HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-06-05V-
FILE
DATE e
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 512007
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Chairperson: Fred Wilcox
Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe, Kevin Talty and
Susan Riha Absent: Larry Thayer
STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of
Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan
Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Donald A. Rottmann, 63 Floral Avenue, Cortland
Steve Lazon, Parkitects, 138 Ludlowville Road, Lansing
Mark Ruhnke, 291 Genesee St., Utica
Nancy Gould, 102 Happy Lane
Joel Harlan, Newfield
David M. Parks, Esq., The Parks Law Office,
Mark Parker, Keystone Associates, 229 -231
Lynn Baker, 1210 Trumansburg Road
Carman Hill, 3072 Wilkins Road, Ulysses
Brian Page, 1213 Trumansburg Road
Barbara Anger, 109 Park Place
Bob Berggren, 136 Compton Road
Mary Shelley, 109 Park Place
Peter Rogers, 1221 Trumansburg Road
950 Danby Road
State Street, 4th Floor, Binghamton
Andy Zepp, Finger Lakes Land Trust, 220 East Court Street
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 25, 2007
at 7:03 p.m., and accepts for the
of the Notice of Public Hearings
and May 30, 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 May 25, 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.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 2
SEQR DETERMINATION
Trinity Lutheran Church Playground, 149 Honness Lane
Donald A. Rottmann, 63 Floral Avenue, Cortland
I am a member or Trinity Lutheran Church. Basically, what we are asking you to
approve for us tonight is that we could go ahead with the construction of what I would
consider to be a relatively small play area. This consists of 4,000 square feet, and
would have, perhaps, 6 or 8 pieces of play equipment. This would be an adjunct to the
play area that we have right now which is primarily for smaller children.
We run several programs at the church. We run a daycare program which you are
probably familiar with and we run an after school program and then in the summer time
we will have bible study and we have Sundays where our Sunday School children and
so on are involved.
We are finding that the size of the playground, and more importantly, the size of the
equipment, is really not appropriate for the type of child that we seem to have coming to
us at this point. So this has been on the table with the congregation for a number of
years. What we're proposing is that we would go ahead, at our expense, and construct
some of these fixtures. This would be provided for us by Parkitects. This is all high
quality equipment, it's professional, designed to the highest standards, it's constructed
to ASCM specifications, Playground Council specifications'. so this is professionally
done equipment. This is not a home - brewed type of. playground that we are asking
about. The protective coating would be a 10 -inch layer of wood chips that are toxic,
certified toxic free, brand new, especially for playground area. This would all be done at
our expense for the material with volunteer labor.
Now, we had an open door meeting with the neighborhood approximately 6 weeks ago.
We invited the neighbors in, gave them an overview of what we would like to do. We
heard only favorable comments. So that's where we're at. We are here. to ask you to
go ahead with that and apply for a building permit.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Are you aware of any environmental concerns? Any
environmental issues you may be aware of regarding this proposal.
Mr. Rottmann -- I don't believe there are any. We filled out a short form of the
environment... We're talking about 4,000 square feet, we're not bringing in more than
100 yards of material perhaps, to level up the site. I don't know of any issues that
would...we are trying to be very conscious of what we are working around.and do the
least construction or alteration to the site as possible to make it blend.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions?
Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed when I was on the site this afternoon that there is a
little bit of fill on part of the site and I imagine that you are planning on putting more fill in
to make this a level...
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 3
Mr. Rottmann — Yes ma'am. This would be a level area, not perfectly level, it would
have a very slight pitch, what we would call a 1 — 2 percent grade so that it would shed
water. But yes, we need to level this up in order to function as we need it to do. We
have some fill there now, that's existing, material that has come from our site, but we
would have to bring in some other material, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the drawings indicate that the area which is going to
have the ... what was it called ... the sway fun structure on it, whatever, I don't know what
that is, I would like you to explain how it works, but that area is described to be 16"
below the main play area.
Mr. Rottmann — Oh. That's a handicap structure. That's specifically for handicap use
and so that would be recessed with a curb -like setting. Now we have, around this area,
it's a high - quality, high- density polypropylene or polyethylene curbing that would be
used there to transition the grade and also to act as a perimeter around the site and
contain the wood carpeting so yeah, there would be a change there in order to make
that accessible for handicapped.
Board Member Hoffmann — But is there actually a step down from the main play area?
Mr. Rottmann — No it's not a step down ma'am, I believe it's a ramp that the structure
would...
Steve Lazon, Parkitects, 138 Ludlowville Road, Lansing
What we'll be doing there, the main play area will be at one elevation surrounded with
these plastic timbers. When you get to the lower end of the site, there will be a step
down from the main wood fiber area down about 12" to the lower wood fiber area. So
there will be sort of 2 plateaus. The main one, the 4,000 square foot plateau, the
smaller one just to hold this wheelchair accessible rocking boat will be a step down. So
there will be 2 levels of the engineered wood fiber playground surfacing out there.
Board Member Hoffmann — And how would somebody in a wheelchair get into this area
and into this swing fun structure?
Mr. Lazon — The entrance ramp into the sway fun is level with the upper plateau. It's
the surfacing around it, below it, that is the step down. So in terms of entering it, you
enter it at the same grade as the main plateau, the main play area.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. At this little entrance way that comes from the
existing playground.
Mr. Rottmann — The existing area will transition, at a very slight grade, to the proposed
area and this will all be accessible, around the edge.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, well, I was a little concerned when I saw the 16"
difference in grade, because that's very high for children. Actually, it's very high for me,
too, and it would be ... I was wondering if you might have an intermediate step, to make it
easier to transition from one area to the other, all along that edge.
Mr. Lazon — I think what we will
we'll make that a 12" transition
allowed by building code, it's a
probably 12" tall there from the
woodchips up a little bit more.on
a t a 12" drop there.
do is, the timbers that we
from one to the other.
traditional seat -wall type c
one plateau to the other.
this wheelchair accessible
Board Member Hoffmann — Even 12...
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 4
will be using are 12" tall so
Sixteen inches, I believe is
A height but we'll be going,
So we'll basically have the
boat. So we'll probably look
Mr. Lazon — You're allowed, even in playgrounds, with this age group, to do 16" - 18"
steps. So 12", even 16 ", meets all the playground code and I believe meets the NYS
building code in terms of heights that you don't have to protect.
Mr. Rottmann — Ma'am, let me say this, the step, whether it's ... we can argue whether
it's 16" or 12 ", 1 don't think that's important... that will only be at the boat itself. The other
areas will transition with a slope, so there's no fall, risk of falling.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, that helps me, to know that. Thank you. Now how
does this sway fun thing work? Why is it called sway fun? Does it move?
Mr. Lazon — It does. Up to three wheelchairs and up to six. children can roll or walk into
this piece, and there's a bench at either end, a table in the middle and the children, by
moving their weight will get this entire boat to rock. It rocks about 4" side, one side, and
then about 4" back the other way. So it's actually the only piece of playground
equipment in the marketplace where wheelchair students can actually be in their
wheelchair and have something that they can get motion on and meet all the safety
codes, which this does, so.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So it's safe for other kids to be around and
climb... nobody's going to slip and have a leg fall in under and be swayed over or
something...
Mr. Lazon — Nope, all the pieces on the playground are certified to meet the American
Society for Testing Materials Standards, and they are certified by a third party
organization and they also meet the Consumer Products Safety Commission Handbook
for Public Playground Safety and they meet the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Board Member Hoffmann — Good. And what are the materials used in the other
structures? They are indicated in sort of a pale blue on this drawing we got, called...
Mr. Lazon — The main posts will are 5" round posts either steel or aluminum. The decks
are steel and then coated in a brown PVC coating, kind of a soft rubber coating. The
overhead events will be powder - coated steel. There are some plastic components out
there, but pretty much it's powder - coated or PVC coated steels and aluminums, and
then some plastic components as well.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 5
Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the environmental review?
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 051
SEQR
Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit
Trinity Lutheran Church - Playground
149 Honness Lane
Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -4
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 5, 2007
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church
located at 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -24, Medium
Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new +/-
4,000 square foot playground area located to the south of the church building
and existing play area. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Donald A.
Rottmann, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit, and
3. The Planning Board, on June 5, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant,
and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Trinity Lutheran
Neighborhood Playground" date stamped May 4, 2007, "Trinity Lutheran Church"
(sheet 1 of 2), dated 2/6/2006, and "Trinity Lutheran Church" .(sheet 2 of 2), dated
5/3/07, prepared by Parkitects, Inc., and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes
of environmental significance in accordance with Article
Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York Sta
Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based
EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part I
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
a
8
le
0
I,
negative determination
of the Environmental
Environmental Quality
n the information in the
and, therefore, a Draft
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 6
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty, and Riha
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Thayer
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announced the next agenda item at 7:16 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for
the proposed playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church located at 149 Honness
Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-24, Medium Density Residential Zone.
The proposal involves the construction of a new +l- 4,000 square foot playground
area located to the south of the church building and existing play area. Trinity
Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Donald A. Rottmann, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan that haven't already been
asked and answered. There are none...
Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, just one ... There is a
side of the church and continues on to this property and
slope down toward the southwest, I guess it would be, ar
narrow trail which doesn't look like it's used very much.
and the trail, all the way up to the, is it Westview Lane,
there?
walkway that goes along the
it ends where there is a little
id then it continues as a very
Who maintains that walkway
I think, that goes up through
Mr. Rottmann — That trail, it's not part of this project, but to address your question, it's
on Trinity property. It's a Trinity path that we provided for the convenience of the
neighbors. They were simply making a trail, so we said., okay, we'll take some stones
out and we made a trail. So to answer your question ma'am, it's our trail, we try to
maintain it.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I just noticed that in the papers, you say that the
playground will be open to everybody in the neighborhood. Not just to the people who
attend your programs and so that was the reason that I asked about the trail that leads
to that area.
Mr. Rottmann — And this is a very good point you're raising, ma'am. We made this point
with the neighbors at our Open House, and we invite the neighbors to use it and the
neighbors were enthusiastic about it and they want to participate in the build -out, so, it's
there for everybody.
Board Member Hoffmann - That's very nice, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to speak. There being no one, he closed the
public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 7
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 = 052
Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit
Trinity Lutheran Church - Playground
149 Honness Lane
Tax Parcel No. 58 -24
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 5, 2007
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed playground at the Trinity Lutheran -Church
located at' 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-24, Medium
Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new +/-
4,000 square foot playground area located to the south of the church building
and existing play area. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Donald A.
Rottmann, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit has, on June 5, 2007, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 5, 2007, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Trinity Lutheran Neighborhood
Playground" date stamped May 4, 2007, "Trinity Lutheran Church" (sheet 1 of 2),
dated 21612006, and "Trinity Lutheran Church" (sheet 2 of 2), dated 513/07,
prepared by Parkitects, Inc., and other application materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed
playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church finding that the standards of Article XXIV
Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been meet;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 8
located at 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 5 &2 -4, as
described on drawings titled "Trinity Lutheran Neighborhood Playground" date
stamped May 4, 2007, "Trinity Lutheran Church" (sheet 1 of 2), dated 2/6/2006,
and "Trinity Lutheran Church" (sheet 2 of 2), dated 5/3/07, prepared by
Parkitects, Inc.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty, and Riha
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Thayer
The motion passed unanimously
SEQR DETERMINATION
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modification to the Biggs Building demolition project located at 301 Harris B.
Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3,
Planned Development Zone No.3 and Low Density Residential Zone. The
modification includes disposing of +/- 2,000 cubic yards of hard fill materials on
site in a new location near the facility power plant. The fill material will be
covered and seeded. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant;
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent.
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, 1001 West Seneca Street
Last April we were here before you requesting site plan approval for demolition and
abatement of the Biggs Building, and as part of that approval process, a select amount of
hard -fill from that demolition was ... you granted approval to allow that hard -fill to be
disposed of on Cayuga Medical Center property. The building is now completely
demolished, all of the material that could fit in the location, to the limits of grading that were
shown on the drawings that we gave you is, at that location, graded the way that it was
shown on the drawings and taken care of in the manner approved by your Board.
The material was a little bit bulkier than expected and didn't compact as well as anticipated
when the calculations were made in terms of how much material there would be. So
there's about 2,000 cubic yards more of material that will not fit in that disposal location.
We're here tonight to request a modified site plan approval to ask for an alternate location
on site to put that last bit of material and because the building is down and everything is
cleaned out at this point, and we know the exact amount and we know it will fit in this new
location. And that is on a slope behind a parking lot which is at the power plant on Cayuga
Medical Center property.
Board Member Talty — What was the capacity of the initial fill site?
Ms. Michaels — Sixteen thousand cubic yards. (Visuals) So this is the Cayuga Medical
Center building and the entry points and parking lots that you're mostly familiar with. The
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 9
Biggs Building extra which is now demolished and there is a back road here, which led to
the approved disposal site. This is the additional disposal site location. As you can see in
the grading drawing, there is a fairly steep slope on the back of this gravel parking lot, and
the facility power plant is in this location and the idea. is that the 2,000 cubic yards of
material will fit nicely in this slope, the whole piece will be capped and seeded as meadow
in the same manner that was done on the approved site and that all of the erosion control
measures and SWWIPP will be taken care of in the same manner as well.
I think that is the short version of the story, and I'll wait for questions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you see the memo from the Department of Engineer...
Ms. Michaels — Oh, yes,
did get to see the memo
the project has taken a
proposal. They are all
per...make the revisions
That's not a problem at a
that was the other.thing I wanted to mention, thank you. We
from the Engineering Department and Mark, the engineer for
look at it and looked at the resolutions that are in tonight's
extremely reasonable and we will adapt the drawings as
as requested by the Town Engineer and get them handed in.
I.
Chairperson Wilcox — Why not truck this off -site?
Ms. Michaels — If it leaves the site it becomes a material that is extremely expensive to
get rid of.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do I care how expensive it is?
Ms. Michaels — Cayuga Medical Center cares how expensive it is and that's why we're
before you tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is it better to keep it on site or to take it off? What are the
advantages of taking it off -site?
Ms. Michaels — I think it's treated in the same manner whether, if it leaves the site or
stays on site ... I mean, there is nothing ecologically different about what happens to the
material in the two different places...
Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly if we leave it there, we have reduced truck traffic, so that's
a good thing ... If we take it away, we don't have to use that additional site for fill....Not
that it's a particularly valuable piece of land right now ... I am just trying to weigh, in my
own mind, when I was reading the materials, what is the benefits of leaving the fill on
site versus carting it away and clearly we made a determination before, given the
amount of fill, the amount of construction debris, that it was appropriate to leave it on
site as much as possible. It doesn't necessarily mean that we should have to make the
same decision here, although it might be appropriate...
Board Member Talty — I'd like to know how you can be 12% off. I'd like to know how
that could happen because if I recall, there were experts in front of us, two of them, that
came in and said that they do projects like this often and I can't imagine being off that
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 10
much. So really, you guys are in a bind, because if we don't pass this, I want to know,
are the ... whose being accountable? ... who's accountable for this
miscalculation? ... because it's not a three to five percent ... this is double digit. So I'd like
to know how this happened.
Ms. Michaels — Kevin, my understanding is that the material did not break down into
pieces small enough to compact in a way that it filled the site as it was expected in the
drawings. There clearly was some type of error made and if you don't pass it tonight,
ultimately Cayuga Medical Center will pay a great deal of money to have it trucked off
site. Who is ...whose fault that is ultimately ... I can't really speak to.
Board Member Talty — I feel bad for you that you're up here by yourself, because those
two other guys should be.here defending their calculations...
Ms. Michaels — Mark is here tonight, and he is part of that team and this is what they do.
Mark Ruhnke, 291 Genesee St., Utica
Board Member Talty — Were you one of the gentlemen from before?
Mr. Ruhnke — Yes I think I was. If anybody can determine the exact volume of building,
when it's going to be demolished and the material and the waste it's going to
generate ... I'd like to meet them. It's a generalization...
Board Member Talty — I want to interrupt you for one second, if I may, when you came
in front of us, Vou guys were the ones who picked the 16,000. You came in front of us
with a determination on a number, so I and the rest of this Board, assumed that you
knew what you were talking about on this number. To be really direct and to the point.
So, what would have happened if it came back 40% more? 30% more? Whatever the
number may be ... IIm in the business of plus or minus but this is kind of an
unacceptable, that you're in this business and you came back and were this far off. So,
go ahead...
Mr. Ruhnke — Uhmm ... The amount that the original landfill was estimated to take was, I
think, 16,000 cubic yards up to maybe 19,000 cubic yards. That was a certain slope
percentage, alright ... the Board made us move the landfill and. even make it smaller,
they put us 20 feet back from the property line, from the easement, so that reduced our
capacity. We figured we could increase the slope of the hardfill area and maybe
squeeze it all in there. We weren't able to do that. So we lost amounts based on the
slope and we lost amounts based on compaction and 2,000 yards out of an estimated
16 ... is what we ended up with. We ended up with more yardage coming out of the
building because the foundation and the building structure was much greater than we
anticipated. The way they built the building was more than we expected. Foundations,
basements... So, it is an estimation game and it probably wasn't conservative to begin
with, which it should have been, but the intent was to try and use that space and put it
all there and at this point, it didn't work, so now we're looking for some alternative
because of the conditions... it just didn't work.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 11
Board Member Talty — The modified site plan, are you looking to reclaim what we
restricted you?
Mr. Ruhnke - Essentially, yeah. It's probably close to it.
Board Member Talty — That's all I have.
Board Member Riha — My question is, if the fill didn't compact as much as you wanted,
is there a problem ten, twenty years down the road, this stuff compacting and impacting
the slope stability or will that not happen?
Ms. Michaels — No, the drawings call for it as it goes in to be mixed with soil so that
there aren't actually voids in there. But the pieces are large and leave opening for that,
but it is all filled with soil so it will not fall apart later.
Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to continue asking you something based on what
you said...you said if this kind of fill has to be taken off the site it would be very
expensive. Could you tell us why that would be.
Ms. Michaels — There's an asbestos mastik on this concrete and as such, that's a
regulated waste. If it leaves the site, it needs to, it has to go to a certain type of landfill
which is more expensive than a traditional type of material going to a traditional landfill.
Because the amounts of asbestos are so small inside the mastik on the concrete, DEC
allows it to be disposed of on owner's properties with the owner's permission. And so
that is a way to handle the material without incurring those fees.
Board Member Howe — And it's not necessarily different material than went in the
approved...
Ms. Michaels — It's the exact same material that went in the approved site, that is
correct.
Mr. Kanter — One question on the large, completed landfill area ... I went out there and
noticed that it's basically all finished and graded and everything, but there's no covering
over it. What's the timing of getting that vegetated?
Ms. Michaels — They finished capping that after the time period when any seeds would
germinate or it was in very late fall and it was too cold for any of that to happen and the
contractor is preparing to mobilize right now and that is going to be done first thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — I am going to go back, if I may ... when you were here before, I am
pretty sure we discussed the pros and cons of dealing with the asbestos that was in the
building. Help me remember some of the things we talked about in regard to the
advantages of burying the asbestos on site, rather than carrying asbestos laden
materials off site, if you would, a couple of minutes, at most.
Mr. Ruhnke — The first advantage is not wasting valuable landfill space with concrete
debris, and that is what the DEC sees, that's why they allow us to do this on our own
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 12
property. If we take it off site, it's got to be treated as a regulated waste and be
disposed of into a landfill. That's one benefit, the other is cost, for the owner, which
would be pretty astronomical.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, as I think I said before, I'm worried about the environment,
not necessarily the price to...
Board Member Hoffmann — Did you say the price would be astronomical? {yes)
Mr. Kanter — Could you put that into dollar figures?
Mr. Ruhnke — Eighty dollars a ton, 2,000 tons .... that's just for what we have left.
Chairperson Wilcox — But again, this is the same material, the same building materials
that we discussed when you were here before when we approved the initial
site ... okay....okay. Jon, anything else?
Mr. Kanter — One thing I didn't really emphasize on the environmental materials too
much, but, the new fill area would be kind of close to a nice wooded area. We might
want to think about .whether there are any additional protection measures that would
keep the edge of the landill from disturbing the edge of the woods. I think there is
sufficient room, but we might want to err on the side of caution so I'm not quite sure
what we can do about it but we might want to think about that.
Chairperson Wilcox — For example? I know ... you just said, you don't know what, but
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I am just throwing it out there for discussion puposes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. In terms of stabilizing the slopes? In terms of planting
trees instead of grass? Instead of...
Mr. Kanter — Possibly in terms of maybe limiting any encroachment beyond what the
plan anticipates. In other words, if there any additional fill, again because of estimates,
that would otherwise push it more towards the woods, we would not allow that. That we
would limit it no closer than X feet from the existing edge of the woods or something like
that.
Board Member Hoffmann — That was already recommended wasn't it...
Mr. Walker — Yes, if they put the silt fence ten feet out from where they are showing it
on here, then it will be, if the wood line on here... that will be about ten or fifteen feet
away from the woods at its nearest point and probably 25 or 30 feet away from the
woods line further out. So if they don't extend beyond the silt fence, because right now
they're showing fifteen to twenty feet and almost forty feet (inaudible)..,
Mr. Kanter — And the way the material is dumped there is from basically the top, the
parking area, down, I guess one issue is how the dumpage is controlled when it goes
down the slope, that might be something that you could help us with.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 13
Mr. Ruhnke — They will probably have a bulldozer on the lower end and as they dump,
have a bulldozer prevent stuff from going over any farther than they want.
Mr. Kanter — And there will be room at the base, at the toe of the slope for the bulldozer
to maneuver around?
Mr. Ruhnke — Yes there is
Board Member Riha — Does the bulldozer then mix it with the soil that's right there?
Because we're talking about mixing it with this loose material.
Mr. Ruhnke — Yeah, the bulldozer will be mixing with some soil that we take off ... we
strip off the ground first...
Board Member Riha — So you take the top soil off first, save that, to put that as a cap,
and then what ... YOU 're mixing with any kind of loose... there's enough loose material
there?
Mr. Ruhnke — We're gonna have some blacktop from the demolition too that we are
going to mix in with it. To remove the voids, there won't be any voids.
Board Member Talty — Is this material going to be wet again? Because, if I recall, when
you took down the facility, everything had to be dampened, and now that it's sitting
there, contingent upon the weather conditions, it may be wet or dry, right?
Mr. Ruhnke — We are still going to wet it as we load it into the trucks. So there aren't
any visible emissions.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it says in the plan called LF -3, that there's going to be
seeding so there's a meadow mix that's going to go on top once the soil's put on. Why
not put some shrubbery and things like that, which I believe we asked you to put on the
earlier approved fill site?
Ms. Michaels — The meadow mix is the same wildflower mix, meadow mix, that we used
on the majority of the original fill site, and on the majority of the re- graded land where
the Biggs Building used to be. And you did request that we put some shrubs along the
edge of the bottom toe of the slope for the approved site, to buffer for the Black
Diamond Trail, and that was the purpose for that, and I think that this ... as Jonathan
noted...deeper in, this becomes a nice woodland, but at this edge, it's really just kind of
an emergent disturbed area and I think that the capping with the wildflower mix will be
most appropriate in that location and species will start to move in there over time from
the woods. They will just start to seed themselves and grow in that location.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think there is a difference between the former Biggs
site, where you say you have put a meadow mix in, and this one, because this has a
much steeper slope, and I would think that some shrubbery would help keep the slope
from eroding.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 14
Ms. Michaels — There'll be ... the contractor needs to use an erosion control blanket on
any slopes greater than two to :one to hold the soils in place until such time the
vegetation has taken hold and these types of grasses and native wildflowers will hold it
just as well as shrubs. Once they are established, they will hold it just fine.
Board Member Hoffmann — How long does it take for them to get established?
Ms. Michaels — I think in a well maintained and watered and seeded early spring, within
six weeks there should be enough vegetation there. An erosion control blanket is
installed and then the seed goes in on top and it's a jute mashing over time, it
biodegrades, so it is never taken up, it stays and holds everything so by the time that
degrades, that is a very thick, dense stand of grasses and wildflowers.
Board .Member Hoffmann — Does Staff have any comments about this? Do you have
any experience with different plants on steep slopes that have been disturbed and how
it works?
Mr. Walker — Well, on these types of slopes, the three to one slopes, the wildflower mix,
the conservation mix, is a good mix because it's not going to be mowed area because
it's a little too steep to mow it and the meadow mix will develop a pretty big root mat and
the sod formation is very stable, so it should be fine. They're going to be putting six
inches of soft cover over the material plus four inches of topsoil, so, this is probably
going to be in better shape than 90% of the new house sites that are built around the
Town.
Board Member Hoffmann — Good, I am glad to hear that.
Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of stabilization.
Mr. Walker — You look at a lot of the new seedings and if you buy a new house, it
usually takes about two years to get things established but with the new mat on top of it
and the seeds through it, that stabilizes everything and it's more intensive than what a
normal contractor will use on a new house lawn.
(some talk, most off microphone, about invasive species)
Chairperson Wilcox — All right, I started out the environmental review questions here, in
my opinion it is clearly better to keep this material on site than to cart it away. I don't
care about the costs, Cayuga Medical Center can take care of the cost if they cart it
away, but, you went through this same process when they were here before and made
the determination that it's better to keep this material on site. We've seen what they've
done with the primary site already in terms of the way it's been covered and taken care
of and all that needs to be done is seeded, so from the environmental concern, I think
it's, I'm fine with where we are. Anybody else want to make comment?
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 15
ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 053
SEQR
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
Modification - Biggs Building Demolition
Additional Fill Site
Tax Parcel No's. 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -211 & 24 -3 -23
301 Harris B. Dates Drive
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 5, 2007
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha.
WHEREAS.
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the approved demolition of the
Biggs Building located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, Planned Development Zone No. 3 and
Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves disposing of
+/- 2,000 cubic yards of hard fill materials on site in a new location near the
facility power plant. The fill material will be covered and seeded. Cayuga
Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge &
Wolf, LLP, Agent, and
2. The proposed site plan modification is an Unlisted action pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, .6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the
Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, and
3. The Planning Board, at its meeting held on June 5, 2007, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I
prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning
staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including the Modified Site
Plan Review report, prepared by Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP,
dated May 4, 2007, which includes Sheet LF -3 Alternate Hard Fill Area #2
Grading Plan (dated 4/26/07), and
5. The Town of Ithaca Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan modification,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II
referenced above in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Act and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as
proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 16
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty, and Riha
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Thayer
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:42 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modification to the Biggs Building demolition project located at 301 Harris B.
Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3,
Planned Development Zone No.3 and Low Density Residential Zone. The
modification includes disposing of +/- 2,000 cubic yards of hard fill materials on
site in a new location near the facility power plant. The fill material will be
covered and seeded. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant,
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board.
Joel Harlan, Newfield
I don't know ... tearing that building down goes back in memories to me. I had a lot of
good times in that building, especially the towers. They keep the ... where the help used
to stay, in the Towers, where the entrance is ... But if you need to tear it down, tear it
down, if you're not going to put any use to it. What's the sense of wasting space ... [it's
down] ... is it ... I haven't been up there in a while.
Chairperson Wilcox — The question is what they do with what's left of it.
Mr. Harlan — You have no other choice than to put grass in it. This could be memories,
seeing that whole building torn down. I wasn't born there but boy there were a lot of
parties up there, we used to go up there and party a lot...
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have anything relevant to say?
Mr. Harlan - No, I'm from Elmira ... I'm busy with meeting tonight. Just came from the
County Representatives. They voted...
Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, do you have anything relevant to say tonight?
Mr. Harlan — No ... I have friends that used to work there and boy we used to, even
including the guys, used to have fun up there. Go ahead and seed it if you need it. If
you need to do it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel.
Mr. Harlan — That County Representative's meeting was good.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 17
Nancy Gould, 102 Happy Lane
Happy Lane is parallel to the road that goes to the original dump, what I consider a
dump, and it's probably approximately 300 feet from my house and hundreds of trucks
went by my house dumping it and I hear tonight...
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you do me a favor... help me out ... see if you can orient
yourself ... (she points to where she is talking about on the displayed map)
Ms. Gould — I am a little concerned to hear tonight that there was some asbestos in that.
Now they are telling us it was a very small amount and hopefully they are right that it
was a small amount. I do have breathing problems and that was not something
wanted to hear tonight. And so now they are proposing another dump site with more
small amounts of asbestos going into it. I'm somewhat concerned because my
understanding is the area that now, was the original approved dump, has been declared
a conservation area, the two don't go ... isn't that true?
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know ... I am going to look either side of me...
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I think the original dumpsite, at the time it was approved, was not a
conservation zone but it is now.
Ms. Gould — But I found it interesting that they put a dump in there, with all that fill, and
then they declare it a conservation area. Now, I don't know exactly where they are
talking about putting this fill, but my understanding is, it's probably just above the
conservation area and I want you to think about this when you approve this tonight and
the impact it has on the community.
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. and brings the matter back to
the Board.
Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion? Questions? The environmental review, to me, was
essentially the most important thing here, rather than the details of the site. Is there any
additional site details that we need to work out in terms of whether, Eva, you expressed
some concern about the vegetative mix...l think that's been addressed to your
satisfaction. We have the material... Dan, we have the material from your engineering
memo which has been included into what's been drafted....We went through the
asbestos stuff ... when were you here before....thank you .... some months ago, so we
knew that there was some asbestos in there at the time ... I'm all set.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think, just to address the lady who just spoke, about
her concern about the asbestos, as I remember it, when we first approved the first fill
site, we were assured that the asbestos was going to be taken care of in every way
approved by the authorities, DEC and others, so that there would be no danger, either
while it was being handled or after it was buried, to anybody, either the people working
with it or the people living nearby. Is that what everybody remembers too?
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. ] 8
Chairperson Wilcox Absolutely. In fact, the hospital said that that's what they were
going to do and we were very insistent, yeah...
Board Member Hoffmann — So 'I hope that reassures you just a little bit. If you just
heard about it for the first time tonight, that there was asbestos handled.
Ms. Gould responds off microphone.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the.other point you made about this fill site being in a
conservation zone, it's true, but the very site which had the fill put on it recently, near
you, has been a waste site a long time. I believe that's where the old heating plant was
that was demolished. So there's all kinds of other debris there already and when the
conservation zone was established; it was believed that it was better to create a
conservation zone of all the lands that need protection there even if it included this one
site in it which is perhaps not exactly what one would want, but at least the rest that's
around there has a conservation legislation protecting it and I am hoping that this
disposal site will be covered with vegetation and we don't have to worry about it in the
future. That's my hope.
Chairperson Wilcox — Worry about it in terms of run off and that type of stuff ... right, Any
other discussion? Susan are you all set?
Ms. Brock — There are several changes. One of them deals with the discussion about
protecting the woodlands. Am I correct that the consensus was that as long as fill
wasn't placed beyond the area shown, the location of the silt fence, that would be
adequate to protect the woodlands?
Mr. Walker — Right. As revised by locating it down the slope.
Mr. Kanter — Right, as revised in condition...
Mr. Walker — Locating it ten feet down from the slope, still keeps it away from the
wooded area.
Ms. Brock — Okay.
Mr. Kanter - And I think I was okay once I heard how the fill is manipulated there.
Ms. Brock — Okay. Then I have several changes. The first is on the first page, the first
whereas clause, paragraph two states, two lines form the bottom, "there was a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, but it was a Short Environmental Assessment
Form, so just substitute the word short for full.
On page two, whereas number 2) a, the last line makes a reference to the issuance of a
building /fill permit. Jonathan and Kristie Rice and I communicated about this. There is
an open building permit for the project. The building permit will be amended to
incorporate the new fill site, so, revise the words "prior to the issuance of a building /fill
permit" to prior to issuance of an amended building permit.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 19
The same change will be made to the end of 2) b, the exact same wording shows up
there as well.
Add new paragraph c) Fill material shall not be placed between the silt fencing and the
wooded area shown on sheet LF -3, alternate hard fill area Number 2 grading plan as
..once it is revised pursuant to condition 2)a. Is that adequate?
And then add a new condition d) as well: This modified site plan approval is subject to
all of the requirements and conditions of the original approved site plan for the Biggs
Building demolition.
Chairperson Wilcox — Further discussion?
ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 054
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
Modification - Biggs Building Demolition
Additional Fill Site
Tax Parcel No's. 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24 -3 -2.3
301 Harris B. Dates Drive
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 5, 2007
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Susan Riha.
WHEREAS:
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the approved demolition of the
Biggs Building located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 24 -3 -2.24 and 24 -3 -2.21, Planned Development Zone No. 3 and Low
Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification involves disposing of +/-
2,000 cubic yards of hard fill materials on site in a new location near the facility
power plant. The fill material will be covered and seeded. Cayuga Medical
Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP,
Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to modification of an approved
site plan, has, on June 5, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 5, 2007, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Modified Site Plan Review report, prepared by
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, dated May 4, 2007, which includes
Sheet LF -3 Alternate Hard Fill Area #2 Grading Plan (dated 4/26/07), and other
application materials,
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 20
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 modifications to the approved site plan for the
Biggs Building Demolition, to include an additional fill site, as shown on the
Modified Site Plan Review report, prepared by Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge &
Wolf, LLP, dated May 4, 2007, which includes Sheet LF -3 Alternate Hard Fill
Area #2 Grading Plan (dated 4/26/07), and other application materials, subject to
the following conditions:
a. Submission of revised sediment and erosion control details on Sheet LF -3
Alternate Hard Fill Area #2 Grading Plan as outlined in the Engineering
Memorandum from Kristin Taylor (May 21, 2007), to include relocation of the
proposed silt fence so that it is at least 10 feet from the toe of the slope of the
fill area, addition of more check dams if required by the Director of
Engineering, and stabilization of the slope after final grading using a rolled
sediment and control product to prevent erosion until grass growth is
established, all subject to review and approval of the Director of Engineering,
prior to issuance of an amended building permit, and
b. submission of one original of Sheet LF -3 Alternate Hard Fill Area #2 Grading
Plan on mylar, vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land
surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s) or landscape architect(s) who prepared
the site plan materials, revised as required in Condition "a" above, to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of an amended building
permit, and
c. fill material shall not be placed between the silt fencing and the wooded area
shown on sheet LF -3, alternate hard fill area # 2 grading plan, once it is
revised pursuant to condition 2a, and
d. this modified site plan approval is subject to all of the requirements and
conditions of the original approved site plan for the Biggs Building demolition.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty, and Riha
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Thayer
The motion passed unanimously.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 21
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:59 p.m.
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
Presentation and discussion regarding the Cornell Transportation- focused
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T- GEIS). Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge &
Wolf, LLP, Presenter.
Presentation on CD will be included as part of the final minutes.
T -GETS hopes to have a draft submitted to the Board in early August.
Chairperson Wilcox -- Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all, any and all of you are welcome
to come up to the side of us to be able to better see the charts and graphs that will be
used tonight. Second of all, before we get going, I'd like to remind everybody this is not
a public hearing this evening. Nonetheless, if we have sufficient time, we will give
members of the audience the opportunity to address the Planning Board and provide us
with your comments very early on. Should the applicant decide to proceed, they will
come back at some time for preliminary approval. We will have a public hearing and
you will certainly be allowed to speak at that time. Depending on how ... we like to finish
no later than 10:00, we get tired too, we don't necessarily make good decisions after
10:00 so, we will give you the opportunity to speak if we have time available and I will
ask that you keep your comments short. Having said that.... presentation began.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:50 p.m.
SKETCH PLAN
Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cayuga Cliffs Development
located between Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) and Taughannock Boulevard
(NYS Route 89), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.19 25 -2 -4115 26 -4-
39, 264-37, and 264-38, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves the construction of 106 town
home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances
proposed from Trumansburg Road. The development would be concentrated on
the west side of the property closer to Trumansburg Road with the eastern
portion of the property remaining undeveloped. Holochuck Homes, LLC,
Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent.
David M. Parks, .Esq., The Parks Law Office, 950 Danby Road
Mark Parker, Keystone Associates, 229 -231 State street, 4th Floor, Binghamton
Mr. Parks — What we have is a proposal, and I believe that Ms. Ritter has outlined it
very well in here memorandum, but what I would like to say is that we put this proposal
in front of the Board and we attempted to address all of the issues that are contained in
the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Obviously the ... a large portion of this property
is contained within a conservation zone, and we have put together a plan whereby we
would be able to dedicate, or have the, either the State Parks or the Land Trust own a
majority of the property and to use it in conjunction with the Diamond Trail. We have
also ... our proposal is for 106 units based on the number of legal lots we could get,
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 22
based on, like you said, the conservation zone, the medium density and the low density
portions of the property. Holochuck Homes, obviously, owns all of the parcels outlined
in the proposal. The two main access roads, as you can see from the drawings, are,
would enter and exit Trumansburg Road or Route 96 ... The development itself are
cluster town -homes and our target would be medium income people. We really did
attempt to do it in a way that we would be able to create affordable housing and
obviously, that is dependent on the number of units that we are able to get and how the
project goes forward, but, that is our proposal and we have a very strong interest that
has been expressed by the Land Trust and by the State Parks Commission in
participating in this project to the fullest extent that they can. We do not have concrete
plans, as of yet, as to where the boundaries lines would be and that, obviously, is a
question that we are going to have to address as we move forward as to how much land
they are able to acquire and where the boundary line of their ... the acquisition would end
up being. I know that there were some questions raised about the boundaries of the
units on the western portion of the property and obviously that line is...where we
delineate that line will depend on ... having the proper setbacks as required by the Town
Code.
So, with that being said ... The property itself has access to municipal water and
municipal sewer. We have retention ponds in two locations to address issues of water
runoff and although on the drawing itself we have depicted additional areas of parking,
those additional areas are there for two purposes, one of them is for access to those
retention ponds and additionally, those access areas that are parking areas would result
in access areas for what the State Parks Commission basically said that they would like
to run trails from the back end of this development all the way down through the
property to the Diamond Trail. And those are the areas where we would be able to
connect the Diamond Trail through the majority of this property.
Mr. Parker — I'll just point out a couple of things that Mr. Parks already talked about:
The detention pond area is here with a parking access to the detention pond for
maintenance and it could also offer, maybe, some additional parking for guests for the
development. And over here is the location where we would actually be connecting to
the Diamond Trail. We have the, in our ... proposed a sanitary lift station because the
elevation of the existing sanitary is higher than what we'd be able to get to by gravity,
so, in this location, with the lift station, we offer another parking area and access to the
Diamond Trail. Those are the two locations that Mr. Parks talked about.
Mr. Parks — We're all set with the presentation part of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going and we give the Board a chance to ask
questions, can you give me just a little bit of a timeline in terms of when the Holochuck's
acquired this parcel and what version of the plan this is?
Mr. Parks — The majority of the parcels were acquired in 2005 1 believe, and then this
past year, the Holochuck's acquired the lands to gain secondary access and in the initial
phases, when we initially were attempting development, we needed secondary access
and we were attempting to get that secondary access through the hospital, to utilize the
existing stop light that is there, and the hospital initially showed some receptiveness to
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 23
that, in the end, they declined to allow us access through that and so we needed to
acquire secondary access. And so we accomplished that through the acquisition of
property on the lower portion there.
Board Member Howe — Can you just walk us through that map a little bit more and
where you're thinking of putting ... just walk us through some of the map elements a little
bit more. The housing and the woods...
Mr. Parks — We have Trumansburg Road up 96 running here, Ithaca down this way, so
this is running north. The hospital is on the northern portion of this, so the hospital light
would be right on the edge of this map up there. This property along here is the current
museum, and part of the negotiations that we have had with the Land Trust and the
State Parks was that the land behind the museum, they really wanted that as a natural
preserve for use by the museum and basically the people who participate in some of the
activities up there. And so that is why we drew the line. We actually gave up a portion
of the more developable property on the northern portion of the property and that's how
we came up with the Land Trust land. The Land Trust basically outlined where they
wanted to delineate the acquisition. Any other questions?
Board Member Howe - Can you give us a sense of how you are thinking of the housing
being laid out. I mean, we see ... just verbally describe that for us a little bit.
Mr. Parks — We have two accesses, one, on this map is the secondary access right
here and primary access, we would anticipate two -way traffic on both of these, basically
developing a road that would be dedicated to the Town. I think in the package of
materials, we included photographs of similar townhouse type developments where it's
a road, a normal town road, and obviously, we have a turn - around on either end, but it
would basically be normal traffic through those areas with cul -de -sacs on either end.
Board Member Conneman — I'm sure you thought about this, but, how would traffic
coming from 106 units get on to Route 96. 1 think that's what a lot of people who sit out
there are going to ask you.
Mr. Parks — Yeah. That was, obviously, our primary ... our first goal, originally, was to try
to gain access through the hospital. We were unable to do that and obviously we are
going to have to work with the Department of Transportation to work out the gaining
access and properly working with the traffic to address any issues related to that.
Board Member Talty — All these townhouses are on slabs, right? There's no
basements?
Mr. Parks — That has not been decided. I believe that there are townhouses developed
with normal basements and I'm not familiar with, at least right now, with whether or not
that would be something that would normally be built in that area but...
Board Member Talty — Okay, in the pictures that I am looking at ... It looks as
though ... the few units that I am looking at ... have one car garages. Would there be any
two car garages?
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 24
Mr. Parks — I think that, in the end, for the larger units, that might be possible. I think
that...we obviously want to have sufficient parking for the residents that exist in.there
and in that scenario, I believe that a single car garage would be normal, but with the
existing room, if we have it, we would be putting in two car garages.
Board Member Talty — I am particularly concerned, as I was with the overlook project,
about traffic safety, traffic speeds, traffic volume, traffic studies... everything and
anything to do with traffic. So, as you move along in your project, I would highly
recommend looking at every potential aspect, positive or negative, on traffic.
Mr. Parks — And we did attempt to address that and I think that the primary reason we
ended up with this type of a design is we really wanted it to be a neighborhood where it
would be very low vehicle traffic speeds and I think our main issues are more related to
access from the main artery.
Board Member Talty — I'm also a huge proponent of sidewalks. Huge. Okay,
Mr. Parks — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Trust me, he likes sidewalks.
Mr. Parks — Yup, I hear that.
Chairperson Wilcox — He's consistent about it too.
Board Member Riha — The examples you gave here show mainly identical housing. Is
there any consideration of having multiple income housing, you know, in the sense of
bigger, Bigger units, some smaller...
Mr. Parks — I believe that is, that would be, the plan would be...
Board Member Riha — So they would sell for a range of prices, not just...
Mr. Parks — Yes, yes, but I think that the majority of them, we would try to keep them
lower, on the lower side of it. I think that the price target is not going to be in the four or
five hundred thousand range. It's going to be much lower.
Mr. Kanter — Do you have any idea, sort of ballpark, what range you are looking at at
this point?
Mr. Parks — I think that we would like to try to get it in the low two hundreds or even
below two hundred, and I don't know if that's physically possible but obviously, we are
keenly aware of the need for that range of priced housing and we would, you know, that
would be our goal in attempting to do this, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — If we could go back to the traffic and the access to this land
from Route 96, the maps indicate that you also have a right -of -way a little bit north of
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 25
the one that you've just purchased the land for. Right? [yes] And I just wanted to ask
you, what is going to happen with that?
Mr. Parks — It was not large enough for us to use for access purposes and we have no
plans for it as it stands right now. It would just be a right -of -way that could be a
pedestrian access, or something like that but....
Mr. Kanter — It's only about twenty feet wide or something like that?
Mr. Parks — Yes, that's correct. It could be a sidewalk or it could be a bicycle path,
there are possible uses for it, but...
Board Member Hoffmann — The other question I have has to do with the northernmost
road to access, which seems to go, cut through, between and very close to some of the
buildings.
Mr. Parks — The way that this road, the, originally this was all owned by, I believe it was
Cornell University, when the deed was transferred out, but it basically just says we have
a right -of -way to create a road that meets town standards and that that road should
follow the contours of the existing driveways, if possible, and so how this would actually
end up might be a little bit more of a curvature away from this house right here and sort
of fit in with the existing driveway like that.
Board Member Conneman — Would you like to talk about sewage and water and what
you have discovered about that.
Mr. Parker — As I mentioned before, there's an existing trunk line that runs through the
property right now and I have talked with the engineering department, actually I have a
letter here, from Creig Hebdon that states that the gravity sanitary sewer line, the pipe
has more than enough capacity for the proposed subdivision and he also mentions that
the water service to the subdivision would be. serviced from the Trumansburg load tank.
He gives me an elevation of the bottom of that tank and he says that the preferred
location for a connection to our water line would be at the PRI Museum of the Earth site.
Which I believe is over in this location....
Board Member Conneman — Is there enough water there, Dan, just in those two tanks?
Mr. Walker — We've got a million and a half gallons of water on the west hill, so we have
more than enough capacity between the new tank that we have by Eco- Village, which
feeds the tank at Trumansburg Road. That's a half - million gallon tank. So, our current
demand in that area is approximately 350 — 400 thousand gallons a day and that
includes what we're feeding to Trumansburg, I mean to the Town of Ulysses
rather....and we're in the process of replacing the existing 6 -inch, 87 -year old water line
along Trumansburg Road with a 12 -inch water main that will provide adequate fire flow
and everything to the existing buildings. Right now we have some fire flow problems
along the area with ... where Lakeside Nursing Home is and Candlwyck, but that's a
planned maintenance replacement, which the Town Board is in the process of
approving right now. So we have plenty of water and we have plenty of sewer capacity
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 26
at the wastewater treatment plant and when we built the sewer line, we have plenty of
capacity there also.
Chairperson Wilcox — You have read, because you mentioned, you mentioned Sue
Ritter's cover memo, I don't want to go over it line by line because everything she said
in there is true in terms of what this planning... Obviously, what the Planning Staff is
going to expect and what this Planning Board is going to expect.
What are our major concerns? I think number one, I think there are two number one's,..
One a (1a) is traffic and circulation and access to the state highway and the impacts of
traffic, certainly headed towards the City of Ithaca. You'll-get ... YOU I re going to be. doing
traffic studies, and you're going to be doing more traffic studies and if you think you
spent a lot of money on .the land ... traffic studies are going to. be crucial. here to know
what the impacts would be.
Second, steep slopes, for me. Drainage. We should say that the development... we'll
pin down exactly the number of lots, or the number of houses or units you may be
entitled to. It seems to be 106 -112, it's right in that rang e ... I think you are showing 106,
1 think Susan has said 112 it might be. When you add up all of the acreage and the
number of units allowed and the three different zones that exist on the properties, you're
around 106 or 112. The fact that they are all clustered up near the road is clearly
beneficial. Working with the Land Trust or State Parks; Andy Zepp, it'd be nice to get a
statement from Andy, ...there he is, he's back there, thank you, I'm glad you're here
Andy ... that is beneficial. Access to the Black Diamond Trail, controlled...) want to say
controlled access ... easy access where residents or members of the community would
take a certain path rather than just meandering back there through the back of the
property, we certainly can't prevent that, but to make it easy for them to have a path
where they can easily get down to the Black Diamond Trail.
What am I missing besides all of the other impacts there? Really: Of greatest
concern...
Board Member Riha — Well, Sue and the County people brought up the look and feel of
the development and how it's visible. How good it will look from the other side of the
lake. Will it fit in with...
Chairperson Wilcox — Good point, good point. Again, the uniqueness of the Town of
Ithaca where you can look over the City from one hill to another and the impacts,
sometimes, from another hill are quite significant, and will have to be addressed. Again,
Susan you mentioned that in there.
I live in a ... I guess ... now I live in a townhouse development, I guess I can say that,
where there is some architectural differences between the buildings. There are
generally four units in a structure and there are differences in architectural details.
There are some things I don't particularly like, that all the units seem to be one of two
colors, but, there are differences in rooflines, and dormer windows, and skylights and
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 27
things like that. So, I encourage you to come back and show us some good
architectural details. Not just building the same thing row after row after row.
Mr. Kanter — And as we pointed out, the cluster regulations do allow the Planning Board
to actually get into design review.
Chairperson Wilcox — Something we normally do not have the right to do, in a normal
subdivision, but when you cluster, then we have that right. Again, because of the
closeness of the homes and the need to look at that.
Board Member Conneman — And obviously preserving as many trees as we can.
Mr. Parks — I think that
this, the way
that we
.have it planned out, you know, the majority
of the property is going
to remain as
is. And
that was the goal.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I commend you for coming in with a plan that
shows that happening. I think that's very good, and very important.
I am concerned about views, too, and not just how this property might look after it's
developed from the other side of the lake, from East Hill or from South Hill, but, from
Route 96B. A lot of people, as they drive by these buildings which you say, in your
paper, that "there are no structures on or adjacent to the subject site which have been
designated historic structures by any historic society or organization." I'm not sure that
that is true, but even if it were true, those of us who live around here value the historic
look of those buildings, the PRI and the former Oddfetlows home. When PRI came in
with plans to build an addition, we were very careful to make sure that they didn't alter
the old building, the older building or affect the look of that in any way when they
constructed the new one because it ... we just felt that it was too important. And I'm a
little bit concerned that the impact of this road you have there, is going to be quite
negative on that landscape there, on those old buildings. And I would like- to see you
look at trying to fit a road in a way that is potentially less destructive of how that area
looks from the west. And anyway, I think I can assure you that there are a lot of people
who value those buildings, whether they have been designated as historic buildings or
not.
Mr. Parks — No, we understand and I believe that our goal would be to have this as, and
I agree with you, I think that the old hospital and everything, they are beautiful buildings,
that our goal would not be to come close to the buildings as they are right- now. We
would obviously have to work with the property owners to do it in a way that made
sense for both the Town, because we have to take that into consideration, but also to
disturb as little as possible as far as the existing roadways. I mean, that is the way that
the right -of -way is drafted is that we are to utilize the existing driveways as much as
possible to make that so.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, maybe you could negotiate some alterations to that.
Mr. Parks — Definitely. That is definitely on our agenda.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 28
Board Member Hoffmann — And the other thing that I am concerned about, as far as
views, if I could just add that, before I go on ... or before I let Jon have a word, is, I'm
concerned because what's very nice about the views from Route 96 now is you can see
between these older buildings, especially by the former Oddfellow's and the School of
Massage buildings, they have these nice open lawns and you can see through, because
there's a slop beyond that, to the other side. of the lake. Those are gorgeous views.
And I am a little bit concerned about how your buildings are going to fit in there and
whether they are going to block the views since they are going to be in more or less a
row there, with just the small openings between the buildings. It depends on how far
they are set down into the landscape, because of the slopes.
Mr. Parks — Right. I think that a certain amount of, just by the sheer fact that there is
going to be a building there, it is going to be a consideration. I would note that,
according to the way that the Town Code is written, the Town has expressed that it is
better for us to. do this development up on top of the hill, above the ridge, down in that
area, precisely because that's the better area to do that type of development and I can
appreciate the fact that inevitably we are going to block somebody's view from the road
itself, on Route 96, and we would try to minimize that as much as we possibly could
but...
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I haven't really taken time to look at the layout of the
buildings myself, but, I would encourage you to look at maybe trying to orient them a
little differently... they are all oriented to the east, mainly, it seems to me, and the
residents in these buildings might actually enjoy having views to the south.
Mr. Parks — I guess the difficulty is that when we, the reason why it's laid out in that
manner is because the portion of the land that we are dedicating, the portion of the land
that is going to remain untouched, if we were to orient it in any other way, we would end
up with a road that goes down in that direction, down towards the slope...
Board Member Hoffmann — That's only if you have them arranged in a row like this. I
encourage you to go back and look at it and use your imagination and come up with
something else.
Now I am going to ask Jon to...
Mr. Kanter — 1 was just going to comment on the historic status. I seem to recall from
our work with the PRI property, in particular, and some documents that I have seen on
the Rebecca Hall site that those buildings are eligible for listing on the State and
National Registers, but haven't been designated as historic structures, so, when that's
the case, when they are eligible for listing, there should be a coordinated review with the
State Historic Preservation Office and it should be an important factor in the
environmental review.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, and eligibility means that they could be listed as soon
as somebody's done the work. It means they meet the requirements of being historic
buildings.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 29
Mr. Parks — Yes, yes, I would agree. I mean, just by their very character, they are the
types of buildings that you want to preserve.
Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing that I wanted to ask you is; why have you
put the access to the Black Diamond Trail at the southern end of your property instead
of at the northern end?
Mr. Parks — That is something that has to be decided by the Land Trust or the State
Parks Commission. That is not something that we ... we put it there just to show the
possibilities, but it is not something that, .they have not made any decision whatsoever
on that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, because it seems to me that it would make sense,
from the point of view of public use of it, to have the trail come off at the northern end,
behind PRI, because maybe then people would be able to use the parking facilities they
have.. .
Chairperson Wilcox — Careful, careful... careful there... careful...
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, to me, as a member of the public, that seems like it's
something that one could maybe try to ... to get the PRI to be cooperative about.
Mr. Parker — Excuse me ... if 1 could ... I think we had a meeting at one time where it was
recommended that we provide access on the southern part of the property and along
with this property that's being proposed for the Finger Lakes Land Trust, it does provide
an access from behind the museum, because this would be part of the land given to the
Land Trust which they can do whatever they want with and there's an opportunity to
access from the north as well as what we have provided on the south.
Board Member Talty — Your documentation indicates it's a four year project with four
stages. Can you show us, at this time, what the stages are?
Mr. Parks — That decision hasn't been made yet. I mean, our anticipation would be that
we would obviously have to start with, II believe, with the lower portion, with one of the
access roads, and just work forward from...
Board Member Talty — So, south — north...
Mr. Parks — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions right now? Comments?
Board Member Howe
— Just that
we've been
waiting for a cluster development and here
we are. And this, the
site sort of
dictates this
to some extent.
Board Member Hoffmann —Yeah, I have been on this Board when we have had before
us at least two other proposals for this land, and I believe it was Mr. Leslie Reizes' in
both instances, that came before us, and it may have been three times...
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 30
Mr. Parks - Well it was Mr. Reezes' that we purchased the property from.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah and in every case, we made the same arguments that
we are making today, that the land ... the easternmost part of the land is just not
developable. The first time there came a proposal, it was ... the whole land was covered
with lots laid out all over...and...
Chairperson Wilcox - You're talking all the way down...
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, all the way down to Route 89, and, I mean, we all
recognized that it was just impossible to build that way, and when we got more
information about clustering and so on, we said that it had to be clustered and closer up
to Route 96, the way you have proposed it now. So, Mr. Reizes never came back with
any plans like that. So that's why we are here today, I guess, looking at it again.
Mr. Parks - I guess ... we have had preliminary meetings and we did do our homework
as far as what had been proposed before and that's the primary reason why we came
up with this proposal is because we felt that it addressed all of the defects that existed
in the prior proposals.
Chairperson Wilcox - Should we give the
patiently and very quietly.
public a chance? They have been sitting
Ladies and Gentlemen, once again, thank you. You've been patient, you've been quiet
and we appreciate it. I will call on you based upon whose hand is up and who I happen
to notice first. Please keep it short because we don't like to go past 10:00 and we have
a couple of things we need to do after this agenda item.
Lynn Baker, 1210 Trumansburg Road
Which is the corner lot, where Bundy hits 96, on the northwest corner. In general, I like
this kind of development. It sort of fits my view of how a place should grow. However,
this secondary access road, as it is drawn right now ... speaking from just a narrow point
of view of property value and quality of life in our present home, if I stand in my upstairs
bedroom window, I can look right straight down the center line of that road, both in plan
view and in grade, i.e. any car coming up is shining right in the windows of the house.
The second thing, which you have already alluded to, is traffic. Especially making left
turns on to the main road out of there without some sort of signal control and the fact
that its oblique with Bundy Road. It would be a traffic nightmare right at the end of our
driveway.
Chairperson Wilcox - In fact, one of the things mentioned in the memo we got was the
offset intersection with Bundy, you're right, that may be an issue and they are aware of
it. The fact that we didn't mention it, doesn't mean that they are not aware of it. Thank
you sir, appreciate it.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 31
Carman Hill, 3072 Wilkins Road, Ulysses
Chairman Wilcox and members of the Board, in essence of time, I appreciate what you
do, it's important work, though in a nutshell, I think this project is wrong because, all the
runoff from these buildings and the .pavement goes right down to the lake. You
can ... from a distance, you can't see these contours, but that's a steep slope. My wife
and I are longtime members of Cayuga Watershed Network and we are very concerned
about the precious lake. That's our most valuable asset in this whole area and just think
of all the runoff and you know, we have frequent floods, and every 50 years we have a
huge flood, and where's all that water going to go ... right down into the lake. And all that
stuff off of the roof and the pavement and, and, fortunately, I guess you are going to
have sewer, but I am a little bit skeptical about capacity off that. So, thank you. I
appreciate your time.
Brian Page, 1213 Trumansburg Road
It equates to the second access point, ten feet to the right, if you are looking at
Trumansburg Road from the east. I have to sit in my driveway many mornings for five
minutes, waiting for traffic to clear. Cars pass every 3.6 seconds on average. This
morning, in the five minute time period, 129 cars passed. In a half hour, 500 passed.
Informal traffic survey for you. Unless there is a traffic light there, it's not going to work.
And even if it does work, it's gonna cause tremendous traffic issues. Traffic backs up
that hill right now for at least a half a mile to three quarters of a mile every morning. So
when you add in another traffic light there, you're just compounding the traffic issues we
already have.
Everybody's talking about runoff, it's a great issue. Reality is, the biggest runoff you're
going to experience in the steep grade, and I encourage you to go and walk the ground
before you try to approve any plans there, if you haven't already done so in the past,
during construction, the runoff is going to be tremendous. If you clear the topsoil and
the trees, and there are tons of trees. on this ground ... as you clear that area, you're
going to have a tremendous runoff, down a steep slope and it's going to end up in the
lake. People can guess about it, that's the reality. Anytime it rains, you are going to run
into tremendous issues. So, along with my personal concern for the value of my
property, which was a lake view property, which will now have, roughly, six homes in.
front of our lake view, some of the watershed issues that were just mentioned, I think
need to be addressed. The traffic, there's no way that the existing traffic pattern right
now is going to work with the traffic that is on that highway right now and be safe. I
struggle to get out of my driveway every morning. The reality is I have to make right
hand turns a lot, go up to the intersection by the hospital, turn around up there and then
come back through. If you try to put medium family income, two -car families, traveling
out of that area, without a light, or without a decent traffic control plan, it's going to be a
disaster. There's going to be numerous accidents, it's just the reality of what's there.
Secondly, the impact of this on the Conservation Zone, I think, is going to be a
tremendous issue. Right now there are deer, there's turkeys, there's all sorts of
animals, species there, using that area. There's an open field ... the field's gonna be
gone. So a lot of animals that use the edge of the forest line as habitat, it's not going to
be there. You're going to go from field, edge of the forest, and then forest, to just forest
and cliffs. So the reality is, you're destroying a tremendous amount of habitat there. I
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg.32
would highly encourage you to go walk the ground, see how steep this is and whether
this sketch is to any kind of realistic scale for that area before you go ahead and
approve something. Thank you.
Barbara Anger, 109 Park Place
I have concerns about the project also. In terms of the quality of the water, meaning
the ... our lake, in terms of the runoff. Runoff will begin as soon as there is any kind of
construction and will continue past the construction, from the homes up the street and it
will be quite awhile before anything is going to really prevent that runoff from happening
after....if the project comes to fruition, after it does. Also, as a resident downtown who
lives two houses from a feeder, I mean ... as Route 96 feeds into Buffalo Street and
Buffalo Street is very full of traffic... there's a school there, there's a lot of issues around
speed. People getting to the west side to the east side, going to Cornell and other
various places. It's going to impact also the traffic downtown. Impact the quality of the
school. More cars that pass by. The noise level is very high and I would say that
sometimes the students might have difficulty learning with all that noise coming. So, I
just want to encourage you to think about the kind of impact that it makes further down
the line in many directions.
Bob Berggren, 136 Compton Road
I just wanted to talk about the runoff. Of course there is always runoff, we live on hills,
and it always runs off and I think they've addressed the runoff situation with these
retention ponds. In fact that's the whole purpose of the ponds, and so, I don't think
runoff is really that much of an issue as some might think. There may be a little bit
more, but I think they've tried to address that and I think always, that's why we see
these retention ponds, in all developments now, is to catch that water, slow it down, it
holds it and lets it out slow. So I just want to say that I think they did a good job of trying
to address that issue.
Mary Shelley, 109 Park Place
I spend summers on the lake and my concern is mainly around water quality and the
lake. I don't know how long a space that is the gray area ... is that a quarter mile ... is
that...
Chairperson Wilcox — What's the scale...
Ms. Ritter — I'm not sure on that...
Chairperson Wilcox — Distance from development to the lake...
Ms. Shelley — I guess, again, concerns about drainage and that's my large concern.
Peter Rogers, 1221 Trumansburg Road
I live in the City but I own land adjacent to Holochuck at 1221 Trumansburg Road, that's
between the church and Lakeside Nursing. But I'd just like to talk a minute about
general. God bless you souls, this is why I am glad I'm not on Boards anymore, this is
going to be a tough one. But it seems like you have to decide, or do you encourage or
discourage development. There's already a large project across from the hospital and I
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 33
came to a couple of meetings when you entertained that and I would hope that after you
approve something, and it's ongoing, that you get information, studies, on the impact.
And I don't know the configuration of the numbers, but if you ... that would give you,
maybe an idea of the impact of 106 or 112 residence times two or three people.
Another ... if ... traffic studies...traffic comes into Ithaca from the west end. Seventy -nine
has a bridge of its own, 96 has a bridge of its own and 89 ... but they all seem to
converge at one point or another. Think about the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. There's a
great controversy there, I believe leaving Ithaca on 96 ... they want to eliminate a lane
and very possibly, if this project was approved, that would put more people exiting on
96. 1 wasn't close enough to look at the map, but, and I know people are concerned
about the lake, but traffic studies might show that more traffic coming in on 89 versus 96
would be better.. But, I just though I'd make a few comments, and again, god bless you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody behind that I can't see that might want to speak? All
right. Dan, I want to look at you. The questions that keep coming up, not surprising, is
stormwater management, both during construction and afterwards. So give us a
general idea of what you require. What you need to see first before we get to see it.
Mr. Walker — Well, it's not just what I require, but it's the whole state stormwater
management program. Is basically, the State's criteria and the Town's criteria is that
development should not increase the rate of runoff off of a site. The State requirements
deal with the rate of runoff and also water quality. So, on a development of this size,
there's a lot of room on this site for detention ponds that both will treat the water for
quality with four bays.... basically constructed wetlands type things and then have
enough volume to store the water and let it run off at a rate that will be safe. So, in a
project of this type, to protect the environment, there's a rate of runoff, but there's also
sediment and erosion control. Before a project like this ... the fist phase of a project like
this would be creating temporary sediment control structures so that when they start
moving earth, any sediment that gets disturbed would be trapped, but we'd also try to
work it in small enough segments, minimizing the amount of disturbed area to reduce
the amount of erosion that actually happens at any one time. And then, with sediment
traps and silt fence, try to keep the sediment onsite. And that's the goal and it's very
doable if you do it properly. So, the first thing you build is stormwater management
structures and then you start going in and disturbing the site. If you start opening the
site up and forget to build a stormwater management, you get into problems.
An example, about the same size, actually a bigger project, with the Overlook, what
they did was the first thing they built was the stormwater management detention ponds
at the bottom, and that has worked very well, there has been very little silt that has
come off of that site, and it's been caught in the sediment traps and in the stormwater
basins. There's been no additional flooding on Route 96 from that area. In fact, I think
the flooding that used to occur at times, has actually been reduced by the installation of
those practices.
There's plenty of room on this site to install the practices properly and I don't see any
problem with getting a good stormwater management system installed here.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 34
Chairperson Wilcox — Traffic. Traffic is more than what cars do and the turns that they
make and the counts per hour. It's, if you were here before during the presentation for
Cornell, they talked about level of service. How are they, how are the intersections
operating. What is the average wait at the intersection for the cars. The applicant,
should they proceed forward, will have to work with the New York State Department of
Transportation. This is a state highway.. This Board might not like the offset
intersection at Bundy Road, but even before it gets to this Board, the New York State
DOT may tell them no, this can not be. And then they will have to go back and do
something else, so, and they will hire their traffic consultants, and they will be reviewed
by Staff, and eventually get to this Board, should they proceed.
Board Member Talty — Fred, I have a comment. The documentation that we have on
hand for say, the Overlook project...and traffic studies that were performed at that time
for that project, can we overlap the future applicant's traffic study on top of that to see if
truly, the traffic studies are credible?
Chairperson Wilcox — It would be interesting for a traffic study done in conjunction with
this project, have access to the data...it's all public record ... once a traffic study is done,
it's public record, so certainly they could have access to it. In fact, we would expect
them to have access to it because we still have more units to build.
Mr. Kanter — And in fact, we would expect updated traffic counts, which would
automatically factor in and we have new counts done at the new Overlook intersection.
So you would know precisely what changes occurred at the Overlook intersection since
you last saw it.
Board Member Talty — So that specific one or two facts could be presented to us as we
move forward, right? For example, like the Overlook, if it was looking for x amount of
cars and it's x plus 30 ... then we're going to know what I've been saying all along about
traffic studies and surveys, that the gentlemen that are performing these don't drive
down those roads everyday and I think that they are inaccurate and, by the way, the last
gentleman who indicated like traffic going down 89, there's no question people are
going to take that shortcut, to come in, which is going to tie up that one intersection
there, right by Lehigh Valley restaurant. No question about it.
Mr. Walker — From this development?
Board Member Talty — From any traffic coming from north - south. There's
much ... because I drive 89 all the time and there's a lot more traffic on 89 than there
ever has been, in the last two years.
Mr. Walker — Right, from the Trumansburg area and south, there has been a lot more
people cutting down, I think, from 96 and coming in.
Mr. Kanter — Oh, you mean people will bypass 96...
Board Member Talty — No question...
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg.35
Mr. Walker — Well I drive 96, 1 drive that myself because I live up Trumansburg Road
area, and yes, traffic, there's a lot of traffic on 96, there's no question of that and
unfortunately, the other traffic isn't being generated in the Town of Ithaca. I'd say the
bulk of it's being generated in Ulysses and Interlaken. In some respects, developments
like this, and particularly the Overlook, which was set up for lower income, I notice there
are quite a few people in the mornings that I see half a dozen people sometimes, at
7:30 — 8:00 crossing the road and walking down to the hospital because I think the
people are living in the Overlook that are working at the hospital now. That was one of
the things that the hospital was encouraging:..
Board Member Talty — Which I have to say, I didn't ... I have to say on the record, that I
didn't believe was going to happen. I did say that. Where doctors and nurses, I didn't
believe, were going to live, or whomever, support staff of the hospital, were going to live
in that, so...
Mr. Walker — I think support staff and nurses will live, maybe new doctors might, for the
short term ... I think this kind of development will actually cater to more people that might
be ... technicians and more doctors there, especially if there's a walkway between this
facility and the hospital. I think we are going to see a lot of growth at the hospital. In
fact, they just tore down a big building, and it's a nice meadow today, it ain't going to
last too long and we're going to get ... and that's a very positive thing, having had the
opportunity to use the hospital facilities a month or so ago, I am very impressed with the
hospital staff and with the renovations and the things that they are doing there, and it's
becoming a very high -class medical facility and I think we're gonna see a lot more with
the Cornell Medical School involvement plus the Cleveland Heat Clinic that's associated
and the Roswell Cancer facilities. So, this is going to be a prime development area for
medical services in the area. There's no question of that.
So, traffic studies, yes, they need to be updated because the ones for the Overlook
were 2,3,4,5 years ago and we'll see what the estimates were and compare them to
what we had.
Mr. Kanter — I think Fred was sort of alluding to this, it's really more than a traffic study,
it should be a transportation study, because I think you really need to look at all different
forms of transportation here. The pedestrian and bicycle connections are going to be
really important and the transit is going to be important here. If you could get a
connection to the medical center, they have a nice bus stop right over there, but I'm not
sure if that's possible. If not, then we are going to have to look at really good, easy,
connections up to Trumansburg Road with transit stops. I don't think, at this point,
TCAT will go into a development of this type. You know, they are already getting
stretched with their routes and the time it takes to go in and out of these types of
developments so it's likely they will probably pick up people on 96, and if that's all they
can do, I think we need to make it very easy and convenient for people to get up, which
gets back to sidewalks. Not going up a very steep area, but gentle slope, so, all those
things are going to be part of this whole transportation study that I think needs to be
done in conjunction with this.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 36
Mr. Walker — There's a bigger stop at Lakeside right now, which is easy walking
distance from a lot of the houses of this development. The loop up at Overlook is used
a lot and then the bus loop down into the hospital gets used a lot, so...
Board Member Hoffmann — That's what we were hoping for.
Mr. Walker — So I think the transit and actually, the higher the density, the more positive
transit becomes.
Board Member Hoffmann —Well, if I can chime in a little bit on this too. We do keep
hearing about the traffic problems on Route 96 and especially how bad it is going in and
out of the City, and I understand that, but all of that assumes that both the current traffic
and the future traffic is by car and most likely, single occupancy cars like we heard
about just a few minutes ago. And that's going to have to change. And it's very
important that somebody who develops housing keeps that in mind. It's not just making
sure that there is enough parking for people in the traditional way, for each individual to
have a car. There have to be ways of making sure that it's easy for the residents, both
in new developments and in the ones that are there already, to take busses or go by
vanpools or share rides or park in park- and -ride lots and take a bus from there or all
these different alternatives that we just heard a little bit more of, it's coming. It has to.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, do you have the feedback you need? Do you have the
feedback from this Board that you need to go forward? I . .
Mr. Parks — The one final thing I guess that you had mentioned is that we really do need
an indication on the number of units before we can go forward with all of.those .items.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann — I just remembered another thing that I was .going to
mention. Both our Conservation Board, who wrote a letter, I don't know if you got that,
with various points about what to keep in mind here, and the County Planning Office,
mentioned that it would be a good idea to make sure that the buildings are in muted
colors so they blend in with the surroundings and they don't stick out as seen from a
distance. You know, no stark white like a Greek revival house is necessary or
desirable. And the thing that I wanted to say, this is alternative B on the plans ... it's a
huge looking building, and if these buildings are in light colors and very large like
this ... they are essentially three stories high plus a pitched roof...they're going to be very
visible and imposing looking from some distance away in an area where we have
adopted a conservation zone because we want to keep that wooded appearance.
That's what people come to Ithaca to enjoy. So, keep that in mind too.
Chairperson Wilcox — Number of lots. Sue Ritter's memo ... her calculation... based
upon the land that you own and the density allowed in each of the various
zones ... comes out to ... 112.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 37
Ms. Ritter - but Fred, that's based on just the law. That's not based on what is feasible
and they have done ... I was just doing calculations based on ... they did ... they're doing
what appears to be feasible.
Mr. Parks — So this map right here shows the actual layout of the lots, the lots
themselves, and the number of lots that we can get, legally, with the... inaudible... but
that's how we came to our number.
Chairperson Wilcox — And that's how you came to the 106...
Board Member Conneman — but you have a couple of lots there that you can't build
because a stream runs through it. I'll show you my diagram when this is over, but, we
walked, some of us walked this the other day and there was a stream there that goes
through two lots.
Mr. Parks — You're talking about these streams running here...
Board Member Conneman — Yeah, there's one of them that clearly goes through
there...
Mr. Parks— I think that these are seven -acre lots and I believe that we would be able to
fit a house in there.
Board Member Conneman — Well, I'll show you.
Mr. Parks — But in order for us to move forward, we really need to have a number
named out because it does make a difference in the traffic study and everything else,
so...
Mr. Kanter — Well I think that one thing to say is that the studies that will have to be
done at this point in order to even move ahead just to set on an actual number or type
of development is kind of a worst case scenario, so, I mean, I think if you use the 106
you propose as the worst case scenario, it may actually end up being less than that as it
goes through the environmental review process.
Mr. Parks — I agree but we are also working with the Land Trust and they ... they are
hesitant to move forward with anything, so, they know that this is a boundary that we
can work and if that ... that makes a difference, depending on where the lot would be,
and they have indicated that they really don't want to go forward with their appraisals
until we get that number, at least tentatively nailed down.
Mr. Kanter — Well again, if I were a Board member, I wouldn't want to commit to a
number until I saw...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure this Board is in a position to say 106. 1 mean, you've
shown us a map and said here's where laid out 53 units, each of which is a duplex and
therefore we get 106. There's nothing behind it, you know, to say whether this is
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 38
feasible or not ... so we can't ... and neither can we guarantee you that that line between
the area where you are building and the conservation zone is not ... could not change...
Mr. Parks — Right, we understand that and I guess what I am really asking for is just
some direction from the Board as to what, in terms of the next step, getting us closer to
nailing down that number because it changes .so many factors with how we are going to
proceed with this.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I saw Andy stand up and I will give Andy a chance to
speak.
Mr. Kanter— He might have just wanted to see and hear what you were saying...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sure he can hear me. I'll give Andy a chance to speak. How
do we want to proceed in terms of nailing down the exact number of lots? It's up to the
applicant to show that this is the number of lots that could be created and built upon,
you can't obviously put a lot over a lake, for example, and then prove that that's the
number of lots that you could get and therefore the number of units that therefore you
are, that come with the land that you wish to cluster ... But they have to show...
Mr. Kanter — And even so, that number is a maximum theoretical number. It's not THE
number and the cluster provisions do say that the Planning Board has the authority to
reduce the number from there based upon legitimate reasons, including slopes,
wetlands, streams, soils and whatever. One thing I think you need is more in the way of
a site analysis of the proposed development to show exactly what's out there.
Board Member Hoffmann — The plan that you gave us, SKC -100 is too small and too
sketchy. It's really hard to see how this would work out and I believe there was also
something in your comments also, Susan, about some lots that had some problems,
right?
Ms. Ritter — Just, there was some issues on the setbacks, on the buffering.
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, in terms of how the proposed ... the way it's proposed, not in
terms of ... as opposed to determining exactly how many units they are allowed.
Board Member Hoffmann — But that, one needs to analyze too, it seems to me, looking
at that map of those lots laid out and as you said, George, maybe some of those lots
really couldn't be built on...
Board Member Conneman — The issue is, in my opinion, I have to have a map bigger
than that to show what's there...
Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute... carefuI ... that's not their fault.
Board Member Conneman — I didn't say it was their fault.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're being a little testy with them....
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 39
Board Member Conneman — I'm not being testy at all ... l'm trying to help them.
Chairperson Wilcox — The large maps usually exist in our offices.
Mr. Kanter — WE always ... I'll repeat this a hundred times ... we always have them in our
office and nobody ever asks to come in and see them. So please, do. If you want, we
can require the applicant to submit 25 sets of large size plans and we can distribute
them all, but that's not what we usually do. .
Chairperson Wilcox — But the big ones are available?
Mr. Kanter —They are absolutely available.
Board Member Howe — I think we have gone as far as we can with this being a sketch
plan. This isn't a preliminary approval, this is a sketch...
Board Member Talty — I have a question.
resident?
Mr. Parks — Yes, one of them is.
Is the property owner a Tompkins County
Board Member Talty — Good, because then they know what 96 and 79 and 89 are like.
Chairperson Wilcox — I was wondering where you were going with that. I need to get
you to the microphone.
Mr. Parks — And I would say that we are very aware of the traffic situation there and that
is one of the hurdles that we are expecting to have to overcome. We really are looking
to the traffic study and obviously whatever it takes to meet the requirements:
Chairperson Wilcox — That's the best we can do for you ... I know ... Andy....l gotta put
you on the microphone...
Andy Zepp, Finger Lakes Land Trust, 220 East Court Street
I just wanted to clarify the role of the Land Trust and State Parks, represented by Sue
Poelvoorde over here ... We are... essentially the Land Trust has been trying to facilitate
a purchase by the State of the area that's been outlined here and in particular, we
worked with the developers to secure three goals. Maximize protection of the hillside,
secure the missing link in the Black Diamond Trail, which is associated with this
property and then to create a green belt, both as a buffer behind the museum and
potentially, a connection corridor for a trail depending upon the museum and the
hospital, their wishes, we can't speak about that. In any event, we have sufficient
information tonight to proceed with our next step, which is commissioning appraisals to
determine the value of this. So, to answer the applicants question, we needed just to
get a sense of some of the comments and the overall scope but our next step will be the
Parks and the Land Trust working together to get appraisals and then the intention is to
submit a purchase offer on it. So I just wanted to clarify roles.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 40
Mr. Kanter — One quick thing ... Susan and I were just talking about this briefly but it's an
interesting point in terms of the density and the number of units is that, it depends on
how these transactions occur ... If there are going to be conveyances to State Parks,
Land Trust and /or the Museum of the Earth, and if they are done in conjunction with the
overall subdivision and cluster development of this property, then the whole property
can be seen as contributing to the number of housing units on the cluster. If, however,
the parcels not being developed on were to be conveyed in a sense ahead of the
approval of this development, you could not do that. You could not use that density and
so, I think what we ... we have discussed this with the applicants and everyone else and
the best way to proceed with this is as if it were a whole project and that everything is
done simultaneously as part of the overall environmental review and approval because
otherwise, you're talking about a much different density of housing units.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. All set. Oh, one more thing ... Any idea when you might
be back?
Mr. Parks — As soon as possible.
Approval of Minutes
Chairperson Wilcox —.I am going to take these one at a time ... I hereby move the
approval of the minutes of May 1 sc
Board Member Talty — Can I...
Chairperson Wilcox — Rod seconds... discussion...
Board Member Talty — Yeah, discussion is this ... It's outrageous when a telephone book
arrives in the mail.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, it didn't get on two sides...
Mr. Kanter — I can't hear anything...
Board Member Talty — I'm just saying though
generating and the amount of cost in the mail
should be a way that we can....
that the amount of paper that we are
envelope... there's no way that ... there
Chairperson Wilcox — George, please ... I ask that you make your comments so that
everybody can hear them...
Board Member Talty — This is 75 sheets of paper times 7 or 8, and just trying to be
efficient and cost effective ... can you hear me, Jonathan...
Mr. Kanter — I'm having trouble hearing. If we could maybe ask...
Chairperson Wilcox quiets the dispersing public down.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 41
Board Member Talty — To reiterate. I couldn't believe the minutes that showed up in the
mail this week. Seventy -five pages, when everybody is screaming about taxes, and
costs in government and this is just a complete waste. Complete. There's no reason
why we can't send this via e-mail and if you have corrections on it, you read through it,
you make a bold determination, so it's not a read only file, and you make your
corrections on it and you send it back to whomever. This is crazy. This is crazy.
Board Member Conneman — but it ordinarily would have been half as much if it had
been back -to -back.
Board Member Talty — Well, that may be true, but, I mean, I'm looking at $4.60. There's
no question that half of that was this. At least.
Board Member Conneman — You can pick them up at the Town. They always call me
and I pick them up.
Board Member Hoffmann — They call me and I pick....
Board Member Talty — Well they called me too and I wasn't in Town at the time but, why
not email it. I mean, we're in an email society today, I don't understand. Tell me what
I'm missing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there a legal reason we can't email ?.
Mr. Kanter — There' no legal reason. I think, what would prefer, from the Town Hall, is
that we do it one way or another and it's up to the Board how we do it, but I don't think
we want to be in a position where we're doing, okay, three people want...
Chairperson Wilcox — You want to create 7 identical packets for mailout.
Mr. Kanter — Basically yeah.
Board Member Conneman — So you put it in email ... I find it much easier to read and do
corrections and think about it there than reading a screen, so your gonna make me print
it off ... it's just going to shift the ....
Board Member Talty — No, no, I don't want you to print anything.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, if he's going to edit it...
Board Member Talty — He can edit it right on the screen.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, she can't get 7 versions back.
Board Member Talty — I just think that this is insane.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, I agree. I agree. It just needs to be double sided.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 42
Ms. Neilsen — I always double side, I just hit the wrong button. I could have thrown
them all away and started again, but:..
Board Member Talty — I know, but it's still 35 pages.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know, we talk too much.
Board Member Talty — I don't know if that's the case, I just think that, it's just ... we're
supposed to be in a paperless environment and we're not. I mean, this is just crazy.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have to say the same thing that George says, I find it very
hard to sit in front of a computer and read this much. Twice a month.
Mr. Kanter — As Susan mentioned, even some people, like Susan and I, if we get it
electronically, we inevitably print it ourselves to read it anyway because I don't like
looking at the computer screen...
Board Member Talty — I can concur with that, I can. I don't know, when I got it, I
couldn't believe it.
Board Member Conneman — I would agree with Kevin, if we could pick up our packet
here then it makes a lot of sense, because it's ridiculous to have the postage.
Board Member Riha — Yeah, but then we're all driving our cars down...
Board Member Talty — Single occupancy...
Board Member Conneman — When we happen to be coming in to Town...
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay — How about this... unless. there is some time reason
why.we need to have them in the packets, couldn't we pick up the previous meeting's
minutes at the meeting and then bring them in the next meeting?
Board Member Talty — We could do that.
Ms. Neilsen — The problem with that, I don't know, you guys have been here longer, but
with the FOIL things, then we would be giving out draft ... they wouldn't be approved, and
there would be another two week lag time. So a meeting on May 1St couldn't even
conceivably be approved for thirty days.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right...
Ms. Neilsen — Because you would pick it up on the 15th and then not be able to approve
it until the 1st
Mr. Kanter — And we have been doing really well with keeping up with minutes. There
was a point a couple of years ago where that was not the case and we, it was just hit
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 43
and miss and they fell so far behind ... I would really prefer to try to keep it one meeting
behind and keep it moving along.
Chairperson Wilcox — Double side. Thank you.
Mr. Kanter — We could have smaller pitch...
Chairperson Wilcox — Some of us are getting old ... I have a motion and a second to
approve the May 1St minutes...
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 055
Approval of the Minutes from May 1,2007
Planning Board, June 5, 2007
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from May 1, 2007
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the
final minutes of the meeting on May 1, 2007.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTENTION:
ABSENT:
Wilcox, Conneman, Howe,
None
Hoffmann
Thayer
The motion passed.
Talty, and Riha
Chairperson Wilcox I hereby move approval of the May 15th minutes. Do I have a
second... seconded by Rod.
Board Member Conneman — I was not here but I read them in their entirety
Board Member Talty — Me too, it was funny reading though...
Board Member Conneman — It was fun reading how some of you did some things....and
didn't....
Board Member Talty — I was chuckling at the dinner table....
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 44
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 056
Approval of the Minutes from May 15, 2007
Planning Board, June 5, 2007
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from May 15, 2007
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the
final minutes of the meeting on May 15, 2007.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTENTION
ABSENT:
Wilcox, Conneman, Howe,
None
Hoffmann
Thayer
The motion passed.
Talty, and Riha
Other Business
Chairperson Wilcox — I want to start with the letter that was in your packet having to do
with the Briarwood II subdivision. From Mr. William Sonnenstuhl. Jonathan called me
about this and he actually made a suggestion and I agreed, that we bring this to the
Board and ask you how you wanted to deal with this. Whether we want to provide him
with the forum .... do we want materials ahead of time ... for example ... do we want to give
representatives of the Briarwood subdivision the opportunity to be here as well, since,
when they present, the opponents, or the general public, gets to speak, so, I think it
would be fair, for example, to let someone who has information, possibly wonderful
information or new information, about the lands up there, that we give the applicant a.
chance to speak as well so we, hopefully, can get both sides. What do you want to do
guys
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I would like to see the materials ahead of time, if
possible.
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. I think we would get materials ahead of time, I mean,
we wouldn't let them, him or her or whoever just show up and make a presentation
without having any....
Board Member Conneman — But they would make the presentation as part of the
beginning of the meeting? Is that what you'd do?
Chairperson Wilcox — No, I would make it an agenda item.
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 45
Board Member Conneman — Oh, an agenda item.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would make it an agenda item. But I would...do we invite the
developer and /or their agents to also make a presentation? ... to ... how do we want to
play it? This is unusual ... I'm not sure I've seen something quite like this...
Board Member Howe — I don't think that's necessary at this point. I think we're just
hearing what they came up with...
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, would it be best that they provided that sometime closer to
when or if the Briarwood people come back? I mean ... would it be more relevant at that
point? If we listen to them now, there's an expectation we'll act upon it now.
Board Member Howe — And do we have any sense of when...
Board Member Hoffmann — We can correct such an expectation, couldn't we?
Chairperson Wilcox— We could. But do we really want to present now and then act on
it months down the road, or who knows when down the road...
Board Member Howe — We haven't heard anything more about when they might come
back?
Chairperson Wilcox — I haven't. You haven't heard ...
Mr. Kanter — Not specifically.
Ms. Brock — The developer's attorney told me several weeks ago they thought it would
be sometime in June. But, that's this month...
Mr. Kanter — And there is also the drainage consultant's study going on.
Ms. Brock — Right. There are two other pieces coming along here. One is ... we expect
when the developer comes back that the project will have changed somewhat from that
which was... that which received preliminary approval ... at least the method of handling
stormwater runoff on site will probably be different from what we've been hearing. If
that's the case, that's likely a substantive change, and this Board will need to reassess
the environmental determination that was made before to determine whether that was
an appropriate determination or not. So that's one piece of it. The other piece, as
Jonathan just mentioned is that the Town Board has hired a stormwater consultant to
look at drainage issues in the Northeast and specifically at the stormwater drainage
impacts from Briarwood II on the neighbors and that information will be presented back
to the Town Board, I believe in early July ... is that correct ... I think that was the timing...
Mr. Walker — I know it's not going to be before July, I know that, it's sixty days or
something like that...
PB &5 -07
Pg. 46
Ms. Brock — Anyway, so, again, if new information was discovered there and it's
substantive, again, that would be something that this Board, in its discretion, can
determine would require looking at the environmental determinations made before. So,
I think that it's really up to you. I don't think that if you have the residents coming and
presenting to you information that they say is substantive and new, that you have to
immediately act on it. I think, in light of these other pieces that are coming along, it
would be reasonable for you to take all the project all the new information, and look at
them all at once and it probably they would want you to do that as well, not as
piecemeal. So I don't think you .should necessarily say, no now let's wait until
everything else comes in before we hear them. I mean, it's up to you, whether you just
want to have them submit it, whether you want them to submit it and then come in with
a presentation, that's up to you. But I guess I'm just telling you, you shouldn't really be
predisposed to saying let's just put everything off until everything else falls into place.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let em come in ... My feeling is let them come in and give a
presentation. They ... they're being very vague in here, that's my reading, is they're
being very vague for some reason and...
Board Member Conneman — Couldn't they come in under the first part of our meetings
where it says items not under the agenda, persons to be heard?
Chairperson Wilcox — At any time, they certainly can, but I ... but they only get 5 minutes.
Board Member Conneman — I understand.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think they are looking for more. So...
Mr. Kanter — Well, I was just going to say, scheduling them as a regular agenda item
would be fine. Again, my suggestion is that before you consider doing that, .we get
some material that at least indicates what it is that is going to be presented. .
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. Just like any applicant that comes in and wants to get on
our agenda, whether it's subdivision or site plan, I expect they would have to submit the.
materials
Mr. Kanter — As for June 19th, I don't think that can happen.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, that's the next item ... we may not have a June 19th meeting.
Mr. Kanter — No, that's not where I was going...
Board Member Howe — There are several of us who can't make it.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have three that can't make it.
Mr. Kanter — All right. Then we need a discussion about that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are we done with the letter?
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 47
Board Member Talty — Back to that first.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have another comment about that. And that is, you asked
whether we thought it was a good idea to include the Briarwood people...the
applicant... and I don't see that that's necessary. I mean, if this is listed as an agenda
item, they would presumably find out it was on the agenda as the public would and they
would have an opportunity to come in and sit and listen and they might have an
opportunity, if you are kind, to let them say something after. But that's not necessarily
necessary. But they could be informed just like anybody else, without having,
necessarily, right then, to make statements.
Chairperson Wilcox — And I agree with you, and I think it's important that we would not
necessarily make any decision or determination. In fact, in order to do that, we'd have
to, I, legally, I don't want to think about it. .
Board Member Talty — I do like the idea of getting them closer to ... it's my
understanding, from what I just heard, that they could submit documentation to the
Staff, and then they could go and present at a later time, which is much more conducive
to when the Briarwood II people come back. Because, I would, personally, like to hear it
closer ... I mean, we have about a hundred things on our minds and for them to come in
90 days or 120 days or before the presentation, I'm going to lose some of that.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'd like
whether it ... we were joking. .is
where there is a protected
information, but, I think we sh
their presentation but we also
our time.
to find out what it is ... whether it's drainage related or
there a snaildarter sort of thing going on on the property
species or something ... we really don't have enough
ould give them their ... allow them to come in and make
need to see the materials first and make sure it's worth
Next Meeting
We are down three already for the next meeting, and the answer is, Susan, Rod and
Fred will not be here. So, if Larry's going to be here, we've got four. So, this is a tough
one.., we've got four going in and ... YOU 're here...
Board Member Conneman — Well, I was going to say, I might be a little late for the
meeting, but if it's necessary, I'll cancel something to be here, but that's four and that's
a tough thing...
Chairperson Wilcox — So that's Kevin, it's you, it's Eva, and we don't know, specifically,
about Larry. I assume Larry ... So, it's tough to run a meeting with just four. What's on
the agenda?
Mr. Kanter — A lot, which is why I originally was saying I don't think June 19th would
have worked to have the ... We've got five items right now. Recommendations on the
two local laws that came through the Town Board on the amateur radio facilities and the
definition of yards. Cornell Plantations deer enclosures, the Cornell Utility Department
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 48
Service Yard Improvement spec for final approval, and Montessori School Campus Plan
for Future Improvements, including use of the adjacent Town of Ithaca park parcel.
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh yes, that'll be fun. Now that Susan's been brought up to
speed on that little piece of land...
Mr. Kanter — So, another long agenda, which, I think if there's any question, we maybe
better think about moving... changing it ... not just canceling it, but changing it to a
different date.
Board Member Talty — Because that does put us back to a 3 to 1 vote.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, you have to get 1
this group? Generally we have Tuesdays set aside
sense to move the meeting of Tuesday the 19th to
know how long people will not be available to attend
the calendar...then we have a meeting the following
meeting the day before....
our. Does Tuesdays work best for
for this, 1 St and 3rd, would it make
the 26th? The problem is, I don't
the meeting. And then, just look at
week on the 3rd. 'who scheduled a
Mr. Kanter — That's what always happens, and then, sometimes, we cancel that one, ..or
a different one.
Board Member Talty — How's that agenda firming up?
Mr. Kanter — Well, the July 3rd agenda right now ... it looks like it has the Cornell Sailing
Center coming in right now, I think that's the only one confirmed, well semi -confirmed.
So right now, July 3rd is not too bad, but I can't exactly see doubling up the 19th and the
3rd
Chairperson Wilcox — No neither can I. The sailing center will be ... will take a while.
Board Member Talty — I'm gone July 17th , the second meeting of July.
Chairperson. Wilcox — Okay. You're getting ahead of us. Can we go for June 26th? Do
we have this room on the 4th Tuesday of the month? Quick poll, yes. .. yes, .
Board Member Conneman — I think so, but I didn't bring my calendar.
Mr. Kanter — Susan will not be here...
Chairperson Wilcox — You'd have to try and get a replacement, wouldn't you....you'd
have to check with at least the two people that you have as backups. The other thing
that I am trying to avoid is Jon or Staff sending out email after email trying to coordinate
6 people, 7 people, plus the Town Attorney, trying to decide whether we can move it to
the 26th. You can't commit, because you don't have any idea ... Well, we have 5
already...you may or may not be, but Larry should be available...so, we'd eliminate the
19th and have it on the 26th ... okay... so we've got the room ... we have 5 of the 6
people who are here have confirmed, George will check...
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 49
Mr. Kanter — Now it's possible that we may have an Alternate Planning Board Member
at that point. But we can't predict the future or what the Town Board will...
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. It's possible we may have some... unnamed,
unknown... Alternate Planning Board Member.
Ms. Brock -- We would know a week in advance....
Chairperson Wilcox— I know it's on the agenda but...
Ms. Brock — But maybe you could wait ... but the public notice...no...it won't work.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So....we are going to move it from the 19th to the 26th
contingent on Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town finding suitable, competent
replacement.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business?
Board Member Conneman — Yes. What about the balloon? Is that scheduled?
Mr. Kanter — I have not heard a word.
Board Member Conneman — Okay. What about this letter that said that Jonathan was
going to put together a letter to President Skorton on the Campus Gateway?
Mr. Kanter — I told you it was not going to be soon.
Board Member Conneman — Okay. I just want to be sure. But it is coming?
Mr. Kanter — It will come eventually. I'm telling you, I just don't have time to do it.
Board Member Conneman — I know you don't, it's just that Cornell ... I was sorry that I
wasn't at the meeting because Shirley always says that 91 going to do that" and I...
will bring the subject up again.
Board Member Hoffmann — One more thing. I thought that this letter we got from
George Franz about that old railroad line across Ithaca College property was very
interesting and it reminded me that he had talked about that several years ago, and I
hope that they look carefully at that and preserve....
Mr. Kanter — Actually, I just was going to mention that ... it's covered generically in the
scope. We got copies of that letter which came after the scope was approved ... we got
copies of it to the applicant so they understand it is something that they should look at.
In fact, they were familiar with the issue.
Board Member Talty — I have a comment... has anybody noticed that traffic downtown is
worse than ever? It used to bad ... but it was bad twice a day, maybe three times ... but
PB 6 -5 -07
Pg. 50
you can get whacked at 3:00 in the afternoon.. You're coming down north to south on
13...it can get backed up almost to the high school.
Board Member Conneman — My theory is that when they eliminated the octopus, they
just redistributed ... that's all we did....
Mr. Kanter — Not very well.....
Chairperson Wilcox — We just created more stacking room for cars....
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned, upon motion, at 10:23 p.m.
Respect#glly submitted by,
Paulette Neilsen
Deputy Town Clerk
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Trinity Lutheran.Church Playground, 149 Honness Lane,
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church located at 149 Honness Lane,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves
the construction of a new +/- 4,000 square foot playground area located to the south of the church
building and existing play area. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Donald A. Rottmann,
Agent.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Biggs Building Demolition Fill Site, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modification to the Biggs Building demolition project located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, Planned Development Zone No.3
and Low Density Residential Zone. The modification includes disposing of +/- 2,000 cubic yards
of hard fill materials on site in a new location near the facility power plant. The fill material will
be covered and seeded. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels,
Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent.
7:30 P.M Presentation and discussion regarding the Cornell Transportation - focused Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (T- GEIS). Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Presenter.
8:15 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cayuga Cliffs Development located between
Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) and Taughannock Boulevard (NYS Route 89), Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -39, 26 -4 -37, and 26 -4 -38, Low Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves the
construction of 106 town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two
entrances proposed from Trumansburg Road. The development would be concentrated on the west
side of the property closer to Trumansburg Road with the eastern portion of the property remaining
undeveloped. Holochuck Homes, LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent.
8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
9. Approval of Minutes: May 1, 2007 and May 15, 2007.
10. Other Business:
11, Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, June 5. 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, June 5, 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 and Special Permit for the proposed
playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church located at 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 58 -2 -4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction .
of a new /- 4,000 square foot playground area located to the south of the church building and
existing play area. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Donald A. Rottmann, Agent.
7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the
Biggs Building demolition project located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.24, 24 -3 -2.21, and 24- 3 -2.3, Planned Development Zone No.3 and Low
Density Residential Zone. The modification includes disposing of +/- 2,000 cubic yards of hard
fill materials on site in a new location near the facility power plant. The fill material will be
covered and seeded. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca; Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels,
Trowbridge.& Wolf, LLP, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter 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 hearing.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Friday, May 25, 2007
Publish: Wednesday, May 30, 2007
TOWN:OF ITHACA``
PLANNING'BOARD •-
-t.• ; .NOTICE OF .
PUBLIC- HEARING
-T�i - da-
k_.-' :June 3,. 2007
1, {
B.. direcii66:of the Chair
Person. of " -the Planninggi
Board, NOTICE IS HERE;
BY' GIVEN- 3that-Pubhc'.
Hearings will be held by:,
the Planning Board, of 'the'•
iownof':Ithaca; on +'Tue "s =r
day;f June35;.:2007; at
215 North _Tioga eet;,
Ithaca,, N Y.,,at the follow -,,
ing times' 9 on,the:fol -�
JIIG ,YI1. 1!
661 - ^e mit or =the pro;
ed: plciygrourid -at the
ityalutheran :Church " -lo-,'
:d ":; t;,• 149: Honriess
e Town:: of '.Ithaca -Tax,-
:el ='No - 58' -2-4 Medi-
Densityr Residential,.
e,',•j,,The,.proposal:,, in-
es th'e`•construction of a`.''
r +/ =4;000: , square',
playground' area lo-.'
ad_'to the. south ,of -the
rch.building and °exist
play_area,. •`Trinity'Lu`
IA pp " carit - ;'Donald „';A
R ot tmann, Aggent.
7:151 P:M. 'COnsidera
;tion of'Preliminary and Fi-
; nal Site_Plan`Appro'val for
volition project located at
`301 Harris B. Dates Drive
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 24 =3 -2.241 24 -3-
1.2:21, and 243- 2.3,'•Plan_ ,
I'ned:_, Development : Zone'.
,,No.3 and Low_Density, Res -:
!i2e6tial Zone. 'The modifi-
i;cation •<includes- disposing
} ;`2,000,cubic yyards
Hof =`hard fill' materials'' on
the • foci lity.:power?p lant.° •
;The `fill,, material 'wilI -,be
i- covered' and seeded.
,Ithaca Chvn_err /Appl cant}'
Kimberly -Michaels,:
rowbridge'& ,Wolf, i LLP,
,' ;Agent. -
•`.Said Planning Board will
at said• time and •. ".said
place hear all persons in .
support of such matter or
objections, thereto. Per -' .
sons, may appear by agent
i or in person.--z Individuals
j'with visual; impairments,,
j,
hearing impairments> or
other special needs,: will
j_be r. provided- with assis
stance =as- necessary ,upon
:request. f Persons Ir esinn g
assistance must make suc .
a request not less than 48
e public time of
hearing.
h
Jonathan.Kanter, AICF
Director of Planning
` 273 =.1747.
Dated: Friday,
,May 25, 2007 -
*ublrsh: Wednesday,.
May 30, 2007.
Wednesday, May 30,
2007 1 THE
ITHACA JOURNAL
TOWN:OF ITHACA``
PLANNING'BOARD •-
-t.• ; .NOTICE OF .
PUBLIC- HEARING
-T�i - da-
k_.-' :June 3,. 2007
1, {
B.. direcii66:of the Chair
Person. of " -the Planninggi
Board, NOTICE IS HERE;
BY' GIVEN- 3that-Pubhc'.
Hearings will be held by:,
the Planning Board, of 'the'•
iownof':Ithaca; on +'Tue "s =r
day;f June35;.:2007; at
215 North _Tioga eet;,
Ithaca,, N Y.,,at the follow -,,
ing times' 9 on,the:fol -�
JIIG ,YI1. 1!
661 - ^e mit or =the pro;
ed: plciygrourid -at the
ityalutheran :Church " -lo-,'
:d ":; t;,• 149: Honriess
e Town:: of '.Ithaca -Tax,-
:el ='No - 58' -2-4 Medi-
Densityr Residential,.
e,',•j,,The,.proposal:,, in-
es th'e`•construction of a`.''
r +/ =4;000: , square',
playground' area lo-.'
ad_'to the. south ,of -the
rch.building and °exist
play_area,. •`Trinity'Lu`
IA pp " carit - ;'Donald „';A
R ot tmann, Aggent.
7:151 P:M. 'COnsidera
;tion of'Preliminary and Fi-
; nal Site_Plan`Appro'val for
volition project located at
`301 Harris B. Dates Drive
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 24 =3 -2.241 24 -3-
1.2:21, and 243- 2.3,'•Plan_ ,
I'ned:_, Development : Zone'.
,,No.3 and Low_Density, Res -:
!i2e6tial Zone. 'The modifi-
i;cation •<includes- disposing
} ;`2,000,cubic yyards
Hof =`hard fill' materials'' on
the • foci lity.:power?p lant.° •
;The `fill,, material 'wilI -,be
i- covered' and seeded.
,Ithaca Chvn_err /Appl cant}'
Kimberly -Michaels,:
rowbridge'& ,Wolf, i LLP,
,' ;Agent. -
•`.Said Planning Board will
at said• time and •. ".said
place hear all persons in .
support of such matter or
objections, thereto. Per -' .
sons, may appear by agent
i or in person.--z Individuals
j'with visual; impairments,,
j,
hearing impairments> or
other special needs,: will
j_be r. provided- with assis
stance =as- necessary ,upon
:request. f Persons Ir esinn g
assistance must make suc .
a request not less than 48
e public time of
hearing.
h
Jonathan.Kanter, AICF
Director of Planning
` 273 =.1747.
Dated: Friday,
,May 25, 2007 -
*ublrsh: Wednesday,.
May 30, 2007.
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
June 5, 2007
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN4N
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
Name
Cflat'V'
( � U
r W
'�
'J�7FX11?7�7 CC_ f e
I l ( Lo e O-D- -
,j 8 i
ItC
Addr sss
1�
�s e4
IS Z Gcl1Cf r
/s z l<
rce,
Ll ✓ )
�711 -lTcl
2 IdI( LlrNS
r
i (/�.Ysz;
7 Qi
ti%. %gy)
7ame
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
r.21c,
June 5, 2007
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SI
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
GN4N
FA
X tk l
4 i
G ? .
KFE
Address
P.4. f7Di
a°l I Cc�Ae 3QC
si .
2r L 66A(�t-r, b /U ( K/y l �teSZ,
/9 ?SZ)
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 Tiog_ a Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday June 5 2007 commencing at
7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
May 25, 2007
May 30, 2007
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30`h day of May 2007.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 201