HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-03-20FILE
DATE
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Chairperson Fred Wilcox; Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, Kevin Talty, Larry Thayer
and Rod Howe
Absent: Board Member George Conneman
STAFF
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike
Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen,
Deputy Town Clerk.
OTHERS PRESENT
Mark Macera, Longview
Elizabeth Allinger, Resident, Longview
John Lloyd, Resident, Longview
Ellie Hall Minnis, Longview
Katherine Beissner, Ithacare Board of Directors
John Krout, Ithaca College Gerontology Institute
Ernie Bayles, King Road East
Andrea Riddle, King Road East
Dave Schlosser, Schoffer Architects
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m. and accepts for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 12, 2007 and March 14 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 March 14, 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 7:05-p.m....
:05 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox -- The first item this evening was a consideration of Preliminary and
Final Site Plan approval for the Primet Precision Materials.' They have withdrawn their
application. The Town received an email earlier today from George May. He sent an
PB 3/20/07
Page 2
email today to Town staff indicating that Primet was withdrawing their application as
they have decided to stay in their current building on the Therm site.
The other slight change to the agenda is there will be no SEQR determination for the
Montessori School addition and renovations. I am a creature of habit, I see a public
hearing, I stick a SEQR in front of it but it is a Type II action, which does not require a
SEQR determination.
So having said that, I talked to Jon briefly this afternoon and he had a couple of items
he wanted to bring up in the roughly 10 minutes that we have available to us.
Mr. Kanter — The first item relates to materials that you did get in the packet but wasn't
listed on the agenda. It is material regarding the Cornell Transportation Focus GEIS.
Cornell was kind enough to provide us with an update of what they've been doing with
the project and also a summary of their commuter survey that they recently, actually not
so recently, it was conducted late last year and then they analyzed the results of it.
They've been talking with the resource committee for that project and I guess they feel
that it's a good idea to start coming back with some updates and I think, if the Board is
interested, we might even be able to get some of the Cornell people to one of their
upcoming meetings for an in person update because they are starting to get to the point
where they are actually analyzing the intersection corridors, actually, they've done a lot
with the neighborhood livability studies. They're starting to gear up for another series of
community workshops in April that I think they outlined in their update so they are
moving along and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to get them in at some point soon
to get some face- to-face dialog again with them.
So I didn't want to say anything specific about the survey results. I think that's
there and if anybody has any questions, that is something I think we could ask Cornell
to talk about more if people are interested, but I think, again, the Town would be quite
interested to see somebody, the traffic and transportation analysis that they've been
working on and they are coming up with some pretty interesting things.
The other item, briefly, is on the Cornell childcare center. I talked with Susan
Brock about the process, the review process for that and I think we are both in
agreement that Cornell does, definitely, need to come in for Town approvals. Basically,
site plan approval because it is new development and part of it is in the Town of Ithaca,
several elements, although they are fairly small; a sidewalk extension, a sign and utility
extensions within the Town of Ithaca. Of course, the remainder of the facility is within
Cayuga Heights and Cayuga Heights, I believe, held a public hearing on the project and
we've not gotten an update yet from them on what happened, but my understanding
from Brad Cross at the Village is that the Planning Board, which is actually the, I think,
the Village Trustees acting as the Planning Board that has jurisdiction over the childcare
center, they held their public hearing.
My understanding, with talking to Brad, is that the Village was going to hold off on
any decisions, including the SEAR determination, until they hear back from the Town
PB 3/20/07
Page 3
because I have relayed the information to Brad that we do believe it is under our
jurisdiction to review it. It also is subject to the Planning Board's special permit authority
because it is both a daycare center and an educational use which both of those are
subject to the special use conditions. So I think I showed you this the other, the last
meeting... We've gotten one copy of this quite complete submission, which we have
asked Cornell to submit to the Town in a similar form although it gets into a lot of detail
in the overall project. Of course, it's hard for this Board to review a sidewalk a sign and
utilities without seeing the whole project and so we are going to need to do that.
However, when we actually come down to approvals and any conditions, the
Board may feel it necessary to consider, we're going to have to have some discussion
about that, but it seems pretty clear that our approvals basically need to focus on the
portion of the project within the Town of Ithaca. Since we are hoping that we are
coordinating the SEQR review with the Village of Cayuga Heights or vice - versa, their
comments seem to have indicated that they will do a coordinated review. In this letter
that we left you a copy of dated March 13th from Brad Cross, he sort of makes it sound
like the Town would like to conduct a coordinated review. Well, if they're Lead Agency
and they request being Lead Agency and want to do a coordinated review, then that's
up to them to say that. I think this is probably what he is saying in the letter, but it's kind
of not clear that that is what he's saying, but that's... my interpretation is that's his
intent. I have talked to Brad on the phone and made it clear that our desire would be to
do a coordinated review and he agreed that that would be the best way to do it. So, at
least, in our by -laws, that's what we've come up with.
So I just wanted to bring you up to date on that too. I don't know what the Village
may have done last night. I .am hoping that they simply held their public hearing,
received public comments, and are waiting to hear from us and then we're waiting to
hear from Cornell on when we should be receiving the materials and we will get those
out to people as soon as we can.
Board Member Hoffmann — I am very familiar with this particular site because when
was studying Urban Planning at Cornell, in one of the courses that I took, we all
designed something for that site. Actually some units for living and it was really fun.
And there's this pond in the middle of it, the site slopes down to this pond, this wet area,
which we had to pay attention to, this was a long time ago, but we thought of these
things even then.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you design a daycare center?
Board Member Hoffmann — No, I designed apartments. That was the project.
Susan Brock — Just to follow up a little bit on this Board's authority for this project, even
though most of the elements are in the Village of Cayuga Heights, Under SEQR, as an
involved agency, you'll be submitting comments to the Lead Agency, the Village of
Cayuga Heights, and under SEQR, your comments are not limited to the just the
impacts of the elements in the Town. You are supposed to look at all the impacts of the
PB 3/20/07
Page 4
project, wherever they may be. So you do have some ability to at least put on the
record your observations and comments for the whole project, through the SEAR
process.
Chairperson .Wilcox — Speaking of the SEQR process, as I said in the beginning of the
meeting, for the next agenda item which has to do with Montessori Middle School, up on
South Hill, the agenda showed a SEQR determination. This is a Type 11 action which
means that the State of New York has legislatively determined that this will not have
significant environmental impact, therefore no State Environmental Quality Review is
necessary. So there will be no environmental review, we will go right to the public
hearing and again for those of you who are here this evening, the public hearing was
advertised as starting at 7:15 and we can not start before that. So I think we are all set.
PUBLIC HEARING
Preliminary And Final Site Plan Approval And Special Permit - Proposed addition
and renovations to the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori Middle School building
located at 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.6, Medium
Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves a +/- 765 square foot addition on
the north side of the existing Middle School building (blue house), conversion of
the existing garage into classroom space, and other interior renovations and
changes. Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Ernie
Bayles, Architect, Agent.
Ernie Bayles, 209 Utica Street, Ithaca, Architect
Andrea Riddle, Principal and Founder of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School,
120 East King Road.
Mr. Bayles — Basically, the proposal before you is to
school building at 122 East King Road consisting of
approximately a little less than 1,600 square foot tot
order to increase existing classroom space, increase
to create one additional classroom space which will
instruction.
construct an addition to the middle
about 800 square feet of footprint,
al space to the existing building in
existing computer room space and
be used for musical practice and
Basically, the additions do not incur any zoning variances. Everything is within
the height and setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. We have analyzed the
parking requirements and within the Town the requirements of 2 spaces per classroom
is met with parking on other parts of the campus, not on this particular building parcel
and that's how we've been operating up to this point before.
__The actual increase in classrooms is only one classroom. There will only be a
half of a teaching position that will be increased because of this. The increase in actual
students is going to be 7 this year, with the anticipation that this will grow a little bit but
not a considerable amount in the coming years.
PB 3/20/07
Page 5
Basically, the program needs to increase to simply accommodate those kids that
have been coming through the program through the primary and elementary school and
going into middle school and there has just been more and more demand from the
parents to stay within the Montessori system up through that and so it's a kind of a slow
but persistent amount of growth, but I think that the thinking is that it's kind of limited by
the enrollment at the primary ages, that is they're not accepting new kids to come into
the program at that level.
Chairperson Wilcox — You were at the Zoning Board of Appeals last night?
Mr. Bayles — We were at the Zoning Board of Appeals last night. Basically because
special permit used to be handled by the Zoning Board of Appeals and they had
previously granted special permit with the condition that the building b occupied with no
more than 30 people. Interestingly enough, when we went to the Board last night to ask
for their blessing, if nothing else, to go to a occupancy of 44, their response was, "Why
are we limiting this at all? We will approve or bless any number, as long as it's within
the confines of the building code."
Chairperson Wilcox — I have an email from Susan Brock I received this morning. I will
read the first part of it. "Last night's ZBA meeting, the ZBA modified its 1999 special
approval for the Montessori School by removing the restriction on the number of people
who could occupy the middle school building. So there are no ZBA conditions and from
now on the process will be covered by the Planning Board special permit process."
Questions?
Board Member Howe — I don't have any questions, this seems very straight forward.
(Board agrees)
Chairperson Wilcox — I have one question. This particular building has insufficient
parking. There is parking on the other two buildings, lots that you own. Is there
sufficient parking on the same side of the street? My concern is people having to try to
limit the people who have to cross the road to get to their cars.
Mr. Bayles — I have tried to codify this to some extent... Basically, across the street, we
currently have 4 spaces, at the middle school building we have 5 and at the main
building we, subject to debate, but at least 20. And so if we take the number of 20 and
add it to 5, that would be 25 cars which would then give us an allowed number of
classrooms of half that, 12. In our main building, we have 5 classrooms and in the
middle school building, we currently have 5 classrooms and we will have 6 so that gives
us 11 and we have parking for 12.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you.
PB 3/20/07
Page 6
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to speak. There being no one, he closes the
public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
Board Member Thayer — Ernie designed it very nicely, as he always does.
Ms. Brock -- I want to disclose for the record that Ernie is my architect. He recently did
some drawings for me. He is not currently working on anything but...
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 028
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval / Special Permit
Montessori Middle School Addition & Renovations
122 King Road East
Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.6
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 20, 2007
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty,
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed addition and renovations to the Elizabeth Ann
Clune Montessori Middle School building located at 122 East King Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43- 1 -3.6, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves a +/- 765 square foot addition on the north side of the existing Middle
School building (blue house), conversion of the existing garage into classroom
space, and other interior renovations and changes. Elizabeth Ann Clune
Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent, and
2. This is a Type II Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (c) (8), State
Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), requiring no further environmental
review, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 20, 2007, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans titled "EAC Montessori School" Sheets A -1 and
A -2, dated 02- 14 -07, prepared by Ernie Bayles, Architect, and other application
materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed
Montessori Middle School addition and renovations finding that the standards of Article
XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met,
PB 3/20/07
Page 7
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 addition and renovations at the Montessori
Middle School building located at 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 43- 1 -3.6, as shown on plans titled "EAC Montessori School' Sheets A -1 and
A -2, dated 02- 14 -07, prepared by Ernie Balyes, Architect, subject to the following
condition:
a. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or
paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer,
architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan materials,
prior to issuance of a building permit.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe and Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have a couple of minutes while they set up. I got a phone call
and an email from Chris Balestra today. She called to inform me that construction on
the Westview Subdivision has been halted by the Town for lack of proper stormwater
erosion sedimentation controls.
Board Member Thayer — It must be Dan stopped it.
Board Member Talty — Is that Schickel?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. We had you make a short presentation about it a couple
weeks ago ... about the stormwater and the changes that had to go on and I guess the
situation has deteriorated up there....
Mr. Walker —_They started another section up there without adequate sediment and
erosion control and it got a little out of control and it all started to melt. So we said, stop.
Board Member Talty — So what happens now?
PB 3/20/07
Page 8
Mr. Walker — We had a meeting with him today and his contractor and his engineer and
we worked out that we want him to build the erosion control first. They are going to add
a couple of sedimentary traps which should resolve the big issues we had. Before they
get any building permits for the houses, they will have to put in all the little side yard
swales for this current Phase, Phase 11. So they agreed to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — One of the things I am going to talk to Chris about is she had
expressed the opinion that maybe we can, at some future meeting, go back through this
process. Maybe we can learn from it. Maybe we need to look at these sorts of wet,
hydric soils a little bit differently. Maybe it was the method that was being proposed to
deal with stormwater runoff, whatever, but when we get a meeting sometime late spring,
early summer, when it starts to slow down, maybe we can go back an look at this one
again and see what may have been... What maybe we could have done different or
maybe we couldn't, I don't know, but go back and take a look at this one.
Board Member Talty — I would have no problem with that, but if recollection serves me
correctly, Dan said that he has absolute faith in that system if implemented correctly.
Mr. Walker — Right. And the problem was that the construction methodology hasn't
been done correctly.
Board Member Talty — That's correct, so I have no problem revisiting that, but, I don't
think that the problem is in the plan.
Mr. Walker— Yeah, it's the implementation part of it. Building the ... We have to look at it
more closely when we do phasing because actually the Phase I is dependent on Phase
II areas for controlling (inaudible).
Chairperson Wilcox — I was thinking should we have even allowed construction there
given how wet it is. Just throwing it out there.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item.
SEQR
Longview Addition, Bella Vista Drive, Ithaca
Mark Macera, Longview
Dave Schlosser, Schoffer Architects
Mr. Macera — Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc. is the owner /operator and we
have--a-State issued certificate to do business as Longview, an Ithacare Community, so
to eliminate any confusion, we are one and the same.
We have been in existence since the early 70's and operated a primary
residence on Quarry Street in the City of Ithaca until we moved to our new location at
Longview on South Hill approximately Thanksgiving time in November of 1998.
PB 3/20/07
Page 9
Throughout our earlier history, with regards to our location on Quarry Street; The
organization, principally the Board of Directors, was involved in certainly addressing the
mission to provide housing and services to all individuals in the community. (inaudible)
without regard to income and /or means and certainly provide the levels of care required
to meet their housing and supportive functions.
Over a number of years, and changing conditions, and outdated building, failing
mechanical systems, lack of capacity, lack of contemporary housing options and a
variety of other conditions, the Board determined that if we were going to survive and
prosper, we were going to have to replace that physical plant, expand operations to
include additional housing and service programs ... And that resulted in the selection of
property on South Hill, it was, I forget at this point, either late 1996 or 1997, we broke
ground. At Thanksgiving time of '98 we moved into the Longview facility. It provides
housing and services to a compliment of approximately, I didn't look at today's census,
approximately 175 individuals. We offer 161 living units, those units include efficiencies,
one and two- bedroom living units. We provide several levels of care. One hundred and
one of those hundred sixty -one living units we deem to be essentially independent
apartment living for residents whose needs for, requirance for support, is relatively
modest and for those who age in place and require essentially around the clock
supervision but no skilled services or rehabilitation services of a nature that one might
describe as found in a nursing facility or a healthcare facility. We have our licensed
adult home and there are 60 units there ... 64 licensed beds, New York State licensed
beds.
The last approximately 8 years, so that we have been serving our constituent
residents in our community and they are engaged in the common process of aging in
place and while you and I, perhaps, would look at making plans a year or two, even 5
years or 10 years out...certainly Mike might be thinking 10 years out, I may not
anymore ... Our residents are dealing with increasing infirmity, issues of disability and
increasing frailty in a matter of weeks, months, let alone years.
We realized over this last 8 years that many of the residents who start out with
Longview at the independent or well elderly end and then age in place and move toward .
our continuum of care, are requiring increasingly higher levels of care. That care,
specifically, requiring skilled nursing and rehabilitation services. Now, fundamentally, as
part of our mission in providing housing and services to residents, that mission includes
providing a comprehensive range of services and we recognize that to provide those
services, we need to add an additional level of care that we currently do not have. We
need to add facilities that we currently do not have and consequently, the project that
you have before you is Ithacare's attempt to provide housing and services to the
residents that it currently provides services to have requested the additional services so
that they can remain at Ithacare, at Longview, and age in place.
So we are proposing to add 32 beds by adding a building expansion addition to
the current facility that will provide services to these individuals consistent with a license
that we will obtain and that license could be actually a residential healthcare facility
PB 3/20/07
Page 10
license to be able to provide what is typically known as nursing and rehabilitation
services as a quote "typically described nursing home" and /or, depending on the
condition and situation with the New York State Department of Health, and certainly the
executive branch's action with regards to any legislation that we've brought before
them, it can be licensed as what is known as an ALR, Assisted Living Residence, with
enhanced services above and beyond what we provide now in our adult home to
include such things as skilled nursing and rehabilitation services.
To the extent that we wish to proceed with this project, we are before you this
evening with plans to hopefully make that a reality. To be able to serve the needs of our
residents for many generations to come.
Unless there are any questions about who we are, what we are, perhaps who's
living there, the kinds of services we provide and any other related questions that are of
interest to members of this Board, I would be happy to answer them. If there are not, I
will turn it over to our project architect and he can begin a presentation regarding the
details that are before you in your packets.
Dave Schlosser, Schoffer Architects, 1111 Jade Street, Syracuse
Presentation with visuals.
Just to give you a quick overview of the existing site. The existing facility is on 28 acres
fronting on 96B with a single curb cut in the northeast corner. There's approximately
112 parking spaces on site. The existing main entry is at, what's referred to as the first
floor facing 96B, all services, shipping and receiving are in the southwest corner. The
existing site, if you want to take the diagonal through the existing building from
southeast to northwest, drops approximately 75 feet. The existing building displays two
stories to the east and to the north three stories. You enter on the first floor, and
because of the hill, you actually go down two levels to what's referred to as the
basement level. The references are actually taken off of the original drawings that were
submitted as part of the SLUD approval. So you end up with first floor at grade, you
drop down one level to the lower level, another level to the basement level, and then
from the main first floor, you actually go up one floor to the second level. The second
level is something of a penthouse. It actually doesn't show itself either to the east or to
the north directly.
There is a variety of nature trails which take off at this point and walk around the
existing pond. In the southeast corner, there is a New York State DOT overview, scenic
overview, looking north towards the hills and the lake.
__Th-is _proposal is shown in blue on this site plan which is approximately a 24,700
square -foot addition which is approximately 22,000 square -feet on the ground which is
another 1,000 square -feet on each of two levels in this general area serving as a link to
connect the addition to the main floor and the lower level of the existing facility. These
1,000 square- foot additions will not only provide linkage but on the lower level it will
PB 3/20/07
Page 11
provide expansion of the headstart facility as well as the Ithaca College program facility
and on the main floor level, it will provide expansion of the dining room facility.
The proposed addition, which is a one -story, with the exception of the link back in
here, will be constructed 5. '/z feet below finished floor of the basement level. A new
entry drive is being shown at this location, feeding main entry to the special care facility.
Cul -de -sac down at this location, 11 parking spaces with the potential for 6 additional
spaces shown at this location. The roadway as shown, we provided cuts and grades
and a variety of different details related to this, submitted them to NYS DOT and this
particular location has been approved by them meeting those particular requirements.
The site has also been reviewed by State Historic Preservation and they also
have cleared the site for any preservation and /or archeological issues.
In addition to the expansion shown at this location, we also expanded all the
sidewalk areas so that we fully link the existing nature trails that are shown at these
locations. We link them to trails that wrap themselves around the addition and then
continue around the existing facility so one can now completely walk around the existing
facility as well as the addition.
We have, over the past several months provided you with the perspective which
shows what the building will look like, standing from the north looking back at the
existing building. One stands at this location looking back at the addition, this is an
artist's representation. As mentioned, the finished floor is approximately 5'/2 feet below
finished floor of the basement. The eave will be 6 feet above finished floor of basement
units and the roof will be approximately 12 feet above those basement level units and
will be approximately 2 -3 inches below the railing level of the lower level. It's hard to
keep these levels straight, but basically it is the second floor elevation of the existing
facility as viewed at this location.
We have, additionally, shown
separated the viewshed into two ca
public being a viewshed from 96B
We've given you a variety of photos
well as sections through the site
building, showing the elevation of
proposed addition will not be viewed
up 96, at point 4 in the winter when
glimpse of the building.
a variety of, from a viewshed standpoint, we have
tegories, 1) the public and 2) the residents. The
south to north on 96 and also from the overlook.
taken from the overlook, shown in this key plan, as
showing the existing building, showing the new
the overlook, to basically demonstrate that the
from any location on 96 short of if you were coming
there is no foliage on the shrubbery, you'll catch a
From the resident standpoint, in the last submission we've given you a variety of
photographs, winter and summer views, qualifying the viewshed as looking north from
the existing facility, looking out towards the distant hills and the lake. These are views
that are taken from the courtyard in the summer time, heading towards the northwest,
you can see the hills back there, you can not see the lake from any point on the
courtyard level because of fence and shrubbery. The lake, this is a view that is taken
PB 3/20/07
Page 12
from the lower level, second level up from the courtyard, you can just begin to see the
lake. This was taken from the balcony or the grade level right outside of the headstart
program. You can see a little bit of the lake here, you can see the foliage pretty much
blocks the view. Once you get up to the dining room elevation and the porch that's up
here, which is the first floor, you begin to get the overlooks of the lake. In the
wintertime, with the foliage off the trees, the views change a little bit. The fence,
obviously, is still there, the evergreen trees are still full but any deciduous trees
obviously begin to open up some views. There are a little more extensive views of the
lake, but still relatively minor from the same elevations that have been discussed.
Additionally, what we've done, is we've shown, in elevation , views of basically
the heights of the proposed building against the existing showing that this is the
elevation of peak roof, we have modified the roof levels, the roof configurations, the hip
roves to minimize the heights of the roves so that when we say that the eaves is 6 feet
above basement level finished floor, the roof pitch is at a 3 on 12, a lowest pitch that we
can get for asphalt shingle, up to a small area of it's maximum height at several different
locations which is graphically shown on drawing C111.
Here what we've actually done, it appears a little complex but we are trying to do
is show, this is the existing facility, these are the room numbers that are assigned at the
lower level and this is the basement level ... What actually occurs at the basement level
is that a number of units to the west and to the east that are from that elevation are not
accessible back and forth so this is exactly where we are connecting or abutting at this
location. This is actually unexcavated area so we are connecting at that location and
there is 1 suite, which we are vacating, it's on the lower level. Then this is the lowest
basement level with the building superimposed in it, which demonstrates that there is a
number of units here which have views north and limited views north in the winter time,
they do not have views north beyond the shrubbery in the summer time and these
obviously will be affected, the views will change. There is a courtyard down in here,
which we've shown you from a landscaping standpoint, will have the raised plant beds
and a variety of other treatments in here. These units, we. have given you photographs
from just outside on their patios, these units do not have a view directly north until one
steps off the patio area and obviously they do not have a view north within the unit.
Their views will change, you will see a building but you're not going to be effected by the
viewshed if the viewshed is considered to be what is off the site north in the distant
views.
When you get to the second level up which is referred to as the lower
level ... What is shown here is the roof profiles... This area that is shaded dark is the
highest elevation of roof. Everything else is the eave and the lower elevations as they
pitch up to it and from this elevation, if one looks directly over the peak, they can look,
essentially standing on the deck, eye height would be approximately 2 feet above the
highest peak. If you wanted to scooch down and look at various angles, you will get
angular views through these lower elevations of the roof.
PB 3/20/07
Page 13
That's a fast overview of what we have submitted over the last months and I
guess we could take any questions.
Chairperson Wilcox — I will remind everybody that our first goal is to get through the
environmental review and then, should we make a determination that there is no
significant environmental impact, then we will get to the detailed site plan review. So
having said that, questions?
Board Member Talty — I won't even pretend to start with different levels but, when you're
putting an annex in between the two buildings, is it my understanding that for a resident
to go and visit somebody else they used to have to go up and over and then say down,
in the past, to visit somebody, say on the eastern side from the western side?
Mr. Schlosser — That's the case only at the basement level. Correct.
Board Member Talty — Correct. The lowest level. So by you putting in this annex they
will be able to traverse that? Or they won't?
Mr. Schlosser — That will not change. The actual location at which we have connected
has been purposely located so that no neighborhood, no residential wing will be
affected at all. And the way this building actually lays out is that this, at the lower level
and the main entry level, these are all the core area services, right in here. Each of
these is a residential wing and the way we have located it here, each wing, on any level,
maintains it's internal privacy and it's circulation and access to that particular wing,
remains unchanged.
Mr. Macera -- Kevin, not withstanding David's explanation, because we have as much
diversity and difference of opinion at Longview as anyone would have in any other
setting... We've had some of the residents at level one ask the question that you just
posed and suggest that there was a possibility that we could open that up so they
wouldn't have to say, climb a stairwell or perhaps use an elevator to get to that next
level above them. To be able then to move from the A wing to the C wing ... I have
suggested as much to them that as we look towards the actual detail documents in
terms of internally, if there is a possibility, then we would discuss it with the architect
and see if there is any opportunity there, but it would not change the building or the
profile or the plan or anything else.
Board Member Talty — Understood.
Chairperson Wilcox — Concerns have been raised about the recreational activities that
either go on now or may go on in the future. Dave, would you just, once again, point out
the opportunities the resident would have, or point out the changes in the opportunities
the residents would experience.
Mr. Schlosser — What we demonstrated over the last couple of months is that any
recreational activity that exists in this area is being relocated, replaced and /or
PB 3/20/07
Page 14
expanded. The planting beds will be located. and shown in green on this particular
walkway, that's shown at this location, these are the raised planting beds that were
discussed. The childcare play area, actually, which right now, in order to access that
play area, one has to walk down a story to a story and a half, in a fairly unprotected
slope and access that, that play area now will be right outside of headstart on the lower
level. So that at this level you will have the Ithaca program headstart and right outside
that you will have the play area at the same elevation. What actually occurs is that at
the basement level, this is occupational therapy for this addition and expanded
occupational therapy for the existing facility ... on the roof of that is the play .area for
headstart. So this is a one story building right here, and remember, that link is only a
1000 square feet, so that's relatively small ... down at this location this is approximately
3,000 square feet, so it actually creates an outside patio area at that lower level.
Longview just recently put up a new outdoor pavilion, shown at this location and
then of course, from an activities standpoint, from a pedestrians standpoint, we've got
the expanded walkways that are shown, all around here which actually will then connect
this location directly around the existing building which does not occur today.
Mr. Macera — I would just add that as a natural progression of the recreational activities
since we expanded physical plant to include that pavilion, a lot of the children related
activities and the resident related activities have certainly now incorporated the pavilion
and the area outside that but it hasn't been firmly described or defined previously as an
activity area. That's a net increase that's resulted as a consequence of adding the
pavilion, so they've moved out into the yard so to speak to take advantage of not only
the designated areas that they have but the nature trails, the use of the, we refer to as
golf cart, with the residents and now the pavilion, depending on conditions and the
nature of conditions.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think there have been a number of improvements to this
since we have been talking about it. You've taken some advice home and done
something about it. I still have a number of reservations. I. really think it's unfortunate
that that space to the northwest of the existing building, which is a very nice open space
for the current residents, will disappear with this plan and I wish there were some way of
rearranging where different people with different needs would live, so that the people
who had the most enjoyment of having the views would be able to live where there are
views, but you have your own needs for setting it up and I also think that this is an
internal matter, just like when Ithaca College wants to put up a building that blocks the
view of the people who live in a building behind it, that's their problem. I think this is
your problem, you have to settle it internally. It's nothing that we can do anything about
here. We are concerned about things that affect other people surrounding your site.
But since in this case, if we talk about views, there are not going to be any more views
destroyed than there have been already, I don't have any objection to that. I am sorry
about the ones that are gone, but that's done.
Mr. Macera — Could I just respond to that Eva, and mention that I think you will be
pleased to know with regards to mitigating measures that we have tried to take, for
PB 3/20/07
Page 15
example, all the residents on level one, certainly those that have moved in in recent
years, I perhaps can't claim that my Resident Services director, based on either failing
memory or lack of documentation, mentioned to all the people moving in there that our
plans called for this, so I could be missing one or two of the original residents moving in,
they were all told in advance that this was going to happen and this was embraced and
understood but change is difficult and the understanding is they've been here several
years now, and they have enjoyed this, as you've described, they would prefer not to
lose it.
We've also offered all the residents essentially the option that you've suggested
and that is, they now have a preference that in recognition of us, if we move forward
with this project, they wish to relocate, any availability in the building, they have a
preference, prior to any other individual, on the waiting list or otherwise, to recapture, as
you're suggesting perhaps, the kind of views they want. Whether it's of the woods or it's
to the south from a different angle or orientation or whether it's to the north. So we have
offered this to them as a mitigating measure, perhaps, if they feel, either now or after
the building is built, should it be built, that they don't enjoy the environment that they're
in.
Board Member Hoffmann —That sounds like a good idea, but, again, that's not my
concern, it's yours.
I find that looking at the drawing which you have on the upper right there, which
we have on the front of our package, it looks very nice, but I ... It looks to me like it's a
little bit deceptive because the drop -off of the very steep slope onto the Ithaca College
property ought to be seen there. And here it looks like it is more level ground.
Mr. Macera — It can't be seen from that...
Mr. Schlosser — I assume you are talking about this?
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I see the driveway, I see the turnaround in the
driveway, which you might want to point to too, so everybody can see it.
Mr. Schlosser — Actually, there are several things. This particular perspective was
taken early on in the project and actually there are a number of things that have
changed with respect to this and are now accurately shown on your elevations, which
we gave you, new elevations, which is why we gave you this other one in here.
As you mentioned, taking the suggestion of sight lines, some of what we heard,
you _can _ see the roof pitches and here we're slightly increased to a 5 on 12, we've
decreased them to a 3 on 12, as we actually created heights. So these have the
dimensions on them, this is an accurate representation of height, this is when we were
concentrating on the drama of the addition and not the existing building. Yes, the artist
did get a little carried away with the grass area. We do have a grass area there and
PB 3/20/07
Page 16
yes, it does basically trail off and we would end up with basically that existing fence
would end up remaining, I suspect. It's something we have discussed...
Board Member Hoffmann — The drop off is really right up against the northern edge of
the driveway and then the boundary with the Ithaca College property is very similar to
that too. So I just wanted to be sure that everybody understands that.
Mr. Macera — The only comment I would make, Eva, is with you asking about the
connection area with regards to where the proposed structure connects to the building?
Board Member Hoffmann — No I am talking about the impression that that picture is
making. I don't think it will look quite like that.
Mr. Macera — My misunderstanding.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't remember, maybe I missed it in the materials, any
reference to the local fire department being consulted with regard to whether they are
comfortable with the access that is being provided to the proposed addition.
Board Member Thayer — Didn't they enlarge the radius of the turn for the...
Mr. Schlosser — That was NYS DOT, we widened that radius based on State DOT
requirements.
Board Member Thayer — But that was done with fire trucks in mind, I think.
Mr. Schlosser — Fire trucks, service vehicles and a variety of others, but basically we
increased it from, I believe it was a 15 foot radius to 25. On the cul -de -sac, we are
carrying the same radius that DOT has asked for, the radius that they have asked for
here, we are carrying the same radius here.
Chairperson Wilcox — So the fire department has not seen these drawings and issued
an opinion?
Mr. Schlosser — No, they have not.
Mr. Kanter
— We do have
that
as a condition proposed in the resolution, to have fire
department
sign off before
final
approval.
Mr. Macera — Certainly the fire department has to address the merits of this, but based
upon our experience, our history, they'll recognize that the drive that we are proposing
to provide access to the building addition doesn't currently exist, yet the same living
spaces and the rear of the building required attention and the fire department had no
difficulty, given the layout of the current water supplies, to service the back. So
believe, other than as Dave has suggested, meeting DOT and other technical
requirements in terms, of road cuts and what have you, that the fire department will be
pleased to have a means of egress to the rear of the property, not withstanding we are
PB 3/20/07
Page 17
adding plus or minus 24,000 square feet. They now can get to the rear of the building
where they were not able to before, and that was approved as acceptable.
Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand, we realize that their requirements change over
time as well. Especially as the trucks get bigger or heavier or longer. But you're right,
given the proper design of this access road, they should be...
Mr. Kanter— Where is the nearest hydrant to the back entrance to the building.
Mr. Schlosser — It's not shown on the drawing and we will have to show it on the final
but we will be putting in a new hydrant back there. So that would be another, if the fire
department doesn't demand it, we will be doing it anyway.
Mr. Macera — Presently (inaudible) located right here, to serve this part, there is a fire
hydrant here and then there is one of those, what do you call them, it's not a fire hydrant
per significant environmental, but it comes out of the building and (inaudible)
Chairperson Wilcox — Your proposal is to put another one closer to the building...
Mr. Schlosser — We will end up taking this line, we basically have water coming back in
here so. we basically, some place back in here or back in that location. Once again,
when we meet with the fire department, what ever location they prefer, we will put it
back there.
Board Member Hoffmann — I seem to remember that we got some comments from the
Conservation Board but I've forgotten what they were.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have them ... I think they came with the materials we were
provided, about six weeks ago, when we had an aborted attempt to go through
this ... This is dated January 11, 20070 it has other site visits that the ERC did and #4 —
The ERC visited the Longview site about two years ago and has no additional
recommendations except to caution to paying attention to both drainage problems on
the steep drop off to the north west and protection of the public scenic view from Danby
Road.
Speaking of that, I pulled out the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ... Dan.
Comments.
Mr. Walker — Nothing other than what's in my memo. Everything is ancient history here
now. The biggest concern I had was to make sure that the people who built the
detention pond and so on, that they verify what the fill conditions are underneath them
so they don't have a problem.
Mr. Kanter — We have translated that language into some proposed conditions that we
can talk about later, when we get to it.
PB 3/20/07
Page 18
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the environmental review at
this point?
Board Member Howe — No, I like the point that was raised in the SEQR and the extra
items in the proposed resolution, if we get there, it seems like a lot of things have been
covered.
Motion moved. Any further discussion ... (minor typos changed) and the reasons for the
determination. Boiler plate. Jonathan Kanter changes some numerical errors on his
memo and draft resolution.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 029
SEAR
Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to Town Board Regarding
Amendment to Planned Development Zone No. 7
Longview Addition
1 Bella Vista Drive
Tax Parcel No. 39 =1 -1.31
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 20, 2007
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. The proposed actions include consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval
and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning
amendment for the proposed Special Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare
Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1-
1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction
of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building with
+/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately 11 new parking
spaces (and an area reserved for future parking, if needed), a new driveway, new
walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. The Town Board has referred the
proposed zoning amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the
Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc.,
Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent, and
2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval by the Planning Board
and a zoning amendment of Planned Development Zone No.7 by the Town
__Board,_are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca titled
"Environmental Quality Review" because the proposal involves the construction
of 32 new residential units in an adult care facility, and
PB 3/20/07
Page 19
3. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in TB Resolution No. 2005 -148 has referred the
request to amend Planned Development Zone No.7 to the Planning Board for a
recommendation, and
4. At its meeting on November 29, 2005 (PB Resolution No. 2005 -113), the
Planning Board proposed to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the above - referenced actions, and notified potential
Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency, and
5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on March 20, 2007, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part
prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning
staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including a set of site plan
sheets for "Preliminary Plan Review" listed on Sheet T1.1 Title Sheet (Rev.
2/8/07), including C1.1, C1.2, C1.2A, C1.3, C1.4, C1.51 C1.61 C1.7, and C1.8,
C2.11 C2.21 C23, Boundary Map and Topographic Map, and Sheets A1.1, A2.19
A2.2, and A2.3, Longview Project Narrative (Updated 2/8/07), Longview Visual
Impact Statement (11/22/06 — Updated 2/8/07), Longview Special Care Addition
On Site Parking Needs Study (11/22/06 — Updated 2/8/07), Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Construction Activities at Longview Skilled /Adult
Care Addition (October 2006), and other application materials, and
6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed zoning amendment and
site plan approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from
other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the above - described actions, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the
information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, and Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
PB 3/20/07
Page 20
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:12 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the
Town Board regarding a zoning amendment for the proposed Skilled Nursing /
Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 =1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7.
The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the
north side of the existing building with +/= 32 living units. The proposal will also
include approximately 11 new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future
parking if needed), a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater
facilities. The Town Board has referred the proposed zoning amendment of
Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera,
Executive Director, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to speak.
John A. Krout, Director & Professor; Ithaca College Gerontology Institute, Danby Road
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Ithacare's proposed addition of 32
assisted living residence beds at Longview. I heartily endorse this proposal and I have
provided each of you a copy of these comments.
I want to make this brief ... The College and Ithacare have a unique,
comprehensive intergenerational partnership that thrives on the interaction of Longview
residents with Ithaca College students, faculty and staff from every school on campus.
This partnership has received national and international accolades as a model of
intergenerational learning that benefits both elders and college students through a
variety of course based, volunteer and social activities. In any given semester, over 100
residents, 300 students and several dozen faculty and staff learn from one another in
programs as diverse as aging studies, music, history, physical /occupational /recreational
therapy, speech - language pathology and audiology, sociology, psychology, theater and
communications just to name a few.
I speak on behalf of the proposed expansion for several reasons; It will provide
even more learning opportunities that currently exist for Ithaca College as well as
students from other colleges. It will provide additional services and options for existing
Longview residents and will help them remain as independent as possible, as long as
possible. It will broaden the overall range of residential options for older adults living in
Tompkins County as well as for their families and it will provide additional jobs for
people interested in careers working with older adults. And I could elaborate much
more on that, but in respect of the time, I will not.
PB 3/20/07
Page 21
I will simply say that I would be happy to provide you with more detail on both the
partnership or on my comments regarding the expansion in any way you would choose
to hear. Thank you very much.
John Lloyd, Longview
The two of us are coming together because we have similar jobs up at Longview. We
both are residents, to my right is Betty Allinger and I'm John Lloyd. As I say, we both
live at Longview. Betty is the President of the Resident Council for the Adult Home. I'm
the President for the Independent Living part of the Longview. So Betty, why don't you
read your statement.
Elizabeth Allinger, Longview
Gentlemen and Ladies of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, my name is Elizabeth
Allinger, but everybody calls me Betty. I have been a resident in the Adult Care facility
at Longview for 71/2 years and 7 of those years as the President of the ACF Resident
Council, and because of that, I am a member of the Ithaca re/Lo ngview Board of
Directors representing the 60 residents of the Adult Care facility.
From the time I first came here, I have been aware of the need for and the desire
to add a nursing home facility here that residents could move to when they required
more care. Our mission statements says, and I quote, "Our mission is to develop and
operate residential living communities to provide older adults with affordable high quality
housing services and continuing care options that enhance quality of life, independence,
health, safety, security, and personal growth while preserving individual rights to
privacy, dignity and respect." That's the end of the quote, but the most important of all
is that Ithacare has a history of providing housing and care to the elderly without regard
to their financial means.
As our independent residents grow older, many of them find that they need more
care. And as room becomes available, they move to our Adult Care facility. How is that
possible? Well, someone in the ACF is moving to a nursing home, and this occurs on
the average of 2 a month. Sometimes the move is made directly from independent
living to a nursing home, often splitting families as the husband moves to a nursing
home and the wife. is left at Longview or vice - versa.
I have talked at great length on a one -to -one basis about our plans for the new
building. I found ... I formed a petition for them to sign if they wished, and it states, and
here's what the petition states, "We, the undersigned residents of Longview Assisted
Care facility, look forward to the addition of the new building here. We are aware of how
quickly our health can change, requiring more special care. We've seen that happen to
_ our neighbors. This is our community, our home, we don't want to move away from our
friends. Each month, 2 or 3 move from the independent apartment to our Assisted Care
facility and room is made for each of them by one of our residents who will have had to
go away to a nursing home. We support the addition of this new building and hope that
we will all live to see it. That's the end of the quote. I didn't push for signers, but 46
signed. What of the others? Well, 2 are in rehab in a nursing home, hoping to come
PB 3/20/07
Page 22
back; 1 is moving to Nevada with relatives, 6 are unable to carry on any kind of a
conversation, and I knew that so I couldn't talk with them, 5 just were afraid to sign any
paper. So that makes the 60.
What we want, as the saying goes, is to age in place. Not necessarily the same
apartment, but the same community. We make wonderful friends here and it's difficult
to pull up roots again and move away. For some it is traumatic. We need this new
building and we need it NOW. We are confident that this will happen. Perhaps too late
for someone like me, I am 90 years old, but then again, people are living longer and we
have an independent resident who is still going strong at 103 and one of our ACF
residents is 100, so I might make it.
But I am not speaking about me. I am concerned about the next resident who
has an accident or a stroke or in other ways lose the ability to see, hear or think clearly.
Our residents love living at Longview. There never was a more caring staff or more
opportunities to do things that we never did before. Ithaca College, faculty and
students, are very active with us. Especially the Gerontology department, Physical
Therapy department and as well as the Music and Drama departments. A shuttle bus
runs regularly back and forth during the school year and some classes are even held
right in our own building. And all that we have and all that we are is available to every
resident. The new building will be a benefit to every resident.
John Lloyd, President, Independent Resident Group
As I mentioned before, my name is John Lloyd and I am the President of the
Independent Resident Group which includes residents living on the bottom 3 floors. I
was a little chagrined when they were talking about the basement, because I'm on the
first floor, so I guess I live in the basement, but, I hadn't realized that until they told
me ... (laughter) ... But anyhow....The Independent Resident Council is a group, a body,
that is democratically elected to represent the 115 -120 residents who live in the
apartments on the first, second and third floors. As I say, they are democratically
elected, they're chosen by their peers, and the majority of our residents support this
addition as do the majority of the Council members. I do know of 7 or 8 people who are
opposed to it and I tried to find out, as best I could, the exact reasons for their
opposition, and they seem to be 3 -fold. 1) The obstruction of views. Everybody likes
the wide -open spaces I guess. 2) They feel that the construction of the new structure
will cast shadows on their apartments and 3) People love the walking trails that
currently exist and are concerned about them not being available after the new building.
Well, I don't think there is any question but that there is going to be change in the
views that are available. The walking trails I have been assured, will be put in good
stead as soon as the building is completed, and even though there will be some
obstruction of views, and I live as close to the new structure as anybody, but I still won't
be able to see some of those beautiful hills, I won't be able to see the lake, but I haven't
been able to see that anyway because the trees grew too big and blocked off the lake.
But I know it's down there somewhere. So, sure I am going to have a little obstruction
PB 3/20/07
Page 23
of views, but I think, overall, the way the building has been designed and the way it's
going to fit in there, it's going to be a fine location for it.
I want to take just a moment to tell you some things that will point out the
necessity for the new building. I checked and found out that the average age of the
residents in the independent section is 85.7 years. Well, when people are almost 86
years of age, they obviously are going to have things that fairly regularly go wrong. We
range in age from 73 to 103 and just for the sake of statistics, there are 24 men and 91
women that occupy that space. So, several of us have said we like the ratio ... As we
age, the chance of us having something go wrong becomes increasingly evident. I am
well aware of this because 8 months ago I had to take my wife to Alterra Clare Bridge
Cottage. We could no longer care for her at Longview. I still get teary eyed about
it...We have been married for 57 years ... this is the first time we've been apart ... If we
would have had the new building, this would not have been necessary and one of the
things that I think is extremely important is something that Betty touched on. As we live
at Longview, we develop interesting relations with other people and friendships, and
that's what we cling to as we get older and when you pull someone away from those, it
causes them considerable difficulty. I think I am kind of lucky that my wife is at Alterra
because they take very good care of her, but it sure would be a lot better if she were
right there on premises at Longview. Thank you.
Ms. Allinger — Let me make one point there. You mentioned that there were, I think, 21
men ... 24 men, of those there are couples, 16 couples that still can have this problem of
separation and you never know when.
Ellie Hall Minnis, Director of Development and Community Relations, Longview
I am both a daughter of parents who live at Longview and as of 2 months ago I am also
Director of Development at Longview and Community Relations. But I am really here
today to talk about my experience as a daughter with parents that lived in Longview.
(picture of her parents passed around the Board) This is mom and dad, they aren't
anyone special, they're just my mom and dad, or they were my mom and dad and when
I moved to Southern California, we moved them here to Longview. My sister lives here,
they used to live really close to me in the Hudson Valley. Mom and dad loved
Longview. They had an independent, one bedroom apartment, mom thrived there. She
loved all the cultural stuff. She loved going up to Ithaca College and dad just loved
being with mom, so it worked great.
December of 2000, mom passed away, at Longview. Dad had increasing
dementia that mom did a really good job of covering, so once mom was gone, we
realized that dad really wasn't able to live alone. I flew in from Southern California
_ about a week before mom died so I was there, and we were sort of faced' with this; Oh
no, what happens now ... But Longview was incredible. The social worker who takes -
care of the adult home said, well, we could have a room available, they opened up a
room for dad, we were just lucky enough that one opened up, I think 4 days after mom
died, the staff at Longview pitched in and helped us move some of mom and dad's
things up to dad's room upstairs and I walked dad down the aisle up the elevator and to
PB 3/20/07
Page 24
his new home on the fourth floor. And it was so smooth, I mean of course it was a very
difficult time for all of us, but it was so smooth, and dad had the people that he knew
around him and he knew the aides and it was an incredible loss for him but he had a
sense of continuity. He had the ability. to continue and when I went back to Southern
California I knew he was in really good hands.
So move forward about a year and a half and dad's well ensconced in the Adult
Care facility at Longview. He's doing very well, and I come out for a visit from Southern
California, and somehow in that week that I am here, dad starts to lose his ability to
walk. His dementia had increased but he had a very sudden decrease, I'd say that
within 3 or 4 days he went from a very hesitant walk, to not being able to get around
himself. So now my sister and I were faced with what's going to happen. The people at
Longview were nice, but they're constrained by what they are allowed to do by law. If
dad couldn't get around by himself, he couldn't stay there.
So there we were with a very confused dad, totally stressed out daughter, not
having any idea what to do with dad except that he had to leave Longview and he had
to leave right away. It was a real crisis situation. And unlike when mom passed away,
we had nowhere to go. We were running around town trying to figure out what home he
can go into... Dad's in a state of panic, he doesn't understand what's going on. Nobody
at Longview could really help us except to try to make a path to go somewhere else. It
was an incredibly awful situation. And I think now, now that I'm on staff, just two
months, but I am looking at it from the other side and I start to comprehend the fuller
picture of this new building...) think how incredible it would have been if I could have
taken dad's hand and walked him down the hallway and down the elevator and into the
new wing and settled him once again into a room where he knew people and he had
friends, and he. knew the aides, and he understood that he still was in the same place. I
mean, I would have given my right arm at that moment, and I had no idea they were
even thinking of it, but I would have given my right arm at that moment if I could have
given my dad that gift for the last year of his life.
So I come to you here really as a daughter, not as an employee of Longview, and
ask you to please, move it forward. Because just as John talked about how he can't
see his wife everyday, just how Betty talked about there are so many residents at
Longview that are starting to age and need more services, I don't want to see any one
else, whether it's a resident or their family, go through what I had to go through when
my dad couldn't stay there any more. We offer continuing care and it's incumbent upon
us as Longview to offer continuing care to the end of life, not just to the last stage of life.
Thank you very much.
Katherine Beissner, Ithaca College
I am here today as, well, I have three hats that I wear..
President of the Board of Directors of Ithacare Center
also an Ithaca College faculty member and a geriatric
of those perspectives and I am unable to disentangle
from the Board perspective here. But at the outset let
.Predominately I am here as the
Service Company, Inc. but I am
physical therapist and I bring all
them and so I will try and stay
me say that each of these three
PB 3/20/07
Page 25
perspectives that I bring, strongly support the new facility at Longview to enhance the
quality and the quantity of the lives of our residents.
I have been on the Board of Directors now for about 12 years and in my early
years on the Board, all of our work was really focused on building the beautiful facility
behind the one that we are proposing now. It was a big planning process, but the
process was always done with the idea that this was part of the longer term goal that
you are seeing before you now, unfolding, to provide expanded fee - for - service
continuum of care for the elders residing in our community. So while we began this
predominantly as an adult home for frail elders, with Longview, we moved to caring for
the more dependent elders and now we are ready to move back to caring for our more
increasing frail elders.
It's important for the Planning Board to know that this has been our long .term
plan for a very long time and that we moved in this direction based upon the input of our
then to be residents of Longview as well as the input or our residents that you've seen
before you today. As you've heard today, Longview is a very lively place. It's not a
place that people move to as a temporary housing opportunity to live for a few years
and then move to another facility. Forty -one of our current residents moved in when we
opened the doors in 1998. One of our residents has been with us for 23 years and she
is still experiencing the full variety of opportunities that Longview has to offer. And
you've already heard the whole potpourri of things that we have to offer so I won't
repeat ... I will skim over that real quickly.
In developing the plan for the proposed facility, we did seek input from design
experts, healthcare providers and our residents. In fact, a long series of informational
sessions were held for our current residents. Unfortunately, not all of our residents are
on board and you've seen letters at the past meeting. But the design itself has gone
through multiple revisions. The Board considered all possible options, I believe, all
.potential options, from a detached facility on other aspects of our property to locating
that facility and attaching it at other points on the building, but none of them really made
sense, both economic and aesthetic and other feasibility. problems were there. So the
resulting plan. that you see before you now are the result of a lot of hard work on the
part of a lot of very sincere and very talented individuals. The plan draws on research
and environmental gerontology and takes the best, builds upon best practice in elder
care and I really believe that this is a brilliant design and you are not even looking at the
insides of the rooms ... I told you that before David, it's brilliant.
Of course, all this change comes with some cost. One cannot build a facility
without breaking ground and the open space that is cherished by many people, myself
included.,._ is _going to be lost. There's going to be noise and there's going to be some
disruption of spaces during the building phase. We are relocating some of the facilities
and you've heard about that before. The children's play space, the walking trails.
However, the weight of these losses is more than balanced by the benefit to the
community as a whole. It's a terrible thing, really, to move when you become more
frail ... just think about that. To experience the loss of a home, the loss of a social
PB 3/20/07
Page 26
network, at the same time that one is experiencing a loss of health is extremely
damaging and research has shown how very detrimental the impact of these losses can
be on mental and physical health. In our society this happens all the time, but we have
a chance to make a difference here and we can create a community where our valuable
elders can continue to live and live in a way where they don't have to worry about where
they are going to move next. They can do this outside of the endowment model that
has been shown to be so successful for the wealthy in our community but is
inaccessible to many in the Ithaca community at large.
The Special Care facility at Longview will provide this to our residents and even
more, to the larger community. Within the new facility there are opportunities to improve
the education of college students, especially, but not limited, to those in the
rehabilitation professions like my own. So that our students will know what it is like to
grow older with declining function but to still have value and dignity. In turn, there will
be more opportunities for these students to provide programming for residents as their
physical and cognitive abilities decline.. And finally, we have the ability here to create a
model for high quality and affordable elder care that is outside the big box mod_ el that is
so often seen in nursing homes and retirement communities today.
But in the end it comes down to the quality of life for our residents and this is
really what we seek -to offer, is peace of mind with the assurance of high quality care in
a familiar and supportive environment at Longview. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have had discussion with one Elizabeth Falco also known as
Betty, Mark knows who she is, she is the Health Director with the Health Department
and I was going through, not the site plan, but the issues with the State and the
definitions and the terms and all of that, and I guess my question for you right now is
much of what we have heard is based on you getting some authorization from the State.
You don't have that authorization right now,..
Mr. Macera — well, actually we do. Depending on whether you want to go with a
residential health care facility as a nursing home. That we do not have but the other
avenue that basically provided the go ahead for this project, in the absence of such a
guarantee, if you will, was the advent of the ALR, Assisted Living Residence legislation
passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in '04 is in the implementation
and two weeks ago, Friday, week before last, they published the regulations and there
is a public comment period that the State goes through. We have had an application in
to expand our adult home to include these beds and license them for the care that we
are_proposing_ and we expect it to just happen ... No different than we didn't have the
license for the Longview facility until we built it and the State reviewed the process and
granted us the license to provide the care that we are providing there, that we used to
provide in the old facility. So, what has really been that difference, no nursing home,
perhaps on day one, would be available to us if conditions and circumstances permit
PB 3/20/07
Page 27
and we would operate it as the enhanced assisted living residence, going beyond the
level, of care that we can provide, currently at Longview...
Chairperson Wilcox — So with the addition as licensed; or as permitted, you will be able
to offer additional care that you can't offer now?
Mr. Macera — Just like a nursing home, no different...
Chairperson Wilcox — But then at some point you can, you're looking to offer even more
services?
Mr. Macera — No, I would like a more comprehensive license because right now, under
State law, there's no third party... Medicare, Medicaid funding stream for people in an
ALR that does exist for people in a residential health care facility or a nursing home. So
while we can provide the same level of care, there will be issues addressing access for
those people who either don't have the means, number one, and the limited ability of
our current endowment to cover that, as Betty and John alluded to, is part of our
mission and that's to say, you may not be able to afford it, but we are going to provide it
anyways.
Currently, for residents in our adult home, where operating costs approach
$2,000 a month and SSI or Supplemental Security Income, less their personal
allowance, provides about a$1,000 a month, we can make up, arguably that $1,000
through that rental stream and revenue from those who are market residents who pay a
premium to live there. Fast forward to some one who requires 24 -hour skilled nursing
and rehabilitation services and $2,000 a month bill now expands to, what you all know,
a typical nursing home, $4, 5, and $6,000 and with no Medicare, Medicaid, if we can't
subsidize them, then what do we do.
Now if any of you have those resources and wish to endow us with those, we
would be eternally grateful ... But as part of our strategic plan, I will mention, the Board
and one of the reasons why Ellie has joined us, is progressively pursuing the issues
associated with growing and expanding our endowment in dealings with those
individuals who hold us in high regard in regards to estate planning, recognizing that our
address of this. issue will have to be multi - pronged. Try to increase resources to provide
greater resources of subsidy to more people and, ultimately, the issue, if the State in
their wisdom or lack thereof, decides to grant us this license as the Legislature
unanimously approved prior to our last Governor deciding before locking the door and
leaving the key, vetoing it, we would not be talking about this issue of option but rather
this issue would be licensing as a residential healthcare facility on opening day with
coverage for all, Medicaid, Medicare, self - pay,__ commercial and_ any support for the
indigent, perhaps we would have had a better chance of covering that with these other
3rd party payments in place, but that's not the case today.
Fred, does that make any sense, I covered a large variety of areas....
PB 3/20/07
Page 28
Chairperson Wilcox — It was explained to me over the weekend on Saturday night and I
thought I understood it...
Board Member Talty — Before you move on, That was very well articulated, I followed
it all ... I won't ask you to say it again, but...
My question is, to the best of your knowledge, how many other facilities in New
York State are in the same set of circumstances as you are in right now?
Mr. Macera — I don't know. I can't answer the question. Let me point it out this way.
There have been for any number of years, no new adult homes built as we did because
of the economies and the issues of licensing. We have basically blazed, if you will, a
trail to try to include multiple levels with a diverse population and a (inaudible) facility
and use our current financial health and future prognosis for improving that to continue
to subsidize those that can't or don't or won't. Other facilities that we've seen, whether
they are nursing homes or adult homes, have been closing their doors or are financially
challenged with proposed cuts. We, to the extent that it would impact us negatively,
certainly are in the front end of the benefit of this recognizing that we are in a better
position than anybody else. No one else is doing what we're doing. They also propose
relationships with colleges, but our is more invasive. I mean, for example, all of our
residents have college id cards. They can use the facilities there as the students can
do. So, without getting into the details, there's no other similar best practice identical to
ours and that's the reason, as Dr. Krout mentioned, we're a model both recognized
nationally and internationally. We have had several international visitors looking to how
we operate to perhaps replicate that in their home countries.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. The other question I wanted to bring up is with regard to
the zoning under which you operate. There was a time three or four years ago where
you seemed to be here regularly because any small change that you propose to your
site, under the zoning that existed at that time required you to come before us. Some of
them I thought were rather trivial, but nonetheless, under the Special Land Use District
you were here rather frequently whether it was a little shed to put the tools in or the
garden equipment or whatever. Are we still in that situation? Good.
Ms. Brock — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have a no and a yes.
Mr. Kanter — Um ... I thought at one point recently that the Planned Development Zone
was modified at least a little bit to tweak some of that stuff out. Um, but obviously we
are not in that situation with the current proposal, which is a much bigger thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Correct.
Mr. Kanter — But I believe, and I may be making this up, but I think we addressed the
little things like the sheds and the little...
PB 3/20/07
Page 29
Chairperson Wilcox — We seemed to be putting an undo burden on Ithacare given the
zoning under which they are operating that what I would have considered relatively
small site plan changes constantly brought them back to this board.
Mr. Kanter — I think it basically is controlled by the ... I mean... obviously whatever
language remains in the Planned Development Zone and the site plan thresholds that
are in ... that just apply to everybody, but I...
Chairperson Wilcox — I think the original SLUD was written in such a way that you
couldn't do anything without coming back to this board.
Mr. Macera — There are specific criteria and Susan can refer to that in the proposed
rewording for the new law, or the revised law, pretty much speaks to the expansion and
numbers. So assuming that everything is still in place and the redefinition from SLUD to
PDZ doesn't change everything else, and I don't believe it does, if we want to add
another light post or we want to add another sidewalk, or we want to add another
building to house. outdoor materials, or what have you, we would in fact be before this
body for a modification of the approved site plan. I think at that time there were certain
concerns, even paranoia about what was going to happen there. Hopefully, today,
there are less .of those concerns, but I don't know whether going back and perhaps
proposing a different law that, you know, provides greater freedoms. Again, our needs
and our wishes are quite modest here at this point.
Ms. Brock — Fred, the law...the current Planned Developed Zone has a number of
exceptions...
Chairperson Wilcox — Thresholds?
Ms. Brock — Thresholds and if they are not met then Planning Board approval of the
modification of the site plan is not required. So I think, as you look to the future, it will
just depend on what type of specific development is being proposed. For example,
construction of an addition of more than 1,000 square feet, that is the trigger...of
enclosed space attached to a residential building. That's a trigger for needing
modification. Now maybe if it is a separate shed ... that's not an attached residential
building. There are some things that fall through the gaps and you may still continue to
get modifications in that you might consider to be trivial, but they don't literally fit within
the exceptions as they are stated.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think at one point we were encouraging you to come and get
approval for things you wanted to do and things you might do so that ... it was getting to
that point. They were all rather minor, shall we say, relatively low cost changes that we
were requiring.
Mr. Macera — But the law was the law.
PB 3/20/07
Page 30
Chairperson Wilcox — Law was the law. That was the way it was written. It was written
very specifically. You can do this. Any changes require you to come back. You are
comfortable at this point.
Mr. Macera — I am.
Chairperson Wilcox — If you are comfortable, then I am all set.
Board Member Hoffmann — I still don't understand how this is going to work. You tried
to explain it, but as I said, it sounds like Greek to me because I don't understand all
these health regulations and so on. But I think you said that this new unit will operate
as a nursing home?
Mr. Macera — Yes. That is a reasonable description, even though it is not licensed as
New York State describes a license of a nursing home.
Board Member Hoffmann — But you will depend on private financial contributions?
Mr. Macera — No. It will depend on the State's license as an assisted living residence to
operate then, providing the same service. In other words, a different label, a different
column, but the same services.
Board Member Hoffmann — Now, hold on. You are going too fast for me. If it is going to
be a nursing home, but it won't operate as a nursing home until the State has licensed
it ... isn't that what you just said?
Mr. Macera — No. That's not what I just said. You have to separate the issues of
licenses and financing and anything else so that it is understood. I don't know exactly
where the hang up is so that I have difficultly explaining it or perhaps expanding out on
the description.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I understand that you are designing this facility to work
as a nursing home because that is what you are hoping to do eventually when you get
the right licensing.
Mr. Macera — Precisely. In other words, we want this on opening day and hopefully,
indefinitely to be eligible being converted without having to modify the physical
structures and the layouts. So we are building as a universal facility if you will.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Okay. I understand that part but if you don't having
the licensing when you are ready to open, then how will it work as a nursing...
Mr. Macera — I will have a license when its ready to open, either as a residential health
care facility, which I don't think I will have or as an ALR, Assisted Living Residence,
which I will have. And the ALR is nothing more than what we are today, the adult home,
plus the next level of care and that is called a certification for enhanced services. That
PB 3/20/07
Page 31
is the legislation that was approved, signed by the governor in the fall of '04 and the
State is now facilitating regulations to make it happen. We have an application for that,
as we speak.
Board Member Hoffmann — Unless that application is approved, will it be operating as a
skilled nursing facility?
Mr. Macera — I don't know how to answer that. I don't know what the question is. If in
fact, there is no nursing home license when we are open, ready to go for occupancy
because the State will have to come in and perform their customary review, then no it
won't be a nursing home. If in fact the ALR application is not available, then no we
won't have the ALR or the certification. Then it operates as an adult home, which is
what we are and we currently have a license and in that case it is just an expansion of
the number of beds and we have a waiting list as we speak now and we continue along
the same path of waiting for some wisdom and some corrections to the system, you
know, by the State government.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I guess what you just said just before I asked this
question made me think that you were saying that it would operate as a nursing home.
Mr. Macera — The services that can be received by the residents will be nursing home
level. We have residents at Longview today, in the independent apartments, who are
nursing home level of care. They choose not to leave and there are resources available
to them to bring in 24 hour a day care that we can't provide because we are not
licensed to do that.
Board Member Hoffmann — But they provide it themselves?
Mr. Macera — No. They purchase those services from providers that are licensed to
provide that care. We wish to be...
Board Member Hoffmann— Privately by purchasing
Mr. Macera — Anyone of the agencies and we wish to become one of those in that
context for the new facility.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Then I understand. And that is how it would
continue if you didn't get a license and you were ready to open.
Mr. Macera — More of the same, if that's the case, but we do not ... even the Berger
Commission's findings for this community and otherwise have indicated proposals and
new sponsors for what is a different program, called ALP versus ALR, Assisted Living
Program, but it's federally alluded to and staff from the Human Services Coalition... We
have a very confused and broken system that we are dealing with and working within.
PB 3/20/07
Page 32
Board Member Hoffmann — But there is no guarantee that some ... another resident like
Mr. Lloyd will be able to keep their spouse staying in this facility, necessarily, even
though ... when it is ready.
Mr. Macera — Absolutely. No guarantee, practically anywhere in life. The issue is under
our current operating license we have to abide by retention guidelines and the State
dictates to us and they dictate to residents when they can and when they can leave. All
the less providers are not provided with the privilege. The State does act in accordance
with their own wishes.
Board Member Hoffmann — The other comment that I have is an entirely different thing.
I noticed that a lot of speakers, at the residence, talked, about the 4th floor, and the 1St
floor and so on, in a different way than you do. So it might be an idea to consider
renaming the floors starting with one on the bottom and then going up to the 4th floor on
top because that seems to be how it is used.
Mr. Macera — Well, actually... it's a good point. We actually do. that, Eva. I think fast
forwarding to another issue where, I think, a handful of residents sent you some
questions also echoing some confusion regarding well what is the 1St floor 1St level
versus, you know, basement versus lower level and so forth. As David mentioned
earlier to try to maintain some continuity, our reference to these in the documents relate
back to the original SLUD and the original construction documents that were submitted
to this body. It was 6 of 1, half a dozen another. We could have flipped that and used
new terms, but then you wouldn't be able to dove tail these proposals with the last
proposal even dealing with the same building. So we really didn't know which way was
the best way, but we end up explaining it as John, who lives. on the lower level, which is
also the garden apartment, which is also the basement. I don't know how else to...l
.agree with you. It is confusing.
Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe next time we see you, you will have one system that
everybody uses.
Mr. Macera — Do I have to seek Planning Board approval for that renumbering scheme?
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think so.
Board Member Thayer — That was one of my comments, about the floors. The other
one is I would just like to tip my hat to the architect for designing this so that it is
completely out of sight from the road and from anywhere except inside the building. I
think they have done a fantastic job there.
Mr. Schlosser — We'll give credit to the committee for a year and a half worth of work.
Chairperson. Wilcox — Done? Anything else on your side or Dan?
Mr. Kanter — Just when we get to the resolution.
PB 3/20/07
Page 33
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Board Member Howe — I'll move the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Kevin Talty. Too late,
Larry.
Mr. Kanter — Susan caught something in the local law, also. We had references,
actually as Mark was mentioning, to some of the updated site plan drawings. There is a
reference for elevation base with the height section. The only problem is all the plans
on the new submittal has some updated plans, some plans that weren't referred to in
that and some date revisions. So we just ... when this goes to the Town Board to revise
that paragraph of the local law to make sure...
Chairperson Wilcox - ...references these...
Mr. Kanter - ...references are correct and updated. And those are actually correct and
updated in the resolutions themselves. They just didn't make it into the local law yet.
Chairperson Wilcox— Okay. And I know some are 1016 and some are 1116, yeah, as I
look at the sheets. Okay. So any other changes to ... are there any changes to the
resolution as drafted?
Mr. Kanter — Susan had some wording things. We can do those first and then we can
talk in more detail.
Ms. Brock — Okay. The second whereas clause states, "these are Type I actions for
which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting as lead agency in environmental
review" strike the following words, "with respect to site plan approval and amendment of
Planned Development Zone Number 7 11 . Because when you act as lead agency, it is
not just for certain types of approvals, but for any approval from any agency. Curb cuts
by DOT or whatever they may be.
On page 2, the first resolved clause section 1 b, strike the word "status ". We want
them to submit not only the record of application for, but the approvals of all necessary
I
ermits. That doesn't sound quite right, does it? I guess that is okay.
Mr. Kanter - Submission of record of applications for and approval...
Chairperson Wilcox — And approval of.
Mr. Kanter — Documentation of approval.
Ms. Brock — So we'll add, "documentation of approval ". We don't want to know just the
status. We want to know that they actually got the approval. This is a change we have
PB 3/20/07
Page 34
been making for some time. Section 1h, submission of draft easement, add the
following comma, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town ", "...actually let me change
where that is going: Submission of draft easement from Ithaca College "," acceptable to
the Attorney for the Town" I sp giving Longview the right. ..the rest will be the same.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Ms. Brock - And 1j, right now that condition has submission of a stormwater operation,
maintenance and reporting agreement satisfactory to the Director of Engineering. Do
you also want to add, "satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town "? You had reviewed
and the Town Board has approved a standard agreement. So I don't know if at this
point you feel it is necessary for the Attorney for the Town to take a look at it, too, before
it gets signed by the Town Supervisor. So I wanted to ask what you wanted to do on
that one.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think that, might be a good idea because you might catch
something, which is more legal than an engineering matter.
Mr. Walker — Well, the legal aspects are pretty much ... we have a standard agreement
now that basically deals with who is responsible for maintaining the facilities, what
happens if they don't, what the Town's rights are to go in and operate or maintain them
and charge the owner back and then the part of the agreement that would be amended
is actually a description of the actual facilities and the actual things that would have to
happen.
Chairperson Wilcox — So you have a template.
Mr. Walker — We have a template and the legal aspects of it are pretty standard. Now if
the applicant cannot sign the legal aspects they are going to have to come back and be
modified again, but we don't want to do that because it protects the Town. The whole
purpose of setting that template up is so that we don't have to revise it every time, just
like our standard form of easement for utilities is in there.
Board Member Howe — So why would it be necessary to add...?
Ms. Brock — Just if there is anything different or special about this particular...the
particular mechanisms they have for dealing with stormwater. And also sometimes its
good just to look at it to make sure everything was done correctly. But it's up to you.
Board Member Talty — Why don't we make sure the template is strong, then?
Ms. Brock — It is.
Mr. Walker — We have.
Board Member Talty — Right?
PB 3/20/07
Page 35
Mr. Walker — The Town Board approved it.
Ms. Brock — But it has to be tailored to each particular development.
Board Member Hoffmann — And a Planned Development Zone from the beginning is
sort of tailored for a specific use of a specific use of a specific property so it is a little
different from something that is zoned Medium Density Residential or Multiple
Residential and so on so.
Board Member Talty — I can understand the benefit of having Susan look at it, but also,
are you going to look at all of them that come along then? You know what I mean? I
don't understand, I guess...
Ms. Brock — There haven't been that many.
Board Member Talty - ...where this is going. Like I understand the benefit, but I also
understand what Dan is saying. So I guess is this a case of too many eyes seeing what
needs to be seen or is this good that another pair of eyes is seeing what needs to be
seen? I guess that is what we have to determine, right?
Ms. Brock — It's up to you.
Board Member Talty — Did I say that right?
Board Member Thayer — You did fine.
Board Member Howe — I don't really have a strong...
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I don't have a strong...
Board Member Thayer — I would say it is not necessary.
Board Member Talty — Me, too.
Mr. Walker — Actually, the way I perceive this working, we have the template,
stormwater management agreement, probably ... it doesn't say who is submitting.
Actually the Town is going to generate this document, not the applicant. We will take
our standard form and generate this agreement and then give it to the applicant and say
this is what you are going to sign or you're not going to get to the step. They have to
make their legal objection to that, then we would have to come back to the Town
Attorney and review it again.
Board Member Talty — But that is standard, right?
Mr. Walker — Hmm?
PB 3/20/07
Page 36
Board Member Talty — That's standard? Standard operating practice?
Mr. Walker — We're trying to make that standard. We have not done that in the past.
We have tailored each one individually. College Circle would get one and La Tourelle
would get another one and all these different projects. What we have now is a standard
format.
Mr. Kanter — The Town Board only within the last 6 months approved that format.
Mr. Walker — Right. We just approved that format and have used it on a couple of
subdivision projects.
Board Member Talty — I feel fine the way it is. If something crops up where they won't
sign it, then by all means Susan can look it over.
Board Member Howe — Sounds good to me.
Board Member Hoffmann — And I'm on the other side. I would rather have Susan look
at it, too.
Chairperson Wilcox — Its amazing how we can spend 10 minutes on something like this,
isn't? Do you have a strong feeling either way? No, you don't. You have a preference,
but not a strong feeling.
Board Member Talty — I have a preference just because ... I mean if the Town Board just
accepted it 6 months ... then go with it. Then run the ball team. Lets go. But if there is
something that they disagree on and they bring it back, then Susan takes a look at it.
Chairperson Wilcox — The two gentlemen on that side agree with you and I agree, too.
So do you mind if we don't put it in?
Board Member Hoffmann — Majority rule.
Chairperson Wilcox — You don't get to see it.
Ms. Brock — Okay.
Mr. Walker — Unless I ask you to.
Chairperson Wilcox — Unless you ask her, to, right.
Board Member Talty — Exactly.
Ms. Brock — That is all I have.
PB 3/20/07
Page 37
Chairperson Wilcox — Is that it? Are those changes acceptable, gentlemen?
Board Member Talty — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alrighty.
Mr. Kanter — And, uh...
Mr. Macera — Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. One at a time.
Mr. Kanter — Just one additional correction based on that parking analysis that I
mentioned. In the last resolved on page 3 under the number 1 bullet, the Planning
Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the required number of parking spaces by up to
5 spaces. That is correct. Or approximately ,4 % ".
Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you. Changes acceptable gentlemen? David?
Mr. Schlosser _ I would just like to step back to 1 b and get a clarification. My
understanding is this is required before we get final site plan approval. However it is
kind of a vicious circle because there are a number of agencies who won't give us final
approval until we have 100% construction drawings and final site plan approval, such as
Department of Health, financing and a variety of other. So what does this statement
mean? Because some of these things we can't do until such time as you give us final
approval.
Mr. Walker - That's why we always had the approval status in there because you can
get a letter of concurrence from the State agency saying that this looks good, but we
can't approve it until the final approval.
Mr. Macera — Ultimately, Dan, as you know, the issue ... they have to do a walkthrough
for the occupancy and that is when the approval comes. So we'll have no approvals
until after it is built. They do the walkthrough and give us an operating certificate.
Mr. Walker — After you file your application, do they give you some kind of an indication
that they have received the application?
Mr. Macera — We can get them to acknowledge receipt of an application if there's
something in the pipeline satisfies this, but we are reading the issue of not only
submission and an approval of and that won't come until after the fact. Even Town
Code in enforcement says we can't occupy the building until it is inspected by the Town.
Mr. Walker 'And they won't a CO until they have that.
PB 3/20/07
Page 38
Mr. Schlosser — We might be looking at this farther... deeper than this means. I mean
we're just looking for a clarification so we can satisfy the requirements for final approval.
Ms. Brock — You are concerned about getting your approval for your license to provide
the enhanced care, correct?
Mr. Schlosser — No, not entirely.
.. Ms. Brock — No. What else are you talking about?
Mr. Schlosser — This says all applications for and approval of all necessary permits.
Ms. Brock — So what else are you worrying about?
Mr. Schlosser — There are Department of Health permits that ultimately will be required
for any one of these licensing vehicles.
Ms. Brock — Don't you currently have all the permits you need to provide something in
that space? Your current adult home.care?
Mr. Macera — No. Not until the State approves and do their on site survey to actually
physically . inspect a built building with beds and make sure all the
accoutrements ... cause they have a whole set of code and life safety issues that
sometimes even conflict with the Town's. So the issue is, it's a chicken and egg issue
here and for example, we.expect to go to the IDA to look for their sponsorship for tax
exempt bonds. Well part of their process is, not only do they need a neg dec, which we
received and that then that allows us to have them do the next process, but they are
going to look before permanent financing is in place, bonds are sold and any money can
be even escrowed that we have municipal review and approval of the project. But this
says you can't have that until you have the licensing and the financing and it becomes
one of these issues where we can't move forward based on this wording.
Mr. Schlosser — On a simpler scale, things like such as New York State
Department... well actually I probably won't even have to have a work permit. They
made comments on that curb cut, but I don't think we have to have a work permit for
that curb cut because it is not in their right -of -way. But things such as that don't occur
until we have a contractor on board, construction applications are made, things like that
and it usually comes after site plan approval, as long as everybody understands...
Mr. Kanter — We have, I think, on occasion we have added prior to Certificate of
Occupancy_o this same condition.
Mr. Macera — Now if we can get to that before we can operate that is fine because then
every agency comes together in the 11 th hour and then the last final reviews and
certifications are made, authorizations are given, licenses are issued.
PB 3/20/07
Page 39
Chairperson Wilcox — I have even seen in past years where this ... the language here is
carried forward into the final site plan approval.
Mr. Kanter We do that, yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — We've done that before because we want status and we want all
the approvals before we grant our final one
going to occur after we are done.
But acknowledging the fact that some are
Mr. Schlosser — Right and that's why I think with that approval status.. .
Chairperson Wilcox — So how do you want to deal with it, Susan, legally? What are you
comfortable with?
Ms. Brock — Are there any permits
permits that you want them to have in
plan approval or are you content with
certificate of occupancy?
or applications that you...rather are there any
hand before they come back to you for final site
just changing this condition to prior to receipt of
Chairperson Wilcox - It's in our best interest to have a record of their having received all
the necessary approvals so that we have it, we have record of it, we have-it in the file.
We know that they have followed all of the regulations. We don't need it until they put
people in the place...
[several people speaking at once]
Mr. Macera - ...all this will be submitted to the Town before occupancy.
Ms. Brock — So why don't we change this to, "submission of record of application for,
and approval status, of all necessary permits ". So go back to what we had before, and
then at the end add, "and submission of documentation of receipt of all necessary
approvals before issuance of Certificate of Occupancy ".
Chairperson Wilcox — Prior to issuance... before issuing, whatever.
Ms. Brock — Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm very comfortable with that.
Mr. Macera — It seems to work.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to try to ... (not audible),. or you want to take it off the
tape?
Ms. Neilsen — Nope, I got it.
PB 3/20/07
Page 40
Chairperson Wilcox — Sorry. That was acceptable, gentlemen? Okay. Anything else
Susan? Jon?
Mr. Kanter — Well with that same sort of topic, although not approval, we already did
mention the fire department review of plans and some kind of indication back from
them. That would be prior to final site plan approval. So if there is a need for any kind
of adjustment then that could happen.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. No comments on the local law. We are all set there with
our recommendation with our recommendation on the local law revising the Planned
Development Zone. Thank you very much. Any other comments?
Mr. Kanter — One thing I did notice on the lighting. Almost all of it seemed to be
consistent with our new outdoor lighting law. It was shielded and focuses downward,
but there was one fixture. if you go to C1.6 photometrics plan, the illustration for L3 is
kind of an antique kind of fixture.
Mr. Schlosser -- We actually changed that fixture. It is a defused glass. So we have
clarified that on there. So you are not going to see bulb or see any direct light.
Board Member Talty — It's the same fixture, right? Just a different...
Mr. Kanter — On the cut sheet here, exterior light fixture L3 and...
Board Member Thayer — Which one is L3?
Mr. Schlosser —.Its an ornamental wall light.
Board Member Thayer — Oh, okay.
Board Member Howe — And we have a condition in here that covers that any way, don't
we, Jon?
Mr. Kanter -- Yeah. We have a condition that says all lighting fixtures will be fully
shielded to reduce glare and light spillage. It just seems to me that even with a more
restricted kind of glass it is still going to not be the fully shielded type that we normally
like to see. 'If perhaps if you can find something similar in style that has a real shielded
type of approach I think that would be more consistent with our lighting.
Chairperson Wilcox — We, as a group, have been pretty tough on bad lighting.
Board Member Talty Where is that light...?
Mr. Schlosser — Either side of the entry door.
Board Member Talty — Entry doors?
PB 3/20/07
Page 41
Mr. Schlosser — Yeah. Its typical of what you might have on your house. We'll find a
light.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. We had an applicant that actually put the light on the
wooden post and brought it in, So Jonathan, you are comfortable with the language as
it sits now?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
Ms. Brock — Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
Ms. Brock — There is one more thing I forgot to disclose. I actually disclosed this when
Ithacare came before you February, but I just wanted to remind you that when I worked
for a prior firm, 10 years or more ago, I did do some legal work for Ithacare including
helping them get their current facility sited where it is now. Or not really the siting issue,
but some environmental SEQR issues, the lawsuit that the Town was involved with, I
worked with Ithacare on that. So I just wanted to remind you of that disclosure again.
Board Member Thayer — We'll forgive you for that.
Chairperson Wilcox — I can remind everybody that Mark and I are related, but...
Board Member Talty — I'm sorry.
Chairperson Wilcox — My mom's maiden name is Macera. I have a motion and a
second. Changes have been made and accepted. Any further discussion? There
being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — No one is opposed. There are no abstentions. We will see you
back whenever. Thank you all very much.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION, PIS RESOLUTION NO. 2007= 030
Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to Town Board Regarding
Amendment to Planned Development Zone No. 7
Longview Addition
1 Bella Vista Drive
Tax Parcel No. 39 =1 -1.31
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 20, 2007
PB 3/20/07
Page 42
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. The proposed actions include consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval
and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning
amendment for the proposed Special Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare
Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1-
1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction
of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building with
+/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately 11 new parking
spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new driveway, new
walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. The Town Board has referred the
proposed zoning amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the
Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc.,
Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent, and
2. These are Type I Actions for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review has, on March 20; 2007, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted
as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 20, 2007, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a set of site plan sheets for "Preliminary Plan Review"
listed on Sheet T1.1 Title Sheet (Rev. 2/8/07), including C1.1, C1:29 C1.2A, C1.3,
C1.41 C1.5, C1.6, C1.7, and C1.8, C2.1, C2.21 C2.3, Boundary Map and
Topographic Map, and Sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3, Longview Project
Narrative (Updated 2/8/07), Longview Visual Impact Statement (11 /22/06 =
Updated 218107), Longview Special Care Addition On Site Parking Needs Study
(11122106 — Updated 218107), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
Construction Activities at Longview Skilled /Adult Care Addition (October 2006)„
and other application materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Longview Skilled/Adult Care Addition, located at 1 Bella
Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, as shown on a set of site plan
sheets for "Preliminary Plan Review" listed on Sheet T1.1 Title Sheet (Rev. 2/8/07),
including C1.1, C1.2, C1.2A, C1.3, C1.49 C1.5, C1.6, C_1.7, and C1.8, C2.1, C2.2,
C2.3, Boundary Map and Topographic Map, and Sheets Al .1, A2A , A2.2, and A2.3,
and other application materials, subject to the following conditions, to be met prior to
Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board, unless otherwise noted:
PB 3/20/07
Page 43
a. Submission of three large size sets of the revised final site plan drawings
on paper, for review by Town staff, and
b. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from, county, state, and /or federal agencies, or
documentation that no such approvals are required, and submission of
documentation of receipt of all necessary approvals prior to the issuance
of any certificate of occupancy, and
C, Submission of engineering data regarding the previously filled area in the
vicinity of the proposed stormwater management facilities, for review and
approval of the Town Engineer, and
d. Submission of final site, utility, and stormwater management facility
engineering details and construction specifications for review and approval
of the Town Engineer, and
e. Submission of cut -sheet manufacturer's details of all exterior lighting
fixtures and luminaires, including pole and wall mounted fixtures, all
lighting fixtures to be fully - shielded to reduce glare and off -site spillage of
light, and
f. Submission of building elevations, including colored renderings, illustrating
the specific colors and materials of the proposed addition, and
g. Submission of documentation that the Ithaca City Fire Department has
reviewed plans for fire access and fire service in conjunction with the
proposed. addition, and is supportive of those plans, and
h. Submission of draft easement, from Ithaca College, acceptable to the
Attorney for the Town, giving Longview the right to do grading,
construction and related activities, as well as to include permanent
improvements such as the stormwater pipe outlet and rip -rap outlet
(shown on Sheet C1.4) on the adjacent property owned by Ithaca College,
and
i. Submission of detailed construction specifications for the material to be
stockpiled during construction of the addition, for review and approval of
the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any building permit, and
j.___ Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting
Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca,
satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of any building
permit, and
PB 3/20/07
Page 44
k. Enactment of the proposed local law by the Town Board amending
Planned Development Zone No.. 7, as recommended by the Planning
Board below, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
1. That the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town
Board enact the proposed local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca
Code, titled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts," regarding increases in
numbers, height, and uses of dwelling units in IthacareIs Special Land Use
District (Planned Development Zone or PDZ) No. 7, determining that:
a. There is a need for the proposed zoning amendment to accommodate the
proposed special care addition at Longview to serve needs for an
adequate supply of housing options for people with special needs,
including seniors, and
b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected by the proposed zoning amendment, and
C, The proposed zoning amendment is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the required number of
parking spaces by up to five spaces, or approximately 4% of the spaces required
in Section 271- 8(D)(7), finding the following:
a. The applicant has provided an "On -site Parking Needs Study" (Updated
2/8/07), which demonstrates that adequate parking is being provided in
the site plan submission, and
b. The applicant has provided an alternate parking layout (Cl AA) illustrating
that at least six additional parking spaces can be provided in the future if
needed, and
C. The reduction in the number of parking spaces will not adversely affect
traffic flow on the project site,__and
d. The reduction in the number of parking spaces will leave adequate parking
for all reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and
PB 3/20/07
Page 45
e. The reduction in the number of parking spaces will not otherwise
adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and
f. The reduction in the number of parking spaces is conditioned on
conditions "a" through "e" listed under Section 270- 227(A)(3) of the Town
of Ithaca Code.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES:. Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, and Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, some of you may have noticed that I
somehow, in getting the meeting going, skipped over the persons to be heard portion,
but we are moving on here. So if someone would like to address the board this evening
on an issue or an item or topic that is not on this evening's agenda, here is your
opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Changes to minutes submitted to Deputy Town Clerk,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 031
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
March 6, 2007
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
March 20, 2007
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts, with changes,
the March 6, 2007 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
for the said meeting.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Hoffmann, Howe, and Talty.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was carried.
PB 3/20/07
Page 46
OTHER BUSINESS
Board discussed upcoming agenda items for the April 3, 2007 Planning Board meeting.
The Board also discussed training requirements for the year and future site visits.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned on motion by Larry Thayer at 9:27 p.m.
Respectfylly S
Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Primet Precision Materials, 1005 Hudson Street Extension.
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
relocation of Primet Precision Materials Inc. on the Therm Incorporated property located at 1005 Hudson.
Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -2 -1, Light Industrial Zone. Primet Precision Materials
Inc. is a materials technology company specializing in molecular materials development and currently rents a
building on the Therm Inc. property. The proposal involves Primet Precision Materials Inc. moving from the
current building into a larger existing building (administration building) on the property formerly used by
Therm Inc. for administrative functions. No modifications or additions are planned for this site. Therm
Incorporated, Owner /Applicant; George May, Agent.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Montessori Middle School Addition & Renovations, 122 King Road East,
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed addition and renovations to the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori Middle School building located at
122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.6, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves a +/- 765 square foot addition on the north side of the existing Middle School building
(blue house), conversion of the existing garage into classroom space, and other interior renovations and
changes. Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent,
7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Longview Addition, 1 Bella Vista Drive,
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Town
Board regarding a zoning amendment for the proposed Skilled Nursing / Adult Care Addition at Longview,
an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned
Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the
north side of the existing building with +/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately 11
new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new driveway, new walkways, and
additional stormwater facilities. The Town Board has referred the proposed zoning amendment of Planned
Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company,
Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent.
0
411
Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
Approval of Minutes: March 6, 2007.
Other Business:
Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD 1S 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 20, 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 20, 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 Site Plan Approval for the proposed relocation of
Primet Precision Materials Inc. on the Therm Incorporated property located at 1.005
Hudson Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -2 -1, Light Industrial Zone.
Primet Precision Materials Inc. is a materials technology company specializing in
molecular materials development and currently rents a building on the Therm Inc.
property. The proposal involves Primet Precision Materials Inc. moving from the current
building into a larger existing building (administration building) on the property formerly
used by Therm Inc. for administrative functions. No modifications or additions are
planned for this site. Therm Incorporated, Owner /Applicant; George May, Agent.
7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed addition and renovations to the Elizabeth Ann Clime Montessori Middle School
building located at 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.6,
Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves a +/- 765 square foot addition
on the north side of the existing Middle School building (blue house), conversion of the
existing garage into classroom space, and other interior renovations and changes.
Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Architect,
Agent.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Town
Board regarding a zoning amendment for the proposed. Skilled Nursing / Adult Care
Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31; Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal
involves the construction of a +/- 24,700 square foot addition on the north side of the
existing building with +/- 32 living units. The proposal will also include approximately
11 new parking spaces (and an area reserved for future parking if needed), a new
driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. The Town Board has
referred the proposed zoning amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the
Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc.,
Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, 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, March 12, 2007
Publish: Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Wednesday, March114, 2007 THE ITHACA'JOURNAL-
PL
t'`.1PI
1AGA`'
DARD
IF
INGS
007
e "Chair
Planning?
'fHEREBV
Heari'ng's;
Planning ;
of.ItFaca
Is ImIm
Potion
Tindl;:
"1005, Hudson- Street Exten -'
;sion,- _,Town of lthac'Cljax
;Parcel No.;54- 2- 1,'Light In-:
#d6strial Zone:.`Prrmet.Preci
lion Materials Inc. is a ma
terials technology company
sp _
speciahzingg-•,in molecular;,
matenals deve-lopment -and
�c`urrently rents ;N6 building on
Ither .Therm j c propeity" :o
The _ or000sal involves -'P
ing ;(administration
on - the :property
7sed'by Therm Inc.
iistrative' functions.+
ifications or .addi-
planned :for -:this
erm' Incorporated,",
pPlic - t;_�George
ant.. .
5wn -Board re`s
oningw amend
propposed.5kil .
,dult-Care
Longview,: an
T
r, rem
ing' if
wayy;
=
addi
-ties.
refer -
Angi
I De.
7: to
le School Y buildingg they Planning*-. board -tor. a"
house); conversion of recommendation-=. Ithocare
zishnAga gar age into Center ; Serwc`e'`Camppany;
oom space, and other Inc Owner %A plicant;
>r :renovations �: and Mark At A Macera;, ecutive
les.E , "sEliidbeth .Ann Director Agent
Montesson School
sr /Appplicant , Ernie Said- Planning 1Board will
s Architect,N,Agent.-.., at ; "said times.. and, said'.
:place' 'hear loll- persons in.-
jsuppoof. such matters or
objections thereto: `Persons
may appear by dgentor. in
9cesia-
ersons
` "must `
Jonathan Kanter, A1109
r Dvectocof.. Planning
?
Lr -273 1747 .
Dated.
MO
Dated
March 12;22007
Publish: Wednesday,
March 14, 2007,' '
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
March 20, 2007
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN -IN
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
Name
�h1n A \S\ Y? niATr
[C� s ��
/ � PKA
'r_lt V_�SC��
Qa C., j� /L\ iti� ✓1
��- I 'b. a, `� (�n
Address
Ij
i � < �4 c/ s.."�M oa
(_\ rt(--w " l7
( I
�7 n _n n C .n_, i
1�1
7� A, � t
l�
)p
' / 0� /
Z,6 i v �T
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
March 20, 2007
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN4N
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
M "11
�-�
Es
Address
1
`z 116?) Co I& PN J%�v U�
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tio_ga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday March 20, 2007 commencing
at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting
Date of Posting
Date of Publication
March 12, 2007
March 14, 2007
STATE OF. NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
0..(: v2crz�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14`h day of March 2007.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public —Stdte of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Qualified in Tomokins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 10