HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-10-05FILE
DATE �r y
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 5,
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 (arrived 7:27 p.m., excused 10:03 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board
Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney,
Attorney for the Town (7:14 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker,
Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith,
Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner.
EXCUSED: Eva Hoffmann, Board Member.
OTHERS: Tom LiVigne, Cornell; Fred Bonn, Ithaca; Susan & Karl Shell, 917 Wyckoff
Rd; Tom Newton, 1016 East Shore Dr; Carl Leopold, 1203 East Shore Dr; Jessica
Miloroom, 1022 East Shore Dr; Marie Taylor, 1120 Eat Shore Dr; Andrea Dutcher, 21
Besemer Rd; Robert Chase, 106 Comfort Rd; Fay Gougakis, 406 Utica St; Connie
Wood, Ithaca; John Bentkowski, Ithaca; William Benton, Ithaca; Geoff King, Ithaca;
David Gersh, 1052 East Shore Dr; Lance Peters, 1046 East Shore Dr; Stave Flash,
Ithaca; Stephen Dyer Miller, Cornell Sailing; Mary Kay Clapp, 1010 East Shore Dr;
Alexander Fee, 210 Lake St; Deena Schwartz, 1002 East Shore Dr, Andrew Davis,
Friends of Cornell Sailing; Peter Asiello, Cornell Sailing Team; Hilary Johnson, Cornell
Sailing Team; Charlie Richter, Cornell Sailing Team; No Name, Cornell Sailing Team;
Anya Priester, Cornell Sailing Team; Kat Bell, Cornell Sailing Team; Eric Magnuson,
Cornell Sailing Team; Erik Gaden, 2484 Danby Rd; David Romm, 1006 East Shore Dr;
Christopher Salerno, 210 Lake St; Andrei Careia, 111 Dryden Rd; Faith Chase, 106
Comfort Rd;' George R Williams, 353 Spencer Rd Candor; Roland Roeder, 122 Wait
Ave; Pete Kane, 4176 New Rd Willionson NY; Charles Williamson, 9 La Grand Ct;
Jared Spaans, Cornell; Jason Fine, 110 Osmun PI; Alan Fleisher, Cornell; Andere Van
Rynbach, Cornell Sailing; Ricky Turner, Cornell Sailing; Giulio Carini, Cornell Sailing;
Kinluch Yellott, Cornell Sailing; Kerrie Seberg, Friends of Cornell Sailing; Gregory
Prestas, 1012 East Shore Dr; Arell Stiesbers, 190 Pleasant Grove Rd; Terri Lisman,
190 Pleasant Grove Rd; Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Rd; Adam Schaye, 202 E State St;`
John Zissovici, 1310 E Shore Dr; Scott Granot, Cornell; Michelle D'Argrosa, 330
Triphammer Rd; Meg Schneck, 216 Kelvin PI; Rich DeVito, Paramount Realty; John
Lowery, Ithaca; Joel Harlan, Newfield; Dick Thaler, 1030 East Shore Dr; Patrick
Crowley, 435 Taughannock Blvd; David Girsh, 1052 East Shore Drive.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:09 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 September 27, 2004 and September
29, 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks
of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September 29, 2004.
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going, just a couple of things. If you have a cell
phone or a pager, please turn it off, unless, of course, you are involved in emergency
response. Now I'm going to give you a brief overview of how we will proceed this
evening. I believe that the applicant and agents will give a presentation. I'm sure the
board will have questions of the applicant with regard to the proposal, specifically
environmental issues and environmental concerns. This board has historically allowed
and encourage the public to provide input as part of the environmental review. We plan
to do that this evening as well. Therefore, if you would like to say a few words with
regard to the environmental review, we will give you that opportunity. This is not part of
the advertised public hearing, which would occur later on, but is an opportunity for
members of the public to provide early input to the Planning Board about your
environmental concerns. If we should make a determination that there is no significant
environmental impact then we will move to the actual site plan review. We will open the
public hearing and give each one of you a chance to address the board about the site
plan. So that is how we will go. I ask you to make yourselves comfortable. I suspect
that we will be here for a while. There are still some seats available. Very good.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:12 p.m. and invited
members of the public to address the board on an issue, item, topic, a concern that was
not on the agenda.
Faye Gougakis, 406 Utica St
I've come before you quite a number of times about this issue and it's an issue that the
Town is involved in. You had paid a consultant a while back about the Lake Source
Cooling project and whether or not we need a monitoring system at its output. The
consultant, if I can remind you, highly recommended that we have a monitoring system
at that output. I was at that meeting. It was a long meeting. The gentleman showed a
lot of data and I have come many times after that asking why. Why can't we have a
monitoring system there when you paid for a consultant? That's taxpayers' money.
Cornell had an opinion piece in the journal pooh - poohing the consultant as they
always will with anything that the City or the Town or County tries to do as if they have
the upper hand all the time, well they don't. You paid a consultant who highly
recommended having a monitoring system. Whether they like it or not, that monitoring
system should exist. So my proposal tonight, once again, is that we put that monitoring
system there. That they pay for it and before you make any decision tonight on any
hotel...
E
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Faye, if you say anything about the hotel I'm going to send you
back to your seat.
Ms. Gougakis - No. No. I'm just saying before you make a decision...
Chairperson Wilcox - No. You may speak about anything that does not have to do with
the hotel. That is your purpose right now.
Ms. Gougakis - All I wanted to say is not to vote on it unless they make a commitment
to having a monitoring system there. That's all I wanted to say.
Chairperson Wilcox - Now your remarks are out of order.
Ms. Gougakis - If you want to discredit me, then go ahead. Okay? I came here very
peacefully to deliver this message.
Chairperson Wilcox - You will have an opportunity later on if you...
Ms. Gougakis - Then I will go back to the monitoring system. I want a response from
you then, after I speak here tonight, why that has not happened and where that stands
because the last time I heard many, many months ago or a year ago is that the Town
did approach them. So I want to know where that stands because I want that
monitoring system there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Faye. Joel,
Joel Harlan, Newfield
My name is Joel Harlan and I'm from Newfield. I'm going to help out Faye. Faye does
not understand that Cornell is a billion dollar industry. They work for the Federal
Government. They get grants. Anything Cornell does is a dictatorship and all the
politicians are like puppets on a string. You know and any time Cornell jerks the string
all the politicians get up and do what Cornell wants them to do. The Mayor is the
president of the college and that is not just for the City it throughout the county. Now it's
just like the parking ramp, parking lot right up here that the people didn't want in their
own backyards at the Rosewood and that's show and proof Cornell is going to do what
they want. They got the bucks.
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, do you have a specific concern this evening?
Mr. Harlan - I'm just trying to explain what Faye doesn't understand. Cornell is a billion
dollar industry. They run this Town. The City and the County both, .but Cornell's got
the money and they damned well will do what they want and Faye does not understand
that. They are sneaky, slick, sly and they can slide everything under and they have the
judges there that'll work with them because they are in the government big time and
they'll be sly and slick and sneaky throughout life while Cornell is here. I'm just trying to
explain to Faye you ain't gonna get away with nothinI. Cornell is slick, sly.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel. Thank you, Joel.
Mr. Harlan - Out of these politicians hands because hey, big money.
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, thank you.
Mr. Harlan - They need the money because the County and the City both...
Chairperson Wilcox - In response to Faye, I think your question is best addressed to
the Town Board and that's the response. Sir, once again I ask again that it be on an
issue, an item, or a concern that is not on this evening's agenda.
John Bentkowski, Ithaca
I am a professional appraiser. I've bee
years. I valued the Lieberman land for
When I valued that property, I found that
most people did not know. First of all, it
is not affected by the lake. There are no
n doing that appraising business for about 30
the beneficiaries of Lane Lieberman's estate.
there were a lot of interesting aspects to it that
is very hard to determine what is the land that
boundary lines.
Mr. Kanter - I think he's talking about the Cornell site, which is the Remington Project.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you talking about the site on which the Remington Inn is
proposed?
Mr. Bentkowski - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - You may not speak at this point about that.
Mr. Bentkowski - Weren't we talking about the environmental impact?
Chairperson Wilcox - No. No. The purpose right not is to hear comment from the
public on anything other than the Remington.
Mr. Bentkowski - What are we talking about?
Chairperson Wilcox - At the beginning of our meeting we give the public a chance to
raise concerns about issues which are not on the agenda, which are not on the agenda.
Mr. Bentkowski - What is on the agenda?
Chairperson Wilcox - What is on the agenda is the Remington Inn and when we get to
the point where public comment is appropriate, we will give you that opportunity at that
time.
Mr. Bentkowski — Okay. I apologize for the intrusion.
rd
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. No problem. Anybody else? Very good. Thank you
all.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7 :19 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: The Remington Inn & Restaurant, 1000 East
Shore Drive
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
David Schlosser, Schopfer Architects
With respect to SEAR, were you going to act on SEAR first?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely.
Mr. Schlosser'— Do you want me to go through a presentation?
Chairperson Wilcox — I would like you to. I think members of the board would like you to
and I'm sure the public would like you to go through your entire presentation.
Mr. Schlosser — Alright. That's fine. SEAR was allowed two -three minutes here on the
agenda.
Chairperson Wilcox — I will tell you why we did that. It is difficult to guess how long
SEQR would take and therefore when to legally advertise the start of the public hearing.
Therefore, we advertised it for 7:10 p.m. maybe we will get to it by 8 or 9. Who knows?
Mr. Schlosser — Okay. I'm going to turn it over first to Rich Devito.
Rich DeVito, Paramount Realty
I'm Rich DeVito.. I represent the Remington Development. I think the last time I was
here was in October and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board raised a number of issues
the last time we were here including safety of the grade crossing, the rail crossing, the
impact of the development of traffic on Route 34, view shed, the issues surrounding
Cornell Sailing Center, and some others. We have been spending all this time since
then diligently pursuing solutions for all of these concerns many of which involve Norfolk
Southern, which is the rail line that runs parallel to Route 34 and the New York State
DOT. Both of these took a long time to get back to us with conceptual approvals of
what we are trying to achieve here.
Also during this time the. Town of Ithaca changed the zoning requirements with
which we have to develop the project and even though we have been working diligently
in good faith to work out all the issues that were brought up initially by the Planning
Board, now we are forced to handle some other zoning guidelines that require an area
variance for the project. I want to go on record here just to state that the amount of time
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
it was allotted for us to work. under the old zoning was really not sufficient to respond to
the level of detail that was required for the preliminary site plan approval process. I
would have liked it if the Town would have extended us the necessary time to resolve
the issues that surfaced under the last meeting of the Planning Board so that we could
have been working under the original zoning application.
During this time we have received conceptual approval for improvement of the
grade crossing not only by Norfolk Southern, but also by the DOT for Route 34 based
on the traffic study that we had our engineers and consultants provide to us. We're
addressing view shed, parking, soil quality, water detention systems and also the
Cornell Sailing Club. We're, obviously, assume that we are going to get a positive
declaration on the environmental tonight and so we'll address all those issues
accordingly.
I would just like to make one request, though, as we move forward with this and
we are going to try to handle all these issues one at a time. But, we just respectfully
request that the issues, which do not demand additional engineering studies, be
resolved prior to the dispatch of additional consultants and engineers. We don't wish to
expend additional engineering consulting time if the project is going to be held up for
other less costly problems and we will address those as we go on. Some of these have
to do with the ability for the Fire Department to be able to cross the grade crossing if
there is a train going by. There is also an issue with the existing water line that needs to
be addressed and we would like it if we could address these issues first and foremost in
our process here and then come back and revisit some of the other ones later.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for.
Mr. Devito — Well there are certain items that are going to take additional consulting
time and money and engineering time and money to be able to resolve. There are other
issues revolving around the project that could hold up the project indefinitely,
permanently that I would like to resolve first that have nothing to do with engineering
studies.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try this and then Jon Kanter I might need your help a little
bit. This is for the benefit of the audience as well since the issue of a pos dec has been
raised by the applicant. Staff, Town Planning Staff, has recommended that this board
issue a positive declaration of environmental significance. This board will make its own
determination later tonight after hearing from the applicant, their agents and hearing
from members of the public. If we make that determination the next step is the public
scoping or the scoping, we prefer to do it in public where we would identify those issues
that need to have further investigation, analysis. The advantage of the public scoping is
that it limits what we expect you to provide to this board. It also limits or prevents
additional items, essentially prevents additional environmental issues of being added to
the list as the process goes on. So that is what I can tell. The scoping process, should
we get to that, and I don't know what this board is going to determine tonight. We have
not talked about it. We meet here. We'll listen to the presentation; we'll listen to the
C*I
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
public and we will make our own determination. Clearly we will weigh very heavily the
staff recommendation, but we will get to the scoping process if we get to that we'll make
that determination of what needs to be further investigated and that's what you'll need to
concentrate on.
Mr. Devito — I fully appreciate that. I fully understand and comprehend that. My only
request is that it be done in order that the issues that are resolved first are the ones that
are less expensive to resolve.
Chairperson Wilcox — I can't guarantee that.
Attorney Barney — Maybe I can respond just briefly. If this board makes a positive
declaration, the process for creating the environmental impact statement enclosed in
that declaration is really time wise in your control so that you don't have to run out and
start immediately to do the engineering and so forth that would be required by an eis.
You could take the time first to try to resolve the other problems that might be resolvable
or determine that their not resolvable without going through the engineering. If you get
past those, then you can go ahead and waste your money.
Mr. DeVito — And that's all that I ask.
Attorney Barney — I don't think that we direct you that you have to do this by such and
such time.
Mr. DeVito — Okay. Great.
Mr. Schlosser — What I'll do is walk you through the project. You asked the question
with respect to questions when they should be addressed and I think if the Board
prefers as we are going through go ahead and ask the questions and I'll address any
questions of the board. It may save time in coming back to anything. The opening slide
is obviously just an overview of the south end of the lake, locating the Remington
property on the east side, approximately 11 acres and its adjacency obviously to the
Cayuga Inlet, to Stewart Park and the Town and City of Ithaca.
The existing conditions. I think this is important because in the course of our
presentations we received a survey from Club Harbor who basically went back and did
some extensive study in the various documents, Cornell's documents and what Cornell
currently controls is approximately 11 acres, which is shown extending approximately
2,396 feet along Route 34. The property includes land parcels of approximately 6.7
acres, which is shown right in here and then two water lease parcels, parcel a and
parcel b.` All that land is what is being leased to the Remington development with the
exception of a 0.35 -acre parcel, which is currently long -term leased to the Town for the
park. Obviously that remains unchanged.
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
think the key things here just from an overview, you've got Route 34, south
north to the left. Route 13 above. You've got the lake source cooling plant at this
location. The Lowery construction warehouse at this location and then of course you
have the Village of Cayuga Heights treatment facility shown in this area here. A couple
of key elements again, its 2,396 linear feet on Route 34, but the actual shoreline is a
little over 3,000 linear feet.
As proposed, in
building as it sits on
approximately 30 to 35
cut entry from Route 34
at. They were looked
physically get into this
between the site, this is
an overview and as submitted to you, this is
the site currently taking the configuration
feet back from shoreline. The existing park,
there has been suggestions that alternative Ic
at extensively. This is the only location that
site for a number of reasons. One is the
the least grade drop and second, there was a
it the Remington
of the shoreline,
the existing curb=
cations be looked
one can actually
grade difference
suggestion that a
second access point be looked at and obviously as we run through and we discuss the
safety, the safety improvements that are being .made here the railroad would never give
a second railroad crossing to this particular parcel. One is enough and the protection of
one is all they would ever permit.
The property, again as its laid out here, I'll give you a couple of important notes.
The project itself, running from the south end of the Cornell sailing club to the north end
and furthest extent of building is actually approximately 370 linear feet for less than 16
percent of the entire coverage on Route 34. You've got a distance from the northern
point of the building to the nearest residential property on the north side of
approximately 600 linear feet and from the south side a little over 1400 linear feet. This
is fairly extensive as parcels go. The site is quite unusual, obviously, and as originally
believed this 2 -point some acres is actually the buildable area that's on the parcel, but
the parcel that actually controls the view and ownership is over 6.7 acres of real land
property and then of course the 4 additional acres that are leased with water rights.
The site plan as specifically laid out is again starting from Route 34 since the last
time we presented; I believe these improvements have been made. Its been taken to
New York State DOT, the widening of Route 34 to accommodate a turn, a left turn lane
and a right turn lane, essentially those improvements are being made from the Lowery
warehouse on up to the cooling plant. The concepts have been presented to New York
State DOT. We've had two meetings with their staff. They have issued you a letter,
which basically gives conceptual approval pending a number of extensive conditions,
basically one of which is submitting final engineering drawings for the parcel and
working with them and the railroad to basically coordinate the safety improvements to
the road and to the railroad crossing itself.
The next major improvement that was made since our last meeting is the railroad
crossing itself. After four months .of running through a variety of people with Norfolk
Southern, we finally received a rather brief answer from then that said conceptual
approval was given based upon the drawings, once again subject to final engineering
drawings and further conversation and then I believe there was a recent letter just from
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Norfolk Southern that basically said again subject to some lease negotiations and terms
and things of that nature.
What is actually being proposed is a railroad crossing, a guarded railroad
crossing, very similar to what occurs at Stewart Park. A gate at this location and a gate
on the incoming side. The next slide, which I'll show in a minute, we actually have
modified the grade between Route 34 and the site to accommodate sight lines coming
in and out and obviously vehicle traffic in and out.
The top basically shows a cross section east to west through the site as it exists
today, Route 34, the railroad crossing, and then the site we have approximately a four
to five foot drop. What's occurring now with all vehicles entering, particularly the things
like the shuttle bus and a variety of other low frame vehicles is that they basically
bottom out on entrance, they bottom out on exit so basically they are sitting criss -cross
of the railroad tracks as they enter the site You've got approximately a 15- degree
slope right at this location. The only solutions, the absolute only solution, after talking
with both DOT and the railroad is raising the grade at the railroad. We have talked to
them. We have their conceptual blessing on raising the railroad at the crossing one -
foot, which basically lowers the grade difference from a 15- degree slope to a 9- degree
slope. DOT when we discussed this with them very much liked the idea.' They also
liked the idea of basically eliminating the guardrails. They feel with this change we can
eliminate the guardrail that is around the drainage pipe that runs under 34, which will
basically solve the sight line issues coming out of, exiting out of the site. The traffic
study that was done by Club Harbor, I believe there was a question asked in the
environmental review as to site line issues north and south from this site. Both have
been calculated to exceed New York State DOTs requirements for 65 mile an hour
traffic. Traffic in this area is posted substantially less than that. So we well exceed the
requirements for site line views from this location and that was prior to the
improvements to the grade crossing.
As we move onto the site, there we have provided 11 parking spaces allocated
and dedicated to the Town Municipal lot. There is some question as to actually how
many spots are there now for the Town in that they are basically graveled and not
striped. If you look at the number of cars that are there it is substantially less than the
11, but basically we have provided the 11 here and have indicated in our write -up that
these are committed to and allocated to the municipal park. There is also a question as
to encroachment right in this particular area into the park grass area. Not shown on
here but shown previously in the satellite photographs and also in the surveyors report
the actual parking area, the gravel parking area is approximately in the same location.
The distance from the parking area to the gazebo is scaled at 16 feet here. It actually is
approximately 14 feet to date. So once again our contention is that there basically is no
change in the grass area within the park itself. Additionally, what has been added to the
project is a 500 foot public pathway running along the lake basically cleaning up the
entire lakefront in that. area opening it up to a walkway and park setting with again
benches and landscape along that. So basically in addition to the .35 -acre parcel that
L
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
the Town currently leases, we have expanded the public usage along the waterfront in
front of the proposed construction.
The north of the park right now is used as I guess an informal and unpermitted
launching of small vehicles. As far as we can tell Cornell does not, has not given
approval of that. And we in the meetings with the Town Staff we understand that there
is no launching of vehicles permitted in the park itself either yet it does occur. We
recognize that. The area in that particular area north of this has been unchanged by
this particular project.
Parking on the site. We are showing 127 parking spaces counting one loading
space. We are 126 vehicle parking spaces. This allocates per your zoning code on a
basis of 1 -5 seats for the restaurant, 72 for the restaurant, 1 per unit for the inn, 25 and
leaving the marina at basically we based that on the size of the sailing center itself
which is allocated at 4600 square feet, 1 space per 200 square foot of building or 23
parking spaces for the marina, leaving us with 7 spare parking spaces per code.
The launching ramp is basically retained but is reconfigured slightly just simply to
accommodate the angle of the sailing center. The marina itself is untouched,
unchanged both in use and both in number of slips. The way the building lays out is
that you have the sailing center, 4600 square feet on the south side sandwiched
between the two story inn and the sailing center is the restaurant. There is a common
entry at this point and a drop off for both the inn and the restaurant. There are patio
areas off the restaurant and a patio area off the sailing center.
Just a quick overview to emphasize the two -story, the extent of two -story versus
one -story. The darker shaded area is the two -story inn portion and then the lighter is
the one -story or approximately 62 percent of the linear footage of the building is two -
story. The other 38 percent is one -story. Also a note is this particular area right in here,
which is basically a flat roof area that is over the restaurant kitchen area. It is
surrounded entirely by pitched roof area so it is basically our concealed mechanical
space for kitchen equipment and ductwork. The entire roof area of the inn basically and
most of the restaurant is a series of gable roofs, dormers and counter dormers.
We gave you as requested a quick overview of the plan and again the green
shown in here is the sailing center. That is, although it has a common wall to the inn
and restaurant, there is no internal access between the two facilities. The green area
shown in this area is restaurant with kitchen towards the Route 34 side and the dining
room towards the lake. The blue area is common entry and lobby for the hotel and the
little purple area up in here, which basically is public restrooms related to the marina
and this long area first floor, and second floor is the 25 -unit inn.
We have previously given you and we repeat the details here, the perspectives,
basically this is a view of the sailing center taken from the slightly southwest out in the
point. Basically with pitched roof, asphalt shingle roofs, combination of shake and bevel
siding, wood siding with stone accents. The inn view from the cul -de -sac entry shown
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
from approximately the view as if you were standing across at the curb cut of the
cooling facility. As you can see, the two story component right in here running to the
right and then the one -story restaurant at this location, entrance right in here. Again this
is similar in character to the sailing center with a series of stone water table elements
such as this with cedar bevel siding and shake over the top of it.
We have given you complete exterior elevations. We have given you a grading
plan, a grading concept. Basically right now the entire site is graveled and drains
somewhat towards the lake, so the majority of stormwater is running into the lake
directly at the moment. The pipe coming across Route 34, the storm drain coming
across 34 will be placed below grade and continue to serve the same watershed, the
east side watershed as it does now. Within the Remington site, the entire parking area
is basically dished so that basically all water coming off the roofs, all water coming off
the asphalt, all water coming off the roofs that are sloped towards the parking lot are
collected in a series of catch basins running from south to north. Goes into a detention
area, an underground detention area at this location. It basically is filtered and then
released into the same pipe and the outlet at this location. The stormwater
management plan has been presented to you by Dunn and Scromo, our stormwater
engineers along with an erosion control, in the environmental comments you've asked
that we proceed with the noi, the notice of intent to DEC. We've held off on that only to
basically review comments. So that is the next step. We have no reason to believe that
the concepts that Dunn and Scromo have presented will be anything other than
acceptable to DEC and that we were already use the same concepts, same systems,
same methods on several other locations.. But again, that would be run through DEC
and ultimately have their review and blessing.
The entire site is raised approximately 2 feet primarily dictated by the grade
transitions at the curb cut. There were several...we had tests done on soil
contamination. Initially at the request of the Planning Board and they lead and cadmium
came up negative. There were several positives on what is referred to as low VOCs
and a further test was done on those by Atlantic Testing. That report was not submitted
in your packages, but was submitted as a supplement to the package, which I believe,
may have been received by the Planning Board Members. In that basically what they
have indicated is that the Atlantic Testing would be doing monitoring through all
excavations. That all of the contaminated low VOCs soil was not a hazard as long as it
wasn't disturbed. Once disturbed, its material could be utilized they believe underneath
pavement areas for fill and that the quality of the soil as structural capability to it, but
that they would be there monitoring and doing periodic testing on any soils that were
removed and doing supplemental directives as we removed it. So the only soils that
were either would be removed from the site or used under pavement from this low VOC
would be those that were removed for footings and foundations. And to our benefit
because we are raising the site two feet, we are actually going into the soil
approximately 2 feet so there is a limited amount of soil being removed and that has
been calculated and I believe given to you in the reports that we .submitted.
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
We have given you a proposed site lighting plan with fixture cuts. Basically at the
building we have foot - candles of approximately 3 to 3.5 fading out to about a .2 -foot
candles at the furthest extent of the site. We have given you landscape plans, which
again there have been some comments from the technical staff and obviously we would
address those as part of the further meetings.
What I wanted to do was address several of the issues. The. ..what was asked of
us was to address some of the view shed issues, which we have done. The views as
basically, we've determined, obviously there is a view from the. ..the potential views are
from Route 13 up above, from Route 34 to the lake, from the lake back to the site and
obviously possibly from Stewart Park and the southern tip of the lake towards this site.
The first issue is Route 13, which essentially a non -issue because of its height. You
can see the photographs... this is the only place on Route 13 that had that fairly
extensive view of the lake. It coincidently...this site is directly below that and you are
looking right over the top of the site, top of the buildings and you would never see the
buildings itself. So we have determined that that is not a view shed that is interrupted
by this particular project.
The second is basically looking from Route 34 from the north to the south and
the south to the north. We have taken a couple different views along Route 34. They
are obviously taken in the summer with full foliage. They would have a different outlook,
obviously, without the foliage, but you will see from these photographs that when the
existing... this is the existing photograph right here of the point and the current marina.
Behind the shrubbery exists there would and this is shrubbery that would be retained,
this actually,,Ahe Town gazebo is behind that as well as the existing boathouse. The
building, the Remington, would be on the south side of this. So views from the north
from this particular advantage point are minimally affected by the building. Obviously in
the wintertime the tree and the foliage would be replaced by the building and it would
essentially have almost the same view.
Moving to the furthest extent of the site to the south taking the same view, except
looking north from Route 34, you can see again as you approach the site there is
extensive shrubbery along the railroad just inside the railroad. This is the beginning of
the marina that is in the back of the site. The project when built, we basically
superimposed the building behind the site because it is actually, dropped down
approximately 4 feet from this particular location. You would see only minimal areas of
the building in full foliage and then once again when foliage dropped off, the foliage
would be replaced by the building itself. So once again the extent of the view from this
area would be minimally affected by the building.
As we move a little further
what we just recently discussed wii
here along the site, this is pretty
salvaged. This is just at the end of
would be right in this general area
modify that.
north closer to the site itself, basically... essentially
h the scrub brush and the foliage that has grown up
much along the railroad and most of this can be
actually the parking lot right in here. So most of that
at that location and there is no reason to change or
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Obviously looking directly across from Route 34, the building impact becomes
greater. I guess I would just make the observation that there is not stopping on Route
34 and anybody traveling 40, 45 miles an hour other than passengers in the car might
be looking at the north view of the lake and not directly west. However, there is the
building. We have basically coasted it in so you could actually see what backdrop it
would block. You would see basically it blocks a portion of the lake and a bit of the hills
of the backdrop of this location. Here is the gazebo. It sits right at that location and that
is the site access. There is still extensive, again going back to the 16 percent, the
building coverage of the 2000 some linear footage on Route 34. So we are talking
about a view interruption directly across here of less than 16 percent.
I think a more critical view is actually from the Town Park, the gazebo, the point
that exists right up in here and these are the series of photographs. One looking
directly south towards what is the boathouse now. This is the building that is shown at
this location as one looks out towards the lake heading towards the southern shore, you
quickly lose the building itself. Then from Stewart Park, basically looking up at the east
shore and point, you have the cooling facility, the Lowery building, the private
residences that are along in this area, Route 13 up above here and you can see that the
Remington project at this location doesn't break any of the hillside scenery and the lines
and things of that nature. Actually, it is fairly consistent in size and shape with once
again the cooling facility, Lowery building and the treatment facility.
We were asked to take several views from the w
This is located...this is the existing view. Once again
facility, the Lowery building and you can basically see
vantage point with the Remington building on the site and
it becomes a little difficult to even show the building on
black dot that sits across there.
ater, both from near and far.
with the boathouse, cooling
the change from that same
then as one crosses the lake
the landscape. It's that little
Going back to basically the site and several issues that have been raised
environmentally, which I think what we are here to talk about a little bit tonight and these
are issues that are not resolved, but will be worked on over the coming months. One is
the impact on the water, which we have addressed briefly, which is . DEC and
stormwater management. We are certainly aware that we need to get SPEDES permit
and that we need the NOI and those will be pursued after resolution of several other
issues, I think.
It was raised, impact on open space and recreation. Once again, I guess I would
go back to the observation that the marina is totally unchanged, no slip change, no
usage change. It will remain whoever is...whoever wishes...or whoever is currently
under contract would remain under contract. So that would make no change at all. The
park itself is unchanged. The area, again, up to the north of that we have not
addressed; we have not changed its usage. I think it would legally have to be
addressed by the Town or by the Remington or by Cornell. I'm not sure. And in
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
actuality we've actually cleaned up the entire lakefront along this side and opened it to
walking path. We have actually added 500 linear feet at this location.
guess I would also just remind you that this still is a private parcel. And there
has been discussion about expansion of public usage on that. That public usage would
have to be discussed with the Remington and /or Cornell. But basically again, it is a
private piece of property at the moment.
There have been several questions raised with respect to the traffic study that
was done. We will go back to Cliff Harbor and have them revisit those issues. During
the course of one year the project has obviously taken some changes. The traffic study
was not changed to accommodate those. We will make those changes.
Fire access. Recently Ithaca Fire Department raised in their SEQR comments
the safety issue of access to the site during train crossings. Again that is one to a
maximum of two times per day, three to five minutes. We will meet with the Fire
Department to see what can be done, if anything, to mitigate that. Obviously the train
will continue to run.
Parking and internal circulation. I think there is a question which we would like to
meet with staff and discuss what the concerns and issues are there with respect to
parking capacity since we actually exceed the zoning requirements and have actually in
addition provided the eleven parking spaces for the Town's usage. So we feel that we
have accommodated the zoning ordinance and actually exceeded it. There is a mention
as to overlapping usages, if anything, we believe that the overlapping usages will cut
down because we have a hotel in which the hotel will be in part the restaurant user.
The marina occupants will be some of the restaurant patrons. So there is a duplication
of parking issues and I think actually if we look at overlap it should benefit us, not hinder
the evaluation of this particular parcel.
There are a number of minor issues, which I'm not going to address tonight with
respect to the lighting and landscaping and miscellaneous coordination and things of
that nature, but certainly would address any questions on any of the items that I have
raised or any of the items that I said I would not discuss tonight that you may want to
discuss.
Chairperson Wilcox - I look to my right. Who ever wants to go first?
Board Member Thayer - I'm concerned about the drainage on the lakeside. Dan, have
you looked into that?
Mr. Walker - They don't have any control.. the drainage from the roof and landscaping
from the lakeside goes directly into the lake. From a quantity standpoint that is not a
problem. We are not going to cause any flooding with the runoff from the roof. There
are some marginal water quality issues. The first flush off the roof areas in generating
some problems. There is going to be a grass area maintained between the lake and the
14
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
building and the planting areas around the structures itself so there will be some filtering
action off the roof on that side of the lake. So I don't think it is going to be a real major
water quality issue.. The biggest problem might be the geese and gulls flying over the
building making deposits and then getting flushed off during rainstorms, but they are
already out there in the lake anyhow.
Chairperson Wilcox — What about with regard to the parking lot, though?
Mr. Walker — The parking lot ... the paved parking lot they are addressing it with a
detention filtration system with some mechanical separation also. Some of the systems
are recognized by DEC in their manuals. Some are a little newer and they haven't been
fully endorsed by DEC, but they appear to be functional. We have asked basic
questions about the actual removal efficiencies of those vortec units and things. So we
have some questions on that. The one area where I have a major concern is.the gravel
parking area. It has no stormwater control over it. In other words, have the parking
goes right into the lake without any capture or anything. That is gravel. About 40
percent of that area is gravel now and the rest of it is in grass that they mow. So there
is going to be a significant larger parking area that doesn't have any control that I think it
does need to be picked up. Again, the same type of detention and filtration system that
they have for the paved area could be expanded to deal with that additional runoff from
that site.
Board Member Thayer — Can they do that in the 30 -foot setback as opposed to the 100
that we require?
Mr. Walker — I think everything that they are doing is underground and I'm not... usually
we allow underground structures even in setback areas. If it is a water treatment
system, you have to look a_ t the impact on the lake because it is pretty close to the lake
and they would be digging in the bank on the lakeshore. So we would have to see what
the final details are and what the actual impact of the lake is. It would be somewhat
short -term during the construction period, which could be mitigated I believe.
Board Member Thayer — What about the water pressure problem?
Mr. Walker — The water flow and pressure is a problem. We have a somewhere around
an 80 or 90 year old water line out there. It's only 6- inches in diameter. We have
limited flow right now because we are currently served by the City of Ithaca's gravity
system and we are at the very end of the system. So there are fire flow issues. There
are concerns about putting higher pressure on that pipeline because of the age and the
condition and we've ° had numerous watermain breaks in that area and we have a
mechanism to put a lot more water into that area, but we also usually break a pipe when
we do that. We have a connection from the Bolton Point system off of Remington Road
that allows us to provide a more than sufficient flow I believe for this project.
Unfortunately, the condition of the pipe precludes us from using that system because
when we do, we do have water main breaks pretty frequently.
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 59 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Attorney Barney — What's the length of that pipe, Dan?
Mr. Walker — Which pipe?
Attorney Barney — The one that is subject to the...
Mr. Walker — The old pipe? There is probably about a half mile of it from Boynton all the
way out to the Town line.
Attorney Barney — On 34?
Mr. Walker — Along Route 34.
Board Member Thayer — So that problem would have to be resolved. You couldn't even
put a hydrant on the other side of the tracks, right?
Mr. Walker— Well, they can.1.1 did look at the feasibility of building a new water line on
the same side as the Remington, but I don't think that would be feasible because of the
railroad and other obstacles there. We do have flagged in our needs for our water
system, we do not have it in a capital project yet, but we do plan to replace that line
sometime in the next ten years. If enough money was provided we could do it tomorrow
and everybody would be happy. That is a serious limitation.
Board Member Thayer — I would think so.
Mr. Walker — And the Fire Department has raised that issue also about fire flow.
Board Member Mitrano — Can they build without it, Dan?
Mr. Walker — Well, domestic flows I think we can handle. Fire flows are another issues.
There are other alternatives, a fire pump, pumping water directly out of the lake; we
have an unlimited water supply there. That's not a preferred system because there are
more mechanical devices involved. The best system would be to replace that
watermain.
Board Member Mitrano — How large in diameter is the City of Ithaca pipe that comes up
to the other side?
Mr,r Walker — There is actually somewhat of a network of piping, but its 8 -inch pipe that
feeds that area.
Board Member Mitrano — Is there any precedent for a reciprocal relationship with any
kind of this infrastructure?
Attorney Barney — Reciprocal of who?
16
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano — City and Town.
Mr. Walker — Okay. We currently purchase water from the City for...that serves the
middle school and East Shore Drive. There are benefits to both the Town and the City.
One, we have a supply of water that is not at a high pressure and cannot be at a high
pressure that would damage the pipes and adequately serves the domestic needs of
our customers on East Shore Drive currently. There are some fire flow limitations,
though. The City benefits because they have poor circulation at the end of that line and
additional usage in that lines keeps the water quality in their water mains at a higher
level. The City has proposed a new water storage tank on their north side, which would
help some of the fire flow issues. That is up adjacent to the Cornell campus by the
West Campus area there. I'm not sure where that project is going at this point.
Board Member Mitrano — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, I was reading the remarks ... we have remarks from a
couple of the assistant of fire chiefs. One of them said and I quote, "we have been
advised to not flow test the hydrants system do the probability of a water main breaks
and water being sucked out of hot water heaters and toilets on Renwick Drive ". Again,
that's the pressure issue, right?
Mr. Walker — That's a flow issue and pressure issue. I'm not sure where sucking the
water out of the hot water tanks came from. You can if you do depressurize or reduce
the pressure in the water main so that it becomes a negative suction pressure that can
cause problems in houses. I don't know if we flow enough water through the old 6 -inch
pipe at the end of the line to depressurize it that much in the City. We don't have an
adequate fire flow. We have fire flow through the hydrants now, but it's not the optimum
that we desire. We try to maintain 1,000 gallons per minute flow and I don't think we
can quite achieve that at this point.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, one more question on the subject. Can a system be
engineered to draw water from the lake in case of a fire?
Mr. Walker — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Similar to the way that ponds are sometimes used.
Mr. Walker - Yes. They could run a line out into the lake with a fire pump on it that
could draw out and that is very common in areas where they don't have public water
where they would do that. Again, that requires DEC approval and withdraw...
Chairperson Wilcox Army Core of Engineers maybe?
Mr. Kanter — Is there adequate pressure now for sprinkler systems?
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr, Walker I think there is probably adequate pressure, but I have not seen any
calculations for what flow they would need. They can probably design a system with
heads about every four feet that would probably work, but I haven't seen their design
needs and we haven't really done. ..that's usually later.
Chairperson Wilcox - We haven't gotten to that point yet. Okay, but that is something
that you would need to see?
Mr. Walker - Yes. The Building Department needs to see it before they can issue a
building permit.
Board Member Mitrano - Jonathan, how long has Cornell owned this land?
Mr. Kanter - I don't know. You'll have to ask Cornell that. I know that they bought it
sometime before the Lake Source Cooling plant was built.
Tom - We acquired it in 1995.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you.
Board Member Howe - Fred, I think my remarks are more general. I think that this is a
very thorough environmental assessment forms with lots of complex issues in here and
even though it is a private parcel, I still view it as a community amenity. And I think
several of the things that are identified in here do require further looking such as the
open space and recreation, transportation, character of the community, so I know that I
am certainly inclined to vote for a positive declaration. I don't know what level of detail
you want us to really focus on specific aspects or whether you want us to look and see if
we have a sense if that's the direction we are heading.
Chairperson Wilcox - Couple things. I would like to come to an agreement on how we
think best to precede. If we believe that the issues that have been pointed out by staff
are sufficient to require a positive declaration of environmental significance, then
hopefully we can get to that point tonight or maybe we decided that they aren't. The
other part of this is providing feedback to the applicant about our concerns, areas where
we think possibly additional investigation might be necessary, where we have looked at
the materials and we think we would like to see something else or something
supportive. For example, I have seen a couple different; I'll call them opinions, on how
often the train goes by that particular site for example. I have seen one round trip per
day. I believe there is some place in the materials that say one round per trip a day,
seven days a week and an additional round trip a day Monday through Friday. I want to
know how often that train goes by. When would be nice, certainly try to bracket it the
best you can. And I would like to know if the number of train trips is in anyway seasonal.
Are there more in the winter because they are hauling coal out to the plant or more in
the winter because they are hauling salt back? So there might be a seasonal
component to the number of trains that pass by that point. So that is something that I
would be particularly interested in seeing to help think about the whole issue with
ip
access, particularly fire
average number of car.
and do your best and
better idea of how long
It's posted in that area
want to know how long.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
access, emergency access.
on a train? You are going
I suspect they are difficult to
those trains take to get by.
because I've seen 5 minute:
That is the big issue. What is the
to have to go to Norfolk Southern
get through, but that gives me a
We know what the speed limit is.
10 minutes, 5 to 10 minutes.
Board Member Mitrano — Are you worried about the traffic backed up waiting to turn?
Chairperson Wilcox — The two issues are access in the case
that is an injury requiring ambulance or whether that's a fire
traffic either on Route 34, ie are the stacking lanes sufficient
number of cars that will not be able to access the site and
most circumstances to handle the number of cars waiting to
need some more information about that.
of an emergency, whether
. And also the backup of
on Route 34 to handle the
is the site sufficient under
leave the site. I think we
Open space and recreation is an interesting one. That is the only, if I'm not
mistaken, that is the only public access within the Town of Ithaca to Cayuga Lake,
which makes it very important. There is some issue about the parking spaces that are
part of the Town park being used by the hotel and restaurant and marina visitors as part
of overflow if there is a wedding there or some other large event. So that's a question.
These are all starting to tie in with some of the reasons why staff has recommended a
positive declaration. They've mitigated it with the public path along the front and that's a
nice amenity and I'm glad that they've proposed that, but I think it is important for the
Town to try to maintain as much public access as they can. I'm heartened by the fact
that maybe in two or three or four years, we are going to have some additional lake
access in the City when and if DOT moves their facility off of Route 13 up into the
Village of Dryden and that site gets cleaned up. That would provide additional access
to the park, but it would be within the City and not the Town.
Mr. Schlosser — If I could interrupt on that one point because I think that is what we are
trying to do. If you vote positive dec, obviously we need to go back and address certain
issues. This is probably one of the most confusing issues to me is the community
amenity of recreation. To what extent would you actually. IsI mean if went to put a hard
number on that short of turning the entire site over to a Town park, what is your view of
a reasonable compromise. We are giving the north side of the park, marina, and the
immediate shoreline. What are we not doing?
Chairperson Wilcox — I think the issue that comes to my mind is how might this facility
impact the quality of persons enjoying the parkland. Whether it is the noise from the
restaurant whether it is the lack of. parking spaces that are available at certain times,
potentially. I think to me that is the issue. Can you go to that park and enjoy being at
that park at the same level post- construction as you could today. Rod?
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Howe — That's well said. Thanks, Fred. I don't have a specific answer,
but I think that there are questions that get raised even for access to the marina that
would be owned privately and what would be the impact of folks trying to use that.
Chairperson Wilcox — That goes into circulation, internal circulation on the site and
some of the issues that were raised by staff over there.
Board Member Mitrano — On the other hand, I want to add that I am heartened by this
design and so far as that it does open up the lake area in a way that would be inviting,
perhaps to people who otherwise haven't used that area. Certainly folks that have been
sailing are familiar with that entire expanse, but I'm not sure that people who aren't
involved in those types of sporting activities have actually explored that area of the lake
very much. I'm not even sure how many of them have even gone off to the Town area
that is already segregated off as a result of Lake Source Cooling. So when I look at this
design I must admit that there is something inviting there for the public that I am not
sure has actually been there before.
Board Member Howe — You're talking about the walkway specifically?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? Kevin?
Board Member Talty — Yeah, I'd like to say first of all I think it is a nice plan overall.
want to say that upfront. I am a little concerned. Being a person who grew up along
waterfront in the Buffalo area is that I don't really see any aspect of this plan where
people will be able to utilize your facility via the water as far as motor craft. If you are
saying you are not going to do anything with the existing marina, I don't see how that is
conducive to anyone coming down the lake from other aspects or points in the lake to
utilize your facility. If you can address that, sure.
Mr. DeVito — In speaking to the people who run the Johnson Boat Yard, who actually
operate the marina currently, they will want to change they operate the way they
operate currently because they want to make it inviting for people to be able to come in
and be able to ... (not audible). As I was saying, the folks that run Johnson Boat Yards
have already mentioned to me that they will probably change some of the aspects of
how they are operating to be able to make it more inviting for people who will be coming
in and docking boats. They will also be able to bring a dingy in and be able to access
the site. So it is our interest to bring as many people to the site as feasibly possible and
to make it inviting to anybody who is using watercraft or coming in by car. It doesn't
make any difference.
Board Member Talty — Are there current negotiations, hypothetical, as you go forward
with the Johnson Boat Yard people? It is my understanding.. it has been brought to my
attention that they are only on one -year leases or contracts. So my question is if I know
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
I am on a year to year, why should I invest in that type of project that you just indicated
to invite the public in when at any time you may not renew the contract?
Mr. DeVito - Well, I'm not expecting them to invest any money into the infrastructure
that is there. Number one that would take a longer procedure than we are willing to
address at this particular point in time. It would include the Army Core of Engineers
potentially and some other elements that we just don't want to address right now. If it
comes time when we feel that is an important element and aspect that needs a capital
infusion then we will address it that way, but I think at this particular point in time we
want to try to leave that aspect in tact pretty much the way that it is. Allow people to be
able to come in and rent a boat slip for a day or to be able to park there for whatever
period of time they wish to, be able to moor out off the docks, off the shoreline, be able
to bring in their dingy in, to be able to provide access, I think that is the most important
thing right now.
Board Member Talty - A little different subject. What is the dimension of your parking
spaces in the lot?
Mr. Schlosser - 10x20.
Board Member Talty - 10x20, okay. Just with given SUVs and their large size and boat
trailers and things of that sort that will be occupying the same area...
Mr. DeVito - Well, when it comes to boat trailers we are not allowing boat trailers to
maintain their presence once they launch the boat. It is the expectation that the trailer
and the vehicle will be taken off the site. There is no place to be able to store those
kinds of vehicles. We don't anticipate that.
Board Member Talty - You mean while they are utilizing the craft?
Mr. DeVito - Well, we are not expecting people to launch their boats to be able to use it
for a day.; That's not what the expectation is. It's not what we're set up for.
Mr. Schlosser - There are other places around the canal system and the lake where
people can launch for a day if they wish to, but this is not the location to do that.
Board Member Talty - Also, have you had current discussions with the sailing folks with
regards to what their expectations are for the facility that you are proposing?
Mr. DeVito - All of our discussions have been with Cornell University and their Athletic
Department: Everything that we presented today has been in concert with them and
they are the people who oversee the sailing club.
Board Member Talty - So what you are saying is the people that are part of the current
sailing clubs have had discussions with intramurals?
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Devito - I don't know the answer to that question. All I know is that we are working
with the Athletic Department of Cornell University and the people who oversee that
particular aspect Cornell's Athletic activities to be able to provide them with a facility that
works to the best of our knowledge. We have people here from Cornell Real Estate
who can address that more clearly.
Board Member Talty - I would just like to say that I concur with my board member to my
left here, Rod, on how he stated earlier his position and I concur with it.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. There are...we have kind of gone through the major
concerns that staff identified. In fact on water specifically, stormwater treatment and will
the system work, potential impact on recreation and open space in the Town, a little bit
about transportation on Route 34, fire emergency access, traffic concerns, parking and
internal circulation. Staff ... I have to thank staff again. I thanked them when I talked to
Jonathan earlier today. Thank you. I know you all contributed to this in some part, but
you provided a significant amount of original material based upon your own analysis
and it is most appreciative. Staff identified what we will call less significant potential
impacts and I just want to run through them pretty quickly if we can and make sure
nobody has any specific issues other than what maybe staff has raised. Lighting and
landscaping. I mean some of the proposed lighting maybe inappropriate. You have a
copy of their comments. Landscaping clearly. Landscaping along the fence has been
brought up as something. I don't think we'll have too much discussion there. Soil
contamination or potential soil contamination. We have addressed that to some extent.
Any comments on ... well you probably want to see something in writing in how they
might address the potential soil contamination impacts that have been identified by the
Town. One is some additional testing, too, with regard, without reading this again,
someone help me out here. There was a particular compound or chemical they didn't
test for.
Mr. Schlosser - I believe that the comment was written before we actually submitted
that last report. I believe that our report answers the questions of the two agencies that
have brought that up.
Ms. Balestra - It was for voile organic compounds.
Ms. Schlosser - There was a question as to the depth of the tests and all that
information was provided in that second report.
Mr. Kanter - I think the report indicated what the concentrations of those organics that
were identified above the standards that there would have to be further evaluations as
site work was being done, for instance, to make sure that contamination in work areas
or sensitive areas. I would think that's probably not an issue for the environmental
impact statement but probably something we would need additional evaluation for the
board's comfort level.
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Noise and odors are mentioned. Impact on public health, impact
on growth and character of the community and neighborhood. Rod you mentioned that
that might be more than a moderate impact that it is potentially a significant impact and
we can address that at the appropriate time. Does staff wish to make any other
comments or do they have questions at this point? Okay.
Mr. Kanter — Chris was really our coordinator.
Ms. Balestra — Not at this point.
Chairperson Wilcox — We all set for right now and we can give the public a chance.
Mr. Schlosser — I would like to add just one final. I would have loved to have seen on
the comment sheet with respect to environmental and as we move forward, there's
actually one major significant impact that is actually a value not only to the project, but
to everybody that is currently using the site and that is the infrastructure improvements
that are being made to that curb cut and that railroad crossing. Right now, basically, the
dollar value that has been placed on that by the railroad and DOT is in excess of
$400,000. No matter what happens to this site in the future, any kind of increased
usage, this has to be addressed whether it is strictly a boathouse, whether it is strictly
recreational, whether it is the Remington project, which we certainly hope that's what
happens on this particular site. There is a liability and a safety hazard that's currently
there with an uncontrolled railroad crossing at those pitches and stuff like that.
Attorney Barney — For $400,000 can't you build a bridge?
Mr. Schlosser — There is one reason why it took us 4 -6 months to get back here and
that was trying to work with the railroad and DOT as partners.
Mr. Devito — I think that also has to do with. any emergency vehicles, not just fire
vehicles because if somebody is potentially drowning out on the site or has a heart
attack on the site and the site is being used as recreational uses, the same issues are
going to apply.
Chairperson Wilcox — All right before I start calling on you, and I will do the best I can. I
want to lay some ground rules, ladies and gentlemen. If this were a public hearing,
would give you the opportunity to say what you needed to say and if you needed more
than a reasonable amount of time let's say five or ten minutes, I might ask you to cut
your remarks short, let other people to speak, and then conclude your remarks at the
end so everybody has a chance. This is not a public hearing and as such I think given
the hour, I think its not unreasonable to ask you all to limit your remarks to lets say, two
minutes, two- and -a -half minutes. I think that is reasonable. I think you should be able
to make your point. Anything else? That should be reasonable. The gentleman over
here was first.
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano — Fred, I have a question first. Seems that it is not a public
hearing, what's on my agenda here.
Chairperson Wilcox — We are still doing the SEOR.
Board Member Mitrano — Gotcha.
Mr. Kanter — That's the public where if you would make a negative determination of
environmental significance you would go to that hearing for the site plan review.
Board Member Talty — Or if there is a prepared statement, are you willing to amend
what you just said.
Chairperson Wilcox — If there is a prepared statement, yeah.
Board Member Mitrano — So are you inferring with that, Fred...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm asking people keep it short.
Board Member Mitrano - ...which these remarks should also be about environmental
impacts only.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Thank you very much. Yes. The remarks should be related
to the environmental review. Remarks having to do with the site plan are best kept until
such time as we get to the public hearing. If we get to the public hearing tonight and the
other issue is that your speaking now in no way, in any way impacts your ability to then
speak once again as part of the public hearing on the site plan review.
David Romm, 1006 East Shore Dr
The Remington will be my close neighbor. I've lived there for five years now. The one
environmental concern that I did not hear tonight is the one that I regard as particularly
important pertains to hearing the sounds. Mr. Schlosser referred to the project right at
the beginning and he noted with some satisfaction as he noted the distance that
separated the commercial activity of the inn from the residences on either end. He
made ,a point of saying these are generous distances in projects of this kind. I would
say in most cases he is right. A few hundred feet on land can present almost an
insurmountable barrier to a great deal of noise and disturbance, but what disturbed me
about his presentation was precisely that he treated it as if it was on land. Absolutely no
sensitivity what -so -ever to the fact that this is over water and that what he considered a
generous distance to isolate the project from the residences is absolutely and
completely inadequate. I can hear a private party across the lake a mile away.
The sound that will come from this facility and this facility, if you notice, there are
other restaurants. There were restaurants up in Sheldrake. I lived in Trumansburg for a
number of years and I don't know if you people are familiar with those restaurants, they
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
were on the lake, but they were across a road from the lake. This facility will be right on
the water's edge.
Cayuga Lake, at night in the evening, is an interesting place seven days a week
every day of the year and many different people enjoy it. People on sailboats, who
have a lot of money, people on fancy motor boats, people in rowboats and kayaks, and
on a summer evening the lake is often dotted with small boats from all over or people
just come out to enjoy the sunset. If this facility opens, that will end. There will be no
quiet on the southern end of the lake as long as it is open and active and there's music
and sound coming. This might be a wonderful facility. It might be wonderful in its place,
but it will change the character of the southern end of the lake once and for all. That will
be over. That is what disturbs me.
If you make a decision that such activities is appropriate, please make it knowing
that you are crossing a watershed of sorts and it is an important one. We all know that
urban areas require places of common beauty and what happens is if you don't put
them in and some group like you come and make sure that other areas get set aside for
that purpose. If we kind of let this happen on the lake, there is no other place that we
can set aside. We don't get another shot at having a shorefront and a lakefront that is
quiet and relatively serene. And of course, there is noise all the time with traffic and the
background, but that fades in the evening.
Chairperson Wilcox — That was two minutes.
Mr. Romm — Can I say two things for the benefit of the Remington? There were two
concerns that I did not hear mentioned. Railroad. You haven't addressed and I don't
know if it will be an issue, you've talked about the regular movement of trains and I can
tell you how often, you haven't addressed track maintenance. The railroad periodically
maintains the track. This involves very fascinating machines that move up the track, lift
the track. They replace ties and actually one of these very complicated machines came
off the track in front of my house two years ago. This procedure is a good deal slower
than a train going through, even when these things stay on the track. So believe me
with the kind of access that you have described, there will be, maybe separated by
years, moments when that access will be blocked for quite a long time.
Secondly, the other environmental concerns that I don't know if the developers
understand is that there is that water treatment plant, the Cayuga Heights Plant that is
over on the shore. I don't know how often they have been on the site in the evening,
especially after it rains, but they will be operating restaurant where periodically there is a
miasma of sepsis floats across that property. Three times in the last week I have driven
through that little cloud in the evening. It's in the evening and the breeze starts coming
from the land down into the lake. So I hope they consider that.
Board Member Mitrano — May I ask him a fast question? Could you unofficially give us
a schedule about the train?
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Romm - There is fairly one long train during the day, one long train some time in the
middle of the night, and then periodically during the day there will be one or two other
short. ..engine going through or something my. Experience is generally one fairly long
train during the day and one during the night.
Board Member Mitrano - When you say during the day, is it any time during the day?
Mr. Romm - It varies. I have not been able at all ... I've lived there for a long time.
Usually it is between three and four in the morning there's a train, a long one. Then the
one during the day seems to vary a little more in time.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - We do, by the way, have your written comments that you
provided.
Dick Thaler, 1030 East Shore Dr
I have one concern. I think the project is a good one for the community, but I have a
problem. The problem is having been in the hotel business at one time and having a
cottage at 1030 East Shore Drive and being old enough to remember when Cornell
used to have the crew races along the east shore and a flatbed where people could run
up and down with the crews as they were going. Parking is an abomination and I don't
believe that the developers have taken into consideration the amount of parking that is
going to be necessary and the overflow is going to go along Route 34 and it is going to
decrease the value of the cottages north of the site. A restaurant the size that they are
talking about with the marina and with a hotel, you just don't have enough parking.
Board Member Mitrano - Mr. Thaler, they have a proposed 127 parking spaces. That is
what you find insufficient?
Mr. Thaler - The seating in the restaurant is over 200.
Board Member Mitrano - How frequently do these events occur such that there would
be this need for the additional parking spaces?
Mr. Thaler - If they are as successful as I think they will be in their restaurant, Friday
and Saturday nights you are going to have a problem. When they have a full house and
they are going to have that all summer long, okay, that's another 25 cars. In the
summertime when you have people down there sailing, you are going to have a
problem because you are not going to have enough space to park. Where are they
going to park? They are going to go over to the facility across the street or are they
going to park on the road? Basically what they are going to do is park along Route 34.
Board Member Mitrano - So in other words you are suggesting it is not just particular
events, but it is high season for which you do not believe there is in this proposal
sufficient parking?
26
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Thaler - Well,, again I think location... there are three things about the restaurant
business and the hotel business.. three things, location, location, location and they've
got the location and they are going to be popular. My feeling is, I hope they are and I
hope they are successful, but .I don't want them to be in a position where they are
always fighting with their neighbors and I am one of them. That means when they fight
with me they will go to Mr. Barney to oppose me because it will be in court.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you sir.
Carl Leopold, 1203 East Shore Dr
I'm a neighbor of this. The remark was several times made that the engineering was a
very good job for this plan. I'd say for the community this is a very bad job. You have a
unique opportunity to provide recreation and beauty for this whole community. It's
unique. There isn't anything like it in the whole southern part of the county. You say
that the recreational facilities will.remain unchanged. A little dinky place in one corner
with 11 parking spaces that is wonderful for recreation. Two days ago there were 50
cars parked in this area. Fifty cars for recreational purposes. Don't tell me that making
a walkway for along the edge of the building is going to substitute for the recreation
facility that presently is there. There one suggestion was made by one of the engineers
that maybe ... he didn't say maybe.. that one extreme would be to grass . the whole thing
down and use it as a park. Great. This would be a splendid opportunity to do
something really good for the community. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - I guess my only comment would be if you can hear me that you
might want to address those remarks to the Town Board who have it within their power
to potentially negotiate with Cornell.
Mr. Leopold - To make a park there?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. I'm not going to sit here and say it is going to happen, but
you should address those comments to the Town Board,
Mr. Leopold - I was going to mention though that that long driveway into a dead end is
going to be a firetrap. The fire truck people are going to give you a hard time with that.
Tom Newton, 1016 East Shore Dr
Thank you very much and good evening. I would like to applaud the architect from
Syracuse for having done such a wonderful job. The only thing that did not seem to get
a lot of mention that seems to be of minor interest was mentioned three times in passing
was the fact that this restaurant is being proposed in the middle of a residential area
and that the people sitting behind me, who I am sure you will have a chance to hear
from this evening are heavily impacted by this restaurant complex that is being placed in
the middle of a quiet residential area. Any of you would like to come at any time to this
lovely park that was put in and by the way when the park was put in none of these
people were here to oppose it because it is a lovely quiet park where people can come
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
and watch the sailors on their sailboats and the people in their kayaks and its lovely and
its quiet. And a 200 plus seat restaurant, which will obviously have weddings and the
weddings will obviously be outside at least some of the time, why have an outside area
at a restaurant if you are not going to have wonderful wedding out there. I don't know
how many times the neighborhood would like to hear the Chicken Dance, but I'm sure
that it is a consideration.
We are blessed with the opportunity to be able to hear some of the fine bands
that play at Stewart Park. Anyone of the neighbors behind me can tell you that Stewart
Park is considerably further away than the 600 feet or the 1400 feet so generously given
to us by the restaurant. There will be an impact. Mr. Wilcox asked this evening, "will
there be the same enjoyment of this quiet little park before and after". Well, let me ask
you, how would you like to go to Howard Johnson's and sit down next to it. (laughter)
think that has answered my question.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir. He has a wonderful voice doesn't he? Again I will
just point out that the applicant is not requesting in any way a rezoning of the property.
It is zoned lakefront commercial where such uses are allowed.
John Lowery, East Shore Drive
That is my building that they have blocked off there on the right hand corner.
Chairperson Wilcox - Before you begin, are you responsible for all those lovely lights on
Floral Ave?
Mr. Lowery - That is Bill Louwer. I'm just a contractor trying to make a living. I've been
at that building now for 32 years. I've looked at the property that we are talking about
probably more than anyone else like 8 hours a day or 10 hours a day and it is a nice
place and I commend the developer, the architect and Cornell for their thoughts of what
they are doing and if they do proceed with this and it goes ahead, that's fine with me.
My concern is Route 34 and the speed that cars go by there and trucks go by there and
tractor trailers and the entrance, which I see is done.
When I came to this meeting I was under the impression that Route 34 was going
to be increased to three lanes rather than two as it is now. I don't quite understand and
the architect did .not explain, I assume that's a divider there in the middle of Route 34,
which obviously means that there's gotta be an increase to the east of 34, my side of
the road and I'm a little bit puzzled as how that is all going to work and that hashed area
there and how far it goes. He's suddenly cut me off from coming north and getting into
my driveway, if he extended it as far as he does. Actually, our driveway does not
appear as it is there in that sketch. It kind of starts and goes at a southern slope to the
building and we have several trucks and people that visit. us daily and I'm just not sure
how that all is going to work and if it is going to work, what's the answer to Route 34 and
the widening of the road and I'm concerned if they have to widen 34 how much land
they plan on taking from Mr. John C. Lowery. I would hope none because we can't
afford to give up any. And I'm concerned about cars coming out of the lot and making a
KEOO
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
north turn across that area there where they would come out and make a...have to
cross over making sure the traffic coming from the north is clear and making sure that
the traffic coming from south going north is clear. That looks treacherous to me and I'm
not sure what the answer is. I've had my driveway ... I have a driveway that comes from
the north and one that comes from the south into my building and I know at one time the
south driveway was closed and people had to make a 180 degree turn and a lot of
people go by there gawking at the lake and seeing how beautiful the lake is and
everything and they're not all there when they are making that turn and I think its pretty
treacherous and I don't know. I just hate to see somebody end up a Pleasant Grove or
somewhere later. That's all I have to say.
Board Member Mitrano - I just want to get some boundary issues here. See the sort of
dotted line that is running along the east side.
Male — That's the existing New York State DOT right -of -way.
Board Member Mitrano — So is that State property?
Male — Yes it is.
Board Member Mitrano — So are you anticipating that any expansion that you do in this
area will all be on the New York State property?
Male — That's correct.
Board Member Mitrano — How far?
Chairperson Wilcox — I think the answer is to be determined once the engineering
drawings are done and submitted to DOT, but...
Board Member Mitrano — But its not anticipated that it is going to exceed the State
boundary line.
Male — No.
Attorney Barney — And it is shown approximately what you anticipate on that site plan?
Male — Its been reviewed by DOT conceptually.
Attorney Barney — Why doesn't it show Mr. Lowery's entry and exit? Because his entry
is not straight up and down.
Mr. Schlosser — We hired a survey to survey the Cornell property and not Mr. Lowery's.
So that's been shown conceptionally. First of all, that is not a restricted median. All that
is, is stripping so anybody can turn any place on that. So it would not impede as
29
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
conceived today and as presented to DOT, there would be no restrictions on any
current turning north or south of the existing property.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Before I call on the next person, is there anybody
who has a time constraint? All right. George?
George Conneman, 197 Christopher Lane - See Attachment #1
Most of my comments deal with what I thought consider the character of the
neighborhood and the community. Mr. Conneman read from a prepared statement
distributed to the board. The beauty of the lake belongs to all of us. The quality of the
lake is for the residents of this area and to build this facility there would be a travesty, in
my opinion. Thank you.
Joel Harlan, Newfield
It's about time for everybody to start backing down from Cornell...
Chairperson Wilcox - Before you get going, I want to hear comments on the
environmental aspects of this project.
Mr. Harlan - That's what I'm going to say.
Chairperson Wilcox - Otherwise I'm going to cut you off. You know that.
Mr. Harlan - All right. I was just saying it was about time for people to start going after
Cornell. They want to take over the whole thing. But what's going to happen, these
people don't realize, if you discriminate not give what Cornell wants, just like Lehman,
the President, says that he can deduct money from the City that Cornell was going to
offer to help out with the City problem. Now this project might make it so that they
deduct the money from the City and not give no more to the City and the rest of the
area. But ya know, you need to stand up and say no to Cornell 'cause Cornell's got
money. And they don't care about the environment. They'll take over.
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, are you done?
Mr. Harlan - No, but I was saying... hey, another one Fred. You know that project up
there by Sam Peters, that hotel would be good down there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Now you're definitely off topic.
Mr. Harlan - That'd be good, but we ought all start standing up to Cornell, but I don't
know. They got the money. They can do what they want. Just like what I was telling
about Faye, ya know...
Chairperson Wilcox - Joel, thank you.
30
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going, let me comment. Did everyone get a packet
of information from presumably the Cornell Sailing Club? I did get something from them
left at my door last night.
Andrew Davis, Massachusetts, Cornell Sailing— See attachment #2
1 represent Friends of Cornell Sailing, which is a 501 -c -3 nonprofit that is incorporated in
Ithaca, New York, Mr. Davis read from a prepared statement.
The Cornell sailing team is not part of the Department of Athletics and Physical
Education. It is an independent organization that is part of student academic services.
They are not administered by Cornell Athletics and Physical Education. While the
programs do work together with the instructional programs, the PE department does not
have direct authority over the sailing team. I would also like to reassure the board
members that of the multitude of the people behind me, we will not be taking up too
much of your time this evening so all Town resident can be heard.
You heard earlier that residents report seeing over 50 cars this weekend. Cornell
University hosted a minor regional. qualifier with 15 visiting teams in attendance. In the
future the Cornell Sailing Team will be hosting major, even national level championships
which will have 17 visiting teams and the number of vehicles for each team will go from
one 15- passenger van to two.
Board Member Mitrano — Who owned for Cornell and is it true whoever the owner was
gave it to Cornell?
Male — It is a very complicated matter.
Tom Livignie, Lansing, Cornell Real Estate
A very complicated arrangement, part of which was a gift, part of which was outright
acquisition. So it was a combination of gift and sail.
Board Member Mitrano From whom, might I ask?
Mr. LiVigne — It was Noah's Boat Club that we acquired it from, which was part of the
estate of Lane Lieberman and owned by his heirs at the time.
David Girsh, 1052 East Shore Drive
My principal environmental objection to this is that it is too much development on this
small site. It's a sweeping, grand proposal but on a modest, perhaps two acre buildable
piece of land. It's like forcing a size 12 foot into a size 5 shoe. It just doesn't work.
Among the consequences of the magnitude of the proposal, are colossal parking and
safety issues and depriving Town residents and other of precious, irreplaceable lake
access. For parking, we have the precedent of the Boat Yard Grill, The Boat Yard Grill
seats 90 outside and 180 inside. It's comparable to the proposed Remington. I'm told
that it fully complies with the City's parking requirements. I'm told that it even leases
additional parking space, but it is seriously inadequate. Guests are frequently forced to
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
park as far away as the area near the Station Restaurant. The Boat Yard Grill runs a
shuttle to try to alleviate its parking situation. There's real chance that again judging by
experience. Every time there is an Ithaca Festival, we know that people park along
Route 34 and that's what's going to happen here. There's no way that there is
adequate parking. The Boat Yard Grill serves only restaurant: Here in addition to a
similar sized restaurant, you have the additional uses of the sailing center, the public
walkway users, the marina users and the guests of the inn. All of these people require
parking. If in fact it meets zoning requirements, then the answer is reduce the size of it
to alleviate the parking situation. People are going to be required to park on Route 34,
which means that they have to walk in the roadway to and from their cars.
The second issue, of course, relates to the loss of recreational use and future
opportunities. In my humble opinion, the proportion of uses are backwards. On the one
hand we have a postage sized public park and substantially the rest of the site is to be
commercially developed. It makes no sense. The Town of Ithaca has in the past, to my
knowledge, required developers on condition of approval to dedicate a portion of their
land for public park. I suggest that that be done here. It would be highly appropriate
that a portion, a greater portion of the commercial land be devoted to public parks. By
reducing the magnitude of this project, the number of rooms, the number of seats, the
concerns that I voiced can be alleviated to a great extent. Thank you.
Board Member Mitrano - ...architecture design of this entire ... could you give us just a
rough thumbnail proportion of how much reduction you think would be appropriate?
Mr. Girsh — I would think one third public, two thirds private.
Board Member Mitrano — And doing the math quickly, what seating the restaurant?
Mr. Girsh — That's for specialist to determine. I think that you are dealing with an
irreplaceable unique piece of land and to allow the whole thing to go into parking lot and
commercial buildings makes no sense. It just doesn't.
Chairperson Wilcox — I should have done it earlier. Ladies and gentlemen, could I just
ask you to hold your applause, not to the end.. Just hold it.
Mr. Harlan — Everybody's gotta release their tension.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is Evan Monkemeyer here or his agent?
Mr. Williams — He is not. I am.
Chairperson Wilcox We will get to you.
Mr. Williams — I understand.
Adam Shay, True Walsh & Miller
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
represent the Friends of the Cornell Sailing Club. .I am also, on a personal note, a
resident of the Town of Ithaca on the lake with direct views of both the site and the
sounds that will create by this project. I didn't intend to speak tonight, so I apologize if I
am slightly disorganized, but I want to point out a few issues and highlight ones that
have been mentioned to make the overall point that the issue, I think, before you is not
just if they can address all of the impacts that have been raised or how you are going to
balance them, but nearly the overwhelming evidence of this number of issue is that they
are out of complexity and they are at a rate where you need more data and you simply
need a full study to be able to make your decision whether or not they can satisfactorily
address the noise, the view, and the other impacts that have been outlined. The
question before you is whether they are at that level of complexity.
Just to highlight a few of them I think that reached that level as they've been
mentioned. First of all, the community access has been raised by a number of people
including the board and the question was posed to you'how much do you need. And
the understanding of the answer that I got was we don't really know and the answer of
we really don't know ... simply one thing that we need a full study, which is a full review
of what are my alternatives, how can I balance them, what are the different proposals,
and is that satisfactory. That is precisely what a positive declaration would get you.
Similarly on issues of traffic and parking, parking being a big one that a number of
people have mentioned and all I can say that what has been given so far is insufficient.
We have had the informal, unscientific study of what other restaurants in town have
needed and I've done the same study and come to the fact that this one is insufficient
and that may be right and that may be wrong, but what is certain that it proves is what
you need is a full study and the full study that would be required if you give a positive
declaration.
The same issue goes to the deficiently of the turning lane. Is it deep enough?
Will enough cars fit there that needs to make that left hand turn? The only way you can
know that if you know accurately how many cars are going? How many cars are using
this? How many cars are using the proposed project at peak time and what are the
trains? Absent that detail you cannot make that determination. You simply do not have
the factual basis. The only way to get the factual basis is to make it a positive
declaration and get the full study on traffic that SEQR would require.
Just to point out a couple of quick ones.. maybe these aren't your determining
factors that I heard. When you talked about the fire and the water adequacy of the
hydrants and whether they could dump something into the lake to pull the water and as
a resident that lives exactly that far up the lake, a question that I oppose is when winter
comes and the lake freezes, is that still an option.
Just on a final issue, the views that they have presented, I would suggest that a
more formal study of the views is necessary given...) hope you can see that the angles
that you show strategically avoid many of the views of the actual project and the
statement that seemed glaring to me was they're summer photos. In winter there will be
no trees, but the view won't be impacted because you will be seeing a building instead
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
of a tree and I would only suggest that they are correct that your view of the lake won't
be impacted, but to say that your view isn't impacted. Most people would prefer to view
a tree as opposed to a building. Again, all I am suggesting is that a full study of all the
views is needed and that's the full study you would get if you make a positive
declaration. Thank you.
Roland, Roeder, 122 Wait Ave
So I've never done this before and I apologize for my lack of experience. I'm an
instructor at Cornell University and the Vice President of the Cayuga Cornell Wind
Surfing Club. My concern is about the environmental impact. I grew .up in San Diego
where there is a lot of urbanization and I grew .up as a surfer. I routinely would get sick
due to runoff pollution. If the surf is good, you want to go out and surf. People are
going to go out and surf or wind surf as the present case may be if the conditions are
good. If there is added runoff, I hope we at least consider the impact on the water. I
don't want to be the one getting sick from this. I don't want to be the one getting sick
from the members of the Syracuse Community affecting our water quality,
also am concerned about the access, which isn't necessarily an environmental
concern, but as I said before when the wind surfing is good a large number of wind
surfers will converge on the site and be interested in going out windsurfing. Typically
there are more than 11 of us there windsurfing when the windsurfing is good. I have
never seen the gentleman from Syracuse at the site. That's all I have to say.
Chairperson Wilcox — You use the northern end of the site?
Mr. Roeder - North is to the left. Currently we are actually using Cornell Is property with
permission from the previous Johnson Boat Yard. We would be happy to move to the
northern end of the site because we realize that it is private property. People should
have some reasonable capacity to use their private property, but asking for a variance
for a change on that after we are willing to move and do this and the potentially of
polluting the water is a concern.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not asking you for you to move. There was some mention
that some people were using the north side of the site possibly for some sort of
launching.
Mr. Roeder — So there is routinely a number of wind surfers who launch just about
where the left end of the building is there. I've been sailing there for about four years. I
rig up my sails there. Many others do. There are small craft located on site there.
Ithaca community members with their catamarans there, small lasers. So there are a lot
of Ithaca Community members who launch from exactly that site.
Chairperson Wilcox — Taking advantage of that point out there if you will?
Mr. Roeder — It is typical to take advantage of because of the steep rocky slope in. I
routinely if I come in either up wind or down wind depending on the wind direction on
34
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
the other side of the point have to carry my equipment back around. Many fishermen
take advantage of the point so there is slight conflict of space over that, but we get
along pretty well
Mary Kay Clapp, 1010 East Shore Dr
I live at 1010 East Shore Drive where I've resided for 15 years. I concur with all the
things I've heard here tonight, traffic, parking, sort of hardcore issues. Two things
haven't heard of. are first of all the increased boat traffic that will affect that end of the
lake. We have very little now and people will come to the restaurant by boat, as well
they should be able to. However, that cove to the south where the marina is now is
really a dead end. If you walk down. in there, there is a lot of gas and oil that's on top of
the water just from the boats that are there already. So I would be concerned about
what extra boats might bring there. We have waiting herons in that part of the lake and
we have three pairs now and I am concerned about what they are going to be eating
and also just the waterfowl in general. We have a pretty big population and they nest all
along the front. In the tire from my little boat there was a duck's nest this year. I haven't
heard any mention of it and I think it needs to be on the docket to be considered.
The other thing,. and I am also concerned does waterfront commercial mean that
they can rent jet skis to the hotel guests because that would be a nightmare. How far is
it going to go? What is waterfront commercial really mean?
Attorney Barney - Well the marina would technically allow it, I assume, under a marina
use. The Town, however, just fairly recently adopted a noise ordinance dealing with
among other things jet skis which is intended to get them far enough off shore that they
will not be as much of a problem for the shoreline residents.
Ms. Clapp - The third thing is we have a lot, ..1 know there are laws against drinking and
boating, but I am assuming that this restaurant will have a bar and that people will be
getting into their boats and taking off out onto the lake, across the lake, and I think that
needs to be addressed in terms of police patrol to address that matter as it comes up.
These are just a couple of issues that I didn't hear mentioned and I appreciate your
time.
Board Member Mitrano - I have a collateral question,. John, maybe it might be better
addressed to you. What degree of law that you have to have a boating license in order
to operate a jet ski.
Attorney Barney - There is a regulation on it and I quite frankly don't know off the top of
my head.
Board Member Mitrano - I wonder about the enforcement.
Attorney Barney - Enforcement is a different issue. I think the Sheriff is the enforcer of
the laws, but there are some requirements in terms of education and education courses
that you have to take if you are below a certain age before you can operate a jet ski.
35
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Erik Gaden, 2484 Danby Rd
I'm one of the boaters that have a. ..,down there at that marina and I don't, as far as
can see on this whole project, there's not enough space for this hotel to even go down
there. There is going to be a parking problem. There are times that the lot is almost full
of people that are doing activities down there with the sailing club; there are people
down there doing kayaking. They are down there with their sails going out and then
you've got the regular boaters that have the slips like us that are down there. Johnson's
Boat Yard...we rent the slips off of Johnson's Boat Yard. I hadn't heard here if this
project does go through, there's going to be as that one woman just said, there's going
to be additional boaters coming to this place and I don't see any provisions here for the
boats ... if you go to the boatyard there you can get a slip sometimes if you are lucky. In
the summertime sometimes they're all filled up if you go to the Boatyard. The same
thing is going to happen here. The area is right on the lake. Now if we go out with our
boat and come back, we'll probably have somebody sitting in our spot because they are
going to be over in the restaurant eating. It's going to be a problem for us when our
spot are all rented. People will be pulling in their slip to go to the restaurant because
they come down by boat. Someplace they got to figure out where they can put
additional boats in a designated area and there's not really that much room to build
extra slips down there on that site. There's no place to put more slips. The only place
you can do it is to put it right on the lake right in front so they can pull in. That's all I
have to say.
Faye Gougakis, 406 Utica St
I'm here because I want what's best for the community and I've been to many meetings
and many meetings where they talk about the same issue and I'm very aware of what
happened here tonight and I think that a lot of the speakers before me spoke very well.
They brought up a lot of good points. I didn't see adequate talk about the traffic. That
really stood out very clear for me and I think that is going to be a colossal problem.
think you are trying to fit so much in such a small place and every speaker was correct.
Now, I don't have a boat. I don't live in that area. I don't have a vested interest other
than my interest in what is best for the community. Now I talked about Lake Source
Cooling before. I talked about the issue of having a monitoring system. It was
interesting sitting through all of this I realized if you have pollution coming out of there
that is going to affect the monitoring system. I don't trust Cornell University, not because
I hate the University, I do not, but I don't trust it and they have shown me time and time
again not to trust them. I want to trust them, but they have shown me not to trust them.
So I see pollution coming out of there and I see a monitoring system that is being
refused by them and I wonder why they keep refusing to put that monitoring system
there. So there are two reasons why I am adamant now tonight about it. It gives me
new reason as to why they don't want a monitoring system there.
Now, in my heritage my parents are from Greece. I love dining on the water. I'll
be the first to want that, okay, but this is not logical. It would be nice to have it there, but
it's not logical. Further reason that I really believe it should be recreational. I really
believe it should be there for the good of everybody. It should not be commercial. If
36
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Cornell students want to have their activity, fine, but I think the rest of the community
should their activity. I think wind surfing is great there. I think the activities that were
happening before are wonderful there. When Lake Source Cooling came in and that
was taken away, I couldn't believe it. And then when the proposal of the hotel was
being talked about a while back, I mean it just doesn't make sense that you would take
something like that away. Having an environmental emphasis or research as well as
water activities, aside from jet skis, which I oppose, is something that is needed in that
area. If you want to have some kind of dining I would suggest a very small -scale kind of
area where people that are doing the recreational activity could sit and have a cup of
coffee or maybe a sandwich, but nothing blown out the way that is especially having like
an inn. Where.. 'everybody who spoke tonight was very right about the traffic. I mean it
is insane to bring that kind of traffic with a railroad there. And then, as far as the access
for the public access, the little park that's there, that's ridiculous because once you add
all that the next thing that is going to be on that cutting board is that park. And nobody
is going to want to go there. And as far as going there now, that kind a gazebo that you
have there as an artists, its kind of an eye soar. It is insulting that a University in this
scale, okay, which I want to respect kind of dumps that.
I'm not speaking as well as the other people before me, but there was a
gentleman who spoke about five people away from me who spoke and he raised a lot of
issues, environmental issues, traffic issues, the issue of how the land was transferred,
okay. I think we need to, have this all more clearer and the fact that what could happen
in the future because I really see a lot of cutting blocks here. So again, this is not going
to wash and I think that everything that has been addressed now with everybody before
me needs serious consideration. It is really unfortunate. We have a planet that we are
using up a lot of the space, but we can't squeeze things in inappropriately and that is
what is happening here and it has to be preserved for everybody, okay. This happened
because Lake Source Cooling was put there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Faye.
Ms. Gougakis — I know, Fred, but it comes back to that and its unfortunate and I'll end
with this. Its is unfortunate that I'm sitting here, the only person in this community
bringing up the Lake Source Cooling thing. Its like with the jet ski issue. Where is
everybody when I'm trying to get a jet ski law to be passed. The City of Ithaca passed a
weaker jet ski law than the Town did. I mean it's really embarrassing. We live in a
progressive, liberal, hopefully environmentally conscience community and then you
have a plan like that so anyway I hope you listen to everybody who spoke before you
and I think that this 'is the wrong plan and thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you.
Teri Lisman, 190 Pleasant Grove Rd
I've been here just about two years now and I missed the whole Lake Source Cooling
thing. I do actually''�have some environment qualms with this development plan. Part of
it water quality, sound quality, the traffic issue because I actually do not feel that that
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
employee parking was fully addressed because if you are talking a facility of this size,
you have to have the safety personnel for the boathouse, you have to have catering
staff, you have to have cleaning staff for the hotel. You need to have reception, lobby
staff, maintenance staff and there is no parking for that there. I mean that 120 spaces
may suffice for a sailing meet or a restaurant and hotel complement, but its not going to
survive the staff as, well and I don't know if they assume that they are all going to bus
down. I don't see this happening. My other concern is with the water quality because if
they are going to start introducing motor craft there in larger numbers, motor craft
emission are not well regulated. There are some pretty nasty, stinky boats on the lake.
That also brings up noise pollution because the additional watercraft brings noise. Its
just inevitable, not „only that, its physical law; it carries farther over water. Its simply
does. I can stand there and here a whoop -ti -do going on at Stewart Park. If I'm across
the lake, I don't want to hear all the noise coming from the boats that are now gathering
at this restaurant. And I do agree that boat owners coming out with a few glasses of
wine, getting back into that umpteen horsepower things kind of scares me.
I recently joined the Cayuga Cornell Windsurfing Club and I'm a new windsurfer
and those people in motorboats scare me. I'm still spending more time fall off the board
than standing on it so and I know that they train sailors out there. Okay, I've learned to
sail on Cayuga Lake. I sail on a big 33 -foot slooth and from experience motorboat
owners are not the most aware of limitations of sailboats, especially these little bitty
lasers. and these lightning's that don't have any other power than wind. Or for us
windsurfers, all we can do is drop the sail and fall off the board. We can't go anywhere.
Is there something else? Water quality, noise, safety, traffic, I think that was it.
Gregory Prestas, 1012 East Shore Drive
Just about 750 feet from this site. I think all the issues that have been raised tonight
and I don't want to rehash them all, they've been gone over several times, but I think its
clear that there's many questions that haven't been answered and that this whole plan
needs to be reassessed. I just want to point out that the jet ski ordinance, as I
understand it is 5 miles an hour within 100 feet of shore and 20 miles an hour within 500
feet of shore. So any increase boat traffic as already been pointed out is going to be
disruptive to the activities that belong there. Basically, with that little park, what has
happened is and it has already been acknowledged, its private property, ,but its open.
There's 11 spots, but you can park in the marina area. There's a lot of open land there.
So people are coming, watching kayaks, small sailboats, sail boarding as been
mentioned and its very nice and it wasn't planned to be that way, but the land is open
and people have started to use it. It has been pointed out that this is the only lake
access in the Town of Ithaca that's public. I think the decision tonight is not go or no go,
its do you need a full study and I just don't see any way that its possible that you don't
need a full study. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you all very much.
Chairperson Wilcox closed public comment at 9:42 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody want to make any comments at this point? I would just
point out that staff had brought up the issue. We didn't necessarily speak to all of the
issues. One for example is employee parking, though staff did bring that up in their
memo and we're certainly aware of their concern and employee parking may have not
been taken into account. The issue was brought up of, somebody brought up the issue
of the Planning Board being able to have the developer set aside a certain amount of
land that is public park. For the record, that tends to only happen during residential
development when there is and when a need or a finding of need can be shown for a
public park or a public recreation area. I'm not even sure.:.
Mr. Kanter - It not only tends to be that way, but it legally can only be for residential
developments.
Chairperson Wilcox - You can't do it for commercial.
Mr. Kanter - That's correct. It's to determine the need for residents of a proposed
residential development.
Chairperson Wilcox - We would also point out that we do have a traffic study that was
provided to us by the applicant. I didn't want to imply that we didn't have one. We do
have. one, but there are some questions that we think it did not properly address or
adequately address and that's the issue there. I think those are my only significant
comments with regard to what we just heard.
Board Member Mitrano - I would like to propose...
Chairperson Wilcox - What would you like to propose?
Board Member Mitrano - A positive finding of SEAR.
Chairperson Wilcox - We have been provided with a draft resolution by Planning staff.
Thank you again. I remember when I first started on this board we used to read these -
and then we stopped reading them because they took a lot of time. Chairperson Wilcox
read a couple of paragraphs of the resolution.
Board Member Mitrano - Unless I don't see it, under number 5, 1 would like to add noise
or whatever fancy word is used in environmental impacts to address that issue. Is there
a fancier word?
Attorney Barney - Noise is pretty good.
Chairperson Wilcox - Noise works. Is that change acceptable, Rod?
Board Member Howe - Yes.
M
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter — So you would probably want to modify some of the wording in the
environmental assessment form to reflect that noise might potentially be a significant
issue if that's what the board...
Board Member Mitrano — Keeping in mind what has been...
Chairperson Wilcox — Lets be caret
project has environmental issues.
potentially significant environmental
which are those that are moderate,
with adequately or which we believe
the eis.
ul. There are certainly environmental issues. Any
I think what John is going for is, which are the
issues that must be dealt with in further detail and
which either the applicant's proposal already deals
can be dealt with adequately without going through
Board Member Mitrano — I think noise is one of those that have to have a more
thorough analysis so it has to go through the eis. 1 see a positive finding on it.
Attorney Barney — How about could we handle it in the last line of paragraph five where
it says, "and impacts on growth and character of the community and neighborhood
including potential impacts on the community from noise ".
Board Member Mitrano — What he said.
Chairperson Wilcox — Rod, you're okay?
Board Member Howe - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other changes, Mr. Barney?
Attorney Barney — Not unless you want them.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sometimes you force them upon us.
Mr. Kanter — Sometimes he suggests.
Chairperson Wilcox — Staff, we're all set? Comments from members of the board?
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -099: SEQR, Site Plan Approval & Variance, The
Remington Inn & Restaurant, 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 19 -2 -29.
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed The
Remington Inn & Restaurant located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East
,o
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront
Commercial Zone. The proposal includes demolishing the existing two buildings
to construct a 258 -seat restaurant, a two -story 25 -guest unit upscale lodge, and a
new 4,690 square foot boathouse for the Cornell University's sailing program.
The proposal also includes 127 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, and
retention of the existing private marina (boat launch and docking facilities). A
variance from the shoreline setback provisions of the Lakefront Commercial Zone
will also be required. Cornell Real Property Services Inc., Owner; The
Remington LLC, Applicant David A. Schlosser, Schopfer Architects LLP, Agent,
and
2. The proposed Site Plan Approval and Variance are Type I actions pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of
Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of
Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting of June 17, 2003, declared its
intent to act as lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Site
Plan Approval and. Variance, and circulated a notice of such intent to interested
and involved agencies, and
4. The Planning Board, on October 5, 2004, reviewed a Full Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II & 111 prepared by
Town Planning Staff, a packet of drawings titled "Submission for Preliminary Site
Plan Review — The Remington Inn & Restaurant" and dated 10115103 and revised
8118104, a "Viewshed Impact Study" dated 8118104, a packet of information titled
"Submission for Preliminary Site Plan Approval" dated 8118104 (supplement to
5129103 & 10115103 submission), and other material, and
5. The Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 11 and 111, and through letters
submitted by various interested or involved agencies, several potentially
significant adverse impacts that may have an impact on the environment have
been identified, including impacts on surface and groundwater quality and
quantity, impacts on aesthetic resources, impacts on open space and recreation,
impacts on transportation, traffic flow, and parking, and impacts on growth and
character of the community and neighborhood including the potential impacts of
noise on the community, and
6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a positive declaration . of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site,.Plan Approval and
Variance;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
Cpl
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
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
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
In consideration of the information and circumstances set forth above and. without
prejudice to the outcome of the presently pending proposal,
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a positive declaration 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 (EIS) will be required, and
2. That the Town Planning Department duly file and publish a Notice of Positive
Declaration pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617. 12, and
3. That the applicant is requested, in consultation with the Town Planning
Department and interested and involved agencies, to prepare a draft written
scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIS, and that the Director of
Planning schedule a public hearing on said scoping document to be held before
this Board at the earliest practicable date upon receipt of said draft scooping
document.
The vote on the Motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — I thank the public. I thank you for sitting there and. being polite
and listening and contributing and I guess at some point we'll see you back again.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
proposed The Remington Inn & Restaurant located at 1000 East Shore Drive
between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 =2=
29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal includes demolishing the existing
two buildings to construct a 258 -seat restaurant, a two -story 25 -guest unit
upscale lodge, and a new 4,690 square foot boathouse for the Cornell University's
sailing program. The proposal also includes 127 parking spaces, stormwater
facilities, and retention of the existing private marina (boat launch and docking
facilities). Cornell Real Property Services Inc., Owners The Remington LLC,
Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Schopfer Architects LLP, Agent.
42
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr, Kanter Is it necessary to somewhat formally do something with the public hearing?
The process dictates that you can't open the public hearing until you make a negative
determination or receive the draft eis and hold a public hearing on the eis and...
Attorney Barney — What you probably want to do is take a vote to cancel the public
hearing. It would be a good idea to have a motion canceling the public hearing that was
scheduled tonight in view of the decision that you made in respect to requiring an
environmental impact statement. The reason for that is that you technically cannot hold
the public hearing until you either made a neg dec on the environmental aspect or have
received a draft environmental impact statement. Once you pos dec it, that ends the
public hearing discussion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -100: Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Variance, The
Remington Inn & Restaurant, 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 19 -2 -29
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Tally
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby cancels the Public
Hearing on the Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Variance for the Remington Inn &
Restaurant, 1000 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19. -2 -39, in view of the board's
positive determination on the environmental significance of the project.
The vote on the Motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None. .
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of a proposed Master Plan for the long range
development of approximately 115 acres located at the northeast corner of East
King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43=
1-129 43 -1 -3.32, and 43- 1 -3.4, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, Low Density
Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The "Ithaca Estates Proposed Park &
Land Use Map" (8 September 2004) shows a proposed new road system with
areas designated for commercial and residential development along with a
proposed park site. The proposed 11 =lot Ithaca Estates Phase III subdivision is
included on the Master Plan. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicants George R.
Williams, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome Mr. Williams
again.
Thank you for sitting there very patiently
43
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
George Williams, Edsall & Williams Surveyors
I am here as a follow up from our last meeting. Primarily the stumbling block last month
was the issue of a park and so I'm here, prepared to talk about the park primarily and
the master "plan. I'm not one for long speeches so I won't keep you too late. I'll do my
best to answer all your questions.
Board Member Mitrano - Do you have a little nutshell that I could wrangle with in my
mind before I run out the door? What is the nugget of what you're going to tell us?
Mr. Williams - The nugget is, we would like to propose to provide the park space that
you'd like, but primarily up in the upper north corner near College Circle. That is the jest
of things.
Board Member Mitrano - That wasn't the preference of the staff, was it?
Mr. William's - I think the preference of the staff is primarily an older drawing that is on
the wall there.
Mr. Kanter - Yeah. It's on the wall. It is 1999s sketch plan that was in front of the
Planning Board where we were pretty close to reaching an agreement on it.
Board Member Mitrano - (comments not audible)
Mr. Kanter- Well, as I said in my memo, there really isn't enough information on this
plan to make a strong recommendation to the board, but is some of our observations. I
mean there are certainly some pluses about this park location, if you look at the
topography its relatively gentle to moderately sloping. You probably could put fields in
there. Its, for the most part, not in the unique natural area although we don't know for
sure exactly what types of plant species may be in there. It appears that there could be
sufficient area. Its not exactly clear if the area labeled as park buffer or future
expansion is intended to be entirely for future park use or not. So that is certainly a
question. There are a lot of minuses with it. It's about the most remote part of the site
that you can get to or not get to. The access is very difficult to get there especially if
there isn't a full public road there in the initial phases of the development. It's about a
half mile from East King Road to that Phase I, II and III park area and about a third of
the mile from the closest part of the Phase III subdivision. These are things that I
outlined in my memo, but just reiterating them. The proximity to Ithaca College and
College Circle raises some issues about the proximity of students and possible conflicts
of use in and around the park. The cost of access the site with a new driveway or road,
which would probably have to be the Town's responsibility in the absence of residential
development in that area in the short term.
So then, the question of the size of the initial park areas is a concern as well,
shown here as 2.4 acres for the Phase I, II and III park. That really doesn't meet the
minimum size that we think would be necessary just to meet the area for the Phase III
44
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
subdivision plus the substitution of the 1.8 acre Montessori piece, which we had
calculated to be a minimum of 3.4 acres. We did on this...) had taken the liberty of
taking Mr. Williams drawing and showing an area on the southern most part of the park
buffer area that maybe the Town might be willing to look at as an initial park dedication,
although because it is closer it is quite a bit closer to the Phase III subdivision, still we
need a fairly significant driveway or something to access the park. That part of the hill is
a little bit steeper than the upper part actually so I'm not quite sure about whether the
moderate slopes there will be conducive to the types of activities that we would see on a
park there. Also, the road alignment on those blue little blobs that we colored in there
were based on the wetland study that had been done in 1997, 1 think it was, which
showed there are some pockets of wetlands in that particular road alignment that was
showed on' the master plan that was not the road alignment in the 1999 version of the
sketch plan. Here you can. I Ahese are the two pockets of wetlands (not audible). That
might be a problem with that particular road alignment that is shown on the master plan,
too. So those are just a few of the things that we are thinking of.
Board Member Mitrano - I want to say that I am very grateful for the indulgence of the
applicant. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox - We should note that George is sitting back with us. Welcome
back.
Board Member Conneman - Thank you. Good to be back.
Board Member Talty - Jonathan, on the road that I am looking at up there, does that
actually go into the conservation zone?
Mr. Kanter - No. Actually this red boundary goes ... so the road and the park as it was
shown on this plan were not in the Conservation Zone. Likewise, this is the area of the
now proposed park up in this corner and the future park expansion down in this area
also, except for a very tiny little piece here not in the Conservation Zone.
Board Member Talty - Somehow these two maps aren't jiving with me. I'm looking at
this and I don't quite understand where I am if I were to superimpose this map on that
map.
Mr. Walker - If you look at the proposed road basically, just go straight in...
Mr. Kanter - Now it would go straight up basically right through here.
Mr. Walker - Then the other road is down lower. You see its right at the intersection
with the.. the intersection is right adjacent to the parcel line before it was back up.
Mr. Kanter- Before it was way up here. This is the...
Board Member Talty - Okay. I understand.
W
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter - So I guess the board needs to give some feedback to the applicant on this.
The staff's viewpoint is although there is some issues raised with this park area it
maybe something that the board might want to look at particularly if the early phase
park could be shifted down to the southernmost part of that block, but we suggest doing
some additional looking into it. I suggested a site visit. I actually went out there myself.
You can't really get into the core of that park area because it is covered by thicket and
really heavy vegetation, not just regular woods. I kind of walked around the perimeter of
it and you could get a pretty good feeling. The topography is probably reasonable, but
think we would want to take a closer look at it. With an actual site walk. Probably get
the parks department out there and take a look at it, which they haven't had a chance to
do yet.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I comment? On this map, there is a parcel labeled former
park site and this piece of land goes back to even before I was on the Planning Board
and then the storied history, which we have all become familiar with once again. It
raises the concern in my mind that if the proposed parkland is put someplace in the
near where it is proposed or maybe somewhat south of that down near where it says
retention ponds, I begin to wonder how likely we are to get access to that parkland just
because there is a history with Mr. Monkemeyer of not dedicating parkland and he may
show on a map that there is parkland and we may do a subdivision and that may be part
of it, but clearly there is...
Attorney Barney - Given the history, it would be my very strong recommendation to you
that if you were to grant subdivision approval and that was to include park dedication
that before, any building permits were issued with respect to any of the lots of the
subdivision] l that the access to the park and the park be dedicated to the Town and
formally received. You've gotta avoid what happened before.
Chairperson Wilcox - Right and we should say. its still happening. Its still part of this
discussion.` Absolutely.
Mr. Kanteri - I would even go further to say and some formal agreement with the
applicant of the future park areas, not just showing it as a buffer or a possible future
park area, but if indeed the site does develop further, the overall 100 and whatever
acres of the three tax parcels that some intent or agreement for future additional areas
to be added to this development occurs. I mean we can put that in our resolution, but
again...
Attorney Barney - I would be less concerned about that, Jon, because I think any time
that they come in for future subdivisions the park issue has to be addressed at that
junction. I think we have some...) think the word leverage is a little too strong, but ability
to determine if there is a need for additional parkland and then suggest that ought to be
located. adjacent to parkland that has been previously dedicated.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter - At any rate, the initial decision the board needs to make at some point is, is
this new park area appropriate? Is it usable as park area? Is it reasonable to assume
residents of the subdivision will use it and feel that it will be a benefit to the overall
community?
Chairperson Wilcox - And that it is sized appropriately based upon our determination of
need.
Board Member Conneman - Did you have some idea,. Jonathan, of where it might be
located to meet the needs of being close by and so forth? I see the map here and I
haven't been up there, but
Mr. Kanter - There. That is what our recommendation was and still is. That one, but
that's not what the applicant...
Board Member Conneman - I understand that. That is what I was asking. Thank you.
Mr. Kanter - I mean whether we would be willing to take a look at something different
obviously that is what the board has to decide and if so if this area is what you want to
look at. Again, what we have worked on for many years is a lot more centrally located
to how the overall property could develop and much more accessible from a number of
perspectives. In many ways, I don't agree with Mr. Monkemeyer's comments that the
park will negatively impact the residential lots. I think just opposite that having a core
open space park area really will be a benefit to the residents so instead of just packing it
away and in a remote corner of the property, somehow, better integrating it into the
overall site plan makes more sense to me.
Board Member Conneman - I would agree with that. I think it does make a difference in
a residential neighborhood.
Board Member Talty - Can you tell me why does Mr. Monkemeyer disagree with this?
Mr. Williams - I spoke with Mr. Monkemeyer this afternoon and in regards to the four
acre green piece here that has been filled in by Mr. Kanter rather than our original
proposal up in the corner, that would be more than acceptable to Mr. Monkemeyer. But
more to your question in regards to the original plan that Mr. Monkemeyer had
discussed with Mr. Kanter or with you or your predecessor...
Mr. Kanter - No. It was the whole board and in fact the Town Board went so far as to
adopt a resolution accepting the concept of this...
Attorney Barney - His then attorney ...(not audible)...
Mr. Williams - There are a lot of things that happened that I'm really not aware of, but in
regards to the former plan I think the primary motivation that drew Mr. Monkemeyer
away from that that as it is there to more in the lines of this was the rezoning of the
47
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
property in the back, which has changed his ability to use it the way he wanted to
originally and as far as the park goes in attracting or being a positive asset to the overall
development, it is true it will be an asset to the overall development. But in the
residential terms, a park of that size with those playing fields on it would draw people
from more than just the immediate area and the traffic flow through that residential area
would be increased fairly dramatically. You would have soccer games there one right
after the other all day Saturday, which is fine and that's nice to have, but that's traffic
through a residential area. If it were off to the side the way that it is proposed now, that
impact would be less and yet it would still be within a reasonable distance from the
development as it is proposed and from the future development as it is more vaguely
proposed. To the best of my knowledge, those are Mr. Monkemeyer's thoughts.
Mr. Walker There were a couple of physical considerations. If you can see on there,
but there's a two playfields, a soccer field and a baseball field laid out on those. The
engineering department was involved looking at the topography and the constructability
on the fields on those sites. These are not the easiest things to build because there is
quite a bit of vertical, especially for the soccer field. We were looking at a 6 or 8 or 10-
foot fill on one side so it made the area of the park needed to be much bigger. This is
considered as a community park, not just a neighborhood park and you are correct, we
intend for this park to draw people from the whole South Hill Area...
Attorney Barney - ...in terms of demanding it, it has to be related to this subdivision.
So...
Mr. Walker — The park and open space plan shows a need for a community park in that
area and in the discussions with Mr. Monkemeyer back through the 90s, he seemed to
agree with that concept, especially with the consideration that he had a higher density
residential below it and the commercial space below it. Again, that from an engineering
standpoint, that site gave me a lot headaches because it was going to be hard to build.
The lower area, which near the Montessori School would have been a much better
place for a playfield. He's got that shown as commercial area, just site considerations.
Mr. Kanter — The best area of the site would be where the proposed garden center is.
Mr. Walker Right. He's got it leveled off already and foundation for a building already.
That is one of the things that we have to look at when we look at why the park was put
there.
Attorney Barney — How about construction on this green area that Jon...?
Mr. Walker — That green area is in the part ... see that is kind of a rise and then a little bit
of a hump in the middle there where those two parks are that could be graded to be
fairly level without a lot of work. The thing is you get further to the west, the slope picks
up and if you notice this part right here, this portion of it?
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, the sled hill?
EN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Walker - That's because it is fairly steep. That's the problem when you get to this
point to the west it starts to get steeper and then you're above College Circle. Now if
the Town Board looked at it and the Planning Board looked at it from the standpoint of
reviewing the park and open space needs, do we need a that big a park up there now?
This is 10 years after the original plan. I don't know. That is something you would really
have to look at, but the concept was this is going to satisfy the needs for a community
park in the area. Mr. Monkemeyer at that time was in agreement with it. Granted there
have been zoning changes. So there have been a lot of changes, but definitely having
a park to the far end isn't going to help us provide any kind of service.
Mr. Williams — We can move that down. In fact, the whole area is planned on being
dedicated eventually, according to Mr. Monkemeyer.
Chairperson Wilcox — So, are we in general agreement that we'd like the park more
centrally located?
The board concurred.
Chairperson Wilcox`— Is anybody wedded to that plan as agreed to before?
Board Member Thayer - I like it better, but that's not what they are asking us to do.
Chairperson Wilcox' And it reflects a road network that is not being proposed today.
Board Member Thayer — Exactly.
Mr, Kanter I mentioned the road network shown on this master plan most likely would
be a better - shifted maybe a little bit more to the east around those wet pocket anyways.
So that whole system is going to need more looking at.
Mr. Williams — We would do that. This is just a concept.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sizing of the park still seems to be an issue.
Mr. Kanter - I guess I heard Mr. Williams say that Mr. Monkemeyer might be willing to
consider something like this 4.5 acre green blob that I marked up there. The reason
that I marked that is kind of two reasons. One because it is the closest part of the future
park area to the Phase III subdivision. And secondly because it would be basically that
wide because you would need probably that much area similar to what we needed on
that area just for grading, drainage improvements that would probably be needed to put
really just about any kind of field or other type of more active facility in there so that and
then also that is roughly, if that is where the road alignment would go in the future you'd
want it to be basically to where that future road would go.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that you have access either walking or otherwise.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Attorney Barney - Where ever this park is, we are going to want a road to it. So the
closer he gets it to where he is doing it, the cheaper it is going to be.
Board Member Talty - With a sidewalk.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
Mr. Kanter - So that raises questions, too.
or so acres as the initial park dedication, he
it.
If we accepted even that lower 4 and a half
is still responsible to building the access to
Chairperson Wilcox - 1500 feet roughly. It's a good distance.
Mr. Kanter - Then of course there were some issues that I thought of in the memo that I
outlined about. Is a through road up to Ithaca College even a realistic option at this
point? Is it something Ithaca College is even contemplating or would like to see and if it
is, is that where it would even go? So I know it is meant to be a conceptual idea and if it
doesn't go through to Ithaca College then you could have a very long dead end road in
affect. If the whole strip becomes a future Town park then of course, you have less of
an area as a long dead end road and it probably could be reconfigured so that there
could be some loop or some other arrangement, but all I had was the map that they
submitted so I was just kind of reacting.
Chairperson Wilcox - These are things for Mr. Monkemeyer to take into account and
show us, not in excruciating detail, just...
Mr. Kanter - I think if the board is willing to consider it, I think we really would need to
go out before we could give an answer and take a close look at that lower area.
Mr. Williams - What more do you need then to help answer your questions?
Chairperson Wilcox - What Jon just said is that we want to go out and look at
topography, the potential for wetlands and make sure that what we are referring to as
the green blob is reasonably suited for parkland given all the advantages they provide,
centrally located, shorter road.
Board Member Thayer - If the intent is to give that whole parcel as a park, why doesn't
he do it now?
Mr. Williams - I can't answer that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. The other issue is, is that we've seem to come to some
agreement that 3.4 acres is the appropriate amount of land given the,. .3.4 acres seems
to be a reasonable amount of land given the former park site, which was not dedicated
and the size of the Phase II as proposed.
50
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter 3.4 acres is the minimum calculation you get when you add the area for
the 11 -lot subdivision and the substitution for the 1.8 -acre park, 4.4 acres is what
blobbed out as a rough outline of this potential park area at the southern most part.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think 3.4 acres is the minimum, if he wants to put 4.4 in, God
bless him. `
Mr. Williams — That's fine with us.
Mr. Kanter:— Well again like I said, I think the consideration for the extra land there
would probably be because of the more sloping area and possible wetland areas that
you would need to work around. It wouldn't be like it is all useable parkland and in fact
if Mr. Monkemeyer is interested in buffering surrounding development then that would
give more room to do that.
Board Member Conneman — Building a road to Ithaca College, does that make any
sense? I mean seriously.
Mr. Kanter — I don't know. I'm not sure really what Ithaca College's thinking is on that at
this point. We probably could run that by them.
Mr. Walker'— They haven't talked about developing that hilltop. There is a road down a
hill in that direction. It goes behind the athletic fields and right now it is just a service
road. There is a parking lot that is board approved. It has not been all the way
constructed yet around the base of the soccer field that is there. There is quite a grade
change between this point and that other road. It depends on what their plans for that
area are, but given that it is in the middle of the conservation area. Its headed right into
the. conservation area that Ithaca College owns and I believe that you can...quite a
ways through there.
Mr. Kanter — And there are some significant wetlands in this general area up above the
Monkemeyer property.
Chairperson Wilcox — Up above? To the north?
Mr. Kanter'- To the north.
Mr. Williams — Just looking at the contours on this map, the lay of the land of the
proposed site pretty much matches the site that was previously proposed.
Attorney Barney — It's a little steeper.
Mr. Walker'— The ... cut over at a diagonal about halfway up the lot. So you can see that
it is about half the grade or half the slope up there. Still it isn't flat. That's why you're
looking at about a significant cut on the northeast side and significant fill on the
51
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
southwest side. Then we were wondering what would happen when they kicked the
soccer ball over the hill, would the kids follow it.
Mr. Kanter - On a sled probably. The.. was part of this area in this corner. If we ended
up with the whole piece I could see possibly a ... if there is room, maybe a more active
field up in this area and then some...
Chairperson Wilcox - More passive down below.
Mr. Kanter Again, we would really need to take a pretty close look at that and we
would want engineering and the parks department to do that, but I think we would also
want Planning Board members and probably Conservation Board members to go out on
a visit.
Chairperson Wilcox - Be glad to join you.
Attorney Barney - Before you do that, are you in a position to commit that if this is done
and approved by this board that Mr. Monkemeyer would go ahead and follow through
with it because I don't see us and this comes from unfortunately a bitter experience with
Mr. Monkemeyer, where we spun our wheels quite a bit to get to a point where we're
ready to go and then all of sudden he's going to reason not to. I think what we need to
hear from you is assuredly is that this an acceptable arrangement with him and he will
commit to it and that we will go take a look at it and if it works for us then we're fine and
we'll go with.
Mr. Williams - I will tell you this. I spoke to him this afternoon on this particular subject.
He explicitly expressed to me that he was agreeable to this.
Attorney Barney - To the 4.4 green...
Mr. Williams - Yes. That's what he told me this afternoon. That's all I can tell you.
Board Member Talty - So that would be a no, John, to answer your question. I mean
you are looking for a commitment and he can't give you the commitment. Correct?
Mr. Williams - I can't put words in Evan' mouth. I can tell you what he told me.
Attorney Barney - How about getting him to put something in writing? Would that be
feasible?
Mr. Williams - I will bring that up to. Evan tomorrow.
Mr. Kanter Make that a conditional as we move ahead a little bit, but I wouldn't bother
doing that until we actually go out and look at it. I think if the board is interested we
should commit a little bit of time, not a lot, to at least say that looks like it might work.
Today on paper I couldn't really recommend to you that we do that.
52
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Don't you first want something from Evan, which says,..
Attorney Barney - I hate to see you and Dan and some of the parks folks and you folks
all commit time and effort to go out and take your time and organize the excursion and
that sort of thing and then in the end of it have Evan say, well, I'm sorry I didn't mean it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Even if he commits to it he can say that, lets be honest. It would
certainly be nice to have something.
Mr. Kanter - Well, could we do this. Could we have Evan submit a letter addressed to
the board saying he has looked at this annotated version showing the 4.4 acre park site
as a possible park to pursue for the Phase I, II, and III subdivision and...
Attorney Barney - and requests that that be used as the parkland set aside for his
Phase III subdivision.
Mr. Kanter - Or is willing to dedicate to the Town if...
Attorney Barney - and be requested and then you take a look at ,it in response to the
request.
Chairperson Wilcox - I know you sat there patiently. We are already a half hour past
our deadline.
Female - Not audible.
Chairperson Wilcox - George, do you have'enough for now?
Mr. Williams - I have a quick question. The 1.8 acres down by Montessori, can we do
anything we want with that now?
Attorney Barney - Once this ... if this is found ... if Evan's request is found acceptable and
its conveyad to the Town, then at that point in time the Town will give you a document
or give Evan a document says that we release any claims to the Montessori piece.
Mr. Williams - So we will get a document releasing to us the 1.8 once we've agreed
formally on the 4.4?
Attorney Barney - Once it's conveyed.
Mr. Williams - Once it's conveyed.
Attorney Barney - And I think I have the authority to say that for the Town Board.
Obviously it is not my decision to make, it's the Town Board's, but I'm pretty sure of that
based on discussions we've had with them. That ought to work.
53
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Walker As a staff member, I've heard the same thing. So I concur.
Chairperson Wilcox - All set?
Mr. Kanter - Is there any other observation on the master plan map?
Chairperson Wilcox - I have none. It's also late, Jon. I'm sorry.
Board Member Talty - Just a quick thing. Does he have any current plans for that piece
that has been conveyed to you if the Town Board releases it back?
Mr. Williams - The 1.8? No. He doesn't.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its kind of in legal limbo.
Board Member Talty - He just kind of hopped on that pretty fast. That's why I asked
that question.
Chairperson Wilcox - Good agent.
p
Attorney Barney - If he commits, conveys, that's really what we want so I don't think we
have any particular reason to hold back on that.
Chairperson Wilcox - But we should have title to the replacement land before we...
Attorney Barney - Exactly.
Chairperson Wilcox - Before it's released.
i
Attorney Barney - It would probably take some formal motion from this board because
you approved the subdivision showing that as a parkland so I think you want to approve
a modification of a subdivision that removes it as parkland and leaves it as kind of an
interesting little...
Chairperson Wilcox - Lets not discuss it now. All set?
Mr. Williams - How soon can I come back?
Chairperson Wilcox - I will have you talk to Jon or Mike Smith about scheduling
tomorrow.
Mr. Kanter I think what we would be waiting for is the letter from 'Mr. Monkemeyer,
which_ is what we talked about in terms of the park area. We need to, upon receipt of
that get the group out to look at the site, the park area, so I can't foresee coming back to
the board until we've had a chance to do that at minimum.
54
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Williams'- Okay.
Mr. Kanter That way we can come back and at least report back to the board what we
have found: I think all that would need to be done and then put into place the legal
framework for accomplishing it before we get back to the Phase III subdivision.
Attorney Barney - Wouldn't it be a condition?
Mr. Kanter Yes, what I'm saying is it, it would be part of that process, but that process
needs to be',!well thought out before we come back to the subdivision.
Mr. Williams - Thank you for your time.
Attorney Barney - Thank you and good luck with Mr. Monkemeyer.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
l _
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the October 5, 2004 meeting of the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:32 p.m.
R q spectfully Submitted, L
J
Carrie Coates itmore
Deputy Town Clerk
55
R i
GJC % OCT 5 2004 !
197 CHRISTOPHER LANE, ITHACA NY 14850
October 1. 2003 TC'`' �! of IT6- ACA
P�,gNNUNG, ZO JING, EF Gl JEERII�(
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
215 N. Tioga St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ladies and Gentlemen.
My name is George Conneman. I am a resident of the Town of Ithaca, residing at 197
Christopher Lane. I have been a Town resident for 7 years and prior to that a resident of
Cayuga Heights for 34 years. In addition to serving on the Town Planning Board, I have
served on the Bolton Point Water Commission and have been familiar with Town and
community concerns for a long time.
In October, 2003, I wrote to Dr. Jeffrey Lehman, President of Cornell University,
concerning the proposed Remington Inn and Restaurant. A copy of that letter, a reply
from Hal Craft and a letter from the Friends of Cornell Sailing are attached.
I have concerns with the Remington proposal submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board for consideration at the Board meeting on October 5, 2004 for these reasons:
1. The Remington proposal is flawed from an environmental and logistic
viewpoint.
2. The proposal severely limits public access to the lake and violates President
Lehman's statements on the importance of Comell's commitment to our
community.
The Flawed Remin on Proposal
The proposal will have a significant impact on the environment because of its location
immediately adjacent to the Cayuga Lake. Lake water quality will be impacted by
parking lot run off. The proposed Inn does not meet the required 100 foot setback from
the shoreline which was enacted to protect the lake.
The traffic study is incomplete and the potential impacts related to the site entrance are
understated. The viewshed analysis is misleading.
It would appear the number of parking spaces is inadequate to serve the Inn, Restaurant,
and Marina guests and employees. This could lead to dangerous spillover parking along
Rt. 34 and usurping of Town Park spots for community residents.
Access to the Lake
Construction of any large facility on this site eliminates future public recreational
opportunities on the site. This is the only site within the Town of Ithaca where Lake
access exists.
1(j5l)i0l -vt
j40LCh runt j
The effect of a 258 seat restaurant and a 20 room inn, private boathouse and launch at the
same location as a small public park and marina would be devastating. Additional traffic
would ruin a quiet park enjoyed by many town residents who fish, kayak, picnic and
watch sunsets and lake reflections.
Proposal
My proposal to President Lehman focused on how to best serve the broader community
and their lake access at this site. I proposed that Cornell donate the site for a community
park facility that would allow community access to the lake and a modest priced marina
such as proposed by the Friends of Cornell Sailing. I support their efforts and would go
one step further by encouraging the Town of Ithaca develop a permanent park in the area.
The reply to my letter from Hal Craft, Vice President for Administration, surprised me.
To the park and a modest marina, he asserts that access is already provided by Treman
Marina, Cass Park and Stewart Park. Obviously, he is unaware of the types of watercraft
and activities that are unique to this site — kayaks, wind surfing, fishing and small sail
boats - which do not safely or financially mix with large motorized vessels in Treman and
Cass.
His dismissal of the concerns of the Friends of Cornell Sailing. seems shortsighted since
they hav&Iprovided numerous boats and equipment for the Cornell Sailing Program.
He contends that "Cornell has already donated a portion of the lakeside parcel to the
Town for a park and additional lake access." I believe that this is a 99 year lease and not
a donation and that the park site protects Cornell 's intrusion into the lake for lake source
cooling.
I want to encourage Cornell policymakers to reconsider their proposal and partner with
the Town of Ithaca to create an appropriately scaled, community park facility that we can
all be proud of in the future.
Sincerely, yours,
George . Conneman
GJC
197 CHRISTOPHER LANE, ITHACA, NY 14850
October 27, 2003
Dr. Jeffrey Lehman, President
Cornell University
300 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Dear President Lehman:
Your inauguration speech was on target in both confirming our land grant mission and
asking bold questions about where we should go in the future. Other events of the day
confirmed ',+my view of you as someone who is community minded.
I also believe in doing everything possible to preserve the beauty and viability of the area
in which Cornell is a dominant force. To do my part, I serve on the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board. This brings me to an issue I hope you will examine before it is too late.
It requires; a vision of community.
The planning board has received a proposal by the Syracuse based Paramount Reality
Group for an inn and restaurant (The Remington) on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake.
The property, owned by Cornell University, will be leased to Paramount. The property
seems a strange site for a 250 seat restaurant and 20 room inn. It has a very
dangerous, steep entrance across a railroad track. In addition, it increases traffic and
noise problems that already irritate neighbors, limits public access, and changes the
character'of the southern end of the lake. The proposed inn would also impinge greatly
on the University's own sailing program and sailing team per the enclosed letter from
The Friends of Cornell Sailing. The Remington more logically should be located across
the road at another university site.
In my mind, the issue is how to best broaden community and programmatic access to
the site. I', propose that Cornell donate the site for a community park facility that would
allow community access to the lake and meet the needs of wind surfers, various college
and high school sailing programs and.a modest priced marina. Comell Alumni are
prepared to support such a proposal. I support his proposal and would go one step
further by'having the Town of Ithaca develop a permanent park in this area.
1 know that the purpose of the Cornell Estate Department is to turn a profit for the
university," but that view of this property is short sighted and without community vision.
The Remington proposal comes before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board again on
Tuesday, November 4th. I believe that here is an opportunity for you to extend your
vision of community by reviewing this ill conceived Remington proposal and supporting
those who believe a park would better serve our community.
Very truly (yours,
George J.4; Conneman
Professor Emeritus
Administration, Facilities, and Finance
December 3, 2003
Professor George Conneman
197 Christopher Lane
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Professor Conneman:
Harold D. Craft, Jr.
Vice President for Administration
and Chief Financial Officer
Cornell University
317 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853 -2801
Telephone: 607 255 -4618
Fax: 607 255 -9579
E -mail: hdc3 ®cornell.edu
Thank you for your letter of October 27 to President Lehman. He asked that I respond on his behalf.
I appreciate your comments regarding the proposal from the Paramount Reality Group wherein they
would construct a lakeside inn and restaurant (the "Remington ") on the Cornell -owned property on the
southeastern shore of Cayuga Lake. While I am not surprised that you feel that a donation of that land to the
town for a permanent park would be an alternative attractive to the Town Planning Board, I confess I am a bit
puzzled by your suggestion that the site would be best used to provide community access to the lake. Certainly,
such access is important, but currently it seems very well supported by the nearby presence of Stewart Park,
Cass Park, and Treman Marina, the first a stone's throw from the Cornell parcel. Further, Cornell has already
donated a portion of the lakeside parcel to the Town for a park and additional lake access.
Of course, there are many ways by which members of our community may enjoy the lake. I believe that
the quality lodging and dining facility envisioned by this project will make available to our community
opportunities that currently do not exist and will not harm the aesthetics of the lake nor the environs.
Your concern about our sailing program is understandable given the letter that you apparently have
received from the Friends of Cornell Sailing. Of course, you recognize that the "Friends ", as an organization, is
not an agent of the University and are not in a position nor expected to be able to make balanced tradeoffs
between the many University priorities and interests. Further, contrary to the claim made by the "Friends ", the
project will not compromise the sailing program as envisaged by the University; Cornell's Real Estate and
Athletics departments are working closely together to assure that the development provides facilities
appropriate for the sailing club.
In sum, while I understand your interest in having the land donated as a park, I cannot support that
proposal. In my view, the "Remington" proposal is an appropriate and graceful use of the lakeside property. Of
course, I'm confident that the Town will thoroughly review the planning, traffic, and environmental aspects of
the project to which you refer. If all goes well, I believe that the project will be an asset to our community.
With Best Regards,
<=*i C
Harold D. Craft Jr.
Vice President for Administration & CFO
ft
Friends of Cornell Sailin
"FOCS" -A nonprofit organization
of Alumni, Parents and Friends of the Cornell Sailing Team
Andrew Davis, Vice President
To: The Ithaca Town Planning Board
Re: The Remington Inn and Restaurant
The site at 1000 East Shore Drive provides unique and irreplaceable access to Cayuga
Lake for the greater Ithaca community and Cornell student groups.
The Cornell Sailing Team and FOCS do not support the plan presented by the Paramount
Realty Group. FOCS has consistently made every effort possible to work within Cornell
University to accurately represent the Sailing Team's needs.
The plans proposed tonight do not meet the needs of the Cornell Sailing Team. Studies
by FOCS and our architect have determined that the sailing team combined with Physical
Education, requires a Sailing Center of approximately 5,000 square feet.
To go into more detail would involve a discussion that truly belongs .inside of Cornell
University, and for that reason we would ask that Town of Ithaca to please send the same
message as they did at the last meeting: Cornell University needs-to hold good faith
negotiations with all of its stakeholders before permitting the developer to appear before
the Town Planning Board.
In conclusion, FOCS and the Cornell Sailing Team would like to extend our previous
offer to .work directly with Paramount Realty Group to develop a site plan that
accommodates both parties needs, and will continue to work with Cornell University, so
that in the future we could stand here and support development plans that truly benefit
Cornell students and the Ithaca Community.
November 4, 2003
For public and press release: November 4, 2003
Addenda:
Friends of Cornell Sailing
www.comellsailinp,.org
Board of Directors:
Chairman: Bert Seberg `56
Robert M. Chase `59
Doug Merrill `89
Andrew Davis `02
Pete Saladino `92
Cornell Sailing Team
www.comellsailinp,.org
The Cornell Sailing Club is the official name of the club sport student
organization recognized by Cornell University's Student and Academic Services as an
Independent Organization, The Cornell Sailing Team is a separate legal entity and is not
administered by nor represented by the Department of Athletics and Physical Education.
The official representatives are:
Faculty Advisor — Prof. Charles Williamson .
Captain — Peter Kane
Friends of Cornell Sailing
www.comellsailing.org
Good evening members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and thank you Chairman
Wilcox for the opportunity to make public comment this evening on the necessity of
having a full environmental impact study and a positive declaration under SEQR for the
proposed Remington Inn at 1000 East Shore drive.
Friends of Cornell Sailing (FOCS) is a not - for - profit organization of alumni, parents and
friends of the Cornell Sailing Team. My name is Andrew Davis I am the Vice President
and a Director of Friends of Cornell Sailing. I have been asked to speak tonight on behalf
of FOCS, the undergraduates of the Cornell Sailing Team and their advisor Prof. Charles
Williamson.
FOCS has been engaged in discussion and debate with the University and Developer over
how best to utilize this property for over four years,. and in that time have developed a
comprehensive understanding of the environmental, programmatic, and economic issues
raised by the current proposal. We continue to discuss the programmatic and economic
issues with the Cornell University Administration, and the Building and Properties
Committee of the Trustees. While we respect their June 2003 decision, we remain
hopeful that the Trustees will revisit this decision at their October meeting in light of the
additional information we have provided. Tonight FOCS would like to address some
specific environmental impacts of the proposed Remington Inn that, if not fatal to the
project, at least warrant the thorough -investigation and scrutiny required as part of 'the
SEQR process. We are deeply concerned with the project's impact on (i) the water of
Cayuga Lake, (ii) transportation to and from the site, (iii) emergency vehicle access, (iv)
traffic in the surrounding area, (v) existing parking issues, (vi) internal traffic circulation
on the site, and (vii) noise, light and odor pollution, emanating from the hotel and
restaurant. As you are aware, several of these issues have been outlined in the Planning
Office Memorandum of September 29`", 2004. We are especially concerned with the
loss of open space and recreational areas now available to the public. All these impacts
justify the full SEQR review process.
FOCS believes that the impacts on traffic and parking on the. site are vastly
underestimated by the submitted studies, since the traffic survey and peak times were
measured when the programs of the Cornell Sailing Team - among the area's largest
users - were not active. Secondly, the parking estimates do not accurately account for
either the average or peak usage of the site by the existing marina tenants or sailing
operations. While we fundamentally believe that this site is not large enough to
accommodate a restaurant, hotel, marina and sailing. center, we are factually certain that
the Board cannot conclude this position is wrong absent a more accurate and more
detailed study of the parking and traffic concerns.
FOCS believes that the alternative vision for the site,- as outlined in "A Vision for Cornell
x
Center for Lakes Research, Education and Access ", previously submitted to the Board, is
a more viable, more environmentally sound alternative for 1000 East Shore Drive. This
document describes a 10;000 square foot facility, including a 5,000 square foot Cornell
lwavlt
Friends of Cornell Sailing
www.comellsailing.org
Sailing Center and a 5,000 square foot center for lake research and education. Both
facilities are envisioned to provide extensive community outreach programs to both K42
and the Ithaca community at large, without the extensive traffic, parking, noise and light
pollution issues necessarily linked with the proposed project
FOCS is pleased to announce to the Board and the public that this vision is not merely an
academic exercise proposed in a "vision paper ", but realistic, financially viable and
environmentally superior alternative to the Remington Inn. The Merrill Foundation has
offered an initial gift of $500,000 to Cornell University to build a Cornell Sailing Center
on the jisite for use by the sailing team, the Department of Athletics and Physical
Education and student organizations at large; where community outreach programs may
be offered as the University sees fit.
FOCS position remains that improvement of this site to support existing programs of
athletics, education, research and marina operations represents a significantly smaller
environmental impact then the outlined adverse environmental impacts identified by the
Town Planning Office during the environmental review of the Remington Inn. We
believe that the "Vision for Cornell Center for Lakes Research, Education and Access" is
a viable alternative, the benefits of which should be compared and balanced against the
Remington Inn proposal, as would be required if the Board makes a positive SEQR
declaration.
FOCS and the Cornell Sailing Team would ask the members of the Town Planning
Board, to vote for the positive SEQR declaration, and, when the time comes, require the
scope of the resulting Draft Environmental Impact Study to fully examine alternative uses
for this site, .including the viable alternative discussed in the "Vision for Cornell Center
for Lakes Research, Education and Access ".
October 5`h, 2004
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: The Remington Inn & Restaurant, 1000 East Shore Drive.
7:10 P.M. 11,PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed
The Remington Inn & Restaurant located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore
Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront Commercial
Zone. The proposal includes demolishing the existing two buildings to construct a 258 -seat
restaurant, a two -story 25 -guest unit upscale lodge, and a new 4,690 square foot boathouse
for the Cornell University's sailing program. The proposal also includes 127 parking spaces,
stormwater facilities, and retention of the existing private marina (boat launch and docking
facilities). Cornell Real Property Services Inc., Owner; The Remington LLC, Applicant;
David A. Schlosser, Schopfer Architects LLP, Agent.
9:00 P.M. Discussion of a proposed Master Plan for the long range development of approximately 115
acres located at the northeast corner of East King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B),
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.2, 43 -1 -3.32, and 43- 1 -3.4, Neighborhood
Commercial Zone, Low Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The "Ithaca
Estates Proposed Park & Land Use Map" (8 September 2004) shows a proposed new road
system with areas designated for commercial and residential development along with a
proposed park site. The proposed 11 -lot Ithaca Estates Phase III subdivision is included on
.the Master Plan. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant; George R. Williams, Agent.
5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
61 `Approval of Minutes:
74 Other Business:
8, 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 -17470
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, October 5, 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, October 5, 2004, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
I'
7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed The Remington Inn &
Restaurant located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal
includes demolishing the existing two buildings to construct a 258 -seat restaurant, a two -
story 25 -guest unit upscale lodge, and a new 4,690 square foot boathouse for the Cornell
University's sailing program. The proposal also includes 127 parking spaces, stormwater
facilities, and retention of the existing private marina (boat launch and docking facilities).
Cornell Real Property Services Inc., Owner; The Remington LLC, Applicant; David A.
Schlosser, Schopfer Architects 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.
Dated: Monday, September 27, 2004
Publish: Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
.�� `� ��. k xi � S* a fig. � ,a � -•, • T �
�V11edn�esdayySeptember 29; 2004
P
r
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
J
SI&WIN SHEET
DATE: October 5, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE ;PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
J�hA�
S4 coqw.
tigi1 �
C&
lQ L UJZ�
r A), , l I
5'"lcA►
- 1'
o0e� 0
Lbtl,h v
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: October 5, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
PLEASE PRINT NAME
i
,RJ &r Aso'ekko Tea+
, Cornell Sa;l;rtg
J �/6
cAr-
v \�
L. t i %. in L. k %�r I
/ 4 iS(
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGWIN SHEET
DATE: October 5, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINT
ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
—, 50./1 /,�t I (0 D S ML P 1 ✓' i i E C�ar`ti� C stv-rYe� l`j
4�.� ems✓ ` ` ` `5
(PLEASE PRIN
T
P A P T
DATE: October 5, 2004
LE SE � RIN
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
III
26z
S� ✓tC,t
(Sly t
Scv71
c v�ntc� J
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, October 5, 2004
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
September 27, 2004
September 29, 2004
50wov a eaXA,
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of September 2004.
Notary Public
DEBORAH KELLEY
Notary Public, .State of New York
.No. 01 KE6025073
Oualified)n Schuyler County
Commission Expires May 17, 20 d�