HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-03-06FILE
DATE 7
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Chairperson Fred Wilcox; Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann,
Kevin Talty, Larry Thayer and Rod Howe
STAFF
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike
Smith, Environmental Planner; Esther Blodau - Konick, Planner; Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk.
OTHERS PRESENT
Jon Barrett, Van Doren Beach Road, Interlaken
Michael Yehl, Attorney, West Seneca Street, Ithaca
Dr. Guy Kinney, Thomas Road
Holly Utter, Mill Road, Berkshire
Rick Couture, Ithaca College, 104 West Haven Road
Hank Roberts, Coddington Road
Marrianne Rogers, Coddington Road
Joel Harlan, Newfield
David Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers and Surveyors, North Aurora Street
Hollis Erb, Snyder Hill Road
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:03 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 February 26, 2007 and February
28, 2007 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 26,
2007,
Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required
by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the first agenda item at 7:04 p.m.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
There was no one wishing to address the Board.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 2
Chairperson Wilcox opens the next agenda item at 7:04 p.m.
SEAR DETERMINATION
Barrett 2wLot Subdivision,
133 & 135 Westview Lane.
Jon Barrett, 8667 Van Doren Beach Road, Interlaken
Michael Yehl, Attorney, 103 West Seneca Street, Ithaca
Chairperson Wilcox — Could you provide a brief overview of what is being proposed
this evening.
Mr.. Barrett — Currently we have a property that is at 133 -135 Westview Lane which
is currently under one tax map and we're requesting that it be considered for
subdivision for resale purposes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any environmental concerns with the
proposed subdivision?
Mr.. Barrett — I am not aware of any.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review?
This is
the fourth one we
have seen
in the last couple of months ... is this the last
one? ....
I was wondering
how many
more of these....
Board Member Hoffmann — I thought somewhere in the papers it said that this was
one of the last properties that was not divided this way...
Chairperson Wilcox — I want to point out that there was, in front of you when you
came in, a revised short assessment form which Esther provided which changed a
couple of things and added some more information.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION, PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 021
SEAR
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Barrett 2 -Lot Subdivision
133 & 135 Westview Lane
Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.48
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
March 6, 2007
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 3
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 133 & 135 Westview Lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No: 58-2- 39.48, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing the +/- 28,200 square foot property into two lots
where each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot. Owner; Jon
Barrett, Applicant, Jon and Kim Barrett, Owners, 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 March 6, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map
entitled "Map of Survey Lot No. 30A and 30B, Grandview Subdivision,"
prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., most recently revised July 25th, 2002 and
other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended
environmental significance with respect to
Approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
a negative determination of
the proposed Subdivision
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.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe Hoffmann, and Conneman
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talty
The motion was carried unanimously.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 4
Chairperson Wilcox opens the next agenda item at 7:06 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary . and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
2 -lot subdivision located at 133 & 135 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 58 -2- 39.48, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves subdividing the +/- 20,230 square foot property into two Lots where
each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot. Jonathan &
Kimberly Barrett, Owners /Applicants.
Chairperson.Wilcox — Questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed? There
are none.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., there being no one, he
closes the public hearing at 7:07.
Chairperson Wilcox — The one thing.I noticed, and maybe I, I'm not sure what I was
thinking ... The subdivision map in front of us, provided to us, while it depicts the.
property, does it have everything on it that is necessary for my signature at such
point as its submitted? Other than the place that I sign my name on the line and
date it...
Ms. Blodau - Konick — If you look at the resolution that I drafted, there is, Point b.
requests that there is a certificate signed and sealed by a registered land surveyor
which I did not find on the map when I was working on the project. So, that is an
item that's missing from the actual map. And the check list shows that as a
condition, I marked that as a condition on the checklist on the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — I noticed that the survey is 4'/2 years old, I'm not sure that
that's a concern. We have no reason to believe that the survey isn't accurate.
Normally we see them more current, but we have no reason to believe that what's in
front of us isn't accurate and their representation of the existing property and the lot
lines that would be drawn in order to separate them.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the ownership is listed as different, this is listed as
still owned by Jonson, I assume that's Ivar Johnson who built it.
Ms. Brock — We could ask for a certification, perhaps from the attorney, that all the
conditions shown on the map are still accurate.
Mr. Yehl — We could probably get a re- certified map from Robert Russler (inaudible)
Chairperson Wilcox — I think that would be a good idea.
Mr. Yehl —
We
can
get, we understand that the
map was
last
resurveyed
July of
2002, the
pins
and
everything should still be in
place, but
we
can arrange
to get a re-
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 5
certified map from the surveyor who performed this survey and submit that for
signature and filing.
Ms. Brock — So that could be dated after today's date?
Mr. Yehl — We can do that, yes.
Ms. Brock — I think we would do that just so we know when it was re- certified. We
don't want just any re- certified map, we want one that is re- certified recently.
Mr. Yehl — Not a problem.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 022
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Barrett 2 -Lot Subdivision
133 & 135 Westview Lane
Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -39.48
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
March 6, 2007
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 133 and 135 Westview Lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58. -2- 39.48, Medium Density Residential Zone.. The
proposal involves subdividing the +/- 28,200 square foot property into two lots
where each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot. Owner; Jon
Barrett, Applicant, Jon and Kim Barrett, 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 March 6th 2007, 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 Part II
prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board on March 6th 2007 has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the
applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map
entitled "Map of Survey Lots No. 30A and 30B, Grandview Subdivision,"
prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., most recently revised July 25th 2002, and
other application materials.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 6
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
21 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 133 and 135 Westview
Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58. -2- 39.48, as shown on the survey
map entitled "Map of Survey Lots No. 30A and 30B, Grandview Subdivision,"
prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., most recently revised July 25th, 2002
subject to the following conditions:
a. granting of any necessary variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board
Chairman, and
b, a certificate signed and sealed by. a registered land surveyor to the
effect that the plat represents a survey made by him, the plat is a
correct representation of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed
and the subdivision of it, all monuments indicated. on the plat actually
exist and their location, size and material are correctly shown, and the
requirements of these regulations and New York State laws relating to
subdividing and surveying have been complied with, and
C. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of a
mylar of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins
County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town
of Ithaca Planning Department, and
d, all other restrictions and conditions contained in the Planning Board's
resolution of approval of March 4, 1986, and on the approved final plat
for the Grandview Subdivision, shall remain in effect and shall apply to
the new lots created at 133 and 135 Westview Lane.
e. a re- certified map from the surveyor, dated after the date of this
resolution, showing all current conditions for the proposed subdivision.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe Hoffmann, Conneman, and Talty
NAYS: None
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 7
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:12 p.m.
SEQR DETERMINATION
Ithaca Baptist Church Day Care Center, 1462 Slaterville Road.
Dr. Guy Kinney, 20 Thomas Road
Holly Utter, 10 Mill Road, Berkshire
Chairperson Wilcox -= Can you provide an overview of what you propose.
Dr. Kinney — We are proposing consideration for preliminary and final site plan
approval for daycare at the Ithaca Baptist Church. We start in the Fall of 2007.
Chairperson Wilcox — And how many children would be served, maximum number?
Dr. Kinney — The maximum number, I think on the letter I wrote, is 10. We are
actually looking at more like around 5 or 6, 1 think we said a maximum of 10 children
with a day care leader and 1 aide.
Chairperson Wilcox — You may wonder why I ask these questions when we have the
material but it serves the audience out there so they hear it as well.
You would use existing space?
Dr. Kinney — Existing space from Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 5:00 p..m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Who would operate the daycare or what person, individual do
you have....
Dr. Kinney — Well that has to be worked out. We'd have to hire a licensed daycare
provider with an approved assistant which is why I asked Holly to come, because
she has a lot of experience in that area, which I have not. But, we have to go
through that process of finding somebody, who's approved, and there are a lot of
liability concerns so we have to make sure that everything is taken care of.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review?
Board Member Thayer — No exterior changes? No exterior lighting or anything like
that outside?
Dr. Kinney — I don't think so. We have, the things that I sent in to Mike Smith. ..l
think I discussed most of the things that had to be done. We essentially already
have a nursery and children's church provided in the church, although playground
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved. Minutes Pg. 8
equipment and things like that may be needed to be acquired as we go along.
Things like that.
Board Member Hoffmann -- Will all the outdoor space ... I assume there will be some
outdoor space designated for the daycare, will that all stay on this property? Or are
you close enough so you can go to the Town Park?
Dr. Kinney — No, we have a large back lawn and a large side lawn, with a row of
trees and we recently purchased the lot next to the church which is going to be used,
eventually, to build a new building, we hope, if you grow large enough. So
everything will be contained right there.
Board Member Hoffmann — When you say next to the church, in which direction? I
have a map here, but...
Dr. Kinney — Okay, behind the church is a large lot, to the left of west of the. church is
another fairly good sized property, with a grove of trees, the property that we've
recently purchased on the east of the church, which is not usable at this point, its
pretty swampy, it needs to be drained properly. But we won't be using that.
Mr. Smith — On the survey map, the other tax parcel is the one that he is talking
about that was acquired. Its all one parcel now.
Chairperson Wilcox — What's labeled as 58 -2- 22.42?
Mr. Smith — Right.
Board Member Hoffmann --And the entrance and exit is to Slaterville Road, as
indicated on this map? But it does say that the walk does not go .all the way to the
road, the walk is just to be used after people have parked?
Dr. Kinney — Yes, exactly. After people have parked there is plenty of room to walk
and actually it is a good that it doesn't go all the way to the road because children
won't be tempted to walk to the road.
Chairperson Wilcox — any other questions with regard to environmental review?
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 9
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION 2007 - 023
SEAR: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval /
Special Permit
Ithaca Baptist Church — Day Care Center
1462 Slaterville Road
Tax Parcel No. 58. -2 -22.3
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 6, 2007
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed day care center at the Ithaca Baptist Church
located at 1462 Slaterville Road (NYS Route 79), Town of .Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 58 -2 -22.3, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves
using several of the existing rooms within the Ithaca Baptist Church building
for a day care center for up to 10 children. There are no changes proposed to
the exterior of the building as part of this project. Ithaca Baptist Church,
Owner /Applicant; Dr. Guy Kinney, Pastor, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as
Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit, and
3. The Planning Board, on March 6, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by
the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a floor plan and
site map date stamped January 17, 2007, 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 Approval
and Special Permit;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the
reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review
of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and,
therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental
Impact Statement will be required.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 10
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe and Talty.
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:19 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed day care center at the Ithaca Baptist Church located at 1462
Slaterville Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -22.3,
Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves using several of the
existing rooms within the Ithaca Baptist Church building for a day care center
for up to 10 children. There are no changes proposed to the exterior of the
building as part of this project. Ithaca Baptist Church, Owner /Applicant; Dr.
Guy Kinney, Pastor, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan as proposed?
My assumption is that these are spaces that are used either on Saturday or Sunday
for children or other uses...
Dr. Kinney — At this point? Yeah, we have bible classes, Sunday school classes.
There is a Chinese bible study during the week, a Spanish bible study and of course
we English speakers on Sunday.
Chairperson Wilcox — So they tend to be underutilized during the week...
Dr. Kinney — Very much so. Which is one of the reasons we thought it would be kind
of good to add to our ministry, some kind of service to the community. That is really
the impetus.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I think the harder part will be when they go to get your
license to operate. From the State.
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to speak, there being no one, he closes the
public hearing at 7:20p.m.
Mr. Smith — Fred, I need to mention one thing. I got a phone call this afternoon from
a neighbor on Pine Tree Road, 112 Pine Tree Road, and she wasn't able to make. it
to the meeting tonight or provide any written comments yet but she just wanted me
to pass along a couple of comments or concerns from her.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 11
She's on Pine Tree Road where her property backs up to the back lot of the church'
area and her concerns and also questions when reading the public hearing notice
was that there are no outside changes or anything like that and she was questioning
if any playground structures, anything like that; what the kids would be doing during
the summer months outside. Part of it is the privacy; is there going to be any fencing
put up to help contain the kids, keep them away from the road or away from
neighboring properties and that type of thing. So that was what she wanted me to
mention to the Board.
Chairperson Wilcox — Rhetorically he wondered if this was a problem on Saturdays
and Sundays.
One of the things that l am concerned about is the assumption that we are working
under that there will be no outside changes to the lot, and then the discussion is that
well, maybe there will be some playground equipment... Maybe there might have to
be a light some place. So that's one of the things that I'm concerned about.
Dr. Kinney — I don't think there will be a light. There won't be anything operating at
night. And even in the winter, I don't think there will be anything...
Ms. Utter — You have to be outside during the day for at least 20 minutes as long as
the temperatures are fine. So there will have to be playground equipment but I don't
think it would be anything that would bother anybody or obstruct any views or
anything like that.
Board Member Conneman — The children will be what age?
Ms. Utter — Eighteen months to five years.
Chairperson Wilcox — The size of the lot before they bought the additional was 1 1/3
acres essentially and they picked up another 1/3 of an acre with the add.itional lot so
we're talking 1 2/3 acres, which is good size. As I think has been pointed out by the
Pastor, the additional property that you purchased would probably not, at this point,
be used for the children's playground or anything.
Dr. Kinney — No, no.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well the concerned neighbor asked about some sort of
containment, Mike, is that right? Like whether there would be a fence, maybe,
between this property and the neighbors property.
Mr. Smith — She was just questioning that type of thing. She saw in the notice that
no outside things were being changed and she just wanted to make sure that that
was clear, that nothing like that, fencing, was going to be added.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 12
Board Member Hoffmann — You do sometimes see fenced in yards for small children
at daycare centers even though adults are out there keeping an eye on them. Little
kids have a way of taking off sometimes. Is that something you are thinking about
doing?
Ms. Utter — Syracuse will have to come and inspect the property, so, depending on
what they find and how far back the lawn is ... it's a far distance from the road, they
may suggest that we put a fence up or they may demand that we put a fence up. So
we won't even know until they came to inspect the property.
Chairperson. Wilcox — If they suggest you put up a fence and you decide that you
should or they insist that you put up a fence, then would they have to come back to
this Board? Possibly?
Mr. Kanter — Well there are a number of things that could trigger it. One being
aesthetic impact which is a discretionary item, which the Planning Director could
determine needs to come back to the Planning Board. So it would come through us
and we could make a determination if we have to.
Chairperson Wilcox — Frankly, I just don't want them to have to come back if they
don't have to.
Board Member Thayer — We could put that in the resolution couldn't we? Give Jon
the authority to approve ... if a fence...
Mr. Kanter — As long as it wasn't a chain -link fence, I would approve it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we don't like chain -link fences that's for sure, and
they're also zoning restrictions on the height of fence, for example.
Board Member Conneman — Resolution can say if in fact they are required to put up
a fence, they would come back to the Planning Director to check it out I guess.
Mr. Kanter — That would be fine...
Board Member Conneman — Check it out as...
Chairperson Wilcox — Then you could determine if it really is something that needs
to come before this Board or you could determine that, given the potential impact, its
compliant with our existing code and need not come before this Board.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would just like to state that I don't want to say that I'm
against chain -link fences in any circumstance because I think there is a place for
them sometimes but I didn't like it up at the Rite Aid site, I can tell you that. But if
that's the appropriate thing for a site, for instance, to contain a dog in a backyard or
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 13
something like that and if it was colored properly and placed with plants on either
side and so on, there is nothing wrong with a chain -link fence.
Board Member Conneman — Is Dr. Kinney aware of condition b?
(He is given a copy to look at
Dr. Kinney — I wasn't really aware of that but I guess if we have to do it we will.
Chairperson Wilcox - -The purpose for putting that in Mike..
Mr. Smith — To operate the daycare center you need the final CO. Certificate of
Occupancy for the use, for the change in use and to go along with that final
certificate of occupancy, you need to have the building permit and have the
evaluation done by the architect or engineer to see if anything, in terms of building
code, needs to be changed. If there's no exit light that needs to be added or more
outlets or whatever might need to be done but the evaluation needs to be done...
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 024
Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Approval / Special Permit
Ithaca Baptist Church — Day Care Center
1462 Slaterville Road
Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -22.3
Planning Board, March 6, 2007
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed day care center at the Ithaca Baptist Church
located at 1462 Slaterville Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
58 -2 -22.3, Medium, Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves .using
several of the existing rooms within the Ithaca Baptist Church building for a day
care center for up to 10 children. There are no changes proposed to the exterior
of the building as part of this project. Ithaca Baptist Church, Owner /Applicant; Dr.
Guy Kinney, Pastor, Agent, 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 Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit has, on March 6, 2007, 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 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 14
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 6, 2007, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, a floor plan and site map date stamped January 17,
2007, a letter dated December 18, 2006 from the applicant, and other application
materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed day
care center use finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200,
Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been meet,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, 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 enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca Baptist Church Day Care Center located
at 1462 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2 -22.3, as described
in a letter dated December 18, 2006 and a floor plan and site map date stamped
January 17, 2007, subject to the following conditions:
a. Submission of record of application for and approval of all necessary permits
from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and
b. Issuance of a building permit and a final certificate of occupancy, including
having a building evaluation performed by a licensed architect or engineer
relating to the change in use, prior to using the building as a day care center,
and
c. If the applicant wishes to .erect a fence on the site, it shall notify the Director
of Planning, who shall determine whether a significant change in the aesthetic
appearance of the site exists and whether the fence addition needs to be
brought to the Planning Board for site plan modification pursuant to Section
270 —191 of the Town Code.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe and Talty.
NAYS: None
The motion was carried unanimously.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 15
Chairperson Wilcox opens the next agenda item at 7:31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of modifying condition "1.b." of the Planning Board's
Resolution for Site Plan Approval for the Ithaca College Gateway Building,
granted October 17, 2006, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41-1-
30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said condition required that the
submission of the stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting
Agreement" occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is
requesting that the condition be modified to allow the stormwater agreement
be submitted prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy. Ithaca
College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — You'll note that there is no SEQR determination associated
with this. After discussion with Susan, Susan I think you discussed it with other
people, determination was that this was a Type II action, administrative...
Ms. Brock — Right, continuing agency administration and management.
Chairperson Wilcox — And therefore did not require an environmental...
Ms. Brock — Right, there is no substantive change to the condition, it is only timing of
when a certain agreement will be submitted. If there had been any substantive
change at all, then I think it would have gone back through SEQR again.
Rick Couture, Ithaca College, 104 West Haven Road
In looking at one of the requirements for the Gateway Building that we are putting
up, as Fred mentioned, the stormwater management agreement form was part of
that, one of the stipulations. In talking to Frank Santelli at TG Miller and discussing
that requirement, he had suggested that we might want to take a look at
approaching the Town and seeing if they would be willing to explore the possibility of
having an umbrella over -all agreement for the entire stormwater system at Ithaca
College as opposed to us coming in and asking for permission for every building that
we put up, signing the agreement for every building we put up in the future and it
seemed to make sense to me in trying to keep within the intent of the regulation that
instead of concentrating on the 1 or 2 storm drains that were going up for the
Gateway Building, why don't we take a look at trying to work together to develop a
proposal that would include the entire campus and any future buildings that we
would put up.
So I talked to Mike a little bit and he suggested that I write a letter with the proposal
and that's what I believe you have in front of you in the packet. And the feeling was
that if we could, if the Town would agree to amend it to be certificate of occupancy,
that would give us and the Town time to try and work together to develop a
comprehensive proposal as opposed to feeling like we just have to do something
real quick because we ... we would like to do our best at maintaining our objective of
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 16
breaking ground on the Gateway building at the end of March. So that was the
reasoning behind submitting the letter.
Chairperson Wilcox — So in the resolution that we passed in October 2006, Ithaca
College was required to provide the operation and maintenance reporting agreement
before you would get your building permit, so the proposal here is to provide the
same information, if not more, potentially, but to provide that prior to the issuance of
a final certificate of occupancy.
I have a problem. I have a problem with the word final, final certificate of occupancy
A potential problem, I am wondering if ... what we sometimes run in to is a series of
temporary certificates of occupancy that can be issued and granted for various
reasons. You know, the building is habitable and can be used but not all of the .
criteria that we set in our resolution have been met and you wind up with a series of
these temporary certificates of occupancy and I wonder if we would want to see this
document before the building is occupied which could be done with a temporary
certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Walker — I would agree that the language should probably state "any certificate
of occupancy."
Chairperson Wilcox — Temporary or final.
Mr. Walker — I mean, we're looking at almost two years before occupancy. If you
can't work out the agreement in two years then we got a problem.
Chairperson Wilcox — I am thinking that we wanted this agreement ... we stated that
we wanted this agreement before the building permit was issued but frankly, we
want it before people move into the building and start using it.
Mr. Walker= Well that's the leverage we have and the idea of a comprehensive
stormwater management agreement for the whole campus...
Chairperson Wilcox — Is a great idea.
Mr. Walker -- ...we got a stormwater pond there which we have no real agreement
on now that was built several years ago.
Board Member Conneman — So you would change b, in the original resolution to any
certificate of occupancy, is that right?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, in the resolution that was drafted, right, to any certificate
of occupancy rather than final...I will certainly listen to other opinions.
Board Member Hoffmann — I
am thinking of a case,
you
remember the
apartments
built by Ivar Jonson just east
of East Hill Plaza and
how
he came back
time after
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 17
time with sad stories of residents who were living in hotels because they couldn't
move in because he didn't get the situation settled in time and I just...) just... I hope
we are not going to run into anything like that. That's always a problem.
Board Member Conneman — Well, is there a stronger word than any.
Chairperson Wilcox — Based upon a little knowledge that I have, granting temporary
certificates of occupancy happens, I'm not going to say routinely but might happen
more than you might think.
Mr. Walker - A lot of it is weather dependent. You might have a building done in
November but you don't. have the landscaping done and can't get it done. You can't
do it because the weather is not allowing it. So that's an issue there.
Chairperson Wilcox —So they are ... I'm not going to say they are easily granted but
they...
Mr. Walker — A certificate, a temporary certificate of occupancy costs half the cost of
the building permit. So if you've got, and you've got a fairly substantial costing
building permit, for this project, so if you've got a $5000 building permit, you're
paying $2,500 to get into the building before it's done.
Chairperson Wilcox — So we're comfortable with that? Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to speak.
Hollis Erb, Snyder Hill Road
Forgive me for my lack of knowledge on this project, but, is this referring just to the
stormwater management once the whole site is completed and there is a separate
stormwater management plan that will still be effective during the construction
project or are you letting loose of any control of stormwater management even
during the bull dozing and trucking and that sort of thing. ..as a naive member of the
audience...
Mr. Walker No. During the construction period they have to have a stormwater
management and sediment control plan in place before they turn a blade of dirt.
This is the operage of maintenance of the long -term water quality /quantity
measures. It basically says that if something plugs up, this Town can go in and
unplug it, the College is responsible for maintaining it but in an emergency we can
go in and charge them for it and things like that.
Ms. Erb — That was just the thing I didn't understand.
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann — I just r
confident are you that, this is both
with a plan like this for as large an
it before for Cornell, similar things,
of slopes and things on it and one
soil everywhere, I assume, and so
come up with a plan that will work
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 18
gave one question ... I just wanted to ask Staff how
for Jon and Dan and Mike, that one can come up
area as a college campus. I know we have done
but, this is a fairly complex piece of land with lots
doesn't know what's underneath the top layer of
how confident can one be that it's possible to
under all circumstances?
Mr. Walker — Well, its, the stormwater management facilities, there's a number of
them that are in place on campus already, including the pond behind the chapel,
that's part of.their stormwater management facility. There's underground drains,
there's a detention pond above the Life Safety building that was built several years
ago. There's different diversions and swales in different places on campus. Those
are all looked at site - specifically when we do a project. This agreement will basically
say, give the Town the right to inspect, get annual reports from the college to make
sure that everything that is designed is functioning properly and-then there will be an
attachment to that that's basically a listing of all the different stormwater
management projects and elements that are on the campus. So, today we don't
have any stormwater management elements associated with say the new Athletics
Center that is going to be built but there will be new structures over there. That will
be added onto it, it will be a living document but the basic agreement that says that
Ithaca College will maintain their stormwater management systems . as they are
supposed to be maintained and give reports to the Town and allow. the Town access
in case of an emergency, that's the basic agreement. So we will. still be reviewing
every new facility that's built or planned and T.G. Miller has done a very extensive
stormwater evaluation of the whole site as part of the master plan process and every
time we put a new building in, they modify what's already been there to be
consistent with the regulations.
Mr. Smith — This agreement isn't doing any new analysis or anything like that. It's
just cataloging what's there, what's supposed to be done on them and then putting
that into the agreement that will be added to. as new ones come along.
Chairperson Wilcox — And granting the Town rights to inspect, clean or modify or
take whatever necessary action to protect not just Ithaca College's land but other
land as well.
Mr. Walker — No to protect the public, we don't really care what happens at Ithaca
College...
Board Member Hoffmann — So it will be reviewed at the staff level but not the
Planning Board level?
Mr. Walker — No it's reviewed at the Planning Board level. The Gateway Building
had a stormwater management plan, there are a couple of little structures that are
involved with that. Basically that was not changing the impervious surface
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 19
tremendously. There were some little structures in there and there was some
storage involved ... I don't remember all of the details myself because....when we
looked at that ... when the Business School went in, the new building that's being
built, the LEED building there, that's also, they had elements of stormwater
management on that. So for every structure that gets built, every change that's on
campus, there's a stormwater evaluation and if it requires a site plan approval it
comes in front of this Board.
Chairperson Wilcox — We're not giving up anything..
Mr. Kanter — No, normally the operation maintenance and reporting agreement that's
referred to here is subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and the Town
Engineer. So, each and every one doesn't normally come to the Planning
Board ... We basically, the Town has pretty much come up with a standard language
agreement document that we use for most projects. This one will be, I mean it will
be modeled after that, but it will be more encompassing, it will be more
comprehensive because it will cover not just one site project but the whole campus,
presumably, if that can happen. If not, we'll do something else.
Chairperson Wilcox — The one change in the draft resolution provided is under the
now therefore be resolved we'll strike the words. "a final" and replace with the word
"any ". Susan is that consistent?
Ms. Brock — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Changes acceptable? Vote.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION 2007 - 025
Condition Modification
Ithaca College Gateway Building
Ithaca College Campus, North of Dillingham Hall
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and
41 -1 -30.4
Planning Board, March 6, 2007
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of modifying condition 1.b." of the Planning
Board's Resolution for Site Plan Approval for the Ithaca College Gateway
Building, granted October 17, 2006, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1-
30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said condition
required that the submission of the stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and
Reporting Agreement" occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 20
applicant is requesting that the condition be modified to allow the stormwater
agreement be submitted prior to .the issuance of a Final Certificate of
Occupancy. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent, and
2. The Planning Board, in granting Final Site Plan Approval for the Ithaca College
Gateway Building project on October 17, 2006, imposed certain conditions of
approval, including condition 1.b." which stated that the "submission of a storm
water "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement' between the property
owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Town Attorney and the Director of
Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit 93 and
3. The applicant has. requested that the Planning Board modify the condition to allow
the storm water agreement be submitted prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of
Occupancy in order to allow time for the Town and Ithaca College to possibly
develop a broad agreement to cover all of the campus storm water facilities, and not
prior to the issuance of the building permit as originally stated, and
4. This is a Type II Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental Quality
Review (SEQR), requiring no further environmental review.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants the modification of Condition
1.b." of the Site Plan Approval for the Ithaca College Gateway Building project,
granted October 16, 2006, to allow the storm water agreement to be submitted prior
to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe and Talty.
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — before we get going on the next item, the next agenda
item ... there were some relevant papers on the table when we came in so you can
start pulling those out while I read...
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:47 p.m.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 21
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
Consideration of designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as
Lead Agency, and the determination of a Positive Declaration of
Environmental Significance for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and
Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near
the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41=1-
30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building
(containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and
floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis
courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor=
lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 1015 +/- parking
spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new parking spaces).
The project is proposed in. several phases and will also include new walkways,
access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca
College, Owner /Applicants Richard Couture, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — As I mentioned before, we have a drafted resolution in front of
us.for our consideration. We have your letter to Jon Kanter on the 1 st of
February ... what else do we have that came in here ... We have the Army Corps of
Engineers...has no objection to the Town serving as Lead Agency, they raised some
issues but they will be part of the scoping process. We have a lengthy letter from
the Planning Department which they have classified as part of their 239 review and I
read this briefly when I came in, let me try this again. "This. letter acknowledges your
referral to the proposal identified for concurrance of Lead Agency designation..." but
I don't think anywhere in their letter do they agree of disagree with us being Lead
Agency, do they?
Mr. Kanter — Well, that's partly, well largely, because they are not an involved
agency under the general municipal law procedures... County Planning agencies are
interested agencies under state code.
Chairperson Wilcox.— Alright. Then we have a full EAF that was provided to us as
well. Anything you want to say, Richard, at this point?
Richard Couture, Ithaca College
No I think...
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions?
Board Member Conneman — My question is, what does this really mean? They are
going to have to come back to us with:..
Chairperson Wilcox — To me, this begins the environmental review process. This is
the next step.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 22
Board Member Conneman — Okay, so the next time we see Rick, he will come forth
with, he will ask for an environmental review? That's what I am. wondering.
Mr. Kanter — This is the very first step. Number 1, it involves this Board designating
itself as Lead Agency because we haven't heard any objections from other involved
agencies. It also, the pos dec would indicate that there are one of more potentially
significant environmental impacts that then triggers the beginning of an
environmental impact statement process. And the first step of that, if the final
resolve clause in. the resolution is agreed to by the Planning Board and the
Applicant, it says that there will be a public scoping process and the Board will
schedule a public scoping process at some point in the near future.
Chairperson Wilcox — To determine which significant, potentially significant,
environmental impacts need to be addressed.
Mr. Kanter — That's really the important next part of the process. So the next step
would be for the applicant to submit a draft scoping document or outline to the Board
for consideration.
Board Member Conneman — And a public hearing.
Mr. Kanter — We could call it a public hearing, we could call it a public scoping
session, but yeah, if that's what the Board and the applicant agree to.
Chairperson Wilcox —There would be public input.
Board Member Conneman —There would be public input. Most of this is just to
designate the Board as the Lead Agency ?...
Mr. Kanter — And to indicate that there are at least one significant, potentially
significant, environmental impact.
Board Member Conneman — And there may be others. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Kanter —Susan and I were talking a little bit before the meeting and I was just
indicating that it's quite difficult to actually complete a Part II and Part III of the
environmental assessment form with the minimal amount of information on the
project at this point. And so, since this is a process that has been agreed to
between the applicant and the soon -to -be Lead Agency, you know, we just need to
make sure that we are covering the right items. This is not the equivalent of the
scoping document, but we want to make sure we have the right items indicated in
the environmental assessment form so that the scoping document can stem from
that. But that's probably what we should focus on, substantively tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're expressing a general concern...
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg, 23
Mr. Kanter — Not a concern, but, this is, what I did was I modeled this pos dec
paperwork after the process we used with Cornell for the TGEIS, which began very
much the same way ... That Cornell came to the Town and asked, in effect, to do a
draft environmental impact statement on their transportation issues, and there was
almost zero information, but yet we had to complete a Part II and a Part III
environmental assessment form, so the wording of those sections in that form, it's
very difficult to come up with anything substantive because there is very little
information about it. But, since it is an agreement between the Town and it's based
at Ithaca College, that is really what triggers the pos dec. .
Board Member Conneman — I think that there are more than one environmental
impact here, but anyway...
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh yeah...
Ms. Brock — You only need one to require an EIS, so I think when he was saying at
least one, he was just speaking in the language of SEQR.
Mr. Kanter —Yeah, and so in the Part II that I completed, there were what, 7,8, or 9
different subject areas which would presumably, and in addition, Ithaca College's
cover letter as well, they list 8 different subject areas that they anticipate would be
covered in -depth in the environmental review. But the scoping process is really
where all that will flesh out. We'll hear from the public, the Board will be able to add
or modify things so...
Chairperson Wilcox — We don't go through the full environmental impact statement
very often and therefore we have to refresh ourselves every time, there is an
important reason why one does a scoping session. My remembrance of the last
time we did it is that the purpose is to designate, up front, those areas which the
applicant needs to provide information so that the Board, in this case, the Planning
Board, can determine whether a significant environmental impact does exist and
whether it can be sufficiently mitigated or not. The other purpose, I think, is to
prevent the Board, or the Staff, or the public, from piling on potential environmental
issues ad- infinitum as they go through the process as a way to either circumvent the
environmental review or lengthen the environmental review or increase the cost of
the environmental review. I think that was what the Legislature might have had in
mind when they adopted this.
Ms. Brock — The SEQR regulations actually state what the primary goals of scoping
are.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ah, am I close?
Ms. Brock — The first statement that you made was correct and the second
statement wandered a little bit far a field. Let me read it to you. .. "The primary goals
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 24
of scoping are to focus the EIS on potentially adverse impacts, and to eliminate
consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or non - significant."
Chairperson Wilcox — The key that, therefore, is that we have.to make sure that what
is delineated in the scoping document is the entire list of potential impacts that we
want the applicant to study and identify up front because I expect that we would
have to have a very, very good reason to add something later on. Yeah.
Mr. Kanter — And. the scoping document should be pretty clear in detail, not just
listing the subjects but saying what about each subject you'll be evaluating and how
it will be evaluated to the extent that ....
Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. Okay,
Board Member Hoffmann —And another important part of this process, as
remember, is to allow the public a chance to add impacts that they are concerned
about to the list.
Chairperson Wilcox — Suggest...
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but very often people in the public know about
things that impact because they are familiar with certain areas of the Town that we
are not necessarily familiar with or they're experts in certain fields that we don't know
so much about and so it is important to listen to that and to weigh that and to have
all that early in the process.
Ms. Brock — Eva, the scoping document is actually controlled by the Lead Agency so
in this case it would be the Planning Board so to the extent that the Planning Board
feels that public comments are raising issues that need to be included in the scope,
you control that and conversely, to the extent that you feel that they've raised issues
that are irrelevant or non - significant, you don't put them in.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox —Those of you who have sat here through these meetings
before, you know that we try to give everyone a chance to speak, even though it is
not a public hearing. Therefore, if anyone wishes to address the Planning Board
about this before we actually consider the resolution in front of us, if anyone would
like to make some comments, once again, we ask that you step to the microphone
and give us your name and address.
Hank Roberts, 253 Coddington Road
I am directly across from the proposed site that the gentlemen here are speaking
about, and so, my wife Jane and I have lived there and our 4 children for about over
12 years and we are very interested in observing nature and the environment and do
so quite actively through our windows and by walking around and being in the
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 25
neighborhood. We've been involved in things that happen in the neighborhood and
try to be a pos ... have a positive effect on the neighborhood in that way. So what
have to say doesn't take very long, but 1, you've educated me a little bit about what
the process here, so I know in maybe some ways I'm a little ahead of where you're
headed, I don't know what these environmental impact statements are like and the
extent of.them, but ... I don't know if you have ever been there and looked up at those
woods where they are proposing to make this huge change, but if you did, it's not
just some hills there with nothing on it. It's, it represents generations and hundreds
of years of biological development and a neighborhood for the animals as well.
There are fox, deer, all kinds of four - leggeds, hawks, crows, owls of many varieties
and a biological fauna that can not be replaced, ever.
So, I would like to make a little comment about the environmental impact and how I
see it from my perspective, being a person who observes that area and it's a huge
tract of woods and a lot of it will be destroyed and the animals gone forever and all
the creatures that live there. First and foremost, I am concerned about the loss of
that large parcel of woods and for the animals and all those different species and I
don't know how, we don't really know, I mean -we know that trees provide us with
oxygen, but also the birds the owls the hawks they also create a delicate balance.
This area is a transition area, to the north is city area, residential area, to the south is
more wooded areas that develop further on. It's a very intense area for animal life in
this zone. It's also, I might add, a commercial boundary line, I don't know if that lot
goes over that area, but I know there is a boundary on Coddington Road that is right
at my house. I think, I know that it will be a commercial venture, I don't know what
the implications of that are legally, they would know and you would know better than
I ... I am also concerned about the light pollution, this huge parking lot and all these
tracks and all these things, I am sure we will be seeing less of the stars after they
put this in. The carbon monoxide from all these automobiles floating down the hills
and into our gardens and into our environment and our air, the run -off from the
automobiles coming down into residential area, and the run -off coming down into the
reservoir which is right below there as well which the people in the City of Ithaca
drink their water from.. Also, with the addition of all those lights, we have to
somehow create the energy to produce all those lights in that huge parking lot with a
1,000 cars so we all have to pay a price for the impact of that on our air quality all
over Ithaca...
I am almost done... In these days of environmental destruction, I think we all have a
responsibility to think about the future for our children, our grandchildren, ourselves.
I think there's lots of possibilities on that campus, it's a big open campus. There are
open practice fields for football, there's a large area in the middle of the campus, I
don't know why they can't spread these things out into different areas ... Why they
have to have one big huge thing where everyone can be under the same roof, as
they say on their website. There's something that was said, I think this kind of puts it
kind of well. "We are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed
of environmental pollution and degradation and the depletion of natural resources."
This comment comes from the TaWa declaration which Peggy Williams signed last
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 26
year to effectively start to talk about what this means to all of us in the world. I am
kind of surprised that Ithaca College has done that. You can look it up on the
website, you can see all the points they've talked about and I think that they may, I
don't know, apparently, signing that declaration constitutes some kind of
commitment to which that institution can be held responsible.
So it seems to me some kind of an enigma, I don't understand why they are doing
this ... Last year they tore, they chopped down three or four big beautiful pine trees
down near the entrance because they needed to build a sidewalk but they didn't
need to do that to do that, to build a sidewalk.
So anyway, my last statement is, this is, .I hope that this environmental impact study,
since you guys will be associated with it, will be very extensive. I know you said
some concerns about how extensive it should be, but I think it's a really vital area
that I think we need to think about before we destroy and I think, I would hope that
Ithaca College would think about some other alternatives before they would take out
that huge tract. I hope at some point I can see that, what you guys, what the
environmental impact study will look like so I can see how extensive it will be and I
would like to have the opportunity or find out from you all, or be in communication in
some way so I could look at it because I intend to be a person who keeps up with
this and communicates with my neighbors and the City and the Town about it.
That's all I had to say. I appreciate the time to let me speak like this..
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. We should point out that this will be a very public
process all the way through, both in the scoping document, which determines the
areas that could have a significant impact to the subsequent discussion of the
document, to the revisions to the document to the acceptance of the environmental
review, and then should there be a determination that there are no significant
impacts that can't be mitigated and we get to the actual site plan review, again, full
public, public hearings, the chance to speak. So, talk to your neighbors, check the
legal notices in the paper.
Mr. Kanter — Did you sign in on the sign in sheet out there?
Mr. Roberts — I kind of came in a little late and I ...
Mr. Kanter — Just make sure that we have the contact information, your phone
number, e-mail address, whatever, and then we can make sure that you are notified
when there are meetings.
Board Member Hoffmann — And could you remind me again ... Did you say that you
live on the Ithaca College side of Coddington Road or on the Six Mile Creek side?
Mr. Roberts — I am on the Six Mile Creek. My house points directly up to where
they're going to have this site so I am really very well, very aware of the area and
what moves and lives in that place.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 27
Chairperson Wilcox — I have to ask a personal question. ..Do you have any
relationship to the person who drives the painted truck that says doo -da on the side?
Mr. Roberts — I don't have any, he's a friend of mine...
Chairperson Wilcox — He must be a next door neighbor or something then right?
Mr. Roberts — No, he's a friend of mine, that's Paul...
Chairperson Wilcox — I live, I spent 18 years up ... I lived up there for 18 years so,
Juniper Drive actually, so I would drive down the Coddington and we called it the
doo -da truck,
Board Member Talty — Fred, I'd like to make a recommendation if I could, I would
request that you would make an announcement that, in the future, no one reads the
newspaper while there's people giving their opinion and involving themselves in a
process. I think its disrespectful and unprofessional. That's what I have to say, so if
you could take care of that, being the Chair, I would greatly appreciate it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good point, good point.
Joel Harlan, Newfield
Fred, that doo -da truck is Clair Grady's husband. He does a lot of work building
homes repairing that sort of things.
Chairperson Wilcox — You got any comments on the Ithaca College?
Mr. Harlan — Yeah... It seems like every time I come to these meetings, usually
they're all saying the same thing ... They don't want anybody to tear up an anthill, to
destroy bush that may be ancient or a tree. What they're trying to say Fred, and you
hear it again, like that affordable housing up there in, by the hospital, they don't want
it in their backyard, that's the problem they want to have little peace and calm but the
only way to make improvements is you gotta do what you gotta do. Otherwise, this
Town would be obsolete and the campus would be growing like leaps and
bounds ... They'd be surrounding us if we don't make improvements in this Town.
So, do what you gotta do, you know, if you approve of it, approve of it, but you're
going to hear a lot of negativity coming at you... Look at Burger King and all them
other projects you been through ... It's the same old thing ... every time you have a
meeting it comes up. They don't want it in their back yard, that's the problem.
Board Member Conneman — Joel, would you prefer it in Newfield, next to your
house?
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 28
Mr. Harlan — It don't matter to me. I could care less. I live in a trailer park, so
where's it going to be? If you don't want it, don't accept it but if you want it, then go
on forward with it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin's point was well taken for respect for other people in the
room.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road
I know that we are very, very early on this, but given the scope of this construction
project, I sincerely hope that we are going to hear a great deal about construction
hours, and construction traffic for the sake of this neighborhood. I also hope that we
are going to hear an awful lot about the net of 462 cars implied by those parking
spaces, given the state of the roads and the traffic in that area already and I would
hope that we will also hear something about hours of limitation for the outdoor
lighted artificial turf field. There's precedent for that because the lights, for example,
off of Game Farm Road were limited in terms of hours of operation for the sakes of
the neighborhoods. So those are my immediate comments that I hadn't already
heard tonight off the top of my head. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. or Mrs. Rogers, any comments this evening?
Marrianne Rogers, 152 Coddington Road
I was curious about when the decision by the Board about the construction fill -site is
going to figure in or how it figures in to the process of the general review of the
environmental impact of the Athletic Center. Is there any...
Chairperson Wilcox — Have we made a determination? Whether the fill and Athletic
Center are going to be considered separately or together? ... No decision has been
made yet?
Ms. Brock — No and you will have to make that decision tonight. I think you'll need to
make that decision tonight so that we know whether that fill site is folded into this
EIS or whether that's going to be considered separately.
Mr. Kanter — And the County did bring that issue up .in their March 51h letter dealing
with SEQR segmentation and the fill site.
Chairperson Wilcox — The County believes that they should be considered
together...
Ms. Brock —They said the portion of the fill site that this event center construction will
utilize needs to be considered in the EIS, which to me seems to imply...well, if the fill
site is being considered separately with its own environmental review but yet we're
going to consider one piece of it in this other environmental review, that seems to
me to maybe not be proper. Its seems either you should consider it with EIS or not.
Not just consider just a piece of it.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 29
Board Member Conneman — And we determine? This Board can determine?
Ms. Brock — You need to determine that. I think you need to determine whether the
projects are sufficiently linked that considering them separately would be considered
segmentation, even if you think it could be considered segmentation though, you
have the ability to nonetheless segment the review, if you think that's justified and
you would then, in your resolution, you would need to explain why you're going to
segment the review. So you actually have many different ways of dealing with this
which, once we, I can talk to you, once all the public comments are done, and I think
you may have heard this at the last meeting too, about segmentation, that with the
Cornell Yards, there are a number of factors to look at and then you determine
whether or not it would be segmentation to consider the two projects separately and
then I can lay out for you your different options going forward, because you have
options. Its not, it's really not as hard as it sounds.
Chairperson Wilcox — Does that answer your question? Coming up next.
Ms. Rogers — I just wanted to also ask, I know when the sketch plan was presented,
the College mentioned that it would also be used also for ongoing other construction
projects on campus and I didn't know if that was still part of the picture, but that
would be good to know too and so that would be another question that I would have.
Obviously it is of some concern to us because we'd like to know if its going to be part
of the bigger process or whether its going to be a separate process just in terms of
our participation in it. Thank you.
Mr. Kanter — Well, the one thing that is interesting in the question about
segmentation with the fill site is that the fill site is already and will in the future be
used for projects other than the Athletic and Event Center and the Ithaca College
representatives could probably talk about that better than I can but I know its going
to be used for some of the projects, probably, that are even ongoing or about to
begin now. So, in that sense, the fill area's not entirely tied to the Athletic and Event
Center, its an independent fill site from that point of view. On the other hand, there
is a proposal, as part of the A & E Center to put fill from the A & E site into this fill
area, so it is linked that way. So its both related and not related which is why,
think, the Board does have the option, if you choose to do it this way, to legally
segment the review of the fill site, knowing that its phasing will be for other projects
before there is any activity from the Athletic and Event Center, as long as that
environmental review is no less thorough as it would have been if you did it in
conjunction with the A & E site.
Board Member Howe — What's the down side of keeping them connected?
Mr. Kanter — Well, probably form the College's point of view, timing, because this is
going to be a pretty long environmental and review process on the Athletic and
Event Center.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 30
Board Member Thayer — I thought that that would end the fill site? The fill that is
brought over from that building? That would be it, they're going to seal it up and
buffer it off and that would be it?
Mr. Kanter — I don't know. I didn't know that we had heard all of that detail yet
Board Member Thayer — That was my understanding.
Mr. Kanter — I think we still have to hear a lot more detail abut it.
Board Member Thayer — If we'd have seen that particular fill site at the very
beginning we would have had a lot more to say about it and the damage, in my
mind, has been done.
Board Member Conneman — But it begs the question to segment it, in my opinion,
because then you don't address it. You sort of let that slide off and the neighbors
and others who are affected by it, lose, in my opinion. They lost already but they
lose even more.
Board Member Howe - They lose more what ??
Board Member Conneman — If you continue to fill there.
Board Member Howe = No, but I'm saying...
Chairperson Wilcox — All we're talking about here is the environmental review.
Board Member Conneman — I'm talking about the environmental review ... I)m saying
that, in my opinion, it ought to be connected to the whole project because the project
is huge and that's just a little piece of it but it's a very important part.
Board Member Thayer — That's right...
Board Member Howe — That's how I'm thinking....
Board Member Talty — What about allowing them to ... can you segment the dumping
area? It's a fairly large area and I know that what we're talking about, its going to go
out x amount of feet lengthwise and then x amount width wise, could they segment
the property and dump now in A and portion out an area labeled A and then later B.
Can we do it like that?
Mr. Kanter —Well, that's probably how a fill area is phased and constructed anyhow.
It certainly could be...
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 31
Board Member Talty — I mean, if you only allow them to phase. into one area then
you could really segment it, and limit it to that and then they'd have to come back
later for the next phase. Is that a possibility? I'm just brainstorming.
Ms. Brock — So Kevin, are you suggesting that the area that would be designated for
use by the Event Center would be the later phase and that's the area that would be
considered in the EIS? So the other area, which might be needed to be used sooner
would be considered under separate environmental review?
Board Member Talty — That's correct.
Ms. Brock — I think that's basically what the County was suggesting too. To me, the
only problem is now you are sort of breaking up your review of the environmental
impact of the whole site by doing Phase I in one review and Phase II in another
review so I don't know whether that really makes sense. I think that it's a policy
decision...
Chairperson Wilcox — It's an interesting question you raise...The classic example of
reasons why you don't want to segment is that of the property owner who has 50 or
100 acres and subdivides off a lot and subdivides off another lot, and continues to
subdivide off one lot at a time. Each lot, each subdivision of one lot and building of a
home doesn't have a significant environmental impact, but doing it 40 Or 50 times
does. Therefore, you want to look at the entire subdivision or the entire parcel all at
once. In this case, I'm thinking that if you take the fill site and split it into two,
then....You're doing the same thing. You are potentially saying that the non - Athletic
Center fill maybe insignificant because its one or more smaller projects that are, will
contribute fill to that site and maybe they are not significant and then you segment
off the large one, when combined together they are quite significant.
Ms. Brock — That's why my recommendation is either you consider the.whole site in
this EIS or you consider the whole site by a separate process and if you do it
through the separate process, I think you can say that even if this were to be
considered segmentation, we think circumstances warrant it for these reasons, and
then legally you can do that.
Board Member Hoffmann — I just need ... All that we have said so far, assumes that
Ithaca College will be able to continue to use this same fill site.
Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that was my point ... I though it was over with.
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think that this ... I was thinking that it probably
ought to be over with. And I don't think that we have to necessarily allow them to
continue using this fill site. They have already put stuff there without getting
approval for it and if they need to continue taking more fill out of their land to build
more things, then maybe we need to require them to arrange to take the fill
someplace else. Where its more appropriate than it is here.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 32
Board Member Talty —That does open a whole nest of other problems though...
Board Member Hoffmann —That may be but ... They have almost caused it to
themselves by doing what ...
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to get into a review of the fill site tonight, I really
just want to concentrate on where the environmental review and how it should be
conducted. I want to give David a chance to speak.
David Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers and Surveyors, 203 North Aurora St.
I can certainly ask Rick to confirm this but we clearly see this as two separate
actions. The fill site being a possible repository for more than just the A &E Center
and I think that I do need to suggest that while the A &E Center is one of those
projects that could utilize the site, we haven't committed to that. So, if there are
different methods of disposing of material that are available to the College for the
A &E Center, then so be it. They understand the implications of having to haul
material off -site, cost, construction traffic, etc. That would be part of the analysis of
the A &E Center. So I don't believe that these two actions need to be linked, the fill
site is clearly a campus wide utilization that multiple projects could take opportunity
or have an opportunity to use, so ... The other issue too, that I would point out ... The
utilization of a fill site or a borrow site is something that has to be revealed or
considered in your stormwater management plans so as individual projects come to
the Town for campus projects, that should be known. If its going to be a site
removed from the campus, then we have to disclose that and make clear how
erosion and sediment control is applied at the off - campus fill site.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm wondering if we could do the whole site twice, once
independently and then ... I'm sorry, potentially do it twice. If we review the site
independently, the proposed Athletic and Events Center, this Board comes to some
conclusion whether to allow more dump fill there or not and under what
circumstances it would be allowed, then as the Athletic and Events Center
progresses through the environmental review and the site plan review, should we
get to that, then should Ithaca College decide to put fill temporarily or permanently
on this fill site, then we would review it again, in some sense.
Mr. Kanter — Well, that's really not the substantive issue. The issue of the fill site is,
it's a fill site. It doesn't matter what building on campus its coming from because its
not even coming from off site so its not a traffic issue, per significant
environmental...
Chairperson Wilcox — But I'm saying for the initial review, can they put more fill
there, yes, no, maybe, we'll decide on how much, but I think that we would wind up
discussing that site again as part of the Athletics Center should they decide that that
would be the most appropriate place to put fill. Did I miss something?
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 33
Mr. Kanter — Before we leave that, I'm just thinking that if you do an independent
review of the fill site, that doesn't mean that its going to get any less review than it
would have if you did it as part of the A &E Center EIS. In fact, if you believe that
there are potentially significant negative impacts of the fill site, you could pos dec
that, and do an environmental impact statement on that, and so you have two
parallel environmental impacts statements going on. So, that is conceivable that
that could happen. I don't think we've ever done an EIS on a fill site but then again,
we don't do that many fill sites.
Board Member Hoffmann — And not many such big ones either.
Board Member Conneman — But it is so linked to this project...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, wait a minute, say it again what you just said...
Mr. Herrick — It doesn't have to be linked to the A &E Center. The A &E project has
the opportunity to propose alternate ways of getting rid of surplus or unsuitable
material. So, if the college comes to the conclusion that that fill site is not going to
be used for this project, then we need to disclose that to the Town through the EIS
process and then understand the impacts of removing material from the campus
versus depositing material on the campus.
Board Member Conneman — Might not removing material from the campus be the
mitigation that we would put on Ithaca College if they wanted to dump there for the
E &A Center and if you will have that as a proposal, why isn't that part of what the
proposal will be?
Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute, I lost you, say it again...
Board Member Conneman — I am saying that if in fact they are thinking about
mitigating the environmental impact of the fill site by taking fill off campus, why don't
they say so immediately.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not going to put words in your mouth David, but I think that
what David Herrick has said is, they have not committed... what's your problem,
what's your problem ... They have not committed to putting fill from the A &E Center
onto this site.
Board Member Talty — They want a choice and you want a definitive answer.
Board Member Conneman — I don't want a choice, I want to be sure that that choice
is there for the Planning Board to have the guts to say that they have to do that. .
Board Member Hoffmann — I think what we need to find out from you is what.are the
different alternatives for taking care of the fill. And then we can consider what the
impacts are in various ways, environmentally and other ways.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 34
Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute, we are going too far afield, we're going too far
afield tonight. This is not a review of their plans. This is simply a determination as
to whether we consider the fill site as linked or separate.
Board Member Conneman — And Susan says that we can't add it later, so tonight's
the night.
Ms. Brock — If you want to include it in this EIS.
Chairperson Wilcox — If we want to include it as part of the A &E Center
environmental review, then tonight's the night to do it, that's correct, yes.
Mr. Walker — Let me, from an enforcement standpoint, Ithaca College has been
notified that they are, have been placing fill outside the earth fill regulations of the
Town of Ithaca. They have suggested that part of this A &E project may produce fill
that could be used to mitigate and finish off that site. As I see it, as the engineer, as
the Town engineer that has the responsibility to first evaluate sites for fill and then
bring it to this Board or the Zoning Board first for fill permits is that that particular site
could be treated solely on the case that its in violation today, it needs to be
corrected, they need to have a plan as to what they may do ultimately on that fill site.
Now, that could be as simple as them bringing in a plan saying they have, I am just
throwing a number out, I don't know the number, they have 1,500 cubic yards that
they could place on that fill site and do it in an environmentally sound way and they'll
bring a plan to do that and part of that plan may be that they are.going to stage it
and its going to take 10 years to do it because they won't generate that much fill in a
given year because basically what's been happening, as they get little projects and
they need a place to put the material and that's where its been going. So, if we look
at that site as a disturbed area that needs to be corrected and have some kind of
permit from this Town either to restore it, close it off or utilize it in the future for safe
placement of fill, that is one project that could be brought before this Board as an
action under the earth fill regulations. And if it's more than 2,500 cubic yards it's got
to come before the Planning Board. They could take that fill site to the Zoning Board
today and say we are going to move less than 2,500 yards, we want to clean it up
and eliminate it and this Board would never see it again, if they never use it again.
So as I see it, if they want to propose to place x number of yards of fill there over a
period of time because it's a mitigating factor because as I see it, the. environmental
impact from putting fill from that site from on the campus to another part of the
campus for the over all public use, traffic and everything else, is much, is a
mitigation to saying they are going to take 10,000 yards and truck it all over to the
old stone quarry off of in Dryden. I mean, if you want to take 500 truckloads of dirt
over Coddington Road, Burns Road, and a whole bunch of other roads, that's a
pretty big environmental impact. Moving it a 1,000 yards may not be such a big
environmental impact.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 35
But that's something that does need to be brought to the Board, that you need to see
what their plans are for the final form of the fill site and so, I don't think that's
segmentation if you designate that as a site that can take x amount of yards of fill or
not take any more fill. And then if you decide that its not appropriate to put more fill
on it and you want them to grade it off so its more aesthetically pleasing, and never
again use it for fill, that's something you can do, if they wish to come before the
Board that way. It is not just linked to that A &E project, they may want to use it for
some of the Gateway Building material. I don't know where they're going to take
that material.
Chairperson Wilcox — It may be linked, it may not be, we don't know.
Mr. Walker — So, I think that site is bigger than the amount of material that might
come off or the potential area and volume that could be placed on college property
in an environmentally safe way is much larger than the Gateway project and the
A &E project.
Now there's a lot of other impacts, there's visual impacts, there's impacts on the
neighbors and everything else that maybe we don't want to see any more fill there.
Maybe the Planning Board doesn't want to see any more fill there. Those are all
things that can be dealt with up front.
Right now they are in violation of Town regulations on that site and just to, not to
create another problem, you say okay, if you bring this, wrap it all in with some of
your other projects then we can deal with it in one way but if you want to deal with it
individually they can do it that way too.
Chairperson Wilcox — We also have the potential of dealing with it sooner.
Mr. Walker — That's what I am saying. I really, because they are in violation now, I
would like to see them come in with a plan to have them come back into compliance.
Ms. Brock — And Fred, just to go back to your question, maybe we can be looking at
it twice, once through reviewing what ever it is that ends up being done for the fill
site and then we can look at it again with the EIS ... I think the problem is going to be
if the fill site review happens first and lets say that this Board determines that its
appropriate to add more, and I'm not trying to tell you you should, I am just saying
this hypothetically, if you determine that more fill can be added and you've gone
through your SEQR process and you've either neg dec'ed it or pos dec'ed it and
done an EIS and at the end of your process you say more fill can be added, if then
the Athletic and Events Center fill were to be taken there, what rationale basis would
you have to look at it again in the EIS and look at the environmental impacts again?
You've already done it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh yeah, I didn't... yeah ... I wasn't clear. My assumption was
not that it would be looked at in the EIS but that it would be looked at as part of site
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 36
plan. That's what I was thinking, not that it would get two sets.of environmental
review, it would get an environmental review today, if we decided to deal with it
separately but also it would be reviewed as part of site plan, because if that's where
they propose to take the fill, then that's something that we're going to have to look
at.
Ms. Brock — Right. And then to the extent there are specific issues related to
trucking it from point a to point b and things like that but I am talking about in terms
of using that site, yes. Okay, I think that would be appropriate. Also, just, I think I
should tell the Board what the tests are for segmentation so you can be thinking
about that during this discussion. You may have heard this ... I don't know if Loraine
gave these to you last month...
There are 8 factors:
1. Purpose: Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment.
2. Time: Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or
about the same time.
3. Location: Is there a common geographic location involved.
4. Impact: Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation, while not
necessarily significant by themselves, contribute towards significant
cumulative or synergistic impacts.
5. Ownership: Are the different segments under the same ownership or control.
6. Planning: Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan.
7. Utility: Can any of the inter - related phases of various projects be considered
functionally dependent on each other.
8. Inducement: Does the approval of one phase or segment commit the agency
to approval of other phases.
I think that you will find that if you walk through those criteria that some of them
would say that this would be segmentation and some say this wouldn't be
segmentation, I mean, obviously there's common ownership, location... close
enough... perhaps you would say. But then you look at utility, are these two projects
functionally dependent on each other. Well, the fill site, they want that, it sounds
like, regardless of whether the Event Center gets built. They want it for other
projects and the Event Center could be built without the fill site. So, maybe they're
not functionally dependent on each other and inducement, if you approve one, does
that commit you, the Planning Board, to approving the other. No, you could see that
you could approve the fill site without having to approve the Event Center that's
going to, your approval would rely on a number of other factors and vice - versa, you
could approve the Events Center and not approve the fill site.
So, some of the factors say yes, it would be segmentation, some say no. To me, I
think the functionally dependent on each other factor seems to me to be one that
tend to focus on when I thought about these issues in the past, but obviously there
are all eight here.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 37
Mr. Kanter — Also Fred, I think I would be concerned, somewhat, if the fill site were
lumped into the A &E Center draft environmental impact statement because it could
shift the focus, the needed focus on the A &E Center away from the resources or
energy needed to look at that because there is so much concern about the fill site
and to do a really good review of the fill site, I think, it would be appropriate to do an
independent review of the fill site and you may end up concluding that its not a good
idea to continue the fill site there. That doesn't mean that its not a good idea to have
the A &E Center project, necessarily, so you know, if you start blending these two
things together too much, you're going to start, which we've already been doing
tonight, already the focus has shifted away from the A &E Center to the fill site,
almost totally. The same thing could happen.
Board Member Thayer — Good point.
Board Member Howe — Yes, you've convinced me that it should be a separate
review process.
Chairperson Wilcox — I am thinking here that the reason that we have linked them
logically, the reason we were discussing this, is the potential that construction of the
Athletics & Events Center would require Ithaca College to place fill on this site.
Board Member Thayer — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would, might, could ... etc, etc. Contrasting that with what Dan
said which is there is a fill site there now, it has been used without the appropriate
permits, or authorization and there is reason to address that situation sooner rather
than bundling it in with the A &E Center which could delay its review.
Board Member Thayer — The notice of violation that you sent them, was there any
time limit as to what they had to do...
Mr. Walker — No, really, we just , we found that the violation when... Actually we
haven't gone to the full formal you know, you've got 30 days to correct this problem
because they've been cooperative and they've been working with us on this
so ... That's where we are. We know that they were bringing material there, we know
that they are not bringing material there today ... They haven't (inaudible) totally
regarded everything either but...
Board Member Thayer — It seems to me we have to look at that situation quicker
than the A &E building.
Board Member Talty — I think that Dan made logical statements and arguments, that
you have to take it one step at a time and first is to get them into compliance and
then you keep going from that point forward. Because what would have happened if
they didn't bring the A &E project in front of us period. Six months from now. You'd
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 38
still be talking about what has transpired and what will be transpiring on other areas
around the campus. So I think, I've been convinced that I think we should segment.
Board Member Conneman — I just want to say, I love the Ithaca College, so nothing
against the College and its programs, but, the issue is that they already,
understand, do not have as much money as they'd like to build this whole complex
and if they build the complex and we get to the point where they say, look, if you
guys require us to haul it off site, we won't have enough money. It just seems to me
that that just solve this problem of what you do with the fill first and it, in just what
they presented the last time it seems to me that it is an environmental impact of
significance to dump all that stuff where they're gonna dump it without mitigating it in
some other way.
I just don't want ...I just don't want us to get caught in a legal thing where we
can't ... You know, once you get to all the SEQR things and everything else, once you
prove that, I think its tough to go back. I think we had a case before us, previously,
where that was true.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're concern is that if we review it first, we could tie our
hands later on?
Board Member Conneman — Yes. That's my concern.
Chairperson Wilcox —That's you concern. Is that something we should be...
Board Member Conneman — I didn't think about that, I thought a little bit about it but
when Susan said you can't go back...
Chairperson Wilcox — Could we legally tie our hands in regard to environmental
review by looking at the fill site first before the Athletic Center later on ?.
Ms. Brock — I don't know what you mean by tie your hands but, to the extent...
Chairperson Wilcox — Like we made a determination or a decision with regard to the
fill site, therefore, when we are reviewing the Athletic and Events Center we are
unable to change that determination. I'm trying to think of George's...
Ms. Brock — Well as far as using the fill site for construction and demolition debris I
would say yes. I mean, you've made your determination as to what's appropriate,
what the environmental effects are and how the fill site can be used in the future and
that determination, unless there's a reason to revisit it, ...
Mr. Smith — But it's not saying where the fill's coming from. You're just saying there
is a certain amount of fill that came off into the ...
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 39
Ms. Brock — Right, but, so, I don't understand what the concern is I think, I mean,
you're going to make your own independent decision on the fill site as' to what's
appropriate for its future use or nonuse and then as you review this construction
project and any other construction projects, that earlier determination will be there
and you'll need to follow that unless there is new information which indicates that
you need to reopen your determination on the fill site.
Chairperson Wilcox —Could we be less protective of the environment? Rhetorically,
am talking to myself.
Mr. Kanter — Well, you wouldn't want to be...
Chairperson Wilcox — Right, we don't want to be so therefore I don't want to do
anything that could be.
Ms. Brock — I mean, if you decide that X number of cubic yards, additional cubic
yards can be put in the fill site, and if the proposal then becomes those cubic yards
are going to come from this Athletics and Events Center, why are you concerned
about that?
Board Member Conneman — Why am I concerned about that? Because I think that
continuing to expand the fill site really presents a very large environmental impact.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, you didn't hear the question, you missed the question ... If
we determine that some number of yards of cubic, some number of cubic yards of fill
can be added to that site, we do that first, then when we get to the Athletics and
Events Center, we hear that the applicant wants to put that many yards of cubic dirt
on the fill site, consistent with our initial determination, do we care?
Board Member Conneman — Suppose he wants to put twice as much?
Chairperson Wilcox — We've already made the determination that they can't.
Board Member Conneman — You'll put that in the minutes so I can quote you on
that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I guess the point is we don't care where the fill comes
from. The question is, how much fill can be added there. Is it zero, is it five, is it ten
or is it a thousand cubic yards. We hear it comes from, if it comes off campus, yes
we care, it's going across public roads, State Town or otherwise but, fill is fill. I
shouldn't say that, there are different qualities of fill.
Board Member Hoffmann —As far as our hands being tied if we make this decision
about the fill site first and we can't change it unless something new comes up, it
seems to me that since the A &E Center is something that's planned over 25 years
and Ithaca College doesn't even know what some of the later phases are going to
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 40
be, that there are going to be situations where there are new things coming up and
we would be able to change the determination about whether the fill could go on
campus to this fill site or somewhere else. I don't think our hands would be tied.
Ms. Brock — You could re- assess the.. once a project is completely done ... I'd have
to look back and see your ability to go back and reopen ... well, no, yes, you could
because I am not sure what they would. need for the fill site. Fill need site plan,
among other things, right? And in the Code there are provisions for if
circumstances change substantially, aren't there, that site plan modifications can be
required.
Mr. Kanter — Oh, absolutely, any approved site plan can be modified by coming to
the Board.
Ms. Brock — But, can the Board impose that. Where a set of assumptions existed
upon which the approval was given and then over time, those assumptions.are no
longer true and things have changed. Is that in the code?
Mr. Kanter — Well, I think my interpretation is that it's in the code. I don't know that
there's a clause that says that.
Ms. Brock — Has the Town done that historically?
Mr. Walker — if you are talking about a site plan approval or a fill permit for a piece of
property and you say they propose a plan and a grading plan and a stormwater
management plan and it will fit on this site and we do the full environmental review
and say okay, yes, this site can handle x number of cubic yards and we understand
that its going to be phased in over a 10 -15 year plan and there would be, no more
than a certain area will be disturbed, all these conditions can be put on it and it still
has to have the stormwater management permit for construction purposes.,.. if it
could take 20,000 cubic yards of material and the A &E Center doesn't get approved
for 15 years and over the years they put a few 1,000 yards in here a 1,000 yards in
here and there's no more space, then they can't use it.
Ms. Brock — Right, and actually, Eva, I think what you can do, when you grant your
site plan approval for the fill site, if you grant the site plan approval for the fill site,
you can make it a condition... that this fill site approval is conditioned on the
assumption that the underlying conditions will continue into the future, but given the
long duration contemplated for construction of all these different projects and you
can have triggers for when they would need to come back and seek additional
approvals. And I think we could work something out if there wasn't something in the
code to point to.
Board Member Thayer — Is it possible that these gentlemen are waiting here to tell
us that they are going to close the fill site. (laughter)
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 41
Board Member Conneman — If they are going to mitigate it by not using it, tell us,
don't play games with us.
Ms. Brock — Where is the fill going to go for the Gateway Building?
Mr. Herrick — It will not go there.
Ms. Brock — Okay. Good answer.
Board Member Talty — But it might go there if you determine to make that site
appropriate, to get it back into the code, they may necessarily have to add it from
somewhere right? If they needed to add x amount of cubic yards to make it correct,
you'd have to get it from somewhere.
Mr. Walker — It depends on ... If you approve a site to be used as a fill site and put
conditions on it about how much of it can be disturbed and what your final grade
wants to be, I don't think they'd come in and say we're going to build a slope that's
like ... we have a maximum slope, but we may never get to that point and whether or
not that's acceptable to this Board is the question. Maybe you want them to go and
put it in and make it a perfect ski slope over there now so they can put their chair lift
on it and everything else. But, and you have to look at, I'm saying is if you look at
that fill site and concentrate on that fill site and say that this is just for deposition of
excess soil and rock that comes from Ithaca College's property, and that it will be
taking 5 -10 years to utilize all the space in that site and you give them that
permission, then that environmental review would be done focused just on that fill
and all the concerns from the neighbors from around there would be focused on it
and then you could make the determination, no its not a good idea to put any more
material there or its okay to put some if you do it this way or other things.
The other aspect. of that is that loop road they showed on there and that's another
whole story because that you might want to look at as part of the A &E Center
because that's been raised by the County and everyone else.. I mean, I think you
are going to have to have that road when you do the A &E Center to keep people
from going out onto Coddington Road and get them over to 96B because if you don't
have that loop road. they are never going to zigzag through that campus as you've
got it now. So I see that as a critical part of and that may come out of the
environmental review for the A &E Center that they have to build that loop road
before they finish the A &E Center to set up their traffic patterns. So there's a lot of
linkages in there.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm thinking that separate consideration of the fill site is
probably in our and the Town's best interests.
Board Member Talty — Its logical. You have the issue as it stands now and we have
different areas of development on Ithaca College and right now, without going over
everything Dan really said, cause he articulated it correctly, I don't see any other
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 42
way to go about it. Although you'd like to go about it maybe a different way, I think
the set of statements and facts as they are today, you really have to segment it.
Board Member Thayer = Basically that's what Jon said. It just takes too much
emphasis off of the A &E Center. Just look at the fill site.
Chairperson Wilcox -- Susan, what do we have to do legally?
Ms. Brock — Okay, so legally, and this is why I said we had to decide this tonight, if a
Lead.I .If a Lead Agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it
must clearly state in its determination of significance and any subsequent EIS the
supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less
protective of the environment. So, because this is your determination of significance
that you are considering tonight, we have to state in it hat the review will be
segmented and state why.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're looking at timing or inducement or functionally
dependent and those things...you want to continue to do that? While she's doing
that...
What I want to do is just read the resolved clauses as they were drafted and then we
will change them so that those of you who have been listening to us discuss this will
have an idea about where we are. There's a lot of boiler plate. ..the whereas'es
but...
Now therefore be it Resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby
establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the Environmental Review of the
proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center as described above, and,
Be it Further Resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a
positive determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as
proposed and confirms that a draft environmental impact statement will be prepared,
and,
Be it Further Resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby request that
the Town Planning Department duly file and publish a notice of positive declaration
pursuant to the provisions of 6NYCRR Part 617.112. and,
BE it Further Resolved that Ithaca College and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
have agreed that a public scoping process will be initiated to determine the scope
and content of the draft environmental impact statement and that Ithaca College will
prepare a draft written scope of issues to be addressed in the draft environmental
impact statement and that the Planning Board will schedule a public hearing on said
scoping document to be held before this Board at the earliest practicable date upon
receipt of said draft scoping document.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 43
Let's do it this way ... Let me move the motion as drafted. Seconded by Kevin Talty
and then we will let Susan continue to ... take your time Susan, we're okay. Can we
move on to some other stuff? Susan, you going to be 5 -10 minutes? (yes),. Let's
take care of some other business while we are waiting.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 6, 2007 and February 20, 2007.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 027
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
FEBRUARY 6TH & 20TH, 2007
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 6, 2007
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the February
6, 2007 and February 20, 2007 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board for the said meetings.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, and Talty
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Hoffmann and Conneman
The motion was carried.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item.
OTHER BUSINESS
The upcoming meeting schedules and topics were discussed as well as training
opportunities.
Interviews for the vacant Planning Board position are scheduled for April.
Chairperson Wilcox also announced that he will be staying in the Town of Ithaca and
will be able to retain his position with the Board as Chairperson.
The Comprehensive Plan and its update were discussed.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 44
BACK TO LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION
Ms. Brock — Before I give the language that I have been working on, I have another
change to the resolution. Under the first be it resolved clause, where it says that the
Planning Board confirms that an environmental impact statement will be prepared,
add the following; that will address, at a minimum, those impacts identified as
potentially large or significant in Parts II or III of the environmental assessment form.
That will lock down some of the issues that will have to be identified in the scoping
document and then discussed in the EIS.
Then add another. be it further resolved clause at the end of the resolution that reads
as follows:
That Ithaca College's potential future use of its current on -site fill site for construction
and demolition debris and fill will be considered pursuant to a separate
environmental review to be conducted when Ithaca College requests site plan
approval for the fill site.
To the extent such separate environmental review could be considered
segmentation, the Planning Board believes circumstances warrant a segmented
review because:
1. The fill site is proposed to be used for a number. of Ithaca College building
projects, and Ithaca College has indicated that it does not have to use the fill
site for the Athletics and Events Center.
2. The fill site and Athletics and Events Center consequently are not functionally
dependent on each other because each project can exist without the other
project.
3. The approval of one project does not commit the Planning Board to approve
the other project.
4. The fill site project likely is on a faster timeframe than the Athletic and Events
Center project.
5. The fill site requires and deserves its own in depth environmental review and
blending its review with the Athletic and Events Center could potentially result
in a less in depth review than if considered as part of the Athletics and Events
Center EIS.
Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable changes Kevin? Any further discussion?
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 45
ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO, 2007- 026
Lead Agency Designation and Positive
Declaration of Environmental Significance
Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center
Tax Parcel No's. 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24 and 42 -1 -9.2
Ithaca College Campus Near Coddington Road
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 6, 2007
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS.
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting on February 6, 2007,
declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental
review for the proposed . Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center (PB
Resolution No. 2007 -015) located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College
campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential
Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot
field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and
games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving
well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center,
etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of
1015 +/- parking spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new
parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also
include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting,
and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent,
and
2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by
the Planning Board and possibly variance(s) by the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of
Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review because the proposal
involves construction of a facility with more than 25,000 square feet of gross
floor area, parking for more than 100 vehicles, and potentially, the physical
alteration of more than 10 acres (Section 148-5.0 -1, 3 and 4 Town of Ithaca
Code), and
3. A letter from Ithaca College, dated February 1, 2007, has been received, in
which Ithaca College states that ... "the College will concede that there is the
potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact and that a
positive determination of environmental significance by the Town Planning
Board of this Type I action is warranted", and a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant for the above -
described action, and
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 46
4, The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board,
distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and
interested agencies on .February 8, 2007, and received no objections to the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on. this matter, and
5. The Planning Board has reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form
(EAF), Part 1, prepared by Ithaca College, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF,
prepared by the Planning staff,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency to
coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and
Events Center, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a positive determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and,.confirms that
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared that will address, at
a minimum, those impacts identified as potentially large or significant in Parts II or III
of the Environmental Assessment Form, and .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests that the Town Planning
Department duly file and publish a Notice of Positive Declaration pursuant to the
provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That Ithaca College and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have agreed that a
public scoping process will be initiated to determine the scope and content of the
DEIS, and that Ithaca College will prepare a draft written scope of issues to be
addressed in the DEIS, and that the Planning Board will schedule a public hearing
on said scoping document to be held before this Board at the earliest practicable
date upon receipt of said draft scoping document, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That Ithaca College's potential future use of its current on -site fill site for construction
and demolition debris and fill will be considered pursuant to a separate
environmental review to be conducted when Ithaca College requests site plan
approval for the fill site.
PB 03 -06 -2007
Approved Minutes Pg. 47
To the extent such separate environmental review could be considered
segmentation, the Planning Board believes circumstances warrant a segmented
review because:
1. The fill site is proposed to be used for a number of Ithaca College building
projects, and Ithaca College has indicated that it does not have to use the fill
site for the Athletics and Events Center.
2. The fill site and Athletics and Events Center consequently are not functionally
dependent on each other because each project can exist without the .other
project.
3. The approval of one project does not commit the Planning Board to approve
the other project.
4. The fill site project likely is on a faster timeframe than the Athletic and Events
Center project.
5. The fill site requires and deserves its own in depth environmental review and
blending its review with the Athletic and Events Center could potentially result
in a less in depth review than if considered as part of the Athletics and Events
- Center EIS.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe and Talty.
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
The motion was carried unanimously.
BACK TO OTHER BUSINESS
Agenda items were discussed.
Larry Thayer will be absent April 3, 2007
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned on motion by Rod Howe at 9:16 p.m.
Respect fully /6ubrpitted
Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town cl
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
AGENDA
00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Barrett 2 -Lot Subdivision, 133 & 135 Westview Lane.
:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot
subdivision located at 133 & 135 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2- 39.48, Medium Density
Residential Zone.. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 20,230 square foot property into two lots where each
unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot. Jonathan & Kimberly Barrett, Owners /Applicants.
':10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca Baptist Church Day Care Center, 1462 Slaterville Road.
:10 P.M: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed day care center at the Ithaca Baptist Church located at 1462 Slaterville Road (NYS Route 79), Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -22.3, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves using several of the
existing rooms within the Ithaca Baptist Church building for a day care center for up to 10 children. There are no
changes proposed to the exterior of the building as part of this project. Ithaca Baptist Church, Owner /Applicant;
Dr. Guy Kinney, Pastor, Agent.
':20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modifying condition "l .b." of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site
Plan Approval for the Ithaca College Gateway Building, granted October 17, 2006, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said condition required that the submission of
the stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" occur prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The applicant is requesting that the condition be modified to allow the stormwater agreement be submitted
prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture,
Agent.
7:25 P.M. Consideration of designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency, and the determination of
a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center
located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field
for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis
courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track,
and the creation of 1015 +/- parking spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new parking spaces). The
project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities,
outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent.
I
10
11.
Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
Approval of Minutes: February 6, 2007 and February 20, 2007.
Other Business:
Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
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, March 6, 2007, 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 133 & 135 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2 -
39.48, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/-
20,230 square foot property into two lots where each unit of the existing duplex will be
on an individual lot. Jonathan & Kimberly Barrett, Owners /Applicants.
7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed day care center at the Ithaca Baptist Church located at 1462 Slaterville Road
(NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -22.3, Medium Density Residential
Zone. The proposal involves using several of the existing rooms within the Ithaca Baptist
Church building for a day care center for up to 10 children. There are no changes
proposed to the exterior of the building as part of this project. Ithaca Baptist Church,
Owner /Applicant; Dr. Guy Kinney, Pastor, Agent.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of modifying condition "1.b." of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site
Plan Approval for the Ithaca College Gateway Building, granted October 17, 2006, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone.
Said condition required that the submission of the stormwater "Operation, Maintenance,
and Reporting Agreement" occur prior to the issuance of a. building permit. The
applicant is requesting that the condition be modified to allow the stormwater agreement
be submitted prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy. Ithaca College,
Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, 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 26, 2007
Publish: Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Wednesday, February 28l20.071 THE ITHACA'JOURNAL
S
-TOWN OF nHACA -.'
PLANNING'BOARD: ;
NOTICE OF'
PUBLIC-HEARINGS'
Tuesday,
March 612007..,,`
By'direction.of.,the Chair-;
person --'of the Planningg i
board, NOTICE IS'HEREBY
Tioga "'
at the
onathe
1'
131,1DaM510n luvul, Ivl!
.ttie, proposed, . - suBdivi
rsion.located -at 131A X135
;Westview ,lane, Town of,,
lth6ca Tox'Torcel No. "58 -2-
i39.48 , - `rMedium 'Density;
Residential lone. The :pro -1
posal:'.involves subdividing.
the ; + /- 20;230 square foot'
pr rty into two lots where
each' unit of he'existing'.du u
?plez will bbd on;bn individu
:al lot. Jonathan 81 Kimtierty t
(Barrett , '- Qwners /: ,_Appli=
I
;cants."
l47d.10•P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary, and. `Final:
€Site:.7 Plan, 'Approvals -and-
fSpecial`•Permit- for the. pro- -
posed day care cente "at
thedthaca Baptist.Church lo.-
cated�:at, 1462'' + "Slaterville.
;Road � NYS Route.:, -79J1
Town. of Ithaca Tax. Parcel.,
'No.:- ''S8 -2 -22.3; ';Medium
:Density =, Residentidl ,'Zone...;
The`,proposal involves using
.several ,of - the:. existing
.
rooms:: within - the Ithaca -:
%6a tisi- Church building for
a;dav care center_for ua to
i. ..IIIC,G VSO ltw ..
roposed to -Ae
the buildin', as
Dr, "Gi
ent
A'
ppproval for =;
i College t',Gatel
7,` 2006, .Town of -, ".Ithaca
ox Parcel.No.'s 41 -1 -30.2'
ndk: ".414 =30.4, ., Medium
the `-- :submission ' of - the
;stormwater "Operation,
Maintenance, -and
Report-
ding Agreement ",
occur prior
+to dheilisuance
of a build- -
ing- permit. The
apPplicant•is
:'requesting that-.the
condi-
tion:be" modified :to- allow:
the stormwater
agreement.
be' submitted
orior
to the is-
hard;Couture Agent
Said "Planning Board will,
t sbid = times . and _said.(
lace hear 'all persons. in
upport of :such matters .or
biections thereto. Persons
!Purwrl. w IllulvluuUM" will l_
:visual impairments,Ahearing_
.impairments or.other-'sppe -'
rciol- needs, -will be'provide&
1with, assistance :as 'necesso-
I'ry. -, `upon._request:._ Persons-
desiring' ;assistance, -must
-pmake . such ';a request.- not -
Iess than 48; hours prior Yo
jhe 'dime; of Ahe publii-
,hearings. .. `. ..
Jonathan'"n'ter, AICP
•D.ireictor of'Planningg
273-1747--
Dated: Monday;
Februarv.26,.2007.
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
March 6, 2007
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN -IN
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
Name
�lot
eu �i /3 t2 X77
v; r ?vge�s
(QI C << cc, vnk
U. 7 V)V Tb-kEtN
(i l < Sn
iSL
Address
2n iti wuf
-'
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.
cc of
i974
of
T
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday March 6 2007 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 26, 2007
February 28, 2007
a. Qol?c.
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28`h day of February 2007.
Notary Public
Notary Public, State Of New York
No. 01H06052879
Seneca County
My Commission Expires Dec. 26, ao In