chairperson Wilcox — Each homeowner would be responsible for maintaining their
drainage structure?
Mr. Albern — Yes. Each homeowner will be responsible, but the covenants and deed
restrictions will permit the Town to go in and do remedial work should it be necessary.
Chairperson Wilcox — Upfront, I'm having some problem with the drainage and how it is
being dealt with, so I'm going to have lots of questions about it. If I am one of the first
buyers of one of the lots and I am one of the first persons to build a home, I will put in
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
my drainage structure, but what about all the lots haven't been developed yet that
haven't been bought that don't have drainage structures. I'm going to suffer an awful
drainage problem, potentially, in these wetlands until the other homes are built and
those drainage structures are put in.
Mr. Walker — The drainage structures will be built as part of the infrastructure for the
project.
Chairperson_ Wilcox — And will be built when the road is put in for example, when the
utilities are put in?
Mr: Walker — Yes.
Mr. Albern — Yes..
Mr. Walker — That will be one. of the utilities, is the drainage structures. It will be built as
part of the initial project.
Chairperson Wilcox — Since I have your ear right now, Dan. Talk to me about this, as
Mr. Albern said, unique form of dealing with the drainage. I'm worried about the
homeowners not keeping it up, whether there are deed restrictions or not, I'm worried
about the impact or load on the Town's staff and homeowners mowing it or planting stuff
in there. I'm just concerned.
Mr. Walker — Its very valid concerns. We have the same concerns. We have through
the State and Federal government, along with our own stormwater management
concerns, there are becoming a. lot more requirements to both treat quantity of
stormwater and quality of stormwater to prevent pollution. The distributed process that
is outlined in this plan is, I feel, a very valid way to treat the stormwater. In other words,
treat it at the small spots where it starts so that it doesn't become a big problem that you
have to. treat at a large structure at the bottom of a watershed. By looking at the
hydraulics and increasing flow paths with these diversions, is a very suitable stormwater
management system. The problem again is it has to be maintained because there are
filters involved, storm filters, there's some weirs, pipes that can plug and have to be
maintained. The Town will probably have to be involved in making sure that that
happens. I know that we will have to be involved.
One of the structures is actually in the lower end of Larissa Lane; the road ditch
is actually designed as a filtration system. So that is definitely something the Town
would take care of because it is in the road right -of -way already. What we have
experience in many other developments in the Town, especially things that were built 30
and 40 years ago, there are drainage structures that were built that there was no
provision for any maintenance and the landowners did not understand, after changing
hands several times, no one really knew why they were getting a wet basement except
something doesn't work.
16
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
One of the things that we are putting into the requirements for this subdivision is
that there: be very specific deed restrictions on each lot that has one of these structures
with the understanding that it has to be maintained. We will also be asking to build an
agreement that allows and an easement to the Town that allows the Town to go in and
maintain those structures if necessary at the homeowner's cost. It would be charged
back. The preferred option would be for the individual homeowner to maintain the
structure properly. The Town will have a higher workload. We are already getting a
higher workload for technical assistance and we are trying to keep the cost of
maintenance to the Town and all the Town residents as low as possible. These are
fairly simple structures from an engineering standpoint.
Chairperson Wilcox — They are swales.
Mr. Walker — They are swales and a small outlet structure and under drain trenches in
them. Many people have these in their homes already. They might have a French
drain around their basement, their basement foundation drain that they have to maintain
it. They might not realize they have to maintain it until it plugs up, but then they end up
with that costs. So our goal here with this type of development is to put this into the
deeds and also do everything we. can to educate the homeowners on what they have to
do to maintain their systems. I see this as no more complicated than an onsite septic
system, in fact, less complicated probably. Although the homeowner may not
understand it at first, if we educate them, we have a chance to make it work. One of the
practices that we have to do within our Town stormwater management plan required by
the State, which Mike was working on very hard, is an education program for the public
on how. they can minimize pollution. This is one of the programs that we would be
putting in place to educate people that have specific practices on their property.
Chairperson Wilcox — One more, if I may. If I as a homeowner don't maintain my
drainage structure, am I more likely to cause myself problems or my neighbor problems.
Mr. Walker. — In this particular situation, it is probably going to cause a problem for the
neighbor. If the outlet plugs up, it overflows, and it will flow into the neighbor's yard.
Chairperson Wilcox — Then the neighbor will complain to the Town...
Mr. Walker — And we'll go after the homeowner. One of the extra tasks that the Town
will be taking on as part of our stormwater management plan will be normal inspections
of all drainage systems in the Town, including road ditches. This will be extra work for
our staff, but we will be putting these on the list. Just like at College Circle, they had
several structures, they are very similar in nature to these, but bigger that we have an
agreement with College Circle, which is a large landowner that they have to maintain it.
If we have to come in, we will take care of an emergency, but we will charge it back to
them, keeping them responsible.
Board Member Conneman — The storm water will not go into a detention basin, it will go
into a ditch. Is that right?
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4; 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Walker — Each of these diversions, and if you look at the drainage plan, not every
single lot has a diversion because of the topography and for the need, but each of those
diversions .does have detention capacity. In other words, in a heavy rain storm, those
are going to fill up and hold water for a period of time, probably for maybe a couple of
hours on a smaller storm, on a two inch rain storm it might fill up and hold water for half
a day depending upon how things go, but they will drain out slowly, releasing the water
slowly. But instead of having it in one large pond, it will be in a number of smaller
structures.
Board Member Conneman = Is there a better way to do this? This seems awfully
complicated and takes up a lot of time of the Town, it seems to me.
Mr. Walker — The first option that was proposed for the subdivision as Mr. Albern said
on his first plan, there was a pond site picking up lot number one. Maintaining that kind
of work would be as much work for the Town as inspecting this other structures and
educating the people, I think.
Board Member Mitrano — Are there alternative proposals that could be considered then?
Maybe we need ponds in number one and number two?
Mr. Walker — Um...
Board Member Mitrano — Because I agree with George.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, they came in with a pond and we expressed our concerns
during sketch plan reviews about the drainage and whether a detention pond was
appropriate given the drainage on the or lack of drainage, if you will, on this particular
parcel.
Mr. Walker — I feel controlling the increase in runoff at the source with the smaller, less
intensive practice, although there may be more of them, is a better solution because if
we put everything down at the bottom in a pond, then you've got increased runoff into
the road ditch the whole way down. This way we have a slightly smaller road ditch, less
water flowing through that road ditch, lets say peak flow the same amount of water will
flow through, but on a more gradual basis.
Board Member Mitrano — My experience with deed restrictions is that they are one of
the least effective ways to do planning. So I do have concerns, frankly. John, would
you be willing to tell us about how deed restrictions work and the legal perspective.
Attorney Barney — Well, I assume it would be one master set of deed restrictions that
would require all of the lot owners, basically cover across the board that may designate
specific lots where there are specific structures. Basically, it is recorded prior to the
filing of any deed, which spells out what the requirements are and what the penalties
are or the consequences of not conforming to the requirements. Again, those where
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4; 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
there is something that the Town's concern about a requirement, well; it's not a
requirement, but an ability for the Town to enforce the restrictions. We are not
compelled to enforce them but we can choose to enforce them, but they are viable
alternatives.
Board Member Mitrano — They are viable, but what does it take to get the deed
restriction in play or enforceability.
Attorney Barney — It is whatever the language in the deed.. restriction says. What we
have typically done with other, it hasn't been so much as a formal deed restriction, it has
.been an agreement with the Town, but there we've had one developer 'basically
controlling the property where the developer says I will take care of this and we have
two or three discreet two or three storage or drainage facilities and when it is very clear
they aren't taking care, the Town can go in, fix it and bill back the costs to the owner.
There are pretty stiff requirements if they are not agreed to. Deed restrictions on lots,
assume we could probably do the same thing, although quite frankly I'd have to
research it, but I don't know why we couldn't..
Board Member Mitrano — In this case it would sound as if individuals had to start the
process. It looks more like individual lot owner against individual lot owner rather than a
developer in the Town.
Attorney Barney — Yes ... I mean...if you are equating developer as being somebody
who has more resources and an individual owner as being somebody with lesser
resources, then I guess its probably true. The principle, I don't know is terribly different,
but you do it with College Circle and Ithaca College and both the developer and Ithaca
College agreed to do certain things and if they don't do them, I suspect that it is not
going to be that we find out about it because we go up and inspect. It is more likely to
be. because somebody downstream is getting soaked and they come to the Town and
now we go back and enforce our agreement. I would assume that is what happens, it's
a little bit like zoning enforcement. We don't run around Town looking for violations, but
if they are brought to our attention then we tend to rectify the situation and we are
usually fairly successful.
Board Member Mitrano — I guess I go back to George's question then. It does seem
cumbersome. It seems different to me to have someone complain and the remedy is to
go to College Circle, which is a corporation than it is to have this divided allege of just
about each lot. Isn't there some other architecture that could be better designed to take
care of it at a water perspective rather than to follow all of this down to individual lot
owner. It seems unusual to me, maybe. I'm inexperienced.
Attorney Barney — It. is a new concept. I mean ... I've never seen one before either...
Mr. Walker This is a new concept. One thing is, these are not simply deed
restrictions. These would be easements on the lots covering those structures.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Mitrano —Easements for...?
Mr. Walker — Easements to the Town for, with the requirement that the landowner
maintain it and that the Town has the right to go in and take care of it if need be and
charge back the homeowner. Basically, it is no different than a water and sewer utility
connection to the home. I think if we think about it that way, when you build a new
home, you build a sewer lateral to connect to the Town's sewer to carry your sewage
away from the home. The homeowner is responsible for maintaining that sewer line
between the house and the main. If that line becomes plugged, they.are responsible for
taking care of it. Sometimes we get called out. If it is a problem in their line and not in
our sewer main, a lot of times we'll fix and then charge them for that. It is very similar to
that. It is the same with our water services, so if you think of this as another utility, it is
not that strange.
Attorney Barney — .Tracy, I wouldn't think of it so much as a deed restriction as much as
I would say a covenant running with the land. Basically it is a promise that they.will take
care of it and if they don't take care of it, there are steps that allow us to force that
covenant.
Board Member Mitrano — That is an interesting distinction though. Is that one that will
be noted for the record?
Attorney Barney — I think we did, by looking at the resolution we might want to use that
term if you see fit to approve it.
Board Member Conneman — Do you know of any subdivisions in the County that have
used this kind of engineering?
Mr. Walker — I think we are breaking new ground here. There are other municipalities
that are coming under the same needs based on the stormwater management permits
within the urban areas that will be facing these same problems. There were other
options looked at for maintaining this. One would be creating a stormwater
management district. We have talked about this at Public Works from expense and
research other municipalities. Our County is pretty backward in development.
Board Member Conneman — I thought we were enlightened?
Mr. Walker — Well, but, we might be enlightened but we are not advanced in the level of
development that places like Monroe County are developed.
Board Member Conneman — Maybe they don't build on a wetland like this in Monroe
County,
Mr. Walker — Well, you've gone the northeast. So I don't think we can say that. And
there are. other towns that have developed drainage districts and things like that similar
to this practice. This is a management practice that the State is recommending to
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
diversify the flows. I have talked to a couple other municipal engineers and they all
dealing with this question now and they are looking for us to come up with the answer
so they can copy us.
Board Member Thayer — Dan, does that swing open to an open grate system of some.
sort?
Mr. Walker — No. It drains into the road ditch. .
Board Member Thayer — Just into the road ditch?
Mr. Walker — Yes, to an outlet structure.
Board Member Thayer — How are we going to put sidewalks over the swale?
Mr. Walker - Actually the end of the swale is blocked and there is a pipe that goes
underneath it.
Board Member Thayer — So there is a grate somewhere.
Mr. Walker — So if we look at ... yeah, there is a storm drain...
Chairperson Wilcox — EC1 or whatever it is.
Mr. Walker — It is actually an under drain with a berm.
Chairperson Wilcox - Which drawing are you looking at, Dan?
Mr. Walker — I'm looking at EC3. In this particular case it doesn't show a sidewalk
across it and there would. be a depression there. So if the sidewalk were built it would
actually become kind of the emergency overflow with a little bit of a dip in the sidewalk.
It would be a dip in the sidewalk just like handicap access; it slows people down so they
don't speed.
Board Member Thayer — Then it goes into a grate along the road or a ditch?
Mr. Walker — This is proposed as an open ditch.
Mr. Albern — A big difference here is, the open ditch. You people are accustomed to an
open ditches on each side of roads. When you have a large rainfall those ditches fill up
and flow quite rapidly. With this system, you are not going to have as much water
flowing into those ditches in the short time. You will delay the flow of water into those
ditches and have a lower rate of flow over longer period of times.
Board Member Thayer — So you are holding water back.
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Albern — Holding water back in each one of these swales rather than have a large
pond down at the bottom and there is one that was just built up on King Road and it is a
huge pond and I don't think it is very attractive. And let me say that Eric Whitney did not
invent this system. He heard about it at State Conferences where he had attended and
brought it to our attention. It is not a local invention.
Board Member Mitrano — Where is the pond on King Road to which you referred?
Mr. Albern - About half way up.:.
Mr. Walker — Southwoods Development, about a quarter mile above Coddington Road,
Mr. Albern — It is a huge pond. You could have kids playing in it when there is a storm.
It could be a danger pond. I've never liked the pond and when Eric came up with this
idea, I just thought it was a much better way to handle things, much more attractive.
Board Member Conneman — How deep is the swale between these lots?
Mr. Albern — A foot and a half, two feet. It is about that size. It's a deep ditch ... it's a
shallow Swale.
Board Member Mitrano — The system also affords you more lots to sell. Is that right?
Mr. Albern — Pardon?
Board Member Mitrano — This system also affords you more lots to sell, is that right?
Mr. Albern — No.
Board Member Mitrano It doesn't?
Mr. Albern — No. It does not permit us to have more lots. It does permit the lots down
here to be a little bit bigger maybe. We will probably have to dedicate a bit of this area
for a pond, but it does not permit additional lots.
Board. Member Mitrano — Is there economic incentive for the Town to adopt this system
rather than to take some more comprehensive approach?
Mr. Walker — Well, I think this is a comprehensive approach because you are dealing
with the problem before it becomes a problem by treating smaller areas allowing smaller
structures. These swales are going to look very similar to a lot of drainage swales that
are already built and a lot of subdivisions just to keep the water away from the house.
They are going to be 8 to 15 feet wide and a 1 -foot to 1.5 feet deep and they will be
within the side yard setbacks off all the properties so that they are not in the buildable
area of the property.
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Albern — And they will be mowable.
Mr. Walker — And they'll be mowable, right; other than when it is raining hard. They will
be under - drained so most of the water...the first flushes will be filtered through the
grass and into the underdrain and the homeowners can mow them. The big thing is that
we got to make sure the homeowners understand that just because it is wet for a week
or two in the spring when it really rains or if we get an inch of rain, it isn't going to stay
.wet all year.
Board Member Talty-- Dan, what are one or two reasons why these particular, say
French drains, would backup and need maintenance? What would cause a situation to
have maintenance for these particular say French drains?
Mr. Walker— Once they're established there shouldn't.be a lot ... once the yards are all
established there shouldn't be a lot of sediment on them, but if someone dug a big hole
and let a lot of mud and stuff fall into it, it could plug the system over a period of time.
Because the areas are so small that are draining into it, it shouldn't create that much of
a problem. I don't see a lot of maintenance on them. If somebody is not careful and
runs over the end of the outlet pipe with the lawnmower they could break the pipe and
then it has to be fixed.
Board Member Talty —How about trees? Is there some, ..wouldn't tree roots...
Mr. Walker — We have to keep trees out of the Swale area and I wouldn't encourage
people to grow willow trees there.
Board Member Talty — I think that if we endorse this plan that we have to come with
some kind of...l mean obviously we can't worry about lawnmowers running over pipes,
but maybe make sure that certain trees or all trees or whatever are not permitted near
those.
Mr. Walker — That would be part of the O &M manual that the homeowner would have
to ... which will be part of this process.
Board Member Talty — So Dan, it sounds like in your expert opinion, this is a good plan.
Mr. Walker — Yes, I think it is. Again, we don't anticipate a lot of maintenance unless
someone accidentally digs it up for some reason or fills it in because they don't want
any little drip of Swale there. One example of where we, this board, well not this board,
but a board 30 years ago approved a drainage system ... I have had some complaints of
residents there up off of Pinewood in the northeast, Maplewood and Salem Drive area
there was a drainage Swale designed to run along the back lots of all the houses
between those two roads. In fact on there, it diverted a stream down that drainage
Swale. That drainage Swale does not .exist any more because over the years the trees
have grown up in it. There was no easement on it to the Town or anything to maintain
it. People decided it was a wet spot so they dumped all their leaves and yard debris
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
into it and now it just sort of floods whenever it rains hard. This is going to be different
because we will have a mechanism to maintain it and the authority to do it.
Board Member Talty — Well, given Dan's explanation 10 minutes ago with regards to
looking at it as more of a utility, I was initially swayed.towards George's theory of it, but
now I'm swayed towards Dan's area.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm feeling more comfortable.
Board Member Talty — Because of that specific indication that look at it more like a utility
instead of the other ... that we initially thought was proposed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else on drainage right now. We can always come back
to it. Alright. Because of the issues with water pressure or lack of water pressure, is it
the intent of the developer, who you represent, to get the necessary approvals if they
can and then sit and wait until such time as the Town upgrades or Bolton Point
upgrades the water system I
so there is sufficient pressure? Or is the applicant
considering putting in some privately owned utilities in some way that would provide the
water pressure necessary to build on these lots.
Mr. Albern — We will not be doing any upgrading to the water system. We just hope that
the Town will start work tomorrow morning to upgrade it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So, lets say ... there is a potential that the preliminary approval
could be given tonight and the final approval at some point in the future and then this
could sit there for a year or two or three...
Mr. Albern — Well, I assume that you won't even get final approval until you get water
pressure.
Chairperson Wilcox — Christine has proposed that we not give final until the water
pressure... one possibility is to give final. conditioned on...
Ms. Balestra — It's not just me. After conferring with other Planning Department staff
and Engineering staff, we determined that it is not a good idea to give final approval
until there is water pressure and adequate water service.
Mr. Albern — Can Dan Walker bring us up to date on water pressure?
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. In this case ... many times we grant final with conditions.
Ms. Balestra — Right, but because the service is inadequate currently, it doesn't make
that much sense to be able to grant final approval and then wait, say 10 years, until this
water service is actually there, but it is up to the board to decide.
Chairperson Wilcox — But we value your recommendation. Mr. Barney?
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Attorney Barney — Well; there is a timing ... the developer has got to agree to that delay
or otherwise we are basically into a situation where they are required by law to come in
for final subdivision. approval within 180 days of the preliminary approval. We get a
default approval if we don't give anything. So I think we need to work through the
mechanism if you grant, you might even want to think that through before we even grant
preliminary approval. What is the timeframe that we are looking for that we might see
pressure?
Mr. Walker = We are considering the capital improvement, in fact, the committee is
meeting again tomorrow for this water improvement to bring the pressure up to
adequate standard. It could be built this year.
Mr. Kanter — It could be next year.
Mr. Walker = It is really a matter of funding and we are just coming off a major capital
improvement program for water. supply and the Town Board has to make the decision
on if they can ... if we have the funding resources to complete this upgrade. It has been
on the capital plan for a number of years, but not as a real high priority. The other
option and this is just like any other subdivision, this is considered a water ... we have
often had developers that really wanted to develop a parcel participate in the capital
improvements, which they will be doing ... they will be building water lines and sewer
lines and roads on this site and dedicating it to the Town as part of the condition of the
approval. Doing the work is not a problem. The problem is the funding of it, so the
Town Board has to make that decision and I anticipate that that decision whether it is
funded this year will be made within the next two months probably. .
Attorney Barney — And these lots, obviously, don't ... aren't capable of accepting on -site
water.
Mr. Walker — It is not going to be allowed by the Health Department. I mean, they could
drill wells I suppose. If they had to drill a well for each of these lots, well they could
save the money for half the lots and make the water improvement that we are looking
for.
Attorney Barney. — I guess I better look at the statue a little bit because I'm a little antsy
about granting even a preliminary approval if it is an unknown timeframe within which
you are going to be able to grant...
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you to say that to this side, too? What are you thinking,
John?
Attorney Barney — Let me go grab the statue book because there is a time sequence
when the preliminary is granted to when the final must follow or should follow and I have
to refresh my memory.
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — And if, for example, we did not consider final subdivision there
might be a State statue, which automatically grants it to them?
Attorney Barney — There are provisions, actually, that they are supposed to come in and „.
apply for it within 6 months I think.
Mr. Kanter — I think when you look you'll see actually that a preliminary subdivision
approval with conditions actually -the burden is on the applicant to meet those
conditions, or their approval expires as opposed to the burden being on the Town.
Attorney Barney — Right, but if it is a 6 month time when that expires then,..
Mr. Kanter — Actually, I believe it is a not a mandatory expiration, but the board may...
Attorney Barney - Let me just take a look. I can do that right now.
Chairperson Wilcox — We will continue with the environmental review. Christine also
brought up in her memo to us utilities. We talked about the water. I'm not too
concerned about the sewer unless Dan has a concern, but I think sewer is pretty ... weIre
all set here. Sidewalks... this is kind of a new area for us to start putting, having
sidewalks in some of these subdivisions. I was actually on a sidewalk last night, which
went up half a block, I was in the City, it went up half a block and stopped in the middle
of the block and then you went like three lots and it started up again. Sidewalks can be
a nice amenity. They need to be maintained, but the last thing I want are sidewalks that
end up nowhere like our bridge to nowhere if you will. Now we can't get them all
interconnected, but clearly that is our goal and we've got to start someplace. We've
talked about drainage, which is probably, to me, the most important issue here. Any
other environmental issues?
Ms. Balestra — You might want to discuss landscaping or not.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we should just mention that Robert Wesley was hired, just
to make sure that was on the record. Robert Wesley was hired by the applicant and he
did determine that there were no DEC or national wetlands inventory of wetlands on the
site. He did mention that there were hydric soils in a small area. So we have that letter
from Robert Wesley. Landscaping ... I mean keep as many trees as possible that are
existing. The applicant has agreed to do that. That will be a condition of approval, if we
get to that point. No willow trees in the structures, thank you Dan. I am sort of
comfortable.
Board Member Conneman — You can come back to sidewalks on the preliminary?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely, when we come back to the site plan. I mean if you
have an environmental concern about the sidewalk, but clearly that is a site plan issue.
It is a site plan issue as part of the subdivision. Anything else with regard to the
environmental review at this point?
26
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Conneman — If Dan says its okay, then I'll believe it.
Board Member Thayer — Me, too.
Board Member Conneman — But I'll remember that.
Board Member Thayer — With that, I'll move the SEQR.
Chairperson Wilcox So moved by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty. Any further
discussion? All set. All those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? The motion is
passed unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:28 p.m.
PB RESOLUTION N0a 2004 -037• SEQR, Preliminary Subdivision Approval,
Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road, Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 36 -2-
3.2
Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS.
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Subdivision .Approval for the
proposed Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel
Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of 'Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-
3:2, . Residence District R -30. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road
towards the east and creating a loop road for 32 residential lots and one 1 % +/-
acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet,
Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent, and
21 This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated
its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on May 4, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Full. Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part 11
prepared by Town Planning staff, subdivision plans including sheets 1 through 7
entitled "Preliminary Plat - Westview Subdivision, Danby, Road, Town of Ithaca,"
prepared by William F. Albern, P.E. Engineering Consultant, dated March 22,
2004, sheet EC1 entitled "Westview Plan, Stormwater, Drainage & Erosion
Control," sheet EC2 entitled "Westview Standard Details Drainage & Erosion
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Control," and sheet EC3 entitled "Westview Swale & Pond Details Drainage .&
Erosion Control," prepared by Philip Erik Whitney, P. E., dated March 22, 2004,
and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other
Involved Agencies, hereby .establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the above - described actions,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and that a notice of this
determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR
Part 617.12.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and
NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Residence
District R -30 (Low Density Residential). The proposal includes extending
Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 32 residential lots
and one 1% +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property.
Igor Cheikhet, Owners Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you want to ask questions about sidewalks, George?
Board Member Conneman — Oh, I think there should be sidewalks.
Chairperson Wilcox — And the plan does show sidewalks.
Mr. Albern — May I comment?
r .�
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely.
Mr. Albern — We have gone through the preliminary subdivision approval resolution.
Okay. And we want to battle with three points. One, we want to talk about sidewalks.
Two, we want to talk about the extent of road building, which I think there is confusion
on. And a third is we.,want to .talk about the extension of Schickel Road as
.recommended by the County, which was a real.blow.
First of all, lets talk sidewalks. Okay. Right now we have no sidewalks.
Sidewalks were not a consideration when this project was started. It came along in the
middle of things. We didn't expect it. The developer didn't want it. It is not a huge
financial item, however, we think it is going to be a maintenance item and it's going to
look like the devil after five years or something. That's beside the .point I guess at this
point in time. This last submission showed a sidewalk along here and a sidewalk along
here. The resolution, as written, requires a loop sidewalk here and a sidewalk here as I
interpret it. Right?
Ms. Balestra - Correct.
Mr. Albern — Okay. That is the way the resolution... we would like to modify this thing.
Let us provide sidewalks around this complete in the loop and not have a sidewalk on
the outside. Sidewalks on one side of a road are not unusual in developments and we
ask that you consider that concept rather than sidewalks on both sides.
Board Member Mitrano — How many feet difference would it be to have it on the inner
loop rather than the outer loop?
Mr. Albern — You mean have it just on the outer loop and not on the inner loop?
Board Member Mitrano — Yeah if it is going to be on one or the other...
Mr. Albern — Well the inner loop is going to be.*, because you have this section here. If
you only have it on the outer, it would only be here. But we could have it on the outer
and have it here, too, I suppose. As I said, the developer does not want the sidewalks
primarily from an aesthetic and maintenance standpoint. We disagree. We recognize
that.
Board Member Mitrano — My question is ... I can appreciate asking about just having it
on one side or the other. Why have you chosen the inner over the outer is what I am
asking?
Mr. Albern — Because we. already here and here and we're just looping it around the
whole inside. If you would like it on the outside, that's fine.
29
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — I will make the comment, before I address whether one side or
both sides ... the reason to put it on the inside is that that provides... if you put it on the
outside, then the northern lots have access to a sidewalk. Just point to the northern
lots, if you would, sir. They would not have easy access to a sidewalk if you only put it
around the outside.lots.
Board Member Howe — He said he was willing to put it along the -outside.
Mr. Albern — I could put it here.
Chairperson Wilcox — We could do that for example.
Board Member Howe — That makes sense.
Chairperson Wilcox — That makes sense, too. Staff has recommended sidewalks on
both sides of the street along Larissa Lane.
Ms. Balestra — No: Surrounding...
Chairperson Wilcox — Why has staff recommended double sidewalks?
Ms. Balestra — Well,. first of all,. you maintain the connectivity to future, potential
subdivisions to the north or the south. Secondly, if people on the inside of the loop or
actually the outside of the loop want to get to the park, for example, or if they just want
to walk around their neighborhood, they need to cross the road including children who
would need to cross the road in order to get to the inside loop to walk around. That was
something that was expressed by the Planning Board at the last meeting that the safety
of children to be crossing one side of the road or the other.
Mr. Albern — Mr. Simkin just pointed something out if I may. There's quite a swale on
this side of this road and the sidewalk would be very difficult, just in this area here.
There are also some deep swales down here. This area right in here becomes part of
the stormwater retention area. There is going to be quite a fairly deep swale in there
and a sidewalk would be difficult. Around the inside would work very well. That would
also give these people access to this crosswalk to get to the park.
Mr. Kanter — I think one thing the board will have to start addressing with these
developments, and this is probably a good one to start with, is there maybe in some
cases some conflict between where a sidewalk would go and where a swale goes. And
if in fact sidewalks are priorities that we're implementing, then the swales and drainage
system has to be done around those.
Board Member Thayer — Doesn't each lot have a swale as we understood earlier?
Mr. Kanter — I'm not sure exactly.
Of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Most of the lots have swales.
Mr. Kanter — There are only certain points where the swale end goes out to the street
collection system.
Board Member Talty — I have a question. If the board agrees to do the sidewalk around
the inside, the lots 1 -16,. what will the front yard look like at the street. It is my
understanding that the swales run north /south, correct?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
Board Member Talty — So, those lots, what will it look like at the end of the street if there
is no sidewalk?
Mr. Albern — About the same if it is a sidewalk.. Sidewalk or no sidewalk, you are
probably going to have a dip between each lot. The sidewalk is going to come down
and go up again.
Board Member Talty — I mean, will there be a ditch in the front of the yards? Like say,
lot 7, what will be in the front of lot 7?
Mr. Albern — In the front of lot 7 you will have a standard roadside ditch.
Board Member Talty — Okay.. Not at all in favor of that. I'm going to tell you right now.
I'm willing to compromise somewhat on the sidewalk issue, but no way if you are going
to put a $300,000 house there abouts, I'm going to vote for any kind of ditch in. front of it.
Not going to do it.
Mr. Albern — There is going to be ditches on...
Board Member Talty — If there is culvert pipe and have the grass run right out and have
like a gravel shoulder before the asphalt hits because this board member is not going to
vote for any more ditches for any more developers that come in front of me.
Mr. Albern — The standard arrangement here is a roadside ditch on each side of the
road.
Board Member Talty — Okay...
Mr. Albern — Now they are smaller ditches because of the controlled outlets, but there
will be a standard roadside ditch.
Board Member Talty — There may very well be.
Mr. Kanter — Or there may not be. That is for the board to determine.
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Albern — The present plan is a roadside ditch standard as drawn.
Mr.. Walker — Our standard roadside ditches serve two purposes, one to carry the
surface water and one to drain the road (inaudible). So our minimum depth of a road
side ditch is two feet to be below the subgrade of the ... and allow the road grates to
drain out. So that is ... in situations where we put underground storm drains in, example
.up on Perry Lane, there is underdrain along side that also that serves the purpose of
draining the road base that drains into the catch basin as they go down. So roadside
ditches have been the standard. It is part of the subdivision standards that is one of the
acceptable methods of building a highway and drainage system. We've also added the
detail for underground drainage and because of the increase in those types of systems
over the last ten years.
Board Member Thayer — The alternative is a culvert and then you gotta have curbs and
grading in the road and so on.
Mr. Walker — Not necessarily. We've done some up in the northeast... Christopher
Circle, Winthrop Drive.where we've actually kept the shoulder of the road, put in an
underground drainage system in and then put a grass swale, a slight swale over the top
of it, over what was the ditch, over the pipe. So with catch basins every 100 feet or so
to catch the water.
Board Member Thayer — So you are creating a maintenance problem.
Mr. Walker — We are actually eliminating a maintenance problem. In that area we had
some very deep ditches on Christopher Circle that had retaining walls on them made
out of timber, railroad ties. They lasted the 25 years that that type of timber will last and
the Highway Department over a number of years has determined that this is a very
acceptable type of drainage system and easier to maintain than trying to maintain the
retaining walls and ditches. We have changed our capabilities for maintenance so that
it used to be the old- fashioned highway departments liked to dig the ditches out and
that's all they would do and put new culvert pipes in. We have progressed to the point
of being kind of an urbanized town in a lot of areas and we have the capability to clean
storm drains and catch basins now so its not something that we ... its acceptable to the
Town to do that kind of work now. We can have that kind of installation.
Board Member Talty — And we are breaking new ground.
Chairperson Wilcox — Just to follow up, I don't have that same exact position Kevin
does, but on the other hand I'm thinking if I'm spending $250,000 - $300,000... that's your
numbers. Someone said they are talking about $250,000 4300,000 homes, I
would ... there are certain amenities I probably would want and one of them is probably I
wouldn't want to see ditches.
Board Member Talty — You want to cut your grass to the street.
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 49 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, but on the other hand as a Planning Board member, I don't
think its my job to tell them what their buyer wants. Do you know what I mean ?. If they
think they can sell $250,000 - $300,000 homes with ditches out front, its not my job to tell
them that they're wrong. If the ditch is reasonable and it's engineered properly and it
meets code and I'm comfortable with it, then I as a Planning Board have done my job.
I'm not going to tell them what the market is.
.Board Member Talty — I think it is our responsibility, Fred, and this is where I disagree
with you, is that as I walk around our Town and we're looking at Comprehensive Plans
for the future, these ditches do not and Dan so articulated exactly what is transpiring, I
put a culvert pipe myself under my under own expense in my front yard and I got to tell
you the. upkeep has been virtually eliminated, except for the month of August, which is
bone dry. I mean I can now cut my lawn right to the street. I think it improves the value
of the home itself: And I think that we should break new ground here and we should
look at exercising our right as a Planning Board in making our community better by
planning it accordingly. That's my opinion on it.
Board Member Conneman — Kevin and I don't always agree, but I agree with him on
that one.
Chairperson Wilcox — We've talked about sidewalks, we'll try to come to some
agreement. Why don't you go on to the second item? Your second of three. I want to
let you have your say and I still have to let the public speak.
Mr. Albern — The last Planning Board meeting we talked extensively about how we were
going to access the park. We can't wait for the whole thing to develop before the Town
has access...
Chairperson Wilcox — Could you grab the microphone, please?
Mr. Albern We cannot wait until the whole project, constructed, before you have
access to the park. That the Town wants at least an easement to the park early in the
game and phased, we were talking about how we were going to build the road in
phases and in fact a comment was made to build the whole road all at one time is
probably not feasible from the developer's cash flow standpoint. The resolution states
that all.roads shall be built before a building permit is issued and I don't think that was
the intention of the board. When we came back after the last board meeting with a
statement down here that the phasing is lots 1 -4, 24 and 25 that's phase 1, to have a
temporary cul -de -sac in here. Phase 2 is. lots 5 -9, 26 -29 in here, except phase 2 also
includes the extension of the road to the park. Discussion about the park at one time
was you may not do anything. up there for a couple of year's or maybe put a picnic table
there. Phase 2 would be these lots; the road coming up to here with a cukde -sac here
and all people would have access to the park. Phase 3 picks these lots up, cul -de -sac
in here and phase 4 completes it. So that you have separate cul -de -sacs. We would
hope that building permits could be issued as soon as the phase 1 road is constructed
in accordance with Town requirements. If it is in the middle of winter, of course, it may
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
not have asphalt on it. It may have to be separated until the asphalt plant opens, but
basically the work and phase it and not as stated in the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Go on to the third, which is lot 16.
Mr. Albern — Hmm?
Chairperson Wilcox — Why don't you go on to the third one, which is the extension of
Schickel Road?
Mr..Albern — Mr. Simkin wants to discuss the extension of Schickel Road.
Ms. Balestra — Can I just interject for one moment?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may.
Ms. Balestra — What they are referring to is. the letter that you should have in front of
you from the Tompkins County Department of Planning. It is their recommendation that
lot 16 should be eliminated or reconfigured and a right -of -way to accommodate a future
extension of Schickel Road. Since it is their recommendation they believe it will have
an intercommunity impact and it would require a majority plus one vote to.override that
recommendation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Name and address please.
Boris Simkin, 217 Buttermilk Lane — About the proposed extension of Schickel Road,
my concern is that it is going to be upscale, I hope, subdivision and people like to live in
secluded, private area. We would need an easement to .extend Schickel Road. First of
all it could be high traffic through Schickel Road, which I don't think is a good idea and
this is not question marginal expense because we could easily reconfigure lots 16, 15
and 14 and not lose any lot, but my point is that all subdivisions in this area, which I'm
aware of, I mean upscale subdivisions, they have privacy and if you create this Schickel
Road (inaudible) ... its not going to be kind of community as here. And my feeling is.
when people feel that this subdivision is a community it is much better than to have it
kind of path through.
Chairperson Wilcox — But you may agree, you may not agree, but good planning
involves keeping open options should future development occur that borders this
particular proposal and one of the ways that this board can retain options is to provide
easements so that extensions and roads can be interconnected if appropriate.
Mr. Simkin — My point is basically extending Schickel Road to give access to land on the
north side of this subdivision and there are plenty of possibilities in the future to go a
little bit different way to Compton Road through north side and maybe off of that
turn ... you understand what I mean ... north and then after that east and you can go and
M
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
you can interconnect it, but it is not going to be that straight line when you extend
Schickel Road, but it is up to the board. That is my personal opinion.
Chairperson Wilcox — You are aware of the fact that given the County's
recommendation and the way that they have phrased it, if, we do not add that as a
condition, you need five yes votes out of this board now.
Mr. Simkin — I need what?
Chairperson Wilcox — You need five yes votes. If we do not include that.extension, you
need to get five affirmative votes out of this board.
Mr. Simkin — Yes, I understand that. I read this.
Chairperson Wilcox — As long as you understand that.
Mr. Simkin — Yes, I read it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, you need a majority plus one given their recommendation.
Okay. Is there anything else you would like to say with regard to those three issues?
Okay.
Mr. Albern — We have addressed the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. We can discuss those three or we can let the public speak.
I think they have been sitting here kind of patiently and I think we'll let the public speak.
Can I ask you two to take a seat please? Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank yi
this evening. If you raise your hands,
ask you to come to the microphone. I
and we will gladly hear what you have
the handheld mic or the other one.
:)u for waiting patiently. This is a public hearing
I will call upon you in no particular order. I will
will ask that you provide your name and address
to say this evening. Yes, ma'am. You may use
Laura Johnson - Kelly, 48 Comfort Road — My driveway is approximately half a mile by
road from the Schickel Road / 96 B intersection, however, the northeast corner of our
property is considerably closer as the crow flies although it is on the opposite side of
Route 96 B. You should all have a copy of the letter that I wrote and sent in yesterday
in front of you, which outlines some of the concerns that my husband and l and I know
some of our other neighbors share with this development. I do have one question
before we talk about some of those issues. I am a little bit unclear about what the
average lot size is in this development and whether or not that actually conforms to the
zoning requirements for low- density residential property developments.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me say that we all have a copy of your letter. There are some
significant misstatements in your letter.
35
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
. MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — Well, that would be useful to know.
Chairperson Wilcox — The lot sizes conform with the zoning in existence at the time they
came to the board with this plan. They came to the board ... this was submitted before
the zoning changed on April 1st. Do you want me to address your letter right now or do
you want to finish your statement? It is up to you.
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — It doesn't matter. Probably one of my biggest concerns, as I state
in the letter, is traffic on Route 96B and the fact that that Schickel Road / 96 B
intersection is really blind, because it is located within a dip. You can't see it coming
from the south. You can't see it coming from the north. When they were doing a lot of
construction on the Johnny Circle development, which is immediately across 96 B from
Schickel Road a few years back, you couldn't see the big construction equipment until
you were right .on top of it. If you add all the cars from 32 lots, you know, 60 plus
vehicles coming onto 96B, I think that is a real issue, both for school bus safety, but for
the safety for everyone else who drives up and down 96B.
Chairperson Wilcox — DOT will have to approve... no, DOT will not have to approve.
There is no curb cut on the State highway.
Mr. Kanter — Drainage probably.
Chairperson Wilcox — They have to approve drainage
Mr. Walker — MMM ... weIre not going into...
Chairperson Wilcox = Yeah, well, their letter says they are going to review the drainage.
Mr. Walker- They were going to review the. drainage because the lots on the ... along
Danby Road will infringe on Danby Road, I believe they are limiting access to the new
Larissa Lane and not allowing them to have curb cuts onto Danby Road because of that
traffic concern.
Chairperson Wilcox — So the existing curb cut will handle the traffic that is ... (inaudible).
Ms. Balestra — That's correct.
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — But do you foresee the costs that, you know, insure if you have to
put a traffic light in there, which is something that I don't want to see, but on the other
hand, you know, look at what happened with the King Road / 96B intersection. First it
was a flashing yellow light, now it's an actual traffic light.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to get into a debate back and forth. It is up to this
board to make that determination, but obviously the zoning does allow the subdivision.
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — Okay. It does.
36
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, and I think the point of your letter was that you were talking
about approving a zoning change to cluster housing. There is no zoning change being
considered here.
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — I guess I misunderstood your public notice in the newspaper. It did
talk about the subdivision regulations issue immediately before this issue. Umm...l
thought that the two were connected, okay. You know... attending this meeting that has
clarified that issue for me.
Chairperson Wilcox — So this does conform to the zoning.
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — Okay. I think we heard a very eloquent presentation about the
County Comprehensive Plan, about the wisdom of having subdivisions littering the
landscape rather than trying to have them concentrated towards the core near the City
of Ithaca:
Chairperson Wilcox — You also heard Mr. Barney speak that the applicant, the owner of
land has of by right the ability to subdivide this land. They may try to maximize the
number of lots they create and obviously maximize their potential profit. But they have
the right to subdivide this land under the existing zoning, and we as a Planning Board
have the right to review it and see whether it is reasonable or not and make changes.
Ms. Johnson -Kelly — Can I ask another question just about the other development on
the other side of 96B? What is the current status of that? At one point it had been
approved. Nothing has happened in recent years. Would they have to reapply for
approval or is that something that is just...
Mr. Kanter — I can't really answer that for you right now. As it stands now, they have
subdivision for 14 lots because they got final approval on 14 lots. There maybe legal
questions as to whether that approval has expired. That is something that we have not,
discussed with this board of recent...
Chairperson Wilcox — The only, if I remember right, they only asked for approval of the
lots closest to the road, if I remember correctly and that is only ones that they were
given permission. .that they were approved to build. But clearly the plan showed
significantly more lots would be built. So as far as we know, it is an approved
subdivision sitting there. It's an approved clustered subdivision, right?
Mr. Kanter — That's right. That was a cluster. It is a clustered subdivision. All right?
Ms. Johnson -Kelly - All right. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome back.
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road — I am a neighbor of the proposed subdivision on
both the. north and the east side. I have a few concerns, but the one that I want to start
with is the proposed extension of Schickel Road. As I see it and I hope I am wrong,
reading the plans wrong or not really understanding the way the road is or something,
but it appears to be in the path in the cluster of very old and beautiful oak and shag bark
hickory trees that line and sometimes go more deeply than that, the whole path from
about. half way into from more or less here up to the corner of Route 96.
So I took some photographs the other day and I hope you will take a minute to
look at them that show the trees. So my request is that ... I am asking the board to
please do everything you can to protect these beautiful trees and the developers to be
willing to construct the road in such a way that it would not destroy the trees, but that
they would be on the edge. So that is a very concrete concern about the proposal.. And
secondly, I am. still very concerned about the wetness, of the land. As a neighbor, I'm
pretty familiar with how wet that land does get. And it appears to me that given the
density of the proposed subdivision including the houses, the garages, the roads, the
walkways, the sidewalks, and the drainage swales, which there won't be any trees on
any of that area. It will be difficult to preserve enough of the existing vegetation to
adequately maintain the site's drainage. And I see that in the Department of Planning's
letter to'. Christine Balestra, that they seem to share that concern and I assume they
wrote this letter after becoming familiar with the swale plan so they say on the soil on
the.entire site is poorly drained and as a result may create additional runoff than what is
currently anticipated. So I am with them on that concern.
And thirdly, and I don't mean to be insulting to all of you and all the work that has
been put in on this already or to the developer because this certainly is nothing personal
on my part. It comes from my commitment to maintaining habitat and natural beauty.
So my third point is, given the wet nature of the land, I respectfully suggest that a plan
which includes clustered housing, which wouldn't be more dense. than what they are
proposing now and possibly a pond higher up maybe to improve that drainage and with
a park like woods created by thinning their current vegetation and then maintaining that,
I believe that that might ultimately yield a more appropriate, attractive and successful
development. And at the very last minute, I ask George Frantz if he would draw up a
Tittle plan of what that might look like so and we didn't even talk enough so that he knew
that I thought a pond would be nice. I contrary, to your opinion, I think ponds are really
beautiful and they attract waterfowl and create habitat. And where I live there is five
ponds and the numbers of birds is really quite remarkable and I am sure they'd come
down and fly in and out of a nest on this pond as well and I bet the residents might get a
lot joy from watching that. So respectfully submitted this small plan and the
photographs. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
Ms. Flores — Would you like me to make copies and give them to you? Or just?
In
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 472004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — What if we made a copy for now and gave that back to you.
Would that work?
Ms. Flores - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK. We like to have it, so we can look at it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Who'd like to be next?
Ms. Chase — Faith Chase, I live on Comfort Road. I have land that abuts the Wiggins
development so I'm worried about that., I'm worried about sprawl, umm, if we have the
Wiggins development coming on Danby road and we have the Schickel development
coming on here, we're presently dealing in Danby with another development coming out
onto Comfort road. At 8 O'clock in the morning you cannot getout onto Danby road
from Comfort road even know with the limited — with no development on the side. I
worry about the drainage. On a wet day if you drive down Danby road, which we do
often, the ditch is completely full now. I can't imagine if ...this parcel seems to me to be
very wooded right now. If you eliminate the woods, you eliminate the absorption and I
can see more drainage problems. And if the Wiggins development happens, I don't
know how that all fits in.
Sidewalks, I can't even imagine sidewalks in there — we're talking rural, rural out
there. Sidewalks seem to me. Are we going to shovel them — are they going to be
required to shovel them? Danby has one of the highest snow levels in the county if
you've noticed. Danby and Lansing are the highest. Are they going to have to shovel
their sidewalks? I can hardly shovel my driveway by hand. I worry about sprawl and
I don't know what's to be done about it in keeping with the comprehensive plan - I know
everyone has a right to develop their land.
Oh, the other point was with the Wiggins development, I hop it's expired — he
also promised as you remember to dedicate a 20 acre park which never happened I
don't believe and I would hope that's all expired and has to start over again, but...
Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to
address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item? There being
no one... yes, I'll give you just a brief second.
Ms. Flores — Thank you, this will only take a minute — would you like me to say my
name again. This is about the road and phases, and your question about if you're the
first homeowner and you had your swale in place but what if nobody else does? Uhh,
the answer was that all the swales would be put in first as part of the whole
infrastructure that's being set in first. So if the road goes in phases and everything else
does too, then the swales wouldn't be in place.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 49 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? There being no
one I will close the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Thank you all very much. All right. Lets
see if we can work through these and address some of the questions that have been
raised. Sidewalks? One side, both sides? We should point out for those people that
have wondered about sidewalks that the Town Board has adopted a sidewalk policy
back in October, and actually I'll read from what is wrote: That sidewalks in newly
developed subdivisions are desirable and necessary element for the safety of children.
That's why we're considering sidewalks. We don't set the policy.
Board Member Conneman - I.think going around the inner circle makes sense to me.
Chairperson Wilcox - All the way, completely, all the way around? I was thinking ... we
don't have a lot of sidewalks in the town of Ithaca right now. Probably the one I am
most familiar with is the one on Mitchell Street that runs...
Mr. Walker - That's not a sidewalk
Chairperson Wilcox - excuse me?
Mr. Walker- That's not a sidewalk, it's a walkway.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. The walkway is on side. of the road though, not both.
I'm trying to think in more outside the urban core, you know you get into the urban fringe
and you start to head out, I think sidewalks on one side of the road are reasonably,
reasonably common, One side of the road is I think sufficient.
Board Member Mitrano - I think it is too, but does it in any belay the original purpose
that the town designated this rule for?
Chairperson Wilcox - Good point. It says necessary element for the safety of children in
future neighborhoods and the conductivity of proposed subdivisions and the existing
and potential future subdivisions.
Mr. Walker - Yeah, I think they intended the planning board to consider that. I do
remember in one of... I think the second sketch plan discussion on this that the purpose
of the sidewalks was not only for people to walk to the park, but also as an area for
people to be. And if that's true, then I think you want to consider both sides of the street
as people area, so that's another aspect of sidewalks. Especially in a place where. there
will be children.
Chairperson Wilcox - Presumably.
Board Member Conneman - I vote for two sides. Two sides.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm trying to get some consensus here.
IN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Conneman - I know you are, but I don't like consensus.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK
Board Member Talty - I think the two sides are what I would go with as well.
Board Member Thayer - Two
Board Member Howe - Two
Chairperson Wilcox - And thaYs consistent with the resolution as drafted.
Board Member Conneman - Which could require re- looking at some of the drainage,
swales.
Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely, it could require some possible changes to the location
of the drainage structures. There is a condition. Let's talk about road construction or
phasing. Condition K in the draft. We're so lucky that we have staff that can give us
draft resolutions instead of like the zoning board where they have to sit there and
construct them, so let me say thank you, it makes our job a lot easier. In the draft
resolution it does say construction of all roads, utilities . of sidewalks prior to, the issuance
of any building permits. The applicant would prefer to phase this in as many applicants
do. The. question is how does that tie into the provision of water and sewer and
drainage structures, and though we often allow phased construction, and very often
require access and easements and rights of way to get to the parkland early on, like
phase 1, so you don't have to wait until phase 3 or 4 to be able to get to the park. How
might that be different — we're talking about sidewalks, and unique drainage structures.
Dan?
Mr. Walker - Well, I can answer the drainage question.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK, that's fine, it's the more important one I think.
Mr. Walker - Based on the topography for this site, you're entering the site from the
bottom of the watershed, so as long as you construct, say you 'did phase it... the first
page taped to this point at lot 5 1 believe they're talking about. There's a drainage
structure here, a drainage structure here, drainage structure here, and a drainage
structure here in the road ditch that will pick up all the new water from the lots in the
area, so as long as, if the road is built to. here, the structures cover the area that would
be developable. So that would be consistent, as long as these structures are built with
the road being built to this phase. The second phase being built up to this area, these
structures would have to be built, if the road's not built, you're not disturbing the site, so
the site's remaining natural on that area. So you're not increasing the runoff from that
site... as long as you build the structures for each section will disturb, you're protecting
the stormwater management plan.
41
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox - Now, Christine, do you... can you... why is the town recommend
that the roads, utilities be built all be built before issuing any building permits?
Ms. Balestra - That was originally the recommendation of the town engineer and other
planning department staff. Also, the town board has to accept the road and I'm not sure
they would accept the road if it's in phases, I don't know.
Attorney Barney - We've done that.
Ms.. Balestra - We have done that, OK.
Mr.. Kanter - Well, the first thing is they accept the location, the concept of the whole
road.
Attorney Barney - Well, they accepted the road too, and they have done it in stages in
the past, yeah:
Mr. Kanter - They would require usually some financial obligation to complete it.
Attorney Barney - There is a certain advantage actually to accepting the entire road but
having the construction occur in stages as long as there's financial security for that
because if the road is not self- constructed, the town now has title to it and can go ahead
and do it if they have to themselves.
Chairperson Wilcox - It also could mean that we would want to see drawings with
hammerheads at the end of each phase.
Ms. Balestra - The city fire department would require that.
Chairperson Wilcox - We saw that with overlook for example where they were going to
put... phasing plan, right? Would we want easement. or access to the park?
Ms. Balestra - That was something that was discussed at the planning board at both
sketch plan phases.
Chairperson Wilcox - absolutely, that if they build in phases — quiet — if they build in
phases then we need access to the parkland at about roughly the time phase one is
being constructed. I don't want to get to phase 3. before the parkland is accessible.
Mr. Kanter - He said he would do it in phase 2.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is.that reasonable?
Board Member Talty - I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is it reasonable at phase two?
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Talty - Well, I think it's a stretch, Fred, to make these guys have the first
stage access the park.
Chairperson Wilcox - We've done it before with Wally Wiggins and it serves a purpose.
Mr. Kanter - What we want to do is have the park have access to it... what we have
done, in fact across the street in Mr. Wiggins property, under the first phase we also
required that an easement be granted to the town over the future road location to the
park site to allow us access to it that we could built if we needed to, and he didn't build
the subdivision, so we would want to take ownership of the park site, especially in this
part icular case because it gives us access to another already owned park that we have
no way to get to.
Board Member Talty - When I said access, I mean easement not. road.
Mr. Kanter - Right.
Board Member Talty - I don't a road to nowhere. By that I mean an easement through
the eventual place where the road would go.
Board Member Conneman - Would this financial commitment to, John, be as part of the
resolution that they would put up some money to guarantee that the road gets built?
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that part of ours, or is that the town's?
Attorney Barney - Actually I think it's part of the ... regulations, but we can put in, if
you're of a mind to modify this paragraph K. to say or in alternative production of a
phasing plan reasonably satisfactory to the town engineer and the town planner.
Mr. Walker - Where there are two aspects of how we've accepted roads. We've
accepted roads that don't have the final asphalt on them and we've asked for letter or
credit or we've actually accepted it as a town road so it can be used as a town road and
allow houses to be built on those lots. We've also not accepted title to the land, but we,
in certain areas, and again so that if there's no houses on it there's no need for a road
and we would not build the road there. That's really a question for the town board to
address, whether you know, say if this project starts and they build the first 6 or 8 lots
on. phase one and then they leave the rest of the land, do we need a road to the rest of
the land?
Chairperson Wilcox - Probably not.
Mr. Walker - Probably not, but there is access to that back land from the end of that
road so if someone else wanted to take it over. That's really a question for the town
board to handle.
43
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, .2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Attorney Barney - I would suggest the language that I was starting to say before the
town engineer made his comments that we put a proviso in that .says accepts of .a
phasing plan that is reasonably acceptable to John, to John and to Dan after the town
board.
Chairperson Wilcox - And since this is preliminary and not final, this board should have
a chance to review it to, atfinal.
Attorney Barney - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely, I'd want to see the phasing. We doing OK?
Board Member Conneman - We're OK with that too.
Board Member Thayer - We're OK with that too.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's nice, but not mandatory. What was the third item? Third
item was the extension of Schickel road?
Board Member Talty - I'd be curious what the planning staff have to say about that.
Chairperson Wilcox = What do you think, Chris?
Ms. Bales tra - I'm sorry I lost. my train of that because I was still on road phases.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'll be nice.
Ms. Balestra - Well, if you look on the zoning map behind you, the area surrounding the
parcel, whether it's ever going to be developed or not, is designated for low density
residential development. It's not designated of conservation zoning or agricultural
zoning. It's an area the town has identified for future low- density residential
development. Upscale, low- scale, regardless. So, by allowing the extension of
Schickel road into the north or east parcels you allow the further development of those
areas which has been identified as appropriate. Whether it's something .you want to do
or no, that's up to the board.
Mr. Kanter - Another aspect of that
pedestrian /bicycle access as another way c
already have the opportunity to do that with
north and south but there isn't any to the east.
Board Member Thayer Yes there is.
Mr. Kanter - Is there?
is, if not vehicular access, possibly
if interconnecting properties. Which we
the utility easement connections on the
Board Member Thayer - There's a 20 -foot utility easement.
. I
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Kanter - So perhaps that could also be used similarly, if the board chose to go that
route instead of vehicular access.
Chairperson Wilcox - Leaving that land available for the extension doesn't mean that
there is going to be development, its simply leaves open options to planning staff and
planning board. I don't think it even encourages development. The land itself that
.borders it has to be looked at and determination made by the landowners and
subsequent landowners whether that land can be developed and in what way having an
extension of Schickel road provides options in the future. And we as a planning board,
if we are going to plan and not simply react to proposals that come before us, I think
should seriously consider the opportunity here to leave that option open. And it doesn't
even necessarily need to be built. It could be built as a closed loop road. But that land
left, would have to be dedicated to the town... 1.
Board Member Howe - You'd have to reserve if or future road purposes.
Chairperson .Wilcox - It.would. have to be reserved for future road purposes absolutely.
Yeah, yeah.
Attorney Barney - Do you feel that it has to be an extension of the road. I mean, you
can give the subdivider a little bit of flexibility and say that it come off of the...
Chairperson Wilcox - That it be on the east side? Yeah. I'm more than happy to allow
them to come back to final with somet6hing that they think.
Board Member Conneman - Could they use the utility easement area?
Chairperson Wilcox - That's what the county — somebody mentioned that, I don't know if
it was the county or not. .
Mr. Walker - There are some I believe some ponds over on the lower east side, though,
of the subdivision, so we would have to be careful where that reservation strip would go.
Chairperson Wilcox - Right. We're talking about a strip of land 60 feet wide reserved for
possible road connection, but not have to be paved. Yeah, it would have to be placed in
a logical position given the topography surrounding it.
Mr. Kanter - I think that something that ought to probably be looked at by the
transportation committee. One option on this particular parcel is that there is a wide
strip to the north adjoining another land owner, I fact there's two landowners there, and
there's a lot of right of way access to that parcel, so if that adjoining parcel were to be
developed to the north of course there would be an easy connection. It does reserve a
way to the ... in a way it does if that parcel were to be developed there is the possibility
to go to the east on that parcel too. Also the Compton road, even though it appears that
I.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 49 2004
_APPROVED June 1, 2004
there's a building right in the end of the roadway there, could be extended at some time
into that parcel there.
Ms. Balestra - Again this would take again the consent or actually the application of the Ak
adjacent landowner and I believe its Ms. Flores that owns both parcels to the east and
north.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, I. mean, not consent, but I don't think she's going to
subdivide, but her heirs might or who knows. And the road, this land reserved for the
road extension, the road may never be built but its there in case, should it be
reasonable.
Mr. Kanter - Yeah, I think it's a good idea, I think we would need to take a little bit closer
look at where it.would be and it probably means that some of those lots on the eastern
side of the subdivision would have to be reconfigured, possibly losing a lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're right. We shouldn't sit here and say we should reconfigure
lot 16 or wee as a planning board doesn't have enough information to say where this
extension should be, so it should be that one should exist, and we'll leave that to the
applicant to propose and the appropriate people to review, and then we'll see the final.
Board Member Talty - Can I ask — when that happens, can we have an aerial
photograph of that area if at all possible?
Mr. Albern - Yeah should have one. You were given a colored one.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes sir?
Mr. Albern - Yes, Mr. Chairman, do I hear that if you're going to plot the extension at
some place, maybe not exactly where it's shown, but someplace?
Chairperson Wilcox - I think the board is comfortable with that we, that land needs to be
set aside
Mr. Albern - OK.
Chairperson Wilcox - On the eastern side for a potential extension either off of. Schickel
road or Larissa lane, We will leave it to you .to determine where the best or most
appropriate place might be, and then would come back for the appropriate approvals as
part of the final.
Mr. Albern - With the final plan, OK
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. I assume this would be 60 foot wide, it would show on the
plan as reserved for future .road extension, it would not be paved.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Albern - AS your town engineer pointed out, there are ponds to the south area,
where it is shown is probably — may be the best place.
Chairperson Wilcox - To the northeast may be the best place.to do it.
Mr. Albern - I want to ask another question.
Chairperson Wilcox - Sure.
Mr. Albern - With having to extend Schickel road or someplace, we're going to lose a
lot. There's no way to save a lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - Understood
Mr. Albern - Can we change the width of 150 to 135, take 15 feet from each of four lots
to get the 60 =foot Schickel road extension?
Mr. Kanter - You would probably need variances then.
Chairperson Wilcox - You would need to go to the zoning board to get variances.
Mr. Albern - I thought you could grant that.
Chairperson Wilcox - No, nope. You know what.., not every piece of land costs the
same to develop and if you lose a lot, you lose a lot. That's my feeling. I mean.
Board Member Talty - But he can propose that, Fred.
Chairperson Wilcox He can go to the zoning board if they want, absolutely, and
request the appropriate variances from the zoning board.
Mr. Albern - This board cannot grant fora new subdivision... I thought they could.
Chairperson Wilcox - We could grant a subdivision with lots that don't meet the zoning
subject to variances granted by the zoning board. (pause) But I'm not inclined to do that
at this point. While you were talking there was discussion of making the lots on the
eastern side 150 feet wide, and I'm not inclined to go there at this point.
Board Member Talty - I don't think we should preclude them from offering any and this
is what we're doing here. I mean you guys can come up with anything you want, and
we can either vote if up or vote it down.
Chairperson Wilcox - They can come back with another plan.
Mr. Albern- Right, of course, I wanted to get a feeling of the board.
47
„,A
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox - And again its'; not this board that would make the...
Board Member Talty - But we can, can we recommend, we can recommend to the...
Board Member Conneman - On the recommendation, and give the zoning board a
recommendation.
Board Member Mitrano - Fred, I'd rather wait.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have in front of me 150 -foot lots that meet the zoning.
Board Member Mitrano - It's wet.
Chairperson Wilcox - There's a lot going on, I'm not sure I want to make lots that small.
But again, you can go that route, you can come to the board, you can ask for our
approval and then go to the zoning board if you want to go through that to squeeze out
another lot. That's your call, not ours.
Mr. Albern - Understood.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK. Sidewalks, road construction, extension of Schickel road...
phasing, we don't have a problem with phasing; I'm assuming we get the appropriate
details and everything else. Thank you very much.
Board Member Thayer - What about the trees?
Chairperson Wilcox Oh the trees along, thank you, the trees along the northern...
Attorney Barney - We've sort of already built that in...
Chairperson Wilcox - How did we build that in? Did we build that in for each
homeowner or each lot, or did we build that into the... Does M handle that?
Attorney Barney - M says, preserve as much existing vegetation...
Chairperson Wilcox - ... On the site as possible during construction. Thank you very
Much,
Board Member Howe - And wouldn't they need to show on the final plan what trees are
being left or not?
Mr. Kanter - we could ask that.
Chairperson Wilcox - The applicant shall preserve as much existing vegetation on the
site as possible during construction so revegetated areas of disturbance in the manner
that does not impede the function of the drainage or stormwater runoff swales.
.•
PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Kanter - Also there was a specific concern raised about the old large oaks along the
Schickel road extension there. And, umm, if the board would like to pursue that, we
could ask to see a more specific locational plot of where those are and try to work the
road construction around that.
Board Member Howe - I think that makes sense, I'd be supportive of that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, to possibly work the road around ... use the 60 foot right of
way.
Board Member Conneman - Those lots 17 -20, are all greater than 200 feet in depth so
there is a little bit of latitude... the road right of way could be shifted if we needed
I
nother 10 feet or something.
Chairperson Wilcox - Still proves that appropriate width on the sides of the roads, but
thank you. Sounds like we're doing something here. Would someone like to move?
Board Member Conneman - This may be off the wall, but I said initially that this was not
a very imaginative design, we're going to come up against this cluster idea that Tessa
Flores has raised before — we're going to come up against this time and time again, and
. just want to go on record as saying that I think it's a much better way to go than this
way, OK?
Board Member Talty - I do to, but we don't really have much. We can only recommend
clustering.
Ms. Balestra - No, you can require it.
Chairperson Wilcox - We can, we can force it.
Board Member Talty - This guy raised that last time too, where we said we thought that
was unimaginative and we said that we...
Board Member Conneman - Yeah, I mean this is cookie - cutter. Sorry.
Board Member Mitrano - Right, we had this discussion both times before, and there
wasn't a consensus of the board.
Chairperson Wilcox - Walkout ditches? I think we're going to let Kevin out there on his
own at this point. I didn't hear anyone else support Kevin at this point.
Board Member Talty - So let me get this straight, so I can reiterate and make this very
clear. If we endorse the sidewalks in the inner perimeter of this, the outside perimeter
will have ditches in the front yard, is that correct?
E
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Howe - No we had sidewalks on both sides.
Board Member Talty - OK sidewalks both sides.
Board Member Conneman - Sidewalks both sides, ditches both sides.
Board Member Talty - OK, that's what I wanted to hear. OK, so now sidewalks on both
sides. What's in between.the road and the sidewalk?
Chairperson Wilcox - ditch and a little bit of place.
Board Member Conneman - But sidewalks on both sides?
Chairperson Wilcox - Sidewalks on both sides. Would someone like to move the motion
as drafted... as drafted for us, Kevin?
Board Member Talty - Changes...?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, we'll get through the changes, he's been writing, he's been
doing a lot of writing over there.
Board Member Mitrano - That looks like a work of art.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Larry Thayer. Second? We do not have a second,
interesting. Since we don't have a second...
Board Member Howe - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Rod Howe. Thank you. What's bothering
everybody, you didn't want to leap forward with a second?
Board Member Talty - I'm not a big fan of ditches in front of...
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, the fact that you didn't leap forward didn't bother me, I
expected it, but there was, are we at that, it's kind of all right, I guess we'll vote for it, but
I don't want to, I wish it were better... where are we?
Board Member Talty - Well, I'm trying to remember, and you said we talked about this
clustering before, and I guess we did where George and I were perhaps the only ones,
so that's my, I would liked to have seen a more creative...
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, I know Kevin is, and I kind of got the feeling that everyone
else was comfortable with it, but there's a difference between endorsing it and moving it
and seconding it.
50
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4,2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Conneman - I don't want the Nick's development coming back and say,
you let Westview do it,. so you got to let us do it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Each one is considered separately.
Board Member Conneman - I understand that, but this one could be done differently
too.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK. We've got a lot of changes. So Larry, Rod, listen carefully.
Mr. Barney, please don't mumble and speak up and go for it.
Attorney Barney - I would suggest re- lettering D to C, and then inserting a new D
reading as follows: submissions of restrictive covenants and agreements. to be made
applicable to the lots for maintenance for the storm drainage control systems and
structures to the town engineer, town planner, attorney for the town, for approval. And
then, in what is K, add at the end: or alternatively submission of a phasing plan for stage
development for approval this board, the town board, town engineer, and town planner,
with financial assurances satisfactory to all of the above officials assuring full
construction of all improvements. And then I would suggest adding a new N: revisions
of the plan to show a 60 foot reservation of strip of the land providing partial future
access to the property next east. And O reading: provision of additional drawings
showing location of trees along the north line and location of Schickel road to minimize
destruction of the trees. And, that's I think it... after I actually left out part of the
restrictive covenants to be submitted fort approval, such language to include that
limitation granting the town the right to enforce the obligation to maintain said facilities,
referring back to the storm drainage facility, and upon failure of the landowner to
maintain same, authorizing the town to maintain them and charge back the costs of
such maintenance to.the landowner and add such costs to the tax bill if not paid.
Chairperson Wilcox - Acceptable. Think we got it all in there.
Board Member Mitrano - Did we get the trees in there?
Chairperson Wilcox - Got the trees in there.
Board Member Conneman - And B does say sidewalks on both sides.`..
Chairperson Wilcox - Yup, the original draft did have sidewalks on both sides so we
have that already.
Board Member Talty - I just want to say, this is really bothering me. I hope everybody
can visualize sidewalks on both sides of the street with a ditch between the sidewalk
and the street, 2 feet deep. Visualize that in the setting. That's all I w. ant to say.
Board Member Mitrano - I have one in front of my house I can visualize.
51
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Attorney Barney - You don't really have sidewalks, and that's barely a walkway.
Board Member Mitrano - Barely a what, John?
Attorney Barney - Barely a walkway.
Board Member Talty - Accessibility for kids — they're going to have to go up the
driveway, cross the sidewalk and down and access to another driveway. And as we all
know, kids follow rules like that.
Chairperson Wilcox - They'll just walk across the yard.
Board Member Talty - Just thought I'd mention that.
Chairperson Wilcox - They'll just walk across the yard.
Board Member Mitrano - You know, I was actually starting to... the reason I said what
are we doing with Kevin's proposal is he was starting to persuade me, but what's
happened in my neighborhood is we all started out like that and some people have gone
ahead and filled them in, and I guess I have to go back to the idea that if people want to
fill them in they can.
Board Member Talty - That's true. I did.
Mr. Walker - Well, but I mean if the ditches are in the road right of way, it's really more,
it's not totally a matter of whether the homeowners go and fill them in. It may not be
really the way the town wants it done.
Attorney Barney - There are engineering reasons for the ditches to be there. So.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, we're not talking about flow, we're talking about putting a
pipe in.
Mr. Walker - But still, it may not as function as well if you have ditch, pipe, ditch, pipe.
Board Member Talty - You're right.
Mr: Walker - I have to say I agree with Kevin, that in a situation where you have a more
suburban sidewalk kind of situation, ditches don't seem to be appropriate. And again
this is a new situation.
Chairperson Wilcox - You know if the developer comes back to file it and changes it to
not putting ditches in... that would be super.
Board Member Conneman - Yeah.
52
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED. June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox - You know what? I hope they do, but I'm not going to sit here and
tell them to do it. Hopefully they'll figure it out that if they want to sell quarter million and
above homes, they'll do it.
Board Member Thayer - I think we made that point.
(a phone rings)
,, .
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. Somebody will turn that off I'm sure. Oh, Mr. Albern, can
you step outside sir with that please. Umm, we have a motion and. a second, the
changes have been accepted. Is there any further discussion?
Board Member Conneman - I just want to say I have lots of'reservations. But, as long
as it's not going to set a precedent. I'd like that in the minutes.
Chairperson Wilcox - We need four to prove this. I think.given..: I just want to make
sure we're clear. Do we need four? I just want to make sure.
Board Member Thayer - Right of way to extend Schickel, so we only. need 4
Attorney Barney - There's a little issue about the storm drainage facility. They seem to
be saying that they don't care for this swale system either, and to basically override
them, you have to go one plus.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK, so we're going to need five.
Board Member Talty - Can you repeat that again.
Attorney Barney - They had two reservations, one was the lack of the access to the
property next east, but the second reservation was with the drainage system. as
proposed, basically, by our understanding, reaffirming the use of the drainage system
as proposed, which would require a supra majority.
Mr. Walker — This comment is not a good technical comment.
Mr. Barney — Yeah, I agree.
Mr. Walker — They are handling the storm water on site with these individual swales.
Mr. Barney — My understanding Dan and maybe Chris can direct me, is that they-
Chairperson Wilcox- "They" being the County.
Mr. Barney — The County see the storm drainage plans that Dan has so eloquently
reported .tonight?
53
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 42 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Ms. Balestra — No. What they got was basically the packet that you have, but they didn't
get this tow -inch thick drainage plan.
Mr. Barney — Did they get a map?
Ms. Balestra — They did get the plans, they did get that.
Mr. Barney — With the swales?
Ms. Balestra — With the swales, that is correct
Mr. Walker — We could try to educate the County Planning Department on how to read
plan.
Ms. Balestra — Yeah, they may not have understood them because it is a new concept.
Mr. Barney - I can relate to that because it wasn't until I came here tonight and listened
to Dan's explanation that I began to...
Chairperson Wilcox — Understand what was going on? Okay, all right.
Mr. Kanter — But yet, that is always something that people may look to as a procedural
defect.
Mr. Barney — It would be preferable is the vote were five —
Chairperson Wilcox = Well, we'll see what happens, I just want to make sure that we
understand. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please raise
your hand, one, two, three, four, five. Oh sorry, Kevin, you are in favor? Kevin is in
favor. Anybody opposed? Anybody abstain? There are no abstentions, the motion is
passed. Thank you very much.
PB
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -038: Preliminary
Subdivision Approval,
Westview 33=
Lot
Subdivision, Schickel Road, Danby Road,
Tax Parcel No.
36 -2 -3.2
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
7. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel
Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2-
3.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road
towards the east and creating a loop road for 32 residential lots and one 1 % +/-
acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet,
Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent, and
54
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
.MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has,
on May 4, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by
Town Planning staff,, and
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on May.4, 2004, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate subdivision plans including sheets 1 through 7 entitled
"Preliminary Plat - Westview Subdivision, Danby, Road, Town of Ithaca, "prepared
by William F. Albern, P.E. Engineering Consultant, dated March 22, 2004, sheet
EC1 entitled "Westview Plan, Stormwater; Drainage & Erosion Control," sheet
EC2 entitled "Westview Standard Details Drainage & Erosion Control, "and sheet
EC3 entitled "Westview Swale & Pond Details Drainage & Erosion Control,"
prepared by Philip Erik. Whitney, P.E., dated March 22, 2004, and other
application materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision
Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will
result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor
the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Westview 33 -lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel
Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-
3.2, as shown on plans entitled "Preliminary Plat - Westview Subdivision, Danby,
Road, Town of Ithaca, "subject to the following conditions to be met prior to Final
Subdivision Approval, unless otherwise noted:
a: Submission of a detailed survey of the property that indicates the location and
description of all section line corners and government survey monuments in
or near the subdivision, to at least one of which the subdivision shall be
referenced by true courses and distances, such survey to include the stamp
and seal of the registered land surveyor who prepared the survey,
b. Submission of revised plans to include sidewalks surrounding the. entire
inside loop as well as in the remainder of the subdivision and to delete the
reference to the "pond area" on Lot 1,
c. Submission
of revised plans
to show locations and
dimensions of all
easements,
to be conveyed
to the Town for access
to all stormwater
management
facilities, swales,
sewer and water mains,
and submission of
55
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
draft language regarding the above easements for review and approval by the
Town Engineer and the Attorney of the Town,
d. Submission of restrictive covenant, agreements and easements to be made
applicable to the lots for maintenance of the storm drainage control systems
and structures to the Town Engineer, Town Planner and Attorney for the
Town for approval, such language to include, without. limitation, granting the
Town the right to ensure the obligations to maintain such facilities and, upon
failure of the landowner to maintain the same, authorizing the Town to
maintain same and charge back the costs of such maintenance to the
landowner and add such costs to the tax bill if not paid,
e. Submission of detailed construction plans and specifications for water and
sewer lines, including locations and descriptions of mains, manholes, valves,
hydrants, appurtenances, etc, for review and approval by the Town Engineer,
f. Submission of detailed construction plans and specifications ` for the
subdivision road and proposed walkways and sidewalks, including grading,
cut and fill calculations and proposed materials, for review and approval by
the Town Engineer,
g. Submission .of a proposed list of flowering trees to be planted on individual
lots, including possible species, size, and planting specifications,
h. Acceptance by the Town Board of the concept and location of the public road,
utilities, and parkland proposed for future dedication to the Town,
i. Evidence of any necessary approvals by the Tompkins County Health
Department, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board chair,
j. Completion of the water service and pressure improvements to the Danby
Road /Schickel Road area to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, prior to
the issuance of any building permits,
k. Construction of all roads, utilities, and sidewalks, prior to the issuance of any
building permits, or alternatively, submission of a phasing plan for staged
development for approval by this Board, the Town Board, Town Engineer and
Town Planner with financial assurance, satisfactory to all of the above
officials, assuring full construction of all improvements.
1. The 1.5 +1- acre park shall be dedicated to the Town and consolidated with the
existing Compton Park, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy, and
m. the applicant shall preserve as much existing vegetation on the site as is
possible during construction, and shall re- vegetate areas of disturbance in a
we
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
manner that does not impede the function of the drainage and stormwater
runoff swales on all parcels.
n. Revision of the plan to show a sixty -foot reservation of a strip of land
providing possible future access to the adjacent property to the east.
o. Provision of additional drawings showing the location of trees along the north
property line and location of Schickel Road to minimize destruction of same.
3. That the Planning Board finds the proposed dedication of 1.5 +1- acres of
parkland to be combined with the existing Town of Ithaca Compton Park, will
adequately meet the recreational needs of the proposed subdivision.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty,
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Barney — I would suggest that you add, quickly, one resolution, of which we don't
have prepared. It basically says that the reason that you have approved this plan,
inspite of the County's recommendation is that, after the explanation from the Town
Engineer, this appeared to be an affective way for handling the drainage. You are
supposed to give a reason to the County when you override them. So that's what I
would suggest, if you would be prepared to make that resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can we use what you just said?
Mr. Barney — Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by the Chair.
Board Member Mitrano - That sounds fine, I'll second it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy. I'm sorry, so what you said is that by
overriding the County's recommendation, we need to provide reasons, we just can't...
And reasons are so stated and I agree that those are our reasons. All those in favor?
Aye. The motion is passed.
PR RESOLUTION NO.
Lot Subdivision, S
004 -039: P
el Road. Di
rm nary Subdivision Apnroval, Westview 33-
Tax Parcel No.
by R
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
-3.2
57
,,,.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Tompkins County suggested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board not approve the
subdivision as presented due to.drainage concerns.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board determines that, based upon the detailed
explanation from the Town Engineer, the plan presented appears to be an effective way
for handling the drainage on the site.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Southwest
Addition, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox = The Cayuga Medical Center seems. incapable of coming and
bringing all of their proposed. additions at the same time, they want to stretch them out.
Board Member Howe — We just might want to be fair and-
Chairperson Wilcox — Good point. Let's see we have Mr. Drake and Mr. Fabbroni sitting
out there. Larry, you know, but Mr. Drake may not. We normally end at ten o'clock. We
have, on occasion, extended to 10:15 or even 10:30. We're just getting started on the
hospital here. There is no way we could get to you and do it justice and give you a
chance to present it anal provide feedback. Before we leave, if it's okay with you, before
we leave, we will have a brief meeting with Jon and see what's coming up. It would on
be fair to get you on, either the next meeting, if that is possible, or possible, maybe we
are going to have to do a special meeting because, in talking to Jon, I know that there
are a lot of applicants in front of us. So, I apologize to you, but Rod, is absolutely right, it
would be unfair to make you sit here another half an hour or 45 minutes and then
apologize and make you go home. So, I thank you for coming and we'll get you on and
we'll get you on as soon as we can. Is there something that you would like to say?
Mr. Fabbroni — No, that is fine with us.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
Peter Trowbridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road — We have three different presenters this
evening. What I would like to do is turn the introduction and a discussion of the addition
W
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
to the hospital over to Paul Lavesque from HOLT Architects who will introduce the team,
talk a little bit about the building, I will come back then and talk about the site and Frank
Santelli from T.G. Miller will talk about infrastructure issues and water quality,
sedimentation control issues.
Paul Levesque, 217 North Aurora Street — I am here with Grace Chang from HOLT
Architects, Peter introduced himself who is here, along with Kim Michaels, Frank
Santelli from T.G. Miller are Joe Fitzgerald from Cayuga Medical Center is also here.
We are here tonight to discuss a project at Cayuga Medical Center, located at 101
Dates Drive.
Mr. Barney — Don't you want to introduce your attorney for crying out loud.
Mr. Levesque -Elena Flash is here also, representing the hospital.. Sorry. A. brief
description of the project. We are proposing a 53,000 square foot addition, located at
the southwest corner of the existing facility. We are also proposing improvements to the
ground, parking, and vehicular circulation and also we are proposing improvements to
the storm water management system at Cayuga Medical Center. What we are here
tonight to seek is a negative determination of environmental significance, the SEAR,
granting the special permit for zoning, the granting of preliminary site plan approval and
an allowance to reduce the standard size of a parking space. Sounds pretty ambitious
at this time of night, but..:I'll briefly go over the purpose and the need and benefits of
this project. The existing hospital was completed and occupied in 1979 and, as we all
know, the delivery of health care has substantially changed. The main change is the
utilization in outpatient services. Until recently, the medical service has been able to
service the community by upgrading their facilities within the existing structure.
Recently, we have been in front of you with three small additions. Cayuga
Medical Enter recently conducted a master facilities plan and that's the impetus of this
project that we are proposing tonight. There were some significant planning criteria that
we used with the design of the project that was actually located in page four of the book
that we gave out to you guys. I'll just go over those quickly in an effort to keep things
moving here.
Item (1) was to provide the new space to eliminate the shortfall identified by the
Master's Facilities plan, high - priority programs were to include the Emergency
Department, Imaging, the Laboratory, Registration, and Critical Care. Item (2) was to
correct or improve the physical relationships between departments to permit a more
efficient operation, Item (3) was to maintain full operations of all departments that are in
the construction sequence, maintain the facilities income steam during all construction
phases: Item (4) was to recognize and to account for the fact that the true main
entrance to the hospital, originally located on the first floor, has actually moved up to the
second floor, on the western side. This is basically due to the increase in out - patent
services. Item (5) was to maintain Cayuga Medical Center's preeminent physician as a
health care provider of choice in our area. Item (6) was to clarify pedestrian and
vehicular traffic flow, provide the necessary parking in the appropriate functional
59
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
location to serve staff, visitors, doctors and clients. With that said, what I will do is I will
walk you through the architectural portion of the project and then I will turn it over to
Peter to talk about some of the site issues.
This is an econometric drawing of the proposed addition. This is the second floor
entrance that we are used to going into for the out patients, the Radiology Department,
the main entrance is over here, the existing Emergency Department is located in this
area: As you can see, it's a four -story addition, with a mechanical penthouse on top. At
grade, at the second level, it is actually a three -story addition, which is actually the
same height as the building is right now, the building entrance. Just briefly to go over
the floor plans, at the first level, at the same level as the entrance lobby and the
cafeteria is a mechanical room, which actually would serve, the two floors above it, the
second and third floor.
The second floor of the project, the shaded area is the new addition and this
would be a new Emergency Department, lobby area. The intent of the project at this
point was to actually break out; Peter will address this in more detail later, but to break
out the circulation flow from ambulances to the walking into the Emergency Department,
to an outpatient drop off in this area. The third floor is a new Critical Care Unit, along
with the upper level of the atrium. The fourth floor would house the clinical laboratory for
the hospital and it would be connected by a bridge along the roof of the existing facility.
The upper level is a mechanical room, which would serve the laboratory on the floor
below it. The finish of the building, or the addition, as we are proposing it would be very
much in the flavor of the existing structure.
It would be pre -cast concrete. We would use brick to match the existing on the
lower levels. On the lower levels. we would also use the storefront window framing,
which is the common language of the existing hospital. This right here is the west
elevation and there would be the new outpatient entrance with a canopy, that would be
the Emergency Department entrance for the walk -in people and the ambulance
entrance would be over here, covered by a canopy. The south elevation, which is one
that we hardly ever see because you're driving around it, but, as. you can see in your
packets, the. flavor of that is very much as the existing building, it is pre -cast concrete, it
would look very much the same. In here is a partial north elevation, which would be
looking in this direction.
The phasing of the project is essentially a three -phase project. I can show it best
on the second floor plan. In the beginning, we would construct this area here, which is
the new addition and then we would be doing a renovation on. the interior of the building
and at the time that the both of those were completed, we would build the remaining
phase. It's a phase project because we need to keep the Medical Center up in operation
through the whole project and separate out the vehicular flows during construction.
Another part of this project, I'm sorry, is Cayuga Medical Center is committed to
sustainable design and we've actually registered this project with the United States
Green Building Council, in order to go for possible certification.
.11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
. MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
The last this that I have tonight is zoning. The site is currently zoned Office Park
Commercial and hospital is an allowable use with a special permit, so we are also here
to seek that permit tonight. I will turn it over to Peter.
Mr. Trowbridge — Thanks Paul. Kim Michael and I will sort of jointly present the site. The
two plans on your left represent the existing condition of Cayuga Medical Center and 1
will reference this site plan as we talk about the overall master plan. We have been
working with Cayuga Medical Center for many months now, developing an overall site
plan that has been reviewed internally by the Board, by staff, at the Medical Center,
and, as you know from the packet that we gave you, we did have a parking study done,
initially,. as one of the critical studies that SRF and Associates preformed for Cayuga
Medical Center, there are a number of issues and I think many of you that have used
the hospital as Paul has pointed out, realize that most of the entrance activity, whether
it's to the E.D., Out- patient, Admission or even Visitation, most people now use the
second floor on the west side, rather than the south side. So it's exacerbated the
parking on the west side of the building.
To mitigate that immediately what was proposed is, what was a physician's lot in
this area, physicians have been moved to an area associated now with primarily staff
parking. What that fundamentally did was not only provide staging for some of the initial
programs on site, but it freed up 50 parking spaces in this area, ultimately for visitors to
the hospital, patients of the hospital. Our overall site plan, I'll talk briefly about
circulation. The parking, as most of you know, if you've gone to the hospital and I'm
sure all of us have, that moving through the parking lots is very difficult. Search patterns
are impossible. The parking lots grew over time from the mid- seventies as need
developed and the circulation way thorough is very complex. As Paul said, we haven't
yet sorted out emergency vehicles from, for instance ambulances and people going to
the E.D. From other visitors to the hospital. So, what we've done on our site plan is
made a very clear, strong, central roadway.that would not have parking along it as it
currently does and it would sort out ambulances, people going to the Emergency
Department and then people who are visiting laboratory of other out - patient functions at
the hospital. So, those, are all sorted out and everything is structured along a clear
central roadway, so any search patterns for parking come off that roadway.
Ultimately, in this plan we add 45 new parking spaces. With the doctors being re-
located, we get roughly a net gain of 95 parking spaces on the west side by moving staff
around and building some new parking. The remainder of the parking spaces, 50 new
parking would happen as a part of the ten year plan that SRF has developed for the
hospital and those parking spaces would come on line primarily as staff spaces on the
east side of the hospital, the northeast corner, where staff primarily parks now. So, even
though we are adding roughly 115 new parking spaces, we're really looking at a net
gain for patients and visitors to the hospital of roughly 45 new spaces associated with
those uses only. As you can see, the parking area, there is a parking lot that most of
you are familiar with, gets expanded at this location, I want to come back and talk about
why that is critical and we will be doing that as one of the fist phases.
61
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
A second phase would be modifying the remainder of the parking area. A third
phase then is modified staff parking at the rear. The reason that this is important to us,
as Paul said, all the facilities have to stay open all the time and when we build the new
southwest addition, a portion of this road will be shut down for staging to make that.
happen. We will be utilizing... one bay of parking will not have parking in here and that
will be utilized as a circulation way for ambulances only, to the Emergency Department.
So, this will be a critical early phase of work.that we are hoping to start this summer,
finishing this fall. As you can see from the report, and I won't go into all the phases, we
have thought through very carefully, both utilities, circulation, parking to make sure that
the. hospital is always functional, all the departments are always functional, all the time.
The hospital, as you know, has gone to valet parking, to be able to provide best
services at this point.
The other issues I think I would like to talk, about are landscape; as you can see,
even compared to the existing condition, I think that most of us probably feel that the
hospital is very well landscaped. As a part of the lead certification, we are looking . at
more shading on paved surfaces in the parking lot, so all the traffic island and roadways
will be planted with street trees. One issue that I should have talked about right at the
beginning, was that, in anticipation of this addition, as you know there is a number of
dedicated gardens immediately south of the hospital, we're now looking at re- locating
those gardens to the south side of the creek so that, at such time that we are prepared
to start the construction of the southwest addition, those dedicated gardens will already
have been relocated and you can see it probably better in this enlargement on the south
side of the creek area.
Another issue that we did talk to staff about, as. you know, there is a former
hospital administrator home that was on the site that currently is not used. The hospital
has no anticipated program for a single - family home on the site. There was a, for a
different project, across the street, we did do a Phase 1 A Archeological study that looks
at historic resources within a two -mile radius of this area. The house did not come up as
a historic resource as a part of our historic and archeological study that looks at historic
resources within a two mile radius of this area, the house did not come up as a historic
resource as a part of our historic and archeological study, so we feel that the demolition
that it isn't a historic resource for the community or designated in the area.
Lighting, as you can see from our packet, we have provided cut sheets. We are
very concerned about black sky, sharp cutoff, view, creating very safe levels for
everyone getting to and from the hospital.. I know we have. talked to staff, especially
about evening sift employees that sometimes have concerns about coming in and out of
the hospital, that we provide safe, accessible pedestrian routes, well light. At the same
time, making sure that we are not creating any off site spillage with lighting. As you
know, from talking about other projects, as well, we have provided continuous
pedestrian sidewalks all the way out to the intersection as a part of this scheme and as
the intersection gets approved with other pedestrian crossings, that there is a
62
continuous pedestrian walkway out to the .signal
Road.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4; 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
lights intersection on Trumansburg
As part of the TCAT conversation that we were having with staff and the Town
Supervisor a few weeks ago, TCAT demonstrated or expressed their interest in
providing the highest level of service to the hospital. A good demonstration of that is
their shared bus stop with PRI that has been very, very successful as a shared project
that the hospital took quite a bit of responsibility financially for creating that connection
to PRI, which I think is a good faith effort in continuing with public transit.
And finally, I think, as you'll see from details we'll be providing high quality details
in terms of paving, curbing and all those kinds of amenities that you'd expect at a facility
like Cayuga Medical Center.
I think what we would like to do is turn it over to. Frank Santelli, who in fact, is
going to talk about, again, utilities and just to point out in the site plan there are water
quality basins associated with the garden project as well as a larger water quality basin
on the east side of the project, which Frank will talk about in some more detail.
Frank Santelli, TG Miller — I'd like to go over the utilities first and .first of all the section
that we would like to talk about is the Sanitarium Walk. The Town owns and maintains
the existing watermains and sanitary sewer mains on the hospital property: On the
water, there is a water main loop that goes essentially all the way around the hospital
and continues up around at the north end loops around the Biggs Building. The portion
that will be affected by this project, there's an existing main that runs almost straight
through the existing park and fields on the west side of the building. I know this drawing
maybe a little busy.
Essentially, what we are looking at is replacing about 900 feet of main, 10 -inch
water main and relocating it to get as much as we could out to the Dates Drive road
right -of -way, help give the Town access for maintenance. I think the Town has replaced
a lot of mains on the rear side of the hospital. I don't think along the south that they are
continuing. This is one section that hasn't been replaced as yet by Town. There is two
existing hydrants in the front and those will be replaced, relocated to maintain those and
a third hydrant will be located at the ... this is the intersection that goes up to the
Professional Building. So that is pretty much the water system improvements that are
proposed.
The sanitary ... there is an existing sanitary main that runs from the Professional
Building down along the south side of the building. It runs sort of between the buildings
and there is a creek ... sort of a creek where there's bridges, so it runs between the
creek and the building and there is very little that needs to be done with that. This
parking lot because of the grading, there's one manhole at this location that will have to
be lowered, the rim on that will have to be lowered. And, the existing:.. there is a
service line. One of the main services to the hospital that'll have to be replumbed
through the addition and reconnected to the main. So that's pretty much the extent of
the sanitary improvements that are required for this project.
63
„„ .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
In addition to those, there are other utilities... gas, electric, that probably aren't
worth discussing, not really an interest to the Town. So as far as drainage, we would
note that there's ... on this existing creek that runs south of the hospital currently there is
a culvert at Dates Drive and the second section of culvert under the existing parking and
main access drive to the hospital. This section would be replaced and to accommodate
this parking addition, we would, extend that culvert up and have a junction with the
existing culvert at Dates Drive.
In addition to that, the drainage collection system essentially on this whole side of
the hospital will be reworked. Reconfiguring the grades, reconfiguring the parking will
require essentially all new drainage inlets, scoop piping to accommodate the drainage.
Now this effectively... two areas. The main parking area drains to one drainage basin or
one drainage way and there is a second area here that actually drains to this creek.
Most of the . work, most of the improvements are. within the northern drainage area.
There is this new parking area here that does drain to the creek and that we are
proposing what they call a bioretention filter system, which will ... it is a storm basin
essentially to provide treatment for the stormwater runoff from this part of the site.
Chairperson Wilcox — Specifically the parking lot.
Mr. Santelli — From the parking lot. That's where you pick up most of your pollutants that
are coming off the paved surfaces. That is correct. The rest of the area on the west
side of the hospital drains to a manhole at this location and then there's an existing
storm sewer, maybe I can show you on here. It actually runs, well, runs under this
section of the building and continues down and daylights in the channel down in the
woods or just before the woods. Proposing is to essentially install a bi -pass around the
north side of the medical office. building and eventually abandon that third...line under
the building. Generally, not a good practice to run the stormsewer under the building. If
there were ever any problem with it, they'd have a major problem. That bi -pass would
go around, there's.the medical office building wing, through the parking area to the east
of the medical center with new drainage inlets at that point and this would discharge to a
water quality basin down here. Maybe it is easier to see on here. So that bkpass would
go around the medical office building and discharge here.
Currently, there are no stormwater controls at the hospital. Runoff is collected in
the storm drainage system and discharged to open channels that go down to the east
and eventually to Cayuga Lake. So, this facility is sized to accommodate essentially all
the improvements, or the majority of the improvements on the west side of the medical
center plus all the existing paved surfaces and buildings that have existed before them.
The project will be submitting a notice of intent to the DEC for coverage under the
general SPDES permit for stormwater discharges and all the facilities have effectively
been designed per the standard... current DEC standards for stormwater.
I'll look at my notes to see. if I forgot anything. Okay, if we look ... lets see. Now
during... essentially during construction we've got a number of ... this is the erosion and
. ,I
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
sediment control plan. During construction, there are a number of measures that'll be
taken to prevent any kind of sediment from leaving the site. Silt fence would be
installed at strategic locations, essentially downhill up on the earthwork cut or fill areas.
All the drainage inlets would be equipped with some type. of sediment trap to keep
sediment from getting into the storm system. You can see. these shaded areas here are
sort of the steeper banks, and really, this shows you really the major earthwork areas
here.. Those banks would be covered with geo- textile stabilization hopefully to establish
turf on those areas before you get any erosion from occurring. There is a tracking pad
to keep construction trucks from tracking dirt out on to the highway. And essentially as
a final precaution, this .sedimentation basin or this what is called a stormwater wetland
would be equipped with a sediment trap. L So if any silt or any erosion would occur, if it
ever did get down to this point, it would most likely get stopped at that point there. It
would act essentially as a sedimentation basin.
So during construction, those are the temporary measures that are proposed.
The permanent measures again are the bioretention filter system to treat this parking
area within this watershed and what they call an extended detention wetland facility at
this location to treat pretty much everything within the main campus, the majority of the
campus at that point. This is primarily for water quality treatment.. This basin will not
only treat... remove pollutants from the stormwater, it will also attenuate flows so that
people downstream don't get flooded out. And that's pretty much it and I'll turn it back
to the board.
Board Member Conneman — I want to play Eva for a minute since Eva isn't here and the
Environmental Review Committee did make some comments. Peter, maybe you could
answer these easily. Where is the topsoil going to be stored? What happens to that?
Mr. Trowbridge — All of the ...any access cut that would occur on site is retained on the
site. And one place that we are looking at right now for additional fill, as you can see,
this. parking lot would be extended slightly to the south so we would be looking at a fill
location above that sedimentation basin on the east side of the building.
Board Member Conneman — The second question... New York State Electric and Gas
has some sort of a substation there. She thought the lights were glaring and could do
with a lot less lights.
Mr. Trowbridge — At the substation?
Board Member Conneman — Yeah, at the.substation.
Mr. Trowbridge — I think that is not in our jurisdiction, but maybe as a part of the
conversation we have with NYSEG we could bring that comment up.
Board Member Conneman — I think that what was all going to be raised.
Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead. Say it again.
65
Board Member Mitrano — I move the vote.
Board Member Conneman — I'll second.
Board Member Talty — I have a question.
Chairperson Wilcox — Be my guest.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4, 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
„.
Board Member Talty — I love the valet. Is it going to be a permanent thing? I think that
is great?
Chairperson Wilcox — You know what I like? They moved the doctor parking...
Board Member Talty — I just think when you are delivering a patient, instead like a
staging area; you can actually assist the patient into the building and have the valet
whisk the car away. I think it is.a great idea.
Mr. Fitzgerald — Kevin, we started the program about two -three months ago. Our initial,
quite candidly, was that we would probably just do it during the construction phase.
However, we have received so many positive comments like yours that John Run? And
I have sat down and are probably assuming right now, although I don't want to promise,
but we've kind of decided. that we've better put in every year's operating budget
because it is such a popular thing with patients.
Board Member Talty — That's great.
Board Member Thayer — That's good.
Chairperson Wilcox — I was just up
the valet parking for the first time
through there with all the construe
construction on the first floor down
anyways so it just made it worse,
there last week. I was up there last week and saw
and realized how difficult it is to move around in
�.tion on the Oncology on one side and the other
by the cafeteria. I didn't know where I was going
Board Member Thayer — I think it is great that we are getting the whole picture at once
here.
Chairperson Wilcox — You know, it is good. It is good. It is going to be constructed in
phases, but we are seeing the whole thing right now. Absolutely. You can really tell
when the applicant puts money into the materials and the engineering and when they
don't. Alright. Dan has stepped out, unfortunately. We do have... Susan and Mike did
summarize his comments with regard to his engineering review of stormwater and
drainage and that sort of stuff and he is comfortable with it. I do have a motion and a
second over here already. Is there anything you want to say?
..
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Mr. Smith — No. I just wanted to make sure that the board is aware that the SEQR
refers to the site plan, special permit and the height variance since it is a Type 'l action.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. The height goes to the Zoning Board, but we get to
deal, under the new zoning regulations, with the parking and the size of the parking
spots.
Mr. Smith — And the special approval.
Chairperson Wilcox — That previously would have gone to the Zoning Board, but
now ... is that Dan. Good timing. I'll wait until you get bacK to your micropnone, out tnis
is your opportunity to say anything with regard to our environmental review and your
review of the drainage and the other documents.
Mr. Walker —.I'm happy.
Chairperson Wilcox — Works for me. I have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion? All those in favor please by saying aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? No one is opposed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -040: SEQR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit, Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition, 101 Harris B. Dates
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -2.1, 24 -3- 2.4111 24 -3- 2.412, 24 =3 -2.21,
and 24 -34.3
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed addition and site improvements to the Cayuga Medical Center
at Ithaca located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
24- 3 -2.11 24- 3- 2.4111 24- 3- 2.4121 24 =3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, and is zoned Office
Park Commercial. The project includes a four story ( +/- 89 foot height), +/-
53,000 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the existing Cayuga
Medical Center. The project also involves modifications to the parking, vehicular
circulation, landscaping, and stormwater facilities, and includes demolition of an
existing home located to the south of the existing Cayuga Medical Center.
Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf
LLP, Agent, and
67
11 i�
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated
its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, Special Approval, and Height Variance, and
3. The Planning Board, on May 4, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part ll prepared by Town Planning Staff, a packet of drawings and details. titled
"Southwest Addition to Cayuga Medical Center" (Submission for Town of Ithaca
Site Plan Review), dated April 2, 2004, prepared by HOL T Architects, P. C. T. G.
Miller, and Trowbridge & Wolf, and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a ; negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval,
Special Permit, and Height Variance,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from
other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the above - described actions;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and that a notice of this
determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR
Part 617.12.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed addition and site improvements to the Cayuga Medical
Center at Ithaca located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 24- 3 -11, 24 -3- 2.411, 24 -3- 2.4121 24 =3 -2.21, and 24 =3 -2.3, zoned Office Park
Commercial. The project includes a four story ( +/- 89 foot height), +/. 53;000
square foot addition to the southwest corner of the existing Cayuga Medical
Center. The project also involves modifications to the parking, vehicular
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
circulation, landscaping, and stormwater facilities, and includes demolition of an
existing home located to the south of the existing Cayuga Medical Center.
Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf
LLP, Agent
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. With no persons present
to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing on 10:21 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, sir.
Board Member Talty — Excellent presentation. Probably one of the best that I have
seen since I have been affiliated with this board.
Chairperson Wilcox — Where do you guys want to go? Do you want to. go now and do
this tonight or do you want to...? I've always thought sometimes I'm rushing things a
little bit, but if you guys are comfortable, someone can move the motion.
Board Member Conneman — This is only preliminary?
Chairperson Wilcox — This is preliminary, but you have to understand that you can't give
preliminary and then change our mind for final, but I have a motion from Kevin Talty.
Board Member Thayer — I'll second it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Larry Thayer. Any further discussion over here?
Mr. Smith — I'll just mention there's two .new things in the resolution now with the special
permit that the board. is also approving that and the last resolved is for the parking
space modification for the smaller size.
Chairperson Wilcox — 180 instead of 200? If I remember right, which we have approved
for other large parking lots.
Mr. Smith — They are going down to 162 from 180.
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
Board Member Conneman — Is that because cars are getting smaller?
Chairperson Wilcox — No. Its because they want to save money ... and asphalt.
Board Member Conneman — What?
Chairperson Wilcox — And we save asphalt, too.
69
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 9, 2004
Mr. Trowbridge — What we were hoping to do is, we are leaving the larger parking
spaces where visitors and patients come into the hospital .so that if someone is coming
there, they'll have plenty of space to maneuver. The smaller spaces are dedicated to
staff only. People who come. and stay for eight hours. So there is a clear designation
between or distinction, between the larger spaces and the smaller spaces. And I think
you have a diagram that shows this...
Board Member Conneman'— Peter, 'my point is that cars are getting smaller, but suv's
have gotten a heck of a lot bigger. That's the issue.
Mr. Smith — Fred, I was just going to mention one more thing, not necessarily just to the
board, but also to the applicants because we haven't mentioned it to them about the
condition letter "f'. It talks about the drainage and the stormwater maintenance plan
and the agreement there would be similar to the College Circle one where the Town,
which was mentioned earlier, that the Town is able to go in and charge back if there is
any problems. And one new thing that we added here is about an annual. inspection
report, which would be submitted to the Town just so we can make sure that the
maintenance plan is being followed and the Town doesn't need to do anything.
Chairperson Wilcox — Change the tape. Okay, hold on ... Larry did second. Okay. Very
good.
Attorney Barney — Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, sir?
Attorney Barney — Just a couple of suggested additions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Be my guest.
Attorney Barney — In the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, last resolved, the reference to
the section I think it might be nice just to make clear that is from the Zoning Ordinance.
So I would suggest adding after it says "Section 2707 le of the Town's Zoning
Ordinance ".
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Attorney Barney — And then I think that we have been drafting these agreements so I
would suggest maybe an "f' after we say, "satisfactory to the Director of Engineering
with the advice of the Attorney for the Town ". The substance originates from
engineering, but the legalese ... (not audible).
Chairperson Wilcox — So Kevin and Larry, you're okay?
Board Member Talty — Yes.
70
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
. MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Thayer — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set, John?
Attorney Barney — Yup.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? All those in favor please signal by saying
aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? Nobody is opposed. The motion is passed
unanimously. Thank you very much.
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2004 -041: Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit, Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -2.1, 24 -346411, 24 -3- 14121 24 -3 -2.21, and 24-
3 -2.3.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer,
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed addition and site improvements to the Cayuga Medical Center
at Ithaca located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
24- 3 -2.1, 24- 3- 2.41.1, 24 -3- 2.412, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, and is zoned Office
Park Commercial. The project includes a four story ( +/- 89 foot height), +/-
53,000 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the existing Cayuga
Medical Center. The project also involves modifications to the parking, vehicular
circulation, landscaping, and stormwater facilities, and includes demolition of an
existing home located to the south of the existing Cayuga Medical Center,
Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf
LLP, Agent, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, Special
Permit, and a Height Variance, has, on May 4, 2004, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted
as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 4, 2004, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate, a packet of drawings and details titled "Southwest
Addition to Cayuga Medical Center" (Submission for Town of Ithaca Site Plan
71
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Review), dated April 2, 2004, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., T.G. Miller, and
Trowbridge & Wolf, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants
use that involves overnight occupancy,
2405, Subsections 1 -12, of the Town 'c
met.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
,, .
Special Permit for expanding a hospital
finding that the standards of Section
if Ithaca Zoning Ordinance; have been
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition located at
101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -2.1, 24 -3- 2.411, 24 -3- 2.412,
24 -3- 2.21,. and 24- 3 -2.3, as shown in the packet of drawings and details titled
"Southwest Addition to Cayuga Medical Center" (Submission for Town of Ithaca
Site Plan Review), dated April 2, 2004, prepared by HOLT Architects, P. Col T, G,
Miller, and Trowbridge & Wolf, subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to
be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building
permit, and
b, submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including
but not limited to the Pollution Prevention Plan for NYSDEC, prior to the
issuance of a building permit, and
C. the granting of the height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior
to Final Site Plan Approval, and
d. revision of "Existing Site Conditions" plans (drawings C101 and C102), to
include the name and seal of.the registered land surveyor or engineer who
prepared the topographic survey, prior to the issuance of a building permit,
and
e. approval of the extent of the water line replacement and the plans and
specifications by the Director of Engineering, prior to Final Site Plan
Approval, and
f. submission of an agreement with the Town, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, with the advice
of the Attorney for the Town, stating that the Cayuga Medical Center
agrees to maintain the stormwater facilities, as described in the
stormwater maintenance plan, including an agreement which specifies
72
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 4; 2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
circumstances under which the Town of Ithaca could repair any damage,
deficiencies, or to remove obstructions from any stormwater facility and
charge the costs of such activities to the landowner, and to submit to the
Town an annual stormwater inspection report (including at a minimum
location of property, owners contact information, summary of completed
inspections and results of inspections, and summary of any maintenance
activities or corrective actions taken).
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
1. That the Planning Board, pursuant to Section 2707 (1)(e) of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, hereby allows a reduction of the: standard size of a parking
space to 162 square feet (9'x 18) in the new and modified parking lots on the
.east and west sides of the Cayuga Medical Center, as shown on. page 16 .of the
document titled "Southwest Addition — Site Development Plan — Review
Application Report" finding that the reduction will not have any adverse effects
on the project, on the surrounding properties, or on the neighborhood.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Persons to be Heard
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Auble, do you wish to speak or are you just out there enjoying
yourself?
Mr. Auble — (not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox — This entertainment is priceless.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 20, 2004
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -042: Approval of Minutes — April 20, 2004
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Tally.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the April 20,
2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meeting as presented.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
73
., :N
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox — The most important thing, at least in my opinion, 'is that this is
Lori's last meeting with us. Your last day is Friday, and then she is leaving
Town... following her new husband. So motion to thank Lori Love for everything she has
done for me and for the board. (Applause). Did they hire a replacement yet?
Lori Love — Yes.
Board Member Talty — In the minutes, are you actually going to go clap, clap, clap? Are
you going to type that in the minutes?
Ms. Love — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — We did not get to the sketch plan review for the Drake
subdivision. We have full agenda's coming up, I believe.
Mr. Kanter — Correct. Yeah, the May 18th agenda it quite full. We have six items on it
tentatively without the,Drake sketch plan including the Country Inn Suites Hotel coming
back for a modified sketch plan.
Chairperson Wilcox — And .Mr. Auble just walked out, too.
Board Member Thayer — (not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox — I should have taken the .opportunity to ... I'll say something to him
the next meeting about his private correspondence with Larry. I wish he wouldn't do
that, but at least we know about. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kanter = Although it is a lot of items, there are a lot of small items. We got a 4 -lot
subdivision that Mr. Fabbroni was mentioning. This is his application up on Fairway
Drive for additional lots. We've got the Glenside Park subdivision coming back for final
because they went to the ZBA last night and got their variances so that's a pretty quick
one. And then we've got a couple of two lot subdivisions, actually one that you already
saw, .the Sappa Center subdivision on Elm Street coming back for a modified lot and a
two lot subdivision up in the Agricultural zone up on Iradell Road and Ithaca College
coming in for temporary modular office space. So we have six items already without
Drake, so we need to decide how to...
Chairperson Wilcox — Can we do a special meeting?
74
PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Howe — I won't be here on the 18th just so you know that.
Chairperson Wilcox — When we did the last special meeting we did it on a Thursday,
right? Now, is that because Thursdays work best for us or is it because that Thursday
happened to work?
Board Member Talty — Thursdays work best for me
Chairperson Wilcox — Thursdays would best for you, the traveling salesperson.
Mr. Kanter — If we put any items with public hearings.on, it gets a little bit compressed in
'terms of getting the public hearing notice if we were talking about this Thursday, the
13th.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we would have to check with Mr. Fabbroni and Mr. Drake.
Are Thursdays generally good for everybody?
Board Member Howe — It depends.
Board Member Conneman — It depends on the week. I can't just say.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we can make the statement that Tuesdays are generally...
Board Member Conneman — Well, that's because we reserve ... (not audible)
Mr. Kanter — The problem with Thursday, the 13th is it also, besides the public. hearing
notification compression, it compresses the time that staff has to process these by any
that we put on that agenda.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can we just put Drake.on it?
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, if we just put Drake on it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is it worth doing a special meeting just for Drake?
Board Member Talty — Or even maybe one of the little guys. I mean I understand what
you are saying. I mean if you want to ... if you think you are prepared to put one of the
little ones on, by all means...
Attorney Barney — Yeah, please.
Chairperson Wilcox — And get the meeting noticed published in time in the Journal ... that
is also part of it.
.Board Member Conneman — Because the little one probably isn't going to be an issue.
Drake is going to be an issue.
75
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox Drake is going to take us a while, I think... just to go back and
forth with Larry and Mr. Drake and tell them about all the things we don't like about it
because I have a lot to say about what I don't like.
Board Member Conneman — That's exactly it.
Mr. Kanter — So would you like us to...
Chairperson Wilcox — Is the 13th good for the five of us that are here? Next Thursday?
Attorney Barney — A week from Thursday.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. You're right. It is nine days away.
Mr. Kanter —Well, can we quickly canvas you tomorrow and confirm?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, and get Mr. Drake on there and...
Board Member Conneman — The 13th, which is a Thursday.
Chairperson Wilcox = And there is always a simple two lot subdivision that we do in five
minutes and there is one that always turns into an hour. You know what? Larry and Mr.
Drake may not want to come back until who knows. I'm trying to expedite to be fair to
them. But it doesn't sound .like we can put them on the 18th
Mr. Kanter — And of course this is the application that they got in before the April
1St ... under the old zoning.
Chairperson Wilcox — They just snuck it in. Yes, they did.
Mr. Kanter —.If they're... what's the word we use in the zoning... pursuing this diligently...
Chairperson Wilcox — We need to do the same. We need to push them'.
Mr. Kanter — If we're delaying because of scheduling, they're pursing it...
Chairperson Wilcox - Alright. So we'll try to get a meeting to just deal with and certainly
at a minimum to try to deal with the Drake subdivision.
Attorney Barney — You want Jon to find out first, though, if Drake...
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it has to work for them, too, Larry and Mr. Drake as well.
Mr. Kanter — Well we'll canvas you one way or the other just at least to find out the
availability and or to let you know it might not happen because they can't come.
76
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 412004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Any other business on your side other than busy in the
Planning Department? The agendas look full for a while?
Mr. Kanter — Yup.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright.
Board Member Thayer — That means we will have a meeting the day after Memorial
Day, right?
Mr. Kanter —When I s that, June 1St? That one could be potentially pretty busy, too.
Board Member Thayer — That one I'm not going to be here.
Inaudible conversation.
Board Member Thayer — Did the Ithaca Beer Company get permission to put the trailers
on their lot?
Attorney Barney - What trailers?
Board Member Thayer — The ones that are right in front.
Mr. Smith — It was discussed at the Zoning Board when they were there.
Board Member Thayer — Was it?
Mr. Smith — Yeah.
Board Member Thayer — Just curious.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't remember because they didn't come to us for trailers in the
front yard.
Mr. Kanter — They are supposed to be temporary, while under construction /renovation.
Chairperson Wilcox -For staging of materials?
Board Member Conneman — Have you had their root beer yet?
Chairperson Wilcox — Their root beer is pretty good.
Board Member Conneman — Their ginger beer is pretty good, too.
77
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 41,2004
APPROVED June 1, 2004
Board Member Talty — Although I have to say that the old ... what's our buddy there...the
Like New ... that's looks a hell of a lot better.
Chairperson Wilcox — The place across the street? Were you successful in your
litigation or did he come around?
Attorney Barney — He was on the verge of going to trial and ... (not audible)..
Board Member Conneman — He's got 'til December to do something or...is'he...
Attorney Barney -No. I think he is substantial compliant.
Mr. Kanter — He has removed those...
Chairperson .Wilcox — At Wegman's, I think it was last Saturday, it was Dan Mitchell
there representing Ithaca Beer, selling their soda, giving away their soda and .Heather
Lang from Purity were both there side by side making floats and things like that. That
was great for the two of them to team up to sell their soda and ice cream.
Inaudible conversation
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 4, 2004 meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board. duly adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, /
Carrie Coates Whitmore
Deputy Town Clerk
A .
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Presentation and discussion of the Draft County Comprehensive Plan, Tompkins County Planning
Department,
7:30 P.M.. PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding an amendment to Section
31, Subsection .1, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to allow cluster subdivisions in an
Agricultural Zone,
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road and Danby Road.
7 :50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the Westview 33-
Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B ( Danby Road),
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Residence District R -30 (Low Density Residential). The
proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 32
residential lots and one 1' /2 +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor
Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albem, Agent.
8:15 P.M, . SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive.
8 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed addition and site improvements to the Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca located at 101
Hams B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -2.1, 24 -3- 2.411, 24 -3- 2.412, 24 -3-
2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, zoned Office Park Commercial. The project includes a four story ( +/- 89 foot
height), +/- 53,000 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the existing Cayuga Medical
Center. The project also involves modifications to the parking, vehicular circulation, landscaping,
and stormwater facilities, and includes demolition of an existing home located to the south of the
existing Cayuga Medical Center. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; Peter Trowbridge,
Trowbridge & Wolf LLP, Agent.
8:45 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 30 -lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg
Road (NYS Route 79) to the east of 1362 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1-
15.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes constructing a new road off Mecklenburg Road
for the development of 29 residential lots and one lot reserved for open space on the 94 +/- acre
parcel. Robert Drake, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent.
8. Persons to be heard.
9. Approval of Minutes: Apri120, 2004
10. Other Business:
11, 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, May 4, 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, May 4, . 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:30 P.M. Recommendation to the Town Board regarding an amendment to Section 31, Subsection 1,
of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to allow cluster subdivisions in an
Agricultural Zone.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision
located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Residence District R -30 (Low Density Residential). The
proposal. includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 32
residential lots and one 1' /z +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property.
Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albem, Agent.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed
addition and site improvements to the Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca located at 101 Harris
B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -2._1, 24 -3- 2.4119 24 -3- 2.412, 24 -3-
2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, zoned Office Park Commercial. The project includes a four. story ( +/- 89
foot height), +/- 53,000 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the existing Cayuga
Medical Center. The project also involves modifications to the parking, vehicular
circulation, landscaping, and stormwater facilities, and includes demolition of an existing
home located to the south of the existing Cayuga Medical Center. Cayuga Medical Center at
Ithaca, Owner; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP, Agent,
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or
other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must
make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, April 26, 2004
Publish: Wednesday, April 28, 2004
The Ithaca Journal J
Wednesday, April 28;2004
, JOWNV ITHACA u'.
-'PLANNING 80ARD
i,`NOTICEICIFrPUBLICc :i
. ;:HEARINGS
-
- Tuesday, May 'A,:20041
;NOTICE" IS HEREBY-
;`that' PublieHegrings
held -6yy" the Planning
of; the .Town of. Ilhaca
siJay, May 4; 2004,
i North "Tio'ga`Street,
N.Y., `.at the `follow,
es'6nd on''tfollow`
,....,. .
tters:.;
I`PM. •Recommenifa-
•the `.Towne Board ;re
' an;,a 'endment to
r:31-," ubseetionil of
ns to 'gllow e :Igor ,Chi:ikhet,;
sions iri; an I prop - rh
re Owner Bons Simkin Appli-
onsiderahon ;cant y W'li am Albern:
e i rl 4 e,nn Apent s ,
at .-the. -: "inters
Schickel-' 'Road
,iown; Or, nnaea ,un :.ruieea i - - -r ,
No 36:2 -3'.2 Residence 33 lthgco,located :at 101 ams
Distract R 30° (Low Density 1 Bar' - Dates ..Diive, Town. ,a
!.Residential(;` The proposal &haaa•Tax ParceloNO: s 24=
I;includes extenclmg�Schickel x3;2.1 x24 =3.2 411; 24-3 -
Road towards the'east <and 42.412 „243 -2 21 'aadr'24-
tcreating a =loop road,for 32., �rr3:? 3 zo ^� Office Park
r_nc;A n1;A -lrk nnA; �n'i li1 ` 1 ammeflc.,_ _.1 The proled
rner;;or me square foot:adclition_to_ =the.
'southwest coiner:of`,the ex-
istingrGay.uga Medical Cen-.
to "r t
.,The proled .also in
Volve"s' ~modifications to the
IN l
mnArlriiin. ^. 'vehicular . `circuo-
Medical -- 'Center':.:' Cayuga
Medical`_ Center -,_at r Ithaca,
Owner :Peter Trowbridgge,
Trowbridge _, Wolf •: LLP,
Agent ,
"Sdid,`Plonning Board will
-at --so times and said place
heg: all persons in support
t:ofsuch matiers'orobjections
thereto: -" Persons may OR
Pear tiyagent oc iri person.
Individuals ^with visual :.im -
,;pairments, ,hearing impair -
"ments;. -,:or t: other special
nee v✓ill:beyprovided with
' assistance ''':gs _ =necessOrY,
upon r.quest;-Persons'desir-
ing- !assistancegmust- make
Ouch a, request_ not less than
,.48 hours.prior,to the time'of
the public hearings.
jonothan. Kanter, AMP
Director of Planning
273.1747
Dated: .Monday;':
April 26, 2004 -,
Publish:' Wednesday,• '
April.28; 2004
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE. Tuesday, May 04, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
A%
PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
- �-,
�-, C2 �' f �?� � O � j rl S C'ti-✓t ^ t� -L' < <
L� g L� l.?�'1 "��4 �"�- . of � 1 cep Ceti
4--
14L"7
0 •N
Y V r it n
b' !�
✓�/r/ -v✓
(/ %
zcz/
Cc ,V-4:c Al
tv -�v
��SCe� �L�✓'2
15 coyt-'t'12 Jcn2J i Tl�L c '
eA>47Z7?Z- 7
i=e VA��
12el 2P rr7�
217 N , \j 'a O�t CA. ,
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 Tiog_ a Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 commencing at
7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
April 26, 2004
April 28, 2004
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS).
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of April 2004,
o G
Notary Public
Dani L. Hofford
Notary Public, State Of New Port
No. 01H06052879
Seneca County
My Commisslon Expires Dec. 26,