The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2008-03-04FILE TOWN OF ITHACA DATE PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 215 NORHT TIOGA STREET PRESENT: Rod Howe, Chair Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Fred Wilcox, Hollis Erb Absent: Susan Riha STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Carrie Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk OTHERS: Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road Fay Gougakis, Downtown Ithaca Jane Roberts, 253 Coddington Road Eric Ganford, 401 East Miller Road, Danby John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, South Hill Civic Association Rich DiPaolo, 126 Northview Road Robert Seely, 85 Starks Road, Newfield Stephen Rogers, 152 Coddington Road David Herrick, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors Herman Sieverding, Ithaca College Rick Couture, Ithaca College Chris Kusznir, 547 Spencer Road Peter Negrassia, 547 Spencer Road Randy Marcus, Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Marcus, Attorneys Persons to be Heard Chairperson Howe — Welcome to the March 4th Planning Board meeting. The exits are on either side. If you have cell phones, if you would turn them off we would appreciate it. Copies of the agenda are out in the foyer and there is a sign -up sheet if you would like to speak during the public hearing this evening regarding the Ithaca College Athletic Center. So if you would sign up out there, we are going to go in order that people sign up. But before we get to that, are there any persons to be heard who would like to address an item not on the agenda this evening? Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, I have something. I got a little frustrated when I came to park here tonight and it has happened many times before, there would be half a car length between cars and then just nothing up so one couldn't fit another car in. So in this little space here there are four cars parked where there could be at least 5, maybe 6. That's poor parking. Mr. Walker — You're talking about out front here? PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 2 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Right here. And then around the corner it was equally bad so I went out back behind the building. Anyway, and I'm not saying it is anyone here who parked so badly, but if you come here and park on the street, (inaudible) just enough space between cars so we can fit in just as many as possible. Chairperson Howe — Anything else? I want to just note that the public hearing notices were duly posted for all three public hearings and note for those of you who are interested, we are being recorded two ways this evening. The regular way and this new digital recording system, so we'll see how it works. Board Member Thayer — We don't have to change tapes? Chairperson Howe — No, we're still using the back -up... Ms. Whitmore — Fred's going to be the one to transcribe the minutes if he doesn't behave... Chairperson Howe — Let that be recorded ... I think there is going to be a very brief presentation before we open the public hearing. I'm not sure who is going to speak on behalf of the... Board Member Erb — David. Board Member Thayer — Always David... Public Hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Athletics & Events Center at Ithaca College David Herrick, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors, 203 North Aurora Street At our last public presentation, I believe, on the 19th of February, we elaborated on the environmental reviews that were all included in the DEIS and you heard some detailed explanation from Ron LeCain from LeCain Environmental Services, about the wetlands delineation that was done, the extent of avoidance that we incorporated into the plan and then the proposed mitigation which is described in Appendices within the EIS. Out of our discussions and questions that came from the Board, everyone was interested seeing where the College is contemplating compensatory mitigation wetlands. So tonight I provided an 11 x 17 image, and there is a full -size image here for the public and Board, that identifies upwards of 6 possible locations on Cornell lands that LeCain will be looking into to study for the compensatory mitigation wetland. Board Member Thayer — Ithaca College, Mr. Herrick — I'm sorry, what did I say? Board Member Wilcox —You said Cornell. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 3 Mr. Herrick — Oh well, we'll use Cornell lands too ... (laughter) ... First we'll look at Ithaca College lands. And that's all we have to present. Board Member Erb — Does that mean that the two wetlands on LP 102 and LP 103 are already existing? Mr. Herrick — Wetlands that show up within the site plan drawings, those are proposed wetland practices. So they will be constructed wetlands for the purpose of stormwater management. They will resemble wetlands when they're planted. Board Member Hoffmann — Another question too is: when you laid out these wetlands, did you look at the maps for the Town's South Hill Conservation Zone too, and see that you didn't create some problem there by creating... Mr. Herrick — Well, I want to make it very clear that these are preliminary sites that do have certain characteristics that we would be looking for for constructing those wetlands and we certainly can, n the course of preparing the actual mitigation plan, delineate or add some of those conservancy outlines. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, it would be interesting to see where this fits with respect to that piece of land which does belong to Ithaca College, a lot of it anyway. Mr. Herrick — Right. It does. Board Member Hoffmann —As opposed to Cornell University. Chairperson Howe — I also just wanted to note for Planning Board members that we have a letter from Ed Marx in front of us and I assume the applicants get a copy of this as well ... I think our role tonight is to listen and only as a question of one of the folks who are sharing comments if we just need a point of clarification, it's not just engaging in dialogue. If there's time after we close the public hearing and turn our attention to the other two items, then that will give us a chance to more fully discuss our issues. And I'm not sure the applicant will still be here, but we may have some time to discuss. But I think we will get through the public hearing fairly, with few interruptions. We are going to go in order of folks that have signed up. We're going to ask people to keep to a five minute time limit and if we have, and try not to repeat things that other people have said. If you want to certainly say, echo a sentiment, then say "the person who spoke about "x" issue, those are some of my issues as well." We will be recording all of this. If there is time and we feel that we can give some more time, we might allow people to come back and speak beyond five minutes, but let's get through everyone who wants to speak first, using sort of a five minute time line. So I think we are ready to open the public hearing at 7:10 p. m. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 4 Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center. The overall proiect as well as the preliminary site plan approval and special permit for Phase 1A And this is detailed on your agenda and there's copies on the agenda out there. So we are going to start with Stephen Rogers. Stephen Rogers 152 Coddington Road That's just at the City limits. Our property abuts Ithaca College land on two sides making us immediate neighbors of the College. My wife Marian and I have been attending meetings of the Town Planning Board pertaining to the Athletics & Events Center for more than a year. We've raised various concerns related to this new construction over that time and in general have been pleased by the Board's attention and response and some of the changes made in the College's plans. However, we still have two major concerns regarding the land directly behind our property where there are plans to create a pedestrian bike trail and expand parking Lot Z during Phase 1A of the College's plans. Our first concern is the proposed Phase 1A section of the pedestrian bike trail. For those of you who don't know what I am referring to, it's that portion of the trail which will extend from the back entrance of Ithaca College north to the intersection of Hudson and Coddington Roads. We feel this section of the trail is not necessary, will adversely affect residents of the neighborhood and is in fact, dangerous. The College has proposed this small segment of the trail as a link between campus - pedestrian -bike network and the South Hill Recreation Way. This small segment of the trail is not necessary because the obvious link to the Recreation Way for such a network is through Juniper Drive, which is in fact planned as part of Phase 2. Nor does the small segment do anything for the safety of pedestrians on Coddington Road. Sidewalks for pedestrian safety are part of the planned reconstruction of Coddington Road by the County which is to take place in the near future. The proposed Phase 1 A section of the trail does, however, adversely affect the privacy of neighboring home owners, the value of their properties and the character of the neighborhood. The Base of Z Parking Lot hill puts the trail right on the back property lines of all the private homes along Coddington Road from the College's back entrance down to the City limit. There are no trees or other landscaping between the backyards and the proposed trail and no room for such landscaping to be planted. In addition, this trail will be lit from dusk to dawn by light fixtures up to 18 -feet tall which no amount of landscaping can conceal from neighboring residences. The trail will also put pedestrian traffic along the rear of these properties at all times of the day and night. We already have student foot - traffic in front of our homes and the noise, trash and vandalism that comes along with it. This proposed section of trail will give us the same problems behind our homes. Further, the proposed outlet for this section of the trail at the intersection of Hudson, Coddington and Pennsylvania Avenues is a problem area already because of late -night crowds of students congregating here on their way to and from downtown bars and off - campus parties on Pennsylvania and PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 5 Kendall Avenues. The proposed trail would only funnel another stream of students into the intersection. Not only would the outlet of the trail further damage the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, but it will force pedestrians and bicyclists to cross a dangerous intersection where vehicles on Coddington and Hudson frequently exceed the posted speed limits and run stop signs. Increasing the size of a milling crowd, late at night, at a dangerous intersection is a recipe for tragedy. Our second concern is the expansion of Z Parking Lot and the creation of the segment of the loop road by Z Lot. As the Planning Board and College know, we have not been happy with the extension of the hillside and the creation of Z Lot which we regard as an eyesore. Now that the parking lot is going to be expanded, we want to make sure that steps are taken as part of Phase 1A to install abundant and appropriate landscaping to screen the parking lot and its lighting and the nearby segment of the loop road from out view and that of our neighbors. Finally, we would like to see a significant landscape buffer planted in the level, open area below the Z Lot hill following the installation of stormwater management practices in that area. Such plantings would serve as an additional screen for the hillside and the parking lot and would be a long overdue buffer between residences and College facilities such as the tractor trailer parking lot that the College continues to maintain at the base of the hill. Thank you very much. And I will pass out one copy. Robert Seely, 85 Starks Road, Newfield have one question about the impact statement about the stadium lighting, which was, the statements says "the stadium lighting..." or the "stadium lighting will be used until 11:00 p.m." and I was wondering, does that mean the lights will be turned off at 11:00p.m.? I'd just like to see a clarification of that. Chairperson Howe — I believe that is the case, and the applicants are shaking their heads yes, so... Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road The concerns that I want to speak to are about the wetland restoration. I found it was pretty unclear, first of all, exactly how many acres of wetland were going to be disturbed and thus restored. There's one mention of 4.2 and then in a letter to Jonathan Kanter in the Appendix, they're talking about 3.5 acres maximum. I saw in the statement of again, 17% of 60 wetland restoration sites that were studied by the DEC were deemed to be successful. So I'm very concerned that we end up with one of the successful ones and I know that Ithaca College has a lot of plans for the project, but I wonder if there's going to be any outside monitoring. They do mention invasive species control and that's something I am pretty interested in. I wondered if there were any plans to turn it into a student project perhaps. I know we are dealing with a lot of invasive species here in Tompkins County and in the, part of the LeCain Environmental Services material, there's a photo on page 9 that is supposed to show typical topography. I'm sorry, I don't have which appendix it's part of, but anyway, PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 6 but it shows what I believe is a big patch of garlic mustard which is an invasive species so I want to make sure that the people who are monitoring the invasive species are really on- the -ball about recognizing them. And also, I don't know if this is an environmental impact exactly, but I'm really hoping that there might be some uses of alternative energy sources other than the cooling in the tower, which seems like a good idea, but why not solar panels on the roof at the stadium? And couldn't this somehow be included in the curriculum for Ithaca College? It's an educational institution. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — I just want to reiterate that the public hearing is both for the DEIS and for the Preliminary Site Plan for Phase 1A. So the public hearing is really serving two purposes this evening. Rich DiPaolo, 126 Northview Road I have a comment with respect for the public hearing being for two purposes. For one thing, if we are presumably to be making comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that will then be considered and in some cases, acted upon, doesn't that essentially, potentially affect the site plan that we are being asked to comment on now? So that's kind of a rhetorical question but... Chairperson Howe — This is Preliminary Site Plan approval... Ms. Brock — And the DEC regulations require us to combine, whenever we can, hearings, for both site plan approval and the EIS... Mr. DiPaolo — Are you planning on considering the preliminary site plan for a vote tonight? Chairperson Howe — No. Ms. Brock — No, that can't happen until after the final EIS is prepared and accepted and this Board makes findings. So the site plan approval won't happen until after all that ... the whole SEQR process is completed. Mr. DiPaolo — Okay. Thanks. For one thing, I don't see the ... I haven't been here in one or two meetings regarding this project, but I don't see the discus and javelin fields? Are they still under consideration? Are they still part of the project? They're not, they don't seem to be represented on that map or am I missing something? Chairperson Howe — We'll probably have time for people to ... we'll have the applicants come up and address some of the things that are coming up, so we will note these and then we will have them come up instead of keep trying to have them answer some things. Mr. DiPaolo — Okay. Just in general then I will comment on the DEIS itself. This may be just my general comment about the EIS process but, I didn't feel there was enough specificity regarding the alternative sites to allow for a viable discussion of alternatives. You know, for example, there aren't any before and after maps of any of the proposed PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 7 alternative sites. That ship may have sailed months ago, but as I understand it, the alternatives are supposed to be presented to a level of specificity that it actually allows for a detailed discussion and I just didn't see that. Now, I also found out within the last few days that there are reportedly a couple of trash dumps on the east side of the Ithaca College campus. Hadn't heard anything about that, I didn't read about them in the EIS and I was wondering if there had been any kind of research, historical research or anything about potential trash facilities, former trash facilities that may be impacted by the construction here. Chapter 1, page 3, there's a statement about the number of residential properties within 500 4eet of any project disturbance. I'd like to know how many residences are within 500 4eet of the potential alternative sites so we can have a better idea of the overall impact on the various potentially - affected communities. - And-it's really hard to make a choice if you don't have all these facts. The ... let me see ... moving down to Site Location, page 70, it says "Site location is indicated by a little pink square" and as far as I can tell, it only refers to the building footprint and not the total build -out in terms of parking and the athletic fields and so forth, so I don't think that map is very accurate. There are two mentions of the use of Coddington Road during the construction process and I'd like to have these reconciled. The first mention says that, on Chapter 2, page 10 says "throughout the course of construction, Route 96 and Coddington Road would provide access to the campus. All construction vehicles would use these roads to gain access to the site." And then on the next page, is says "construction workers would be instructed to travel to and from the project site using the Danby Road entrance and loop road, minimizing the reliance on Coddington Road." So I don't, I'd like to set hose two statements reconciled. Either people are going to be using the Danby Road entrance and the loop road, or they're going to be using Coddington Road, but I don't know to what extent construction vehicles are going to be prohibited from using Coddington Road during Phase 1. think, beginning on Chapter 2, page 40, the effects... "the effects on noise and traffic impacts described in Chapter 2, sections A & F will be temporary in nature and mitigated to an appropriate degree." Now maybe I missed something here, but I don't, it seems to me that that refers primarily to construction noise and doesn't really address the potential for noise effects from the use of the facilities themselves, particularly loudspeakers, and I am just assuming I missed something because that's probably been discussed here. If there's going to be any kind of athletic events here, there's probably going to be some people calling them. Image D1 View 1, Coddington at Juniper Road, that picture to me doesn't mean anything, it doesn't represent anything, it's a picture of overhead wires against a blue sky and I don't know what the vantage point is or whether that's supposed to be directional photograph toward the construction area, but I think there could be a better representation of what the neighborhood actually looks like in that area, in the Environmental Impact Statement itself. Because right now, and I did go up there and take a few pictures, and I'd be happy to share them with you but right now... PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 8 Chairperson Howe - That's about ... how much more do you have? Are you close to finishing up? Mr. DiPaolo - Yeah ... Susan took up 30 seconds of my time, so ... (laughter) ... Chapter 2, Page 70, it says "the posted speed limit on King Road between 96B and Coddington is 45mph" it doesn't mention the school zone at the Montessori School which is 30mph or lower, as far as I know. With respect to the Tompkins County Highway Departments road reconstruction project ... that is Phase 2, and I understand that the TIP funding may or may not be available for that, so, unless the County applies for TIP money and is approved, the entire scope of that phase of the project is up in the air, so we can't assume there's going to be a roundabout or any other features on Coddington Road that the County's going to pay for, And I guess that's ... yeah, the only other thing ... the —only one - major- point- that -I --have-is- the - assertion -that the main -- campus entrance will provide the only exit from campus for major events. I guess that ... how does that ... I'd like to see a reference in the EIS to the entrance to campus for major events, not just the exit. Are we assuming that people are going to be allowed to enter the campus using Coddington Road for those events and then that Coddington Road outlet will be closed off? And I'd like to see ... I'd like to hear you guys maybe approach the College about some sort of contractual arrangement that actually necessitates the use of the main campus entrance and not some sort of loose understanding. Thank you. Jane Roberts, 253 Coddington Road Pretty much right across the road from the site and I just wish that there were, that you could look into alternative sites. I think it's going to be a huge impact on my neighborhood and I just feel pretty devastated by it. Thank you. Eric Banford, 401 East Miller Road, Danby In reading the EIS report, I saw the mention of woodland that almost qualifies as old - growth forest. These are mentioned in Sections 26, 27 and 41. Some of the trees in this section are either over 100 years old, are very large, trees with these characteristics are rare in Tompkins County and in New York State and need to be preserved. So like Rich DiPaolo mentioned, I'd like to see details of alternative sites fleshed out a little bit more or alternatives of the current site plan altered to include, to either move to not disturb the old growth forest or to include it in the plan. The EIS also mentions a one -to -one swap of wetland and I think that's insufficient and would like to see a more generous swap and would suggest that some of the land that's swapped for wetland would be donated to the Finger Lakes Land Trust. My other concern is over light pollution. I'd like to see, I know there's mention of measures being taken to address this, my concern is that strong lighting at night is a hazard to migrating birds under certain conditions and I'd like to see this addressed in some way. Thank you. John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, President of the South Hill Civic Association I have a statement signed by fourteen people. The title is 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement: What is Missing ?' There's one Institution on South Hill that is investing a great deal of its human resources into sustainable development and greenhouse gas PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 9 reduction. The Ithaca College Administration realizes, like the American Institute of Architects, that the construction of buildings and the operation of buildings account for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US today. We find it of little comfort to rely on a few institutions to carry the climate burden for the rest of our community. We would like to suggest a solution that will address this inequity. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board could be one of the local government oversight boards that could rectify this situation by simply making the following question standard on all scoping documents for environmental impact statements. That question is: What is the estimated carbon load for your proposed project and how much of that load are you going to reduce by using renewable energy? Answering this one question will start developers thinking about energy in radical new ways and potentially help architects to find new solutions for reducing carbon emissions from buildings. In fact, the American Institute of Architects has created the 2030 Challenge to do just that. It encourages architects to design and build new buildings that will use no fossil fuels by the year 2030. In other words, these new buildings will generate their own renewable energy. If developers and architects focus on this challenge, we believe they will succeed. But only if our local oversight boards, like the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, ask the right question. Fortunately, Ithaca College has agreed to a policy that will eventually achieve carbon neutrality. This was done when the President of Ithaca College signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, Unfortunately, Ithaca College is not implementing its own policy because the only way to achieve carbon - neutrality is to construct buildings that incorporated some form of renewable energy into the energy mix, which the A &E Center does not do. Are those responsible for planning and development on the IC Campus at odds with the Climate Commitment President Peggy William's signed? We don't' know, but as the government oversight board for this project, we are hoping you can tell us. Thank you. Fay Gougakis, Downtown Ithaca Good Evening. I actually live downtown so I'm not going to be in the affected area. The thing I wanted to share with you is that as someone who cycles and we've seen accidents on Hudson Street, I think that that area is very sensitive to traffic. And there's also no sidewalk, so it's a very dangerous area for high - volume traffic. The second thing is lighting, and I have a little beef about lighting, because Cornell's lighting is absolutely horrible. The lighting in the stadiums up there is really an eyesore. I'm shocked that, we're the town that has Carl Sagan as a hero, okay, and yet the light pollution in Ithaca is horrendous, and that was in the Ithaca Journal, there was a whole article in the Ithaca Journal about it, yet nothing is being done about that. So, also, the southwest development that happened recently also has horrible lighting and I will share with you that I know that the present Mayor of Ithaca is trying to do something about it. The lighting in the Southwest Park is really horrible from seeing it from an overview. So, I'm really concerned with the lighting that's going to happen with this development because definitely, the lighting should not be all night, and it should not be lighting that you can see from every angle of this area. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 10 So, anyway, that's all I have to say for now. It's, there'll be more comments in another draft. But anyway, if you could think about that... Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? Board Member Wilcox — Is this the new Fay? It was so short... Chairperson Howe — We'll keep the public hearing open for a few more minutes. Was there anyone who spoke already who thought of one other thing they want to say or emphasize briefly, not to reiterate anything you've already said? And then I think ... well, go ahead Rich. Mr. DiPaolo — I spoke to Fay, she -wants to yield the balance of her time to me ... (laughter) ... No, actually, I had a comment about the lighting. There was a question as to when the lighting would be shut off ... I have a question about when the lighting would be in use ... whether it would be in use only during the time the people actually need it, or would the fields be lit automatically on some sort of a timer mechanism? Are the lights of a type and variety that can be turned on relatively quickly or do they have a very long warm -up time and so forth? I'm concerned because I live across the valley from Schoellkopf Field and there are some nights when those lights are just burning at 2 or 3 in the morning and I can't imagine there's a marching band up there and it seems like they are just going and going. So my concern is that the lights would be used judiciously, you know. Only when needed and I don't know whether the campus authorities can address that. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? I just want to make sure that everyone knows that written comments on the DEIS will be accepted through March 14, 2008 and the next phase is a Final EIS and I believe that that has to be completed within 45 days of when we close the public hearing. Is that correct Jonathan? Mr. Kanter — Sounds about right. Chairperson Howe — This isn't set up where the applicants are required to try to answer some of the questions that were.addressed tonight. I mean, certainly we're going to be looking at everything that gets raised between now and March 141h but since they are here and we went through the public hearing more quickly than I was expecting... you know, I know that you were taking notes ... I don't know if there are a few things that the applicants might be able to just quickly respond to that were brought up now and if you don't want to do that, that's fine and we can try to remind you about what some of the things are, like the lighting and ... so it's only if you want to try and respond to a few things... David Herrick, TG Miller and Associates think that we would be happy to respond to any and all that we can within the time that you have available. I know you have other applicants, but, we could address those that are perhaps items currently within the document but perhaps you need a roadmap to get to the answer. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 11 Chairperson Howe — You know, one thing, because I know it was raised by several folks, and we know that this is going to be an ongoing discussion, maybe it would be helpful for us to articulate where we are with the wetlands, and I know that this is going to be a concern to this Board as well. It might be helpful to just explain the process with the Army Corps of Engineers and the timeline for that. Mr. Herrick — We have already submitted, through Ron LeCain's efforts, the 404 Permit Application to the Army Corps of Engineer's office in Auburn and they have information that shows the extent of the project, as you have seen it. The extent of the wetlands as they were delineated by LeCain, and they will also have this additional information that we have recently completed that will identify for them those locations where we would be looking to provide the mitigation wetlands. There is a timeframe with the Corps once - they -deem that all of the - application materials are sufficient,- then they will_ actually conduct their own public comment period. There's a 30 -day period in which they will send out notification to adjacent land owners that wetlands are proposed to be disturbed as well as being mitigated. So once the Army Corps is satisfied with the extent and content of the material that we provide them, they will initiate that 30 -day public comment process. So we're in the ... right now gathering up a list of adjacent landowners that are contiguous to the campus, all the way around, not just in the vicinity of where the project is, but the entirety of the campus. Some information regarding the UNA and the Town's conservancy area that incorporate that UNA. Information that's to my right, which I handed out to you, is something that they have asked for and they will receive. That represents the bulk of the information that they are looking for in order to initiate their 30 -day public comment. Subsequent to that, Ron LeCain will be developing the preliminary mitigation plan and that will spell out, very similar to the details that are in the EIS, how we are going to go about designing the wetlands and where those locations will be, and that's a document that the Army Corps ultimately had to accept in order to issue a permit for disturbance of the wetlands associated with the A &E site. And I think in a nutshell, that's the 404 Permit process. Chairperson Howe — And will we have that information before ... to complete the FEIS, the Final EIS, that will have to be part of the process, so is the timing going to work out? Mr. Herrick — Well, we expect to incorporate in the FEIS the mitigation plan. Board Member Erb — David, do you have any feedback yet from the Army Corps of Engineers as to what the tradeoff would be? At one point you were thinking it was 1.5 acres per acre lost? Mr. Herrick — Yes, they would tell you that they shy away from using ratios. However, people want to know what are we looking at and really what Ron's charge is, is to understand the quality of the wetlands that are going to be disturbed and then equate how much we are able to provide within these other sites that I've depicted for you. So we look to provide equal or better quality wetlands to what we are disturbing. And that is a negotiation process, we hope that given what we are going to provide, we can PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 12 minimize the new footprint disturbance that comes with the mitigation, but we honestly don't know the answer to the exact area of mitigation wetlands that will be provided. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe one way that this could be handled is, if it turns out that some of the wetlands fail, like we have sometimes talked about if tree plantings fail, they have to be replaced, so that in the end, one ends up with a certain acreage of working wetlands. Board Member Erb — I'm wondering if we have a better shot at success if we have two separate sites so that if one fails, we have the other one, or whether a single larger site has a better chance. Just curious. Mr. Herrick — Yeah, and we are leaning on Ron to come -up- with -those guidance decisions. Now, there are a couple of questions that did come up that are relevant to this. First of all there was an issue of area, reference to 4 and then 3.5 ...We have gradually in defining the site through the site plan review efforts, reduced that area of disturbance. We are generally in the area of 3.9 acres, plus or minus, and looking to further reduce that. So, the course of time has led us to somewhat further reduce the disturbance t �=a Board Member Wilcox — So 3.9 is your current estimate, the 5'ish number was a former estimate. Mr. Herrick — Correct. And in terms of monitoring, the Army Corps does require a 5- year monitoring period, and throughout that monitoring period, there is removal of invasive species as a step. We have discussed, very preliminarily, creating some type of educational program out of that for the College. It's great to go pull cattails if you can get it done for free. So that's something that the College can consider. Chairperson Howe — I think it was important to focus on wetlands for a minute. I wanted to avoid the topics that ... I mean, we've talked about some of the issues that were raised, I mean, it's up to us to make sure that the issues that have been raised are fully addressed in the DEIS. So we will certainly have discussion about that. What I am trying to identify now is things that are simple to answer, that are not really, you know, are they fully addressed in the DEIS. So, could you just, I think one of them was lighting, when the lights are going to be on on the field. I think that might be easy to just clarify for folks. Mr. Herrick — The Town's lighting ordinance I believe, dictates that lights of this nature, for field lighting, has to be out at 11:00 and that's what we've proposed within the DEIS narrative, is doing that. Chairperson Howe — And I think part of the question was, will they turn on automatically or will someone will actually have to manually when they need to be used? I think that was part of the question. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 13 Mr. Herrick — The system that's proposed is very flexible and it will only be turned on when it's needed, so, there's no automatic timer that at 7:00 in the evening they come on and burn until 11:00. They are programmed, can be programmed remotely, by the coaches, to come on only when they have programs. Board Member Erb — And when they turn off, do they turn off completely? Mr. Herrick — Yes, it's instant. Chairperson -Howe — I think, and Sue, you guys help me find the ones that are easy to clarify ... I think another one was using the main entrance when folks are exiting from big events and the question was; in terms of access, which, how do they access? If is just -- through the main entrance -as- well ? - - -- - - - - . I - - - Mr. Herrick — We did not propose any traffic management for event arrival. Primarily because it will come in in a frequency that will not mimic exiting. In other words, your exiting traffic is all at once, your arriving traffic is going to be staggered. So we did not feel, and I can't quote where the traffic consultant has made that point, but the issue did not present itself as presenting a problem for the street network. We only saw it as an exiting issue and not an arriving issue. Chairperson Howe — Where there other issues that people can think of that aren't the big ones about lighting or traffic but easy to clarify... Board Member Thayer — There's one about alternate sites that... Chairperson Howe — I think that's a bigger one that we have to decide if that's been adequately addressed with the feedback we've gotten tonight. Board Member Erb — Other than the one historical site, we've never heard anything about trash dumps. Chairperson Howe —Oh, right. Did you pick up on the comment about potential trash. Mr. Herrick — Certainly picked up ... is that pun intended? ... (laughter)... Board Member Erb — Is there any knowledge of trash dumps on this site? Former trash dumps? Mr. Herrick — No, other than the Middens site that was associated with the early 19th century farmhouse, we don't have any other knowledge of any kind of ... the incline plain was a presence through there, but that wasn't expected to be a dump site... Board Member Wilcox — State University at Binghamton who actually went through the site and did the test borings and all of that, they didn't see anything... PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 14 Mr. Herrick — Those tests were done at a 50 -foot grid across the whole eastern portion of the campus, as well as the northern portion of the site disturbance. Didn't come up with any ... trash sites. Board Member Hoffmann — Mr. DiPaolo asked about the discus and javelin field. Mr. Herrick — Yes, correct. Well, the site plan that I brought and threw up was just the Phase 1A site plan. I do have the ultimate build -out footprint that is represented by the figures in the DEIS ... I would be happy to put that out for the public if they wanted to take a look at it. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you just point it out on the map even if it's not shown ... (he does)... Board Member Hoffmann — And that information is in the full set of papers that is available... Mr. Herrick — Let me just go grab the Board... Board Member Wilcox — Is that okay? Chairperson Howe — I'm sorry, I missed part of that... Okay... and while he is doing that, I think we need to decide on whether or not some of these bigger issues, whether they are fully addressed in the DEIS... Board Member Wilcox — Can I just mention one of those bigger issues ... that is the reconstruction of Coddington Road. We had one speaker say it will be reconstructed, there will be sidewalks, therefore...we had another speaker say well, we don't know whether it's going to be reconstructed because the TIP money may not be available. So therefore, I would defer to Jon Kanter. Mr. Kanter — I can comment on that because as one of the commentors said, the Coddington Road project other than a minor part of the project at the far south end, is not in the TIP, the Transportation Improvement Program, and so funding is a big question for any of the remaining parts of Coddington Road. So therefore, a sidewalk on Coddington Road is a huge question at this point. Board Member Wilcox — Okay. But that is information that we have already based upon either ... I think you are on one of those... Mr. Kanter — I am on the Planning Committee of the Ithaca Tompkins Transportation Council, Board Member Wilcox — So that information is available to us, I don't need to ask the applicant for it. Mr. Kanter — Correct. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 15 Some back and forth from audience members and Rod and David... Chairperson Howe — We want to try to avoid back - and -forth because it is hard to pick up* ..(TG Miller shows Rich DiPaolo where the discus field would be) Board Member Hoffmann — I would actually like to have a clarification on this too, where in the documents is there a clearer depiction of the discus and javelin fields, in drawings? If you just give the reference page, we can all have a chance to look... Mr. Herrick — It's Appendix D, it's the technical exhibits in Appendix D. There's various diagrams in there that depict the location for the fields. Chairperson Howe —While-Eva is looking at that, Tessa, did you want to address the Board... Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to know specifically which... Mr. Herrick — It's Figure 2, one of the white ones... Board Member Hoffmann — In Appendix D I see some figures that say ADD -6, ADD -7, partial site plan... (too much page shuffling etc.) Mr. Kanter — Your Figure 2 is referring to a Stormwater Plan, that I'm looking at. Mr. Herrick — Yes, and it shows the location for the fields, on the drawing. Mr. Kanter — How is it labeled? Board Member Wilcox — Down in the lower right hand corner it is labeled Figure 2. It's black and white, not color. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't seem to have that in my papers ... and that's the only place that it's mentioned and there is a figure shown on it? Mr. Walker — It's just got the launching pit and the flight lines on it. Board Member Wilcox — Launching pit and then the cone that is the landing area. Chairperson Howe — Okay, is everyone okay on that? Mr. Herrick — It's ... and we can embellish that too, if you need additional areas covered _ by the preliminary site plan documents, we can embellish that for you. Chairperson Howe — I'm going to see if there is anyone else who wants to speak again before we close the public hearing, so if you just want to have a seat David. Tessa, did you want to address the... PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 16 Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road I was interested in a point that was brought up by the gentleman previously concerning the old growth forest areas and apparently there are a number of very old trees in this site where the projected facility will be and I would be very interested also to know what kind of measures can be taken to avoid causing any damage to these old growth areas. Hopefully maybe not any kind of development altogether. Old trees like that are precious resources. Board Member Hoffmann —We need to make a clarification whether there's actually old growth, and all of our statements are that there aren't any. Just almost. Board Member Conneman — Well maybe we could ask whoever brought that up to -maybe send a letter in giving references to where it's supposed to be, for our information. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else who would like to address... Board Member Wilcox — There was one other question which they may be able to address and that was; whether there was an inconsistency in the DEIS about the use of Coddington Road during construction for construction vehicles versus construction employees. That was mentioned. I don't know if David can. Chairperson Howe — Before you come up, I'm just going to see if there is anyone else so I can close the public hearing. Does anyone else want to address the Board this evening on this issue? Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question about that actually; is this going to be the only public hearing on the preliminary site plan approval. Ms. Brock — Yes. Mr. Kanter — Well, Susan says yes, I say maybe. It depends, I think, on the Planning Board because I think we might hear ... let me rephrase this ... If we have time after the other two items on the agenda, there may be time to talk a little bit more and there are a few items that I think the applicants want to ask the Board about and if they don't, I do, and there could be some modifications, actually, to the site plan proposal for the Phase 1A at this point and if that is the case, then there would probably be another public hearing. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and my other concern is, it's called preliminary site plan approval, but we all know that it's very hard ... once we approve the preliminary site plan, it's very hard for us to say for the final, no, I'm sorry, we don't want to approve this. The initial preliminary approval essentially means unless there is some other huge change that happened between preliminary and final, it essentially means an approval, and I think having, for the public to have only this opportunity to make comments, maybe not everybody who wanted to come was able to come tonight, on such a big project, I think that would be very unfortunate. So, I am hoping that the public will have another chance. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 17 Chairperson Howe - Well I think that's part of our discussion. Anyone else who wants to address us this evening? I am going to close the public hearing at 7:59p.m. I will let David address the question that Fred brought up and then I think we are going to turn to the other two items and then come back and have a discussion about next steps and what we have to do address. So David, do you want to answer the question that Fred just brought up. I don't remember what it was. Fred, what did you ask? Board Member Wilcox - It was mentioned during the public hearing that there might be an inconsistency in the DEIS information about the use of Coddington Road for construction vehicles versus construction employees. Mr. Herrick - Construction traffic, mainly delivery of raw materials or aggregates, we will - - -be- asking; -- through- the - general -- conditions of the- construction- contract, for those contractors to use the Danby Road entrance. Now there are some businesses that have a presence on Coddington Road further south of the Town, thinking specifically of University Sand and Gravel, could certainly provide raw materials to this project and I would suspect that if they are making some deliveries, probably as they have done now, they may use the rear entrance. But we will, again, through the general conditions, ask construction traffic to exit Danby Road and our haul routes that are part of the impact analysis during construction activities dictates that. So that's what we are adhering to. Now, when people show up to work in their pickups or in their cars, I think that they need to use whatever is the most direct means of getting to their place of employment. There's currently construction projects on the campus now, have been for decades, where contractors are coming to the site. In some cases they are being asked to park across Danby Road over at the former Axiom property as temporary parking and that's something that may be considered for this project as well, but, I think the principle impacts coming from the heavy construction traffic is going to be utilizing Danby Road for ingress and egress with the exception of those few local opportunities to use Coddington Road. Chairperson Howe - Thank you. If it's the Boards pleasure, I am going to move on to the other two items and then we can come back to talk about some of the things that we heard today. Board Member Hoffmann - I do have, I want to make a response to Mr. Graves and what he said, if I may. I think that the idea of considering carbon load is a very interesting one and I've been reading a little bit about this lately. In the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine there is a very interesting article. They call it carbon footprint and it has made me understand that this is a very, very complicated process to try to figure out everything that goes into the carbon load of a product or a building or whatever it is. But I certainly think it is something worthwhile considering, and I was not aware that Ithaca College has a stand on carbon neutrality and I would like to know more about it. Could you please provide us with some information about this, thank you. Chairperson Howe - Okay. Board Member Wilcox - Can I make one comment, please. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 18 Chairperson Howe — Yes. Board Member Wilcox — Just ... it's interesting to me that the representative of the South Hill Civic Association comes and talks to us about carbon footprint, and not about traffic concerns. I'll just let it go at that. Chairperson Howe — Okay, let it go at that. Board Member Wilcox — Let it go at that. Chairperson Howe — Okay, the next item on our agenda is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Top Shelf Liquor Store to be located in the existing building at 821 B Danby Road. Chairperson Howe — Is there someone here representing the Top Shelf Liquor Store. Please come forward and give us your name and address. Board Member Hoffmann — By the way, those of you from Ithaca College might be interested in staying to hear what this is about, since I think I remember hearing, it was Mr. Couture or Mr. Sgrecci talking about a new policy of not having alcohol available on Ithaca College's campus. So this is something that is happening in the neighborhood. Close to the neighborhood. Chris Kusznir, 547 Spencer Road and Peter Negrassia, 547 Spencer Road Chairperson Howe — We have the material in front of us, but would you like to just give a brief overview of what you are planning to do and we will ask you if there are any environmental impacts that you know about. Mr. Kusznir — Basically we are here to change the site plan, the use of the building from a prior laundromat to a liquor store, retail liquor store. Mr. Negrassia — Besides that, we also propose to put up a sign 2 -feet wide by 8 -feet long on the store front, and that's all we here for. Chairperson Howe — Are you aware of any environmental impacts in what you propose to do? Mr. Kusznir — None that we're aware of. There was a comment in the paperwork sent out that referenced that and it made a note that whatever was done was negative and no environmental review needed to be done. I can't remember the exact reference, but it was in the paperwork. Chairperson Howe — Well we actually will be acting on a SEAR of the project, so, that's one of the things ... do you want to talk about SEQR or do you want to ask him questions about the general plan so they don't keep coming back and forth. Fred... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, this is a tough times because we have Rogan's Corner, we have the building that you propose to be in. cases. Parking barely meets code, though spaces. You're not planning any changes to building and you'd like a different sign on the ( PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 19 little site and we have seen it many, many have the restaurant Sunset Grill and we Traffic movements are difficult in some I think there's usually sufficient parking the physical site other than inside of your )utside. Mr. Negrassia — Absolutely no visible exterior change. Board Member Wilcox — This is retail liquor sales? Mr. Kusznir —Correct. Board Member Wilcox — You're .subject to all the laws of New York State. Board Member Wilcox Are either one of you old enough to have a liquor license ?...(laughter).. . Chairperson Howe — Eva? Any questions? Board Member Hoffmann — I don't really have any questions. This is a legal use here. I have some concern about the impact on the college students right in the neighborhood. I mean, it's fine if they are not being served alcohol on campus but if it's this close, it's going to have an impact on the neighborhood and we have heard a lot of complaints from this area about drunken students creating problems, but, you know, that's not our problem. We are here to consider whether this is a legal use and the site plan and all that. Board Member Wilcox — I'm sorry ... have you applied to the State of New York for a liquor license? Mr. Kuznir —Yes. (inaudible) Board Member Conneman — I have the same concerns that Eva does about what happens but I think this is a legal use of the site and it's up to the new York State Liquor Authority or whatever they call it these days, to make that decision. Board Member Thayer —Absolutely Board Member Erb — I'll second. Chairperson Howe — All those unanimous. I'll move the SEAR. in favor....any opposition... any abstentions... it's PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 20 ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -019 SEAR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Top Shelf Liquor Store 821 -B Danby Road — Rogan's Corner Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 4, 2008 Motion made by Larry Thayer, Seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "Top Shelf Liquor" store to be located in an existing building at 821 -B Danby Road ( Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former laundromat ( +/- 1100 sq. ft.) into a retail liquor store. Except for a new wall mounted sign, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. This would be a modification of the site plan previously approved for the Rogan's Corner development. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; KFI Holdings LLC, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on March 4, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a memo from the applicant (date stamped February 4, 2008), and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Riha, Talty. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 21 Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe — Any further questions about the site plan? The proposed resolution? Board Member Erb — I was actually glad for the colors on the sign. I think they fit best of all with all the other signs that are there. The green and white lettering. Board Member Wilcox — Is the food delivery service, the dessert delivery service, still operating? (yes) Providing cake and ice cream and a number of other treats... they've expanding a bit I believe ... they started out delivery ice cream and treats to Ithaca College students on campus. Chairperson Howe —Any other comments, questions... Board Member Wilcox — It's been a laundromat there, a hair salon there, it's been put through some uses over the years. Chairperson Howe — We will open the public hearing at 8:08p.m. Is there someone here who would like to.. .1 will close the public hearing at 8:09p.m. and bring the matter back to the Board. Board Member Erb — I'll move it. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor... Ms. Brock — Hold on Rod ... one technical correction... in the first whereas clause there is a reference to this being a sign review board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That should be deleted because there is no need for this Board to make a recommendation to the ZBA because the sign is compliant with out sign law. Board Member Erb — In the third whereas, the fourth line down, it talks about the site map showing the 1 ,1 00 square -foot building, which I took to be this picture, which is date stamped 2/4 not 1/23. Does that make a difference? Board Member Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Ritter — I might have those backwards... so, yes, that is correct. Change that to date stamped 2/4... Ms. Brock — Just for clarification, what are we changing? Ms. Ritter — We are changing the date stamp for the site map showing the 1,100 square -foot storefront location. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 22 Chairperson Howe — Any other changes? Board Member Wilcox — If I may, is it reasonable to, or the proper thing to do to include a condition that they obtain their liquor license? Mr. Kurznir — You can't sell liquor in New York State without a liquor license. Board Member Wilcox — Yeah I know ... Ifm just wondering if that's within our prerogative here. Board Member Thayer — They can't open it if they don't get it. Board Member Wilcox - -- -Yeah, you're- right. They can't _open it if they can't get it, whether we grant preliminary and final site plan approval, there's nothing they can do without the state granting them the liquor license. Ms. Brock — Right and this state has really preempted this entire area of regulation. So I don't think it is really necessary to state that. Board Member Wilcox — Okay, thank you Susan. Chairperson Howe — Okay, I think we're ready to vote ... all those in favor ... any oppositions... it's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -020 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Top Shelf Liquor Store 821 -B Danby Road — Rogan's Corner Tax Parcel No. 404-2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 4, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, Seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "Top Shelf Liquor" retail store to be located in an existing building at 821 -B Danby Road ( Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former laundromat ( +/- 1100 sq. ft.) into a retail liquor store and installing a wall mounted sign on the storefront, proposed to be 2 feet wide by 8 feet long. Except for the wall mounted sign, there are no exterior changes proposed for the site or the building. This would be a modification of the site plan previously approved for the Rogan's Corner development. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; KFI Holdings LLC, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on March PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 23 41 2008, 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 March 4, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a memo provided by the applicant (date stamped February 4, 2008), a building interior diagram (dated 12/18/07), a site map showing the 1100SF storefront location (date stamped 2/4/08), a Sign Diagram (date stamped 2/27/08), and a Frontal Elevation Diagram dated 12/18/07 and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 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 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "Top Shelf Liquor" retail store located at 821 -B Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, as described in a memo provided by the applicant (date stamped February 8, 2008), a building interior diagram (dated 12/18/07), and a site map showing the 1100SF storefront location (date stamped 2/4/08), a Sign Diagram (date stamped 2/27/08), and a Frontal Elevation Diagram dated 12/18/07, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign, and The applicant must obtain a building permit for the interior renovations. The vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Riha, Talty. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe — The next item is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for a proposed 3 -Lot Subdivision located at 106,107 & 109 Fidler Road. Chairperson Howe — And I believe there is someone here representing this tonight. And Larry... PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 24 Board Member Thayer — I would like to recuse myself from this. I know Phil real well, so I don't think I should take part in the discussion. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Give us your name and address and give us a bit of, we have the documents in front of us, but if you want to make a statement and if we have questions we'll ask. Randy Marcus, Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Marcus on behalf of Phil White I believe the application materials are fairly comprehensive, particularly in reference to the letter that my partner, Peter Grossman, wrote to the Board. He traces the history of the property which I am happy to summarize briefly. Mr. -White has owned the property -for in- excess -of -35- years, I- don't- recall off the top of my head the exact date of purchase, but the property was acquired back in the early 70's for the purpose of erecting these residential rental units. The property at that time was financed with a local lender who required, in connection with that mortgage loan financing, that the property be separated, sort to speak, into the three lots that you see described in the application. That was common practice at the time given the interest rate environment, the mortgage lenders were requiring the owners, borrowers to reduce the size of the individual lots providing security, it had to do with the usery environment at the time. As I say, a very common practice, it's not quite the way things are done now. But the title to the property that Mr. White acquired at the time was divied up into those three parcels and apparently, there was no formal subdivision approval granted by the Town although of course the Town did provide building permits and once the construction of the three units was completed, certificates of occupancy for each. The reason that this is coming to the Board at this point, some 30+ years later is the fact that Mr. White is considering selling the property and wanted to be sure that there were no outstanding questions or issues with regard to legal or regulatory compliance and so it was discovered that, in the course of that, that there never had been a formal subdivision _approval granted. So at this point, he is requesting subdivision approval. He is aware of the fact that there will be the necessity of a couple of minor area variances, which he is on the Town Zoning Board agenda to address two weeks from now. And the fact is that there will be no change in any physical sense and no change with respect to the use of the property. Everything is intended to remain just as is, just as has been the case for 35+ years. Chairperson Howe — And are you aware of any environmental issues with this proposed subdivision? Mr. Marcus — No, none at all that I am aware of. Board Member Wilcox — Can I move the SEQR motion. Chairperson Howe — Fred makes a motion, Hollis seconds....all those in favor ... any opposition... one abstained ... so it passes ... one recused ... so it passes. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 25 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -021 SEAR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval White 3 -Lot Subdivision 1069 107, and 109 Fidler Road Tax Parcel No. 31 -3 -2.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board March 4, 2008 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, Seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 10 This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 106, 107 and 109 Fidler Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 3 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 2.7 acre parcel into three new lots, each containing an existing two - family residence. Philip M. White, Jr., Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an. Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on March 4, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Subdivision of Lands of Phillip White Jr., Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated August 13, 2007, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe,. Hoffmann,_Co_nneman, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. RECUSAL: Thayer ABSENT: Riha, Talty. Motion was declared to be carried. Board Member Wilcox — you know, yoL don't have to go there, but you just wor with three houses on a single tax parcel, here, PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 26 wonder how these things occur, frankly, you ter how these things occur where you end up but it did occur and we'll get it straightened out Board Member Erb — It seemed like a nice little neighborhood. Chairperson Howe — Why don't you take a seat and we will open the public hearing, I remembered this time. If there is anyone who would like to address the Board on this issue. We will oven the hearina at 8:17o.m. Anvone who would like to sneak to us on this issue? Do we have any additional questions on this issue? Board Member Wilcox — Comment. We should tell the neighbor, Mr. Ellson, the reported owner, that his fence is just all over everybody else's property including in the road right -of -way but he's not the applicant here. Chairperson Howe — It does sort of wander around. Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, it's pretty amazing given the survey. Chairperson Howe — We'll close the public hearing at 8:18 and bring the the Board. Before we proceed, are there are any changes that need to resolution? Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Howe — Would anyone like to move the resolution? Board Member Wilcox — So moved. matter back to be made to the Chairperson Howe — Second by Hollis ... all those in favor ... anyone recusing them selves ... so it passes 5 with 1 recusal. Thank you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2008 -022 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval White 3 -Lot Subdivision 1069 107, and 109 Fidler Road Tax Parcel No. 31 -3 -2.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board March 4, 2008 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, Seconded by Hollis Erb. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 27 WHEREAS: 1. This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 106, 107 and 109 Fidler Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 3 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 2.7 acre parcel into three new lots, each containing an existing two - family residence. Philip M. White, Jr., Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on March 4, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on March 4, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Subdivision of Lands of Phillip White Jr., Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated August 13, 2007, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 106, 107, and 109 Fidler Road, as shown on the survey map entitled " Survey Map Showing Subdivision of Lands of Phillip White Jr., Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated August 13, 2007, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b, granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman. The vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. RECUSAL: Thayer ABSENT: Riha, Talty. Motion was declared to be carried. PB 3-4 -08 Pg. 28 Chairperson Howe — Okay. Now we can go back to the Ithaca Athletics & Events Center, and I think our task is to ... what do we still see as issues that we feel are not fully resolved in the EIS. Is there anything we heard tonight that we want to talk about amongst ourselves, and then Jon, it sounds like maybe there are some issues about moving forward with the public hearing for the preliminary site plan...:but,... Board Member Conneman — This may be irrelevant, but Rich raised, we always listen to the public, and Rich raised the question about alternative sites. The only place that I found any reference to that was I think on page 85. 1 think what he is saying is that Ithaca College said they looked. at alternative sites and this wasn't good, and that wasn't good but I believe that was never in the formal document. -- Chairperson Howe —And -I--think----..__ - - - Board Member Conneman — I'm not sure what point he wanted to raise on that but it was one of the things that... Board Member Wilcox — There is information on the alternate sites, Chapter 3, it's in there, but nonetheless, Rich and some others, Rich was not the only one to mention that the potential that maybe there's not enough information about the alternate sites. Board Member Conneman — Well that's what I mean Fred. It breezes by it, but... Board Member Wilcox — Well I'm not sure it breezes by it but I hear you that certainly some members of the public expressed the idea that maybe more information might be necessary. Board Member Conneman — In my opinion it breezes by it. Board Member Wilcox — Let me ask you a question. What doesn't it answer? Board Member Conneman — It doesn't specifically address Rich's question, which is; What was the consideration and so forth? It's like, remember years ago, Cornell came to us and wanted to build a fields which they eventually built at Ellis Hollow, and they said "Oh, we considered eight sites" and I said okay show me the eight sites and put them on spreadsheets so I can see them, which they never did. They said "oh we'll do that some place else "... Board Member Thayer — We went over that step -by -step. Cartoff had a very good presentation on that. Board Member Erb — I was satisfied when I read this because I sort of looked at what they wrote and looked at the big map of campus, and looked at the big, built up part of ca- mpus already, and I didn't understand any other place that they could plunk this. Chairperson Howe — Yeah, the rationale seemed to make sense when they presented it. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 29 Board Member Thayer — It definitely made sense, yeah. Board Member Conneman — Well their rationale was that they had to fill more than they would like to fill. I don't know if Rich would like to comment on this, but he raised the question the others have. Chairperson Howe — Well we've closed the public hearing. Board Member Conneman — Well we can invite him as a guest can't we? Board Member Hoffmann — Well when I remember what was presented and what I read about this in the documents, it seems to me that there was more emphasis on the discussion about why the alternative sites were not acceptable to Ithaca College and not so much emphasis on the impact on the community as a whole. And so, maybe that is something that I found somewhat lacking too in this. Is that what you were thinking about? (Rich Nodded) Board Member Conneman — Ahmm. Chairperson Howe — Maybe related to that, that it might be worth addressing as this gets refined is, Rich I think brought up the number of residential properties within 500 - feet of the alternative sites. My guess is where it's potentially... now it's actually closer to more residences so it might be worth saying, even with that, Ithaca College still feels that this is the best site, recognizing that it might actually be closer to a lot of residences than other sites. So that might be something to.... Board Member Hoffmann — And since one of my big problems with this whole project, or, it's not just one, but, at least two ... One is lighting and one is noise and another one is the aesthetic, the appearance, the visibility of this project from far away. So, the lighting impact from far away, the noise impact from further away, like across valleys, and the visual impact from further away, those are big issues to me and I think the alternatives, what would have been the impact of alternative solutions from further away is another thing that we didn't really hear about. We heard about the impacts on the neighborhoods close by, that you were just talking about now, but this is such a big project with so many tall light poles ... with very strong lights, and potential of.:.l am saying potential now because I am hoping that you took to heart what Fred and I talked about last time about the sound system pointing the way that it originally did. You can do something to lessen the noise impact. But the visibility impact is also a great impact for me. Chairperson Howe — So I think we have to be clear here. I think, from my perspective, in terms of the current plan, they've addressed well the visual, lighting, noise of the proposed plan. I think what you're saying Eva, is that you'd like to see what the impact _.might have been on alternative sites in terms of visual... Board Member.. Hoffmann — I think that's missing, yes. Chairperson Howe — I want to make sure that we are really, are we on firm ground? PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 30 Mr. Kanter — Well, I mean, to some degree you are talking about whether the alternative section was adequate in terms of how it was done in the EIS, and that's not really what we are talking about now. That was already discussed and that was accepted by the Board. So it's difficult to request new studies, new visual analysis looking at more details of alternates on those alternate sites, in my mind. I mean, that's my opinion. Board Member Hoffmann —Well, I think what we accepted was that the document was adequate for public review. I don't think we said that the environmental impact statement was necessarily acceptable as it was, or adequate. Mr. Kanter — Well, no ... I disagree to some degree. You were saying that the EIS was acceptable for that phase of the process... Board Member Hoffmann — For public hearing. Mr. Kanter — For public review and for the Board to consider its decisions that you will have to make. Factual information such as residences within 500 -feet of those alternate sites I think is legitimate, requiring new visual assessments that were not done as part of this now final EIS I don't think is a legitimate topic to require. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I feel like I have been asking for that all along. Mr. Kanter — Well, the Board as a whole apparently wasn't. Chairperson Howe — Well there was some visual images that were clarified and changed based on some feedback ... (tape change) Board Member Hoffmann — Are we set now? Okay. There were some visual images that were clarified, but as of now, we have, as far as I can remember, we have not seen any representation of how tall ... how the light poles would look in those views that show the building, the impacts of the view of the building. We have not seen the light poles and we know the light poles are going to be taller than the building. Chairperson Howe = Well, I think we did talk about that last time, where they're... Board Member Erb — They are going to be shorter. Board Member Thayer — You can't even see them. Chairperson Howe — Yeah, from the distances that we are talking about... [many talking at once] Board Member Hoffmann — Were the lights on? Board Member Wilcox — The question is, are we going to see the poles or are we going to see the light? PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 31 Board Member Thayer —Yeah, right. Board Member Hoffmann —Well, it's the lights that are bothersome. The poles are probably visible, but they don't create such a disturbance as the lights do. Chairperson Howe — Well, let's... Board Member Hoffmann — So I'm sorry if I misspoke talking just about the poles. mean the lights at the top of the poles. Board Member Wilcox — Now we have been provided with information. I'm not sure whether it's been updated... Board Member Thayer — We had an expert here on the lighting and they have the very latest up to date lighting they could get. Board Member. Hoffmann — Right, but what I am saying is... Board Member Thayer — Strictly cut -off lighting. Board Member Hoffmann — And it certain would look like across the valley with the begins to get dusky to when it's really dark We have seen photographs of how the somewhere else, but we haven't seen the me, that is very important, ly helps, but I'm still curious to see what it lights on at night from, you know, when it from a distance. And we haven't seen that. lights look by a field, a sample field from view here that we would see here. And to Chairperson Howe — And I want to make sure we're...) understand there are going to be times that one of us might feel ... but the rest of us might not. So I think we have to make sure that we are talking and using our time with the issues where there is some common ground where we want to push and ask for further information. So is there anyone who also wants ... who feels it is not adequate right now in terms of the visual impacts, lighting or noise? Board Member Thayer — Feels it is or is not? Chairperson Howe — That it is not as sufficient... Board Member Thayer — Not adequate? Chairperson Howe — Is not adequate. Is there anyone else who wants to argue for that right now? Okay. Well, let's move on. What are other topics and then we can come back. I want to see where there might be areas where two or three or four of us have some issues_._ We've talked a little bit about wetlands and Jon, do you want to bring up...? I think there was an issue that you wanted to bring up related to wetlands. Mr. Kanter — Well, wetlands. We actually did have a meeting with the applicant. Staff had a meeting. Susan Brock was at the meeting with us. And as Ron LeCain indicated, PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 32 he is in the process of putting together the preliminary wetland mitigation study, which we should have available to include in the final environmental impact statement. That's important because it is part of the decision regarding future approvals the Board will have to make. There may be some things that we will want to put into the findings statement to make sure that the wetland mitigation plan is adequately incorporated into your decisions and so for instance, the Board might want to require further site plan review at such time that the wetland mitigation plan is put into affect because that may or may not be something that automatically would come to the Board as a site plan approval, but if we put in the findings statement and we can link it directly to the fact that ... so that plan is not segmented from the overall athletic center plan. There could be impacts to the areas where wetland construction will occur. So we want to have enough information to know that that will not happen or at least significant impacts will not happen. So the findings, I think, are going to need to be fairly specific about that issue. So that was what we were talking about. Chairperson Howe — I assume we would concur that we need all that information. [Board Member Conneman indicates he concurs.] Chairperson Howe — Fred, you're...? Board Member Wilcox ever come across this as part of the overall future too...is, I think, unique the situation woe — It's funny. I'm not sure in all my years on this Board we have particular situation. It's rather unique that to construct something site plan, but also give it additional review at some time in the in this case important. I'm just sitting here thinking about how is. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I think it's important. It's important because the Town of Ithaca has a conservation zone up on that hill where there are a lot of wetlands and a lot of other sensitive areas; special areas with special plants and such. And so that's why I feel it is important to be sure that there's no impact on that by doing something, to do something else that's good. Board Member Wilcox — Yeah. Yeah. Understood. Chairperson Howe — I think that was it for the wetlands, right, Jon? So is it enough just that we've made ... we've said that this is going to be important to be identified? Mr. Kanter — I think that is sort of something you put on the tickler list for when we get to that point in the process. Chairperson Howe — What other issues... Board Member Wilcox — I'm going through the notes here. It's also interesting that no one mentioned stormwater management, this evening, from the public. And I'm not sure why. Whether that's the job that the engineer's have done to deal with stormwater management on the site or the fact that there are other potential issues that are more important to the general public that be it carbon footprint or traffic or noise or lighting. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 33 But it is just interesting to me that stormwater management never got brought up. The fact that it wasn't raised doesn't mean it's not important to us. We've talked about the lighting, we've talked about the potential for noise, we've talked about the traffic impacts, but stormwater management is clearly important on this site for many, many reasons. Chairperson Howe — But do you think that there is anything that hasn't been...? Board Member Wilcox — No. I think we're fine. Board Member Erb — And we do already have the letter from Ms. Porter about that. So we have a public comment, in essence. Board Member Thayer — Landscaping around the bike trail was brought up. I don't know how well that is addressed in there. Chairperson Howe — Well, and it was also landscaping, I think, around the Z Lot. Board Member Thayer — Exactly. Board Member Wilcox — ...looking at it, we might ... it might be a reasonable thing to do to screen. Can I talk about the bike trail for a second? Mr. Rogers made that comment. It reminded me of some of the comments we heard when the South Hill Recreation Trail was proposed. Oh, people are going to use this trail to get access to the back of people's homes and the larceny rate is going to go up and things like that. So I don't buy some of the argument. Lighting is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. I think screening is an issue, possibly some landscaping of some sort is necessary and appropriate. And same with parking lots. We need to screen parking lots. They're ugly, frankly. And that is important, too. So I think we should look into that as part of the site plan review, but I'm not sure about the issue about people using these behind the homes and the issues that might come about and the loss of privacy. I don't buy that. And again, we also know that there may not be sidewalks on Coddington Road, too, and that increases the importance of getting the residents and the students off Coddington Road. Having lived on Juniper Drive for 18 years, I'm fully aware of the issues on that section of Coddington Road and the fact that at least one person has been killed in the last 10 to 15 years because there are no sidewalks and very, very narrow shoulders. Board Member Erb — I actually thought that on the planting plan around Z Lot that there were substantial trees. I saw an awful lot of red and sugar maples and sweet gums and the swamp white oak. I mean it looked like quite a deep barrier on LP102. But I would be very happy to have some further discussion about plantings along the bike path itself; specifically, between the bike path and the residences. Board Member Wilcox — Now if there isn't room, move the bike path. You know. There are some tough grades in there, but move the bike path. Board Member Erb — Yeah, but you can plant trees on grades. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 34 Board Member Wilcox — Yes. Board Member Erb — You can do it. But that's a fairly dense planting around Z Lot right now, it looks. Chairperson Howe — Was there anything raised in Ed Marx's letter that anyone wants to point to specifically? Board Member Hoffmann —Yes, I had one thing that I wanted to ... but before we leave the landscaping, I had a comment about the plans that we received more recently. I appreciate having the list of all the plans on LP100, but I do want to point out on the very first plant in that list is says red maple and then it says Quercus rubra, which is an oak. It should be Acer rubrum- So you need- to- look -at that -and - correct that. But my main problem with the landscape plans is that they are very hard to read because there's cross hatching and such for the slopes ... over printed with the little circles with the letters indicating which trees shrubs and I can't read them. Board Member Wilcox — Does the Town have larger copies of these? Mr. Kanter — Yes we do and you're always welcome to come look at them. Board Member Wilcox —Absolutely, Board Member Hoffmann — I know, but it is very hard to fit everything in so I'm saying... Board Member Wilcox — I'm saying ... but it may be legible on the large size. Mr. Kanter — They are definitely more legible than the small size. Board Member Hoffmann — But ... I guess I'll have to say this for future times when you bring in this kind of plan, try to make sure they are going to be legible in a smaller format because we don't all have the time to come in and look at the plans in the Town all the time. Then the comment I had about what Ed Marx had said, on page 2 it talks about "although energy savings will likely be realized in utilizing a lightly colored roof on the facility it also may create an aesthetically adverse impact due to its large scale" and I would certainly agree with that. And close "consideration should be given to darkening the shade of the roof to reduce those impacts." So there's ... just like we balance the negative impacts with the positive ones, maybe that wouldn't be so bad even though you were trying very hard to create a green campus to have a little consideration for the rest of the community when it comes to being a good, green neighbor. Board Member Wilcox — We discussed it briefly two weeks ago, didn't we? At our last meeting? Board Member Hoffmann — But this is Ed Marx's additional comment, which I certainly agree with. I would like to see that, too. Chairperson Howe — Other issues. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 35 Mr. Kanter — I had one observation in that letter from Ed Marx that, let's see, he's talking about the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Stormwater permits be submitted to Tompkins County prior to the Planning Board granting site plan approval. That kind of is not the order that we usually go by. We certainly have in the past and can continue to grant site plan approvals conditioned upon those kind of things, but it just doesn't seem sequentially correct to do it the way he is suggesting and to put it in the letter as part of their modification requirement that if we didn't do that it requires a majority plus one vote doesn't seem appropriate to me, but that's just my observation. Board Member Thayer — Do they have to get a permit to empty into the County's sewer? Mr. Kanter — Yeah, basically... what would we call it a drainage...? Mr. Walker — Well ... that's what the County is saying. If they work within the County right -of -way they definitely ... a work permit and the criteria that we use for stormwater management is that the discharges will not be increased into any outfalls that where they flow now. So unless they are ... I think the one area that they may need a permit ... well they will need a permit near the entrance of Coddington Road and possibly the outfall structure would actually discharge into the right -of -way area on that one, but we'll ... we've been working with the County on the drainage plans anyhow. Chairperson Howe — While we're thinking of if there are other issues, I had a brief conversation with Jonathan earlier today, so if Jonathan, there's a couple of things that you mentioned that I think are worth us starting to talk about. But one is...l don't know if this is a big issue. Part of this is the preliminary site plan approval as well and there was an issue about the number of bathroom facilities. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. I got a copy of the letter that Ithaca College sent to the State and we might ask Ithaca College to talk about this a little bit more, in which Ithaca College is requesting a State code variance, not a local variance, a State building code variance, to reduce the number of plumbing fixtures that they would need to put into the restroom facilities and if that were approved they propose placing portable restroom facilities outside the athletic and events center. To do that, it seems that that would be a site plan issue that this Board should think about, you know, both the aesthetic impacts, contrasted with this, you know, expensive new facility. Now albeit that would be during just large events when the indoor facilities would not be able to accommodate the large crowds, but it also might be a circulation and access issue. So there are site plan issues related to it. I don't think it's quite so much an environmental impact statement issue, but certainly something we hadn't heard about before and something I think the Board should be aware of and think about when we're doing the site plan approvals. Chairperson Howe — And ... if ... there might be some dialog with the applicants so maybe we should just ... there's two other things, I think, Jonathan, that they are starting to ask about that maybe we should put on the table now. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. And those have to do with phasing and maybe ... I won't even begin to explain that because I think you probably could do a better job at that. But I think the PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 36 applicant has some questions for the Board about possibly changing some of the phasing sequencing and some of the approval sequencing. Chairperson Howe — So is there someone who would like ... and I think this refers to the overhead power line and perhaps early approval for two of the parking lots. Mr. Herrick — Well, first of all I think Rick would like to share with the Board what you probably already read in the paper on literally late- breaking opportunity for the college that presented itself last week. Mr. Couture — I think as you read in Saturday's addition to the Ithaca Journal we were very fortunate last week to get a gift to the college that in the amount of approximately $25 million that is going to allow unto -take -into account building -of the Natatorium. And I think as we had talked about before that was one aspect of the program that we were looking at doing as in a future phase, but thanks to the generosity of this organization and individuals that contributed the money, we're now at the point where we can take a look at including the Natatorium in this initial phase of the project. And I think that we've talked about the Natatorium as part of the overall project. There obviously are some additional information that we would want to provide to all of you as we get architectural issues and elevations and more detail about the Natatorium itself, but we're very excited about it and just wanted to let you know that that's something we are going to be putting on ... we would like to have included as part of the initial phase at this point in time. Chairperson Howe — And can you remind us where that potentially is going to be located? Mr. Herrick — The large green space here is just south of the field house. Chairperson Howe — And folks, if anyone wants to come around you can certainly come around to see. Mr. Herrick — That was the area that was reserved for the Natatorium. Female — Of the what? [several respond — could only decipher "indoor swimming pool "] Mr. Herrick — And again, as Greg mentioned, this is where the GIS was expected to be a Phase 1 ... (not audible) ... we are going to come back to the Town with the modified site plan that shows the extent of ... (not audible)....and new elevations from all of the views that you have are already received. But that is the location and we made a place holder and didn't construct anything there of any consequence and now we're just going to be a little...(not audible). Chairperson Howe — And then do you want to address some of the phasing issues? Mr. Herrick — Ah, there's another aspect of the project that has to be completed in order to facilitate the footprint of the Phase 1a field house and that is to relocate the existing PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 37 overhead NYSEG transmission electric line to below grade. The College has been working with NYSEG to come up with a plan to bury that in a conduit system that will parallel and existing Dominion Gas transmission main that also routes itself through the campus. And in doing that it will free up the space for the extent of the new building. We made reference in the EIS to that element of work, simply because it is something that is going to be done in association with the project, but is not in and of itself really part of the environmental impact. It's taking an existing facility and generally within the same corridor moving it underground. And it is an enabling project that has to be done in order to free -up the site for the construction of the building, the foundation and the structural steel. So we would like to determine at what point can that activity be free of the approval process and allow that work to be planned and implemented in advance of the balance of the site work. So that is a phasing question that we would like to have a - better - understanding with the Town- about and see if -there is an opportunity to advance that work. Chairperson Howe - Is there also an issue, just to throw everything. on the table at once, is there also an issue of two parking lots that you are hoping to get earlier final approval for? Mr. Herrick - There are two lots. The Z Lot expansion, which is the north of. Emerson, and the S Lot extension, which is right next to the current stormwater management pond. We would like to consider approval of those facilities since they are separate and isolated from the balance of the A and E site. We would like to get that work done. It will, once completed, enable the College to shift parking out of those lots that are going to be demolished for the A &E center into completed facilities. So it's an action that should go through and will go through preliminary and final, but it would be nice if that together with the utility relocation could be granted in one, in one resolution. Is that reasonable amount of ... do you want to elaborate at all? Herman Sleverding, Integrated Acquisition Only ... I'm Herman Sieverding with Integrated Acquisition and Development, 15 Thornwood Drive. Only in as much as we understand that you can't make a decision on this action until after we have completed the final environmental impact statement and until after you have adopted the findings statement. And so the thought was that given the schedules that we discussed earlier, that happens in May that upon the adoption of the findings statement that at the same time you could grant preliminary and final site plan approval for these two components of the project. So that they can commence immediately after graduation. And particularly with the parking lots, be complete by the time students start returning to campus, August 15th. In our schedules we project somewhere between May 6th and May 20th for those actions to take place and that would be the sort of specific request that we'd ask you to consider. Chairperson Howe - Hollis, do you have a question? Board Member Erb - Where are the utility lines that are going to be buried? Mr. Herrick - If you are familiar with the lower end of campus, there's ... the lines begin down at Rogan's Corner and they extend up behind the Physical Plant and up the hill PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 38 and run just to the west of Emerson Hall. And then they cross through the current C Lot and M Lot and they run just to the west of Boothroyd and up those cuts. So right through... somewhat parallel to this existing [pointing to map]. Board Member Erb — Is there already an unwooded area that is their right -of -way? Mr. Herrick — Yeah. The right -of -way is cleared. There is some replanted landscaping that the college has done over years in proximity to the overhead lines, but for the most part it is a cleared path. Board Member Erb — It doesn't look cleared on your picture. Mr. -Herrick — Well, -let me- just - clarify- the -- portion- that -is being- relocated.- It is- from -the S Lot. Okay? So we would be relocating underground from the S Lot all the way up to approximately the south end of Boothroyd Hall and then it would go back over. Board Member Erb — So that is rather far away from the neighbors during that construction? Mr. Herrick — Yes. Mr. Sieverding — (not audible) Board Member Erb — And is that a lot of trenching noise with a lot of noise or...? Mr. Herrick — It's 2100 feet of trenching. I would say it was analogous to installing a water main. So if you had that experience in your neighborhood then it would be similar to that. Board Member Wilcox — Think of the environmental impacts, though. You won't have visible power lines. Board Member Erb — No. No. No. I'm actually pretty happy about that. I'm just trying to anticipate any more agony for the neighborhood ... construction agony. Board Member Wilcox — And you said that you would like to buy the utilities within or near an existing right -of -way for the natural gas pipeline? Mr. Herrick — There is an existing natural -gas pipeline and then there is the existing right -of -way for the overhead electric and it would be within those already pre- defined corridors. Board Member Wilcox — Which probably must be kept reasonably cleared anyways by ... they are probably required to keep them clear. Mr. Sieverding — (not audible) PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 39 Chairperson Howe — I don't think there's any decisions we're making tonight. I think it's just putting these on the table. Mr. Kanter — Right. And I think at this point if the Board is at all receptive to that idea then it would be up to Ithaca College to officially make that request and submit the materials necessary to provide to the Board that you would have sufficient detail to be able to make final approval decision. What you will be doing is you'll be considering preliminary approval and special permit for the overall project, the overall ... all phases that are covered in the EIS of the athletic and events center project ... or I'm sorry, for the Phase 1 a portion, which now would be redefined. So that will be one part that will need some modifications of what was submitted to incorporate the ... I'll call it the swimming facility and then any of the other elements for details and grading, drainage, you know, construction, you know, documents basically for final approval for those elements they would like to request. Board Member Wilcox — Quick comment on port-a- johns, if I may? I understand that, for example during the fireworks displays, that port-a -johns are trucked in. In general, they are not something that I would want to see and I don't think Ithaca College would want to see. Ithaca College spends a lot of money on landscaping to make their campus look beautiful and port-a -johns don't necessarily add to the ambience. So my initial reaction was yuck, but on the other hand I understand that it is not unreasonable to provide facilities, permanent facilities for the average or normal or expected level of participation, whether that is athletes or audience members and then you supplement that with additional facilities when you have a particularly large event, similar to the way the fireworks that are done. Nonetheless, you'd like to see at least the minimum number of facilities required by Code and then augment them with port-a- johns. That's certainly my initial reaction to that. Chairperson Howe — And we didn't give you a chance to...is there anything you want to say about...? Board Member Wilcox — Years of engineering training and you're going to talk about port-a- johns. Thank you very much. Mr. Couture — That's what we get our education for, right? It's the important things in life, right, Fred? No. I would just emphasize again, I think Fred started to allude to the fact that we have been thinking about exactly what you said. There will be a few times during the course of the year when the maximum number of people out in that building will be used and just like we do for graduation, the 4th of July fireworks, the Cortica Jug, you know, those one time events where we do have port-a- johns. You're right, Fred. I agree with you they are not the most aesthetically pleasing things in the world, but they allow us to perform these, have these events and these functions and they are only there for the duration of that function. It is not as though we would bring the port-a- johns there and park them there for weeks at a time. We don't do that for graduation and we don't do it for any other event on campus because we don't want them, like you said, we don't want them hanging around but they do serve an important function. We would want to try to have that same flexibility with the athletic and events center. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 40 Chairperson Howe — So you use an outside contractor when you need ... I mean you hire them to be brought in? Mr. Couture — That's correct. That's absolutely correct, yes. Board Member Erb — If there is an annoying sound, it's port-a -john doors slamming repeatedly so I would like to know where on that map you anticipate the location of all of these port-a -johns for a major event. Mr. Couture — Hollis, we would have to get back to you on that one, okay? Board Member Erb — Well, I'm explicitly looking for it to be as far away from the - Coddington Road neighborhood as possible that -is -still reasonable.- Board Member Wilcox — For reasons including noise. Board Member Erb — Including noise and many other things, but I mean, seriously. Mr. Couture — Sure. I understand what you're saying. Board Member Erb — If you have that need, tell us where it's going to be, please. Mr. Couture — Sure. I understand that. Yup. Board Member Hoffmann — I would also like to ask you to come back to us with figures of how many events per year you estimate there would be, including the ones that you are doing now, where you are using port- aJohns. But then the additional ones that would be generated by having the Athletics & Events Center. I don't mean for you to do it now on the spot, but come back to us with those figures because that is the only rational way for us to be able to consider this. And I would agree with what Hollis said, too. Board Member Erb — That is true. Board Member Wilcox — That is true. Chairperson Howe — Anything else? Anything else this side wants to raise while we think over here? Board Member Wilcox — Give us time, we'll think of more things. Mr. Kanter — We have another hour. Board Member Wilcox — Hey. Chairperson Howe — We don't always have to go to 10. Board Member Wilcox — Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 41 Board Member Thayer — Really. Chairperson Howe — Was there anything else y'all want to say? Board Member Erb — I guess the only other thing is we talked about why you moved the bike and pedestrian loop a little bit and did that include the particular north extent of it? mean part of its relocation was because you discovered wetlands, as I recall. Mr. Herrick — Well, we originally had the trail moving around the perimeter of the stormwater practice and that I think took a serpentine route up through this wooded portion of the site and it continued through some other wooded portions of the site and we just felt that for several reasons, one security, if there is an opportunity to collocate .--the---sidewalk with the - site_1ighting.....(not audible).. -.we have an extension of lights through the woods. It just minimizes our ... (not audible)... Board Member Erb — David, may I be more specific? We had one neighbor, Mr. Rogers, asking specifically about the location and close to the one egress to Coddington Road near the Hudson Street intersection. And I'm not sure I remember much discussion of that location. I mean to me it looked like it spilled out into a network area. Mr. Herrick — Well, our intent is to get it to line up with the intersection of the South Hill Rec Way and then Coddington Road on the opposite side. And SRF will be working with our office to complete all the details that are necessary to take to the City of Ithaca for consideration of that crosswalk because it does fall within the City bounds. Board Member Erb — Yeah, because I think that Mr. Marx also mentioned crosswalks in his letter. Board Member Wilcox — Marking them. Board Member Erb — Yes. Mr. Herrick — So we'll be completing the whole analysis of criteria that are used, locating crosswalks and what those striping patterns should be in relationship to the ... (not audible)... It's the detail forthcoming. Board Member Erb — Thank you. I apologize for not being more specific when I started. Mr. Herrick — I think just another point to make on this trail because it has come up several times is its proximity�to the neighbors. Yes, we are running the trail between the neighboring property lines and the total of the slope of the Z Lot, but we are not sandwiching it up against the back property lines. There's still quite a bit of distance there. We certainly can move it more towards the fill site if necessary, but we felt that this plan provided a reasonable network and it also provides some safety in that you don't have landscaping packed right up tight to the trail. That creates opportunities for ... for ambush, if you will. Certainly campus security has to be concerned with the proximity of those types of cover adjacent to pedestrian ways. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 42 Board Member Wilcox - I'm sorry. What happened to our discussion of the fill permit or all the fill that was being dumped there and how we segmented that all from this? Did I miss something? Did we ever deal with that? Mr. Kanter - Do you want to take this or should I? Board Member Wilcox - The illegal fill. What ever happened to that. Mr. Kanter - Well, I guess I'll start by saying, yes, that came in as a sketch plan and Ithaca College had planned before they knew they wanted to incorporate the expansion of Z Lot into the athletics and events center project that that was going to be dealt with as a stand alone site plan approval to remediate it and bring it into conformance with Town -laws- and -in-- fact-also -to -- expand - it -as - a- fill - site: -- But and Ithaca College can talk more about why they decided it would be better to make it into an expanded parking lot that would serve the athletic and events center project, which then became covered in the environmental impact statement as part of the overall site plan so it no longer was a standalone project. So yes, Ithaca College still is pending conformance with the Town's laws, but we're seeing it as being as happening through the overall site plan approval process for the athletic and events center. And now, here's Susan. Board Member Wilcox - Susan, I want to know that we slapped their hand, fined them, or something. Ms. Brock - I wasn't going to talk about that. Board Member Wilcox - I didn't think so. Ms. Brock - I was just going to follow up with Jonathan's comment to say that under the Town Code you either get a fill permit or you get site plan approval for the elements that involve the fill. You don't do both. And because this project or this expansion of Z Lot became part of the overall site plan, their necessity for the fill permit vanished at that point and its just being determined under the site plan process. Board Member Wilcox - The necessity for getting a fill permit vanished for what they did years before and.,. Ms. Brock - Okay ... well, let me rephrase that to say they don't need to go and get a separate fill permit, which would be after the fact, to deal with both what happened before and any additional fill they might be proposing now. They don't need to get that separate fill permit at this point. Whether their hand should be slapped and they should be fined as you've indicated is a separate issue. Board Member Wilcox - Not one for this Board, by the way, and I understand that. Mr. Walker - It's part of when we discovered the unauthorized fill. They cease and desist placing fill there and they did stabilize the area and vegetate it so that it was not a potential environmental problem at that point with the idea being that during the site plan review process, if that material was to be removed or if they could put something in PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 43 that place, that is where it would be covered. So as far as enforcement action that's where it stands right now. Board Member Wilcox — Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Anything else? Does everyone have what they need to move forward and do we have any further questions from staff in terms of sort of the next steps? Okay? Well, thank you. Mr. Herrick - Thank you. Appreciate your time. Chairperson Howe — Thanks to the public for providing input. Approval of Minutes — February 5, 2008 - n23: Minutes of Ithaca Planning Board MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: T The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from February 5, 2008, 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 February 5, 2008. The vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Riha, Talty. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Other Business Chairperson Howe reminded the Board of their Special Meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 in the Aurora Conference Room. Mr. Kanter gave an overview of the March 18, 2008 agenda. Board Member Thayer announced he would not be present for the March 18th meeting. Chairperson Howe asked if there were any committee updates. There were none. PB 3 -4 -08 Pg. 44 Board Member Thayer commented that the tank at the Ithaca Beer Company is bright yellow and wondered if the Board approved the color. Mr. Smith responded staff reviewed the color selection. Adjournment With no further business before the Board, Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. O Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 4, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center (Overall Project) located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -11, 41 -1 -12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of +/- 300,000 square feet of indoor athletic facilities including an indoor 200M track with practice /game field, Olympic size pool and diving well, tennis courts, rowing center, gymnasium, strength and conditioning center, and floor space for large indoor events. Outdoor facilities include a lighted artificial turf field, a 400M track with open space for field events, and lighted tennis courts. The project is proposed in several phases and will also include the construction of +/- 1,002 parking spaces (687 displaced spaces and 315 new spaces), relocating overhead power lines, constructing a new loop road, walkways, access drives, stormwater management facilities, lighting and landscaping. This public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center (Phase IA). The Phase IA portion of the project includes the field house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, and an all- weather turf field with seating and lighting. This phase will also include new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY, or on Ithaca College's website: www.ithaca.edu/facilities. Written comments on the DEIS will also be accepted through March 14, 2008, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address indicated above. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Top Shelf Liquor, 821 -B Danby Road, 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Top Shelf Liquor store to be located in an existing building at 821 -B Danby Road (Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former laundromat space 1,100 square feet) into a retail liquor store. Except for a new wall sign, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. J & J Rogan Rev Trust, Owners; KFI Holdings LLC, Applicant; Chris Kusznir, Agent. 8:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: White 3 -Lot Subdivision, 106, 107, and 109 Fidler Road. 8 :15 P.M. PUBLIC BEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 106, 107 and 109 Fidler Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 3 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 2.7 acre parcel into three new lots, each containing an existing 2 family residence. Philip M. White, Jr., Owner /Applicant. 7 - - - - - -9 10 Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). Approval of Minutes: February 19, 2008. _. Other Business: Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, March 4, 2008 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Top Shelf Liquor store to be located in an existing building at 821 -B Danby Road (Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former laundromat space ( +/- 1,100 square feet) into a retail liquor store. Except for a new wall sign, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. J & J Rogan Rev Trust, Owners; KFI Holdings LLC, Applicant; Chris Kusznir, Agent. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 106, 107 and 109 Fidler Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 3-2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 2.7 acre parcel into three new lots, each containing an existing 2 family residence. Philip M. White, Jr., Owner /Applicant. 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, February 25, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, March 4, 2008 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, at 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center (Overall Project) located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -115 41 -1 -12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of +/- 300,000 square feet of indoor athletic facilities including an indoor 200M track with practice /game field, Olympic size pool and diving well, tennis courts, rowing center, gymnasium, strength and conditioning center, and floor space for large indoor events. Outdoor facilities include a lighted artificial turf field, a 400M track with open space for field events, and lighted tennis courts. The project is proposed in several phases and will also include the construction of +/- 1,002 parking spaces (687 displaced spaces and 315 new spaces), relocating overhead power lines, constructing a new loop road, walkways, access drives, stormwater management facilities, lighting and landscaping. This public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center (Phase IA). The Phase IA portion of the project includes the field house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, and an all- weather turf field with seating and lighting. This phase will also include new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY, or on Ithaca College's website: www.ithaca.edu/facilities. Written comments on the DEIS will also be accepted through March 14, 2008, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address indicated above. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Publish: Friday, February 15, 2008 `TOWN OF ITHACA . "'. ,PLANNING BOARD-'_:` NOTICE OF: ..., 'PUBLIC_ HEARING ' .: Tuesday, Nlartih 4, 2I person, -,:of,. "the . "Pllannin Board; .NOTICE' IS'_ HERE -' $Y -''- "GNEN, that . Rublic'. ;Hearings' will'be:'held.'by; the PI nnirig' Board ,af the Town 'of' Ithaca _ on Tues %day, March", 2008; at' 2V _North'Tio'ga Street,< Ithaca, N.Y.-;- at the follow .ing ; times -and on .the Jol lowing matters:, .':'8:00 P.M.:Consid&a ,tion.of Preliminary ,.and -Fi; nal'Site "Pl6n Approval for, -the ,proposed', T60' Shelf Liquorstore io.,be located= in "an `existing: L' 'Id.- ,at '821 -B Danby Road- IRoaan's Cornerl. Town of Mood The or +/ -,1 100.square feet) in- to a.retail liquor store.", Ex -, cepf for::a ,new wall- sign, there. •, are •no -,� exterior ; changes,-,to the '7site .or' buildiria proposed: 'J'& 7 tjon 'of- 'Preliminary `and . Fi- nal..::Subdivision '_Approval for the - proposed Vot sub division located' at 106, 107 -and 109 Fidler'Rood, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Residential;Zone." She pro - ,posal involves subdividing, the + /- 2.7_gcre parcel in ito three ,new lots7 each contdining' an 'existingg '21 'family residence..--, Philip M.- White; ` - 1n; ;Owner /Applicant.. - , So id Board: will ;at said time -and said. 'place hear all, persons. in support of such matter or objections -. thereto.," Per- `sons may appear b y aggent- or iri person: Individuals' with '• visual::., impairments;: :hearing impairments 'or: other special needs,' will- 'bp.* provided - with assis- tance as.>necessarr upon, ,request.:Persons. - reslri assistance; must make such: a'request:notaess. than 48' h "ours prior'to the =dime of t_he public hearing.,: - I- vrrecror or rranmr 273 -174 l; February. 25,.2UUU:. Publish: Wednesd ;..February 27, 200 n Wednesday, February 27,;2008 I THE ITHACA' JOURNAL; - r LA ..< `TOWN OF ITHACA . "'. ,PLANNING BOARD-'_:` NOTICE OF: ..., 'PUBLIC_ HEARING ' .: Tuesday, Nlartih 4, 2I person, -,:of,. "the . "Pllannin Board; .NOTICE' IS'_ HERE -' $Y -''- "GNEN, that . Rublic'. ;Hearings' will'be:'held.'by; the PI nnirig' Board ,af the Town 'of' Ithaca _ on Tues %day, March", 2008; at' 2V _North'Tio'ga Street,< Ithaca, N.Y.-;- at the follow .ing ; times -and on .the Jol lowing matters:, .':'8:00 P.M.:Consid&a ,tion.of Preliminary ,.and -Fi; nal'Site "Pl6n Approval for, -the ,proposed', T60' Shelf Liquorstore io.,be located= in "an `existing: L' 'Id.- ,at '821 -B Danby Road- IRoaan's Cornerl. Town of Mood The or +/ -,1 100.square feet) in- to a.retail liquor store.", Ex -, cepf for::a ,new wall- sign, there. •, are •no -,� exterior ; changes,-,to the '7site .or' buildiria proposed: 'J'& 7 tjon 'of- 'Preliminary `and . Fi- nal..::Subdivision '_Approval for the - proposed Vot sub division located' at 106, 107 -and 109 Fidler'Rood, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Residential;Zone." She pro - ,posal involves subdividing, the + /- 2.7_gcre parcel in ito three ,new lots7 each contdining' an 'existingg '21 'family residence..--, Philip M.- White; ` - 1n; ;Owner /Applicant.. - , So id Board: will ;at said time -and said. 'place hear all, persons. in support of such matter or objections -. thereto.," Per- `sons may appear b y aggent- or iri person: Individuals' with '• visual::., impairments;: :hearing impairments 'or: other special needs,' will- 'bp.* provided - with assis- tance as.>necessarr upon, ,request.:Persons. - reslri assistance; must make such: a'request:notaess. than 48' h "ours prior'to the =dime of t_he public hearing.,: - I- vrrecror or rranmr 273 -174 l; February. 25,.2UUU:. Publish: Wednesd ;..February 27, 200 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGWIN SHEET DATE: March 4, 2008 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION 0 Y� � L�/ / - 1 /t l /�7 �� d i G' / 7 Z'i' S Z 0G -dCI Y nttaG a C 0 •-� %� L% I a S I� C C Co �� N jv s ccDlU � �, !w JU 2 o3 S 2 / /�/�� / //f \/ �l L3 arl/ C/ J �L l S p'l �. >v / F� �PL. �� c�� /r IF - 0104 04 40e -rAf < 0 Y� � L�/ / - 1 /t l /�7 �� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: March 4, 2008 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION Z r C, ��dl/` c t'16W k� ZT k a�a ir 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 March 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 February 25, 2008 February 27, 2008 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of February 2008. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 �'