Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-06-26FILE) DATE I REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 269 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred, Wilcox Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe, Larry Thayer, Kevin Talty and Susan Riha. Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Town Engineer; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Chris Balestra, Planner; Guy Krogh, Attorney; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS PRESENT: Virginia Tesi, Barney, Grossman, Dubow and Marcus, 119 E. Seneca St. Don Rakow, Cornell Plantations Hal Martin, 92 Collins Road, Freeville Tim Peer, Humphreys Service Building, Cornell Ed Wilson, Humphreys Service Building, Cornell Kris Merschrod, 123 Warren Road Kim Michaels, Trowbridge and Wolf Architects Lisa Smith, Montessori, Ithaca Andrea Riddle, Montessori, Ithaca CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 18, 2007 and June 20, 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 June 20, 2007, Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox — Couple of items before we get going ... I want to introduce Guy Krogh, from Thaler and Thaler. He is the Attorney for the Town this evening. And then we want to welcome Hollis Erb as our Alternate Planning Board member. I want to just take a couple of minutes and review procedures with regard to alternates. Make sure that we all understand what's going on because this Board discussed the local law ... a recommendation to the Town Board with regard to the PB 6-26 -07 Pg. 2 local law which created or authorized the appointment of alternates. There is text in here with regard to my responsibilities on how to appoint an alternate should one be necessary. We only have one, so that's not relevant. The relevant part of this is the following: "the chairperson of the Planning Board shall designate an alternate. member to substitute for a regular member"... shall, by the way .... shall designate an alternate for a regular member, ."in the event that a regular member is unwilling or unable to vote because of a conflict or interest, recusal, absence., abstention, or any other reason, and an alternate member is present at the meeting when the designation takes place." So if, for example, you decide to abstain in a vote, the alternate would step in should the alternate be here. That is not what this Board recommended but that is what the Town Board passed. Hollis, in the resolution that was passed authorizing Town Board members may attend meetings, she may participate in the discussion, she may only vote if she is so designated to replace a member of the Board either for the evening or for a particular agenda item where a member has recused themselves or is unable to vote for some other reason. So we welcome her, and she is also bound by other requirements, such as the training requirement, that the rest of us are bound by. So, that takes care of that business. Chairperson Wilcox announces the first item on the agenda at 7:06 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:08 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the Cornell University Utilities Department Service Yard located between Maple Avenue and Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63. -1 -5, 63. =1 -8.1, and 63.- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone and Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes modifying an existing oil tank, installation of a new fuel off - loading station and fuel oil piping, expansion and reconfiguration of the existing Cornell Maple Avenue substation, replacement of the existing open coal conveyor with a new covered coal conveyor, and reconfiguration and improvement of the existing roadways within the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants James R. Adams, Agent. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 3 Tim Peer and Ed Wilson, Humphreys Service Building, Cornell Mr. Peer — When we were here last for preliminary site plan approval for this project, the resolution came out with a number of conditions that need to be satisfied. I count them as 9 conditions. So I thought I would quickly go through those conditions and quickly address the conditions I saw in the draft final site plan resolution. Looking at the preliminary site plan resolution, essentially, the first 3 conditions were a mix of some additional requirements for sealing of documents and some additional detail and we fully complied with those 3 conditions.. The fourth one required submission of a drainage analysis, stormwater management plan to the Director of Engineering, which we have submitted to Dan Walker and when we submit the final plan to the State of New York for approval, we will of course, give a copy to the Town and we will continue to copy the Town on all of our inspection reports as the project proceeds like we normally do. Both condition a and f were conditions that required more details around erosion and sediment control and site landscaping... the limited site landscaping there, and we have complied with both of.those. The seventh condition was a requirement of a stormwater management O & M agreement which has c as the second condition, condition b, on the draft resolution for final site plan approval so, we will comply with that, as required by the Town Engineer and we have had some preliminary discussions with him to satisfy his needs. Let's see now...the eighth condition, which has been the draft resolution for final site plan approval, deals details having to do with the substation improvements, didn't have enough design done at the time to do that, that now and when we have that done, we will submit 1 Staff. transferred to condition a) of with additional elevation and and we weren't prepared, we so we are actively working on hat for review by the Planning The ninth condition, which has become condition c) on the draft final site plan approval, is the submission for record of application for and approved status of all necessary permits from county, state, federal agencies or documentation from those agencies that no such permits are required prior to the issuance of a building permit and ... without reading the whole thing back to you ... in short, we feel.that the LEAF that we submitted for this project details all the necessary approvals that were required, or in this case, were not required on this project and we would respectfully request that that condition be removed. There's certain context of the language you could read there that we feel that it would be very difficult if, in some cases, impossible, to comply, depending on how it were interpreted. Chairperson Wilcox — For example? PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 4 Mr. Peer — For example, if we were to write to the Corp ... it's somewhat open ended. So it doesn't give any definition as to who we might apply to, so, say for instance we go to the Corp of Engineers' and request a letter from them stating that we don't require any permits ... we think that, after talking with some of our consultants, that there's a decent chance that 1) they won't reply to us at all because they are so busy, or if they did reply, they would just reply in a manner that said read the law, read the regulations, interpret it, and if it applies, submit an application. So that's.. Chairperson Wilcox — Essentially this ensure that the Town has, on record, necessary steps to get the applications, a record of that, and it's pretty standard what the objection is ... I see Shirley gel will let Shirley address it. language is in many of our resolutions to the fact that the applicant has taken the the permits required and that the Town has language and we have used it ... I'm not sure ting up out of the corner of my eye ... so we Shirley Egan, University Counsel Office My real objection is to the middle clause in this sentence, the one that says "or documentation from the applicable. agencies, that no such permits are required, prior to issuance of a building permit." 1 find this kind of circular because if no permits are required from an agency then it's really not an applicable agency. It seems awfully open ended to me and very susceptible of not being interpreted in only one way. To us, we have disclosed all the applicable things we will need to get. They were listed on the LEAF. We have a letter from Cornell's Environmental Compliance Office that was submitted under date of May 15th saying what they all were, and on principle, just have to be against conditions that might be impossible to comply with and over which we have no control. And yet this would prevent a certificate of occupancy from being issued. We have a heating plant that we've got to have up and running again by heating season. As Tim said, we checked with our consultants who said if they answer your letter at all, they're not necessarily going to tell you you are or aren't liable to do something. It seems to me this is Cornell's lookout to make sure that we have complied with the law and I would remind you also, that this is. a pretty straightforward upgrade and replacement of existing types of equipment in existing systems. They are already permitted. They've been there for a really long time. These are very minor tweaks in these pieces of equipment for ongoing systems that are already fully permitted. We don't think there are any surprises out there that we haven't thought of in doing this and to require us, somehow, to go out and find conceivable applicable agencies and ask them to write us letters that say no you. don't need permits, seems so open ended, that I really question the value of it. I think if you took out that middle clause, the part starting with "or documentation from" and end it with the comma, prior to issuance of a building permit, that will certainly enable us to get the building permit. We do need to do this project this summer so that we can get it done by heating season. I remind you again, this is a very straightforward set of things that we are doing to existing systems. Then I think it takes out the doubt and ambiguity from it. It still gives the Town the very things that you were mentioning the Town wants and why it's on a checklist, so that you do PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 5 have the documentation about this. About what we have gotten and we're very careful about that and after all, we're the one's that are going to suffer if we didn't do something right. So, that's my objection. I think the Town's purposes will be well served just by omitting that middle clause in there and that's what we respectfully request. Mr. Krogh — My experience is that there are very few agencies that will give you a no- jurisdiction letter. DEC, Corp of Engineers, and FCC will, .but almost no one else will. It will just get lost in the bureaucratic mess, so, I have no objection, legally, if it's I to "submit proof that all applicable permits have been obtained ", that would be required under the building code anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — Ten or fifteen minutes before the evening, before we began this evening, we received a copy of a letter from Tom .Parsons, who is the Assistant Chief and Fire Marshall for the City of Ithaca Fire Department which questions whether there is sufficient water supply for the appropriate fire protection for the additions and changes to the Cornell Heating Plant and associated facilities. Any comments gentlemen? Mr. Peer — Other than we are going to continue to work with Tom and ensure that his needs are satisfied. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Parsons, does suggest or offers the opinion that he would not have a problem with this Board approving the proposal conditioned upon the Cornell University providing evidence of sufficient or adequate water supply. Any issues ladies and gentlemen? Jon, did you want to make a comment on the removal of that one phrase from the condition. Mr. Kanter — I think it's a matter of practice and how the Board wants to approach it. Guy probably has his opinion on it... Chairperson Wilcox — And he voiced it, and we got it. Mr. Kanter — I don't see any problem of taking out that middle wording. It is basically just saying submit any applications that you need to submit, before you get your building permit and before you get your final CO, show us evidence that you've gotten whatever other approvals are needed. Chairperson Wilcox — So you think that the Planning Department, the Town is still... Mr. Kanter —We've never had a problem with this before and, as Shirley mentioned, it is open to some interpretation and loosely interpreted, but, Staff has never used that as a reason to deny any permits or CO's. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 6 Chairperson Wilcox — Questions Ladies or Gentlemen? Board Member Hoffmann — There was one thing on the drawing which I didn't know what it was. It appears on, the first time, on drawing 6113- CSYk2104 and it's a structure to the east of the future service building, I believe it's called. It's says SWGR building and ... what it's called on the drawing is PIG receiver station ... I am sure P I G stands for something other than a little animal, but could you explain what that building is, because that's the first time I have seen it. Mr. Peer — PIG is a standard term, industry term, for a foam pipeline cleaner. It's just a foam, it looks sort of.like a foam bullet that you push through a pipeline with air pressure or water pressure to clean it out. Board Member Hoffmann — So it's a foam pipeline receiver station. ..but it looks like there is going to be a building. There's an outline, a rectangular outline... Mr. Peer — That is not a building, that is actually just setting aside space for future needs. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you please explain a little bit more than that. Mr. Peer — The pipeline PIG receiver is an area where the pipeline will actually come out of the ground and above grade with a small valving arrangement and then it has, on the end, there will be a blind ended section of pipe with a blind phalange on it that you can open to insert the pipeline PIG or take the pipeline PIG out. So, it's a surface area requirement of space that you need for maintenance clearance to perform that operation. Board Member Hoffmann — Are we not talking about the pipeline for. the gas? The future gaslines? Or are we talking about something having to do with this project. Mr. Peer — That is not to do with this project. That's just to give you the context of the other projects that we talked about when we did sketch plan.review, so that you can see the whole picture. Board Member Hoffmann — Well it still doesn't really show the whole picture because that doesn't show where those lines come in. Mr. Peer — No, but, we are going to show you those. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but what you are doing is you are showing us part of the future stuff but not all of it and I just got confused about what we are talking about here. Is there anything else we should know about this? At this point? PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 7 Mr. Peer — No, we think we have shown you everything. We do not show the future buried utilities on there since they haven't been fully engineered yet. They're not ready to start showing on plans. Board Member Riha — I had a question on the stormwater pollution prevention plan, and either you or maybe Creig can address it. I am just wondering what was new ... in the sketches you have for 6613CSY12105 ... a service yard stormwater management system ... is.that already in place? Or is that a new system you are going to put into place? Mr. Peer - That will be a new system. Board Member Riha — So is this an upgrade in the stormwater.:. Mr. Peer — Yes it is. Board Member Riha — And then that fits in with ... the location of that is in the previous diagram, I gather... Mr. Peer — Yes, that is....with the stormwater drainage system that we are installing with this project, that is the collection and retention system associated with that. Board Member Riha — So, Creig, you've seen ... there is an assessment of that... was just interested in that because it was a pretty intense system. Mr. Hebdon - Yes we went through and took a look at what the system was and what the numbers they had coming in and the amount and they all fit in together. Board Member Riha — So is this ... it's pretty intense for what we see for a development, but is part of the idea around that if there were any oil leakage or spills coming in with the trucks, that that would be caught up in this... Mr. Peer — They actually do help with that as a secondary effect but .the primary purpose of using a system like that is if you don't have a location for a surface containment pond, you would put something like that in a parking lot or give you, if you have space issues... Board Member Riha — So it works like an extensive drywell, where... Mr.Hebdon — More or less. You see it more in more urban or industrialized zones where there isn't a lot of room that has underground piece to it. They have the first sort of cinerarium in the front that takes out most of the sediment and stuff and then it goes into, basically, underground French drain type area, with a little more structure to it and it stores the water there and has a smaller orifice. So it basically becomes a retention pond. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 8 Board Member Riha — So there was some question about, and presumably that's going .to be discussed, about the maintenance and that Cornell would then be obligated to clean... Mr. Hebdon — Yes, we have a standard maintenance operation agreement and there's been some discussion with us and Cornell that they have so many of them, instead of having 25 different operation and maintenance agreements, we're going to try and negotiate doing one and just adding projects as they come on. So that's why it isn't right ... we have a standard one that we could have had ready for tonight, but there's been a lot of discussion about the fact that Cornell has so many of this stuff going on, rather than trying to have 25 separate little pieces of paper that we are trying to keep track of, we're going to try to do one for the whole University and then add and subtract as we need as things come online and things go off line. So that's why that isn't ready tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — I would point out that the resolution as drafted indicates that that maintenance agreement must be in place before issuance of a building permit. Mr. Hebdon — Right, and we are diligently working on it. Board Member Hoffmann — I had one more thing I wanted to ask. There are several drawings, and actually, in the resolution too, there's mention in the fourth whereas, toward the end, there's mention of plans entitled #6 fuel oil tank notification plan #6 and so ... I know that the existing plant is built for #6 oil, but it's being transformed into a tank to hold #2 oil. So, I was just wondering, should it say #6 or #2 there? Chairperson Wilcox — Does it matter? That's what the drawings are labeled. Board Member Hoffmann — That's true. The drawings are labeled that, but... Mr. Hebdon — I think it is referring to modifications of the #6 oil tank, is why you would call it that because that's what's existing right now and they are modifying it. So a drawing saying modifications to that tank ... the only other thing you could do is say "modifications to #6 fuel tank to make #2 fuel tank" or something. But if you have a contractor coming in online, you're going to be looking for the #6 fuel tank that you're going to be modifying. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but the title of the drawing, the first one, is called 2D02 at the end ... the title there, actually, is #6 fuel oil tank, new bottom and details. It doesn't say modifications. Chairperson Wilcox — And that's the way it is referred to in the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann —Actually, in the resolution... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking at the fourth... PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 9 Board Member Hoffmann — You're right ... the others say modification ... I just want to be sure that we're not getting the numbers wrong. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board at 7:28p.m. There was no one. Chairperson Wilcox closes the Public Hearing at 7:28p.m. and brings the matter back to the Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Would somebody like to move the motion as drafted..:so moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty. Mr. Krogh — One change and one addition. The recommended change would be in subparagraph c, to delete the comma after the word agency and take out the language "or documentation from the applicable agency that no such permits are required" and leave the balance as written. Chairperson Wilcox — Gentlemen, is that acceptable? [yes] Mr. Krogh — And the second would be to add a condition d, which would read "the submission of documentation, acceptable to the Town's Director of Engineering, that an adequate and functional water supply exists for domestic, utility, and fire protection needs for existing and proposed facilities is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. Ms. Egan — If we do have to do something, maybe bring a new water line in or something like that, it seems like as long as it were in by the time of issuance of certificate of occupancy, that should be sufficient safeguard, would still allow us to get underway during the construction season, do these things simultaneously. Chairperson Wilcox — My initial reaction is, it would be nice to have that issue fully vetted and understood upfront, before they get a building permit rather than potentially near end when they get a certificate of occupancy. I hear what Shirley is saying, but, if this Board feels that we are protected by having that documentation provided before occupancy is allowed, then that's fine with me. I don't' see it strong either way. Mr. Krogh — I actually considered whether you would reference CO or certificate of compliance or building permit and opted for building permit because as you're constructing something, in the event there's a fire at the construction site, you would want the water, and I don't know if there is adequate water or whether, if there is adequate water to combat a fire during construction phase and prior to completion, whether they could seek an amendment or something, but ... I made a conscious choice to choose building permit but I would leave it to you as to what you find acceptable. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 10 Chairperson Wilcox — Good point. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I agree, but actually, toward the end of the letter from Mr. Parsons, it says "to . have the approval be contingent on sufficient information being provided by Cornell University to the Town of Ithaca, but an adequate water supply will exist on the completion of the project for domestic, utility and fire protection needs, for both existing and proposed facilities." So it sounds like the fire department will be all right to have it at the completion of the project, which would be certificate of occupancy time. Otherwise, I would tend to agree with you, that if there's a fire, one wants to be able to have enough water to fight it, no matter when, and especially during construction because there might be opportunities when a fire could start, when it wouldn't normally, during operating procedures. Mr. Hebdon — Significant water is mainly becausE where the height is and the stuff going on with significant, as far as I know, I think there's water water would still be available. The big question is, supply enough head on the sprinkler systems. I questioning, of the sprinkler system because the sprinkler, system. There is there now to fight fires. So that can they provide enough water to think that's what 'Tom Parsons is Chairperson Wilcox — And that has to do with water pressure, height requirements,.. Mr. Hebdon — Right, with the new sprinkler on the conveyor belt. Chairperson Wilcox — As the Acting Town Engineer this evening, you're comfortable with having this resolved before certificate of occupancy? Mr. Hebdon — It ... part of it is, it isn't our water system. It's all Cornell's water system, so it will be all internal to them, so, yeah, I wouldn't going with certificate of occupancy. Mr. Kanter — The only issue you may find yourself with is that if there's something I igger than is known at this point, and of course, as Cornell has mentioned, the heating plant has to go on at a certain time, you may find sprinkler variances being pursued or something of that nature and we like to try to avoid those situations where we can, but... Chairperson Wilcox — Hence the requirement up front, before the building permits are issued rather than at the end when the certificate of occupancy... Mr. Kanter — Usually this would be something that we would want to see before final site plan approval even, but, I think, given, as Creig mentioned, given the nature of the water system there and the nature of the function of the heating plant, to make sure it is able to get back on line in time ... if they can't get a final CO they will be getting a lot of temporary CO's. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 1 1 Chairperson Wilcox – what's our pleasure ... I am just trying to get a consensus here...CO....okay, I assume you have nothing to say? Ms. Egan – Nothing at all. Chairperson Wilcox – Okay, so we will change that to certificate of occupancy. Gentlemen, that's acceptable? Okay. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 057 Final Site Plan Approval Cornell Utilities Dept. Service Yard Upgrades Dryden Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 63.-1 -5, 63.-1 -8919 63. -1 -8.2 Planning Board, June 26, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty, WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Cornell Utilities Department Service Yard Upgrades located on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 63.- 1 =5, 61- 1 -8.1, and 61- 1 -82, Low Density Residential Zone and Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes modifying the existing oil tank installation of an oil off - loading station and fuel oil piping, the addition of a third transformer, replacement of two existing transformers with new transformers, replacement of the existing open coal belt conveyor with a covered coal conveyor and re- configuration and improvement of existing roadways within the site. Cornell University, AIA, Owner /Applicant; James R. Adams, Agent; and 2. The proposed actions, which include Final Site Plan approval by the Planning Board, are Type II actions, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, for which no environmental review is required; and 3. The Planning Board, at a meeting on May 1, 2007, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit with conditions for the proposal, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 26, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, site plan drawings, entitled, "Site Plan— Existing Site Conditions," "Proposed Modifications," "Proposed Modifications with PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 12 Contour Lines," "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements Manhole and Catch basin Locations," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements Stormwater Management System," "New Coal Pile Access Road Plan," "Manhole and Catch basin — Typical Sections," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements— Sections," (sheets 1 & 2) "Fuel Layout Overall Plan," "No.2 Fuel Oil .Tank Piping Sections and Details," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements —Fuel Unloading Pad," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements Fuel Unloading Pad —FDN. Sections," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements Electrical Equipment Layout," "Cornell Service Yard Improvements Electrical Protection Details," prepared by GIE Niagara Engineering Inc.,. PC, dated May 17, 2007; and plans entitled " #6 Fuel Oil Tank Modification Plan," " #6 Fuel Oil Tank New Bottom and Details," " #6 Fuel Oil Tank Leak Detection Details," "Fuel Oil Storage Modifications Civil Grading and Drainage Details and Sections," prepared by U.N.I Engineering Incorporated, dated May 18, 2007, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning. Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell Utilities Department Service Yard Upgrades, as shown on the drawings and details in the site plan submission, including site plan drawings listed in #4 above, along with other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of drawings and elevations showing details of the proposed third transformer "Maple Avenue Substation T3 Addition and accompanying It new control building is as shown in the drawing entitled "Proposed Modifications" submitted to the Town on May 17, 2007, for review and approval of the Directors of Engineering and Planning, prior to the issuance of a separate building permit for the construction of the aforementioned structures; and b. Submission of a Stormwater, Maintenance, Operation, and Reporting Agreement as recommended by the Director of Engineering, prior to the issuance of any building permits; and c. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, prior to issuance of a building permit, and submission of documentation from the applicable agencies of all necessary approvals from county, state and /or federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; and d. The submission of documentation, acceptable to the Town's Director of Engineering, that an adequate and functional water supply exits for domestic, utility, and fire protection needs for existing and proposed PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 13 facilities is required prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: None The motion is passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:35p.m. SEQR Determination Cornell Plantations Deer Fences, Forest Home Dr. and Caldwell Rd. Don Rakow, Director, Cornell Plantation, 422 Chestnut St. will make a short presentation. The purpose for this application is to permit Plantations to erect deer fencing in 3 critical area. One of these is the Mundy Wildflower Garden, our primary site for demonstrating and educating on native wildflowers for, primarily, youth groups and adults. Second area is the new and still under construction, Plantations plant production facilities where we will be growing both in greenhouses and in outdoor beds, all of the plants that will then go into the horticultural collections and in many cases, into our natural areas. The third site is really meant as a demonstration area. It's in the wooded area across Fall Creek and the purpose is to demonstrate to researchers and students the potential for re- vegetation and re- growth of plants when areas are not being browsed by deer. All of the fencing would be of an identical material. It's 8 foot in height. It's a high tensile, galvanized aluminum material. It's a very thin wire and I believe that there is an illustration of it in the packet. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions. Board Member Howe — I have a question about the research spots. How much of an area will they cover? Mr. Rakow — Each research plot will be 30 feet in diameter and there will be 3 of them. So it is felt that they are large enough that they would allow for some robust investigation of re- vegetation. Board Member Howe — I know this has been under discussion for a long time and as a resident of Forest Home, I've been involved in some of those discussions, but I PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 14 have sort of lost touch with all of this,. Can you just talk about why there needs to be a complete one around Mundy Wildflower Garden. Mr. Rakow — The area around Mundy Wildflower Garden is the area in which we plant and display and use for education the native, wildflowers of New York and it is an area of such intense deer pressure, that any areas not included in the enclosure would be subject to continuing and intensive browsing, and, frankly, it really would not be worth continuing to manage such areas. Board Member Conneman — How much of an area is in the Mundy preserve? Mr. Rakow — It would be a little bit under 2 acres and it would be about 990 linear feet of fencing. Board Member Conneman — What about #2 ... what's the acreage there? Mr. Rakow — I'm sorry, I just mis- spoke, George, if I could correct myself. In Mundy, it would be enclosing a little bit under 5 acres and it would be 1,770 linear feet of fencing, and then in area 2, it would be enclosing a bit under 2 acres.and that would be the 990 linear feet of fencing. Board Member Conneman — So the total of what you would enclose would be about 7 acres... Mr. Rakow — Seven acres plus those 3 small demonstration plots, that's correct. Board Member Conneman — Do you have any plans to do something about the deer? I know people in Forest home are concerned; people in the Town of Ithaca are concerned. Mr. Rakow — Cornell will very shortly be announcing a multi- approach deer management strategy for Cornell owned lands. I'm not at liberty to announce that yet, in that I don't want to be trumping the vice president, but it's my understanding that there will be a press release going out about that within a few weeks. Before that plan actually is announced to the public, there will be a joint meeting held with residents of Forest Home and the University Neighborhood Council. Board Member Conneman — The deer problem goes beyond Forest Home, that's my concern. I filled out the deer survey that Cornell sent out and the summary of that is it's absolutely useless. I mean that was propaganda, if I can say it that way. I just wanted to... Board Member Riha — I agree George. Board Member Conneman — I don't see why the vice president couldn't have issued this before if he knows what's going to happen. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 15 Mr. Rakow — As you and I discussed in casual conversation, George, I had nothing to do with that deer survey , so I really can't comment on that. Board Member Conneman — I know you didn't. But it was done by the Natural Resources Department. . Board Member Howe — Would you see this as being the limit of what you would need to fence? Mr. Rakow — Let me answer that question this way Rod ... I would see this as being the limit of what we will fence, but not of what we need to fence. Board Member Riha — Because how do you control the deer in the major Plantation garden? Mr. Rakow — We make very extensive use of deer repellant, Susan, and we put individual enclosures around each young tree and shrub which is laborious and intensive.. has some real disadvantages both aesthetically and from a maintenance standpoint, but,..it's a reality that we really have to continue. Board Member Thayer — You have found that you need an 8 foot fence? I have a 6 foot that seems to do it very nicely but, maybe if they get an open spot they can jump its Mr. Rakow — Actually a very similar question, Larry, came up when we presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I used the analogy of an insurance policy. You can get an insurance policy that will pay. you $5,000 or you can get one that will pay you $1,000,000. It is true that a 6 foot fence will keep deer out in most cases. However, there have been many, many examples of deer being able to clear a 6 foot fence. There are very few examples of a. deer clearing an 8 foot fence. Alternate Member Erb — What additional animals are you intentionally excluding with this fencing? I didn't have a sense of how big the openings where, and I can certainly imagine at the beds that are at the arboretum, that you would want to exclude almost everything, but, I know that there ... I frequently see raccoon tracks in the Mundy Garden, and in a project to demonstrate what limiting deer browse will do, doesn't seem to me to make sense if you're also limiting almost everything else except squirrels and chipmunks. Mr. Rakow — That's actually a very good question and the mesh is large enough that it will allow in most small browsing animals, so, woodchucks, raccoons, voles, mice ... So really, primarily, what it would exclude are deer or larger mammals like coyotes, which are present, to a certain degree, in that area. Board Member Conneman — I will wait for the seems to me Cornell, having an animal science c department and lots of other possibilities ... I hope for deer in the Plantations and Cornell land, but you now, you guys are new to terminal pruning in the tree, we need some terminal pruning of the under control, it seems to me. PB 6 -26 -Q7 Pg. 16 vice presidents statement, but it tepartment and a natural resource there is some leadership, not only all over New York State. I mean, the arboretum, that means cutting deer if we are going to bring this Mr. Rakow — Well, certainly George, deer are one of the most controversial subjects in this region now and it seems that whenever the question comes up, it does raise very strong feelings. I am hoping that the approach that Cornell presents is both successful and in fact, serves as a model for the larger Tompkins County area and then beyond that, for New York State. Board Member Riha — But you still feel that you need the fence for youre area? Mr. Rakow — One of the strategies that will be announced in this Cornell management approach is fencing of discreet areas. Another area for which application will be made for fencing is the Dillman Hill Student Organic Farm, Board Member Talty — For every action there is a reaction. To the best of your knowledge, do you know if Cornell has done an impact, negative or positive, on the displacement of these animals throughout the area that we're talking about here. Mr. Rakow — As people like Rod are well aware, being a Forest Home resident, Cornell Plantations was originally proposing erecting a fence around the 150 acre arboretum. One of the concerns that was expressed by Forest Home residents is that that would .cause a significant displacement of animals. Our feeling is that in this case, enclosing a total of 9 acres and 2 discontinuous areas should have pretty minimal effect on displacement of animals. Board Member Hoffmann — I can certainly see why you want to do this for a number of reasons, to protect your plants, but also to study what happens when deer browse in an unlimited way and I think it would be very interesting to find out. Comparing areas where they are not allowed to browse with ones where they can. But, I am wondering if that's the reason you are having mesh large enough so that it only excludes the large animals like deer and coyote, instead of trying to exclude rabbits and other rodents as well. Mr. Rakow — Well, rabbits and woodchucks are certainly also problems and I didn't mean to imply that they aren't, but they are also native species and what we are trying to do is minimize the impact on the natural movements of native mammals. So, by having the larger mesh, which is one that has also been used at many other public gardens, we are excluding the deer, which are by far the most serious_ problem, but trying to minimize the impact on other animals. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 17 Board Member Conneman — How large is the mesh? Alternate Member Erb — It depends on which of these two pictures you are looking at to know what additional animals will be excluded. Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, this photograph, which I think was taken Staff... Ms. Balestra — Nope. Board Member Hoffmann -- ...this photograph gives a pretty good indication, I think, of how large the mesh is, and it helps. I had another comment also. Actually I have two more.. It seems to me that since you're only dealing with fairly small areas of fencing, if you found the information, feel free to tell us... Hal Martin, 92 Collins Road, Freeville I don't have an exact measurement of the mesh sizes themselves, but they are approximately 6 x 6, is where we're at. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, that's sort of what it looks like in this photograph. It seems to me that the area that you are talking about fencing in, the total area, the 3 places, or actually, I guess it is 5 places, because you have ,3 enclosures in one place, is fairly small that I don't feel, personally, that it would create such a big disruption of the other smaller animals that are causing problems, but, that's just my opinion.:.l also wanted to weigh in on the survey, I got it too, and I started filling it out and I got so frustrated with it, it was so. poorly designed that I just gave up and stopped. I wanted to fill it out but I felt it was ridiculous, and feel free to forward that to the people who are working on this. Mr. Rakow — Actually, since we are in regular contact with those individuals, I will forward those comments. Alternate Member Erb — I still don't' have a real good sense of what material the posts are going to be and what material the cross pieces are going to be and if any of that is just sort of industrial galvanized steel sort of appearance. Is that, in fact, the least visible look that it could have. Mr. Martin — The fence posts will be wood, 6 inch round post and all the cross pieces pressure are wood treated wood. as well. We They stayed are around away from metal posts to avoid the aesthetics as well as just. -..it will build us a better fence. Board Member Howe — What do the gates look like? Mr. Martin. — Similar wire but they will be spring - loaded. They will be metal gates, they won't be wood, because we wouldn't get the strength from a wood gate that we PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 18 could open and close and not expect someone to get injured. They are a slow moving spring - loaded gate that we will close behind someone as they enter the wildflower garden and there's about 7 of those, one at each entrance to the garden. So easy access should be possible. Board Member Thayer — Just wondering why the bottom picture, all of the cross pieces are there between each post and the top picture there is only one, I was just wondering why. Mr. Martin — They use a support system on the corners because the tension on the fence is all pulled from the corner so, the actual, the pieces that you are seeing that have cross pieces are in the corners or on a bend of the fence, where I took:those, that's kind of why I wanted to show you is there are sections that might be 120 foot long that won't have any cross pieces, and then you will have a corner where there will be some support, diagonal pieces on top. Board Member Thayer — With that, I'll move the SEQR. Board Member Conneman — I just want to say that I have no problem with what you propose here. My problem would be is if you come back and you want to fence the whole thing in, dump everything on Forest Home, because in my opinion, this is research and education that you're talking about. That's great. That's what the Plantations has done and should do. Mr. Rakow — Well I appreciate that George and that's why I answered Rod's question as I did. Ideally, well, I guess ideally, the deer population would be so low that this wouldn't be necessary at all, but, we would love to be able to fence all of the arboretum and botanical garden but we certainly understand clearly now, all of the reasons why there would be opposition to that. Board Member Conneman — If you want to see what it looks like inside a fence and outside a fence ... I have a very small fence and the trillium are marvelous inside the fence.. and there is nothing outside the fence. Chairperson Wilcox — How long ago did you make the presentation to Forest Home residents? Mr. Rakow — I believe it was about two and a half years ago. Chairperson Wilcox — I was there ... I see Darcy ... Darcy's back there. Darcy is the president of the Forest Homeowner's Association. You could imagine the reception... Board Member Riha — I guess what I don't understand is why they ... why Forest Home thinks all the deer would just move there and stay in Forest Home ... I mean it would effect... there's deer kind of equally distributed ... I mean, they're everywhere. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 19 Chairperson Wilcox — But if somebody suddenly fenced them out of 150 acres... Board Member Riha — Yeah, but I think they would kind of equally distribute themselves everywhere... Chairperson Wilcox — You can imagine the reaction. I have a motion... Board Member Howe — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second with regard to the SEAR determination....any further discussion... vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 058 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Cornell Plantations Deer Fences Tax Parcel No's 67 =1 -8, 65 -1 -1, and 651-5.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 26, 2007 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe, WHEREAS, 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at three locations at the Cornell Plantations, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing 8400t tall deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden located off Caldwell Road (Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -8), at the Cornell Plant Production Facility on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2), and at the Fall Creek Research Plots on Forest Home Drive (Tax. Parcel No's 65 -1 -5.2 and 65 -1 -1). Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, 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 26, 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 "Deer Fence Sites Cornell Plantations," "Deer Fence, Mundy Wildflower Garden," "Cornell Plantations Plant Production Facility, Deer Fence Plan," and "Deer Fence, Fall Creek Research Plots," all prepared by the applicant and date stamped May 18, 2007, and other application materials, and PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 20 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item of 7:55p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at three locations at the Cornell Plantations, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of 8 foot tall deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden located off Caldwell Road (Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -8), at the Plant Production Facility on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2), and at the Fall Creek Research Plots on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No.'s 65 =1 -5.2 and 65 -1 -1). Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to speak. There was no on wishing to address the Board and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:57. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions, comments? Board Member Talty — In true fashion, I would just like to say, traditionally the Board likes to see the materials, the fencing ... I'm not saying you have to drag in a 12 foot post, but, sometimes pictures don't always do justification. For example, we wanted to know how big the opening was in the fence, if you had a little snippet of the fence, it would have been a lot easier to make a determination on that particular item. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 21 Chairperson Wilcox — And I agree. That would have been helpful. Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Board Member Conneman , seconded by Board Member Talty. Any changes? Vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 059 Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Cornell Plantations Deer Fences Tax Parcel No's 67 -1 -8, 654-1, and 65 -1 -5.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 26, 2007 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe, WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at three locations at the Cornell Plantations, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing 8 400t tall deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden located off Caldwell Road (Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -8), at the Cornell Plant Production Facility on Forest. Home Drive (Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2), and at the Fall Creek Research Plots on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No's 65 -1 -5.2 and 65 -1 -1). Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, 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 26,.2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted -by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance at their meeting on June 18th, 2007, to permit the installation of an 8ft high fence within the.front yard at the Cornell Plant Production Facility on Forest Home Drive, and 40 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 26, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Deer Fence Sites Cornell Plantations," "Deer Fence, Mundy Wildflower Garden," "Cornell Plantations. Plant Production Facility, Deer Fence Plan," and "Deer Fence, Fall Creek Research Plots," all prepared by the applicant and date stamped May 18, 2007, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PB 6 -26 -a7 . Pg.22 That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at the Cornell Plantations, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been meet, AND RE 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 deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden, the Cornell Plant Production Facility, and the Fall Creek Research Plots, as described on drawings titled "Deer Fence Sites Cornell Plantations," "Deer Fence, Mundy Wildflower Garden," "Cornell Plantations Plant Production Facility, Deer Fence Plan," and "Deer Fence, Fall Creek Research Plots," all prepared by the applicant and date stamped May 18, 2007. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, I was just thinking... Maybe one of the things that we can do is, if, for example, on Sunday or Monday, let's say Monday, if you realize that there may not be materials, just contact somebody in the Planning Department and ask if they can get the applicant to bring some materials... and if you're the only one, that's fine, then they should bring it... Board Member Talty — I think it helps everybody though... Chairperson Wilcox — I think it does, I agree. Board Member Talty — I 'm not saying 400 feet of fence... Chairperson Wilcox — No, I agree. A sample gives us color, gives us size, gives us context, absolutely. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 23 Alternate Member Erb — Well, I got very confused because all 3 pictures actually were different. There were no gradations in the photograph and there were two different types of gradations on the photocopied piece and so I really didn't know. Board Member Hoffmann — Sometimes it makes more of a difference than at other times, for instance, when. it comes to colors of siding and textures and things like that, but, this would have been helpful today. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8 :00p.m. SEQR Determination Lot Line Modification, 357 and 359 King Road East Virginia Tesi, Barney Grossman Dubow & Marcus, 119 East Seneca St. I am here on behalf of Peter and Sandra Capalongo, owners of 357 King Road East. They have applied for a sub..they have a subdivision application in to essentially shave 11100th of an acre off of their property and consolidate it with the property at 359 King Road East which is owned by the estates of Wilkinson and the estate of Holland. This is essentially a lot -line adjustment. As you can see from the survey that I think was submitted April 2007, TG Miller survey, the house currently, and which has been so located since, I believe, 1958, the house at 359, the southwest corner and the southwest corner of the concrete patio encroaches ever so slightly onto the Capolongo property and we are here applying for a subdivision approval so that we can sell that 11100th of an acre to the owner of the, excuse me, to the estates of Wilkinson and Holland. Chairperson Wilcox — Which would then be consolidated with the... Ms. Tesi — Which would be consolidated tomorrow afternoon, at 5 :00 o'clock. Chairperson Wilcox — Let.me address that, joking, but I should point out that, you're tough. to. get a hold of tomorrow ... I will do scheduled? because it was said in a manner that was going to need a signature and I may be the best that I can ... when is the closing Ms. Tesi — I think Randy said 1:00 o'clock tomorrow. Chairperson Wilcox — All right, we will see what we can do. I am not an employee of the Town, I am simply a member of this Board and have a fulltime job someplace else, but, we'll see what we can do. We will discuss that briefly later. Okay. Board Member Talty — I move it. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin moves the SEQR determination. Seconded by George Conneman, any further... PB 6 -26 -07 P& 24 Board Member Hoffmann — I just had a question first. There 's:..on the lot line between the Wilkinson's lot that we are talking about and the next one over to the east, there's another intrusion... there is a concrete pad left from a gazebo... according to the map ... but that lot seems to be owned by Wilkinson too. Is that the same Wilkinson? Ms. Tesi — Yes and no. My understanding of the history of this property is that the Wilkinson brothers owned the lot that you are referring to, furthest to the east, and the lot marked as parcel a, and I am sorry I don't have the other ... Leland. Wilkinson is the one brother who owned the property to the east and I am sorry l don't have the other brother's name who is deceased. The previous owner of Parcel A was Leland's brother who left it to Leland, so Leland Wilkinson, yes, owns these 2 lots but originally it was 2 homes owned by 2 different brothers. They, as brothers, built the gazebo some time in the past, it has long since been destroyed, and no, neither the buyer of Parcel A nor the Wilkinson estate, who still owns the parcel to the east is making any title issue...it's simply...it's a concrete pad in the middle of grass. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. It was just brought up in one of our papers as something that was ... maybe something to look into... Chairperson Wilcox — I was thinking about this, because this is an interesting survey for many reasons ... Line of occupation, which is in Parcel A, there's the pipe that was found in the middle of Parcel A, and even more interesting to me, as I have an interest in the surveying of the Adirondack region of New York State that was done in the late 1800's, is the corner of all of these properties which is noted as a corner is any 36 inch butternut, which probably is the way that they originally surveyed, that the corner was the tree. The one time on this Board when we had an interesting survey ... we had a neighbor whose survey said something different and that put this Board in the position of well, what do we do ... we have one survey that's been certified and we have a next door neighbor who has a survey that says something different and the determination that this Board made at that time was, we had no reason to believe that the survey in front of us wasn't legal and correct. The fact that somebody else has a survey that showed something different didn't in any way say that the one that we had in front of us that had been certified by a licensed surveyor was incorrect in any way. So we proceeded. So, there may be some potential issues with Parcel A. This line of occupation, the pipe that was found in the middle of it, the gazebo structure that crosses the 2 lots, A and then the parcel to the east, but we have a survey in front of us. At least this one isn't signed, but I assume those copies are signed by the surveyor. Does that answer anybody's question? Board Member Hoffmann It just seemed to me as if the 2 parcels were owned by the same owner, there would be no issue about that gazebo floor still being in the middle of the lot line... Chairperson Wilcox — There seems to be no issue right now about the gazebo, the only issue was the house. Were you in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals? Ms. Tesi — I was not, Randy did that last week. Chairperson Wilcox — And what was the result of that? Ms. Balestra — The Zoning Board granted the setba necessary. But the information that Randy presented was the property at 359 has no problem with the survey as structure right between the property lines. And the line of area where the sister of the person whose house is being next door property at 361 East King Road, she mows the it's sort of been an assumed line of occupation. Although it' PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 25 :.k variances that were that the current buyer of it is, with the concreter occupation is actually an sold, she still lives in the lawn in that area and so s in the same family. Ms. Tesi — My understanding was slightly different, although the mowing issue, we were all on the same page ... my understanding is it wasn't necessarily the line of occupation as it was the mowing line, if you are going to get a lawnmower around a concrete pad, it might be easier to go around the edge of it. That was my, my... Mr. Kanter Of course, these issues will become more legal issues when the owners, down the road are different, much different, not the same family, things are forgotten, and then you lawyers will get involved, make a lot of money trying to resolve issues like that. Chairperson Wilcox — It took us until nearly 8:10 to pick on lawyers...it took us an hour plus! (laughter) Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? Someone like to move the SEQR motion... already moved, sorry ...oh yeah, George and Kevin and then Eva had another question.. There being no further discussion... vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 060 SEQR - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Capalongo 2 -Lot Subdivision (Lot Line Modification) 357 & 359 East King Road Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 =5 & 46 -14 Town of Ithaca Planning Board June 26, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision (lot line modification) located at 357 and 359 East PB 6 -26 -07 Pg, 26 King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 and 46 -14, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 0.010 +/- acre strip of land from the eastern edge of 357 East King Road to consolidate with 359 East King Road. Peter & Sandra Capalongo and the Estates of Leland G. Wilkinson & Jane W. Holland, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The. Planning Board on June adequate a Short Environment applicant, and Part II prepared entitled "Survey Map No. 359 County, NY," prepared by Alien other application materials, and 26, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as it Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the by the Town Planning staff, a survey map East King Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins T. Fulkerson, and dated .May 24, 2007, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended environmental significance with respect to Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: a negative determination of the proposed Subdivision That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the . Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:08p.m. Chairperson Wilcox -- Did the Zoning Board do their own SEAR review? Ms. Balestra — There was no SEQR review required. Chairperson Wilcox — For setback? Good, because we went out of order, for the applicant, we had them go to the Zoning Board first and then here. Very good, I'm sorry, continuing on... PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 27 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 357 and 359 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 and 46 -1 -4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing off a +/- 0.010 acre strip from the eastern edge of Tax Parcel 46 -1- 4, to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -5. Peter Capalongo & Sandra Capalongo and The Estates of Leland G. Wilkinson & Jane W. Holland, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed... There being none... Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Kris Merschrod, 123 Warren Road I'd just like to say, I'd like to make a comment on the next item. ,a consideration on the amendment to... Chairperson Wilcox — You're out of ... too early ... we're going to get there soon.., thank you for being patient but we are still on the subdivision of a hundredth of an acre. There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 8:10p.m: Someone like to move the motion as drafted, so moved by Susan, seconded by Larry. Any changes? There being none ... before we go ... Chris, have you looked at the subdivision maps? Are they ready for me to sign [yes] You will come back or you will send somebody over tomorrow morning to pick them up ... I will sign... assuming that they are in order, I will sign them tonight before I leave. I have a motion and a second, any further discussion... there being none ... vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 061 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Capalongo 2 -Lot Subdivision (Lot Line Modification) 357 & 359 East King Road Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 & 46 -1 -4 Town of Ithaca Planning Board June 26, 2007 MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision (lot line modification) located at 357 and 359 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 and 46 -1 -4, Low Density PB &26-07 Pg. 28 Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing a 0.010 +/ acre strip of land from the eastern edge of 357 East King Road to consolidate with 359 East King Road. Peter & Sandra Capalongo and the Estates of Leland G. Wilkinson & Jane W. Holland, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,. acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on June 26, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on June adequate a Short EnvironmentE applicant, and Part II prepared entitled "Survey Map No. 359 County, NY," prepared by Allen other application materials; 26, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as it Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the by the Town Planning staff, a survey map East King Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins T. Fulkerson, and dated May 24, 2007; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such .waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 357 and 359 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 and 46 -14, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map No. 359 East King Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY," prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, and dated May 24, 2007, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of a mylar and three dark -lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and C, within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.010 +/- acres from Tax Parcel No. 46-14 (357 East King Road) with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -5 (359 East King Road), and evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town Planning Department. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 29 A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:12p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to let Chris speak first, if I may, since he has much to do with this: law, or at least the proposed law. He's sort of the impetus for it. Kris Merschrod, 123 Warren Road would like to thank the Board for the whole process. Originally I proposed building a small radio tower next to my house. I talked with Jonathan Kanter and the fact was that within the zoning area that I am in, because of the density, that's not allowed ... I made a presentation to the whole group and they said, well, it really should be possible to do such a tower in your neighborhood in that type of density. And so we went through the various options and ideas and the Radio Club of Tompkins County was involved, 3 people came, and after each meeting I presented to the Radio Club what the suggestions were, and I'm very happy and so are the members of the Radio Club, with the proposed amendment. It's something that not only can we live with, but it's technically sound and we would just like to thank you for the whole process up to this time, and we hope that you will approve it this evening. And I am ready for questions if there are any. Chairperson Wilcox — Kris was present at most if not all of the Codes and Ordinances Committee discussions of this and he and other ... at least 2 other gentlemen that came and offered information, comment and opinion, both of what needed to be done, in their opinion and also on the initial draft of the proposed change to the zoning law. Before I let you go ... Staff have anything to add at this point? Mr. Kanter — Just for the record, I outlined this in my memo and Susan Brock did a lot of research on this as well, she was very helpful with creating the law, buts, in Susan's preliminary research, she discovered that there were Federal Communication Commission regulations that basically, in effect, preclude PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 30 municipalities from having regulations that would unreasonably restrict these kinds of facilities because, really, they serve an important public purpose during emergency situations, weather events, hurricanes and other things that happen and so that was something that we all became quite educated about, thanks to Kris and the others and so, that really is what led us to realize that our zoning didn't adequately address amateur radio facilities at all and so we ... we needed to do. it. So it went through quite a bit of review, we ended up with a lot of these technical things that are in the law. I tried to outline some of the basic things in the law, things like the maximum height of 65 feet ... Again, this was based on the input from the actual operators of the facilities who probably would have liked maybe a little bit higher, but I think that we all agreed that that was a reasonable height limit, for the most part, would be adequate purposes and of course anything that may not be covered in here could go to the Zoning Board for variances now simply as area variances.' Originally, the way it was, they would have had to get a use variance and that's a very difficult thing to prove. Anyway, there's a lot more information we could go through, but I just wanted to highlight some of that. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions? Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — As I read this through again, something struck me, and that is ... on page 2 of the law, and this would be point b:4, it talks about the fall zone, it says that the fall zone may not include public roads and must be entirely located on the property on which the amateur facilities are located and /or property which the user owns or for which the user has obtained an easement. And then, as I was reading on, I looked at all the zones where this is allowed and it's allowed in the lakefront residential zone and it made me wonder whether we shouldn't include that the fall zone may not include the lake, which is also public property, as well as a public road. Chairperson Wilcox — Interesting suggestion. Board Member Hoffmann — I am sorry I didn't think of it earlier. There are other things too, where we have tried to be careful about the lake and not intruding on the lake... Mr. Kanter—. By definition though, the property line of all shoreline properties ends at the, basically at.the main high -water mark and the backdoor of the survey waterline, and so, if the fall zone is not allowed to encroach on a neighboring property unless you own it, which would not be the case, or unless you get an easement from the owner, which would probably be difficult to get from the State, presumably, who owns the lakebed, you basically couldn't do it. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but wouldn't that apply to public road too? PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 31 Chairperson Wilcox — The exception are the property lines that go out and actually cover part of the roadway, right? Mr. Kanter — If it's a roadway, normally it's either, well, nowadays, it's usually the right -of -way edge of the right -of -way, in the old days it used to be the center line. Chairperson Wilcox — In fact, we've seen some surveys where the property still goes to the center of the road... Mr. Kanter — But anyway, I was trying to address Eva's concern with the water rather than the road issue. Board Member Hoffmann — So, .in that way, the lake would be different than a road, is what you're saying. The road could be in the, could be on the property owner's land, is that what you're saying? Even if it's a public road? Mr. Kanter —Well in our zoning, actually, I believe that the property lines are defined as being at the edge of the right -of -way so ... Well, let's see ... It says the fall zone may not include public roads, so I mean... Board Member Hoffmann — No, but neither would the public road... Board Member Riha — Yeah but that's just an added because they already say it has to be located on the property ... it says, you're right, they point that out but at the same time it says that the fall zone must be entirely located on the property on which the amateur radio facilities are located. Mr. Kanter — And it shall not include public road, so if you have a center line property line, you would not be allowed to use that part of the roadway that theoretically is part of your property, but it really isn't... Board Member Hoffmann — That's the reason it's in there... Chairperson Wilcox — So we're covered. Alternate Member Erb — I was a little surprised at the inclusion of the conservation zones as being an area in which by right, a 65 foot structure could be erected. And I think I understand that conservation zones do have multiple uses, but I will say that I was surprised, nevertheless. And I didn't see any real consideration of that in the minutes of the Codes & Ordinances meetings. Chairperson Wilcox — It's interesting. Conservation zones may turn out to be one of the areas where we are most likely to have the towers and I say that only because if you build ... is the fall zone ... and Codes and Ordinances not only has been discussing these amateur radio towers, but also, windmills. Which will probably get to this Board for recommendation, and we are going to allow even something even PB 6-26 -07 Pg. 32 higher, potentially, for windmills. When you start calculating the land around that you need for a fall zone, people that live with quarter acre lots, third of an acre lots, fifteen thousand square feet, it just may not be viable, unless their house is way over to one side. I mean, you get 100 foot windmills, suddenly you need a very large lot. Conservation zone, you could have large lots, I'm .going to say 7 acres plus, unless they were clustered, you might have the land sufficient to do it. I think the issue is balancing the public right, the public need, to allow these amateur communications, especially in time of an emergency. Mr. Merschrod and other members pointed out the many instances, at the Codes and Ordinances, when it was amateur radio that was able to get communication up first during emergencies. Alternate Member Erb — No, I am very aware of that and I am very, generally, think that this is all a good idea, I was just trying to understand what's the point of calling something a conservation zone. Mr. Kanter — Well, in effect, a conservation zone is a low, low density residential zone and that's why we didn't exclude it from there. Board Member Talty — I have a question... How many amateur radio enthusiasts are their in Tompkins County, or belong to your club? Mr. Merschrod — Approximately 57, Board Member Talty — Do you have to be licensed? Mr. Merschrod — Yes. An FCC license, theory test and law test... regulations of the FCC and, when I say that number, that's all of Tompkins County. In the Town of Ithaca, I'm not sure how many of us there are. Chairperson Wilcox — At least one. Mr. Kanter — We don't know of any other existing towers in the Town of Ithaca, although, there could be, but I've never seen one. Mr. Merschrod — There used on be one up on Hanshaw Road, above... Board Member Riha — On Hanshaw and Salem... Mr. Merschrod -- ...yes ... but I don't know if he's still around. Board Member Riha — I don't think so. That house has been sold twice. PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 33 Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else you'd like to say Kris? If not, I will ask you to take a seat and give the members of the public a chance to speak should they wish to.chime in as well. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. There being no one, he closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Any further discussion, comment, questions? There being none, I will move the recommendation to the Town Board... seconded by Kevin Talty. Any changes, Staff, lawyer...vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 062 Recommendation to Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270, Titled. "Zoning ", of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Town of Ithaca Planning Board June 26, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: The Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending Chapter 270, titled "Zoning ", of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities, and WHEREAS: The above - described amendment would permit the installation and use of indoor amateur radio facilities in any zoning district in the Town, and outdoor amateur radio facilities in almost any zone in the Town, subject to certain criteria and upon issuance of a building permit, and WHEREAS: The Town Board has reviewed the above- described proposed local law at its meeting on May 7, 2007 and has referred this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed this proposed local law at its meeting on June 26, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law amending Chapter 270, titled "Zoning ", of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities. A vote on the motion was as follows: PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 34 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:25 p. m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of yards. We have behind Mike, a visual that the Board can refer to, besides the ones that were included in the packets. Mr. Kanter -- They are pretty much the same ones. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, .they're pretty much the same ones. Board Member Hoffmann - And this one I think is a very good change in the zoning ordinance because it really clarifies things a lot. Chairperson Wilcox — Any comments from Staff at all, other than what was in the cover memo. Mr. Kanter — No, if there are any questions... but I think the illustrations clearly show why the clarification is needed. Chairperson Wilcox -- ...what's wrong with the current, the way the current zoning is worded. Mr. Kanter We think that the intent of the original language was exactly what the amendment is showing but the wording just was not clear enough to do... Board Member Conneman — Staff is to be commended on drawing great diagrams. Mr. Kanter— That's my ole architectural studio background showing... Chairperson Wilcox — That is your printing ... any other discussion? Board Member Thayer — Can I ask why the side yard in example 2 doesn't go all the way to the front of the house? I'm just curious... Mr. Kanter — Because the front yard is from the rear -most portion of the front of the. house... PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 35 Board Member Thayer — Say again... Mr. Kanter — The front yard, well, this is my own words, the front yard consists of, starts at the rear -most portion of the front facade of the house, so that's why the front yard entails that whole part. Because when you're looking at the house, and again, when we went through this, there are going to be hundreds of different situations and some of them are still going to require interpretations. Especially if you have, say, an octagon house. Then we're back to where we were before, but, if you look at that front fagade, it's basically the front corner on the left side is pretty clear, and when you go around, all of it is really front, until you get.way back ... the thing in the back really was meant to be a patio or a deck or something like that, that's why I boxed it out. Which is why the main house is really what defines where the yards go. Does that make sense? Go back to illustration 1 ... (laughter)... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that one's easy, but again, the illustration showing the current problem, that one's interesting... where is it a side yard, a front yard or both, at the same time and the issues that that's caused the zoning people in doing interpretations and dealing with that... Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board, there being no one, he closed the public hearing at 8:28p.m. Eva Hoffmann moves the resolution... seconded by Larry Thayer. Vote. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION N0.2007 - 063 Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270, Titled "Zoning ", of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Definitions of Front, Rear and Side Yards Town of Ithaca Planning Board, June 26, 2007 MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: The Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending Chapter 270, titled "Zoning ", of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definitions of front, rear and side yards, and WHEREAS: The above - described amendment would amend and clarify the definitions of front, rear and side yards, and PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 36 WHEREAS: The Town Board has reviewed the above - described proposed local law at its meeting on May 7, 2007 and has referred this matter to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals for recommendations, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed this proposed local law at its meeting on June 26, 2007? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law amending Chapter 270, titled 'Zoning ", of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definitions of front, rear and side yards. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:30p.m. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Proposed campus master plan for the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 117, 120, and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43 -2 -7, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes a multi -phase campus development plan for new outdoor play and curriculum areas along with updating the parking and circulation around the campus. The first phase would include clearing and grading, creation of a play field, a sledding slope, earthen mounds, new access to King Road East, stone dust paths, a wetland area and other stormwater facilities, and improving the path between the Middle School and the Lower Elementary School. Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. Kim Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, 1001 W. Seneca St. We just want to introduce this project to you because we are hoping later in the summer to come for site plan review for the first phase of this outdoor play space on the campus, on the greater campus, for the Montessori School and we wanted to start by showing you the master plan, the big vision for the site, and have you kind of understand the history of the project and the goals for the project so that when we PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 37 come later this summer with the nitty -gritty elements for phase 1, you understand the bigger picture. So, I am just going to talk a little bit about the existing site and conditions and why we are here tonight and then Andrea is going to speak to some of the goals of the project and then we will get into some of the nifty -gritty issues as well. There's a survey here of the existing campus. This road here is King Road East. This is the main building of Montessori School and it houses the lower elementary grades, so there is primary children in this building and then also elementary school age children, grades 1 through 3. Across the street, in this building, is the upper elementary school and this houses children who would be in grades 4 through 6. And to the north, not on this map, it's to the left, so to the east of the (inaudible) is the middle school building, which holds grades 7 & 8 and all three of these properties comprise the entire campus for the Montessori School. Part of the master plan also deals with a portion of this property here, the greater property extends all the way to the north and this is property owned by Evan Monkemeyer, by which the Montessori School has been given rights to develop this piece of the property and we will get into more of that later. And we are before you tonight because the school really wants to develop a more robust outdoor play space for the students. And I am going to turn the mike over to Andrea and let her really speak to the goals of this project. Andrea Riddle, Principal, Montessori School of Ithaca We moved to King Road in 1988, and we did that with the help of angels in the Tompkins County Trust Company, and we ... our only source of income at our school is tuition, and so, we put all of our money into making a home for ourselves. We were, before this site, we were at Cayuga Heights School when Cayuga Heights School was not being used as an elementary school. For a private school of our size in a town like ours, to be able to come up with enough money to build a building that, at that time, was large enough to house 88 children, was a really big deal. So, we have been at the site since 1988, and we have grown. We had 88 children in 1988 and in September, we will have 197. So, the house across the street from the main building, which we constructed, was given, in part, as a gift to our school at a very fortuitous moment in our history and we purchased the house next to the main building, I think in 1997. So we have been inhabiting and creating and building structures for us to deliver academic curriculum and we haven't had money or the ability to develop our outdoor space and what has happened is that the children have become custodians of the land. They actually relate to the woods and the land around our 3 buildings as though it is their responsibility to be keepers of and caretakers of their parcel of the planet. And so we have been watching them do this and we simultaneously came across somebody named Robin Moore in North Carolina who has been working with Montessori schools all over the world who believes that children need to be interfacing with nature. And his whole approach to PB 6-26 -07 Pg. 38 outdoor development at Montessori Schools is very much what has happened spontaneously at our site and so we hired him to develop this plan. Ms. Michaels — So Robin Moore, .at the Natural Learning Initiatives, has created this vision for the campus, this campus master plan. And imbedded in it are really the ideas of having the children engage in outdoor spaces, to create outdoor curricular spaces, a lot of what happens inside the classroom; the teachers . tried to bring outdoors and often times that has to happen on field trips, at this point, and they would really love to see curriculum opportunities imbedded in our outdoor landscape and that's part of what the goals are for this master plan. Other goals also include really uniting the campus as a whole and making it seem as a complete school instead of these three separate buildings. And we have come in to some way of making clearer circulation patterns and potentially increasing the parking on -site. We will get to some of the details of the parking later. You received a really detailed program document from Robin Moore which explains the individual elements inside each of the sections around the buildings and I don't think this evening that I need to detail out each of those pieces. But.what I do want to say is .that, as a conceptual plan, this is a vision for where they want to go, and when, at this point, the school has engaged Trowbridge & Wolf and TG Miller to really turn these plans into a reality in terms of how does that fit with local zoning codes, how does that fit with local regulations, how does it fit with DEC stormwater, and the specific needs of the site technically. And so, I think that as we work with these drawings, the major concepts are going to be there and the major curricular elements are going to stay, but items might shift in their location or their size, or. ..we are potentially going to try to move some things out of setbacks, where we are able to while still keeping to this overall vision in terms of the elements in the landscape and in uniting this campus. So the school has made a decision that they would like to start with ... their first phase of work would be this piece that Robin Moore called the Field of Dreams, which is actually the piece of property that they have rights to develop but it is Evan Monkemeyer's property. In that first phase of work Robin had, the major elements were; a multi purpose field, a wild garden and orchard, an outdoor field house and walking paths ans wooded spaces. When we started to work on the plans for how that actually happens on the site, some of the details started to shift a little bit. For example, the wetland and pond area, as shown in the conceptual plan, the pond area isn't quite big enough to support the full spectrum of life in a pond. It's not big enough to actually get fish in it and actually support the full level of plants at all different depths and it's actually, topographically, at the top of the site and it would be really great when we have to fulfill all of our stormwater regulations, to double duty the curricular piece of the pond, exploratory, educational piece of the pond with meeting our stormwater regs PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 39 and so...conceptually, we are still doing the same things, but we are moving them around. And so, right now, the plans are developing at the bottom of the site, are a series of wetlands and ponds and those shallow for a long period of time with deeper sections in them to be able to host the type of life that is needed to make this a full eco system. That moves the playing field up, creating some sledding slope places here, and the concept of the field house and the orchard and the wild garden is continuing to develop in that corner. believe in your program document from the National Learning Initiative, the field house is described as an enclosed structure... and in working out what may be required for that in terms of zoning and local regulation, that's turning into being an open pavilion and so that sprinkling and other types of issues will not come in to play in this. So phase one, when we come back later this summer, phase one will include the following elements: Incorporating a gravel drive through this strip of the property that gives you access to King Road, a little parking and turn around area, walking paths, a playing field, sledding slopes, pouring just a concrete pad for future...to accept the pavilion in the future, and creating the wetlands and pond. We will fully vegetate the wetlands and pond, but the orchard will probably become an all school event, a volunteer event at the opening of school. Each family comes and brings a tree and the community works to plant that orchard together, and a bullwhip piece across the wetlands, which will connect into the play areas that the children are currently using to the west. This will be a phased project as the school is able to raise funds over time. So this will be just the phase one here. It encompasses o little over one and three quarter acres of space and those are probably the major details of what we are looking to construct sometime at the end of the summer or this fall. I also want to speak to some of the things that we've been discussing with Town Staff that have been sent to you in the letter by Mike and Tompkins County Department as well. In terms of this piece of property that the Field of Dreams sits on, you have in your documentation the deed which shows that the school has rights to develop on this property. It is also the case that the Town has the ability to accept that property as a Town Park. So, the school is well aware of this, we have had this conversation several times, and the school is willing to make the financial investment in this property with the complete understanding that at any time, the Town may accept this as a Town Park and then their rights to develop that space are removed. We understand that that is a potential risk, but at the same time it is really important to PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 40 start giving the students some space and a playing field and a place to be on campus where they've got a safe place to roam and curricular opportunities. This is also Evan Monkemeyer's .land and I spoke to him this afternooOnt and he is quite pleased about the development, that he's happy to see it happen, that the school has rights to use it, that it's not a problem with him in any way..II asked him if he'd be able to join us tonight, and unfortunately he was not able to do so but he did say that he would be able to provide a letter at the point that we go through site plan review expressing his agreement with the plans to move forward. But you do have the legal document, which shows . that the school does have the legal rights to develop the property. I believe in other conversations when this was being discussed as potentially a Town Park, there were comments about how wet the site was and there may be concerns that there are wetlands on the site. I have a site walk with. a certified wetland specialist from Strange & Wheeler, his name is Mike Fishman, and we looked at the entire site and there are no regulated wetlands on the site: In fact, the drainage ditch that runs through the site is dry now and has goldernrod growing in the middle of it, which is strictly an upland species, according to Mike Fishman, .and he's going to provide some documentation as to that matter which we will submit when we come for site plan review. . In terms of stormwater regulations and DEC, we have engaged TG Miller to be on our team for this project and even though we're only planning on coming forward with phase one of the project for site plan review right now, TG Miller is going to be developing a stormwater management plan for the entire campus so that as we implement pieces of it, we have allocated the space and resources necessary to handle the stormwater quality and quantity runoff. And that will be part of our submission. Most of the submission will be the details of the Phase I but there will be a whole- campus, master stormwater management plan that we can continue to use as we move forward with pieces of this conceptual plan. Traffic, parking and future development... This master plan is about outdoor space, it does not increase the traffic to the site. Enrollment is at approximately 200 students now, there are no plans at this point to expand any of the buildings on the property or increase enrollment in any way. This is strictly about it's time now, in the history of the school, to start paying attention to what they can offer to the students. on the outside spaces. The plans do try to work to increase the parking onsite. There's 34 spaces shown in the conceptual plan, there's 14 spaces required by zoning and this has kind of come to a little bit of a head this year for the school ... as you know, the Ithaca City School district changed it's bussing program and previously, students were bussed to Montessori School directly, they would be picked up at their homes and taken to the Montessori School and the Ithaca City School District made a change in their. program so that elementary school age children that attend Montessori will be 0 PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 41 required to ride a bus with high school students, ride to the high school, in the high school parking lot, switch to another bus, and then be taken up to the Montessori school and then the reverse would happen in the afternoon, they would ride a bus to the high school parking lot and then the busses would whip past them and the bus driver would yell "bus 57..." and 5 -year olds are suppose to know to get off and get on that bus and get to their homes. This increased the travel time for some students to as much as over an hour of travel time and as a result, the majority of parents who were using the school bus system abandoned that and started dropping off their students at the school, which significantly increased the amount of morning and afternoon drop -off and pick -up traffic on site and made a strain on the existing parking spaces there. And so, we are looking, in this master plan, to solve some of that with some increased parking and clear circulation patterns. There are some issues, as Mike pointed out, with parking and structures in the setbacks on this conceptual master plan and we're .fully aware of those. Robin Moore really created a vision for the site and what could be the maximum potential and when you really look at these parcels of land, they are very tight in terms of their use for educational use. And two of the buildings are really residential lots and so his concept was pushing to the edges and I think that as we start moving through the different phases and working out construction documents for those, we will try our best to either pull things out of the setbacks wherever we can, or, if it really is a need to put something within the setback because of the limits of the property that we have, we will go to the Zoning Board and work those issues out as they come up. There are none of those issues for this Phase I piece. And then Tompkins County provided a letter where they requested sidewalks along the road and that's not included in the master plan but it's something very much that the school .is interested in doing and it will be implemented as part of those future phases. So, in terms of schedule, we are hoping to return later this summer to go through the full SEQR -site plan review - preliminary and final on the first phase, Field of Dreams. We'll provide all of the technical drawings, the details, all those pieces for Phase I that we traditionally give you as well as a stormwater management plan for the campus as a whole. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Can I go first ... I normally don't ... I'm glad you mentioned the traffic safety problem. I've been a resident on South Hill now for 3 weeks, now that I have moved back to South Hill and I travel that road much more frequently and the one thing I noticed was the cars parked along the road at the upper elementary and that would have been during drop -off time, absolutely, so I'm glad you mentioned that. My concern is the parcel, the Evan Monkemeyer parcel. This has a storied history. This was originally to be dedicated to the Town as part of the whatever estate's one subdivision. The Town, for whatever reason, has never accepted it, in fact, the Town's. position ... let me think ... the Planning Department's position, certainly, is that it would be in the Town's best interest to substitute this PB 6 =26 -07 Pg. 42 parkland for other parkland on Evan's parcels should at some point he proceed with development of it. That instead of taking possession of this land take other land that Evan owns or controls in equivalent acreage and combine it with other land to get ball fields and picnic areas and park grounds and whatever. Nonetheless, the Town Board, could, tomorrow, decide to accept that as Town Park. 1. Mr. Kanter — Just to clarify, the Planning Board and the Town Board both passed resolutions supporting the idea of substituting this park land for the larger community park so it's not just the Planning Department. Chairperson Wilcox — We've seen some plans and then we've seen some different plans from Evan and nothing has come to fruition other than the commercial development that he's proposed at the. corner. My assumption, Andrea, is you or other officials of the school have talked to Evan, you've talked, presumably, to the Town officials, and feel confident enough, based upon what you've heard, to proceed with development. Ms. Riddle — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Because you don't want to invest the time and money and then be told that you... Ms. Riddle — In part, that's why we've waited. We kept thinking that this issue would come to ... resolve. Actually, at one point, Mr. Monkemeyer offered to sell us the land and drew an agreement, which we signed, but he never signed it himself. So we have been trying to increase our outdoor space for our children ever since we moved to that site and we've decided that we really need to just take a chance. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure whether he could sell you that piece of land right now. It is encumbered by a subdivision map showing it's dedication to the Town as parkland, so, that would be an interesting... It goes back a long way. The fact that you are proposing to do stormwater analysis and stormwater detention or the entire site up front is something that we probably would have asked for anyways, but thank you for offering it. It just makes sense all the way around to plan for the maximum capacity of the site. The other thing, frankly I like, it ties the lower elementary and the middle school and it creates a campus. The poor kids across the street are still kind of isolated, but it's starting to look like a campus rather than two separate buildings so that's a nice step forward. Board Member Conneman — I think it's wonderful what you propose and we have to think outside the box because when Evan Monkemeyer was in here the last time, we were talking about what to do with that whole corner and how you make that corner sage and lights and everything else and I think it would be a marvelous opportunity to take that whole corner, which would include Sam Peter and everything else there, PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 43 and make that a safe place for everybody. Traffic and kids, okay. And I...I'm not speaking for Mr. Monkemeyer because I don't know him that well, but, he might change his mind on some things. He's been very positive about the proposal he has ... whatever he calls it ... College Crossing... College Crossing could be a real asset and if we put sidewalks and roads and ways to cross those roads all together and we think it through first, it might be a marvelous place. So I think we ought to think outside the box big. Ms. Riddle — I'm with you. Board Member Hoffmann — I think Mr. Monkemeyer has been, all along, very positively inclined towards the Montessori School, that's my impression any way, of what he has said. In looking at the plans and in the description of what you are trying to do, I think the whole concept is just wonderful and would serve children very, very well. I was wondering a couple of things about the parcels. I understand the problem of these structures being so close to the boundaries of the parcels and I wanted to ask you, have you ever thought of consolidating the parcels into one so you don't have that problem? Ms. Michaels — I can speak to one part of it ... I think that at the point that we have maybe a structure property line where both sides are owned by Montessori that if we need to get a variance, those would probably be very simple ones to get. I think it's the ones that border the residential properties to the east, that would be, we'd like to try to be a little more sensitive to those if possible and Andrea, I don't know, could you speak to the consolidating all your properties part. Ms. Riddle — I don't even know what that means.... Mr. Kanter — The problem, Eva, is that on the west side of King Road ... Mr, Monkemeyer's property intervenes between the two parcels owned by Montessori, so until or if that is conveyed... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, if they were to buy that piece which is contested... Chairperson Wilcox — Then you have 3 parcels that could be consolidated to create 1 tax parcel, which provides you more options in terms of fewer sideyards and setback requirements. Board Member Hoffmann — Of course you have to be sensitive to other neighbors. I also had a question, this parcel that you are proposing for Field of Dreams, I remember talking about it earlier on when Mr. Monkemeyer was proposing it as a park land for the Town and that it had this long sloping hill which he was talking about as a sledding hill, and you also have sledding slopes here, but it seems to me PB 6 =26 -07 Pg. 44 that the parcel we originally looked at was much longer and it went further east than this piece here. Ms. Michaels — I don't know what parcel you originally looked at, but this is.the piece as surveyed and outlined by TG Miller is described. in the deed documents and is the Town park piece and overall it has about a 5% grade across it. It's a very gentle slope from top to bottom. Mr. Kanter — Eva I think what you're thinking of is one of the planned park areas, one of the variations of it that we were. discussing with Mr. Monkemeyer, that included the piece that went up the hill that was... Board Member Hoffmann — So this is just a piece, the lower piece, the western most piece of that larger parcel... Mr. Kanter — Well, actually, this is shown with the parcel boundary, but it actually, believe, is not platted off of the larger Monkemeyer parcel so this is not a. survey of it, it's basically a plot of the larger... Chairperson Wilcox — So this flag- shaped parcel is not a separate tax parcel? Mr. Kanter — It's part of the bigger parcel, that's correct. Mr. Hebdon — It's just where they .have rights to. Board Member Hoffmann — But I also understand, from what you are saying, what we have seen is not necessarily what it's going to be because you already have a new plan for the Field of Dreams. Ms. Michaels — I think in terms of the elements that we'd like to see out there and the curriculum spaces and the big picture, in terms of uniting the campus and really engaging the students with nature, all of that is going to be consistent. But, when we start really thinking about, mostly where the stormwater will go and how we treat it, things have to move around and what are local zoning laws and Robin, being from North Carolina, really wasn't privy to that when he was thinking about the big vision for the campus and what he did was really fabulous and propelled the school into this space, but we do need to now reassess how does that fit into all the regulations that we have and still hold onto that vision while making it practical. So, in a way, yes, Eva you are correct, the plans will change and develop and we will come in for site plan review every phase and show you all the details every time. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a little bit more... Somewhere in the text it said that there would be fences placed in some areas, for various reasons, one of them, I assume, though I don't remember if that was expressed, to keep the children safe, and I don't see any fences on this plan, which is called LA -1 and I see the proposed layout of the, you called that the area outside the children's house, which to me PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 45 looks like it is planned for small children with a sand play area and tricycles and stuff like that, and yet that's very close to the road. Ms. Michaels — Eva there's several points to your question that I'll go through. On this plan there are a lot of fences shown, there are fences across the front of the building and through this project area here ... there are lines with little circles in them.. there's fencing all around the exterior of the Field of Dreams and in- between the residential property and the middle school... Board Member Hoffmann — How is the fence shown? Maybe I'll see it if you tell me. Ms. Michaels — You have LA -1 here ... it's just a solid line with little tiny squares on it and he doesn't color that with an arrow, which makes it difficult, because it's very small (She brings a map up to Eva and explains) Board Member Hoffmann — It looks like there is a fence along King Road there... Ms. Michaels — Well part one is to show you where he put the fences and part two is to talk about the implementation of that. Robin comes from an area that's very urban. Most of his designs are urban spaces that he need to rip up concrete and make more natural and then protect the children from the urban conditions around them and so fences are regularly part of what he designs. Philosophically, the school is not interested in fencing off the entire boundary of their property and putting all of that up. The one fence that is necessary and we will need will be the one in the children's garden. The youngest children ages 3 to 5 or 6 are in the children's house here and their specific play area is bounded right now by a fence, separating them from the road and the other children's play areas and that will be updated and renewed when we get to that phase of development as well.. The rest of the fences as shown by Robin Moore, are currently under hot debate within the school. Board Member Hoffmann — I can understand that, I reacted a little bit to that too, but, I felt very strongly that having that small children so close to the road with the kind of traffic that there is... Ms. Michaels — There is no question that they will always stay fenced. Board Member Hoffmann — ...there needs to be some separation there to prevent accidents. Ms. Michaels — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point? Do you have what you need from us? Is there feedback or comments in a particular area that you wanted from us? It's a little bit different because we came in expecting what's on the left as what to work with but as that's already starting to, you're already starting to work with what PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 46 you really want based upon that vision and reverting more to that, so....What are we concerned about? Traffic, safety of the kids, safety of the parents dropping off their children, stormwater management, somebody had mentioned working with Evan on his parcel to the west, his commercial development. We've been concerned about the lighting of that, for example, and the impact up the hill on the Montessori School. We'll continue to work with Evan on that when he comes back for final. Anything else I missed? And we always love, the more trees you plant the better. We'll always take more trees. As long as they're not invasive. Board Member Hoffmann — In the memo we got, there's also mention of the need, well in addition to clarifying the park situation, there's a need to identify very clearly the different phases and when they are going to happen and what will be included in each one. And also, there's no information about any possible anticipated growth of the school. You're saying that this will be for the children that are there now, but ... is there no anticipation of growth of the school at all? Ms. Riddle — I don't believe there is any more physical opportunity to grow the school any bigger than it is. I think that we've maxed out on the footprint that we have and also, I'm old. I think this is really it. Unless the school had. an opportunity to buy more land, I can't see it as ever being bigger. About 10 years ago this school did a feasibility study and we got very clear on 200 being the max. And this. is exactly the year that we thought that that would happen and here we are Board Member Hoffmann — Well it might be good if you were to express that in a statement when you come in. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item. Chairperson Wilcox — I hereby move the minutes of June 5th ... do I have a second... seconded by George Conneman. Discussion. Comments, Board Member Hoffmann — When we vote on the minutes and I abstain, does the abstention count as a vote for or against? Chairperson Wilcox — Neither. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, on pages 44 and 45 we voted on two sets of minutes and it says the motion was passed unanimously even though I abstained in those cases. It may have said that every other time before and it just sort of...l just wasn't sure because I think I remember we had talked about abstentions before and what they really meant. Vote PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 47 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 064 Approval of Minutes from June 5, 2007 Planning Board, June 26, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George.Conneman. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from June 5, 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 June 5, 2007. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty, and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTION: Thayer The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — We had in our Ostensibly wondering why they were development of the Linderman Creek about whether school busses would ha property. Any action, any discussion, didn't get back to us, or... packet the letter from the School District, not consulted with regard to the further area properties, expressing their concern ve to back up in order to enter then exit the any ... Did we contact them and then they Mr. Kanter — Well, I don't know what happened in the early stages of review, but, I do know that it was never represented to the school district that that circle would be a permanent one. It was intended to be a temporary one and my understanding is that the school busses originally were going into at least Linderman Creek One to pick up the students then going around their road, which one could argue may or may not be a better idea. Now you have another Linderman Creek on the other side so obviously the school bus has the same kind of issue that T -Cat busses have with their routes and how long it takes to pick up all the kids on the routes. We actually at the same time, .got an indication from T,-Cat with concerns about picking up the elderly residents up in the senior... Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody we know happen to have brought that to our attention? Former somebody... PB 6-26 -07 Pg. 48 Mr. Kanter — You might recognize the name, but actually it was, actually we had a meeting this morning up at Conifer and we talked about both the T -Cat bus issue and the school bus issue. A more immediate one is the T -Cat issue because if T- Cat feels that they're not comfortable or able to put their bus into that parking lot, they're not going to do it, so we have to find another solution. So Conifer is going to be looking at some options and they might be coming back with a site plan amendment to perhaps either modify the parking area so that there can be more room for turning movements or for relocating some of the parking spaces. Board Member Thayer — I thought we modified that already? Mr. Kanter — Not for that reason, no. Board Member Thayer — I thought we did. Mr. Kanter — There were some modifications for sidewalks and lighting and some other things, but ... And actually when ... T -Cat was involved in the review and we actually, you're right, recalling back, there were some actual modifications of the parking lot at the early stage. to accommodate busses. Well, the T -Cat representative at that point who was working on it apparently came up with his own recommendation for supporting it and the current T -Cat people don't have the same point of view. Chairperson Wilcox — And it is certainly in the developers best interests to provide for bus access for the residents. Mr. Kanter — So hopefully, if we work with Conifer on this we will find a solution for both the school district and T -Cat. Board Member Conneman — They're concerned about backing up... Mr. Kanter — With the elimination of that circle that was added as a temporary ... the school busses now have no real place to turn around once they go back into the development to pick the kids up, which maybe isn't such a bad' idea, but... Training Opportunity Mr. Kanter — Anybody who can and would like to, please fill in the registration form and get them to us and we'll coordinate getting them all registered. Invitation Chairperson Wilcox — All of you have an invitation to Tee -Ann's retirement. Sonnenstuhl's Letter Chairperson Wilcox — We have the letter from Mr. Sonnenstuhl. It was in front of us this evening when we arrived and lots of attachments... I can't believe that anybody has read it ... or if they did read it, certainly not been able to comprehend what's PB 6 -26 -07 Pg. 49 there. I'd like to add it as a discussion item in our meeting next week. That will give us a chance to read it. We'll add it as a discussion item next week. That will give us a chance to read it. Agenda Chairperson Wilcox Usually I ask Jon for week away, we all know what it is and if you plan, who's not going to be here? It's the absent) Cornell Master Plan Meeting Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Res fitted by,� Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk it but since the next meeting is only a haven't ... it's two meetings and a sketch 3rd ...(nobody indicated they would be TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to. be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the Cornell University Utilities Department Service Yard located between Maple Avenue and Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No:'s 63. -1 -5, 61- 1 -8.1, and 63.- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone and Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes modifying an existing oil tank, installation of a new fuel off - loading station and fuel oil piping, expansion and reconfiguration of the existing Cornell Maple Avenue substation, replacement of the existing open coal conveyor with a new covered coal conveyor, and reconfiguration and improvement of the existing roadways within the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Tim Peer, Agent, 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell Plantations Deer Fences, Forest Home Dr. and Caldwell Rd, 7115 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at three locations at the Cornell Plantations, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of 8 foot tall deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden located off Caldwell Road (Tax Parcel No. 67 -1- 8), at the Plant Production Facility on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2), and at the Fall Creek Research Plots on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No.'s 65 -1 -5.2 and 65 -1 -1). Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent, 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Lot Line Modification, 357 and 359 King Road East. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 357 and 359 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 and 46 -1-4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing off a +/- 0.010 acre strip from the eastern edge of Tax Parcel 46 -1 -4, to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -5. Peter Capalongo & Sandra Capalongo and The Estates of Leland G. Wilkinson & Jane W. Holland, Owners /Applicants. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of yards. 8:00 P.M Review of a sketch plan for the proposed campus master plan for the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 117, 120, and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43 -2 -7, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes a multi -phase campus development plan for new outdoor play and curriculum areas along with updating the parking and circulation around the campus. The first phase would include clearing and grading, creation of a play field, a sledding slope, earthen mounds, new access to King Road East, stone dust paths, a wetland area and other stormwater facilities, and improving the path between the Middle School and the Lower Elementary School. Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. 10. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 11. Approval of Minutes: June 5, 2007. 12. Other Business: 13. 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 26, 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 26, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the Cornell University Utilities Department Service Yard located between Maple Avenue and Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 61-1 -5, 63.- 1 -8.1, and 63.- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone and Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes modifying an existing oil tank, installation of a new fuel off - loading station and fuel oil piping, expansion and reconfiguration of the existing Cornell Maple Avenue substation, replacement of the existing open coal conveyor with a new covered coal conveyor, and reconfiguration and improvement of the existing roadways within the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Tim Peer, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at three locations at the Cornell Plantations, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of 8 foot tall deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden located off Caldwell Road (Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -8), at the Plant Production Facility on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2), and at the Fall Creek Research Plots on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No.'s 65 -1 -5.2 and 65 -1 -1). Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 357 and 359 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 46 -1 -5 and 46-1 - 4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing off a. +/- 0.010 acre strip from the eastern edge of Tax Parcel 46 -1 -4, to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -5. Peter Capalongo & Sandra Capalongo and The Estates of Leland G. Wilkinson & Jane W. Holland, Owners /Applicants. 7:40 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town* of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities. 7:50 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of yards. 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: Monday, June 18, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 T Wednesday, June 20 2007.1 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN, OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD;: NOTICE OF >. - PUBLIC HEARING_ ¢ Tuesd' June 2-,007 By . directi6w of; the- •Chair- <, ppeerson ' of the ' Planning: �Bwrd, NOTICE .IS ";HEREBY", ;GIVEN thatPublic'Heanngs iwill•be held by:the•Planning , [Board of the Town of lthaca Ion Tuesdayy,' June 26 ;,',r 2007,-at, 215'Noirth Ti a "! 7 30 P M. Consideration`' Sireet,'Ithaca,-N.Y: at the' of Preliminaryry and Final; following times and on the ; !Subdivision, Approval " _for followingg matters..', r' j ;the proposed.lot line mocl& 7:05 P M Consideration ; cation, at 357 . and 359 Iof Final Site Plan Approval ; 1Kmg Road East•:Town of for the proposed:Jim prove- Ilthaca Tax Parc61'No s 46- "( tments-to' he Cornell N ver =_ I i.1-5 an&46.1 4, Low Densi -?sj city ;Utilities ,Departm'ent-. qty RiAidential?Zone The? rService:•Ygrd .located -be- ; proposal i6dudes'subdivid € ,tween Maplii Avenue 'and-; Sing off7w' +/- '0.010 acre':! .Dryden •Road �.(NY5 -Route stripp horn the eostern "edge 366), .Town of Ithaca Tax' of-Tax.Parcel 46 -1-4, to be Parcel Nos 63. =T-5, 63 1 consolidated wilt; .Tax- Par 8.1, 'and 63.- 1- 8:2,'Low -', ;cel. 'No. 46.15:,; .Peter; 'Density' Residential ,Zone Capalongo &;: " Sandra'; ,and -Light -Industrial Zone. = ° {.Ca alongo and The Estates.: 'The proposal includes mods iof Leland G..-- ;Wilkinson &` 'tying an existing oil .tank,.; )ane WrHolland, Owners/ tmstallation of a. new fuel Applicants :` off- loading station and fuel'. 40,P M. Consideration }oil=, piping, -expansion, and . :of a Recommendation to the reconffiguration of;the exist; 'Townof'Ithaco Town Board 1 %gCornell :Maple Avenue ;regarding a proposed local csubstation, :replacement3of +law am endingg�provistons in '.the existing open coal.cor- Chopter_ F270, =_Zonin gg; of veyor with a new covered, Mhe Town of Ithaca -a e,re- coal conveyor ,and yarding amateur radio to-:, reconfiguration and ' irr r lo, citifies. 3 •,-; ' 'provement of the existing. 7:50 P M Consideration roadways within;Fthi site:,`' 6V ecommendation to the, Cornell University; Owner/ Town of Ithaca Town'Board 1plicant, Tim Peer Agent 2regarding d proposedJocal 45 P M.Consideiation law emending provisions in of . Preliminary "and Final'; J,Chapter, 270,. Zoningg, of Site Plan` Approval and ; ,the Town of IthacaMe re-: Special Permit' for the pro- gording . the Aefin.ition' .of', ppoosed . deerJences "at -three t I.yards.. eloeotions `at the Cornell; Plantations -Low. Density.! Said Plammng'Board will; Residential Zone: The pro-.,4 at said time andsaid place;, posal- involves the hstallo- hear all persons_ in support, tion of 8 foot tall deer -fen- l of such, matteror objections' ces . at the`_- ;Mundy { thereto: , Persons, may"ap q Wildflower'Gd� den located ,ppeear,by agent ar.in -,person r off - Caldwell Road;(fax Par - i ;IIndividuals with `visual- im-,, ceL No. 671- 8);'at the Plant; pairments ,hearing impair; Production Facili_' on Forest; merits . or .other , special,' Home Drive •�x Parcel-i needs,-. prov;dedl No. 65- 1 -5.2), ,and a-Ulie ; lwith assistance as necesso- ' Fall Creek - Research Plots rryy 'upon request;: Persons; on Forest 'Home Drive (fax! desin gn assistance must' Parcel'-No's 65 -1.5 2 and (make- such a request not; 65 11.1): Cornell University, : less than 48 hours prior to Owner/A' Hal {the time of, the public~ Martini- CCornell Plantations'• lhearing." Project Manager, Agent <s , Jonathan Kanter, AICV Diiecto "r of Planning] '273 -1747; Dated: Monday.. , >` June .18; 2007 ° Publish: Wednesday,:.. June 20,:2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street June 26, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You ,I Name F. r > ld2 L S c,-j erg WIC16adS 6�A i0 UJI, Address f)v3aL,j t -M4VZ <)9 i/� � Acv. l�'f,00+- 55or TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board— 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: June 18, 2007 June 20, 2007 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 201h day of June 2007. . 0C3��t' Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 100