The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2007-09-04REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: George Conneman, Rod Riha. Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb. FILE DATE 9 /'I .,r7 Howe, Larry Thayer, Kevin Talty and Susan STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer (7:14); Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS PRESENT: Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge and Wolf Deb Caraco, T.G. Miller, 203 N Aurora Street David Tyler, 202 East State Street Jim Kerrigan, 1021 West Seneca Street Bill Sonnenstuhl, 206 Winston Drive Greg Ezra, 110 Birchwood Drive Peter Littman, Montessori School Charles Eldermire, Cornell Lab of Ornothology Patricia Paige, 212 Muriel Street Lawrence Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way Bernard Carr, Terestrial Engineering, Phoenix, NY Eric Whitney, 409 Auburn Street CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 27, 2007 and August 28, 2007 together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on August 27, 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 — Before we start this evening, I need to point out that Eva Hoffmann is not here this evening, therefore, Hollis Erb, our alternate will be filling in for Eva this evening and has all of the rights and privileges of a voting board member this evening. Final PB 9 -4-07 Pg. 2 PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:07p.m. SEAR Proposed Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School of Ithaca Filed of Dreams located at 120 & 122 King Road East Chairperson Wilcox — As they get set up and get going... without in any way passing judgment on the application, I so love it when we see work from TG Miller and Trowbridge and Wolf. It just is a joy, there is just so much information and it's complete and it's readable and it's intelligible and I truly appreciate it and please tell the principals in your office and if you happen to get in contact with the T.G. Miller folks, tell them as well. It is just a joy when the two of you and Holt Architects sometimes team up. We get lots of information and we do appreciate it. I am sure the Staff does as well. Having said that ... name and address please. Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, 1001 W. Seneca Street Deb Caraco, T.G. Miller, 203 N Aurora Street Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to make a presentation this evening? Ms. Michaels — I think we will just make a presentation up front and then.... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you would like to get a better view of the visuals that are being used, you are welcome to come up around and behind us if that will aid in your understanding and viewing of what's being proposed this evening. Ms. Michaels — So, Deb and I have already introduced ourselves. With us tonight also is Andrea Riddle, Principal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Lisa Smith, the Business Manager of the School and several members of the School Board. Also able to join us tonight is Evan Monkemeyer, the property owner, and his attorney. As most of you know from our sketch plan review submission, the existing site consists of three different properties that form the campus for the school. The middle school is here on the eastern edge of the property, the elementary school and main building is to the west, and across Kind Road is the upper elementary school. We came in June to discuss our master plan with you and then worked with the school board and the administration and teachers to come up with what would be a feasible Phase I for the school given their priorities for the children's play and the budget at hand. And that included really working on this piece of open space, which they've called the Field of Dreams. This portion of land here is actually land owned by Evan Monkmeyer to which the school has rights granted to them to develop and use that Final PB 94 -07 Pg. 3 property.. The majority of work for this project is on that property. This is King Road here running east/west. So the proposed plan seeks to build a playing field, a meadow which they will mow a labyrinth in, some walking paths, a running track, a wetland and pond area for curricular activities, a boardwalk crossing the wetland, an entry drive for emergency access, and improving the path in between the elementary school and the middle school and adding some stairs and code compliant rails. The main reason why this is Phase I is because right now the children are spending most of their playtime ... all buildings come to the elementary school for recess and if you take a. look, these are the property lines here that I am outlining with my finger, it's a pretty tight site, and this whole portion of it is fenced off for the youngest children, and so the older children get to play in this area here which is almost entirely bus turnaround, parking and driveway. And right now, the school actually has to put up orange cones and they allow the children to play in the vehicular circulation areas during recess because there just isn't a lot of other space. There's a piece of lawn right here which is very steeply graded. In the winter the kids sled on it and when there is no snow, they actually play soccer on this hillside because there is no other open space for them to go to. So it really became apparent that getting a little bit more room, really making a playing field for the students, making a running track for the athletic department and then adding this curricular piece with the pond and the ecosystem that we are hoping to build there, became the priorities. Landscaping for this piece includes a lot of landscaping around the pond with plant material that does well in this type of soil in these wet conditions and also provided habitat and food. We want to get an ecosystem up and running. We want frogs and salamanders and birds and all kinds of creatures moving into this place for science classes. The rest of the site will be seeded as either lawn to be mowed and manicured, which will be the playing field area, the area adjacent to the middle school, or as meadow with plants like birds foot tree foil and yarrow and just the blue one, it went right out of my head ... all the common things that we see in the fields in our area. This project is, as you saw from your packet, there's no designated wetlands on this site, the project does not increase traffic to the site, and there's no future expansion of buildings or enrollment planned as a result of this project. In terms of stormwater, I talked a lot about the pond in terms of curriculum, but it also serves an important stormwater purpose. It fulfills the DEC regulations for quantity and quality control and it's actual slightly over sized because we were thinking about the master plan, and included in your packet is a stormwater master plan to just inform you that, you know, Deb and I have been working to make sure that when we're done with all the phases, we're still compliant with our needs for DEC. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 4 There are certain conditions that were written into the resolution that I would just like to speak to now. Conditions C and E, that the owner and the Town work out stormwater operation maintenance plans, we're very aware that this is part of the new Town regulations for stormwater and that is no problem to comply with those in any way. Condition D, requesting documentation from Evan Monkmeyer that he is aware of the project, he's here this evening so perhaps, maybe that condition is unnecessary at this point and Condition F, that the school will not build a pavilion without Board review of the plans and details that, of course, would not be done without coming before you. And then there was also a letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department, again mentioning the issue of sidewalks along the street. That's a great goal and we definitely would like to incorporate that into the master plan. It doesn't fit into what we're doing for Phase I, but when we get to future phases and we. start to improve this middle school area and parking here, we can add that sidewalk and when we work on improving this circulation and parking in front here and this piece of the landscape, we're hoping to add sidewalks here as well. So that is absolutely part of the thinking for the master plan but not necessarily... it's not part of Phase I. And that's pretty much the over view, and we will stay here for questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review Ladies and Gentlemen. Dan, thank you for walking in at the correct time ... Any comments on the stormwater management system? Mr. Walker — No everything is fine on here. There's plenty of room and everything. Chairperson Wilcox — Over sized, as they have stated? At least oversized for this part of the overall project. Okay. If a pavilion was built, where would it be located? Ms. Michaels — We are putting in a concrete pad right here and this would be the location for the future pavilion. Chairperson Wilcox — Uses there would be? Ms. Michaels — Outdoor classroom space, a sheltered space, when they want to be outside but it's raining or there's inclement weather. Just having some hard surface space, too, for the kids to play on is always helpful. Board Member Thayer — No need to fence the ponds? Ms. Michaels — We've looked into that extensively. We've talked to the codes official for the Town.of Ithaca and she said, in terms of codes, no. We've looked into as many laws as we can and although we are not attorneys, we can not find a law that requires that to be done. There is a requirement if you are a daycare facility, a licensed daycare Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 5 facility, Alyssa's Law requires you to fence any piece of water, but, not for a school system. And the client has also contacted their insurance company and notified them that the pond is going in and the insurance company does not require that they fence it off. We have designed the pond to have a very shallow slope, in terms of entry, so that students won't fall into a ledge and into deep water and only in the 2 center pieces, in this piece and this piece, does it get as deep as 4 feet. That's the minimum depth we can get to actually support fish and that's pretty important for the whole curricular ecosystem piece. This middle section here gets to be what, a maximum of 12 -18 inches deep and this center part gets to be 18 and then it gradually goes back up to ground level again. So we do think, in terms of safety, if you're going to have open water, we've been as safe as we can be about it. Ms. Caraco — Another thing that's kind of helpful, that we tried to do is; outside the pond is very shallow as well so that's it's a very shallow walk to the edge of the pond and then the inside of the pond, it's very shallow and it's also going to have a lot of vegetation planted at the edges so it's kind of a rough job to try and get to the deep part. Chairperson Wilcox — All set Larry. Anything else? Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman...any further discussion? Susan, you're okay? Ms. Brock — One or two minor changes. In the first whereas, the word plan is missing after the phrase preliminary and final site approval, on line one. So the word plan needs to go in after the word site. Also, because some other agencies have approvals to give as well, in the second paragraph, I believe it would be prudent to mention that this is an uncoordinated environmental review. So change paragraph two to read "this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to this project. Those are all the changes that I have. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Acceptable gentlemen? (yes) There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying Aye. Anybody opposed? No one is opposed, the motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 = 091 SEAR Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Montessori School — Field of Dreams 120 & 122 King Road East Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43 =1 -3.6, and 43 =1 -3.2 Town of Ithaca_ Planning Board, September 4, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. I Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 6 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Field of Dreams (Master Plan — Phase 1) project at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1- 3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes the clearing,. grubbing, and grading of approximately 1 3/ acres to create a playing field, a sledding slope, an access lane to King Road East, stone dust paths, a pond and boardwalk, stormwater facilities, and a new asphalt 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, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to this project, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 4, 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 included in a packet titled "EACMSI - Field of Dreams, Master Plan: Phase I ", dated August 3, 2007, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C., and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed project; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes of environmental significance in accordance with Article Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York Sta Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part I Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hoffmann a 8 to 0 I, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha and Erb The Motion passed unanimously. negative determination of the Environmental Environmental Quality n the information in the and, therefore, a Draft Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 7 Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7.19. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Field of Dreams (Master Plan — Phase 1) project at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 =1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 =1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes the clearing, grubbing, and grading of approximately 1 % acres to create a playing field, a sledding slope, an access lane to King Road East, stone dust paths, a pond and boardwalk, stormwater facilities, and a new asphalt 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. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan Ladies and Gentlemen? That we haven't already asked. Board Member Conneman — Well, the only question, the only thing that I raise is that, know this is Phase I, but when you get to the other Phases, I think Evan Monkemeyer is agreeable that there should be a sidewalk and it seems to me that we ought to coordinate that sidewalk with his proposed shopping center and the rest of that corner. The corner of King Road and Route 96. It's important to do the right things there, the first time, and I hope that we can all get together, including getting the State to agree that we can make that corner really work with lights and everything else. I just want to get that in the minutes Evan, because I know you're agreeable to that. We should agree. Ms. Michaels — I completely agree with you George. I think that the sidewalks would be a real benefit to both the neighborhood and the school and Evan's project as well and we often times coordinate with other architects and engineers on projects that abut each other so I think that's completely reasonable and doable. Board Member Conneman — Okay. I just wanted to mention that because I think we all agree on that. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Okay. I will ask you to take a seat and we will give the public a chance to speak this evening. Ladies and Gentlemen, you've heard this once and I will say it again...This is a public hearing this evening, if you wish to address the Planning Board, we invite you up to the microphone, we ask that you give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 8 Jim Kerrigan, 1021 West Seneca Street As you may recall, I represent Mr. Monkemeyer who owns the adjoining land. We hope to be back in the near future with final approvals for College Crossing. In regard to this project, I want to indicate at the outset that it's Monkemeyer's feeling that's supported this school and I am delighted to have it as a neighbor, going back to the day that the land was transferred to the school for what the Monkemeyer's think is significantly less than its value. They are great neighbors, they're a great contribution to the neighborhood. Having said that, there are questions that we would ask that the Board take into consideration. I came to the conclusion that I may be asking for some more time to see if we can answer some of these questions. To continue that sort of apology, I got a call on Tuesday or Wednesday in response to, what we think was the newspaper ad, indicating that this was here, spoke with the attorney for the Montessorri School that same day, had some questions, not all of which are resolved, and received at 1:00 today a plan, portion of the plan, which is unlabeled, which is all we know about of the project at this point. I was told this afternoon that construction was planned to be started on Monday. I was told this evening that bids are being opened Monday, so, on the one hand, I apologize for what may be a little bit of a last minute, on the other hand, information that to us was sketchy. There's three questions, one of them relates to the Town. About 10 maybe 20 years ago, the Town approved a five -lot subdivision including, I believe, this parcel of land. A requirement .of that subdivision approval, I believe, and this is on a list of things to do but I hadn't gotten to it since I started to represent Mr. Monkemeyer relatively recently, was a Planning Board approval which may have required that this parcel of land be donated to the Town as part of that approval process. In the rush of the last few hours, I've seen at least one and I think two deeds tendered to the Town, the first of which was rejected because, as I recall, there was a reservation to the owner, the Monkemeyer's in the event the Town used it for purposes other than park purposes, which was rejected by the then Town Attorney. The second deed was submitted by Attorney Winner from Elmira and there was no such reservation ... I think that has been rejected by the Town but I don't know why, and I don't know what if any obligation Mr. Monkemeyer has to convey this land to the Town with or subject to the rights granted in, I think, 1987 or so, to permit the school to use this parcel until it became a Town Park. So we're gonna be asking for some time to try and find out whether or not the owner of this land has an obligation to donate it to the Town or if that was rejected, which it was, and that's the end of it ... I don't know and Mr. Monkemeyer isn't sure. Much of this goes back to Herb Monkemeyer's day and previous attorneys, so I raise that as a question and we will be asking for time to explore, which I wasn't able to do in the brief, few hours since some information regarding this arrived at my office. The second question we have relates, I guess also staying with the subdivision question, one last question that I haven't had a chance to look at and don't know the answer to is that we are surprised that a subdivision... that a process, a planning process can get this far without the owner's signature. Mr. Monkemeyer owns this land. Final PB 94-07 Pg. 9 I use the word subdivision, I think our preference would be to subdivide this parcel of land, give it to the Town, give it to the school, as it may be, with whatever restrictions may be appropriate, so that he is not the owner. Many of the rights to use this, of course, were part of that conveyance by Herbert Monkemeyer to the school perhaps 20 years ago, forgive me if I have my dates wrong in regard to the date this process started. A second series of questions we have relate to information which I was assured this evening will be provided to us, but relate to two ponds. There's a pond ... right, at the present time, there's a swale running through the middle of what's designated as a playing field which drains an acre, acre and a half pond upstream from this on Mr. Monkemeyer's property. That pond is drained in three different fashions, I'm told, didn't have a chance to get up there this afternoon, I've never been on this property, on this part of this property ... I'm told that that upper pond, some 10 -12 feet deep most of the. year, is drained first by a 4 -inch pipe, set in the middle of the pond, a. couple of feet above that, in height, is what I am led to believe is a 2 -foot square manhole which drains the pond, which feeds into a 30 or 36 -inch pipe, we don't' know, and the third drainage is a, what I am guessing, is a ripwrap indentation in the dam holding back the third pond, which was built by the County 40 years ago, that drains in the case of overflow. On the materials provided to me, there was no indication as to what happens to that water. That strain, that swale, I'm led to believe, runs for about 6 months of the year. I would like the Planning Board to give the school the opportunity to provide to us, as they said they would, their engineering studies in regard to the drainage of that upper pond so that our engineers can both look at that and study that, see and rest assured that there is adequate capacity... Apparently the pipe, that water underneath the playing fields, and a pipe the size of which l was told tonight but I'm not sure of, and determine where it's going to outlet, which will be on Mr. Monkemeyer's property. If that is to be done, we would also ask for similar information in regard to what we are told are studies regarding the permeability of the soil below the new pond to be erected on the property, to be sure that the drainage and the lack of permeability, clay perhaps, I don't know, underneath that proposed pond will not result in seepage coming out, going underground, coming out on Mr. Monkemeyer's property at all. And the third question that we have is, in light of questions of deeding this to the Town at some point, and the status of that to be determined, is this park open to the public ?, which we think is contemplated, is the area to be fenced ?, the pond is not. I think those are the basic concerns and our request of the Board in the hopes that after receiving this information we would return in person and in writing and fully, fully endorse the continued expansion and growth of a delightful neighbor to Mr. Monkemeyer, the School, would be to give some time to provide us with some of these materials so that we know particularly what's going on. You will recall that you very recently approved our stormwater management approval for College Crossings immediately downstream. I am almost afraid to ask the question of what impact, if any, this piping and presumably therefore, increased faster flow through a pipe rather than presumably slower flow through a muddy, rocky, seedy, grassy, I'm not sure which swale may or may not affect the approval that you've already granted. So, the hope is for a little bit of time, mostly to Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 10 study engineering, answer a couple of legal questions, to hear from the Town, which had been on my agenda to find out what's gotta be done to deed this property to the Town and hopefully come back in and sign on as an owner, or hopefully, even better, a former owner of this parcel and see where we are. So we look forward to success of the project, but have some concerns which we hope the Board would take in to consideration. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else this evening? Looking for hands ... there being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. For those of you who are here for the consideration of the recommendation to the Town with regard to the moratorium, we will get to it when we are done with this particular agenda item. Alrighty. I'll let you speak in a second Susan. Evan, I don't know why you waited until the last minute to do this. You had access to the plans. Information in front of us says that they were provided to you so I am not particularly happy that you've come here at the last minute when you've had a month or so to review the plans. Having said that, Mr. Kerrigan — We never got them. Chairperson Wilcox — Sssh. You had your chance to speak, I have my chance to speak. Having said that, where do we go. Let's start over here. Any further comments on the drainage other than the ones you've already made, given Mr. Kerrigan's comments? Mr. Walker — This preliminary stuff is provided and it analyzes the watershed, the existing watershed above the site and the piping is sized based on the hydrology for the flows on the one, the ten and the hundred year storm, which is our standard design procedures. The concept is to basically pass the most of the water through the pond area without going into the pond so that that pond will not overflow but continue the natural flow pretty much as it is, you know, this is my interpretation of what your report says, so it is good that you are nodding your head yes. So, I don't think this will increase and it should actually decrease the flow. Now, my experience in that area, with the soils in that area, there being a pond directly above this site that was recently reconstructed, it's holding water quite well so I don't think the soils are varying too much and based on the wetness of the ground in this area, the, this, it's probably pretty impervious soil, so I don't think there's any major problems with that. Of course, during construction that will be observed and you could ask for some additional (inaudible) if that's the case. I don't think there's a lot of issues with that seepage issue. Plus there's another additional drainage ditch in- between that pond and the existing road there. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Do we want to talk about the land and the ownership and the storied history of this parcel, and I'm not sure who has the best history, whether it's Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. l 1 Susan or.Jonathan or possibly even myself, at this point, the storied history of this parcel of land. Mr. Kanter — Well, either or both of us can talk about it but my recommendation would be that we spend very little time at this meeting reiterating history because it would take about.. .the rest of the night. We wouldn't get to the other... Chairperson Wilcox — How about a one minute summary of this parcel. Mr. Kanter — Well from my point of view, speaking as having been involved through the last 13 years or so of dealing with this issue, the bottom line is the Town still believes it has ownership, rights to that property, and this is part of a long process of working with Mr. Monkemeyer on trying to substitute other portions of the Monkemeyer lands so that instead of taking this property, there could be an assemblage of a larger community park on South Hill and that has never been resolved to either party's satisfaction. It came very close to being resolved, and then it wasn't, then it was close again, then it wasn't. ,That's about the history of it, without getting into all the details. The bottom line is that that property still was meant to be dedicated to the Town, the Town is trying to work out other situations where rather than taking that property, we could work out plans to have a larger, from the Town's point of view, more workable, Town Park in that area. But Fred could add to that himself. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah I could've said that, I could have said that myself. In previous ... in the materials we have received, Susan it's clear to you ... That Montessori School has the right to develop on this property... based upon the deed, the copy of the deed that was included in our materials... Ms. Brock — Yes. The deed states that they have the right to develop it until the property is conveyed to the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Does Mr. Monkemeyer, as the owner of the property, retain any rights to say what Montessori School may or may not develop on that property? Ms. Brock — Let me look at the deed... Chairperson Wilcox — I'll give you a second to look at that. Bear with me for a second... you' re welcome to speak up while we wait ... or you're welcome to wait,,, This parcel, those of you who have been on the Board for a while, this parcel was actually subdivided out before I joined the Board so you can see how far back this goes ... it goes back at least 12'/2 years... Board Member Thayer — We've kicked it around several times... Chairperson Wilcox — We've kicked it around with some ideas of instead of taking this acre and a half acre and three quarters... instead, taking another parcel of land of similar Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 12 size and combining it with other potential park lands that are owned or controlled by Mr. Monkemeyer and forming more of a neighborhood or community park rather than this rather smallish pocket park or whatever....Yes Susan... Ms. Brock — There's never a clear answer, but the deed states that "the Montessori School has the right to use that land for park purposes, for itself, its students, staff and invitees." And it further states that "the School agrees to construct and maintain any improvements it desires to be had for Buyer's use and purposes on the park area until such time as the park is accepted by the Town of Ithaca, at which time the park will be maintained by the Town, and further improvements will not be the responsibility of the buyer." So, when we look at all this language together, it does not appear to me that Mr. Monkemeyer reserved the right to approve any improvements, as long as they are consistent with park purposes. Chairperson Wilcox — And when we say Mr. Monkemeyer, I believe we're referring to not Evan, who is sitting here, but, I believe it's your father... Ms. Brock — Right, Herbert Monkemeyer, the seller of the property. So, on it's face, it does not state that the school would need approval. Now, I think Attorneys for both parties are here and they may have differing opinions... Chairperson Wilcox — I noticed we have a room full of attorneys tonight ... I did notice that ... Before we let others speak ... Kim, when you were here for sketch plan review, this issue was raised of the ownership, and you, representing Montessori School, said something about. .. "if this land should become a Town Park... Ms. Michaels — The School is quite aware that this may become a Town Park at some point. That at anytime ... our understanding is that you have some kind of open issue at which anytime you can, the Town can, say ... and take ownership of that land. The School is aware of that and is willing to incur this level of expense and construction with a full understanding that at any moment, it may be conveyed to the Town. They need the space, they need this to happen for the kids, they're hope was, for the last seven years, that the Town would take it and turn it into a park that they could use. And the Town did not, which is part of why we're here tonight, because we would really like to have that piece of property for the children and so, yes, they are doing it with full knowledge that they are investing in a piece of property that may very ... at some time not be theirs. Chairperson Wilcox — You're represented by counsel this evening ... hold on ... hold on ... I'm curious why you did not get up to speak during the public hearing ... when you had the opportunity to speak ... but I will give you the opportunity now. Peter Littman, 69 Hungerford Road, Dryden I am a Board Member of the Montessori School, I am coincidentally a lawyer, I am one of two lawyers on our Board. The last three years we have had three lawyers who have gone through these last few years with us. Honestly, I really think that Mr. Kanter said it Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 13 all. I mean, that our rights, the school's rights in the deed are so clear, and I myself, and the other attorneys that have been affiliated with our School have reread the deed, the original, there is a purchase agreement that it stems from, I've read that so many times I know it almost by heart, but we know that we have an absolute right and we are taking a risk. We are spending a lot of money to do this and we know that you may come and say, you know, we want to take it over... Chairperson Wilcox — Or the Town Board may... Mr. Littman — Right, and that may happen and we've gone through a lot of changes... The only other thing that I really want to address is, I have a series of purchase offers for the Town Park property, proposed purchase offers with Mr. Monkemeyer, that he knows all about and over several years, we have been trying to obtain ownership of it so he would be totally excluded from it. So at this point, I think that it's really ... most of the issues that Mr. Kerrigan has raised on behalf of Mr. Monkemeyer, I think are, really have to do with the development of the land, the landscape architect issues that I don't really understand and Ms. Michaels can address those. And I think Attorney Brock also understands the ownership issue, so I'm not sure what other question you have for me. Chairperson Wilcox — I have none. I wanted to know if you wanted to make a statement. Ms. Michaels — May I speak to some of the other issues that Mr. Kerrigan brought up? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, absolutely. Ms. Michaels — It's unfortunate that Mr. Kerrigan did not get a full set of plans. I did email Evan a set of documents ... I understand that he is interested in having time to review all these pieces of information, but time is now a problem for us. We've been contacting Evan, I personally have been calling him, I've spoken, in June or July I spoke to him personally on the phone, we invited him to the sketch plan review meeting and he did not attend, I emailed him a set of plans, he's been contacted by the Town, the sign has been up outside the school as required, the Administration has been calling Evan, and right now, if we don't get moving, in September, the weather changes, and this project waits and the kids don't have a place to play this year. So it is extremely frustrating to me, and I think all of the people from the School here tonight, to have Evan show up today, and ' try and slow it down. I understand that he and his attorney and their people would like to double check our work, but I would hope that you would have some faith in the type of work that we do, that your engineer has said that this is properly engineered, that this will have to go through a New York State DEC permitting process, and that TG Miller has done due diligence with the stormwater. I think we have a really excellent plan here and are doing no harm to Evan or any of his surrounding properties. Mr. Kerrigan also spoke to not having the owner's signature before this moved forward, we have a signature, in the deed, that shows that we have rights to build this. We Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 14 would not come forward with someone else's...to do a development on someone else's property without having written confirmation that that is okay. And we have provided that. He had other questions about it being fenced. This property will not be fenced. And he had a question about it being open to the public. This property will not be open to the public. It is a private school. We are going to post signs at the property and it will not be a public place. I think that those are all of Mr. Kerrigan's concerns. Chairperson Wilcox — I am going to look to my left. Mr subdivision to ensure that the land is a separate parcel. I parcel today? Mr. Kanter — It is not. Chairperson Wilcox — It is not? . Kerrigan also mentioned believe it is a separate tax Mr. Kanter — It is not. It is all part of the larger, I'm not sure which one it is ... Mike, do you remember... probably 43. 1 -3.2 I think is the larger Monkemeyer parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So the boundaries of.this proposed piece of land to be... which was originally proposed to be. donated to the Town (inaudible) as part of the original subdivision of the lots along East King Road, the parcel was never subdivided off the larger parcel. Simply the boundaries were delineated. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Alright. I'm gonna, let me say something and then we will let Susan support my position. Let's be positive. The only thing similar to this sort of situation I can remember is we had a gentleman on Troy Road who came in for a subdivision and one of his neighbors had a survey of his own property which contradicted the survey that was before this Board for consideration for the subdivision, one of the boundary lines was clearly in some dispute and the way that it was resolved was, and that was subdivision, not site plan, obviously, but the way we resolved it as a Board was ... was there any reason to believe that the information in front of us was not valid or was correct or incorrect as the case may be...did we have a valid survey...it had been signed by a licensed surveyor. There was no reason to doubt it's validity other than the fact that somebody else had a survey, I think it was years older, which indicated that one of the boundary lines was possibly different. So we proceeded ahead with the subdivision. It turns out, I talked to that gentleman many years later and it turned out that the newer survey was correct, but not that that mattered. I don't know if that is relevant to this so what I am thinking is that we have information in front of us, we can delay, we can put this off, we can ask that the lawyers solve their problems, we can ask that Mr. Monkemeyer provide a, or his representatives, come in and provide a letter Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 15 saying that they are pleased with the development and wish the Montessori School all the best, or we can decide that some of the issues that have been raised need to be researched, or we can decide that we have the information that we need and can either approve or disapprove the plan based upon what's in front of us. Okay.... Ms. Brock — Well, I think what you propose in terms of making a determination as to whether the information you have is sufficient and then making a decision would be a reasonable way to go. You could also consider adjourning this matter to a future meeting, keeping in mind that the applicant's desire to move ahead fairly soon in this construction season. I was just conferring with Jonathan about the next Planning Board meeting agenda in two weeks.., It looks pretty full right now, I don't think you would want to try to squeeze this one onto that agenda. You could consider a special meeting, however, to come back and consider this item. If you think it would be worthwhile to wait some period of time to give Mr. Monkemeyer more time to speak to the Montessorri School people and to consult with his own experts as well. Chairperson Wilcox — That's where we are. Board Member Howe — I think we should move forward and make a decision based on what's in front of us tonight. Board Member Riha — I agree. Alternate Member Erb — I do too. Board Member Thayer — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion... Board Member Conneman — I'll move it.. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb. Susan... Ms. Brock — Okay. More changes; in the second whereas clause on page 1, add the words an uncoordinated, before the words environmental review, this is line 2 of paragraph 21 On page 2, condition 213, revise that paragraph to read as follows: Submission of record of application for and receipt of all. necessary permits from any county, state or federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Condition 2F,...1 need some clarification on actually being proposed, is that correct? Mr. Kanter — Well there is, a concrete slab. that. It doesn't sound as if any pavilion is Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 16 Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Ms. Brock — But there's no actual structure being proposed? Mr. Smith — Not as part of this Phase. Ms. Brock — So do we need F? Mr. Kanter —Well, I think it's a good idea to... Ms. Brock — Alright, then let's revise it. Submission to the Planning Board of details ... what we need to say is approval of the pavilion by the Planning Board, because that would be a change to the site plan Mike, is that right? Do we need to add that concept in here? Mr. Smith — Yeah. At this point we don't have any designs or any information. Ms. Brock — Okay. So after the phrase &A submission to the Planning Board of details of the proposed pavilion for approval" add "and approval by the Planning Board of a revised site plan" and then the rest can remain the same... Chairperson Wilcox — Now could you re -read the entire paragraph. Ms. Brock — Submission to the Planning Board of details of the proposed pavilion for approval, and approval by the Planning Board of a revised site plan, prior to issuance of any building permits for installation of said pavilion. And then, I have another condition G to propose which would take the place of the further resolved clause. The proposed further resolved clause states that the Planning Board approvals do not relinquish the Town's pending ownership interest in the property as a Town Park ... I believe it would be stronger to actually have a condition that requires the applicant to submit a letter stating that and stating that they develop the property at their own risk. So I have some language for that. I will just read it to you, and Paulette, I will provide you the written language afterwards if it's approved by the Board. G. . Submission of a letter signed by an authorized representative of the applicant acknowledging that the above Planning Board approvals in no way ... I'm sorry ... strike the word above ... just say the Planning Board approvals in no way relinquish the Town of Ithaca's pending ownership interest in the property, part of parcel 43. -1 -3.2 as a Town Park, and further acknowledging that the applicant's development of the property is at it's own risk, that the property may become a Town Park and applicant will not be compensated by the Town for any improvements to the property. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 17 Chairperson Wilcox — George... Ms. Brock — And then we would delete the further be it resolved clause, the last clause which contains part of that language. Chairperson Wilcox — George ... Hollis...you okay with that? (yes) ... okay... thank you Susan... Board Member Howe -- What about D? Does D change? Alternate Member Erb — Yes, what about D? Ms. Michaels — Can 1 , for a moment... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on for a second... Ms. Brock — Well, all that D does is state that Mr. Monkemeyer is aware of the project... Chairperson Wilcox — That's it's purpose... Ms. Brock — And since he's appeared tonight, we know that's the case, so I believe it would be appropriate to delete D.. Jonathan, do you have any comments on that? Mr. Kanter — I agree with you. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, strike D... Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Ms. Brock — So we would then re -letter the following conditions accordingly... Chairperson Wilcox — George, you okay with that change? Board Member Conneman — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Hollis? Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — side ... YOU 're all set on No problem... alright, I being none...all those one is opposed... there Okay. Thank you again Susan. Anything else.:.from my left this side ... Kim, you wanted to speak ... YOU 're fine now, right.... have a motion and a second ... any further discussion... there in favor, please signal by saying Aye-...anybody opposed ... no are no abstentions... the motion is passed. Good luck to you. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 18 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 092 Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Montessori School — Field of Dreams 120 & 122 King Road East Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 4, 2007 Motion made by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Field of Dreams (Master Plan — Phase 1) project at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43-1- 3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes the clearing, grubbing, and grading of approximately 1 3/ acres to create a playing field, a sledding slope, an access lane to King Road East, stone dust paths, a pond and boardwalk, stormwater facilities, and a new asphalt 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, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project has, on September 4, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 4, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings included in a packet titled "EACMSI - Field of Dreams, Master Plan: Phase I ", dated August 3, 2007, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C., and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Montessori School Field of Dreams project finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been meet, Final PB 9 -4-07 Pg. 19 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Finial Site Plan Approval for the proposed Field of Dreams project at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 and 122 King Road East, as described on drawings included in a packet titled "EACMSI - Field ' -of Dreams, Master Plan: Phase I ", dated August 3, 2007, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site. plan materials, prior to issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of record of application for and receipt of all necessary permits from any county, state and /or federal agencies prior: to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, and c. submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, and d. submission of a long term operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater facilities that are proposed, for review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, and e, submission to the Planning Board of details of the proposed pavilion for approval, and approval by the Planning Board of a revised site plan, prior to issuance of any building permits for installation of said pavilion, and fi. submission of a letter signed by an authorized representative of the applicant acknowledging that the Planning Board approvals in no way relinquish the Town of Ithaca's pending ownership interest in the property part of Parcel 43.A1 3.2, as a Town Park, and further acknowledging that the applicant's development of the property is at its own risk, that the property may become a Town Park and applicant will not be compensated by the Town for any improvements to the property. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Final PB 9 -4-07 Pg. 20 AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hoffmann The Motion passed. Talty ,Howe, Riha and Erb Chairperson Wilcox announces the next item on the agenda at 7:56 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding adoption of a local law providing for a moratorium on development in the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca for a period of two hundred seventy (270) days. The proposed moratorium would allow the Town Board time to determine, among other considerations, whether a change from the existing Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone on Tax Parcels 70- 10 -15 (24.16 +1- acres); 73 -1 -2.2 (2935 +1- acres); 73 -1 -8.1 (2.40 +1- acres); and 73 -1 -8.22 (23034 +1- acres) is appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — I never know where to begin on these, because we don't have an applicant, you know, normally we have an applicant who comes and speaks and presents... gives us information. I am sort of looking to a liaison to the Town Board who might want to provide us with some information about why this is in front of us tonight. And I think I can look to the Town Attorney, who sits at both our meetings and the Town Board meetings. Ms. Brock — Okay. The law itself, as it's drafted, is fairly comprehensive in describing the purposes behind it. It spells out the history of the Town's plans, both through the Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space, .the Park Recreation and Open Space Plan, as to the appropriateness of conservation zoning in the Northeast corner of Town. The Sapsucker Woods bird sanctuary owned by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and lands adjacent, immediately adjacent to that property. The law also describes the fact that the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council has designated the area under consideration as a Unique Natural Area for a number of reasons, and it talks about the fact that the Town Codes & Ordinance Committee, several years ago, during a comprehensive review of zoning throughout the Town looked at this area, made a determination not to pursue conservation zoning at that time with the thought that certain specially sensitive areas, namely, wetlands on the property could be protected by means other than conservation zoning. Since then, a number of things have happened. The Town Board has commissioned and received a study on the hydrological conditions in the Northeast area of the. Town. There have been numerous complaints made to the Town Board about drainage and floo0ding problems in that area. The Town Board decided to retain an independent Final PB 9-4 -07 . Pg. 21 consultant to look at the impacts of the proposed Briarwood II development on the area to determine whether, in fact, there would be negative impacts related to drainage in the area. The consultants, Malone & McBroome, submitted their final believe, in May or so, and the Town Board learned of some the Town, namely, a layer just below the surface called the and prevents water from infiltrating into the ground. The located, I believe, just 1. -2 feet beneath the surface and that problems that exist in that area of the Town. report this past spring, I conditions in that area of ragipan, that is very hard fragipan they found was accounts for many of the Around or shortly after that, both the Planning Board and the Town Board received a letter from Mark Whitmore, I believe is his name, who is Chair of the Unique Natural Areas Committee of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and he included much information about the unique characteristics of the area .that are ... that is ... new or different than that which is stated in the Unique Natural Areas inventory. This information was provided to him by Robert Wesley and Nancy Ostman, both of whom had been consultants to Tompkins County and had worked on the Unique Natural Area inventory update in the late 1990's which culminated in the updated report- to the county dated 2000. So, because of both the new information that was received from Malone & McBroome about the drainage properties of this area and because of the information. that was submitted by Mark Whitmore, the Town asked to ... asked the Staff and myself to draft a. law to propose a moratorium in that area so that the Town could consider all the information that it has available to it to date and also to conduct a study on these properties that would be affected to determine whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning in these areas, or to make other changes, if necessary and if indicated as necessary both by the drainage study and the study that would be done and the study would be looking at ecological factors on the property. So, much of this information is laid out for you in the law itself in the beginning paragraphs that discuss the purposes and findings and the Town Board received this law and considered it at its August Town Board meeting. The initial draft called for a moratorium on development in this area for 180 days. But, because any ecological study will need to look at both vegetation as it is now, before the foliage disappears for the winter and it will also need to look at emerging vegetation in the spring, it was determined that 180 days would not get us quite far enough. So, the Board decided to have the proposed law apply for a period of 270 days to give the Town Board enough time to have as meaningful study be done, give the consultant time to write the report, and give the Town Board time.to consider the results of the study before it then votes on whether any zoning or other types of changes are necessary. The law itself applies to approximately 79 acres. It would apply to 2 parcels owned by Mr. Lucente that are the Briarwood II subdivision parcels. It would apply to land that's owned by Cornell University and it would apply to the Town's Salem Park as well. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 22 These are all properties immediately adjacent to the existing Laboratory of Ornithology bird sanctuary property that already is zoned conservation zoning. Do you need more information, or is that... Chairperson Wilcox — I think you've done a wonderful job. I think you've done an excellent job, much appreciate it. Mr. Kanter — Maybe just a couple of things to add. We, the Planning Staff is currently in the process of working up a scope to send out to prospective consultants to study this area and we've been working with a small committee of the Town Board to get that scope prepared and we will be sending it out in the form of a request for qualifications. We have a list of about 7 or ,8 consultants that work in this kind of thing and hopefully, we will be sending that out this week. And the idea is that we would hire 'a consultant fairly quickly so that they could get out in the fall and do the fall surveys and then do additional research. Primarily it would not all be new research. There is an awful lot of material which is, I think, why the Town Board decided to. propose the moratorium, to really try to collect all the information and then have an independent consultant provide recommendations to the Town Board on the appropriate course of action. One minor, minor correction that Susan mentioned... the letter that was submitted to the Town by Mark Whitmore regarding the Unique Natural Area characteristics was actually co- signed and co- authored by Nancy Ostman, Robert Wesley and Mark Whitmore. Of course, Robert Wesley and Nancy Ostman were the people who really provided the Environmental Management Council with the information on the original Unique Natural Area. So that's...: Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and Gentlemen, we are probably going to spend a few minutes having an. open discussion here and then we will give each of you an opportunity to speak for those of you who wish to address the Board this evening. Who wants to go first? I'll go first. If I may... One statement, .There seems to be a lot of evidence that Susan stated, there are unique ecological characteristics in the UNA, but one of the issues that no one has seemed to be able to address is, do these unique characteristics exist on...or where they exist on the UNA, let me put it that way. There seems to be agreement that they're there, whether it's the flora or the fauna, but no one can seem to pinpoint where they exist. Whether they might exist on lands proposed for development or whether they might exist on lands proposed for acquisition by the Lab of O, for example. Seems to be one of the issues that hasn't been resolved yet and hopefully any study would look at that. would ask the question and I thank the Town Staff for providing us with the map, as usual. I would ask Susan or Jonathan or anybody to my left, why the Cornell University parcel was proposed of inclusion. Is the only reason that it touches the UNA boundary? Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 23 Ms. Brock — And the Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan by the Town both also identify that parcel, or at least large portions of it, as being appropriate for conservation zoning. So, it's a similar rationale to that that applies to the Briarwood II parcels. Mr. Kanter — Oh and by the way, another thing we should have mentioned is that the Town Board did rezone the Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary itself to conservation zone back when the zoning revisions were done. So this would, if surrounding areas were zoned conservation zone, would be seen as an expansion of the existing conservation zone. Chairperson Wilcox — The Cornell parcel seems like an outlier, at least on the map that I'm looking at, if it has any land within the UNA, it's minimal compared to the size of the parcel. It's surrounded by development on at least 2 sides. We have the Village of Lansing, excuse me, we have the Town of Ithaca ... to the south we have the Town of Ithaca land which includes the...l'm sorry ... which includes BOCES. To the north we have some development on this L shaped parcel and then to the east we have development as well. So 2 and '/2 sides, let's say, out of 4. And then we have land in the Village of Lansing on the other side. I'm just.... what... Ms. Brock — I didn't follow your directions at all. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking... Board Member Thayer — You're looking at it wrong. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I turned it around ... I'm sorry, I turned it...l need to turn it that way ... yeah,,Ym sorry... I turned it this way ... assuming north was up ... my mistake. Do you want me to go through that again? Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. On the east side of that parcel there is the BOCES campus off of Warren Road and also it looks like part of the IC31 11 Ms. Brock — You're speaking about the west side of the parcel? Chairperson Wilcox — On the west side yes...did I say east? ... I'm sorry ... west side.. Ym usually not directionally challenged... To the south side of that parcel is single family units or other residential development. To the east side, at least part of the parcel, part of the R shaped parcel, the L shaped parcel on the east side has residential development... part of it does border the Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary and then on the north side is the Village of Lansing, is laying in the Village of Lansing, which is to the east of the...what does Lansing call that ... that's the doctor's park,. the research park is on the other side of the road, this is the physicians park, I think is what they call it. It just seems that, because the land is, there's so little of it within the UNA, it just... Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 24 Board Member Howe - Fred, I thought the same thing, but I, if you're gonna" .1 see the rationale... it's another very large parcel so why not take a comprehensive look, if you're going to do this. So that, to me, made sense. I'm more concern...) mean, I would hope that there would be a look at what might happen in the Town of Dryden, you know...1 don't want to just push development into the Town of Dryden, so if there might be some analysis or some look to see what's the zoning in the Town of Dryden. Some of those parcels, if this moves forward, just so we're looking at that. Board Member going to do this, they have a to Jonathan, that vegetation and sanctuary or on Conneman — I agree with Rod 100 %. It that somehow we ought to cooperate with of what would be there. The other q the purpose. of the consultants... will go the birds that are allegedly there are on Mr. Lucente's property, is that right? Mr. Kanter— Right or just exactly where they are. seems to me that if we are the Town of Dryden because jestion I have is, I assume out and verify whether the Cornell's parcel, in the bird Board Member Conneman — Right, wherever they are, but.... Ms. Brock — And it will be more than birds. I think they'll look at other fauna too, you know, and amphibians and other things have been brought to the Town Board's attention. Board Member Conneman — Of course, I mean, but that's the issue...they will look and they will verify whether the plants and the birds, where they are and what they are in those areas. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that is very important. Mr. Kanter — And also, just overall, what the ecological values of the habitats are, even beyond the individual species. Board Member Conneman — Okay, and then if we could get some cooperation from the Town of Dryden, then that would be neat. Mr. Kanter— Yeah, actually, Dryden and I'd say also the Village of Lansing.... Chairperson Wilcox — Can 1 interrupt. Susan, I've forgotten about you twice now...Susan needs to say something. Board Member Riha — Well, I am recusing myself from this discussion and this vote. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, thank you very much, okay. Final FB 9 -4-07 Pg. 25 Board Member Conneman — I just wanted to be sure that's what...that if this is approved, that that's what the Town Board is going to hire a consultant for. To look at vegetation and everything else that's in there, including the birds. Because I know the birds are important to a lot of people. Mr. Kanter — Try to confirm locations and existence. You know, some of them haven't been fully documented to us, so, yeah. Board Member Thayer — So we will actually see the boundaries of that. Mr. Kanter — Well, I don't know about ... some kind of locational confirmation is definitely...l mean, it will probably be on a map like this that would pinpoint observed species, locations, habitat considerations... Board Member Conneman -- One of the previous studies, I think, said well, that's the kind of thing you should find there but they never verified that they did find it there. Ms. Brock — I'm not sure it said that... Mr. Kanter — I'm not sure it was stated exactly that way, but... Board Member Conneman — Well that's how it read, anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point? We all set for now... Board Member Thayer — We've got to go digital. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Digital would be nice. Board Member Thayer — It would be. Chairperson Wilcox — You all set? All set? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. You have all been patiently sitting here and we appreciate it. I will ask you to raise your hand. I will call on you in no particular order. It has been the policy of this board not to set time limits so we will give you a chance to say what you need to say. If you stray off of the topic, we may or I may interrupt you and try to bring you back to the topic as I have done with other members of the public who have addressed this board in public hearings. We ask that you provide a name and address, a professional address is always acceptable. That way if we should have information we want to make available to you we know how to provide that to you. That is why we ask for your address. So having said that, raise your hand and whoever I see first and the gentleman would do A amplify. in the back row right there is the one ie a favor, pull that microphone right I see first. [addressing applicant] If you over. It both allows us to record and Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 26 [public microphone appears to have been turned off at this point making it difficult to hear person speaking] Bill Sonnestuhl, 206 Winston Drive Well, thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Bill Sonnestuhl. I live at 206 Winston Drive. I did write you earlier this summer for an opportunity to address the board and I am glad to have an opportunity at a public hearing about the moratorium. And I would like to encourage you to support the Town Board's moratorium. I think it is...(not audible) ... very interesting...(not audible) ... document. I would like to make about 3 great points. I know that when I sent you a packet back in June, I believe it was, I sent it to Jonathan. There was a lot of information in there from Todd Walter on the hydrology issues. He is not here, but you can see from the report that the Town Board had ... (not audible)... on hydrology. I assume you have that now. And there was a rather big piece on the UNA designation in there as well. So I would like to make just a couple of quick points that I hope doesn't get lost in our discussion. I do think that they are very critical points to considering a moratorium and why it is up to everybody's best interest to support the moratorium and think about these very critical issues. First point I would like to make is something that Susan referred to already, which is the moratorium is really the extent.. the opportunity to revisit a discussion that was occurring in 2004 about whether in fact the conservation zone that encompasses currently the Lab of Ornithology ... (not audible)... should be extended into this parcel. Now I do not know why that discussion was tabled in 2004, but I do believe had that discussion been brought forward and we had a public debate, a public discussion about that conservation zone then, we would not be at the point we are now with Briarwood II. It is an unhappy circumstance, I am sure, for the Planning Board as well as the community in the northeast. It hasn't been happy...(not audible) ... I think that some of these things could have been resolved a long time ago in a more diplomatic kind of way. So I just would like to say that I think that what this moratorium does is reopens the discussion and is the ... (not audible) ... that reopens the discussion because there really is new information here that was not available before that allows us to, perhaps, revisit this issue in a more ... (not audible)... manner than we have in the -past. One point that I would like to make about hydrology study and I think it is real incredible because to me it seems like a very moot point about the hydrology study ... (not audible) ... and those consultants, I think, went out and really did pull together all the ... (not audible) ... information practicable ... (not audible)...you couldn't have gotten a more objective report than we ended up with from those consultants. Let me say that I was not very optimistic about ... (not audible)...but I think their point about the fragipan up there is very, very critical. And I will call your attention to the report in terms of their conclusions and one of the key pieces of their discussion in terms of their inclusion, it says. .because I think it is important to understand that what they are really saying here in this report is that you can't use standard engineering techniques to talk about this area and what you do with the drainage system out there. I think a key element to this report is a paragraph on page 36, and I will read it briefly here. It says, Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 27 "with a lack of a comprehensive storm sewer system and a shallow fragipan, the ... (not audible)... soils, traditional methods of analyzing and designing for stormwater mitigation may not be appropriate in northeast Ithaca. Meanwhile rainfall intensities are changing and impounding the potential problems." That paragraph, I think, is very, very critical because all of the points, if you read through all of their points in terms of their recommendations about what needs to be done out there follow from this basic idea that ... (not audible) ... in terms of using standard engineering techniques, but in fact, standard engineering techniques do not work in this area and in fact using standard engineering techniques is simply going to exacerbate all the problems in the area. This comes from the consultant so I think, you know, it warrants consideration in terms of that issue. The other issue I think is raised in the law on the moratorium ... (not audible) ... is the UNA designation for this area. I think it is important because we are going to want some_ claims made back and forth about what the UNA is and is not. One thing I think is important to bring forward is that County has said that this is a designation that applies to this area and this designation has not been changed and thereby designing this as an area they really do not to intend or encourage development, high density development in that area. I think it is important ... (not audible)... that this is a statement that is corning from the Environmental Management Council itself, just very recently ... (not audible)...okay lets saying rethink it. The other point I would like to make about the UNA that has drawn some issue and...(not audible) ...about the UNA designation and the study the Town Board wants to do that ... (not audible)...information and data will be brought into the picture as far as making some other more recent observations about that area. I think that that is appropriate. However, what I think is inappropriate is that in some instances the UNA designation was a study that was done by Robert Wesley and Nancy Osman has been characterized as nonscientific, as hearsay, as anticdotal evidence at best.. Now they submitted their data back in 2000 and it was used as the Unique Natural Area designation, they were actually praised ... (not audible) ... a statement that I read into you earlier in my packet. This is from a memorandum from Ed Marx, who is the Commissioner of Planning, to the EMC and it concerns what is the appropriate protocol for doing research to designate an area as UNA and the kind of protocol that should be used to make sure that in fact species that one wants to think are there are there or that any rigorous ... (not audible) ... study is done. Now I would like to read to you from the memorandum exactly what they said about this report. They said, "the County Planning Department, local ... (not audible) ... others currently value the 2000 UNA inventory inspected as a scientific document to help in project review and planning. This is a direct result of the rigorous review process that was undertaken to complete this document for both the 9990 and 2000 updates. Paid consultants, who I understand also donated many hours of unpaid service maintaining a high level of consistency of data documentation and review for all the sites of the inventory. If the inventory is to continue to be meaningful, each up date should have an equivalent level of consistent and thorough review. We believe that this would require several years to do properly. Drawing on the expertise and abilities of EMC members, Planning Department staff, the Final PB 911 -07 Pg. 28 local scientific community, and paid consultants, much like the process that was established with the 1990 and the 2000 updates. The 2000 inventory update, which was quite extensive took 6 years of continuous work to complete and required $13,000 of county funds not including the large amount of volunteer and staff time that went into preparing the document." So I would hope that any rigorous review that we undertake to do the UNA would be the kind of ... follow the kind of recommendations that the Environmental Management Council itself has laid out for designating UNAs, which goes far beyond simply trying to verify whether a hawk is on Mr. Lucente's property. In many instances, a UNA designation does not mean that the hawk lives there. It means that the hawk needs that area to survive. So it's a much more complicated issue and indeed does require that we also go back to the data that was collected earlier and build on those data and look at the extent data that currently exists as well. So we are talking, actually, about a very complex study and.my only reservation about the moratorium is that its not long enough. That 270 days will not allow the kind of consistent rigorous evaluation that is needed to confirm or disconfirm the UNA designation. Having said that, I think we do need to have some moratorium that allows for further discussion of this conservation zone and have the public forum in which both the neighborhood and other interested parties and their community can come forward and present our opinions. And I thank you for having the opportunity to do so this evening. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. I think that is a first. Someone raising their hand and deferring to someone else. Board Member Talty — No, it isn't. [microphone turned back on] Charles Eldermire, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road My name is Charles Eldermire and my work address is 159 Sapsucker Woods Road. am manager of the Visitor's Center in Sapsuckers Woods Sanctuary so I am here speaking tonight as someone from the Lab of Ornithology, just to make that clear. I was asked to come here tonight by our director just to, to a certain extent to clean the air about our intentions, about the Lab of Ornithology's intentions in this entire affair because they've been discussed as though we haven't clearly stated them and we thought that perhaps it would serve at this point for everyone to at least have a clear understanding of our intentions. So I am going to read to you a prepared statement by our Director and I'll be available for questions throughout the evening if people do have questions that pertain directly to the lab or the sanctuary. Mr. Eldermire read from prepared statement. See Attachment #1. That is the letter in its entirety. This letter is in addition to at least one and I think two letters that we have sent to the Town Board already, specifically saying that we are willing and able to accept the parcels that Mr. Lucente is offering as part of this development scheme. So the important thing that I just want to make sure you Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 29 understand from this is that there are two parts of it. As a conservation organization, we 'recognized for us, for a chunk of land, development isn't our ideal for that chunk of land. However, it is not our property and given the choice between having acres that are contiguous with the Sanctuary developed or having them gifted as a buffer that is an important... that would be an important buffer to the sanctuary. And as pertained to something I heard you guys discussing earlier as you were batting back and forth to various parcels and why they were included, it is important to remember that the bigger chunk of land, however, the more likely it is to conserve whatever is there, just as a generality. So whether a piece of land might be jutting off of it on the side or over there, that still may be an .important piece, which is why I at least think that those were probably included. So I am going to give this letter to the Planning Board and I would ask that you forward copies of this onto the Town Board as well, if that's possible, otherwise I can have... Chairperson Wilcox — I spoke to Charles outside and I asked that we provide copies in advance to Town Board members so that they have it available for their meeting, for their consideration next week. Ms: Brock. - Can we ask questions now or later? Chairperson Wilcox — Urn ... Charles... have a seat. Board Member Conneman — I have a question. If Mr. Lucente gave it all to you, you would be real happy? Mr. Eldermire — We are...l feel like a lawyer up here, but I was going to say we are happy with being given any of that property. So the fact that it is not our property and somebody is willing to give roughly half of it to us, we are very happy about that. If he chose to give all of it to us and we have been in discussion with Mr. Lucente for a long time about at the very least this chunk of property that is directly adjacent to Sapsucker Woods. And if you look at a map, what it would do is round off the southern border of the property. The rest of Mr. Lucente's proposed development is sort of like a finger that juts southward I believe from the property, okay. And in terms of...you know, I can't sit .here and talk to you extemporaneously about the conservation value in specifics of that piece of land. There has been a lot of research that suggests that if you have the choice 9 times out of 10 about building 10 small little refuges or one big one that is the same size that's sort of one chunk that you always want to go 9 times out of 10 for the chunk unless there is something having to do with the species that you are really interested in. I want to back up and say the more land you have, the more likely it is you can conserve whatever it is you are interested in conserving. So we are happy that we are being given something that would actually increase the size of the Sanctuary about 10 percent from our current 220 or so acres. Also to lend sort of a historical perspective on this, if you have ever seen Sapsucker Woods pond, if you have ever gone to the Lab of Ornithology and looked out over the pond it is important to remember that 50 years ago that was all bulldozed and made. I don't know hydrologically what ... the Lab is not a hydrology ... a center of hydrological study and we are definitely Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 30 relying on the Town Board to be EC, the developer's engineer's, the fact that you guys brought in other engineers to look at the storm are not able to judge that sort of thing, however, not if that parcel were developed versus gives definitely being given to us. Hater and talk about these things. We what we are able to judge is whether or i to us, which is a better deal and its Board Member Conneman — It is more likely that it would ever be developed because you couldn't. The soils are so poor. Its so wet. Mr. Eldermire — I understand... it has been explained to me that the lots that are directly adjacent could be developed into something called the estate lots. Its been explained to me any way, again, I'm not an expert on development, but... Alternate Member Erb — Are we talking explicitly about 73. -1 -8.22? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Alternate Member Erb — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — That's the tax parcel number. Any other questions? Board Member Thayer — Have you ever had any discussion with the Town of Dryden people about the property that is adjacent to you? Mr. Eldermire — Not since my tenure. I've worked at the lab for 2 years and I have never been involved in any discussion specifically with the Town of Dryden. Board Member Conneman — Has your boss been? Mr. Eldermire — I don't know. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me he has an opportunity to provide great leadership for this thing and should. Mr. Eldermire — Well, the lab has always taken the stand of not potentially being an advocate in the community outside what I have already said, which is... Board Member Conneman — Outside of development money that you solicit. Yes. Mr. Eldermire — Development money I solicit? Board Member Conneman — Alumni that you encourage to contribute to your lab. Mr. Eldermire — We are a membership non - profit institution. Board Member Conneman — I know you are. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 31 Mr. Eldermire - ...as much as tax is paid for the ... what you guys get paid to come here as well [laughing]. Board Member Conneman — All I am saying is that you do solicit money and are aggressive with Cornell alumni. Mr. Eldermire — Yes, sir. Actually, they were the people that helped us build the $359000700011. Board Member Conneman — You built the big bird house with their help. Mr. Eldermire — Yes, sir. I appreciate you pointing that out. If anyone is interested in becoming a member please let me know. I'll be able to give you all the information. Board Member Conneman — I am a member. Mr. Eldermire — Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — We are getting a little off topic. Ms. Brock — I have a question. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Go ahead. Charles has been very good at answering our questions. Mr. Eldermire — Thank you. Ms. Brock — The previous letter from the Fitzpatrick or Scott Sutcliff. I don't recall. Lab of Ornithology was either, from John Mr. Eldermire — Right. I believe it was from Scott Sutcliff. Ms. Brock — And it had some qualifications in it. It stated that the Laboratory of Ornithology's desire to take the land is of course subject to approval by highers up at Cornell. Mr. Eldermire — That is still the case. Ms. Brock — That was my question. Mr. Eldermire — Those contingencies are still in effect, but this is again sort of just to clarify our intent. The earlier letters are still completely accurate. Ms. Brock — Okay. Final PB 94-07 Pg. 32 Mr. Eldermire - So, for example, we wouldn't accept it if the DEC did not approve the stormwater drainage plan, for example. I don't remember all the other contingencies, but there were others that had to deal with the site survey metes and bounds, those sorts of things, and that's correct. Ms. Brock - And I believe it stated that it was subject to approval by Counsel's Office and various other people in Cornell Administration and perhaps the Board of Trustees. I cannot remember all the different entities within Cornell, but there were other Cornell entities that needed to approve it and I just wanted to make sure that this letter did not supercede the prior letter. Chairperson Wilcox — Charles, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate you taking our questions. Next, ma'am? I'm going side to side is what I'm doing here. Patricia Paige, 212 Muriel Street My name is Patricia Paige and I live at 212 Muriel Street. I am here to encourage the Planning Board to recommend the moratorium on the Briarwood II development. This is for many reasons. Some of which are based on recently new information that has been discussed tonight. For the sake of time, I'm only going to talk about three of those reasons. The first reason and foremost is drainage. The drainage study provided in July by Milone and MacBroom states, as Bill already mentioned on page 36, that there is a lack of a comprehensive storm sewer system in northeast Ithaca. For years that fact has been very evident to those of us who live there and have had flooding in our basements, washed out culverts, streams cutting pathways through our yards, as one of my neighbors has had, and trees, as I have had, that are dying due to flood conditions. Its not that we aren't willing to do the necessary work and maintenance to try and solve our own drainage problems, we are. However, this is a large problem that requires a coordinated effort in the case of the problems on Muriel Street, our problems for example, it would have to involve the properties adjacent to us, upstream from us, and also the properties downstream along Warren Road in order to solve our problems. This coordinated effort must be provided by the Town. We can't do it and as I said we have been waiting for that for years. In a presentation to the northeast community a few months ago, the Town engineers acknowledged that there are severe drainage problems in this area. They also admitted that they don't, as yet, have an answer for them. In fact, it was stated in the presentation that one of the things that make drainage problems like our worse is development, increased development. This fact was reinforced by the consultant's report. Therefore it is not reasonable for the Town to approve additional development without solving the current drainage problems first. The consult study raised some important questions about the adequacy of the drainage plan proposed. Another quote on page 31, "based on the results of the modeling completed, volumetric increases in flow are predicted for all storm events. The increases are highest for the more frequent one -year return storm event, indicating that the downstream channels will likely flow full for longer and this will happen more frequently following construction." In addition on page 32 where they are discussing the fact that a number of lots depend on rainwater Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 33 gardens for their stormwater management because really those lots would have no where to drain to that they state that when these systems are inundated, stormwater will overtop the garden area and run via over land flow to the nearest receptor, which they comment is likely the neighboring lot. And as we all know when a property owner has a low spot on their property, they are likely to fill it in, rain garden or no rain garden and that's one of the problems I have had with my yard, is my neighbor below me has filled in that low area where my drainage was actually intended to originally go. Another concern with the drainage report just touches on, but is a large concern, is that according to the full environmental assessment form done by the developer, just under 13 acres of forest and in actuality with the new plan it will probably be more, will be removed as part of this project. The removal of the forest is a problem for many reasons including the fact that anyone who does stormwater design knows, wooded areas absorb excess stormwater runoff much more effectively than areas where the trees have been removed, potentially increasing the concern about flooding. Therefore, we have current drainage problems that are not being solved and serious questions regarding the impact of future development and the adequacy of the proposed system. Second reason, degradation of the wetlands and surrounding natural area. Now we can sit and debate about whether or not this is a Unique Natural Area,'but the fact of the matter is, there are wetlands on this property, not just on the 25 acres that are being proposed for Cornell. Wetlands are unique and they are important areas. I am a licensed landscape architect and I have been in practice for 18 years. In my experience and in speaking with other landscape architects and civil engineers, it is clear that the sites we are working with are increasingly becoming more and more difficult to develop. The reason for this is simple. Most of the desirable sites around the populated areas are being or have been developed and what is left are the difficult ones. The ones with steep slopes or difficult to access or have poor soils and wetlands as evidence by this property. There are reasons why this site hasn't been developed yet, which is that it is the least appropriate or possibly inappropriate for development. I have also had experience with working around wetlands and I can guarantee you that the wetlands will be severely impacted by this development, both during construction and for ever more. As mentioned before, many of the acres of trees to be removed fall within the wetland borders and directly adjacent to the wetlands. There is no doubt that the removal of surrounding trees will have a huge impact on the wetland habitat. In addition, there are four large detention ponds being built directly adjacent to the wetlands. I don't think anyone can argue that a series of large deep detention basins right on the wetland borders will have no affect on the natural wetland system. Everyone agrees that our wetlands are an important natural resource. We must provide them a much larger buffer in order to adequately preserve them. The third reason. As a citizen of the Town, I think it is very important for the Planning Board and the Town Board to consider the Town's responsibility in this case. The Town's future role in this development must be considered. The typical developer's role, and that's his job, is to develop a property to maximize profits then turn over the roads and infrastructure to the municipality and he moves on. It is the Town that will be Final PB 9 -4-07 Pg. 34 left with the responsibility, ongoing expense, and liability to maintain the roads, stormwater and utility system, to prevent additional flooding and to protect the valuable resource of the wetlands. Maintaining 4 large detention basins that are sitting right next to residential properties and directly adjacent to a wetland is a very difficult order. design detention basins. I know what's required. They don't take care of themselves. They silt in. They stop draining if not periodically maintained. As we know, the Town is already having difficulty maintaining the existing stormwater system in the northeast. Also, these detention basins shown on the plan I saw, the latest plans, are fairly deep and the consultant wants them to be at least a foot deeper. The Town must consider the liabilities of these basins directly next to residential properties. ,These are just a few of my many concerns and questions about Briarwood II, making it questionable if this development should occur on this land. Therefore, it is prudent at this time for the Town to declare a moratorium on further development until these and other issues about Briarwood II and any other potential development are thoroughly studied. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, ma'am Male — not audible. Next? Larry? Oh, you are going to defer. Chairperson Wilcox — It's your turn right now. The floor is yours David Tyler, 202 East State Street I represent Mr. Lucente. At the outset, I'd like to start off by saying that maybe more of my qualification to be here tonight is my 15 years plus on the Planning Board in the Town of Ulysses where I left there in December of 2005, including 5, 6 years I think, of Chair there, of, we didn't have the type of volume that you folks have, but I certainly have great empathy and respect for all of you people sitting here many, many meetings listening to a lot of difficult issues to kind of wrestle with ... And as I was ... I'm giving you this as a little sort of background of the moratorium and one thing that I've carried with me in my entire time after my first year on the Planning Board, was something that I heard when I went to a New York Planning Federation seminar for planning board members and this gray haired old fella who'd been doing it for years, early on in his presentation said, "you know, there's a very good reason under New York law where planning board members are appointed like federal judges, and not elected." Although the appointment process sometimes gets politicized, once appointed, you members of the Planning Board, owe a duty to your community, to the long -term best interests of it, dealing with applications that come before you and not to be swayed by, you know, what's going on. I don't think it's any secret, you drive around the Town and you see the billboards in the yards and we know that there are 2 members of the Town Board who are up for election and a supervisor... Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you back on topic please... Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 35 Mr. Tyler - Alright, okay, well that 9s ... I'm raising this because unfortunately, it's been politicized and I am complimenting you folks so that, and reminding you that that's out there in the background. What I'd like to, to sort of set the tone, briefly, is ... I spent some time looking at your Comprehensive Plan and I think there are some things in there that would be helpful on this whole process in evaluating it, because I think what you really need to do, at the end of the day here, is is the proposed moratorium appropriate here. That's the question. In the second chapter, it says stated and I'm gonna read, I'm not skipping around, I'm just reading what I come to, .. "the purpose of the Town's land use planning is to determine environmental value and suitability for development of lands in the Town and to strike a reasonable balance between development, protection and other uses." It's ... it goes to that point again and when (inaudible) the size of the plan and in the fourth chapter, again, the first item is striking a balance. "For example, some people feel that the Town should severely restrict development and preserve most natural areas and farmland. Others feel that the government should make it possible to develop the entire Town or at least make no restrictions. Ultimately, a balanced approach should be taken. The Town can respect different viewpoints and work to accomplish many objectives at the same time. Having an objective the protection of natural resources, open space, environmentally sensitive areas and unique natural areas does not mean that all open areas should be preserved or that tradeoff can not be made between these uses and other land uses. In the end, though the supply of land is ample, there is nonetheless finite and must provide a variety of needs for its residences, businesses and institutions. The challenge for the Town is to assess its resources and prepare a balanced land use plan that respects constraints, takes advantage of opportunities and honors desired policies." Those are the statements that the Town Board, this Planning Board, that recommended that and that's what you are kind of faced with. It's not an easy job. And the last thing I'll point out is in your action statements and your appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, which, obviously, you folks are looking at, but what I am giving you is kind of a rubrics of what any Comprehensive Plan has got to have. First item, under conservation of open space and environmental protection says: "Support private sector efforts to protect significant environmental areas and coordinate with Town comprehensive planning." 1 submit to you that the proposal that you've been looking at for a number of years, Briarwood 11, fits all of those rubrics. As typical subdivision, as you well know, 10% is set aside for open land is the, or equivalent payment, is, can be required. And anyway, we are talking about over 48 acres of land, half, or a little bit over 25, to be donated to the Lab of Ornithology plus and enlargement of an existing Town park at Salem Park. This proposed gift represents a 10% increase in the total land holdings of the Ornothological Lab. Teddy Roosevelt not withstanding, it isn't always government that preserves land. And over the last 100 years, gifts of land have preserved millions of acres throughout the country, through land trusts, charitable gifts, conservation easements and so forth. Final PB 94 -07 Pg. 36 These vehicles allow people in the position to do good to actually do it. Our federal tax code encourages it and provides us incentives to do it. The irony of this moratorium that's before you is the most vocal opponents of Briarwood II are now occupants of homes built by Mr. Lucente many years ago. It's the same ... they seek to deny the benefit of living in this neighborhood to others who would live in Briarwood II in the future. Mr. Lucente would like to continue his forward progress on the final subdivision approval through this body, which I believe the proposed moratorium allows, although it says with no promises so forth and so on: You've heard the trite win -win situation. I call this a win times 5. The beneficiaries starting with the gift to Cornell, is the neighborhood, the Ornothological Lab, Salem Park and the Town's open space preservation initiatives, future homeowners and the lone landowner himself, who lives in the neighborhood. He lives a couple hundred yards of this project we are talking about. The sad thing is that if a conservation zone is imposed, with. large lots, and myriad other regulations, the 25 acre gift to Cornell can't happen. The (inaudible) of the tax codes will prevent that. So, you are faced with kind of a dilemma. Sapsucker Woods will suffer a loss, not a savings, as has been promoted and all the beneficiaries I just listed will, you know, suffer the loss of that. The Town has a lot on it's plate in terms of trying to preserve open land, but it's faced here with 2 choices; approve the subdivision in its substantial form, it's ready for final approval after preliminary approval previously, or, if that doesn't happen, all the lands will stay in the hands of the developer. Board Member Conneman — Is that a threat? Mr. Tyler — No, it's a statement. It's not a threat... Board Member Conneman — David, I want to say to you, I am personally offended by the fact that you thought this Board is politicized. This Planning Board, I've been on it 8 years and they are not politicized, you said we were, I know ... I don't know what you do in the Town of Ulysses but we don't do that. I hesitate to read in the minutes what you said in the beginning of this. You owe us an apology. Mr. Tyler — If you took it that way I owe you an apology but let me just state... Board Member Conneman —.1 did take it that way. Mr. Tyler — Well, human nature being what it is, there are times when my planning board, when there was subtle pressures that were brought to bear and 1 was proud to say that we ... people weren't necessarily happy, but we stood our ground and did what we were supposed to do. Board Member Conneman — Then why did you accuse us of it? Final PB 94-07 Pg. 37 Mr. Tyler - I didn't accuse... Board Member Conneman — You did. Mr. Tyler — I apologize if you took it that way. Chairperson Wilcox — Your points been made. Mr. Tyler — That was not my intent... Board Member Conneman — I made my point... Chairperson Wilcox — Your points been made. Mr. Tyler — Anyway, my ... let me just close by saying... looking at all the things on the table here, is the proposed moratorium really appropriate in this spot, and I think you'll, at this time, I think you'll hear reasons why it may not be and that's ... the engineers will provide you with some information which I think will be helpful so I am going to, if Mr. Fabbroni can step forward, I would like that to happen. Chairperson Wilcox — A coordinated... yeah, go ahead Larry... Mr. Tyler — And sir, there is no intent of any insult here. I'm just saying that the world we live in is a world where politics is an ever present force. Board Member Conneman — Not on this Board. Mr. Tyler — Okay, well I'm... Board Member Conneman — And you should know that and Larry should know that too. Mr. Tyler — Okay. Well... Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, before you start, let me just paraphrase a conversation we didn't have earlier today. Larry had asked ... yeah, I know ... because there was an intermediary ... so Larry and didn't speak, but ... Larry asked for the opportunity, by calling Jon who called me, for the opportunity to make a full presentation or at least some sort of presentation, possibly 15 minutes, possibly longer ... My answer back was that this Board had collectively determined that we were not interested, at this point, in a presentation on Briarwood II, but Larry certainly was welcome to come and speak as part of the public hearing to address the issues of the moratorium as any other citizen can address this Board. So, given that, around the horn from Larry to Jon to me back to Jon back to Larry, name and address please. Final PB 94-07 Pg. 38 Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way I am the project manager and engineer for Briarwood II for Mr. Lucente. In keeping with what the Chair just said, that will explain why I am going to (inaudible) at this juncture in bringing the Briarwood final subdivision plans to you which you will see shortly. (hand out) What I have to say tonight is directed toward whether to recommend the moratorium or not to the Town Board and so I'll speak more from the proposed local law for that purpose than anything. I feel that many, many of these issues raised in the local law have been entertained and studied by this Board for the last 5 years. You may or may not remember, some of you are new, that I came in, in late 2002 to present the first idea for Briarwood II. 1 was told to go off and develop a master plan for the whole land, and that's how we sequentially went through a number of iterations. You sent me off with the challenge to talk to the University, I came back with largely the agreement that you are looking at for the last 2 years but, a very complete planning process and master planning process by this Board. The Comprehensive Plan has made mention of, in the local law, over the first couple of items, A -E. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan map is made reference to and have included that in your packet, that's one of the first things you will see in the front of the packet and it'll show a little dot east of Briarwood, that light area that's show is what was tentatively shown to be conservation land, pending the more careful definition of wetland. As you will recall, in 2003 we delineate that wetland for a second time and we did a full wetland delineation on it. Similarly, the next reference to the Comprehensive Plan is map 8 -1 and you will see that is the next item in your packet, and it shows kind of in general, the same thing. This time it's happened in lines ... (not audible).... It's the same area that delineated twice. I don't know if any other wetland in the Town of Ithaca that has bee delineated twice. I could be corrected on that, but we have delineated that wetland twice. Our wetlands consultant is intimately familiar with this land since 1993 when he delineated the land the first time. In addition to that, I have to make note when decisions were made not to include this is conservation area back in 2004 and other times over the last 10 years when the Comprehensive Plan was being looked at. It may have been ... (not audible) ... be served by infrastructure. There is water and sewer at zero feet from the project that we want to develop and it surrounds the entire land that we are talking about developing. The Town asserted its right for this land to be developed when the Village of Cayuga Heights declared the sewer moratorium back in the late 80s. Filing with the Court and won a court case to assert their right for this land to be developed. The Town asserted their right to add units, sewer units in this area, as part of the 6 municipal agreement that was signed here a couple of years ago. Why would the Town spend all that effort to assert their right to develop this land if it was to be conservation land ... (not audible).... So I think there is a great misunderstanding about discussions that went on Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 39 with the Comprehensive Planning process and how we were mislead at least for 5 and a half years if the real intention of the Town was to develop this as conservation. When you get to the item down, it mentions ...(not audible)... the UNA and all the new information that we reportedly have. UNA 54 is the original UNA in 1990. It included only a part of the bird sanctuary. In 2000 it expanded to UNA 106 and suddenly it included all of Mr. Lucente land, all the way down Hanshaw Road. None of the land west of the sanctuary was seen as unique. None of the land ... even some of the land that you now are considering for conservation area is considered unique. It was ... (not audible), .and I'll stand by my earlier statements in saying that when I spoke to Mr. Wesley he told me what he would have done if he had the proper aerial.. .(not audible).... Now everybody can change their mind and I am sort of past the point of what he said or didn't say. We are accepting the fact that it is a UNA and we are speaking for the work of that designation.. If you read the next thing in my packet very carefully though, Jonathan. Kanter, your Director of Planning, wanted to question these people who wrote this what I would call an opinion and emotion for political opposition to this project. ...(not audible) ... where the backup was on their various determinations, they didn't have any. So basically this new information has not back up. That is my strongest point to you. Everybody is all excited about this new information that has not backup. When you use your notoriety to cast doubt over other people's professional work, there is a real problem there. We, as you might remember, and you will see in the next series of things in your packet, the wetland delineation. As part of that wetland delineation our consultant who is here tonight and will speak later, studied different parts of the land, in and out of the wetland. I have included a map, the first two pages are maps of where those parcels are studied. The next series of pages are all pages that inventoried the trees, the shrubs and herbs on all of those spots in and out of the wetland. It certainly doesn't cover 100 percent of the land, but it gives a lot of information on what is on that land and interestingly enough, none of those plants match up to what that famous letter says is important. There is none of it. identified anywhere and our consult will speak to his latest tour of the land to speak to that letter. I guess my main point is that that letter has no backup, but that sounded like a scientific study to you. And number 2, we have done first hand investigation of the land. This isn't promulgated information. This is all controlled by a ...(not audibie)....of the Army Corps of Engineers controls for any delineation of a wetland. At the same time, you may remember most of you were on the board there was a question of the birds and the hawks. The hawks have been mentioned earlier. We did a 3 season bird study for the same reason that if you went and duplicate this work now, you are saying you need more than one season to do it, but we did a 3 season bird study. We essentially had a moratorium on our work in order to develop this detailed information for this board and I think ... (not audible) ... a lot of the neighbors didn't get engaged in this process until after the preliminary subdivision approval and so you didn't have the benefit of the bird study and wetland delineation and what the background of that was and that is unfortunate because there is always room for dialog and improving of a project, but the way this has ... (not audible) ... instead of ... (not audible).... Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 40 So the next. thing, this letter came and I have been here enough times to know that if I didn't have professional rebuttal to the letter that had no backup, I would be in trouble. So I went to our consultant, the one most familiar with this land, Bernie Carr, who is here tonight. He studied this land since 1993 several different times. He is a professional, whose most familiar with the ecology of the site. I don't always acknowledge this, but I have been over this site for 20 years and I know the value of the parts of it and the natural value of the parts of it even not being an ecological expert. Finally, we ask for somebody new from their firm to come down and confirm things. We brought in an individual, who I realize the reputation of the people who wrote the letter that has no backup is impeccable. We all admire their voluntary efforts in the community. This woman who looked at this for us and made the opinions on that, the very made contentions in those letters of where these species might be and how they relate or don't relate to Mr. Lucente's land. Look at her resume, I think you'll agree she can hold herself up to anybody in her field. Mr. Carr will speak to that in a few minutes. The next thing that its that Town law that I think that has already been studied or examined or a more appropriate part of the final subdivision we have been preparing for, for a year and a half and incidentally have nearly perfected the 31 items with the exception of the Town Board accepting the infrastructure which every other project is a proforma ... (not audible) ... is the hydrology. The hydrology report. People have passion about the hydrology. You have heard many, many times from somebody at 212 Muriel Street, who isn't even in any of the sub - drainage sheds of this project, but feels affected by the project. I don't know what to say to a person like that other than I'll help you out, but we don't have anything to do with your problem. I mean there is a problem. The lots aren't contoured. I have a friend down on Warren Road west of her who has the same problem, but it has nothing to do with this project. I only say that not to get into a debate, Mr. Chairman, but otherwise to make an example of people who are getting all excited and ...(not audible)... about a problem. Someone who had a river through their crawl space. They are at the top of the hill, 1100 feet from the stream, 10 feet higher than the stream we're emptying into, but we are responsible for that problem somehow. I would be happy, for free, to give them advice on what their problem is, but it really doesn't do anything good to this conversation to improve the project. I have heard you many times talk about the water table. We dug down 21 feet in the first phase of Briarwood I and never pumped one gallon of water out of the ground. That should tell you that there is no water table in this area. And there are problems on problems like with footer drains, with the amount of water ... (not audible) ... backflows into a footer drain. You know, there are other problems that could be looked at and solved...(not audible)..., but. its ...(not audible).. and it isn't anything that the drainage consultant said was a problem. If you read that report carefully, she didn't dismiss the neighbor's concern, but she said that there were ...(not audible) ... if you look at the map in the report you will see that ...(not audible) ... I think everybody here has seen enough projects to know that ... (not audible) ... isn't going to ...(not audible) ... drainage problem. The people closest to the creek with problems are the ones to look at the closest. mean if there were some way to interact with those people, I think their problems Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 41 would be solved and they would feel better about the project you folks are looking at, but the hydrology report...(not audible) ... came in here and he made some assertions that I really have problems with as a professional. He studied the area you see on the next sheet on your packet that colored in blue. He studied that area that is colored in blue. Now he reached the conclusion that, our area is silver, well, first of all look at the number of lakes and streams that are in the area that he is studying and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that we don't have that many lakes and streams and bodies of water and free water standing on the ground. And all the pictures he showed you were of the intersection down by Convenient Care Center. None of us sitting here know how much of that land was wetland before they started. And I can tell you pretty assuredly that some of that land that the doctor's office is on were wetland. We are not talking about touching one square foot of wetland in this project and Eric Whitney is going to speak to you in a few minutes about the revisions that we made to address Milone and MacBroom report. We have addressed every issue from that report. We have modified the design for a third time before coming back to you with final site.. with final approval and so I am speaking to what is neither in the local law... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. You're treading real close here in my opinion. Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah, well, you know, its cited as, I'm just saying its cited in here as one of the ... (not audible) ... of why you should declare a moratorium and if you don't agree with it then we don't...(not audible) ... pretty strongly. The Town Board received more information about the hydrology. Some of the information was provided...(not audible) ... other information was provided by the Milone and MacBroom. My point is that your normal forum and your normal final subdivision process would address those issues. There is not a need for a moratorium to address those issues. We have gone to the extra effort to address those issues even though they weren't one of your 31 conditions. So we added those 16 suggestions and came to conclusions and addressed them all in a positive way that will improve the neighborhoods downstream, that will address all the concerns that have been expressed. Finally there has been a lot talk about wildlife corridors and incidentally, our second iteration of the design was by the request of the State, submitted to the State and we got permit based on that design that we submitted prior to the Milone and MacBroom changes. So we have only enhanced that design by adding ...(not audible)..., by adding ...(not audible)..., by modeling the weather conditions, by retaining more volume. I will let Eric go into the specifics of that. Finally there is a picture in your packet. It shows in some of what is over 400 feet of 6 foot fence that's been erected by one of the landowners on Hanshaw Road. If there was a wildlife corridor at the south end of this property, its basically been annihilated by this landowner. And interestingly enough, they put gates into Mr. Lucente's property just in case it does become conservation I suppose. And finally I give you a few emails I FOILed for all of the information so I could prepare for this meeting. I won't say much about the emails other than to say read the correspondence and I think that very much at stake here is how you view your role as independent from the Town Board. You have spoken., .(not audible) ... and I would agree with you. And that is the way it should Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 42 be. And so this decision will weigh heavily on whether you can continue to have that independence because you have done everything right in reviewing this project and frankly beating us up for 4 and a half years and getting to a master plan and a balanced design for this land. But ...(not audible)., the drainage that has come up need to be addressed and has been addressed and now would certainly be a topic of great discussion at the final subdivision here. The need to repeat everything that our environmental consultant has done to satisfy you the people who wrote that letter and have no backup to it should speak to that issue. I'm simply here pleading with you when somebody writes and casts a dark cloud over everything that has no backup to justify what they are saying. And you will hear from Bernie that some of those species haven't been identified for decades and decades. So I think it's a little bit, what do they say, professional dishonesty, intellectual dishonesty is the word I wanted to say. Thank you very much for your time and I think you have done a wonderful job so don't mistake anything I've said to mean other than that. This is the way the process should work. We've been at it since 2001. We are 99 percent complete. There is no question here what some members of the Town Board are trying to do to this project to stop it. You can have your own opinion whether you think that is fair or not. I think its very unfortunate. We worked very hard to do something good for the Town and I think some of them, their lack of ...(not audible) ... and maybe ... (not audible) ... lack of familiarity with all those things that went on that brought us to this juncture. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Larry. The gentleman. Bernard Carr, Terrestrial Environmental Specialist Incorporated Good evening. My. name is Bernard Carr. I work for Terrestrial Environmental Specialist Incorporated. Our business address is 23 County Route 6, Phoenix, New York, and I recognize many of the Board members who were here last year when I gave testimony at preliminary subdivision approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I stop you briefly? I just want to make sure. I want you, as the other people have tried to do, to stay on the question of should this board recommend to the Town Board that a moratorium be placed. If we start drifting to close to why the application should be approved for subdivision, but I'll try to bring you back. Okay? Mr. Carr — So my question should be on whether or not a moratorium should be held? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm just saying the question before this board tonight is, should we recommend that the Town Board enact a moratorium for 270 days. So what I want you to do, as the other people have tried to do, is address that. Yeah, we stray a little bit and we get close to the edges, but that is why you are here. Mr. Carr — Well, what I would like to say is, first of all my first experience on the property was in 1993. My first wetland delineation on the property. Prior to that I did walk the property once before, but I didn't do any detailed studies. So I did my first detailed study in 1993. In 2003, we were called up and it was said that the property had been Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 43 designated a Unique Natural Area and would we come up and take a look to determine why it was a Unique Natural Area. Certainly at that time there was the species that are listed here in UNA -106. The red shouldered hawk and Cooper's hawk means that they were breeding on this particular property of Mr. Lucente. So the best way to look, in our opinion and other scientists' opinion, the best way to look for breeding raptors is to look for their stick nests in the winter. It is one of the absolute best ways. Then the next way to determine whether or not particular raptors breed on the site is to do a breed bird survey and to use calls and tape playbacks and that is a method that is used by Cornell Lab of Ornithology and that is what we did to get a breeding bird survey. So we had a real good baseline of data for what was nesting on Mr. Lucente's property. We wrote a report and I believe that report has been submitted to you folks in the past. Subsequent to that we were asked to address the issue of the Unique Natural Area, whether it was a correct designation, expansion of a Unique Natural Area. We sent a letter to Mr. Marx in 2005 addressing the issue of whether or not Mr. Lucente's. property should be considered a Unique Natural Area, whether or not the expansion of DR -54 and UNA -106 was correct. And what we pointed out in that particular was only land owns by Mr. Lucente and some homes, if you take a look at the UNA -106 map that is in your packet, you will see that there's 6 or 7 homes and they are in the middle of the Unique Natural Area. I don't understand why homes are in the middle of a Unique Natural Area. It didn't make sense to me. The other thing most recently, a new letter was written April 27th, 2007 and that was provided to the Town of Ithaca about 2 months later on June 25th and we received this letter in late July and in this particular letter there was a lot of issues related to why Mr. Lucente's property was a Unique Natural Area. Well, at this point in time I decided that I would visit the site in particular to look at the plants that are listed in this letter on table 1. The first plant that we see here is puttyroot, Aplectrum hymale. Aplectrum hymale is a globally secure.. it means its doing well in its world population, but in the State it is having a tough time. It is an S -1 species so it's a pretty significant species to have on any particular piece of property. So what did is I did my investigation. I contacted New York State Natural Heritage program and also checked the Florida Cayuga Lake Basin. Guess what I found? There are no records whatsoever of puttyroot, Alpectrum hymale, being in Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary, UNA -106. Okay. I'll give them one. Maybe just a minor little problem. The other thing is I came up to the site and I walked the site looking for each and every one of these species. A lot of these species are listed as scarce and if you take a look at my letter, you'll see that most of those species are what's called G -5, which means they are secure in their range, in their habitat. In the State of New York in particular, they are S- 5 or S-4, that means reasonably secure. They are not rare in New York State. A matter of fact, one of the species that is on that list is lopseed. It is in every woodlot in Tompkins County, frankly. I don't know why is it listed as scarce. As a matter of fact they did find it on Mr. Lucente's property. It was in the area near the wetland, the area that is going to be donated to Cornell University. But I addressed all of that in my letter of August 6th and basically what I'm saying to you is I have real detailed information about the plants on the site. I looked at the plants on the site in three different seasons. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 44 don't see any plants that are listed being on Mr. Lucente's. property. And of more importance, in 2000 when the scientific study for UNA -106 was conducted and it came to plants, what do they have here? Significant plant species inventoried on the site, none known. Okay? Clarity. Local state, local and in the local level they have scarce. There is none listed. If you go down to the animal species there is a similar issue here. So when we looked at the letter, I think it was time to have somebody else in my office come down ... (not audible) ... because I work for Mr. Lucente on several occasions looking at the same piece of property. Cathy Barnembarger, who is the founder of our firm, who spent over 32 years collecting data for all types of projects. She is an ornithologist, she's an herpetologist, her resume is attached. I asked her to come down to look at the property and to do an examination and come up with her conclusions. think it is important to point out some of the issues that you mentioned. For example, we are listed as having a Virginia white butterfly. There is no reference to Virginia white butterfly.on our property. There has been no recent reports of this particular butterfly being on Sapsucker Woods property. There is an indication that this butterfly has been seen in the (not audible) ... its not on UNA -106. The next line is the wood turtle. If there is anybody who know's wood turtles, its Cathy. Thirty years she has been tracking turtles, salamanders, it's a major part of her work with our firm. There is no permanent water bodies to support the wood turtle. Matter of fact, UNA -106 rare plant and animal list there is no mention of the wood turtle. All of a sudden the wood turtle is now there on Mr. Lucente's property. There is no habitat on Mr. Lucente's property for that particular turtle. She goes on to note a couple of other issues related to birds and wetlands. I think you need to read this letter carefully because there are misrepresentations about what we did on our original bird study in regards to the red shoulder hawk, sharp- shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk. We've said they don't breed on Mr. Lucente's property and we continue to say that. Outside ... (not audible) ... I don't care where you live in the Town of Ithaca, sometime during the year you are going to have sharp- shinned hawk or a Cooper's hawk in your back yard. They come and they're abundant. They are migrants and they feed on song birds. They are everywhere. Do they breed on Mr. Lucente's property? No. And that is what we asserted all along. We didn't assert that they weren't in the vicinity. A matter of fact, we even mentioned in my original letter in 2003 that they are known for breeding in the ...[tape change] Chairperson Wilcox — Please continue. Mr. Carr — Basically, I don't want to go off the deep end on this, but I think it is really important to emphasize that I don't see where the backup was for this April 27th letter. I don't see where this data was collected. I don't believe that they visited the site to come up with this letter. And that is my number one basis for saying that I think it is unwarranted to put a moratorium on the property. And I should especially emphasize UNA -106. There's all kind of ways in adding a piece of property to UNA -106. Lets say you are a. former Environmental Management Council member and you had friends on the EMC currently. You can ask them to include this piece of property in your back yard. Maybe they will do it and you will get it added to the UNA, but there is no method Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 45 to get an area removed from a UNA. There is no method to take off lands out of the UNA. We contacted Mr. Marx in 2005 and we requested a meeting and we requested to be able to do that and he said there is no money in our budget to do it. There is no process to do it and there is no legal authority for a UNA to restrict development on any particular piece of property so it is a moot point. Well, today in 2007 it is being brought before the board that there are issues related to the UNA that means there should be a moratorium. And I am here just to tell you that I have done a lot of work on the property. I do a lot of work all over New York State and the northeast. I've done work for a firm, the landscape architect that spoke earlier. Worked for New York State, worked for county governments, local governments, we worked for Cornell University, we've worked for the City of Ithaca. Our reputation of doing good work goes before us. We wouldn't be in business for 32 years if it wasn't for doing things accurately, scientifically, and not clouding the facts. I just wanted to make sure that that is entered into the record. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. Sir? People brought an awful lot of paper with them. Name and address please. Eric Whitney, 409 Auburn Street, Ithaca Eric Whitney, 409 Auburn Street, Ithaca. I am here to talk to you about the Milone and MacBroom report and recommendations that they put forth to us ... (not audible) ... more stringent, much more conservative look at the stormwater and making sure that the...(not audible).... Basically a Noah's Arc situation... being an engineer who likes water or anything that flows I don't take the chance to take the design into that. We looked at all of the recommendations even though it is not standard practice to look at the entire upstream and downgrading watersheds unless the subdivision exceeds 50 acres. Even though it is not standard practice to look at storms in excess of 100 year storm, we took ...(not audible) ... revised rain ... (not audible) ... frequency and intensity ...(not audible) ... based on some actual data for the 100 year storm ... (not audible) .... where the curve for the Ithaca ... (not audible) ... was lower than the standard TP40 curve sheets ... (not audible) ... we used the more conservative numbers. Board Member Thayer — Excuse me. Could you pull the mic a little closer? I don't think the people in the back can hear now ... Is it on? Mr. Whitney — Is that better? Board Member Thayer —Yeah, Chairperson Wilcox — There we go. Thanks, Larry, Mr. Whitney — We pulled everything out of the report including the recommendation that we use Mike Walter's revised rainfall frequency and intensity curves where they exceeded the existing standard curves for analysis. We also looked at, I have to look down at my notes here, its getting late, the model with the aniseed moisture conditions 3, which means taking a look at our modeling conditions where the ground is pre- Final PB 911 -07 Pg. 46 saturated before the rainstorm events model so you have a totally saturated ground and an increased rainfall intensity over the 24 hours periods. We also took with Town staffs support and help, they asked us to look at the watershed, the complete watershed, both up gradient and down gradient from the site that we had analyzed before. And we incorporated into our stormwater modeling and analysis the total watershed, which is about 130 acres in size both up gradient and down gradient and the Town staff also recommended to us the design points of analysis, where to look at these flows down gradient post -storm as recommended in the Milone and MacBroom report. So they helped us select locations for our analysis and when we ran the analysis both predevelopment and post - development with our models integrated with the Town of Ithaca's hydrological and hydraulic models we got results that indicated that the planned stormwater management facilities that we had on site were more than adequate and actually attenuated the runoff rates for all storms modeled to less than that of the pre - developed conditions. Not so for the total volumes. They wanted us to look at in the Milone and MacBroom report a potential attenuation with total volumes also ... (not audible) ... talk about a fragipan, but really when you look up the soils there in Langford and Erie series of soils, its really, whether its fragipan or not, its about 0.2 inches per hour permeability, which makes the point moot. Even if you put in an underdrain system, basically use 2.5 acres for every acre foot 24 -hours we calculated so to even substantially, if we put a drainage field on the whole site, we wouldn't address a tenth of the runoff from the site. So whether it is fragipan or not, the soil is so, the permeability rates are so slow,- You can take a look right from the Tompkins County soils survey, you will see at all horizons in those soils it is somewhere between .2 inches per hour and .63 inches per hour. We looked at that and rather than go with a more elaborate infiltration systems like they recommended to take some of the shape, some of the peak off of the volume, we would like to revisit some of the initial design considerations we presented to further ... in addition to the 4 wetland retention ponds, have some of the original, short-term wetland retention systems or additional rain gardens in phase 1 up to 20 of those, where some rain barrels, look at some other ones that would actually work with the site and as far as the ponds being located in the proximity of the wetlands they are...each of them has been very, very, very carefully designed such that the proposed water surface elevation is at an elevation which doesn't introduce a gradient or a draw from the adjacent wetland. So if the water surfaced in the wetland, the design is very carefully considered that the water surface in the pond should be at that existing so you don't introduce a gradient to draw to the wetland so all of those things have been looked at in depth and we have submitted revised engineering report and hydraulic and hydrologic analysis to the Town staff and engineers addressing each and every one of the Town's consultant concerns. So I think we have done a more than adequate and a very professionally competent job. The design has past muster and review and we have got comments back from State DEC and have addressed their punch list and now we have addressed the punch list given to us in their July report for the Town's consultant. So as far as stormwater is concerned we have really dotted every 611" and crossed every 'T' with numerous reviewing agencies and entities. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — The problem is, you haven't said, and because of all of this, therefore believe that ... because if you don't say that you know you're not to topic. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 47 Mr. Whitney — I thought it did that in the introduction there. I was here to say that we addressed the concerns in the Milone and MacBroom report that was one of the things that the Town local law based on has new information and we have addressed it so... Chairperson Wilcox — Therefore you do not believe a local law is necessary. Mr. Whitney — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. All right. You have all been very patient and very quiet and very considerate and I appreciate it. We all appreciate it. Greg Ezra, 110 Birchwood Drive My name is Greg Ezra. I am a long term resident of Birchwood Drive, 110 Birchwood Drive. I'm not an expert or anything, just a resident. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you tonight. So over the years, for over a decade, I have attended meetings and occasionally spoken from this very chair first concerning the Briarwood I development and then on the subject of Briarwood II. So I don't want to keep anyone here longer than is necessary. I'm certainly not going to repeat the litany of concerns on our severe drainage problems and what we believe to be the environmental damage that is believe to be associated with the development that has already occurred and I would like you to follow from the proposed development. What I will say is the following. I think that I speak for all residents and homeowners in the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca that we are very pleased that over the past few months the Town Board has chosen to listen extremely carefully to our concerns. Finally, after many, many years of expressing these concerns and has also made some serious efforts to gather information on the impact of the proposed development and as we have all been discussing, listening this evening, the Town Board has commissioned an independent study on hydrology and drainage, which has proved to be very informative and also people have been looking in detail at the UNA designation. So I just want to make a couple of points. In my opinion, the whole situation has been greatly clarified recently. First of all I just want to talk about the drainage report. Again, I'm not an expert on hydrology, but I have read the report fairly carefully and simply put, I believe this independent expert review does confirm the reality of the problems that have been reported for over a decade by people living in the neighborhood. I don't think this can be dismissed as some kind of fiction. I think these are real problems and it was noted in the report that the water table seems to be fluctuating more wildly very recently. There was a lot of technical analysis and how you model the flows. Most of, I believe, again I'm no expert, most standard engineering practice has to do with peak flows. They did recommend that careful attention be paid not just to peak flows, but to total outflow over a given time. We've all heard the fragipan discussed, again that seems to confirm or at least identify the origin of some of these problems. Final PB 9 -4-07 Pg. 48 We have seen the introduction of the term rain gardens. This seems to institutionalize the notion of the chronically flooded yard. I don't know the standard practice in any other part of Ithaca, but in the northeast the notion of a rain garden simply means that a corner of your yard will be under water for much of the time and this is now predicted and built in apparently to the proposal for the development. In any case, what I take away from the report is that the proposed development would lead in a predictable fashion to additional drainage problems and in a predictable fashion to significant stress on the current drainage system. Second of all, I wasn't going to say anything about the UNA designation, but would like to stress that it is now a matter of public record from the various statements made .by the scientists directly involved in the UNA designation that this designation was reached in as a result of very serious and careful, rigorous analysis of extensive available data using stringent criteria in the field and if you are going to object to the politicization of the discussion, I think you should also fairly object to the politicization of the work of the scientists or the attempted politicization and you should also object to the impuning the intellectual honesty and competence of these scientists whose rank in the field is well recognized.. What I want to say about the proposed moratorium is that it will surely allow the Town to consider in a careful fashion to digest and consider all this new information that has arrived in recent months. Personally I am looking forward to the possibility of a rezoning of the whole area to a conservation zone. Will this happen? I don't know, but surely the right thing to do is give the Town Board time needed to consider the option and if necessary pursue further some of these contentious issues concerning the ecological and environmental stages of the property. Especially the statement by the representative of Cornell notwithstanding, its not clear how the impact and this was not addressed in that statement how the impact of conservation zoning, what it would be on the Sapsucker Woods bird sanctuary itself. Certainly having 25 undeveloped acres is preferable to having houses right up to your border, but the overall impact of the conservation zoning, which might happen on the Sapsucker Woods sanctuary should surely be studied in some detail and that wasn't addressed by the Cornell representative and so in conclusion I would just respectfully urge you all to support the proposed moratorium. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Ah, you have to wait and I said that because he has already spoken once. Anybody else wish to speak this evening? There being no one ... are you going to be brief. Very brief. Mr. Sonnenstuhl — Very brief. I appreciate your indulgence. I'd like to thank everybody for a very informative evening. I had no idea that this stuff was going on since 2001 or 2002 until Larry Fabbroni told me. I would have been kept in the dark until 2006. So appreciate having been informed about that. I would like to, however, make a correction. We have been told that there is no way to remove a piece of property from the UNA designation. Again, in the packet that I sent you there is a proposal and a procedure for removing property from a UNA designation that ... I would assume that this Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 49 is the way that one does it and let me read it to you. It says, over time environmental or land use conditions may change, such that UNA boundaries may need to be altered or the UNA designation removed all together. These modifications, the existing UNA inventory will take place only after an extensive site visit and input from experts as appropriate. In addition, even without changes in environmental or land use conditions, the UNA committee may realize or be notified that a particular UNA delineation could be more appropriate or better represented. These errors in the original document should also be corrected. A descript report of these changes will be prepared by the UNA committee and adopted by resolution by the full EMC in a process similar to that in which new UNAs are added." 1 am not an ecologist. I don't know what plants are there. I don't know one hawk from another hawk. I don't know whether they are breeding there or breeding some place else. But I do know that the Environmental Management Council has designated this area after six years of consideration. Somebody was out there collecting data. I would think that if during a moratorium... Chairperson Wilcox — You said you would be brief. Mr. Sonnenstuhl - ...that during the moratorium one of the things we would require would be the extant data from both Nancy Osman and also Mr. Lucente's folks that we have heard from this evening. That is all part of the extant and I would hope that we would include all of these data so if these puttyflowers or putty- whatever they are aren't there, we can find them or we can't find. But I think we need to stop making accusations and use this as an opportunity. Again, I didn't know that you all were discussing putting this development in my back yard until 2006. So I am really a Johnny come lately, but I do appreciate having an opportunity to make my piece known this evening. Thank you. Board Member Conneman — Bill, don't run away. Wait a minute. Suppose that as we do this study we don't find the plants, we don't find the birds, are you going. to accept that? Mr. Sonnenstuhl — I will accept a study that includes all the extant data and what I think, and by the way I am a social scientist and we run up against this kind of problem all the time. And what one wants to do in terms of generating theoretical insight is get all the materials together and then you need to after you've done your grounded theory, you have to figure out what are the things that you need to do to confirm or disconfirm what is going on. You know, that is the kind of study we need to design. One that brings in reputable ecologist. I don't care whether they are from the Terrestrial group, I don't care whether they are from Cornell University, all I would require is that we have ecologist in the study who are going to say this his what would constitute confirmation, a refutation of the existing data that we have. Is in fact, if the study came back and said these things didn't exist there, then I would say okay, you know its not part of the ecological environment, but I would want a well designed ecological study and I don't think, by the way, that some of the things that I have heard from the Planning Board and some of the things that I have heard from the developer necessarily mean that. But I do think that if we bring everybody together and design a fully understood ecological study in the best Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 50 sense we can get some objectivity in here, but it can't be a quick one -shot study. You can't do it 2 days in the spring and 2 days in the fall. It is going to have to be much broader than that. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — I assume there is no one else. Last chance anybody. You get a chance. Again... Mr. Fabbroni — Just a point of information on what Bill just said, I mean, what we found with the County was they didn't have it in their budget or process to make that review more often than every 10 years. So yes they would remove it on the next 10 year cycle if it were appropriate under the thing that he just read to you and all you read earlier about the 6 years is that's why they didn't want to do it every year. That was the Planning Director's reasoning for not being able to update it every year because it was such an extensive process of review. So those two points I think are bear, bear mentioning. The other thing I would like to say and I say this knowing that Cathy is sitting in the room, but when I sat at the Town Board meeting, you should all know that many of the Town Board members were stating the conclusion to this whole process at the end of the moratorium period before the studies are even done and some of them were objecting to doing the study itself because of what it might not show. So I think that is relevant to say that it was astounding to sit there and hear them talking about rezoning before they even did the study and as someone who got the 99 percent complete point, that's really troubling. Chairperson Wilcox — One last time and I'm not going to let Bill or Larry speak again [laughing]. We all set? The public hearing is closed at 9:56 p.m. I thank you all. All right ladies and gentlemen, even if I had my druthers I'd say I can get it close to 10, but the Town Board meets on Monday and they clearly don't need our recommendation to act. Our recommendation is non - binding but I would love to provide a recommendation to them so hopefully we can come to some conclusion between now and when we adjourn. Discussion? Sir? Board Member Talty — I believe that everything that I have heard tonight, that the developer has met the burden of proof for this particular property. They backed it up with hard copies with scientific data, and based upon the opposition that hasn't come up with any data that I've read that can be substantiated either professionally or otherwise, I'm in lieu of not condoning a moratorium for this property. Board Member Thayer — I think Larry's group has done its job and I would agree with that statement. Board Member Howe — I'm probably going to abstain because I think that the Town Board has already made a decision and I think it is a very complicated issue and... obviously we hear accusations of who's right on various information so I just hope that if this indeed moves forward there is a way to, as the person who identified himself as a social scientist, really looks at all of the data and has a way of making sense of it and coming to some conclusions. Final PB 9 -4 -07 Pg. 51 Chairperson Wilcox — George? Hollis? Either one. Board Member Conneman — The last time I voted no on something was because I thought we had not given sufficient discussion on it. In this case, Bill answered my devil's advocate question, which is if we go through this and have a moratorium and it comes out that they don't find any of these things and we hire a consultant who is a professional, someone who is beyond, beyond any bias or anything else, it seems tome that that would be put final things to it. I think we deserve one more shot on this. I will vote for a moratorium of 270 days, but if it comes out that there. is no evidence of these birds and these species being there, I would think that that would be it. However, I will say that knowing something about soils, I don't know what Larry has addressed, but I think there are serious concerns about the soils, which I know something about and will push for that, Larry, if you have not addressed those. But if Bill, you heard Bill, he's on the tape. He says if this is such he will accept it. So l will vote for the moratorium for 270 days, not a rolling moratorium. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, Hollis. Welcome to the Planning Board [laughting]. Alternate Member Erb �- I do believe something is broken in the northeast in terms of stormwater management, but I don't see that this moratorium has been designed to address that. I believe that stormwater management issues and runoff issues can be addressed in looking at the particular development. So what I was left with then is looking at the only things that are mentioned within all the whereas and other clauses for the moratorium and I don't find them sufficiently compelling to vote in favor of the moratorium. Not based on the sorts of materials that we've been presented with. Chairperson Wilcox — Why is everybody looking at me? Board Member Talty — Your turn. Chairperson Wilcox — I have been struggling with this all night. I've just been struggling with it. Sometimes I say to myself it is only another 9 months and it's only another 9 months and Mr. Lucente and his engineers and everybody else have spent a lot of money, but it's only 9 more months. They've spent 5 years, 6 years, 10 years, however long. On the other hand, we are presented with so much information. Board Member Thayer — Conflicting. Chairperson Wilcox — Conflicting information. Board Member Thayer — That's the problem. Chairperson Wilcox — And I don't know if a moratorium is going to get into the conflicting information and what do we do, hire a third person and then two votes wins? 2 to 1? And I don't know the answer. I've heard people say 270 days isn't enough to do a Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 52 proper study. So even if the study comes back and says there are the flora and fauna there, then the argument is that maybe the study wasn't...) don't know. I don't know. I guess part of me says the planning process can work and should work and I don't know whether it is not working here or not. Neither do I blame the residents for pursuing the Town Board. It is certainly their right and possibly obligation to do that, but I'm not convinced that the moratorium for 9 months solves anything, It's one more vote and 2 to 1 wins possibly and as people much more knowledgeable than me have said, maybe that is not enough time to do adequate studies. I don't know. Board Member Thayer — It's tough. Board Member Howe — Fred, that's probably why I am abstaining because I think.. 'MY guess a decision has been made by the Town Board. Ms. Brock — Can I actually address that? Because I was at the Town Board meeting and contrary to what Mr. Fabbroni said, Town Board members did not oppose doing the study because they were afraid that nothing would be found on the site. That was not the reason. The reason, at least one member didn't want the study to occur was because he felt the rationale set out in the proposed local law was so compelling there was no need for the study. He felt there was already enough information before the Town Board based on Professor Todd Walters's hydrologic information, based on Milone and MacBroom's drainage study, based on the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space plan recommendations for the area, based on the facts that this property had been designated as a Unique Natural Area. He looked at all of that and said there is already enough here to justify conservation zoning on this property. That was the reasoning: It as not fear of what a study might find. Other Town Board members said we do. want to have the study so that we can try to have more information about where unique flora and fauna are located if at all on these properties. And so again, contrary to what Mr. Fabbroni said, Town Board members did not already have their minds made up at this meeting. That was the whole purpose of doing this study. So I just don't want you to be abstaining saying you believe... Board Member Howe — Yeah, I didn't mean a mind made up about a conservation zoning. A mind made up about going for the moratorium. It sounds like it might be leaning that way any way. Not that the foregone conclusion would be a conservation zone, but that they are leaning toward doing the moratorium to do the study. Ms. Brock — And you are basing that on...? Board Member Howe — A variety of factors. Chairperson Wilcox — I would speculate that this would not have been referred to us if there wasn't some basis in what you believe. Board Member Conneman — It's just like the balloons with the vet college building. A little more information wouldn't hurt at all and why not. Final PB 94 -07 Pg. 53 Board Member Talty — But George, flying balloons for one afternoon is a lot different than 9 months or more to try to prove or disprove an ambiguous letter that was sent to the Town. I think that is apples and oranges. It might not even be the same fruit. Board Member Conneman — I don't think so, Kevin, but anyway... Board Member Howe make decisions at 10 about my only choice feel that whatever we way or the other to tel through this exercise. — I think part of my abstention, too, is its o'clock at night and I'm really on the fence is to...at 9:30 I might have voted one way. decide it's just, I'm not sure what message you the truth. I think it was a courtesy that really hard for me to about this so for me, So I don't trust and I we are sending one we were asked to go Ms. Brock — Well, it has been the Town Board's practice for many years to refer all proposed zoning changes to the Planning Board and a moratorium is actually an amendment to the Zoning ordinance. So that is why its been referred to you. And I just wanted to make sure that if you were abstaining because you felt they had already made a decision, it wasn't based on some statements that were made tonight that didn't feel accurately reflected what happened at the Town Board meeting. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear. Board Member Howe -- It's more don't trust my judgment about what decision I would make at 10 o'clock at night and since I am so on the line; abstaining seems to be the best option for me personally. Alternate Member Erb — I would also like to state that had the moratorium also explicitly stated that it was to start setting in place some real ideas about plans to improve the existing drainage for the neighborhood, I would have felt very different about this, too. But as I see it right now, it basically is aimed at specifically the conservation area. And I just don't find that a sufficient argument right now. Board Member Conneman — Susan, could we add that to the resolution? We lots of times modify resolutions that come to us. Ms. Brock — Yes you can. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Alternate Member Erb — Because I honestly believe something is broken in that neighborhood. Board Member Thayer — How do you feel about that, Dan? Mr. Walker — As a professional, there are drainage problems in the northeast. This particular development or any development that happens in there will be designed to Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 54 not make those problems worse. There are solutions to problems for the individual wet yards, wet basements. We don't have a major flooding problem in the Town facilities on the roads. Over the years we have improved culverts and ditches and what we have found in the studies and what was confirmed by Milone and MacBroom study also was that the existing development whether or not we built ... if we protect the new development and didn't let any water come off, we still have problems with the existing development and that was confirmed by the Milone and MacBroom report. Their one comment that was negative, I feel, was that they said we should try to hold and not increase runoff. You can't very well do that unless you have a big evaporation plant in this soils and this climate up there. You just can infiltrate water into impervious ground. But the peak flows are the ones that we are trying to control. That is my professional opinion. Board Member Conneman — Hollis, would you state that again? I would like to make that a resolution to see if anybody seconds it and if they don't then that's okay. Alternate Member Erb — I'm trying to think how to state it correctly. My statement was would have felt differently about this moratorium if it had explicitly time... if the time were explicitly intended also to figure out some comprehensive way to help those neighborhoods with the existing problem that they have. But I instead, I instead see that its concerned with the new development, which I am going to trust the Town engineer and his staff to help us control, plus I see this aimed simply at the buffer for Sapsucker Woods or for some speculation about some endangered plants and animals and I just don't find those themselves compelling reasons for the moratorium. So I'm not stating what you asked me state, George. Board Member Conneman — Well, I think we should have a resolution that says that in addition to what's stated here, that we would like to try to find some reasonable solution to all of the problems in that area and I think that is what the neighbors have been asking for and I don't see... Alternate Member Erb — All of the problems is probably all too much. Board Member Conneman — The Town engineer said originally that the thing that Mr. Fabbroni and Mr. Lucente proposed in the first place was okay and I think DEC said it wasn't if I remember right. Mr. Walker — No. Be careful when you say that please. Board Member Conneman — I'm not careful at all tonight. Mr. Walker - ...the difference between what the developer proposed and what the Town staff suggested was utilizing wetlands to store stormwater and DEC said no you can't do it. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 55 Board Member Conneman — Well, why? Because you were going to soil that was so saturated already it wasn't going to work. Mr. Walker — So what the developer did is reduce detention facilities totally outside the wetland area stormwater storage, which is exactly what DEC said thing DEC... the size of some lots and put their and not use the wetlands at all for they could not do. That is the only Board Member Conneman — Have we seen that proposal yet? Mr. Walker — Yes. And its...(not audible)... Board Member Conneman — You have seen it, but we have not seen it. Many talking at once Alternate Member Erb - ...or are the proposals for retention ponds? Mr. Walker — They are for detention ponds. Alternate Member Erb — Which only slows? Mr. Walker — Which holds the water and releases it slowly so that you do not increase the peak flows beyond capacity of the downstream drainage systems. Alternate Member Erb — As opposed to retaining it entirely. Mr. Walker — Retaining,. Jf you had a situation where you needed to recharge ground water, like California. You don't want move the water off fast. You want to hold it and let it sink into the ground. Alternate Member Erb — Absolutely. Mr. Walker — It doesn't sink into the ground here. Chairperson Wilcox — We should point out that the revised drainage plans were reviewed by the consultant, who had them available and their comments are the revised ones, which we as a group have not seen. Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — We have not seen them. Alternate Member Erb — And by the consultants you mean Milone and MacBroom? Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Final PB 9-4-07 Pg. 56 Mr. Walker — And the Town engineering staff has been working with the developer so that they can provide a completed design prior to coming for the final subdivision plan to this board. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Ms. Nielsen — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Okay. You can talk again. Ms. Brock — Can I address something that Hollis said? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, you may. Ms. Brock — Hollis, I believe you said that one of the things you didn't like about the proposed law was that it did not current problem in the northeast independent of any new problems that might occur because of the proposed development. Correct? It would not be appropriate for a moratorium to do that and that's why its not in there. Alternate Member Erb — Okay. Ms. Brock — If you wish, and if the Planning Board wishes, you could add another resolved to the resolution that is before you that says in addition we urge the Town Board to undertake measures to address existing conditions or something like that, but it wouldn't be appropriate to actually impose a moratorium... Alternate Member Erb — For that reason. Ms. Brock — For that reason, exactly. The moratorium needs to look at stopping all potential activities on the lands that are covered by the moratorium so that the study and other reviews can be done to determine whether the Town's Comprehensive Plan should be changed, whether zoning should be changed, whether other mechanisms need to me implemented to protect any perceived or any actual areas of special interest that the Town finds through its review. Alternate Member Erb — I would not like such a resolution to be appended to the moratorium. I hate it when Congress attaches all the little riders so that you have to vote for the big bill. I will be very in favor, I suspect, of a separate and distinct stand alone resolution. I went to the northeast neighborhood meeting with one of the consultants from Milone and MacBroom. My heart breaks for the pictures that they were showing. My own neighbor retiled his yard and pointed the drainage at my house, up hill from me. I understand what the problems can be. I just don't find the current reasons for the moratorium right now to be compelling. And thank you for the explanation about the other part. I still strongly believe something is broken in the neighborhood. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 57 Mr. Walker — The Town Board... Chairperson Wilcox — You've got one minute. Mr. Walker — The Town Board understands that and one of the charges for the Public Works Committee to the Engineering staff is, lets work on the drainage issues in the northeast, how much we can do and how fast can we do it is dependent on funding. Board Member Talty — How 'bout a vote? Ms. Brock — Can I... Chairperson Wilcox — Based on the straw vote we took already, this is going to be a problem. [laughing] I'll tell you why in a second. Yes? Ms. Brock — I just want to clarify one more thing before you do vote because there was another implication that Mr. Fabbroni made about the Town Board that I just want to clear the record on. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Board Member Talty — We're counting our straws and we don't see a problem. Board Member Thayer — We don't understand... Chairperson Wilcox — Let her finish. Ms. Brock — I'm just addressing one more implication that was raised by Mr. Fabbroni about the Town Board and I just want to. make sure this board is clear about it. Which is, he said the developer has worked very diligently to meeting all of the Town Board, ..l'm sorry, the Planning Board's conditions for the preliminary subdivision approval, except one, which was the Town Board's acceptance of the concept of the location of the roads and utilities and the reason the Town Board has not considered that yet is another of the Planning Board's condition was that DEC approve the stormwater management plan whereby stormwater would be retained in the wetlands. The developer went to DEC and as we just heard, DEC said no you can't do that. They then had to redesign the stormwater management system. They also made some.other changes to their plans at that time so at this point we knew there were substantial changes being made and that the Planning Board would need to revisit SEQR and determine whether your negative declaration was still appropriate in light of changes made to the project and in light of any new information that had come to you since you made your negative declaration. I spoke a number of months ago with Mr. Lucente's attorney, David Tyler, about the sequencing of everything and I told him it was my preference that the Planning Board complete the SEQR process before the Town Board consider accepting the concept of the location of the roads and utilities. He agreed that Final PB 9 -4-07 Pg. 58 made sense. So that is why and this was also my recommendation to Town staff as to whether or not we should be bringing this item to the Town Board. So that is why that item has not been brought to the Town Board yet, because the developer has been changing the plans. We have heard that they are now on iteration number 3 for their plans and before this comes to the Town Board, we want SEQR to be done and we want to know that the Town Board is voting on what is believed to be the final location of roads and utilities. So that is why that has.not come to the Town Board. So I just wanted you to understand that. Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — It's tough being Susan tonight, isn't it? I feel for you. I'm sure you have a lot to say. Ah, George, would you like to move the proposed resolution as drafted? Board Member Conneman — Sure. Why not? Would you second it? Chairperson Wilcox -- I don't think I have a second. I'm going to go through this. 1 think you are the only one in the straw vote who said that they were in favor of it. I don't think I have a second, but I just wanted to get that on the record. I have to get that on the record. Board Member Conneman — Sure. I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — You moved it. Do I have a second? Board Member Talty — But if we second it then we have to vote on it, right? As is? Chairperson Wilcox — Usually if you second it then you are in favor of it. Many at once — no ... that's not true. Alternate Member Erb — I can second just because I want it to come to vote. Board Member. Talty — That's right. Ms. Brock — For a discussion. Board Member Talty — Sure it can. So I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox— Okay. Board Member Talty — Let's bring it to a vote. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Kevin Talty. Any further discussion? All those in favor please raise your hand. George Conneman. All those opposed please raise your hand. Hollis, Kevin, Larry and Fred. Abstentions? I have two. I have Rod and... Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 59 Board Member Talty — That's not true. Chairperson Wilcox — Say what. Alternate Member Erb — She's recused. It's a recusal, not an abstention. Chairperson Wilcox — Excuse me. I have one abstention and one recusal. The motion does not pass to recommend to the Town Board. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 093 Recommendation to Town Board Proposed Local on Development Law Providing for in the Northeast Town of Ithaca for a Period Seventy (270) Days Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 4, 2007 Motion made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. of Regarding a a Moratorium Corner of the .Two - hundred WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Town Board has proposed a local law providing for a moratorium on development in the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca for a period of two- hundred seventy (270) days, and WHEREAS: The above - described moratorium would allow the Town Board time to determine, among other considerations, whether a change from the existing Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone on Tax. Parcels 70- 10 -3.5 (24.16 +/- acres); 73 -1 -2.2 (29.35 +l- acres); 73 -1 -8.1 (2.40 +l- acres); and 73 -1 -8.22 (23.34 +l- acres) is appropriate, and WHEREAS: The Town Board has reviewed the above - described proposed local law at its meeting on August 13, 2007 and has referred this matter to the Planning Board and Conservation Board 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 September 4, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law providing for a moratorium on development in the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca for a period of two - hundred seventy (270) days. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Conneman Final P$ 9-4 -07 Pg. 60 NAYS: Wilcox, Thayer, Talty, and Erb ABSTENTIONS: Howe ABSENT: Hoffmann RECUSED: Riha This Board did not adopt the recommendation. Male — not audible Chairperson Wilcox -- No matter what, we have to have 4 and we wound up with one. We have to have 4 no matter what and all we have is one. Even if it was 3 to 2 with an abstention, it would not pass. So the board chooses, this board has not recommended to the Town Board that they adopt a moratorium. Ms. Brock —This Board ... ah...how do we word this. Ms. Balestra — Do you want a new resolution? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking to the Attorney. Ms. Brock — This Board did not adopt the recommendation. Does that fairly characterize what you have done? Chairperson Wilcox — I think we have stated for the record our reasons why. Let me ... go ahead. Let me move a ... based upon what I heard tonight, let me move a resolution urging the Town Board to continue to... lets see. How do I put this? To continue their efforts to solve the existing drainage problems in the northeast section of the Town, specifically assuring there are sufficient funds and resources are available to accomplish that in a short period of time. Alternate Member Erb — I might have said continue or enhance. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Continue or enhance. There we go. Did I read that well enough for you? Ms. Neilsen — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Do I have a second on that one? Hollis is a second on that one. God bless you, dear. All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand. Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. There are no abstentions. Susan recuses herself. That motion is passed. All righty. Are we done? Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 61 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 094 Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Drainage Issues in the Northeast Corner of the Town Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 4, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Alternate Member Erb. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board urges the Town Board to continue or enhance their efforts to solve the existing drainage problems in the Northeast section of the Town, specifically; ensuring that sufficient funds and resources are available to accomplish that in a short period of time. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None. RECUSED: Riha ABSENT: Hoffmann The Motion passed. Board Member Thayer — I hope so. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we done? Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. We are going to do two more minutes of business on approving minutes before, but we're done. Thank you all very much. Susan, you may speak again. [laughing] MINUTES Chairperson Wilcox'- Let me move approval of minutes of August 7t". They are not the ones in front of you tonight. I have a second? Seconded by Kevin. Board Member Conneman — I have a question for you. Alternate Member Erb — I assume that minor typos and things are taken care of. Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor? Board Member Thayer —Aye. Board Member Howe — I wasn't here. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 62 Chairperson Wilcox — I have Fred, Larry, Kevin, Susan, and Hollis. Alternate Member Erb — That would be Hollis Alternate Member Erb according to the minutes in certain locations. Chairperson Wilcox — And I have one abstention so they still pass. So we have everybody in favor except Rod. Do we care about the next meeting's agenda? ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 = 096 Minutes of August 7, 2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 4, 2007 MOTION made by Fred.Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from August 7, 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 August 7, 2007. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Howe ABSENT: Hoffmann The Motion passed. Board Member Conneman — Yes. Shortly, Mr. Kanter — I think you would want to know. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. Next meeting is actually quite full. We've got two updates and presentations. Board Member Thayer — This one wasn't? Mr. Kanter— One by Cornell T -GETS team and one by the Ithaca College Athletic and Events center team, both on their respective ... (not audible).... So right there is a lot. Then we have Rite Aide coming in to resubdivide their property for various reasons. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 63 Ithaca College has a temporary tower to measure wind speeds in anticipation of putting up a wind turbine. Then there may be a liquid nitrogen storage tank at the South Hill Business Campus, I mean they want one and it may be ready to come in for that meeting. Busy meeting, Chairperson Wilcox — One of the things we are trying to do based on our meeting two weeks ago is to make sure we are very clear about proposed changes to resolutions and that we read them. Somebody had a tough time going back through the tapes and trying to fully understand the exact wording we came up with when we were discussing the recommendation to the Town Board about potentially rezoning the Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue. It is easy for us to agree on the concept, but ... Board Member Thayer —The exact wording. Ms. Nielsen — That happens a lot. The concept is there and my common sense is this is what you mean, but that is not is what you actually voted on and that's what I sign my name to the bottom of, this is what you voted on. So we're going... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to try to be more careful that when we make a change that we read the entire paragraph so that the entire paragraph is on the record rather than snipits and phrases so that its easier to capture exactly what we approved. That's all. Alternate Member Erb — That's where we tried to change the size of one of the units? Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. So one of the things I asked Susan to do, for example, tonight was can you re -read the entire whereas clause. Board Member Thayer — So we just let Susan do that. Chairperson Wilcox — Or us when we propose a change. Read the entire, assuming you read the entire sentence and read the entire clause. Ms. Nielsen — Do you want to amend this one? Chairperson Wilcox — Do I want to what? No we didn't amend anything. No that's fine. What's wrong with it? Next meeting. Ms. Nielsen — Well, it goes to the Town Board Monday, Chairperson Wilcox — She's brought back the resolution we passed. Therefore be it resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board consider revising the current zoning regulations in high density residential zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods by further limiting the number of unrelated individuals that can occupy each structure. Such a reduction could be accomplished by limiting the size of the accessory unit. Works for me. Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 64 Ms. Nielsen — Your intent was something about the basement. Chairperson Wilcox — That is the accessory unit. The accessory unit is in the basement. Mr. Kanter —There was additional wording that I thought should be in saying regardless of location. Board Member Talty — Yeah. Because you could have it on the side. You could have it in the basement. Mr. Kanter — Because it had to do with the basement location. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. The accessory apartment is ... we always think of it as being in.the basement, but ... Alternate Member Erb — Doesn't accessory allow it to be any place? Board Member Talty -- Accessory means extra. Mr. Kanter — Because there is a provision in the zoning that excludes the basement from that 50 percent provision, I thought it was important that I heard the words saying that you wanted to address that part of it. Chairperson Wilcox — That, ,because right now you can build two apartments one on top of each other of the same size. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Mr. Kanter — And so I thought you had wanted to say irregardless of location in the building or in the structure. Alternate Member Erb — So it would be understood to include basements. Is that your point, Jonathan? Mr. Kanter — So that, I mean, so the Board would know what you want them to look at revising is the provision that allows a basement to be an equal sized second unit to the primary structure because that is creating a problem. Chairperson Wilcox — So such a reduction could be accomplished by limiting the size of the accessory unit in the basement. Mr. Kanter — Or, irregardless of location... Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 65 [Many talking at once.] Mr. Kanter — Which is what you said, but it didn't get through Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I know. Irregardless is not a word. I know that. All right. Let me move a motion that we revise Planning Board Resolution Number 2007 -090, modifying the therefore it clause, its getting late, isn't it Jon ?, to read, last sentence to read, such a reduction could be accomplished by limiting the size of the accessory unit regardless... Mr. Kanter— Regardless of its location in the building? Chairperson Wilcox — Regardless of its location in the building. So moved by the chair. Seconded by Hollis. All in favor? Everybody says aye. No one is opposed. There are no abstentions. Anything else? ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 — 095 Revision to PB Resolution No. 2007- 090 Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 4, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That this Board revises Planning Board Resolution Number 2007 — 095 to read: THEREFORE be it resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board consider revising the current zoning regulations in High Density Residential Zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods by further limiting the number of unrelated individuals that can occupy each structure. Such a reduction could be accomplished by limiting the size of the accessory unit regardless of its location in the building. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hoffmann Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 66 The Motion passed. Mr. Kanter —This thing? Chairperson Wilcox — Planning news. Planning Federation. Board Member Conneman — I know George was asking about going. Chairperson Wilcox — Information is available on their website about October in Saratoga. It is New York Planning Federation, nypf.org. Preliminary is there in terms of the agenda. Forms for registration, hotel, etc. Usually the Town staff helps us out in insuring the forms are sent in on time and gets the proper forms done that indicate that sales tax doesn't have to be paid. They are very good about it, but I think early registration or registration is the 14t ", which is about 10 days away. Mr. Kanter — And also we need to bring this to the Town Board because this is one of those that exceeds the cost that doesn't have to go to the Town Board, Chairperson Wilcox — So if you are interested in going, please express that in an email, which is in writing to Jon. Board Member Talty — What date is that? Alternate Member Erb — It is overnights during the teaching semester. Chairperson Wilcox — It is Sunday night through Tuesday afternoon, October 7 -9t" They shortened by one day this year.. Board Member Howe — I'm going Sunday and coming back Monday night, so if anyone is going in that same time frame I would be happy to ride together. Chairperson Wilcox — It's really a good conference and they shortened by a day this year to try and get the costs down and make it just 2 days away instead of 3 or 2 business days away instead of 3. Board Member Thayer — It's also a neat city. Chairperson Wilcox — Saratoga is a good place even when the ponies aren't there. Mr. Kanter — So far George has indicated interest in going, I think. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll express my interest tonight when I get home. Board Member Howe — I'm going, but I can get paid through work. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you get funding through Cornell? Final PB 9-4 -07 Pg. 67 Board Member Howe — I can cover it through Cornell if that helps. Does that help? Mr. Kanter — I think would help. Chairperson Wilcox — Take money away from somebody else. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Board Member Thayer — Please. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved Submitted, 4. Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town We are adjourned at 10:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 4, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca Field of Dreams, 120 and 122 King Road East. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Field of Dreams (Master Plan — Phase I) project at the Elizabeth Anne Clime Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes the clearing, grubbing, and grading of approximately 1 '/ acres to create a playing field, a sledding slope, an access lane to King Road East, stone dust paths, a pond and boardwalk, stormwater facilities, and a new asphalt 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. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding adoption of a local law providing for a moratorium on development in the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca for a period of two hundred seventy (270) days. The proposed moratorium would allow the Town Board time to determine, among other considerations, whether a change from the existing Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone on Tax Parcels 70- 10 -3.5 (24.16 +/- acres); 73 -1 -2.2 (29.35 +/- acres); 73 -1 -8.1 (2.40 +/- acres); and 73 -1 -8.22 (23.34 +/- acres) is appropriate. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 2007 and August 21, 2007. 7, Other Business: 8. 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, September 4, 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, September 4, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Field of Dreams (Master Plan — Phase I) project at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes the clearing, grubbing, and grading of approximately 1 3/ acres to create a playing field, a sledding slope, an access lane to King Road East, stone dust paths, a pond and boardwalk, stormwater facilities, and a new asphalt path between the Middle School and the Lower Elementary School. Elizabeth Anne Clime Montessori School of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding adoption of a local law providing for a moratorium on development in the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca for a period of two hundred seventy (270) days. The proposed moratorium would allow the Town Board time to determine, among other considerations, whether a change from the existing Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone on Tax Parcels 70- 10 -3.5 (24.16 +/- acres); 73 -1 -2.2 (29.35 +/- acres); 73 -1 -8.1 (2.40 +/- acres); and 73 -1 -8.22 (23.34 +/- acres) is appropriate. 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, August 27, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Wednesday; August 29, 2007 :THE ITHACAJOl1RNAL { TOWN Of ITHf►CA PLANNING BOARD } OF -NOTICE I '; P.UBLICrHEARING 2Tuesd6�y i, September 4, 2007 Will r' Boc o roiowing nmes.ana on following matters; co located' at ,120; and,,' King Road - East; =Yawn: thoca Tax ParceV 6's 1 -3i5; 43= ;13:o;:•`and 1-1 onto `.Iow` isityResidential and Me-' n Densiy • = :Residential'. and grading- of�ap4 nafely .1 •s /a acres :to a`: ng' lope; an 'access to Kinds Road, East;,' dust•;pathsa pondf, wardwalk; ;stor`mwater•;.. es.` and.I a- -new as-_- to of sl; '73 -1 �8:1 °(2.40 is); , and. 73 =1$`22 tPocres) Js. .pppro- `at said tine and ;hear all" persons' of such.matter or •. ;ments;. or .,other special?; rfieeds; =will -be% provided `with assistance as;necessa -,- ry upon' request ..P ersons.J ':desiring, 6ossistance.:• must' -make such a request not:; ;less than 48 hours prior to;: }the time , of the 'public" ° !hearing..: .:;Jonathan Kanter,AICP 1 >Directorof.. Planning , 273 - 1747. Dated: Monday, August 27; -2007 Publish: Wednesday,,: ' August :29; 2007; - Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street September 4, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name I Address Ro cco 6 Q CE7v � �shr�A eor ner � ane � i 1 7'�M T G . Z�3_ N AuIr.0im S�j . L t' ( Z ?ice c7A I I l Z41, 1�7 A NO �)'i 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 September 4, 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: August 27, 2007 August 29, 2007 a Q�2c� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29`h day of August 2007. % �� ue�jc� Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20