HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-02-22FILE
DATE i6
TOWN OF .ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 22,
2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer,
Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney,
Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of
Engineering (7:10 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith,
Environmental Planner (7:14 p.m.); Christine Balestra, Planner.
EXCUSED: Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member.
OTHERS: Amy and James Lane, 339 King Rd W; David Harding, Carl Jahn &
Associates; Joel Harlan, Newfield; John Fennessey, Conifer Realty LLC; John and Elsie
Rawlins, 127 Troy Rd; William Goodhew, 674 Coddington Rd; Cathy Webb, 1417
Slaterville Rd; Mark and Cheryl Welsh, 142 Troy Rd; Paul Rubin, 530 Hudson St; Rick
Wallace, 411 N Tioga St; Stacy Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County; Jody
Allen, Corning.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 p.m., and accepted for
the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public
Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 14, 2005 and February 16,
2005, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate,. upon the Clerks of
the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on February 16, 2005,
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the
members of the public to address the board on ar
With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson
meeting at 7:08 p.m.
meeting at 7:07 p.m., and invited
item that was not on the agenda.
Wilcox closed this segment of the
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Lane 2 -Lot Subdivision, 333 & 339 West
King Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
James Lane, 339 King Rd W
Back in 1984 1 received two acres from my parents large parcel at 333 West King Road.
got a building permit and built a house on the property. Now we want to put an addition
on the house and we applied for the building permit and it surfaced that this was never
subdivided from the main parcel. So that's why we are here.
Chairperson Wilcox – Questions with regard to environmental review?
Board indicated it had no questions. Chairperson Wilcox asked for someone one to
move the SEQR motion. The motion was made by Board Member Thayer and
seconded by Board Member Talty.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:09 p.m.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -011: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Lane 2 -Lot Subdivision, 333 West Kim Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
37. -1 -27.2
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed subdivision of +/- 2.07 acres from the southwestern portion of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 37.4-27.2 located at 333 West King Road, zoned Low
Density Residential. James and Amy Lane, owners and applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on February 22, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part 11, prepared by Town Planning Staff, a plat entitled, "Portion
of Lands of Richard & Evelyn Lane —West King RoacL�Town of Ithaca —
Tompkins County, N.Y, "prepared by K. A. Baker, dated August 21, 1984 and last
revised January 22, 2001, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither
2
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 333 & 339 West King Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s VA47.2 and 37 -1 -27.4, Low Density Residential Zone.
The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing property lines
for the +I= 2.07 -acre parcel at 339 West King Road that. did not receive Planning
Board Approval in 1984. James & Amy Lane, Owners /Applicants
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m, and invited members of the
public to address the board. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions for the applicant?
Board Member Mitrano Why the oversight?
Mr. Lane — I'm not positive about the oversight. I guess it was over sighted back in '84.
1 mean we applied for a building permit and got approval for that and stuff to build a
house. We did get a separate tax parcel and that has been for over 20 years. And as
said, it surfaced now when we went to apply for a permit to put an addition onto the
existing house. It was brought to our attention, so we are not sure how it got over
sighted back then.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions?
Board indicated it.had no questions. Chairperson Wilcox asked for someone one to
move the motion. Board Member Howe moved the motion and Board Member Talty
seconded the motion.
PB RESOLUTION
NO. 2005 =012:
Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval,
Lane
2 -Lot Subdivision,
333 West King
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
37. =1
-27.2
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS.
3
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed subdivision of +/- 2.07 acres from the southwestern portion of Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel 37.4-27.2 located at 333 West King Road, zoned Low
Density Residential. James and Amy Lane, owners and applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has,
on February 22, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on February 22, 2005, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Portion of Lands of Richard & Evelyn
Lane -West King Road -Town of Ithaca — Tompkins County, N. Y," prepared by
K. A. Baker, dated August 21, 1984 and last revised January 22, 2001, and other
application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 2.07 acres from the southwestern
portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 37.4-27.2 subject to the following condition:
a. Filing of the plat with the Tompkins County Clerk Office and submission of
a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Conifer Village - Ithaca Senior Living
Community, Conifer Drive
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
0
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox — In your packet is information from Jon Kanter, which essentially
indicates that staff believes that we will not be able to proceed this evening with an
environmental determination given that there are some site related issues that still need
to be resolved. Do we all kind of feel that way right now?
Board Member Howe — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — So for the benefit of the public and the press, we are going to
proceed with the presentation. There are some particular issues with regard to the
proposed site plan that have not been resolved yet. The primary one right now is
secondary access. Therefore, staff has made the recommendation that this board
would be unable to make an environmental determination without having that
information and potentially some additional information as well. Nonetheless, we would
like to go through this tonight. I will give those members of the public a chance to
speak, even though it is likely that the public hearing will be postponed until a later time
when we have additional information about those unresolved. issues. Having said that,
welcome back, gentlemen. The floor is yours. As you know, I would appreciate a name
and address the first time you speak and just your first name any additional time.
John Fennessey, Conifer Realty
I am the project director for this project with Conifer Realty, LLC, Rochester NY. Here
with me as well this evening is David Harding with Carl Jahn and Associates and
between the two of us we will present to you our proposed development for the elderly
development up on our Linderman property.
I guess I should start by saying that we understand the position relative to the
issue of the second means of ingress and egress to the site. We are looking tonight for
direction from this body in terms of what we will be presenting to you here momentarily
and hopefully we will be able to resolve some issues that are there. now that we won't
have to address later on if we can handle them tonight.
Secondly, I believe you have a letter to Mr. Wilcox from Stacy Crawford from the
Tompkins County Better Housing. We are making an application, some of.you may
know, to the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal on the
28th of this month, in which we will seek financing for this project. So we are looking for
some level of communication that this board feels comfortable in giving us that we
would include within that application so hopefully we could be selected for funding in
July of this year. So I think for now I will turn things over to David, who will then go
through the plans and give you an explanation for what we have done.
David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates
The plans that I have put up on the boards before you are updated from the plans that
I
ere submitted with your package. We have taken the liberty, knowing that you weren't
going to be taking any formal action on this project tonight, to go ahead and start
making some revisions to the plans in response to the comments or some of the
comments that have been received.
5
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
First I am going to, for the benefit of the people who may not have seen some of
the original presentations, just give a brief walkthrough of the project as it relates to the
overall concept plan on the site and then get into some of the particulars on the senior
apartment project itself.
This is Mecklenburg Road /Route 79 with current Phase I, Phase II and Phase III
apartments, uncolored. Conifer Drive comes off here and it serves as the primary
access to those existing phases and the scope of this project being proposed is to
extend Conifer Drive over to the north side of Linderman Creek and develop what is
approximately an 8 to 9 acre site. As John mentioned, we will be addressing the issue
of the secondary means of egress. Right now the concept is consistent with what was
recommended in the Planning Staff memorandum to develop an emergency access
only off of Mecklenburg Road near the site of the temporary construction access, which
still exists after a little while here. The dash line would indicate the route that the
emergency vehicles could take. We would be developing a stone driveway over the top
of the existing Town water main that runs through that corridor and wrap it around into
the backside of the apartment site.
Also illustrated on here is the conceptual layout of the rest of the development as
we had described previously with the higher density patio homes occurring in the more
southerly location of the site and single family lots occurring in the balance of the site
ranging in the size of 15,000 square feet to some up in the range of 3/ of an acre. This
is the site of the existing Town lands that is slated to be developed into a park at some
point in the future. Presumably as development occurs throughout this area.
Conceptually we have colored here the different phases that Conifer anticipates
happening over the course of the next five, ten or fifteen years. The red being the
currently proposed senior apartment project. The yellow being the next phase of patio
home development. Green, some of the single family lots. Blue, the balance of the
single family lots and then the last phase would be building out that strip of land to the
west of the existing senior apartments site with additional patio homes.
Moving over to the site plan for the senior apartment building itself, this has
changed somewhat from what was in your package. One of the commentaries was that
the bus access into the site was a little difficult. Also there were some comments made
regarding providing pedestrian connectivity to other parts of the site. So what we did is
we took the access road, which previously came up and wrapped into the. parking lot at
about the third point and stretched the road. out. We added about 80 linear feet of
pavement to get it to align with the northerly access drive and what this does is it allows
us to get some more simplified turning movements through this lot, which improves the
bus access.
This preliminary plan that you see before you adds additional concrete walk
along the outer edge of the parking lot and connects to a proposed asphalt walk, which
would occur alongside the curb on the westerly edge of this access drive. It is shown
terminating down at Conifer Drive. We have illustrated in the reddish color the locations
Co
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
of future potential pedestrian paths or bicycle paths with the idea that when those are
developed as part of the rest of the project, it would provide a connection to other points
in the development including over two future Town park sites. You can see that these
same paths are illustrated in red meandering along the creek and through green belt
areas and over to the park in two locations.
Another one of the comments was the lack of usable open space. Although you
can see that the percentage of green area to pavement area is quite significant, I think it
is on the order of 70 %, it was correctly noted that most of the green area was relatively
steep slopes, typically graded out at a 3 or 4 on one slope. What we are proposing to
do in this revised scheme that was partly necessitated by moving this roadway out here
was to shift the northerly property line to the north so that additional earth could be
graded out in a flatter area, which could be developed and utilized for both community
gardens or recreation activities such as horseshoes, bocce, volleyball, or touch football,
depending on how spry you are.
The design needs to be refined, but I am estimating that we will end up with
approximately a 75 foot wide by a 200 400t long area. So it would be fairly substantial.
In the submittal that was made we had previously attempted to show a garden plot area
up on top of the hill here. Unfortunately my draftsman got a little generous and showed
it spilling over on to the steeper slope. Again, you correctly noted that it wasn't the most
practical solution so we are proposing to correct that.
The impact of that is that it is going to eat into the area that was previously
designated for single family lots here and there may need to be some adjustments of
this roadway out to get the proper areas and depths on those lots. Right now we are
showing them at 120 foot deep, but I think they are a little shy on area. That will be
worked out in the future project development.
As far as storm water management is concerned for this project itself, we are
creating two small detention basins, one up in the northeast corner and one in the
southeast corner. This detention basin will receive the bulk of the drainage from the site
and it will be discharged into Linderman Creek at preexisting levels of flow. This
detention basin will be discharged via pipe back out to grade and that flow will be
dispersed over the existing grade and spread out via what is called a level spreader and
then that will replicate the existing flow conditions and it continues on across the site.
Eventually when the rest of the development occurs and a storm system is developed in
conjunction with these roadways that discharge will be picked up and that storm system
and conveyed down into one of these two future detention basins located along the
easterly property line. We did prepare a storm water analysis as requested at a
previous meeting, which Dan, I believe you had the opportunity to review that and
indicated the need for 2.3 acre feet of storage for the worse case 100 -year storm event.
The current plans are accommodating approximately 2.6 acre -feet of storage, just in
these two detention basins. And.when we had developed the detention basin for phase
II and phase III here, we had actually provided almost 7/10 of an acre -foot excess
capacity on that. So overall we have provided appropriate facilities. to mitigate any
7
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
potential increases in flow. Unlike the previous projects, these detention basins are now
subject to the current storm water regulations, which dictate that you utilize one of the
DEC standards. These would be following what they call the extended detention micro
pool type of facility, which employs a four -bay to filter out suspended settlements before
the water continues on into what would be a small ponded area with aquatic vegetation.
There is also a comment in the staff notes that the plantings proposed on this
plan appear sparse and I think that was partly a function of the rendering technique, but
I do want to point out that we are proposing extensive plantings and plant beds around
the building in between the patios at the ground level. And if you look at subsequent
sheets in the submission package you would have seen typical details of those layouts
and live copies those particular ones and clipped them on the board here. All told, we
are looking at upwards of 500 shrubs being proposed as part of this project to
compliment the 37 trees that are proposed. Then there is also the wetland plantings,
which again you noted weren't detailed out, but will be fairly involved. That is one issue
we would like to try to get some resolution on here tonight because it's a fairly generous
planting program for a project of this size and we want to make sure Conifer is
comfortable with what you are asking for and you are comfortable with what you are
getting.
This project also involves both the subdivision approval and a zone change
approval. I have put up the subdivision plan, which I am unclear as to whether the
Town had received a copy of this yet or not. You have? Okay. What I have done is
shown how the northerly property line would need to shift approximately 50 feet to the
north. The staff planning memo also correctly noted that the current 100 foot wide
access easement that was extended up across Linderman Creek during the phase II
apartment project to provide adequate access to this remaining back parcel will need to
be extended all the way to 100 feet beyond this northerly line again to provide
appropriate access to the balance of this parcel. So this will be updated when we make
the resubmission.
I also have mounted the illustrations and photographic simulations the architect
had prepared for this building. It is 72 -unit structure, 3- stories tall with a total height of
approximately 43 feet at the peak. So in addition to the zone change, we are asking for
a zoning variance because we do exceed the 36 -foot height stipulated in your
regulations. The submission package included an alternative design for your
consideration which Conifer prefers not to implement and that was for a 3 -story tall flat
roof building. It is probably one of the ugliest illustrations I have ever seen and it
promises to look that way in reality so we were hoping the Town would be supportive of
granting the variance for the height variation so that a pitched roof could be constructed
and improve the appearance of the building greatly with the dormers and other
pertinences.
Here, this is just a front -on elevation. This is one of the photo simulations that
were conducted using the balloon test and was any of you or all of you able to get out
and see the balloons that were floated out there? Because of the concern that was
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
expressed at a previous Planning Board meeting, Conifer hired a company to go out
and fly balloons at the proposed elevation of the building and took photographs of that
from a number of critical advantage points around the building and from afar. Then they
picked several of the advantage points to superimpose an illustration of the building.
Unfortunately, it was probably.about the gloomiest day of the year that you could have
chosen to take photographs, however, there wasn't much of a window there. This is a
view as you are coming in Conifer Drive and the phase II apartments occur here on the
left. You would see the building up on its knoll out beyond. There is plantings proposed
as part of the sit plan that will eventually grow up and help mitigate that view. This view
down here is a view from the future Town Park, somewhere in this vicinity looking back
at the structure. There are two samples of this view and one is just sticking the building
on the existing landscape and the second view was enhancing it to illustrate the
plantings that would occur in conjunction with the access drive and the parking lot,
which would help. to mitigate the view.
I've pointed out to John Fennessey just prior to the meeting that this view is a
little bit misleading. If you were.standing in the park with a pair of binoculars you might
see this and unfortunately the architect chose to illustrate in a manner that revealed a
little more detail of the building, but in reality it would be set back quite distant. Also, the
landscaping would eventually start to mature and obscure some of the views, but
probably more importantly as the rest of the site was developed the single family homes
and the result associated landscaping with that project will probably do more to screen
this facility from the park than anything else.
Mr. Kanter — David, the image on the left probably is a little closer to a realistic view
from the park.
Mr. Harding — Yes. It does appear to be a little more distant. You can see how this is
zoomed in a little bit. So the whole analysis was submitted and was that shared with all
the Planning Board members?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Mr. Harding — Okay. So you could see the relative views from the different points. The
other comment related to this is that in the process of changing the drive location and
filling out over here, which requires additional earth materials so that we don't need to
import them from off site, we need to modify the site elevations. to generate those
materials. So we are expecting that as we advance this design that the floor elevation
of this building will probably sink a foot lower than what is currently proposed in order to
generate that additional material that could be used to accomplish this. I bring this up
because a foot lower in elevation represents a little bit less visibility.
I think I've touched on everything that I've wanted to and if there are any other
comments that I missed. in the staff memorandum or anything you want to ask...
Mr. Fennessey — (comments not audible)
N7
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. Harding — Actually I didn't notice a color difference, but there are two balloons at
each location. The lower of which would be the elevation as allowed by the zoning.
Chairperson Wilcox — It was an awful day. I didn't think they were going to do it, but
there was a window there where the weather improved.
Board Member Thayer — Does that new road configuration allow for a bus turn around
without going into the parking lot?
Mr. Harding — No. The bus would need to enter the parking lot and it's a good question.
At one point we were showing a scheme of providing a hammerhead turn around mostly
to facilitate snowplowing activities. The idea on this is that this will remain in private
road until such time that the balance of this site starts to become developed and
therefore there wasn't a need to provide that hammerhead like you might traditionally
find for a temporary stage of a subdivision. As far as the bus circulation, the bus would
need to come in and would come around and stop at the main entrance here. There is
going to be a covered walkway right out to the curb line and then we have provided
sufficient space for that bus to make that turn and head back out and come back down.
This has been reviewed with TCAT and they are very excited about the plan. I think you
have probably received a copy of a letter that they had provided endorsing the plan.
Mr. Fennessey — (not audible)
Mr. Harding — And that was just to provide a little improve maneuverability.
Board Member Thayer - That was one of the issues that staff has that the bus has to
wind its way through the parking lots and you haven't illuminated that really.
Mr. Harding — No. We just made it less complicated. Their comments went on to
suggest that perhaps the bus drop off be completely segregated from parking, which is
not an easy solution to arrive at without significantly expanding your development area.
Conifer's position is that this bus might arrive two or three times a day and doesn't really
demand that it have high frequency type of design that you might find with a segregated
drop off.
Mr. Fennessey — I think more importantly from our viewpoint is that we want the tenants
to be in an enclosed environment with weather. When the bus pulls up they go from a
heated environment out into the cool environment and directly out to the bus and under
a covered atmosphere. That seemed to be a reasonable thing that we should try to do
and accommodate TCATs desire to have enough turning room for their buses to come
to the lots. So I think on balance, we are very happy with this solution to allow our
tenants to be in an enclosed environment while waiting. to get on the bus.
Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, welcome. I didn't see you sneak in before. Any comments
you wish to make at this point?
10
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. Walker - No. I think they've done a very thoroughly job on the site design and
analysis. It works pretty well. The stormwater details are good. The utilities, there
shouldn't be any problem there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Both water and sewer?
Mr. Walker - Water and sewer. Secondary access is the biggest issue.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. In fact, to some extent I think you have addressed all the
issues tonight.
Mr. Harding - I just remembered one that I wanted to bring up and that is as part of the
reconfiguration of this parking lot, we are suggesting that 14 of the 96 spaces be
undeveloped and that we just provide a reserved area. You can see they held that
open space back off the edge of the pavement somewhat and this is a function
of... Conifer does not believe that the parking ratio of 1.33 parking spaces per unit is
appropriate for the senior apartment complex based on their other similar projects. So
what they would like to do so we are not paving the world is only develop 82 spaces,
which reduces the parking ratio down to 1.14 spaces per unit and just make provision to
be able to expand if for some reason the demand became apparent. This is an
approach that we have commonly used in other towns and another mechanism to
reduce overall pavement area.
Mr. Kanter - It sounds like a good idea.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. We have done similar things with other projects. That is
usually quite reasonable. We don't like asphalt either.
Mr. Harding - The question that I had been does that mandate another zoning variance
or is that solely the purview of the Planning Board?
Mr. Kanter - No. The Planning Board has the authority under site plan review in a
multiple residence zone to provide a waiver with that exactly what you were describing,
reserving an area for future parking if needed. So that would be part of the resolution.
think it is a maximum of 20% reduction or 25, maybe we changed it.
Board Member Thayer - So you have a parking place for each resident's car?
Mr. Harding - Plus 10. It is a 72 unit complex and we are proposing 82 spaces.
Board Member Thayer - So visitors would be limited to 10 places?
Mr. Harding - You are presuming that each tenant would have a car. If you only have a
90 percent car rate on tenants then...
11
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Board Member Thayer - I was just curious how that worked out in other developments if
that was ample.
Mr. Harding - I've asked Conifer to review that to make sure that is what they want
because the last thing you want is having a shortage of parking. Anyway, I wanted to
bring it to your attention so that you are not surprised by it when you get your...
Chairperson Wilcox - It will be more expensive to go back later and...
Mr. Harding - Yeah. You're right.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any discussions about the height of 36 with a flat roof versus 43
with a pitched roof?
Board Member Thayer - Definitely want 43.
Chairperson Wilcox - Architecturally... do you have a picture of the flat roof?
Mr. Harding - I don't have a picture.
Board Member Thayer - There is a picture in one of the ...
Mr. Harding - It's a drawing, not a photograph.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other question? Kevin?
Board Member Talty - I have a question. Getting back to parking spaces, has there
ever been statistics provided for summertime parking versus wintertime parking?
Mr. Harding - I've never seen any.
Board Member Talty — Because there is not question that you don't plow every single
spot. You can get close, but often what happens is that people don't park within the
lines so there has to be some type of loss of parking. And I'm just bringing this up for
maybe future discussion because I think you are looking at a perfect world and as we
know, upstate New York weather is not perfect. So that is why I ask that question. Has
there ever been any statistical information provided on parking spaces in the winter?
Mr. Harding - It's a great question.
Chairperson Wilcox - That and you might lose somewhere they pile up the snow.
Mr. Harding - And when you get into instances where your snow storage areas are
limited then that is very pertinent. That is not the case here. There is plenty of area
around the perimeter of this to push it over.
12
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox - As I look around the room, over to staff.
Mr. Kanter Question about the second access. What is the timing of getting
something to State DOT in terms of the schematic kind of a plan for that access? Have
you had any further discussions with DOT?
Mr. Fennessey - No. I haven't. I was waiting for the two letters. I have a draft of one
from the assistant fire marshal and I believe I am waiting for another letter from Mr.
Frost. Then I will then approach DOT in Cortland and we have a proposal to have the
design prepared. I would suspect it would be 30 days before something gets completed
and is given to them to react to. And at the time that we give to them we will ask them
to react conceptually as to is this sufficient information for you to make a decision and if
there is, is there any reason why it wouldn't be approved. And we will try to illicit that
type of comment from them before they go through a formal review of the entire
development package for that particular intersection.
Chairperson Wilcox - John, if I may follow up on that. This is the same location where
you asked for secondary access previously.
Mr, Fennessey - We have never asked for secondary access on a permanent basis.
We asked for secondary access just for construction purposes. Our intent at the time
was when the construction was completed we would remove that. Then the timing was
that it came to be fall before we went to remove it and just weeks before we went to do
it was going to be a disaster, a muddy mess all winter long if we removed it so we said
lets try to keep it there. In the mean time, we went back... after talking with the fire
marshal and their willingness or their interest in keeping that, that's when, we went to
DOT. They said they did not want to have it as an emergency access. They might
consider it as a permanent access.
Chairperson Wilcox - So they weren't receptive. Do we think they will be more
receptive now given the restrictions on the access?
Mr. Fennessey - I hope so. I don't know obviously, but I hope so. I think that since we
will have two communications from this community saying they would like to see it for
life safety purposes; I think they would be in a difficult position not to ultimately, grant it
approval subject to design considerations.
Mr. Kanter - We actually did have two letters from the Fire Department. One to myself
and one to Mr. Fennessey, which we have in front of you tonight. So that is the first part
of the correspondence that you were looking for. I think the fire department makes it
very clear that they really, seriously feel the need for this emergency access connection.
Board Member Thayer - That could be a chained access, right?
Mr. Kanter = Chained or gated. Absolutely. In fact, town staff I don't think would
support anything other than that. Unless there could be a total redesign of the access
13
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
road going through the phase III apartment complex, but the way that it' is laid out that
would be very dangerous for cars going in and out of there. So it would have to be
restricted, an emergency only access. It would seem to make sense from the State's
point of view if they had any concerns with an access at that location at all that making it
gate controlled or somehow restricted would make it better.
Board Member Thayer — Exactly.
Mr. Kanter — We are hoping ... I think our Building and Zoning Department felt equally for
the need for a. second access to serve the senior apartments rather than waiting for
future phases just because of the nature of that development. And also because it is
setback farther from the road and fire apparatus is that much more difficult to get in
there if there was a blockage on the main access drive.
I wanted to mention that besides myself, Sue and Mike both did a lot of work on
reviewing this. Sue, I.wonder if you might have any comments on the wetland aspect of
this because I think that is another thing that there was some remaining issue to talk
about.
Ms. Ritter — Wetlands on the site that are going to be affect, permanently affected are
areas where the extension of Conifer Drive as well as the extension of the emergency
access to the left hand side. Temporary disturbance will also occur because of a sewer
line that is going to be extended. It is not a DEC wetland area, but it is since it is
disturbing more than .1 acres of wetland; they are required to go threw the Army Corps
of Engineers to get a nationwide permit. Nationwide permits generally mean that it is
not considered a significant impact. Usually you will get your individual permit or you
can get a nationwide permit. But still for any nationwide permits that deal with
roadwork, the applicant is required to do some kind of mitigation. In this case, you
didn't get this material because we only just recently received this. It was from
Terrestrial environmental specialist and they put together an impact analysis report and
they will also be submitting the permit application that is required. And in it what they
are proposing and I mentioned it somewhat in the environmental assessment, but
actually didn't get the figure right at the time, but the mitigation that is being proposed
for that disturbance is a 60 foot wide buffer, unmowed vegetated area. The buffer is
660 feet long and would result in a .9 acre of buffer to the stream bank.
Mr. Harding — It correlates to the existing wooded area along the north side of the creek
for the entire length of the creek.
Mr. Kanter — I guess that what wasn't clear was the future path that may go along the
creek area there and how that might affect that buffer if in fact it is intended to be a no
disturbed, no tree cutting kind of a buffer.
Mr. Harding — Generally, Conifer has been envisioning these pathways and woodchip
pathways that traditionally are laid down over the top of the existing topsoil. So as long
as you are not excavating, my experience has been that the Corp of Engineers has not
W
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
had issues with placing several inches of woodchips within or near wetland areas. The
wetland area is fairly narrow related to the creek and if you look at the site plans that
were submitted you can see where that is delineated. The proposed path or creek
would be out in that buffer zone and be close enough that you would get glimpses of the
creek and be able to appreciate a nature walk type of experience as you are moving
down through that green belt.
Ms. Ritter — And it mentions that there would be proposals for deed restrictions would
be placed on the land to maintain that buffer as well in this application.
Mr. Harding = Right. It is standard procedure to act as insurance that it doesn't get
developed at some point in the future.
Ms. Ritter — And that would be identified, too, during construction with markings of some
sort?
Mr. Harding — I don't know. I would have to consult with Bernie Carr from Terrestrial
Environmental Services what the standards for defining that are. I was envisioning that
it would simply be a mapped...
Ms. Ritter — Oh, I see. Just to keep the construction operators out of that area.
Mr. Harding — Oh, yes. What we would be doing is what we did on the phase I and
phase II projects and that is putting in that bright orange temporary construction fence at
50 to 60 feet away at the limits of the proposed disturbance along with signage warning
contractors not to disturb that area.
Ms. Ritter — What about on the other side of Conifer Drive? It appears that the
remaining development is also not going to be very close to the creek or ... I guess the
question is what about on the other side for a buffer as well.
Mr. Harding — Yes. We've configured this plan to maintain a buffer area along the creek
in this future phase and here the wetland does broaden out a little bit at one point. It
then gets more defined back along the stream corridor here. We are expecting that a
similar deed restricted buffer would be established at that point in time. Conifer does
not wish to extend offers of mass buffer areas at this point because they will need them
in the future permit negotiations. This is where you are simply proposing.for the buffer
to occur in conjunction with that particular development.
Chairperson Wilcox — You comfortable so far? I'm not asking that you agree with what
they said, but comfortable.
Ms. Ritter —Yes.
Mr. Kanter = I think in the various correspondence we didn't mention although it was
implied that on the subdivision map, David maybe if you could get that board out, the
15
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
northwestern most parcel ... the remaining lands being landlocked where David had
showed you the need to extend that 100 foot wide easement because it is basically
landlocked, not fronting at this point on a Town road although it will be in the future
when Conifer Drive extended would require another variance from the Zoning Board so
that would be one of the actions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Extending a private driveway does not make it something other
than landlocked because it is still a driveway and not a Town road.
Mr. Kanter — This same exact process was done for the previous subdivision.
Mr. Walker — They would only need a variance if they were going to try to build
something on it.
Mr. Kanter - Well, he is going to be proposing a building permit on one of the two
parcels that is being proposed, which also doesn't have access.
Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't have frontage on a town road.
Mr. Kanter — The key is that that is being split and neither of them will have access to a
public road or frontage on a public.
Mr. Walker — For the Conifer Village, you mean.
Mr. Kanter — But it's a subdivision of both parcels so the subdivision requires the
variance.
Chairperson Wilcox — John, out of the corner of my eye ... were you going to say
something?
Mr. Fennessey — Only that Conifer Realty LLC owns all the land around that road. So in
theory we would have access, but I don't disagree with what is being said... (comments
not audible) ... of the elderly development that that land has access as well as the land
that falls to the east of the center line of Conifer Drive has access to it as well.
Mr. Harding — This exists as a separate lot and this is the other current large lot. Not to
mention that there is already an access easement to the Town extending back to the
park. I think the way that is described it doesn't abut this current parcel that we are
working on. Its segregated by a little real estate there.
Chairperson Wilcox — And John, if I remember right there are a lot of legal entities that
Conifer has created that own various portions of this. Right?
Mr. Fennessey — No in that...
16
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going all the way back to phase I, phase II, phase III, the
road...
Mr. Fennessey — That's correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is the road under single ownership? The private road?
Mr. Harding — My understanding is that the road is owned by the original phase I
development. There's this "L" shaped piece here that I think is affiliated with this and
that there is a lease arrangement back to the phase II and just as there is a lease
arrangement to give access to phase III.
Mr. Kanter — I guess Dan, correct me if I'm mistake, but I think the Highway
Department's point of view of turning Conifer Drive into a public road is that they would
not want to see that happen at this phase of the development. That they would rather
wait until there is some actual connection somewhere else, which also brings up good
questions about the future phases of residential development that there is definitely
going to need to be something else done to accommodate it.
Mr. Walker — I think if the road was built to Town standards and we had adequate
turning features, the Highway Superintendent would be willing to accept the road. For
every foot of road that we take is a little more work for the Town and there is more tax
money to be spent. So if someone else is willing to maintain it there is no skin off our
nose, but if in fact it was necessary to make those lots legal to create a road, we do get
into the length of cul -de -sac over 1000 feet, which is another issue which would have to
have a variance or waiver by the Planning Board to allow that to happen. But we do
very often accept lengths of road in phases of subdivisions that if we anticipate is going
to happen right away. What we would like to see from engineering and highway
standpoint is that road goes all the way through to Bundy Road as soon as possible.
Mr. Harding — If the Town has three- quarters of a million dollars that they would like to
fund that, then Conifer would be happy to...
Mr. Walker — (not audible)
Mr. Kanter — It does raise the question,. though, of the alternate access points. If for
some reason the state will not approve an access at that current construction road, it
doesn't leave you will too many feasible options. It leaves you with one going west out
through the future Sky- Gardens site, which is a pretty long right -of -way to get back
down to 79. The other is, as Dan mentioned, up to Bundy Road, which is a nice shot of
what,... crossing the creek with a nice bridge or something like that. Going east to
Oakwood Lane, which probably not in our lifetimes is going to happen. The other
alternative that Conifer came up with, which there is kind of mixed feelings about is a
separated boulevard separated by median kind of like College Circle had at their
entrance. The building department and the fire department are not too keen on that
option because it is minimizing risks of blockage, its not eliminating it.
17
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox — Its still a single point of access.
Mr. Harding — And there is a fourth one that was not noted in your memorandum and
I'm not sure NYDOT would look on it, but if you recall in the phase I development the
original point of access to that was right here.
Mr. Kanter — There was a reason we didn't mention it. Because DOT initially said that
there is no way an access is going there because of site distance issues. It is very
close to the curve.
Mr. Harding — It's been a while. It's been 8 years now so my memory is a little fuzzy on
that. I couldn't remember whether the speed limit had changed since then that may
have altered their position on that. I wouldn't want to totally discount it, but we did set
this development up so that a potential future access could be extended northerly
across the creek at this point. So if for some reason the DOT became receptive to a
location here, you could theoretically get a through access up into the back 40 as we
call it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else from...
Mr. Kanter — I have a question that maybe John could answer on the mix of income
levels in the apartments. I noticed there was a difference between what was submitted
by your attorneys in the local law that basically made it a 50/50 split between the two
different income categories and in the market analysis which was more of the lower
income and less of as you got closer to the median income.
Mr. Harding — That is a good enter for me to introduce Stacy Crawford with Better
Housing for Tompkins County who is our partner in this development. I believe she is
the best person to answer that question.
Stacy Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County
Jon, just so I can understand you question, it was that in one set of documents the mix
of incomes was different than another one?
Mr. Kanter — Yeah. Actually I got it
that 24% of the units would be in the
category and that 76% of the units
Whereas in the local law that was
those two categories. I mean that is
consistent.
reversed. In the market analysis summary it said
50 -60% of area median income, which is the lower
would be in the 61 -90% of area median income.
submitted, it basically was a 50 -50 split between
fine either way I guess, but I guess we need to be
Ms. Crawford — It is the second one, the one that is in the law. They made it so that
more of the units would be affordable. Also, too, since the original market study was
done the range of rents that was looked at has gone down a little bit. The more
expensive 2- bedroom units, the prices on those went down a little bit somewhat in
:a
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
response to looking at the numbers in the budget and seeing how affordable we could
make them. I think that was probably the main reason behind all of that.
Mr. Kanter — It might be helpful to kind of submit a new statement that if it were a
revised statement that brings us up to date on that information.
Ms. Crawford — Okay. I can do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — While we have you, do you want to take this opportunity to speak
to the letter that you provided to the board members in my name?
Ms. Crawford — Sure. I can do that. We understand that there are issues continuing
with reviewing the site plan that will take some while with DOT and some others to work
through. The application for funding for this project is due Monday. Given the high
competitive nature of this application for funding the more positive input that we can
have from groups from the Town, the Town Board and the Planning Board, the better it
improves our chances of scores. So what I had submitted was a request for some kind
of statement perhaps from the Planning Board if you would be comfortable with that.
Acknowledging that nothing is given up terms of needing to go through all the
regulations and the regular process, but that perhaps in concept the Planning Board
would be in favor of the development or the use of the development.
Chairperson Wilcox — We could ask Mr. Barney to write some sort of resolution that we
could deal with near the end of this. We could pass a resolution authorizing a letter
from the chairperson of the board, we could ... I assume that both of those would...
Ms. Crawford — Either one of those would probably be fine.
Chairperson Wilcox — Indicating our conceptual approval of the project while at the
same time not guaranteeing to Mr. Fennessey that the project would be approved, but...
Ms. Crawford — It would still need to meet all of the normal regulations and everything
that the Town would want it to meet.
Attorney Barney — I think you would be talking
favor of a proposal like this in this location.
is ... weIre back to ... the concept that you have
requirements because it doesn't have the sec
those things that you have been talking about.
hopefully that would suffice to the concept of a
this board to bind itself in any way,
Ms. Crawford — Certainly not.
in terms of that you are conceptually in
I think going much beyond that really
right now obviously doesn't meet your
;ondary means of access and some of
I think the concept could be limited and
proposal of this nature, but I don't want
Attorney Barney - ...as to the details of this particular...
19
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to write something?
Attorney Barney — I'll see what I can do.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you.
Ms. Crawford — Just one more note about that because the application is due Monday,
there is a very short timeframe on getting that piece of paper.
Chairperson Wilcox — He's going to do it right now.
Board Member Talty — I have a question. Unless
regards to rents for affordable housing and thing
developers locked in for a period of time with regoc
for. Are they locked in for a certain period of tir
long?
overlooked it, I have a question with
OT inai sort. Ivry question is are LIM
rds to the rent figures that I'm looking
ie on those figures and if so for how
Ms. Crawford — As long as the project remains a tax credit project, which would be 15
years. And also in the application different groups that apply can propose different
lengths of time for affordability up to 50 years. So at least for the 15 years that it is in
the tax credit compliance period the state annually puts out what they think is as high as
the rents can be and it can never go above that. The rents really don't go up a whole lot
for the home program, which is one of the programs related to this one. They only go
up by a couple of dollars every year.
Board Member Talty — And who determines that? The State?
Ms. Crawford — New York State.
Board Member Talty — So if the developers... if this area continues to rise, a lot of the
rents have...I mean that is the predicament we are in right now is with regard to
affordable housing whether you are purchasing or renting. If the market were to
continue to increase, could the developer go to the State and ask them to revisit the
figures and they could readjust at that time?
Attorney Barney — Kevin, its tied to median income. So if the incomes go up, yes the
rents can go up. If the incomes don't go, then no the rents can't go up. Its not that the
rent is set independent of that. It's a percentage of median income. So many
apartments have to meet one level and the other percentage of the apartments has to
meet the lower level.
Board Member Talty — Okay. Understood.
Mr. Kanter — Is a longer period than 15 years a possibility for this particular project? I
know when the Overlook proposal was before the board this same discussion occurred
and actually that did end up being a 50 -year period.
20
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Ms. Crawford — I will have to find out the answer to that and get back to you. It escapes
me, honestly, if it is more than 15 or how much more.
Mr. Kanter — Wouldn't a longer period get you more merit for your application?
Mr. Harding —Yes.
Mr. Kanter — Is that something that the Planning Board would like to have considered?
Ms. Crawford — There is right now provisions put in for right of first refusal. for Better
Housing as the non - profit partner to buy out the project at the end of the tax credit
period if the owners would decide they want to sell it. If that were to happen we would
of course be in the business of keeping it affordable.
Mr. Harding — (not audible) ... the question is, is there more points. I believe there are
more points and I don't know how much it is... (not audible)...
Chairperson Wilcox- Twenty -five is a nice number, isn't it?
Mr. Kanter — I think when you come back if you can give the board a more definite idea
about that that would be helpful.
Ms. Crawford — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — I need to make one disclosure in the market analysis survey. It
references the use of demographic data from Claritas Incorporated and I am an
employee, I am a vice President of Claritas Incorporated and I am involved in producing
demographic estimates and projections, but I have no financial interests and wasn't
even aware of this. I state this now and try to remember to state it every other future
time this comes up. Questions from David or John or anybody at this point?
We have had some people come into the room since we started so let me bring
you up to speed with what is going on with this particular proposal. We have a
resolution in front of us that the board will get to as soon as we can. The issue is, is that
there is some additional information that the board feels is required before we can make
an environmental determination. Specifically, it has to do with a. secondary access
point. I believe that is the major issue is a secondary , access point for emergency
vehicles and until such time that is resolved and a secondary access point is available,
this board cannot and will not proceed with, making an environmental determination in
one way or another. Having said that that means that the application is not complete.k
That means that we cannot go to consideration of the subdivision and site plan and
open the public hearing. That will be postponed until a late time. I would like to give
those members of the public who are here this evening a chance to address the board
on this particular subject if that is what you would like to do. You would still have the
opportunity to address the boar when and if the legal public hearing is actually held. So
21
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
having said that, I'll ask Stacy and Mr. Fennessey to take a seat. Chairperson Wilcox
invited members of the public to address the board.
Joel Harlan, Newfield
My name is Joel Harlan. I'm from Newfield. Didn't you know things are... buildings like
this and hotels are going instead of the big box theory ... boxy looking into what you call
it an Alpine or the Alps in Switzerland and stuff type style with a peaked roof. I think
whatcha call it up there...what do you call it up by Savanna Park, the old people's
home. I think they got peaked roof. And you go down where my mother lives in
Bethany, it's a nursing home ... they build pretty good all up on the hill down there by that
water tank in Horseheads just on Watkins Road. It's all peaked roof. That the main
thing that is coming in is peaked roof. And Fred, I was talking to the owner of
McDonald's, the one that just died. A week before that he told me, I asked him why did
you tear down McDonalds down there at Elmira and rebuild it and he says that the
Mayor works with them. He says up here I have to build in size in the Ithaca area
because he has to like pull teeth to get things done because they henpeck ya. You
know the same way up there at Triphammer. He moved it over there, but he says a
while back he says did you know that they want to know what kind of tree bush, grass
and what you are putting on the ground, around the building before you even start the
project. Isn't that true? Isn't that true what he said? You know what goes on (laughter).
Like at Burger King up on East Hill Plaza. (laughter)
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you in favor of this?
Mr. Harlan — But I like this idea. It would be good. The Town of Ithaca is way ahead of
the county and they should try to get caught up. The City also about getting affordable
housing in this area. You are one step ahead and I'm proud of you. Keep up the good
work. That's all I got to say.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else? All right then. Thank you very much.
When the applicants are able to resolve the access issue they'll be back. Hold on here.
Stacy, lets see what we can do. Lets deal with the resolution in front of us first.
Chairperson Wilcox read the resolved of the proposed resolution. Chairperson Wilcox
moved the motion and it was seconded by Board Member Thayer. The board voted on
the resolution.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -013: Lead Agency Designation and Incomplete
Information for SEQR Determination, Conifer Village — Ithaca, Preliminary Site
Plan and Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Town Board Re_garding
Rezoning, Tax Parcel No's. 274-13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Conifer Drive
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS.
22
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering. Preliminary Subdivision
Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town
Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca
Senior Living Community (previously known as Linderman Creek Senior
Apartments) proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living
rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on an 8.4 +/- acre
parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and 111, Tax
Parcel No.'s 274-13.12 and 274- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone.
The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property is planned to be developed into a
residential subdivision in the future. The proposal involves a +A 80,555 square
foot, three -story building, a 96 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities,
landscaping, and associated utilities. The applicant is requesting rezoning of the
8.4 +/- acres for the senior rental apartments from Medium Density Residential to
Multiple Residence. Several variances, including a height variance, from the
Zoning Board of Appeals may also be necessary. Conifer Realty, LLC,
Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent, and
2. The proposed actions, which include subdivision approval and site plan approval
by the Planning Board, rezoning by the Town Board, and possibly variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals, 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 Town Board, in a resolution dated November 15, 2004, has
referred the petition to rezone the above - referenced parcel to the Planning Board
for a recommendation, and
4. In a letter dated January 14, 2005, the Planning Board notified potential Involved
and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency, and requested
concurrence from those agencies with the designation of the Town of Ithaca
Planning to serve as lead agency with respect to the above - referenced actions,
and
5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on February 22, 2005, has reviewed the
Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant,
draft Part 11 of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed
other application materials, including the Project Description, Market Analysis
Summary, the Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (Dec. 2004), Geotechnical
Evaluation (Dec. 2004), excerpts from Drainage Analysis and Preliminary
Stormwater Analysis Report, Balloon Test Analysis and visual simulation photos,
site plan and architectural drawings L1-7, site utility plan and details, building
floor plans and elevation drawings, revised Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK -1),
Preliminary Subdivision Plat (1113105), and draft Local Law regarding the
proposed rezoning of the site, and
23
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
6. The Town Planning staff has indicated to the Planning Board that the applicant
has submitted insufficient information regarding certain issues for the Board to
make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the
proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval, and variances, such as
providing a second means of access to the senior apartment site, questions
regarding site grading and usability of the site for open space amenities,
adequacy of walkways and pedestrian connectivity, and adequacy of bus turn-
around and pick -up /drop -off area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from
other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the above - described actions, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that at this time, as
reflected in the discussion regarding the environmental determination at this meeting,
there is insufficient information available for this Board to make a SEQR determination
as to whether there is or is not a significant environmental impact for the project as
proposed, and that the. environmental issues referenced above be addressed to the
Board's satisfaction by the applicant prior to re- scheduling this matter for an
environmental determination, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby postpones the public hearing for
consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and
a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed
Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community until a future Board meeting on a date
to be determined.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mitrano.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Kanter — While John is doing that, maybe just a question to the board in concept
because the staff hasn't seen what David has described in terms of changes, but in
concept, does that sound. like it meets concerns that have been raised. I'll. throw in my
own two cents.
24
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox — They've addressed the concerns. It's hard to know within and an
hour and ten minutes of discussion whether they have sufficiently met them. Clearly the
staff recommendation was we need more level space for residents. They've created
more. I don't know whether it is enough. It's a move in the right direction. Staff will
review the revised plans and we'll make a recommendation. They put in more
walkways. I remember seeing walkways around the parking lot. I'm not sure I saw the
connection from the parking lot to the road. Maybe I just missed it. There is a walkway
around the road, but I didn't quite see the connection. If the connection were there, that
would be good.
Mr. Kanter — I think I heard David say to the road and it would stop for now. I think our
position would be we would rather see it extended for now at least down to where the
side drives go out to the Linderman Creek apartments. I think our recommendation
would be to incorporate that now at least down to the extension drives and probably
strongly suggest to whoever the entities who own the Linderman Creek
apartments... well there is an asphalt walkway that goes to the Linderman II and II, but
there is nothing that goes to Linderman I and that would be certainly appropriate at this
point to put in some kind of a safer walkway going over to phase I. That is not part of
the discussions for this project, but it would seem to make ultimate sense to do that. I
think we would take a strong position to extend the sidewalks down to the Linderman
develops at this point any way.
Chairperson Wilcox — They did address the secondary access that they can't provide
any additional information at this point and they will have a meeting with DOT. The site
grading, again they've addressed it. Whether they have addressed it sufficiently or not
that is to be determined. The walkways and pedestrian connectivity, we just discussed.
They have changed the plan with regard to the bus turn around and the drop off. I don't
hear any objections to the bus picking them up in front. That seems to be a reasonable
plan, especially if they air - condition it as somebody has hinted that they might air -
condition it. They talked about the air on the drawing with regard to the mislocation of
the garden plot on.a steep slope. The landscaping plan ... they've increased the size of
the lot in order to accommodate more reasonably flat open space. They have certainly
moved in the appropriate direction. It remains to be seen if they have moved
sufficiently. That is where I am at, at this point. On the other hand we need to thank
them for providing us with an inch and a half of materials. We should always thank the
applicant when they have provided the information that we need rather than begging
them for more. So I will thank you for that. Mr. Barney, what do you have?
Attorney Barney read the,proposed drafted resolution. Chairperson Wilcox.moved the
resolution and Board Member Mitrano seconded the resolution. With no further
discussion, the board voted on the resolution.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -014: Resolution of Conceptual Support for Conifer
Village, Conifer Drive, Tax Parcel No's. 27.-1 -13.12 and 27. -1- 13.162
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
25
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
WHEREAS, Conifer Realty, LLC has submitted applications for subdivision
approval, site plan approval, variances, and rezoning in connection with a 72 -unit senior
housing project for persons of limited income on a parcel of land off of Mecklenburg
Road in the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, there are several items of information not yet available needed to
enable the Planning Board to reach a decision on the application, but nevertheless, the
Board does wish to express its conceptual support for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby
expresses its conceptual support for a project such as that proposed by the applicant, at
the location proposed by the applicant, subject to the future determination by this Board
when all information is available and the project is finally configured, that the project
then complies with all requirements of the Town for its approval.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:28 p.m
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed 56 -lot
subdivision located on Troy Road beginning approximately 1,600 feet south of
the Coddington Road and Troy Road intersection, portion of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 49 -1 -26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
subdividing the +/- 69 -acre parcel into 56 residential lots fronting on both Troy
Road and on several proposed new internal loop roads along with several parcels
to be dedicated to the Town for recreational purposes (open space and trail link).
Paul Rubin, Owner /Applicant; Jody M. Allen, PE, Allen Engineering, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
Rick Wallace, Guttman and Wallace
As the board is aware, we are here for conceptual approval of Paul Rubin's sketch plan.
We have with us Jody Allen, who is the project engineer and has done the survey work.
Our realtor, Kathy Web, is also here to field any questions you may have. As the board
is probably aware, there has been some significant amount of threshold work done with
the Planning Staff and Jody Allen and others, in particular Michael Smith, Michael
Smith, the environmental planner, was kind enough to prepare a four -page
memorandum dated February 14, 2005, which I am hopeful that members of the board
all have a copy of which. goes through the project proposal in some detail. What I would
like to do with the permission of the chair and the board is to have Jody Allen present to
you briefly what it is we have in mind and then field any questions from the board.
26
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Jody Allen, Allen Engineering
When I first started talking with Mr. Rubin about this project he showed me the proposal
that had the long, 14 strip lots that he originally came to this board with. I looked at that
proposal and the board's comments. On this particular property, the power lines are a
significant factor that we have to work around. Also, we wanted to limit the number of
access points on Troy Road. So we did this layout. We actually did four or five different
layouts looking at utilizing the whole property, looking at storm water drainage, the
impact on Troy Road and then particularly the power lines. So this current layout the
power lines would be primarily on the rear of the lots, not through the lots and not along
the road. Here the power lines would cut across a couple of lots. We proposed- three
new roadway access points on to Troy Road and then ... so lots 1 and 2 would access
Troy Road off the new road. Lots 3 and 4 and 8 would have individual driveways onto
Troy Road. Then all the lots basically on the interior roads would access off of those
new interior roads.
Really what we are looking for at this point is Mr. Rubin would really like to get
started and he would like to get started with the first 6 lots long Troy Road. There is
municipal sanitary sewers available and also municipal water and there wouldn't be a lot
of added impervious area for storm water drainage if we were just talking about those
roads. We primarily showed the layout for the rest of the parcel just to show the Town
what Mr. Rubin's plans would be in the future, but the primary focus right now is not the _
whole project, its just getting started. We also showed this green space here, is an
access from Troy Park through the property. We proposed that in lieu of one dedicated
park space, which is also talked about in the packet. If you have any questions I'll
answer them.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that your presentation?
Mr. Wallace - That is it. I'm assuming the board has had an opportunity to review Mr.
Smith's detailed analysis and he does note on the bottom of page 3 that one of the
things we might inquire of the board is and I'm looking at 5 lines from the bottom of
page 3, on the amount of project detail that might be expected and of course in addition
to conceptual approval in what we hope to obtain from the board here this evening is
some guidance. .I .would suggest that this is a garden variety subdivision in most
respects and that the amount of detail the board would expect would be the customary
amount of detail for a type I action for the SEQR review process. But I would inquire of
the board at this time if there is any particular aspect of the project that the board might
feel would require any extra additional detail or review so that we may be in the position
to obtain from this board the same kind of compliment forthcoming to the Linderman
project about the 1 '/2 inch of documents that they were able to produce and we are
happy to produce 2 inches if you tell us in advance exactly what it is the board would
like.
27
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Chairperson Wilcox — Should we start with drainage concerns, Dan? Specifically the
issue of developing detention areas in a phased manner or putting in water detention for
the entire site at the beginning.
Mr. Walker — We want to have the detention in or the storm
in before any portion of the site is disturbed because this
watersheds that flow through it. That could be phased in
The lower six lots are the ones you're looking at first. The
which have to be, put... maybe not the one along the power I
should probably be put in first.
water management control
I
ite has basically several
without being detrimental.
three ponds in the middle,
nes but the two lower ones
Chairperson Wilcox — I would want to see a drainage plan for the entire site.
Mr. Walker — We would want the details just like with any phased subdivision. We want
the full analysis to be done before they start subdividing it, but actual construction of it
can be phased.
Chairperson Wilcox — We would like to approve the proposed storm water detention
facilities for the entire site.
Mr. Wallace — I believe that is something that has been the subject of some discussion
with Mr. Smith and my client and his team are aware of that and they do anticipate that.
Ms. Allen — Can I just clarify that? So do you want to see preliminary size and
calculations just for the ponds that basically say this is the drainage area, this is the
impervious area, this is what size the pond has to be? Or are you ... what I think you are
asking for is a full grading plan for the whole site.
Mr. Walker — We would like to see the whole grading plan for the whole site. Too often
we have seen grading plans go and it turns out that they have to go beyond phase I to
make it work and they end up in phase II. So we have to make sure that we get... build
all the roads without having to take spoil in other areas and things like that.
Ms. Allen — Okay. Thank you
Chairperson Wilcox— I think one of the over riding concerns you will see of this board is
while Mr. Rubin may only want final approval for a certain number of lots and originally it
was proposed as five lots and now it is proposed as six and that is fine, but we would
like to concentrate on the entire site. Certainly Mr. Rubin could at some point come
back when phases II through... are proposed, minor changes could be made as he
proceeds through the phases. But it is important to this board and I think it is important
to Mr. Rubin and yourself and the agents that we look at the entire site to make sure
that what is being.done with phase I doesn't preclude doing something with phases II or
III, which is why we have asked for this particular review of the entire site and how the
road would be laid out and the size of the lots etc, etc.
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. Wallace — Absolutely. We appreciate that guidance.
Board Member Thayer — Phase I is 1 -6 lots, right?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. The materials said 1 -5, but they have now indicated that it
would be 6 lots.
Board Member Thayer — Does that mean 6 curb cuts?
Ms. Allen — It would actually be 4 curb cuts because lots 1 and 2 would share an access
point. They would both have easements over the proposed future roadway. So they
would share a driveway. Then 3 would have its own, 4 would have its own and 5 and 6
would also share a driveway. Then in the future the driveways for 1 and 2 would come
off the future road. There are two driveway curb cuts but then there are also two future
roadway curb cuts.
Mr. Kanter — The Planning Board could in its resolution indicate that once those roads
are built, the curb cuts from these lots... move the curb cuts from Troy Road to the new
road.
Mr. Walker — If you are going to have a roadway in the future with two cuts off of it, the
driveway should go into the road instead of having a separate curb cut onto the road.
Ms. Allen — Right. That is the intent is that they would share one driveway onto Troy
Road for now, but they would both come out parallel. They would come out like this and
then share one driveway.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. The driveway for 1 and 2 and the driveway for 5 and 6
would essentially be the beginning and the ending of the road.
Mr. Kanter — That is a good illustration of why its important to look at the overall
subdivision now because if for some reason that is not where the road is going to be,
then all of a sudden you have ended up with more curb cuts than you wanted.
Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly Mr. Rubin is aware from when he was here before and the
original plan that you saw that we really.would like to reduce the number of curb cuts
and make you look at the entire site, which you have done and how it might be
developed.
Board Member Mitrano — I wanted
the park and open space.. As I
traditional for a site of this size is g
there is yet then another open
configuration once that space that
you help me on that, Mike?
to make sure that I understood
understand it, the balance of
ping for the trail. What I wasn't
space that is available for
goes for the trail is dedicated
the information about
the expected space
sure about is whether
some type of park
in that direction. Can
29
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. Smith — Along with the trail there is also a spot on the southern portion of the
property and that would be available for open space.
Board Member Thayer — Its open space, but it is directly under the power lines.
Board Member Howe — I think Mike raises a good point that we should really look at the
location of that and whether there might be a more appropriate location.
Mr. Smith — Yeah, if its more appropriate, but you also have to remember that there is
Troy Park right across the road if there is a need for a big open space or what actually it
would be used for if we did get a different piece on the property.
Mr. Kanter — The other thing to think about though is there might be a need for some
close in space, especially for very small children who might not be a good idea to cross
the road by themselves any way.
Chairperson Wilcox I will look to one of the attorneys in the room. We have at least
three right now. What restrictions are there in what is presumably the NYSEG right -of-
way? In terms of pedestrian access or something like that or who will own those...
Attorney Barney — Depending... the "h" frames is a fairly sizeable easement. It's a 100 -
foot. The underlying land is usually owned by, in this case Mr. Rubin. The land would
be conveyed to the Town but it would be subject to the easement and the easement
usually allows you to cultivate and do things at the surface of the ground underneath it,
but usually do preclude building any structures that come any where near the lines
themselves. There are some quasi- scientific concerns about putting too many people
too close that high voltage lines.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you saying that the land underneath the line would not ... let
me just pick one here. Lot 8, which is fronting on Troy Road. Would the owner of lot 8
own the land?
Attorney Barney — Typically they would own the land.
Chairperson Wilcox — And NYSEG would have the easement across it assuming these
are NYSEGs.
Attorney Barney — A 100 -foot wide easement across it.
Mr. Kanter —Did anyone...
Chairperson Wilcox — I pick 8 because I'm not.sure 8 is a buildable lot.
Board Member Thayer — I don't think so.
30
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. Kanter — That's what I was going to ask. If there are lots like that, there maybe
others that I kind of look at and thought, boy is there going to be enough room for a
building envelope there and if so, is anyone really going to want to build on it.
Board Member Thayer — Really. My point.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you build a house and would anybody want to build a house
on one of those lots.
Mr. Kanter — Some of them, is there even enough room to do it.
Attorney Barney — I think the easement would probably preclude the building of a house
underneath the lines.
Mr. Walker — Definitely. They don't want structures.
Ms. Allen — But I also did a plat map and we put the building setback lines on the map
and I believe there is a buildable area on each lot outside of the power line area. So
when we submit the future plan, we can show a typical house on each lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — I thought it saw that.
shown going under the easement.
Mr. Kanter — Lot 8, lot 56, lot 44.
There it is. But in particular with lot 8, it's
Chairperson Wilcox — Eight is probably the worst example.
Ms. Allen — If we can demonstrate that you can put a typical size house on that lot not
within the easement, would you be willing to consider it at least?
Chairperson Wilcox — If you can demonstrate it, we would be willing to consider it, yes.
Mr. Kanter — Here's another question that Mike raised and Mike could raise it a little
further, but the idea of clustering partially or fully on this parcel perhaps there might be
some benefit with partial clustering to help avoid some of the power line easements and
streams also.
Board Member Mitrano - I think that is a good idea.
Mr. Kanter — That might be able to get away from some of the issues from building
envelopes and lay things out a little bit more comfortably on the site.
Chairperson Wilcox — I leave it to ... given the environmental issues of this lot and by that
mean the power lines.. Clustering might be the way to go. Speaking for myself, I'm not
going to force Mr. Rubin there. I think we have the opportunity for a nice, creative
subdivision here with pathways and it looks like we are moving in that direction.
31
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Clustering might be appropriate given the nature, but that's your call. I'm not sure about
anybody else over here on the board.
Mr. Kanter — It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, but in some way Mr. Rubin at this point has
demonstrated the ability to put 56 lots on there now.
Mr. Wallace — Yes, Mr. Chairperson. It looks like with the 56, two probably three
maximum might have some kind of a concern with regard to the power lines. I believe
that that is a substantial factor in having gone over the discussions with Mr. Smith about
clustering and having considered it because of the fact that its such a small number of
lots with respect to which power lines are an issue that the idea of clustering was not
what is currently being proposed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Your client certainly is aware of the advantages of clustering with
regard to cost of infrastructure and things like that.
Mr. Wallace —Yes, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox — Call me Fred, please.
Mr. Wallace — Okay. Thank you. What I understand is something of a significant
interest to the Town, in which costs are not insignificant number of lots as opposed to
just one chunk of green space and that is the green space that you see in the middle,
which was designed with some forethought I would suggest by members of the planning
staff to connect future green space and trail space in different parts of this area in the
Town of Ithaca. I gather that the plan is to connect to a larger comprehensive plan all of
which to the credit of the planning staff has been well thought out that does, I believe,
costs three lots to the developer and his ensuing loss of his revenue and the tax base to
the Town to do it this way. So there was a great deal of thought given to the
configuration based on the power lines, but also the ability of the developer to assist the
Town of Ithaca in maximizing its tax base and also maximizing its ability to connect with
the green spaces for the purposes of the future Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Wilcox = Questions at this point? Comments?
Board Member Howe — I was just going to say that I think I'm always the one that brings
up clustering. Clustering for part of this might actually increase the marketability for
some of the lots for those that come up right against some power lines. So it might just
be something you would consider for a portion.
Board Member Mitrano — I think that is a very good point.
Board Member Talty — Always a concern with this board member is making sure that
the marketability as well as the aesthetics of each lot has sidewalks interconnecting. It
32
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
doesn't necessarily have to be both sides of the street, although the way you have it
outlined here I would certainly take the latitude to develop whatever plan you see
feasible. And at the same time, I'm really against the lack of culvert pipes. In other
words, the ditches in front of the house...I can't make it strenuous enough to make sure
it is flat up to the street. So put the culvert pipes in is what I'm saying. Do you have a
question?
Ms. Allen — Apparently I haven't driven around in Ithaca enough because I would just
assume you would have the culvert pipes in. Do they swale the driveways? I mean
what do they typically do?
Mr. Walker — He's talking about total underground drainage systems.
Ms. Allen — So he's not talking about a driveway culvert. You want a closed piping
network in the street.
Board Member Talty — That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — I will take a slightly different opinion from Kevin, but not
necessarily inconsistent. One of the issues that came up recently is that a developer
was looking to build houses in that $300,000 to $350,000 range and he was proposing
open ditches along the road and there are many areas of the Town where we just have
open ditches: Kevin raised the point, and I agree with him, that if you are building
$350,000 homes, you probably don't want open ditches out there and that drainage
should be underground. It just seems, like a reasonable amenity if you are spending
that much for a house and I agree with him there. If the houses are going to be in the
$150,000 range, then I might think differently.
Board Member Talty — I will not.
Chairperson Wilcox — And that's, fine. That's where we disagree. Certainly the
marketability of homes I think has improved. That is something at least to think about.
Kevin has staunchly advocated putting that drainage underground.
Board Member Howe - And I think several of us would agree with the sidewalk point.
Board Member Thayer — Definitely.
Ms. Allen — Can I just that from an engineering standpoint...I mean I'm trying to find out
what is going to be required because I know the developer is going to be concerned
about cost and I ... so is it require that sidewalks be included?
Chairperson Wilcox — We would like you to show sidewalks on the plan, yes.
Mr. Kanter — Yes. The board could require that if there is a need.
33
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Ms. Allen — And do you allow asphalt sidewalks or do they have to be concrete?
Mr. Walker — Yes. Asphalt is fine.
Mr. Kanter — But whether there are ditches are
sidewalks dictates you to look at how the drainage
whole street and sidewalk system.
Chairperson Wilcox — Correct,
underground drains, the need for
accommodation would fit with the
Mr. Kanter — In other words, the standard right -of -way with ditches may not be the best
environment for sidewalks.
Ms. Allen — I actually proposed a 60 -foot wide right -of -way so it is fairly generous.
Some places allow 50 but, can you... is it ... do you have sidewalks... like sometimes do
they put in extra wide shoulder with a striped lane for bike traffic and pedestrians or do
you want separate?
Mr. Kanter — Not anymore in a subdivision like this. We recently have implemented a
new sidewalk policy, the Town Board did, and we are getting away from the less formal
situations and trying to have safer, separate areas for pedestrians.
Ms. Allen — And if I have any more questions on the storm drainage, I can just talk to
Town staff?
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Kevin.
Board Member Talty — Just to comment, no not necessarily. The question was does the
developer have to have sidewalks on both sides of the street and I would say that come
up with a plan that is a plan with regards to how you have outlaid your subdivision right
now. So no, you don't have to have it on both sides. We just approved sidewalks on
one side with another developer.
Kathy Webb, Audrey Edelman Real. Estate
Just for clarification, at Chase Farm you do have a sidewalk. It is a gravel walkway. It's
not really a sidewalk on one side of the road. Is that what you would like us to do
because at Chase Farm you have that and at Chase Pond you have one of that and
these are all within the same proximity and I'm just wondering...
Mr. Kanter — Tracy, you could probably talk about the so- called walkway in Chase Farm,
can't you? The one that isn't really there any more.
Board Member Mitrano — It has eroded away considerably. My understanding, informal
though it may be, is that we have been moving more and more towards dedicated
sidewalks.
34
Board Member Talty - I have to apologize
currently on the site right now?
Mr. Rubin - Its either a field or woods.
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
have not been to the site. What is
Board Member Talty - Are you going to dedicate trees to be saved, or are you going
strip it?
Mr. Rubin - I am going to save as many reasons as possible. The only reason we cut
down will be for clearing the lot and the road.
Board Member Talty - You may want to indicate that on your next...
Ms. Allen - Actually, there is an area photograph in the packet and we actually moved
this roadway here to get out of the tree line, which is here. So we purposely are cutting
down as few trees as possible.
Mr. Wallace - I have been advised by Kathy Webb that the anticipated costs of a fully
developed home on these parcels is between $200,000 and $280,000.
Attorney Barney - Inclusive of the lot?
Mr. Wallace - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody build in the $150,000 range anymore?
Board Member Talty - Not at $125 per square foot or higher.
Chairperson Wilcox - I know.
Mr. Kanter - What size would the houses range in square footage wise?
Ms. Webb - Probably right around 1800 to 2000. In other words, we have seen large
houses and we are trying not to do that. We have seen Chase Pond has been growing
and they are a little bit above what we were thinking. Believe it or not, that's affordable
housing.
Chairperson Wilcox - You say Chase Pond, do you mean Saunders Road specifically?
Ms. Webb - Well, Saunders Road, it was vacant for so long.
about sidewalks because we have seen growth there in the
basically in the last two years. I mean up until then it was bl
seeing growth there and that. is the price range and that is
beyond the Town of Ithaca, if you go to Fieldstone Circle. We
that's in the Town of Danby.
That's why I was asking
last couple of years, well
ank land and now we are
the size and also if I go
have seen that grow, too,
W
. PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Board Member Mitrano - Some of that was dedicated before we got on our sidewalk
kick.
Mr. Kanter - Yes and actually the Saunders Road subdivision as you walk in it goes
around to the back of the lots, which is really more like a trail that eventually will connect
up into Deerrun. That is probably more like the trail connection you see through the
property that would be a Town maintained trail.
Ms. Webb - But its where those lot butted from Saunders and then the ones on
Whitetail.
Board Member Mitrano - I'm curious among my board members whether they would a
preliminary plan that came through that pretty much just had the park and open space
the way that this is suggested?
Chairperson Wilcox - The trail connections are a nice amenity. We need to thank the
planning staff for working with the developer. We need to thank the developer for
including that. We need to thank Bob Steincamp over here for running Jon on the radio
talking about that. The issue of the parkland to the south under the easement for the
power lines. I'm not sure. It really has to do with the purpose of the parkland. Is it to
picnic or is to walk amongst the natural vegetation? Is it a place to bring your toddlers?
I'm not sure what its purpose is and until I have a better understanding of how it is going
to be used, I don't know whether within under the power lines is reasonable or not.
Mr. Wallace - Fred, if I could just note that in terms of the configuration of that land.
One of the things to anticipate, for example, if you have a playground where the youth
of the subdivision would come and spend a short amount of time there and leave, but I
think important to note that the space is not under the power lines. There is a power
line on the far border of one side of it and a power line very near the other border and
really the vast majority of that green space has no power line above it and I'm sure
we've all seen or played on playgrounds as kids that had power lines close by and this
would be substantially similar to that.
Mr. Kanter — And maybe those of us who did are suffering now.
Ms. Webb — I think we have to address those power lines because we have been
talking a lot about them. A few years ago there was a problem with the gouse, the
electricity that goes through power lines and we did have a gouse meter put on those
lines and even though...I remember having to get the gouse meter from Poughkeepsie
from NYSEG because I was selling a house in that area and they laughed. at us. They
said you want a gouse meter on those lines. I mean... anyway, all the things that came
up we are going to measure them again and that is going to be part of it because
marketability is very important here. However, so is safety and when you are talking the
gouse in those lines, its like 1/100 of what comes off Niagara Falls.
Board Member Talty - What is the voltage of these lines?
36
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Ms. Webb — 35,0000
Board Member Talty — So it is still fairly considerable.
Ms. Webb — If you look at those things that were in, believe it or not the New Yorker is
where a lot of the things about the power lines and the health issues came up and then
onto other things. If you look at the power lines that they were testing and these power
lines, we're not talking the same magnitude by a long shot.
Board Member Talty — I am from Buffalo and a lot of the power that comes off Niagara
Falls that gets ship downed to New York City, they don't allow anybody near any of
those lines. Anywhere near them. I don't know what the distance is, but there is a lot of
juice running through those lines.
Ms. Webb — This isn't anything near that magnitude.
Mr. Kanter — I think the board would probably want some real information about it before
making any decisions.
Board Member Thayer —Yes.
Attorney Barney — I'm not sure we want to rely on NYSEGs meters to measure
NYSEGs...
Ms. Webb — John, if you know who else would have those meters...
Attorney Barney — Did you try up to Cornell?
Ms. Webb — They are not big enough. I don't know who else... anyway...
Chairperson Wilcox — Ultimately the purchasers
and if they don't want to live on, under or near
they'll buy a different one and for other people
an issue they'll buy the lot potentially because
know. I would like something just to know that
of radiation is less than some standard that has
industry or something like that.
of the lots will make that determination
a power line they won't buy the lot and
don't perceive the power lines as being
they are priced a little bit less, I don't
they are under some ... that the amount
been set by some organization or some
Board Member Talty — John, if we were to pass a plan that allowed homes near the
lines on those few lots, is the Town liable? If someone to move in and take it upon
themselves to buy that lot even though we approved a house to be built on that, is the
Town liable?
37
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Attorney Barney — Anybody could bring a lawsuit and make any claim that they want to.
Sitting here today, my guess is that there would not be ultimately liability in the Town for
approving a plan particularly if we did a little investigation.
Mr. Kanter — Getting back to the park issue, which you started talking about besides the
electrical lines, is it possible there might be a better location if there were going to be
some kind of an area that might be more centrally located or convenient for people to
get to. So maybe its not just the power line issue for the part, but...
Mr. Wallace — I think the question was discussed with the planning staff and because of
the proximity of other parks and green spaces in relation to this proposed green space,
this location was chosen because I believe it's the Troy Road Park and open space, but
Mike can correct me if I'm wrong about that. My understanding is that the Town's
planning staff's preference is not to cluster green spaces, but to keep them some
distance between them because that's the most efficient use of green space for all the
residents in the Town. We don't want a group of green spaces in one area and then the
kids that are outside that group have to travel excessive distances to find the green
space. So the purpose of locating it here was directly in relation to other green spaces
outside the subdivision.
Board Member Mitrano — That is one consideration.
Mr. Kanter — There is another way to do it to.
convenient for these 56 lots rather than Troy P
the Town is finding problems with that park.
located here, number one it doesn't necessarily
private park facility, but if it were going to be
around the trail strip that we are talking about.
There may be a need to have a more
ark, which is rather isolated and I think
If something could be more centrally
have to be a Town park. It could be a
a Town park, it could certainly relate
Board Member Mitrano — I would find that more appealing.
Board Member Talty — I would agree with that.
Mr. Wallace — In that regard I would draw the board's attention to not just the trail but to
the additional green space that is smack dab in the middle of the subdivision.
Mr. Kanter — It also happens to be under the power lines.
Mr. Wallace — In addition, where the trail widens, then there is a third green space,
which is not an insignificant amount of land. So with three open green spaces in this
subdivision, certainly we are willing to work with this board in any way we can. We
would need some guidance because a lot of thought and discussion went into this
amongst ourselves and planning staff to come up not only the trail, but three separate
green spaces and we would hope that perhaps some guidance, if there is something
wrong with that approach would be forthcoming.
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Board Member Mitrano — I think I was most interested in that third one that you have
there. You are describing that as an open space. You are not describing that as.plans
for any park. Of all the suggestions that have come up this evening, I like Jonathan's
the best, but I was looking at that area to and wondering if that might be an alternate
area that could be developed more as a park rather than just as an open space.
Mr. Smith — A couple things to mention also. One reason looking at the park at the
southern part of the land is also the storm water facility that the Town may end up
owning anyways. We may have a piece of land there, which if we are adding parkland
on may make it a larger piece in that location. The trail location may move. I'm still
working with some of the land owners on Coddington Road on the exact location of that
so that may alter or shift a couple of the lots depending on where it can come out to
connect into something to get down to Coddington Road down to the South Hill
Recreation Ways.
Board Member Thayer — So that could eliminate the jog in the trail?
Mr. Smith — It could shift the lots one way or another to where it needs to line up on
Coddington Road if something can be worked out in that direction.
Board Member Mitrano — That sounds very ... (inaudible) ... and I'm very appreciative that
the developer has gotten folks together to work out this kind of a plan and they have all
worked with you guys on Town staff to augment the trail through there. So that's real
positive.
Mr. Wallace — Mike has advised that there may be depending on what he does... about
the land that needs to be obtained and considered for the linkage that he has asked us
if we would be willing to change the configuration of that green space and the answer is
absolutely. We will do whatever we can to assist the Town in bringing... (not audible).
Mr. Smith — I was also going to add that there is a Public Works meeting next week
where I am also going to discuss this and get more input or opinions from them also.
Board Member Mitrano - That would be great.
Chairperson Wilcox— Anything else from the board? Is there anything else you need at
this point?
Ms. Allen — I just have one final question on the drainage. What we had done is that we
had kind of anticipated doing like an overall conceptual plan with conceptual sizings of
the drainage areas. So we only did a complete topographic survey of phase I and the
rest of it is USGS contours.
Mr. Walker — That would be sufficient.
Ms. Allen — Is that sufficient?
mt
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. Walker — The one concern I mentioned in my memo to Mike, I'm not sure how that
southern road ... I had some concerns about the grade and workability of that road
coming in plus the sight distance to the adjacent roads and to King Road there. So that
is one of the things that we want to look at all the earth work on and the basic grading
plans and the USGS contours would probably give you a good idea as to whether or not
it is going to work or not. Because you get into trying to maintain less than a 10% road.
We don't want a 10% road. We want a 4 or 5 %. Plus we do have an issue... ponds.
You got two of the storm water management facilities are on parcels proposed to be
open space to the Town for parks and open space, which okay, we own them and
maintain them. Of the two bigger ponds on the northeast corner there, you've got them
straddling two or three parcels a piece. So... and homeowners are not very smart about
maintaining ponds. We have a tremendous number of drainage problems in the
northeast because drainage swales were approved by this board back in the 50s or 60s
or whatever and they no longer function because they have been filled in and we have
no rights to go in and take care of them as the Town or we don't have the funding for it
either so those are all things that we are struggling with right now and will probably have
some policy determinations hopefully in the next couple of months from the Town Board
possibly creating drainage districts to generate a source of revenue to maintain these
structures. Because of as you know, with State Regs, there are more and more things
that we have to take care of. You've got micro ponds in there with four bays and
everything in there and those take some maintenance and some care. So that is an
issue that we have to deal with on how the Town is going to be responsible because we
are going to end up being responsible and...
Ms. Allen — I would prefer to have one large pond, but based upon the topography of the
site, do you think that that is...?
Mr. Walker — If you took the houses down on Coddington Road then you could probably
build one large pond to take the whole watershed.
Ms. Allen — I just think that the topography of the site...I mean that is the way that the
topography is broken up and there is a ravine here and there's a ravine up there.
Mr. Walker- One of the other things that we have been looking at and we just approved
a subdivision that incorporates stormwater management facilities in the road rights -of-
way with really wide, it's a 100 foot wide road right -of -way I believe and they are
basically a filter system and detention and filtration as a treatment system. And then
distributed localized or on site swales for almost all the lots on one side. So they are
very small terraces basically that are fairly easy to maintain and they are not
complicated, but they serve the same purpose as collecting the water at the bottom of
the watershed. These are smaller ponds, but maybe even making them smaller and
incorporating them right into the property and this is something else that we are trying to
work out is making sure that there is something, a manual for the homeowners that
okay, this flat area that gets wet every spring is supposed to, don't fill it in and we will
monitor that.
.I
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
Ms. Allen — Do you like the infiltration systems?
Mr. Walker — I like the infiltration systems from the standpoint that it is on the road right -
of -way and it is something that we can deal with, but dealing with four different ponds on
six different landowners is an issue.
Ms. Allen — I actually like the infiltration systems as well. I had just done a project
recently in the Town of Danby and the Town Engineer didn't want me to use infiltration
systems. So I actually prefer that so I can look at it.
Mr. Walker — What I am looking at is a more distributed system so you can collect and
treat the water rather than bring it to a central point and you will probably never get that
approved by the State right of way. You'll have to wait six months because it doesn't
meet their standard detail. I don't agree with that necessarily, but we will work with you.
Ms. Allen — Okay. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks, Dan. We all set for right now. I'm going to give those
people who hung around a chance to speak as I often do. Chairperson Wilcox invited
members of the public to address the board.
Bill Goodhew, 674 Coddington Road
Now, outback, I'm directly adjacent in this area here. I know how the water flows along
this property. I considered buying this parcel about 4 years ago and I have been living
in that area for 10 years. I know that the seasonal runs tend to come right now down
through this section and pickup on this for another ravine coming back on down through
here that feeds into this major section. There is a swale that goes down across here
that's kind of filled in it connects this ravine section to this ravine section. You won't see
it in any overview by an airplane. You have to get out there and walk it. My concerns
are predominately with how it is going to be stormwater managed because I'm directly
down below there. We've seen in storms along Troy Road before culverts that washed
clear out that have been sized properly and I've seen just as recently as last year down
on Coddington, which was going to be rebuilt, but there is a culvert there that goes
underneath Coddington Road that's probably 6 foot in diameter and that got backed up
and threatened to wash out Coddington Road. Now with development such as this, we
are going to see an increase in water flow because we are going to have roofs, we are
going to have streets, and the water flows we.got virtually no percolation in the soils up
there. Everything that is going to have to be done for anything with septic and I'm
assuming because I haven't seen anything with a sewer plan that it is going to be septic
up there.
Mr. Walker — It's going to be sewer.
Mr. Goodhew — It will be interesting to see how a sewer flows on this. Just for
maintenance of what is going to happen in the future down on Coddington and below in
41
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
the Conservation area and the water feed into the Ithaca Reservoir, it would be good to
see what is happening with this program here. Thank you.
Elsie Rawlins, 127 Troy Road
I did buy one lot, which I believe is here and that right now the drainage comes up over
from the road. There is a culvert and it comes down through our property where we
presently live, not the property we just bought, and there is an overflow that floods the
field that we just bought. So that is a concern and I'm hoping that if something is done
along the road rather than just having a ditch which fills in with sod and overflows, I
would be happy about that. My other concern is that we have a well on our property.
Our water is from a well. So what is happening with the sewage? I mean alarm bells
started to go off. I don't know.
Mr. Walker — They are planning to build a sewer system that will connect up to Troy
Road for the lots that are on the Troy Road side and then they may end up having to go
to Coddington Road to pick up the lower lots.
Ms. Rawlins — Because there are some people on Coddington that have wells, too.
This won't affect our wells?
Mr. Walker — There will be no septic tanks.
Ms. Rawlins — So this will be sewer so it will be all contained. Not to worry then. Okay.
Those were the two concerns.
Attorney Barney — I'm not quite clear. You bought the larger lot.
Ms. Rawlins — This one right here
Attorney Barney — And you mentioned you lived on a lot.
Ms. Rawlins — We live on the lot just below that. So we bought that as a buffer because
of this development coming in. I like the field. I like just the land being free and
undeveloped, which is why we bought the lot above us. I couldn't buy the whole parcel.
would love to. We are just very interested in what happens. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? There being no one, I will thank you and we will
see you all again at some future point in time.. Thank you all very much. Good night.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes — February 1, 2005
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -015: Approval of Minutes — February 1, 2005
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
42
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
APPROVED MARCH 15, 2005
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the February 1,
2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meetings as presented.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ritter reminded the board of an upcoming training on stormwater and another of
erosion and sedimentation control:
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the February 22, 2005 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carrie Coates it a?
Deputy Town Clerk
43
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:04 P.M. SEQR Determination: Lane 2 -Lot Subdivision, 333 & 339 West King Road,
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
2 -lot subdivision located at 333 & 339 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -27.2
and 37 -1 -27.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match
the existing property lines for the +/- 2.07 -acre parcel at 339 West King Road that did not receive
Planning Board Approval in 1984. James & Amy Lane, Owners /Applicants.
7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Conifer Village - Ithaca Senior Living Community, Conifer Drive.
7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site. Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision
Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a rezoning for the proposed Conifer
Village Ithaca Senior Living Community (previously known as Linderman Creek Senior Apartments)
proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of
age and older, located on an 8.4 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments
Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone.
The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property is planned to be developed into a residential subdivision in
the future. The proposal involves a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, a 96 -space parking
lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The applicant is requesting rezoning of
the 8.4 +/- acres for the senior rental apartments from Medium Density Residential to Multiple
Residence. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H..Fennessey, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed 56 -lot subdivision located on Troy Road
beginning approximately 1,600 feet south of the Coddington Road and Troy Road intersection, portion
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49 -1 -26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
subdividing the +/- 69 7acre parcel into 56 residential lots fronting on both Troy Road and on several
proposed new internal loop roads along with several parcels to be dedicated to the Town for
recreational purposes (open space and trail link). Paul Rubin, Owner /Applicant; Jody M. Allen, PE,
Allen Engineering, Agent.
7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
8. Approval of Minutes: February 1, 2005.
9, Other Business:
10, 4 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 - 17474
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot
subdivision located at 333 & 339 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37
1 -27.2 and 37 -1 -27.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision
approval . to match the existing property lines for the +/- 2.07 -acre parcel at 339 West
King Road that did not receive Planning Board Approval in 1984: James & Amy Lane,
Owners /Applicants,
7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary . Subdivision Approval, and
a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a rezoning for the proposed. Conifer
Village Ithaca Senior Living Community (previously known as Linderman Creek Senior
Apartments) proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental
project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on an 8.4 +/- acre parcel north of the
existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and
27 -1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the
property is planned to be developed into a residential subdivision in the future., The
proposal involves a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, a 96 -space parking lot,
stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The applicant is requesting
rezoning of the 8.4 +/- acres for the senior rental apartments from Medium Density
Residential to Multiple Residence, Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H.
Fennessey, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing
impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary,. upon request. Persons
desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, February 14, 2005
Publish: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Z�
8
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARb
SIGN -IN SHEET
BATE: February 22, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
7G rle
4 i (fie
W)- W). iCu
j LA QJA - t5;
y 20
�►, 6, �Y,
fGti
CG A ��
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, February 22, 2005
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting
Date of Publication:
February 14, 2005
February 16, 2005
JWMAAa. C o-j y
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of February 2005.
Q
Notary Public
Dani L. Holford
Notary Public, State Of New York
No, 01 H06052879
Seneca County
My Commission Expires Dec. 26, �aC*,R