Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-06-06FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 61 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:13 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board! Member (7:10 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (7:24 p.m.), Christine Balestra, Planner (7:10 p.m.); Nicole Tedesco, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED' Rod Howe, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Bill Wendt, Cornell University Director of Transportation; Dan Hoffman, 108 E Green St; Bill Gray, City of Ithaca Engineers Arthur Denman, 1516 Slaterville Rd; Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Dr. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox ideclares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m.; and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 26, 2006 and May 31, 2006, 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 May 31, 20068 Chairperson Wilcox "states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required I by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Update and Discussion Regarding Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T =GEIS): Corridor and Neighborhood Analyses and Summary of Recent Public Outreach Efforts Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Chairperson Wilcox — Kathryn, before you begin, I want to read a little statement, if I can. "Kathryn Wolf, principal with Trowbridge and Wolf, has been invited this evening to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to provide an update on the Transportation Focused GEIS that Cornell University has undertaken. Kathryn will be concentrating on transportation corridor and neighborhood activities and provide a summary of public outreach efforts that have occurred to date. Members of the Resource Committee, the Town of Ithaca Town Board and Conservation Board members have been invited to the presentation this evening. In addition, the City of Ithaca was notified so that Common Council members, Planning and Development staff and Planning and Development Board members could also attend as well." Kathryn, I understand that you will be doing a presentation for the City? Ms. Wolf — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox .7 I wish to point out that Kathryn was on the radio this morning providing information about the project in general and tonight's presentation specifically. "At the conclusion "of Kathryn's presentation we should have some time available for questions from the Planning Board members in attendance. To those. in the audience, this is not a public, hearing this evening. Instead, this is an opportunity to observe, listen and understand what has been accomplished to date. If you do have any questions, Kathryn has graciously agreed to stick around after her presentation and answer any questions in the lobby." Having said that, the floor is your. Name and professional address, please. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Yes. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street. Thank you for inviting us to the Planning Board this evening to make this presentation. This really is a progress report and really just an update on the TGEIS project. It has been since February, I believe, since we have been before the Board. On February 7"', the final scope was adopted. So we wanted to update you on what has been happening since that point in time This slide summarizes the work that we have been doing since that point in time and then I will come back and touch on each one of these in a little more detail. So we have geo -coded the home locations of faculty, staff and students and we have identified the commuter routes, the primary commuter routes to the Cornell Campus for which we will undertake the transportation analysis. We have identified neighborhood 2 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 streets, which will comprise the livability analysis. We have collected traffic data and conducted counts. There was a lot of existing count information out there and it was no small task just to round that all up, but we had a lot of help from all the various jurisdictions and organizations who had that information. So we collected that and then where it didn't exist or was not current enough, we conducted counts in April prior to classes being out.; We made sure that we took them during normal class days at Cornell. Then we conducted some public input surveys, which I'll talk about as well as a number of public" workshops. On April 25 „”' we had a bike and pedestrian workshop that was open to the public. This was held at the Maplewood Community Center and Maple Avenue. There were three public workshops; the bike and ped workshop and then we. had two workshops that were specific to identifying issues that were important to neighborhood residents. In total, we had approximately 70 people attend the three workshops. I think that we got very good input at the bike and ped workshop. This workshop tended to be very specific to people making recommendations about linkages that they thought would be helpful. This really brought out people who are already primarily bicycle commuters and knew the system well and knew where there were linkages and gaps in the system. So we had a lot of good input that way. At the neighborhood workshops, the first was held on May 1st sponsored by the Ithaca Neighborhood Council that was held at the Tompkins County Public Library and the second, neighborhoods workshop was sponsored by the University Neighborhoods Council on May 3rd and that was held at the Best Western at the East Hill Plaza. We documented everyone's comments at these meetings and also a lot of comments werQ_do-cumented _ on_maps. W_ _e_ar_e_in the_..process_ of recording, writing this all up and then reviewing it, organizing it, and trying to understand exactly what the major themes were. So that is currently in process. I do think that we have, my overall perception is that we had broad representation across neighborhoods. It was very diverse. I don't think it was...every area had some representation and issues - brought up about that neighborhood. So I_ fee l that we did get a pretty good sense of what issues are- important to residents across the community in their neighborhoods and where they existing issues. I think the comments were pretty diverse. They definitely reflected where people lived. So, of course, they were specific to geographic location, which I think also tells us that one solution doesn't fit everyone and we need to think about every area specific to what the issues are in that area. I think that jointly the public workshops, plus the surveys, which I'll describe, have given us a good feeling for both the neighborhoods and their concerns as well as commuters, which is what the survey is really focused on. So the neighborhood workshops, of course, was really understanding what the residents were concerned about and then we conducted a web based survey. We had a random sample of Cornell University faculty, staff, and undergrads. All Cornell University grad and professional students were surveyed and 3 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 that was actually at their request. They specifically requested that everyone have an opportunity to respond to the survey. While that wasn't necessary in order to have a statistically significant sample, at their request it was conducted in that way. So this survey was really targeted at understanding people's current commuting patterns, how they got to campus and also trying to gain insights on what types of programs or incentives might be effective in getting them to switch modes. So that was really the focus of this survey. Not to be confused with a couple of other web based surveys that have gone on in the past year, there was the Tompkins County...I think they called it the Tompkins County Cornell...the Cornell County Commuter survey. Now that also included a survey specifically on downtown businesses as well as the Cornell commuting population, but the focus of that survey was really on park and ride and on the viability and how park and ride might made effective in this community. So it had a different focus, whereas this web based survey was broader, more detailed regarding commuting patterns and also got into bicycling, walking, and other modes, transit, but we would be taking the information from all of these surveys to inform the project. The .survey that was just completed and this survey was essentially designed by MAB, the transportation consultants from North Carolina. They had a number of meetings with students and faculty and staff and so there was also input from Cornell people on or the actual users I guess. So 13,902 surveys were actually sent out and of those, 6,408 responded, which is a 46% response rate, which apparently is extremely high. 25% is what was required for statistical significance. So I think this is giving us, combined with the ,surveys that were done earlier, it was giving us a very good picture of the commuting population, so this, of course, produced a lot of information and it is going to take several months to sort of get through that and tabulate that and understand really what the implications of this are. In addition to the web based surveys, there was also a questionnaire that we developed that was primarily focused on pedestrian and bicycle issues for the ped /bike workshop, but we also made it available at all of the other workshops. So the people who attended the workshops also filled that out. That is posted on the web as well. -The village of Varna, for example, is distributing that to their community. So there are - various other- ways -that the questionnaire is being distributed. I wanted to talk a bit about some of the analysis that we have begun to do. Some of this you have seen in a more preliminary format in last fall when we talked a little bit about our proposed method. When you saw this diagram last fall, and these are all in your packet. These maps are all in your packets. I would note that on ... this work is in progress: These diagrams are, I think, fairly close to being complete. There are things that could change as we get more information. So this diagram illustrates the home address location of any faculty and staff or any graduate student who has any sort of parking gpermit at Cornell or any kind of a transit pass, which for faculty and staff is like, 98% and a smaller percentage for graduate students. So those locations 0 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 are known and mapped and we did show a version of this last fall, but at that time it was only employees. So we have since then added the information of the graduate if students. So the geo -coded home locations then help us understand where.everyone is actually located and where they are coming from and then another map that you saw, I think a little bit different version of last fall and this is still being somewhat fine- tuned. We are really trying to get this ... we ware really getting into this in great detail, but based on where everyone lives, we are then able to look at what we call travel sheds. So we are able to say for example that all of those home locations located within this travel wedge, are traveling on these roadway segments and that helps us understand what percentage of the commuting population of Cornell is arriving via these various routes. Again, this will continue to be refined yet further, but it helps us understand what the distribution of traffic is on the regional network, although the traffic engineers have pointed out to me that the counts then are really also compared to this then. The counts, of course, tell you how many cars are...you have a factual count of how many cars are actually going through an intersection or along a particular roadway. So all of this information will be correlated as a check and sort of to verify how people are arriving at Cornell. Based on the travelsheds map, then, we were able to develop what we are calling the primary commuter routes to Cornell. So all of the blue corridors here are considered to be primary commuter routes to the Cornell campus. You can't read the legend here, you might be able to read it on your hardcopy, but the orange dots represent entrances to the Cornell campus, at that point you have arrived on the campus. So therefore, in most cases the corridors don't carry through because this is not a study about traffic on the campus. It really is about how people are getting to and from. The red boundary here is what we are calling the destination area, since that is where people are traveling to and from as opposed to the thinner red lines, which are actually municipal boundaries. So these primary commuter routes, we will undertake the. ..transportation corridor analysis on these routes to really look at the functionality of the roadways in the existing conditions, level of service, more of a traditional traffic analysis on all of these corridors. Then we will overlay the growth scenarios so that we can understand what the impact on those corridors will then be. The analysis to be conducted on these corridors is all spelled out in the scoping document. I've listed here the primary elements that comprise that analysis. I'm not going to go through these, but again, this is taken directly from the scoping document. Jonathan, should I go through and name these routes or do we not want to take the time? Board Member Mitrano — We know them. Board Member Hoffmann — We have the maps. 5 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Ms. Wolf — And all of these diagrams, by the way, were on display at the public workshops. Most people who attended the workshops really went through these in pretty good detail. Once they went through all of these diagrams, most of these people said they now understood what we are doing. They had very positive feedback. I think we felt, also, that it was a good verification of the corridors that have been identified. There were, a few additions that were made to the maps as a result of some of the input, but overall, I think it was pretty well verified by the public workshop. So the transportation corridor analysis will occur then on all of those blue routes, which are the primary commuter routes. We then recognize and as we all heard as part of the public input during the scoping phase, many of these primary commuter routes actually travel through residential areas. So where the commuter routes travel through residential area, we are concerned about land need to look at neighborhood livability issues from the resident's perspective. So we have now taken this primary corridor commuter map, and we've..:hard to see on the screen there...but I think you can see it on your hard copies, we have outlined in green those sections of the corridors that travel through a residential area. The limits of that, in general, we have gone out approximately a mile from the destination area. That is not always true. All of west hill is more than a mile out, but we have agreed that we should look at certain areas there. Portions of ... so in any case, that is generally the definition of where we stop looking at that analysis because MAB has told us that after a mile from the destination area, the travel gets so intermixed with other travel that it becomes very difficult to say that it is one particular user versus the other. So for those sections of the roadway then that are outlined in green, we will in addition to the transportation corridor analysis, we will be conducting the neighborhood livability analysis. That includes, of course, all of the, again, this is all spelled out in the final scoping document, I'm not going to go through that here, but we are beginning to gather that information for all of those roadway segments. So then we said, okay, in addition to those primary commuter routes that go through residential areas, there are in addition certain residential neighborhood streets that are pretty important. It is sort of a second tier to the primary routes, but it is another set of streets that are used by people who live in those neighborhoods to get to Cornell as well also by people who are traveling through the City. We had a series of meetings with the City and Town planners and others to really come to an agreement on what's that sort of second level of street in addition to the primary commuter routes that are really residential streets that are used quite a bit to get to Cornell. Those then are highlighted on this map in green. So all of those streets will also undergo the neighborhood livability analysis and the concern here is predominately from the residents' perspective. Then we simply, because we can do it on the computer, we simply turned off the blue ones and this then is simply a snapshot of all of those green streets that will undergo the neighborhood livability analysis. We are in the process of doing that and will be continuing'! to work on that throughout the summer. So that really is an overview of what we have been doing, where we are at in this point of time. The Lei Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 0&20-2006 intention now is to, as I have said, the next steps really and over the summer, again we tried to have the public workshops, traffic counts, we really had a lot of tasks that we were trying to get done before school was out and people go away for the summer. Now over the summer we will be reviewing all of the public input, both from the workshops and the surveys. We will be completing the neighborhood livability analysis, analyzing the traffic counts. We will overlay the hypothetical growth scenarios on all of those corridors and analyze what the impact is and then the intent is to come back in the fall with another round of these public workshops to present . the analysis, the impact analysis, begin to talk about preliminary mitigations and obtain input at these public workshops. Then based on that input, then we would put that together into the draft TGEIS that would get submitted to you. Then at that point really begin the actual formal SEQR public review. That really concludes my presentation. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Kathryn. Board Member Mitrano — Well, you must be very proud of this work. It's been exhausting, but it bears the value of all that went into the questions and examinations and discussion about it because it really is beautifully done. Ms. Wolf — Great. Thank you, Tracy. I must say that is has been almost unanimously at the workshops...it was very positive response from the public. It was very encouraging. People were very excited about it. Chairperson Wilcox Who else? Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I have a couple of questions. I noticed that it talks about -- faculty, —staff, and - graduate - -or— professional students. Are there any undergraduates that have parking ... are allowed to park on campus that live off campus and would travel back and forth? Ms. Wolf — Actually,'! Bill, I think you can answer that better than I can. Board-Member Hoffmann — And if-so;- were they -- included in - the - surveys? Bill Wendt, Cornell University Director of Transportation I'm Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation. My office is at 116 Maple Avenue, Ithaca. Undergraduates do live on campus and there are resident commuter permits on the campus. There are'', a number of undergraduates who have storage on the campus. In general we make available to students what we call a Plus Pass where you can park your car at B -Lot and leave it there all week if you want and you also get a TCAT bus pass that you can use during the week to commute back and forth. They also then may use their car to go back and forth from B -Lot. That is a very small number. I believe it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 -400 undergraduates who actually 7 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 have that type of permit. The ones that park at the residential area really cannot bring that car to campus or move it from the residential parking area. That is the only place they are. allowed to park in. In general it is north campus, the graduates living in buildings at Maplewood, or at Pleasant Grove, Sage House, and Thurston Court. So they are parking that really stay there. So that' is a mix of graduates and undergraduates:.. _ t IL Board Member Hoffmann - This is during the day. Mr. Wendt Yes. Board. Member Hoffmann - But undergraduate students are allowed to bring their cars onto campus at night? Mr. Wendt = There are undergraduate students who live in fraternities off campus. The campus is generally open at night. There are some restricted areas of the campus that students, faculty, staff and anyone can use. Board Member Hoffmann - So there is some traffic by undergraduates. I guess I didn't quite understand the answer. You said the undergraduates live on campus. Do they all live on campus now? r 'Mr. Wendt = All freshmen live on campus. ai Board Member Hoffmann - But that leaves three other classes. - - -Mr: Wendt I -- believe - around 2, 000 - upper_- classman._.students. still_ live in the west campus area. There are additional students that live in those complexes that I mentioned, Pleasant Grove, Thurston Court, Maplewood 'and Schyuler .House. I just don't know the total number of students that live on the.campus and off the campus. k Ms. Wolf . They were surveyed. The other part of your question, you asked if the undergraduates -were surveyed: -So -there was a random -- sample of undergraduates and 11 I actually have here the response rate by class, I'm mean it is just sort of interesting. So of those that were sampled 35.4% of freshman responded, 36.6% of sophomores, 38.6% of the juniors, and 32.7% of the seniors responded. So statically significant samples were achieIved for each of the classes and each group is going to be looked at as a group.d n Board Member Hoffmann.— Well, good. I think then that you should probably include that in your text that you also did cover undergraduates and survey them instead of just saying graduate students. 'J �E j, Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 have that type of permit. The ones that park at the residential area really cannot bring that car to campus or move it from the residential parking area. That is the only place they are. allowed to park in. In general it is north campus, the graduates living in buildings at Maplewood, or at Pleasant Grove, Sage House, and Thurston Court. So they are parking that really stay there. So that' is a mix of graduates and undergraduates:.. _ t IL Board Member Hoffmann - This is during the day. Mr. Wendt Yes. Board. Member Hoffmann - But undergraduate students are allowed to bring their cars onto campus at night? Mr. Wendt = There are undergraduate students who live in fraternities off campus. The campus is generally open at night. There are some restricted areas of the campus that students, faculty, staff and anyone can use. Board Member Hoffmann - So there is some traffic by undergraduates. I guess I didn't quite understand the answer. You said the undergraduates live on campus. Do they all live on campus now? r 'Mr. Wendt = All freshmen live on campus. ai Board Member Hoffmann - But that leaves three other classes. - - -Mr: Wendt I -- believe - around 2, 000 - upper_- classman._.students. still_ live in the west campus area. There are additional students that live in those complexes that I mentioned, Pleasant Grove, Thurston Court, Maplewood 'and Schyuler .House. I just don't know the total number of students that live on the.campus and off the campus. k Ms. Wolf . They were surveyed. The other part of your question, you asked if the undergraduates -were surveyed: -So -there was a random -- sample of undergraduates and 11 I actually have here the response rate by class, I'm mean it is just sort of interesting. So of those that were sampled 35.4% of freshman responded, 36.6% of sophomores, 38.6% of the juniors, and 32.7% of the seniors responded. So statically significant samples were achieIved for each of the classes and each group is going to be looked at as a group.d n Board Member Hoffmann.— Well, good. I think then that you should probably include that in your text that you also did cover undergraduates and survey them instead of just saying graduate students. Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20 =2006 Ms. Wolf - Yes. You are right. Actually someone pointed that out to me. That was an error I made. It was an omission. Board Member Hoffmann - Now my other question has to do with this outlined area that you variously call main campus destination area and hypothetical population growth study area. I went back because in these new papers we just got with the maps that you have come up with after you have done this research, it doesn't talk about main campus any more. So I went back and looked in the final scope and on page 3 it says, "the main campus for the purposes of this study is illustrated in figure one, area of hypothetical population growth for TGEIS." That is the same area in the map of the final scope is the same area that you have outlined in red here in these various maps of transportation corridors and such. Now what I don't understand about it and I had this same question when I went to one of the public presentations was, "why do some of these campus entrances show up, in fact, on the edge of this main campus and some of them show up only way in ?" Like all the ones in the City, which are 5 of them, are actually pretty much on the edge of this red outlined area and the one on Route 366 coming in from Varna is on the edge. Its on the eastern Town line, but the ones that are in northern area, north of Forest Home, are indicated only after you have gone through some of this main campus area and the same is true for the southern side. The dots should really be, as far as I can see, on Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road, but it is all the way up on Route 366 for campus entrance from the south in that southeast area of Ithaca. Why is that? Ms. Wolf - I fully admit that this is not that neat and tidy, this piece of it. I mean I don't think...I can't'say that we spent a lot of time agonizing about it. It was just sort of to help people understand why the lines were stopping and we are not analyzing it ---on- campus. - --On 366, - for - example, -we- have- a- dot_.__we -sat at the -map- and- said, -okay, at this point on Route 366, its Cornell land on both sides. So we said, okay, that is an entrance because it is Cornell land on both sides, but then at the same time if you are coming down Pine Tree Road, its not all Cornell land there. And so people felt that really the intersection of Pine Tree and 366 in a way was another entrance. It's somewhat intuitive, Eva. I mean it in no way really...I can't say that it is really - -- influencing -the way' that we are -doing the analysis. - -Some -people would say, well, how could the lines just stop there. We more or less intuitively and if you were surrounded by Cornell property, we said we are not going to continue to evaluate this street because it is on campus, but then we violate that rule then because Route 366 is a through corridor and you have to evaluate the through corridor even though it is completely surrounded by Cornell land. It is not neat and tidy. That is probably not a very satisfactory answer, but it was just...I don't think it was something that really is having that much influence on how we are evaluating it. It is just generally to help people understand that now you have more or less arrived on campus. 9 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 0620-2006 Board Member Hoffmann — I can see it, when if we talk about campus as I have always thought of main campus, that is that central area, but you have in fact in the study expanded what you cali' main campus to include everything within this red line. In fact, a lot of that land, especially in that southern part is Cornell University land as far as I understand it anyway. The Polo Barns, the Tennis Center, the pig barns, the horse barns, all of that north of the southern -most red line is Cornell owned land. Ms. Wolf — So you ,are saying that you think that the entrance should actually move to where the red line in. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, it reflects more what you have been talking about. Ms. Wolf — Yeah. Mr. Wendt - Eva, I' think you make a very good point there so I think the project team can go back and look at the entrances and I have made a note here to take a look at them. It is a very helpful comment. I appreciate it. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I thought that I would also add now that I have heard one answer from you, the answer I got from one of the other team members at the public session presentation that I went to. He said, "we thought that some of the people who live in these areas might be mad if we put the entrance points on the edges of this red lined area." At that point I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, quite frankly. That was just... Board Member Mitrano — Maybe he didn't mean it. Board Member Hoffmann — What you are saying... Board Member Mitrano — Maybe it was just a joke. -Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't think so. He-was perfectly serious and anyway —to- respond to- my- question-with- a-joke- was- not-the-right-thing-to--do - I-think. So anyway, I would appreciate it if you look into that because it doesn't quite make sense the way you have it and I didn't really hear a good explanation. Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Now you've got me interested. The exact question, Eva, is the difference between Cornell property boundaries and what constitutes main campus and where they have put these dots. Is that what the issue is? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if you look, for instance, at the transportation corridors map, you see this red outline that goes along the eastern boundary of the Town and then along the southern area here and up to Hanshaw Road more or less, t; 10 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 0620-2006 taking in part of the City, that is what they have talked all along about as the main campus. Now on some of these maps they talk about it as a hypothetical population growth study area. Those wordings are in the final scope. Board Member Mitrano — What's the question? What's the main point? Board Member Hoffmann — My main point is why are some of the campus entrance points in fact on that boundary in the City and on Route 366 and why are some of them way into this study area instead of on the edge of it, if we have all along been talking about this area as the area that is being studied for growth, campus growth of Cornell University. It is like talking about apples and oranges. Mr. Kanter — In looking at the map, and this is not 100% true either, but in many cases where the dots appear is where the public roads disappear. In other words where actual Cornell owned campus roads begin. Again, that is not 100% true, but that is largely why a lot of the dots ended up where they are. But again as Kathryn was saying, the dots are meant to help and if they are not helping then maybe they don't need to be there because that is irrelevant in terms of what the actual analysis will do. The analysis is basically the corridors whether they are the transportation. or the livability corridors and the dots simply were meant to help show why some of the corridors stop, but if it is confusing then they definitely don't need to be there. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, maybe it is better to take them out then because I think they are inconsistent with each other. That is the problem I have with it. Ms. Wolf — I completely agree that it is not neat and tidy and we tried to make it that way and it was a difficult thing. So we will take a look at that and come back with what we think is the clearest and maybe it will be to remove them. We struggled with that ourselves. ° Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is not so much that they are inconsistent, the issue seems to be more that art was part of the decision process rather than science in trying to determine what is a formal entrance, what is an informal entrance, when are you surrounded by campus land and when are you not. Board Member Conneman — For example you include 366 on the outskirts where Cornell land is, but if you go up Warren Road, most of Warren Road is Cornell land because of the golf course. So you ought to have an entrance at Blue Grass Lane or someplace there to be consistent with the other part of it. Ms. Wolf — Those are all valid. 11 B Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Chairperson Wilcox:- Take them out or explain them. That probably means take them out. Board Member Hoffmann - Otherwise I think it is very good and. clear and understandable. Ms. Wolf - Good. Chairperson Wilcox- We all set over here? Comments over here? Okay. Your timing is impeccable. Thank you very much. SEQR Holtz / City of Ithaca 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1517 =1 Slaterville Road Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca Attorney Dan Hoffman, 108 E Green Street, City of Ithaca. Chairperson Wilcox - Can you give us a brief overview of what is being proposed here? Mr. Hoffman - As you probably are all aware, the City of Ithaca draws it water from the Six Mile Creek watershed and owns approximately 700 acres of land. surrounding the reservoir and creeks. The City has been trying to increase the protection of the Six Mile Creek natural area for the last 25 years. One of the ways it has been doing that is to acquire land from willing sellers to increase the buffer and minimize appropriate development in the area for the purpose of protecting the water quality as well as the natural character of the area, even downstream of the water source for its recreational and environmental value. Obviously many people enjoy that area in its current state, but the City does rely on it for its water supply. - The City has ilidentified various properties and it has an interest in acquiring from willing sellers and it so happens that one of those properties was the back portion of __1570 Slaterville Road. _It turned_ out that Mr. and Mrs. __Ho_I_tz_.were interested in selling a --- -- portion- -of- their- property -to--the - City -of- Ithaca. —The- City - made - an offer- and they accepted the offer and we realized that a subdivision is required. The City intends to consolidate that one -acre of land into the adjacent holdings, which are about 700 acres and to use it as passive recreation as well as protection of the watershed. So you have a survey map which shows the division line, which is roughly 200 feet up hill from Six Mile Creek and it so happens that the City's water main runs through that one acre so the City is very interested in being able to control the land where its pipe runs. There is also a trail that people use that runs close to the creek in that area. So we are hoping that you will approve this subdivision so we can proceed with the purchase. 12 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 -20 -2006 Chairperson Wilcox I always ask, are you aware of any environmental impacts of this subdivision? Mr. Hoffman - I guess we would see them as positive impacts in that the City has no intention of developing that section of land or allowing any private development on that land. Chairperson Wilcox '- Any question with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Mitrano - Looks good. Chairperson Wilcox 7 Would someone like to move the SEQR motion. Board Member Thayer moves and Board Member Talty seconds. Ms. Tedesco - I have one addition. You will see in front of you a revised survey map. Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. I was going to mention that when we got to actual subdivision review. ; y Ms. Tedesco - Okay. It is referenced in point number 3, the whereas number 3. Chairperson Wilcox So we need to change the date to June 5"'. Ms. Tedesco - So dated December 12, 2005 and revised June 5, 20066 - --C- hair - per -son- - WilcoxT -he- revised- subdivision - map- in_fr_ont_of_y_ou when--came-in shows the location. of the existing house and driveway and also, I assume, an approximate boundary for the conservation zone. Board Member Hoffmann - Both on this one and on the other two EAF forms for the later things we_ar_e':doing,_I was wondering if we should mark park, forest, open space on -point--number 10 as land -use - in the vicinity of- the - proposed - project because that is what the land in the conservation zone is. Chairperson Wilcox I don't have an issue. Board votes on motion. Tax Pace/ 5841 32,1 t 13 9 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-202006 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -Lot subdivision located at 1517 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -32.1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.925 acre parcel from the southwestern end of the +/- 4.332 acre parcel, which will then be consolidated with City of Ithaca Watershed lands Corwin & Deborah Holtz, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 6, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and has reviewed. a plan entitled, "Subdivision Map, No. 1517 -1 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, dated December 12, 2005, and revised June 5, 2006, and other application materials, and 4. The Town 'Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed subd /vision; --- NOW- THEREFORE_BEIT_RESOL -ORE That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the .above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an - -- Environmental Impact Statement will not be- required - - -- - A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NA Y5.& None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 14 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision';, located at 1517 -1 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -32.1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.925 -acre parcel from the southwestern end of the +/- 4.332 -acre parcel, which will then be consolidated with City of Ithaca Watershed lands. Corwin & Deborah Holtz, Owners /Applicants Chairperson Wilcoxopens the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox Questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed? There are none. Sir, are you here to speak on this particular item? ii Mr. Denman — I live across the street from where this is going exactly what he is putting in and I want to know... and what is a many houses. Chairperson Wilcox) Dan, can Mr. Hoffman -Sure. I ask you to have a seat. I n and I don't know subdivision and how Chairperson Wilcoxa, — And I will give the public a chance to comment while we are in the public hearing. Sir, if I can get you up to the microphone that way we can get you on the record. - -- ft.Denman =I wa "s- coming -to- see- w -hatit was_doing_and_I was - confused._ Chairperson Wilcox;;— Okay, Can I have a name and address please? Mr. Denman — I was just concerned what is actually going in there... - Chairperson -- Wilcox;;— Can -I have a- -name -and address- please ?- - - - - -- - =- Mr. Denman - ...if it was going to be two things with 10 apartments in it or what it is If going to be. Chairperson Wilcox)— I need a name and address. Mr. Denman - Arthur Denman, 1516 Slaterville Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Across the street. The .9 acre parcel on the map that you are looking at...Kevin/ do you want to point out what is going on? 15 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-202006 Board Member Talty approaches Mr. Denman and explains the subdivision proposal to Mr. Denman using a' map in the packet. Chairperson Wilcox So the answer is nothing. Nothing will be developed on that land. Mr. Denman — Way down. So he is going to build in here, though? Board Member Talty — What they are doing is protecting the watershed. So it is in the City's best interest. What they are doing is they came to this couple right here and said we would like to purchase this part of your property. They agreed. So what we have to do is subdivide their lot so that the City can purchase this particular this piece of property. Mr. Denman— So the y just purchasing it? Board Member Talty — That Mr. Denman — But tfey are Board Member Talty' — That Mr. Denman — Okay. I was Chairperson Wilcox ;— Ther word. is correct. not building on it? is correct. afraid that I was going to have more apartment houses. e will be no new buildings. You have the City Attorney's Mr. Denman — A few years ago we bought the land up in back. Chairperson Wilcox, The City has over the past 5 -10 years has been purchasing properties on the west side of Slaterville Road to help protect their water supply. We haven't seen one in a couple of years, by they have over the years purchased land to ---- add -to- their- watershed to-protect- the-supply-of water-to-City residents. Mr. Denman — I misunderstood. I thought they were going to be building down there. Chairperson Wilcox — That is fine. That is why you came and now hopefully you understand what is going on. Board Member Talty, — It is exactly the opposite. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir. 16 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 0610-2006 Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Board Member Conneman moves and Board Member Talty seconds the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox - We must make the same change to the resolution as drafted with regard to the date of the survey, which is. June 5b'. The other question is, do we need to eliminate a condition? Ms. Tedesco - Yes, in fact, you do. Mr. Kanter - Two conditions. Ms. Tedesco - Condition a and they have already submitted the Mylar and the dark lined prints. Chairperson Wilcox - They are in a hurry for a signature, aren't they? Ms. Tedesco - I have them right here. Chairperson Wilcox - I can do it tonight. Mr. Kanter - Assuming the board approves it. Chairperson Wilcox - So conditions a and b are removed. -Ms. -Brock - Don't we still need submission of a receipt of filing? They are supposed to file with the Tompkins County Clerk's office, so I think we need to retain that under b. Chairperson Wilcox - So we could just leave b, b is fine as is. Mr. Kanter - Well that assumes then that you couldn't sign then ... why don't you just say, "b, submission of a receipt of filing Town Planning department." Board Member Hoffmann- And that would become a. it tonight because of the plat to the Chairperson Wilcox - And c becomes b. Board Member Thayer - Dan, is the City going to continue to draw water from that reservoir or are they going to use Bolton Point water? Chairperson Wilcox - Ooh, there's a loaded question. 17 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 -20 -2006 Mr. Walker - Maybe. Board Member Conneman - Ten years ago... Mr. Walker — Right now they are still drawing from it and there are no plans that I am aware of that have been finalized to not draw water from that reservoir. Board Member Thayer — Just curious. With no further discussion, board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -053; Preliminary and Final Subdivision, Holtz/ City of Ithaca 2 4ot Subdivision, 1517 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 58 =1 -32.1 MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS; 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdivision located at 1517 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -32.1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal is to subdivide off a +/- 0.925 acre parcel from the southwestern end of the +/- 4.332 acre parcel, which will then be consolidated with City of Ithaca Watershed lands. Corwin & Deborah Holtz, Owners/ 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 June 6, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, _after having __reviewed - and _ accepted _as adequate a Short Environmental - --Assessment Form -Part I,- submitted by- the - applicant; -and -a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 6, 2006, has reviewed and accepted, subject to revisions, a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map, No. 1517 -1 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared. by Allen T. Fulkerson, dated December 12, 2005, and revised June 6, 2006, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED. We Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-202006 i. 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 2 -Lot subdivision located at 1517 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -32.1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones, as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision Map, No. 1517 -1 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, "prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, dated December 12, 2005, for consolidation with City of Ithaca Watershed lands, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of a receipt of filing of the plat to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation. of the subdivided southwestern part of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 58 -1 -32.1 of +/- 0.925 acres with City of Ithaca Watershed lands, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Office for consolidation of said parcels. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: --- A-Y-ES:-Wil cox,- Hoffmann,- Connem- an,- Mitr-ano,- Thayer,— Talty. - - NAYS.• None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEAR- - - -- - Moore -Dock & Boat Lift, 1028 East Shore Drive,---- -- - - PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock, boatlift, mooring, and rip rap at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the proposed dock and proposed boatlift +/- 7 feet southward, shortening the proposed dock extension from +/- 15 feet to +/- 10 feet long, and removing the originally proposed mooring from the site plan. This is a request for modification of the 19 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 -20 -2006 approval granted by the Planning Board on February 7, 2006, Timothy Moore and Michael Moore, Owners /Applicants. Board Member Thayer - The Moores are not. here. Board Member Mitrano — Do you want to switch? Board Member Talty — Can we switch? Chairperson Wilcox — We can switch. The problem is I have a public hearing that is scheduled at 8:00 p.m. So we can switch. SEQR Sokoloff Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive Chairperson Wilcox — Since either Mr. Tim Moore or Mr. Michael Moore is not here, we will give the applicant or an agent an opportunity to get here. So given the hour and when the public hearing was scheduled, we can move onto the next one. Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive, Ithaca. Chairperson Wilcox— If you would, briefly tell us why you are back again. Mr. Sokoloff — Okay. I guess after looking at the site, I actually went out and measured what 70 feet off the southerly neighbor's property would be, as different to something in the-middle—of—the—property—.—After—having—myy neighbors-come-out and ask me what I was doing, showed them the point that the dock was proposed to be built and well they had a question for me, "could that be moved slightly away from our dock ?" I said, "I'm not quite sure, but I guess I'm willing to go back and ask." So they wrote you guys a letter describing what... Chairperson - Wilcox — From -Mr: and -Mrs Taylor - ? -- - - -- -- - - - - - Mr. Sokoloff — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — We have a copy of their letter dated April 8"'. The only thing that is being requested is to move the location of the dock? Mr. Sokoloff — Yup, from 70 feet off their dock to just the middle of my property. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. RZIJ Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-202006 Mr. Sokoloff — So they have a little more privacy and I guess I have a little more privacy. Chairperson Wilcox — Christine, any comments? Ms. Balestra — No. I do have one change that needs to happen on the SEQR part II.: Chairperson Wilcox — Go for it while we got you. Ms. Balestra — Where it says C1, the first paragraph, instead of 6 feet wide by 60 feet long dock, it is 8 feet wide. That is what was approved. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Questions with regard to the environmental review. Board Member Thayer — I think the Taylor letter makes a lot of sense, actually. I know it is moving further out, but its not significant in my mind. Chairperson Wilcox - Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to ... in the text there under C1, if we go back to what Chris was just telling us about it says, "an 8 foot wide by 12 foot long I' at the end." I thought that was 12 by 12, according to the drawing. Ms. Balestra — I know what you mean. What I did was I subtracted the 4 feet 'L' extension'. .I've been measuring docks so long I completely messed that up. I think you are right. That is 12 by 128 Chairperson Wilcox — The extension is still 12 by 128 Ms. Balestra = It is 12 by 12. They haven't changed that. It's just that I wrote it a different way on the EAF this time. - -- Chairperson Wilcox - I have made the changes on the official copy and I have initialed them. Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Hoffmann — On that environmental assessment form again, I had marked asking whether we shouldn't again mark park, forest, open space because the lake and the lakeshore is part of our open space. Ms. Balestra — You could check that off as open space, if you like. Board Member Hoffmann — I think so. 21 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Ms. Balestra – The land use is lake. Ms. Brock – Its water. Water counts. Chairperson Wilcox – I don't want to get hung up on this because it's not crucial, but what is -the nature of this board? To mark open space? Board Member Thayer – Okay. Board Member Conneman - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox – Okay. Let me do that while I'm right here. I personally would not mark lake as a land use and open space, but it doesn't matter. Anything else with regard to the environmental review? Would someone like to move it? Board Member Talty moves the resolution and Board Member Thayer seconds. Chairperson Wilcox - Any further discussion? Ms. Balestra – I have a couple of chanc action is a consideration of site plan and approved plan," we wanted to add, "and where it says, "with respect to site plan says, "site plan and special permit" and The same thing with number 4, last line.. Chairperson Wilcox– Read number 4. yes. In the first whereas where it says, "this special permit modification for the previously permit" for the dock. Number 2, the last line approval," to strike out "approval" so that it add "modification" because that is what it is. Ms. Balestra – So number 4, 'tthe Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan and special permit modifications." - -- -- Chairperson-Wilcox Thank you-,---Changes- acceptable? -- — - - Board Member Talty and Board Member Thayer – Yes. Chairperson Wilcox – All set? Ms. Balestra – Yes. Board Member Hoffmann – You know, I'm sorry to do this, but I think I understand what you were saying now about this drawing and if we say a 60 by 8 dock plus a 12 22 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 20 2006 by 12, then we end up with something different, but 12 by 8 isn't right either. It should be 12 by 4 extension if we do it the way I think you were thinking. Ms. Balestra — You are right. That is right. then the extension on the end is 12 by 40 So that the overall length is still 60 feet and Board Member Hoffmann — Right because otherwise it might extend another 12 feet further into the lake. Chairperson Wilcox— Hold on. I want to go back and read this. Mr. Kanter - I think you need to clarify the wording, not change the numbers. Like you need to say something like, the proposal includes the construction of an open pile dock, 8 feet wide by 60 feet long that includes a 12 foot wide by 12 foot wide 1' at the end." Board. Member Thayer - That'll work. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm comfortable with the part c language as it is shown now. Board votes on motion. Proposed Dock 'r East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -5.2 MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS; 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modification for the previously approved plan and permit for a dock at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the previously approved dock approximately 30 feet northward on the property, with no other changes proposed. This is a request for modification of the approvals granted by the Planning Board on March 7, 2006: Jason Sokoloff Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan and Special Permit modifications, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 6, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a 23 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " most recently revised 217106 and dated 4126106, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan and Special Permit modifications; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set Forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann. . The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.-9 -2 5 -2-,- L-akefr-ont- Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the previously approved dock approximately 30 feet northward, with no other changes proposed. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on March 7, 2006, Jason Sokoloff, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. and reads the public hearing - - notice. - - -- - -- -- — - -- - — - - - Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan and special permit. There being none, this is a public hearing. I note that there are no members of the public here this evening other than members of the board, staff and the applicant, himself, therefore there is no one here to speak. Correct? Board Member Thayer — That is what it looks like. Chairperson Wilcox — Therefore I will close the public hearing at 8.12 p.m. Questions, comments, concerns? 24 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Board Member Talty — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Kevin Talty, seconded by the Chair. Ms. Balestra — Similar modifications. Chairperson Wilcox— Similar modifications to the resolution as drafted for site plan and special permit modification. Any other changes? Ms. Brock — Yes. Ms. Balestra — Well, first of all, the first whereas, "this action is consideration of site plan and special permit modifications for the previously approved plan and permit." Then in the And Be It Further Resolved, that the Planning Board grants modification number 3 to add, "that this special permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals as referenced in condition 2a of the modified site plan approval, and upon meeting the other conditions of the modified site plan approval." Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, you okay? Board Member Talty - I'm all set. Chairperson Wilcox - Does he have to go back before...? Ms. Balestra — He does have to go back to the Zoning Board, June 19"' and he needs to apply immediately. Chairperson Wilcox — Because the ZBA reviewed what reviewed. Ms. Balestra. — They reviewed the same plans as the Planning Board and conditioned approvals -on what-was presented: -So since -what is being - proposed is -30- additional feet north, it is a change and needs to go back to the Zoning Board. With no further discussion, board votes on motion. MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS: 25 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modification for the previously approved plan and permit for a dock at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 Z -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the previously approved dock approximately 30 feet northward on the property, with no other changes proposed. -This. is a request for modification of the approvals granted by the Planning Board on March 7, 2006. Jason Sokoloff, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review, has, on June 6, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, atter having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 6, 2006, has reviewed and accepted plans entitled 'Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " most recently revised 217106 and dated 4126106, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, as shown on the submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: -- a. Granting- of- the variance - modifications fr_om_the _Zoning_B_oard of Appeals, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b, Submission of a copy of the new Army Corps of Engineers permit for the revised dock proposal, if a new permit is required, and The applicant shall maintain the NYS water quality standards listed in the — - - letter from the NYSDEC dated November 7, 2005, and any specific permit conditions outlined in the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants a modification of the previously approved Special Permit to allow the construction of a dock in a Lakefront Residential Zone as provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code ,§'27045, determining that the standards of ,§'270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, subject to the conditions listed in 2 and 3 below, Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 -20 -2006 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the length of the proposed dock to exceed the 30 -foot maximum length, pursuant to Section 270 -45(A)(I)(b)[7J, with the condition that said dock shall not exceed 60 feet, and 3. That this Special Permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals as referenced in condition 2.a. of the modified Site Plan Approval, and upon meeting the other conditions of the modified Site Plan Approval. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman. The motion was declared to be carried. Board Member Conneman - When will Codes and Ordinances do something? Mr. Kanter - They're doing it. Chairperson Wilcox - They're doing it. Mr. Kanter - They're getting there. Board Member Conneman - When will they have it done? - -Ms: Balestra = T -he -dock inventory- has - beer-- c- ompleted- - -- -- Board Member Conneman - Yes, I know that. Ms. Balestra - Staff is still compiling... well, we are getting a spreadsheet together of - -- other - municipal- regulations - -to- compare to -ours and then it is up to the COC as to what - -- -they want to do with -- that -- information. -- That - will - all --be- presented at the June 21st meeting. Chairperson Wilcox - You can go. COC meets once a month, so we will see if it is on the agenda. Ms. Balestra - It is expected to be. Chairperson Wilcox - The next item is the Moore applicant or their agent, or we can decide representative. That is up to this board. dock. We can proceed without the that we can't proceed without a 27 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Board Member Talty - I am all for proceeding. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm for proceeding as well. The reason not to proceed given that the applicant and /or the agent is not here? Board Member Hoffmann - The only thing would be if we had any questions that perhaps Nicole couldn't answer. . Ms. Tedesco - I think between Christine and I, Chris who did the Zoning Board for this and then I did the Planning Board.., Chairperson Wilcox - Again, this is a modification, not a new proposal. Mr. Kanter - And the modification actually was at the request of the Zoning Board, not of the applicant. Chairperson Wilcox - Lets proceed on. SEQR Moore Dock & Boat Lift, 1028 East Shore Drive Chairperson Wilcox - For the record, Mr. Timothy Moore, or Michael Moore nor an agent is here this evening to represent them. Who wants to give us a minute on what the Zoning Board...for the record, the two professional planners are exchanging elbows over there. One is now turning beat red. Who wants to give us a few minutes on what - -t-he- Zoning- Board - determination- was -arid -why it -has -to come back to us? Ms. Tedesco - I will do that. The Moores first appeared before the Planning Board in February. They presented a dock with an `L' extension, a boat lift and a mooring, which I think it complied with all of the area requirements, but it needed to go to the ZBA for setbacks._ The.- Moores _went to_the_ZBA.___One_of their neighbors also attended the meeting and expressed their concerns about the vicinity of the dock to their property. So the ZBA conditioned approval on them moving the dock southwards in order to center directly in the middle of the property and also taking some length off the 'L' extension so that way the southern end of the 1' extension is 10 feet from the southern property line, extended lakeward. Then the northern edge of the boat lift is also 10 feet from the northern property line extended lakeward. They have also taken away the mooring from the proposal and I think that is a summary of the changes. Chairperson Wilcox - And the mooring has been removed because is you moor a boat out there and it swings around, it will... :1 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved o620-2006 Ms. Tedesco — When you only. have 46 feet... Chairperson Wilcox — Its tough to keep the boat on your property. So I think in all fairness, the Zoning Board found a couple things that we didn't. That is the way I look at it. Ms. Tedesco - It is one of those things that given the size of the lot, its not possible.. Board Member Thayer — I don't really remember the mooring. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, you know there was a mooring out there and we thought it was a great idea because they weren't coming in an asking for 60 feet of dock. They said they'll put 30 in and a mooring out there. Board Member Thayer — We were so happy that it conformed that we... Chairperson Wilcox — So the Zoning Board in their review spotted that. Board Member Thayer — These diagrams are very helpful, Nicole. Ms. Tedesco - Good. I'm glad they helped. Chairperson Wilcox — So again, this is a reposition of an approved dock and an elimination of the mooring. Ms. Tedesco — Yes and actually they are decreasing the size of the dock so... Chairperson Wilcox — In order to get 10 feet on both sides. Mr. Kanter — Out of that ZBA discussion came the question of whether boat lifts should also be considered part of the dock and that is something that Codes and Ordinances will have to talk about. It is not clear in the ordinance. Ms. Balestra — And we haven't been considering them as part of the dock in our previous reviews. Mr. Kanter — Yet it became clear at the Zoning Board meeting that. they -have the same affect on setback and clearance as any other structure. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if one goes back to considering what the purpose is of having all these regulations on docks and such along the shore and a lot of that is to preserve the natural beauty of the shoreline and to p, rotect the environment there, then 29 JU provosed.mooring from the site plan, This is a request for modification of the proposed 9 P q approval granted by the Planning Board on February 7, 2006, Timothy Moore and Michael Moore, Owners /Applicants Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. 31 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Chairperson Wilcox - Once again for the record there are no members of the public here, therefore I will close the public hearing at 8.25 p.m. Discussion of site plan and modification and special permit modification? Board Member Mitrano - I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Tracy, seconded by Kevin. Go ahead. Ms. Brock - There were a few changes. The first whereas, the same change. After the word plan add the words "and permit." The second whereas, add an "s" to the end of the word "modification." So, this is with respect to, "site plan and special permit modifications" because they are both being modified. On the second page, under the resolved 2a, the phrase according to the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution, I think according to should read, "as required by." Under b, we made a change the last time this was before the Planning Board and I want to make the same change because what b is saying is basically the construction of these elements the dock and the boat lift need to comply with all their requirements of the Town Code of Section 45 a that is being referenced here, but if you go and you look at that specific section, you will see that there are a number of things that are required in addition to what is listed here and we decided that instead of listing all of them, why don't we just reference that section and so let me just read how this should change. "The construction. of the dock, riprap and boat lift shall be undertaken in compliance with all the requirements of Section 270 -45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, except for those requirements for which variances have been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Then under c, the words ''according to" should read, "as required by." Under the and — be -it- fur - ther - resolved, strike the word "seawall." Is that okay with you, Nicole? Ms. Tedesco - Yes. Ms. Brock - And then the last phrase, subject to the conditions of the...strike __.__ —" preliminary_ and - final '_.and_then_it_should__read,_ "site plan modification approval listed above." So let me just read that final phrase. "Subject to the conditions of the site plan modification approval listed .above finding that the standard or...and the rest is the same. We want to incorporate into the special permit the conditions that are set forth for the site plan modification approval. We want to make all of those conditions also conditions of the special permit, of the modified special permit approval and I will provide those changes to Carrie. Ms. Tedesco - Can I ask something for clarification? Ms. Brock - Sure. 32 Planning Board Minutes . June 6, 2006 Approved 06 20 -2006 Ms. Tedesco — When you only have 46 feet... Chairperson Wilcox — Its tough to keep the boat on your property. So I think in all fairness, the Zoning Board found a couple things that we didn't. That is the way I look at it. Ms. Tedesco — It is one of those things that given the size of the lot, its not possible.. Board Member Thayer — I don't really remember the mooring. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, you know there was a mooring out there and we thought it was a great idea because they weren't coming in an asking for 60 feet of dock. They said they'll put 30 in and a mooring out there. . Board Member Thayer We were so happy that it conformed that we... Chairperson Wilcox — So the Zoning Board in their review spotted that. Board Member Thayer — These diagrams are very helpful, Nicole. Ms. Tedesco - Good. I'm glad they helped. Chairperson Wilcox — So again, this is a reposition of an approved dock and an elimination of the mooring. Ms. Tedesco — Yes and actually they are decreasing the size of the dock so... Chairperson Wilcox — In order to get 10 feet on both sides. Mr. Kanter — Out of that ZBA discussion came the question of whether boat lifts should also be considered I part of the dock and that is something that Codes and Ordinances will have to talk about. It is not clear in the ordinance. Ms. Balestra — And we haven't been considering them as part of the dock in our previous reviews. Mr. Kanter — Yet it became clear at the Zoning Board meeting that they have the same affect on setback and clearance as any other structure. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if one goes back to considering what the purpose is of having all these regulations on docks and such along the shore and a lot of that is to preserve the natural beauty of the shoreline and to protect the environment there, then 29 Planning Board Minutes - June 6. 2006 Approved 0&20-2006 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this Uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan & Special Permit Modification, and 36 The Planning Board, on June 6, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a plan entitled, "Survey Map, No. 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New .York, " originally prepared by T.G. Miller P. C, dated May 17, 2005, and revised by the applicant to show the new location of the dock, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a. negative. determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan & Special Permit Modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Ta/ty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock, boatlift, mooring, and rip rap at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 =2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the proposed dock and proposed boatlift +/- 7 feet southward, shortening the proposed dock extension from +/- 15 feet to +/- 10 feet long, and removing the originally proposed mooring from the site plan. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on February 7, 2006, Timothy Moore and Michael Moore, Owners /Applicants Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. 31 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 -20 -2006 I think one should certainly look at these boat lifts because they certainly are not attractive as seen from land or from water. Board Member Thayer — Very true, particularly if they put a roof over them. Board Member Hoffmann Well, there were some pictures in our packet, even the ones that don't have a roof, they aren't exactly... Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Board Member Talty seconds. Ms. Brock — There are a couple of changes. So the same change in the first whereas as we heard for the previous application, which is, "this is consideration of site plan and special permit modifications for the previously approved plan and permit." Then under the Now, Therefore Be It Resolved clause, there is a reference to EAF part III that should be stricken. So it should it should say, "for the reasons set forth in the environmental assessment form Part II." Chairperson Wilcox I will also at the direction of this board, mark the short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, question. 10, I will add park, forest and open space as a land use as we did in the previous one. I will make that change right now. Larry and Kevin, those changes acceptable? Board Member Thayer and Board Member Talty — Yes. Board-votes -ors- motion _ PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -056: SEO& Site Plan & Special Permit Modification, Moore Dock, Boat Lift, Mooring, and Riprap, 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19, -2 -16 MOTION made_by_Board_.Member._Thayer, seconded_by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Site Plan & Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan and permit for the dock, boatlift, mooring, and rip rap at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the proposed dock and proposed boatlift +/- 7 southward, shortening the proposed dock extension from +/- 15 feet to +/- 10 feet long, and removing the proposed mooring from the site plan. Timothy Moore and Michael Moore, Owners /Applicants, and 30 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Ms. Tedesco - The. reason that I referenced the preliminary and final site plan approval is that they still have one or two outstanding conditions from that. So I wanted to reference that somewhere in the resolution to indicate that those had to carry over. Ms. Brock - Okay. So then it should say, "subject to the conditions of preliminary and final site plan approval, and of the site plan modification approval." So we will reinstate preliminary and final and make that change. Ms. Tedesco - Okay. Chairperson Wilcox- Hold on. Tracy and Kevin, are those changes acceptable? Board Member Mitrano - Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - I have a question about point c on page 2 where there is a reference to the photo and I am wondering if this sheet of 4 photos is the one that is meant, that we got in our packet? Ms. Tedesco - Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann - But it doesn't say anything on this about what it is and when the photos were taken or in reference to what it is. I think for the record we need to have that. Ms. Tedesco - Okay. -- Boar-d- Member - Hoffmann= Don't -we ?- Instead- of_just 4- pictures that doesn't say anything. Ms. Balestra - Those photos were supplied by the applicant at the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Kanter -- So that becomes--the -title -of the photos: Photographs submitted by the applicant at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Ms. Brock - I think they were supposed to illustrate the type of boat lifts that he was looking at. Board Member Hoffmann - Something like that is fine. Ms. Tedesco - I took wording in the condition c directly from the Zoning Board resolution and that is why I included these, because of that wording. Lets title it, "Photographs Submitted for Zoning Board of Appeals on May 15, 2006." 33 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 Board Member Thayer — Sounds good. Board Member Hoffmann — Does it have to say anything about which matter it's about? The Moore dock or something like that? Ms. Tedesco — "Photos Submitted for Moore Dock Application, Zoning Board of Appeals May 15, 2006," is that good? Board Member Hoffmann — That's better. Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -057: Site Plan & Special Permit Modification, Moore Dock, Boat Litt, Mooring, and Rivrav, 1028 East Shone Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19. =2 -16 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan & Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan and permit for the dock, boatlift, mooring, and rip rap at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town 16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal dock and proposed boatlift +/- 7 southward, extension from +/- 15 feet to +/- 10 feet Ion mooring from the site plan. Timothy Owners /Applicants, and of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19. -2- involves moving the proposed shortening the proposed dock g, and removing the proposed Moore and Michael Moore, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan & Special Permit Modifications, has, on June 6, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 6, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, site plan drawings, entitled, "Survey Map, No. 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " originally prepared by T. G. Miller P. C, dated May 17, 2005, and revised by the applicant to show the new location of the dock; and other materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 34 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06 -20 -2006 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Site Plan Modification Approval, as shown on the Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies -- enun-ciated or implied by the Town Board, and - -- -- - 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Modification Approval for the proposed Moore dock, boat lift, and riprap, as shown on the site plan drawings, entitled, "Survey Map, No. 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " originally prepared by T. G. Miller P. C, dated May 17, 2005, and revised by the applicant to show the new location of the dock, subject to the following conditions; a. That the applicant must present to the Town, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the dock and the boatlift, evidence that the applicant has complied with all permit conditions of the Army Corps of Engineers' Regional and Nationwide Permits, received on December 20, 2005, for this action and with all permit conditions of NYSDECs Excavation & Fill in Navigable Waters and Water Quality Certification permits, as required by the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution No. 2006 -040, adopted on May 15, 2006 and the Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Resolution, adopted by the Planning Board on February 7, 2006; and b. That the construction of the dock, riprap, and boatlift shall be undertaken in compliance with all requirements of Section 270 -45 of the Town of Ithaca- Code,.- except for-those-r- erluir-ements_for which variances have been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; and c. That the boat lift have no roof structure and no side walls, and that it be essentially as indicated on the photo submitted by the applicant, as required by the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution No 2006 -040, -- - -- - adopted on-May 15, 2006. -- - - -- - - - -- - -- -- - AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That. the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a modified Special Permit to allow the construction of a dock, and "similar waterfront structures, "including a boatlift, in a Lakefront Residential zone as provided for in the Town of Ithaca General Code ,¢27045 ("Accessory structures and uses authorized by special permit only, " Lakefront Residential zone), subject to the conditions of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Site Plan Modification Approval, listed above, finding that the standards of §270200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. 35 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 0&20-2006 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the May 2, 2006 minutes as the offidal minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. Chair-pe- r- son - Wilcox Thank-you-to. staff-,- given-the-Moores-are-not-here-today. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox gave the board an overview of the upcoming training available to Planning-Board member-s.- -He --- reminded the board of -the upcoming -Town of Ithaca History Open House on Thursday, -June 8, 2006 at 6:30 -p.m.- - -- - - - — - - Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of the June 20"' Planning Board agenda. Chairperson Wilcox pointed out that there was not a meeting on Tuesday, July 4, 20065 Mr. Kanter informed the board that the Town has been reviewing the Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Agreements that are being required for many. projects. Ms. Brock reviewed the agreement for La Tourelle and noted a number of things in the draft stormwater agreement that need to be looked at further. Staff is working on general revisions to the blanket stormwater agreements and would like to take flexibility into 36 Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2006 Approved 06-20-2006 consideration so that the projects are not held up. Ms. Brock was concerned that the agreements were supposed to be binding on subsequent owners and there was nothing in the current model that did that. The Town Board needs to approve the model agreement so that they can give authorization for the Supervisor to sign the agreements. Chairperson Wilcox thought that it was appropriate for Mr. Kanter to slightly modify what the board approved in the best interest of the Town and the applicant. The board appreciated that it was brought to their attention. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the June 6, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, !kt W ' or Deputy Town Clerk 37 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, June 6. 2006 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Update and Discussion Regarding Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T- GEIS): Corridor and Neighborhood Analyses and Summary of Recent Public. Outreach Efforts, 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination:. Holtz / City of Ithaca 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1517- 1.Slaterville Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdivision located at 1517 -1 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-1 - 32.1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.925 -acre parcel from the southwestern end of the +/- 4.332 -acre parcel, which will then be consolidated with City of Ithaca Watershed lands. Corwin & Deborah Holtz, Owners/Applicants., 7:50 P.M. SEQR Determination: Moore Dock & Boat Lift, 1028 East Shore Drive. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock, boatlift, mooring, and rip rap at 1028 East. Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the proposed dock and proposed boatlift +/- 7 feet southward, shortening the . proposed dock extension from +/- 15 feet to +/- 10 feet long, and removing the originally proposed mooring from the site plan. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on February 7, 2006. Timothy Moore and Michael Moore, Owners /Applicants. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Sokoloff Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive, 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2-5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the previously approved dock approximately 30 feet northward, with no other changes proposed. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on March 7, 2006. Jason Sokoloff, — - - -Owner /Applicant: — - -- -- -- 90 Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 10. Approval of Minutes: May 2, 20060 110 Other Business: 12, 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 2734747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, June 6, 2006 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, June 6, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 15174 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 584-32.1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.925 -acre parcel from the southwestern end of the +/- 4.332 -acre parcel, which will then be consolidated with City of Ithaca Watershed lands. Corwin & Deborah Holtz, Owners /Applicants. 7:50 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock, boatlift, mooring, and rip rap at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 19 -2 -16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the proposed dock and proposed boatlift +/- 7 feet southward, shortening the proposed dock extension from +/- 15 feet to +/- 10 feet long, and removing the originally proposed mooring from the site plan. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on February 7, 2006. Timothy Moore and Michael Moore, Owners /Applicants. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit Modifications for the previously approved plan for a dock at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves moving the previously approved dock approximately 30 feet northward, with no other changes proposed. This is a request for modification of the approval granted by the Planning Board on March 7, 2006. Jason Sokoloff, Owner /Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Dated: Friday, May 26, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 J Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 k'� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: June 6, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION 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, June 6, 2006 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: May 26, 2006 May 31, 2006 6a"Aa. QrecJL*� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 31St day of May 2006. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. Ot CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20