Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-03-18FILE DATE oz/ � h Town of Ithaca Regular Meeting of the Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York March 18, 2008 7:OOp.m. Members Present: Chairperson Rod Howe, Board Members; Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Hollis Erb and Alternate Member Kevin Talty Absent: Fred Wilcox, Larry Thayer and Susan Riha Staff Present: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer (7:15), Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Chris Balestra, Planner (7:45) Darby Kiley, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Others: Rene Sylvester, 138 East King Road Marian Rogers, 152 Coddington Road James Tofte, Binghamton Beverly Livesay, 147 Snyder Hill Road Robert Gates, 885 Taughannock Boulevard Kathleen Friedrich, 1201 Trumansburg Road Brian Page, 1213 Trumansburg Road Ken Walkup, Iradell Road Jim Bates, Tim Miller Assosciates Chairperson Howe opened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and stated where the fire exits were located. The Posting and Publication of the Notices of Public Hearings were duly posted and published on March 10th and March 12th 2008. Persons to be Heard Mariann Rogers, 152 Coddington Road My husband Steve and I are here tonight to make a couple of brief comments in response to some comments that were made during and after the public hearing on March 4th about Ithaca College's Athletics & Events Center, and we also wanted to find out what the next steps are in that process. But first, I'd like to just make a couple of comments. It was suggested, after that hearing, that the pedestrian bike trail that the College is proposing to put from the back entrance of the College, behind Coddington Road private homes to the junction of Hudson Street and Coddington was somehow going to be no more disturbing than the construction of the South Hill Recreation way was to residents who lived along its path, and we would just like to point out that we feel that comparison is really not a legitimate one. The Recreation Way is an unpaved, unlit trail. It also has vegetation on the...that can range from light to pretty heavy and it also closes legally at sunset like most Town parks and trails, so its use is restricted to PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 2 daylight time. And the trail that Ithaca College is proposing to put behind homes is going to be paved and lit. It cannot be screened with vegetation because of safety concerns and it's going to be accessible 24 -hours a day. So we feel that parallel is not a true one and also, in fact, the trail will negatively impact residents in a way that the South Hill Recreation Way does not affect residents along its path. And the other comment/response to a comment during the hearing has to do with sidewalks on Coddington Road. I think it, one of the people who spoke at the hearing mentioned that sidewalks were not a done deal as part of the reconstruction of Coddington Road that is being proposed by the County. Well, in fact, that project hasn't gotten underway, the final design report does mention sidewalks as part of that reconstruction and it also cites the Town of Ithaca's Draft Transportation Plan as identifying the section of Coddington Road from the back entrance of Ithaca College to the Hudson Street — Coddington intersection as an essential corridor that has an immediate need for pedestrian facilities and as residents of the City and some of our neighbors, residents of the Town, who live along that stretch of Coddington, we look to the Planning Board and other municipal groups and our municipal officials to think about ways to enhance our neighborhood, protect our property values, and protect our safety and we would ... we hope to have the support from boards like this one to work together with other municipal groups and not rely on a private institution to create pedestrian facilities, in other words, sidewalks. And I think there really is a need for a sidewalk there and I think it is an alternative that would be beneficial to residents and students and would not create the kinds of problems that the walkway that the College proposes behind homes would. So we just wanted to bring that up and keep sidewalks sort of in the discussion, because I think that's where most residents would like to see pedestrian traffic. So those were the only comments that we really wanted to make, but we were curious about what the steps are now that you've received comments from the public on the DEIS and the preliminary site plan. Chairperson Howe — Sure. Thank you. We will try to cover that. I forget when the comment period ends... Mr. Kanter — It ended on March 14th, so it has ended. Chairperson Howe — Did you get any, did you get many comments coming in Mike? Mr. Smith — We got about a dozen comments after the Planning Board had the public hearing and they are a mix from ones from residents, and we also received more comments from the City Planning Department, the City Fire Department, Transportation, the County ERC, the Conservation Board here, along with other residents. Chairperson Howe — And the next steps are we are actually looking at when, we might have to change a meeting in April, and we will be talking about that, but I think their hope is to come back, if we change a meeting to April 22nd and at that point we would be covering... they have to help me on the next steps .... we will be covering what? Will it be the Final Environmental Impact Statement? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 3 Mr. Kanter — Yes, it would be consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Statement; which is in effect the responses to the public comments that were received, so it actually is the Planning Board's responsibility to make sure that the Final Environmental Impact Statement covers the Planning Board's own issues and concerns. Chairperson Howe --- And I don't think they were trying to bring back the next site plan at that point, right? Mr. Kanter - Well, I think Ithaca College has requested that the site plan be discussed with the Board. Obviously no actions can be taken until the whole environmental impact statement process is over, but I think Ithaca College plans to submit revised final, final plans for -those final plan- elements-that we were talking about. Some of the parking lots and the undergrounding of the electric transmission line, in conjunction with the preliminary plan. So I think the idea was Ithaca College would present the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Board's consideration of acceptance and also, then, as a second item, discuss the site plan submission. Chairperson Howe - So again, that could be April 22 "d, we're going to have to decide. That would be changing a meeting that we would normally have scheduled April 15th to April 22"`'. But in terms of Coddington Road, 1 don't know, I don't feel prepared to say anything about the whole issue about Coddington Road. I don't know what's going on. Mr. Kanter - I could comment further if you would like me to. Well, the comment that, and I don't know if I made a comment to the effect that the sidewalks are not a done deal, but basically what I did say was that the funding of the Coddington Road project, on the end, in the urbanized area, has no funding at this point. The only part of the Coddington Road project that does have funding in the Transportation Improvement Program, which is where the federal funds for these road projects comes from, is for the very outer end of the Coddington Road area near Burns Road. The County had submitted the whole Coddington Road project of the most recent Transportation Improvement Program, a year ago, and it did not make it, was not competitive with other projects in the region that were funded by the federal government. And beyond that, there is also the big issue of neighborhood concerns regarding how wide Coddington Road would be, how wide shoulders would be, whether there would or wouldn't be sidewalks, so, while some residents may want to see sidewalks, others may not, and so I think there are a lot of questions regarding the inner, more urban part of Coddington Road as to not only how it would be done but whether it will be done to the extent that the County had proposed. There just may not be funding available for it. Chairperson Howe - And in terms of, we heard your comments about the walkway and certainly will be...we have more time to look at this proposal, so... -Ms., Rogers.— Will_y_o_u_be_ approving -this site._._..I mean is the April. 22 "d. meeting a time when the Board here will be approving the Environmental Statement and the site plan, possibly? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 4 Chairperson Howe Potentially we will be acting on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. I can't speak whether we would also try to move forward on the final site plan... Mr. Kanter — Well, no, you couldn't because after the Final Environmental is a waiting period, a filing period, and its Statement of Findings regarding Statement has to be approved prior to move forward on the site plan approvals yet, Impact Statement is approved or accepted, there then, the next step is that the Board has to issue 0 of the environmental issues and that Finding any site plan approvals. Ms. Rogers — And would the text of the Statement, the Final Statement, be available in the Town office? Mr. Kanter —Yes, Chairperson Howe — Yes, we almost always post that kind of material to the website. Mr. Kanter -- Actually, it is a requirement. It would go, actually, on the Ithaca College website, but we have a link to it too. Ms. Rogers —Okay. Thank you. Audience Member — I'd like to be heard on the proposed windmill project. Chairperson Howe — I'm sorry, on the what? Audience Member —The Ithaca College windmill... Chairperson Howe — We're going to get to that in just a minute. That's actually on the agenda. Audience Member — So I get to speak later? Chairperson Howe — I'm going to address that right now, so just hang in there...Was there anyone else who wanted to speak about an item not on tonight's agenda? I wanted to just pause and welcome Kevin Talty back as our Alternate Member, and Kevin will actually be a full member tonight since we have some absences. So Kevin, welcome back. And would you like to make an introduction of Darby... Mr. Kanter — Well, those of you who have not met Darby, this is Darby Kiley, our new Planner that the Town Hall hired little over a week ago, and Darby was the Environmental Planner in the Town of Lansing but we were lucky enough to have stolen, I mean, to have gotten her to come here, and Darby has a lot of background in - -water resource_ issues.__Darb_y_had-b- ee.n,the_ coorditor na of the_Cayuga take Watershed Inter- Municipal Organization, or something to that effect, for a couple of years, so, we're really glad to have Darby here with us. And she did one of the projects on this agenda, so we will hear more from her later. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 5 Chairperson Howe — I do want to jump to what was going to be the second item of our agenda tonight, and that was: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Temporary Metrological Tower located approximately 1,900 feet north of King Road East. And we are not going to be, there will not be a presentation on that tonight. We got a letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department, and they have raised some questions about the proposal, which means we have to approve, if we approve it, it has to be approved by a super - majority of the Board and one of the Board members . acting tonight would have to recuse himself, so we would not have enough members to really take a vote on this. So the applicant decided to wait and come back when we actually have enough folks who can vote on this and move forward on it. So there won't be any presentation tonight, we won't have the public hearing on it, but if anyone came to speak about that tonight, -we- -would like to hear your comments, so... Rene Sylvester, 138 East King Road This proposed tower, experimental, and then- eventual... windmill tower, would be right behind my house and it's well known that windmills cause visual pollution, one does have to look at it, and it will be right in my backyard, and the noise is significant. We have done a lot of research. We have hundreds of pages of research on the impact of windmills.... can you hear me? ... (Board nods) ... Okay. We have done a lot of research on the impact of windmills on the quality of life of people, human beings. Things like stress, sleep disorders, etc., etc., are replete in the literature. We got a nice brochure from Ithaca College, you know, a nice public - relations brochure. From their point of view, it looks very innocuous, from my point of view, it looks very nocuous. From my point of view, it's right in my backyard, I have to live with it, and certainly, it doesn't seem like they want to build one right next to their football field, right next to their campus. It would be all the way, you know, quite a distance, and the residents of East King Road would have to live with this at a detriment of their quality of life. I have canvassed all of my neighbors and I have a petition here for the Planning Board signed by all of my neighbors saying that we object to this. We do not want a windmill in our backyard. We do not want the noise, the visual impact... Typically there are things associated with windmills such as chemicals for maintenance, etc. It's a large issue and most people would not prefer to have one in their backyard to look at and listen to for, in my case, if I'm lucky, the next 20 years. So, this is a very negative.. this is bad news, you know, I've been there since 1992, I've invested a lot of money into renovating my house, more than I paid for the house, and I thought things were fairly status quo in terms of quality of life. And last but not least, you know, this is not a financial concern of mine, primarily, quality of life is my concern, but, how it would affect property value is very detrimental. So if I want to sell my house in a year or two and someone came to see my house and looked at a windmill standing in a field right behind my house, they may not be too impressed as a great place to live. So, I wonder to whom I could give this. petition that my neighbors and I signed ... thank you ... and we are very concerned about this. Chairperson Howe -- It will become part of the public record. Mr. Sylvester — I think that's all I have to say on the subject... thank you. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 6 Chairperson Howe — And I apologize, you might just pay attention to when it will come back. I don't know if it will be our next meeting, but notices will go out again when we are able to reschedule the public hearing. Mr. Sylvester — Thank you. I'll come again. Chairperson Howe — Was there anyone else who wanted to address the issue of the tower at Ithaca College? Any questions from us? Anything else to say about that at this point? Okay. Now we will go back to our first agenda item, which is: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Levine Lab Buildings located at 118 Levine Circle, off Hungerford Hill Road, Town of Ithaca James Tofte, Delta Engineers, Binghamton We are working with the architects and Cornell University to submit this application. Joining me tonight is Shane Trask, he's the Project Coordinator with Cornell Vet College Facilities Administration. Chairperson Howe — Do you want to make just a brief presentation... Mr. Tofte — Sure. I decided to not give you a poster board because I think you have plenty of plans there and just the simplicity of the project. But basically, it's a 1.2 acre disturbance as far as SPEDES permit goes. The objective is to remove a main living- lab building which was ordered by the State Fire Inspector to be removed because of the fire hazard and safety concerns. Obviously, the University was not using that structure anymore. That, and the associated accessory structures that had a relationship in the past to the building are decrepit and in need of removal. So as part of this project, these will be removed. The site itself is now, now it's a terraced site, it's benched into the hillside, the site will be brought back to its pre - development condition, a natural, gradual slope. We will bring in some fill materials, there's actually a lot of fill materials onsite so the grading is kind of balanced as far as cut - and -fill goes, and what we will do is seed and mulch and stabilize that area so it will have a better aesthetic look from Hungerford Hill Road. There are no immediate plans, or future plans in the Master Plan, financially or even planning phases, and the University and the Vet College does understand that they forfeit any redevelopment rights, credits for the impervious surface they have removed, so, you know, of course that was my question to the University when this project came up. I said, "You're not going to do anything ?" No, they are removing it simply because of the hazards and to assist in the aesthetics over there. So they do understand that when they remove this impervious surface, it's going to be impervious, excuse me, it's going to be pervious and there will be no credits later for these issues. Chairperson Howe — And are you aware of any negative environmental impacts that this will have? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 7 Mr. Tofte — No, as you can see in our EIS application, and yourselves by looking at the project, the only impacts will be temporary in that the truck traffic for the removal of the debris...the overall impact will be positive because you are having a decrease in impervious, a decrease in runoff, overall a positive project. Chairperson Howe — Why don't we ask our questions, whether they are environmental or otherwise, it's pretty straightforward, and then we will open up the public hearing, but, any questions for the applicants? Eva, we'll start with you this time. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, thank you. In the papers it says there's supposed to be eight buildings and I could only find seven when I was looking. - -Mr. Tofte — One of the buildings is considered two because it shares a roof, but it is two separate structures. It's like two sheds that are back -to -back, and that's where that second A & B ... Board Member Hoffmann — Is that the one called LES? Which one is it? Board Member Erb Is it 8 & 9 in the :.. Mr. Tofte — 1764 A & B I think we're referring to. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, I see... Mr. Tofte — Right off the main building. Initially the plans, the wrecker plans we had showed it as one building and we got out there and it's kind of two separate structures, so, the requirements of the Town is that we will have to get a demolition permit for each single building, so-each of these sheds will have a separate permit and the contractor will have to get... Board Member Hoffmann — I also, there is an engineering memo from .the Town Engineer that talks about some additional things that she would like to see. This is from Christine Taylor... Mr. Tofte -- Yeah, I'm not sure if you've been copied on our response? Ms. Balestra — No, it came out after the mailing, but yeah, Christine, Jim wrote back to Christine and addressed the two things and the SWPPP will be revised based on the recommendations, and agreement with you guys... Mr. Tofte -- Minor correction, we did add a length of silt fence to protect the downstream side, which was a good pick -up by your office. The other issue was regarding the slopes and the stabilization of the slope. I think it was a misinterpretation on the reviewers thinking it was steeper than a 3:1 slope. In actuality, it's an 8 -10% slope which is quite gradual. A 12 %, a 1:12 will be handicap accessible, so I believe we've worked that out, but we have updated the contract documents that the contractor is bidding on with an addendum that addresses the addition of silt fence in that area and addressing her other comments as well. Feel free to copy the addendum. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 8 Board Member Erb — Could you tell me what area that silt fence is? What area is the silt fence that you're talking about? Mr. Tofte — The buildings referred to as 8 and 9, (inaudible) ... Board Member Erb — It's sort of the lower left corner... Mr. Tofte — Yes, exactly. We had specified some inlet protection in that area, but, it indeed, in the review, we could benefit by having silt fence behind that building, 8 & 9. 1762 8 & 9, that combined building, the lower left hand corner. So there is a silt fence shown to the rear of that Board Member Erb — Yes. Well, you're showing it to the north of it. Mr. Tofte — We're showing it, in our, you don't' have what I distributed, but, in our addendum, we corrected this and asked the contractor to place silt fence to the west and to the south of the building. Board Member Hoffmann — Good, very wet back lot because of drair about the land underneath the main C -400, they look rather straight and natural look, and I was wondering more natural looking? I am glad to hear that, as a neighbor. We have a gage from this hill. The other comment I had was building, and according to the contour lines on plan artificial and you said you would re -grade to a more if that could be adjusted to make it look a little bit Mr. Tofte — What we have on paper and what a contractor ends up grading ... in actuality, to grade to these lines... it's not an exact science, when someone's out there with a dozer and grading... it is going to be a little bit more natural curvature as far as the grading goes. Our attempt is just to flatten that slope out so you don't have the impact of the runoff for erosion and other purposes. So, it's not going to be as flat as factory-like as it looks on paper. Board Member Hoffmann — But we are used to seeing, on the plans, what is actually going to happen, in fact, so, that's why 1 reacted to this. Mr. Tofte — In reality, the grading is basically connecting the contours from one side to the other. As far as, if you add any curve to that, they're going to, I don't see any, anything aesthetically that's going to really change up there from my own viewpoint, but obviously you're concerned. Compared to how it is now, it's going to have a more natural, like a rolling -hill feeling to it, as opposed to how it's just left like it is now. We just left it terraced, which, you know, they could opt to do, but of course they are interested in the aesthetics of that nice view point right there, so... Chairperson Howe Eva, any other questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I did have another comment... something about the soil ... there's going to be some big chunks... maybe it's right here, actually.., in the notes, it says that "large chunks of asphalt pavement can remain in place as long as they are PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 9 not greater than 3 feet in any direction." Is that what you're going to use to fill up, to create the slope? Mr. Tofte — The slope is basically going to be created by the excess material on the site. They describe the site as being terraced. You're going to have a steeper slope and then a flat and then a steeper slope... When you go through and grade that, you're going to use most of that material to flatten the whole slope out. Basically, push it into the hole, the bituminous material by DEC and every other industry standard, that's not a volatile waste and it's something that can be buried on site. We are asking the contractor to rubblize that such that, so we don't have any drainage problems. And that's what the note was referring to. All of the other building materials, whether it be concrete, brick, whatever, are being removed from the site and being disposed of in a lawful manner. And the contractor may -opt, also, just ­to pull that black top out of there, depending on how their operations go, but ... in typical industry, blacktop, bituminous asphalt, is often milled with a milling machine, reused, various applications. There's no leakage or seepage from that. Mr. Walker — In that particular area, I don't believe the blacktop is what you consider really heavy -duty. It's been there quite a while ... and it's broken up pretty well, I am pretty familiar with that area because we take (?) about that site so, it will break up really well. Board Member Conneman — I assume that the estimates of how much you have to remove and how long it will take are all based on the best estimates you can make? Mr. Tofte — Yeah, based on volume of square footage of building, typical building materials, we have resources to help calculate that. We actually also confirm that, we can do a couple prospective contractors, see what they're...since we're not demo experts, we're engineers and planners, but we did get our information confirmed by contractors, because that's what they're bidding on, they're bidding on volumes. Chairperson Howe — Hollis, did you have anything else? Board Member Erb — Yeah, I had a few things. One of them is, I didn't really see any reference to what's happening with the old septic tanks. Mr. Tofte — Yeah, we have notes to the fact that the contractor has to lawfully remove, pump any remaining wastes. So obviously that would involve a licensed contractor to remove those and the tanks are to be removed in their entirety. Board Member Erb — Okay. I am very glad to see these buildings go away; they need to go away at this point. I want to know what the thinking is that we are reseeding into something that needs mowing, as opposed to reseeding into something that doesn't need mowing. And so what I'm talking about is why into lawn? Why not into vetch or native wild grasses? Something that doesn't require maintenance in the same way? Mr. Tofte — Our goal is to stabilize the site, stabilize it from erosion. In fact, lawn areas, and your engineering staff may attest to that, as far as runoff goes, if you have crown vetch or more of a hayfield, you have more runoff than if you had a lawn area. As far as PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 10 the University, I'm not sure what their preference is. They may allow grazing there at some point. Our goal is to stabilize the slopes and the earthen materials with the that type of vegetation. What the University does later as far as how often they mow that and such, that's for them to determine. Mr. Trask — I think that since we weren't going to be disturbing the entire site, we were matching what was already there. We will be mulching back with grass, and that's what's surrounding those buildings anyways. Board Member Erb — Granted, but you already have to mow around the buildings, so I was just, I was just trying to figure out why more lawn, specifically. Mr. Tofte — There are some remaining agricultural uses there, a couple of buildings, they have some animals kept there, and they continue to have them, so, Shane would know best what the College is looking for... Board Member Erb — On the, is it appropriate to bring something up on the Short Environmental Assessment Form? (nods) I was a little offended that under point 10, Residential was not checked, as a use in the area. Chairperson Howe — We can make that change. Board Member Erb — I would make that change. And... Mr. Tofte — Yeah, this form, I agree with you, I have no problem checking that. I think our interpretation was that as to the parcel itself is presently being used for, not necessarily what the neighboring areas are. I am in concurrence with what you commented, we'd be happy to allow that box to be checked. Board Member Erb — Great, and, ..no ... yes ... educate me... Mr. Kanter — It's done. Board Member Erb — Okay. And my final is a request for a condition that the contractors use the north access rather than the south access entrance. In other words, use Ellis Hollow Road, rather than Snyder Hill Road, Mr. Tofte — I believe that part of our conversation with the Planners here was that the contractors submit a truck -route for disposal and we have made that part of our contract requirements. I prefer to stay out of that loop as far as, because we are not controlling the contractors needs and methods at this point, but as a condition of their building permit, I would say that would be a vehicle to do that. Chairperson Howe — Well, and did you see the condition where it goes back to the Director of Engineering... Board Member Erb — I know it goes back to the Director of Engineering but the Director of Engineering might be interested in our wishes, or at least my strong wish, and we PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. I 1 have a precedent because when the James A. Baker Institute for Animal Health main building was built, we routed traffic through the north entrance. The Ellis Hollow Road..: Mr. Walker — Right. I don't think Cornell wants it to go the other way either because it's pretty congested and there's a lot of turns up by the main buildings up there... definitely want to keep it on ... because we want to get it on a county road as quickly as possible and that's what Ellis Hollow is as opposed to Snyder Hill. Board Member Erb — I just wanted it out in the open. Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — I agree with that comment of Hollis' too. I think that's a very good one. Mr. Tofte — Yeah and we thought of that too, obviously it's in our contract requirements for the building permits. Chairperson Howe — Kevin? Board Member Talty — I also had a question about the septic but it was answered satisfactorily. The only other thing I had was hours of operation, which is always a concern no matter what project it is or where it is in the Town. Do you want to respond to that. Mr. Tofte — Typical contractor hours ... 7 to 5, typically. As far as overtime disposition and things like that ... we're not controlling means or methods and I don't think the Cornell project manual has anything to do with it, but it's generally expected that it will occur between 7:00 and 5:00. Board Member Talty — Not 20 til 7:00. Which happens, often. So, what you're saying is typical is true on paper, but, atypical is 6:30, it does happen, so I just wanted to make the... Mr. Tofte — I can't quote right now because Cornell did put their own front end together... Mr. Walker Our - noise ordinance does not allow construction activity before 7:00am. We will cite them for a violation if they start before 7:00 am. Board Member Erb — The issue that I have is that I have, during a very recent project near this area, the machinery got turned on at 20 minutes to 7:00. Whether they count that as being construction or not, the diesel engines being turned on before 7:00 was considerably disturbing. —Mr.. To. teal_ thin .k_tha.t_wauld_kick_in_y_our noise ordinance. (4 people talking at once) Mr. Kanter — So Hollis, if you hear anything before 7:00 call Dan. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 12 Board Member Talty — I want it understood, it's on the record, your response is on the record. Mr. Tofte — Shane is going to be carrying the project during the construction phase and I think that's certainly a good point for the construction meeting with the contractors, to save them fines and... Board Member Talty — Also, on the coattails of that, any type of debris on the road, or anything like that needs to be cleaned... Mr. Tofte — Yeah, that's covered in the SWPPP, which the contractor has to sign and it will become part of the project kept on site. Board Member Talty — Great, Chairperson Howe — We're probably ready to move forward on the SEQR, but there's probably some changes that we've noted that have to be made ... why don't you have a seat for now. .and based on the comments before, do we still keep c. Condition c. It's not clear what new material they presented to you... Ms. Balestra — Yeah, just... Chairperson Howe — Keep it. Mr. Walker — Leave the condition that requires... Chairperson Howe — Okay, any other changes on the SEQR? No. Would someone like to move the SEQR? Moved by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis ... all those in favor say aye...it's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO, 2008.024 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Building Demolition Project -- Tax Parcel No. 61. -14.2 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road) Planning Board, March 18, 2008 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. T -his- action_ involves_ co. nsid. er a. tion_ of_P_r -e.l.imina.ry_and_Fi.nal Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Levine Lab buildings, at 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61. -1- 7.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the removal of the existing Levine Lab and seven accessory structures, along with associated PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 13 pavement and utilities, with the resulting materials and debris to be hauled and disposed of off -site. The excavated areas will be filled and graded to match the surrounding area and seeded as lawn. There are no plans for new construction or development at this time. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Shane Trask, Project Coordinator, Agent 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 this project, and 3. The Planning Board, on March 18, 2008, has 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, a set of drawings with a cover sheet entitled "Cornell University Levine Lab Building Demolition, Hungerford Hill Road, Ithaca, New York" dated 2/8/08, prepared by Delta Engineers and Kingsbury Architecture, LLC, and the Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan prepared by Delta Engineers, and other application materials, and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed demolition project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Hoffman, Erb and Talty Nays: None Absent: -Wilcox,- Thayer- and --Riha The motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe - We'll open the public hearing for this ... is there anyone from the public who would like to address this topic. - Beverly- L-ivesay- 1 -4 -7- Snyder -Hill- Road -- - -- One question that I have is I saw the trees are going to be demolished, and I just wondered what the purpose of that is. I mean, it wasn't discussed at all, and I just wondered what trees and why? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 14 Chairperson Howe — Yeah, that's somewhat surprising that we, that no one asked that question. That's normally one of our questions. Do you have another question? Ms. Livesay — Well my other question I think you can easily answer and that is; the routing of the trucks that will be carrying the demolition materials ... it was confusing sitting back there, to hear, did I understand that the preference would be... Mr. Walker - They will be going down Ellis Hollow Road because that's the closest County road and that's the route that we would want them to... Ms. Livesay - Right, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much. Chairperson Howe - Should we ask them to address, about the trees? Could you come back. Mr. Tofte - I believe there are four trees onsite that are going to be impacted by the demolition and initially.... yeah, there's one on either side of the building and one by the power poles ... both of those trees have pretty much been trimmed to the limit and short of having an arborist come in and see if we can save these trees, you can see by their present condition, they're one -sided at most ... Like I said, they've been trimmed ... I don't know how much growth is there since last year... Mr. Trask - the last ice top of that, trimmed av poles are, through. One is growing righ storm, or maybe one so it's actually kind ✓ay from the building they look like they in front of the building, and I don't know if it was from prior to that, a large chunk of the top had broken off the of an eyesore, and quite a few branches have been already and the two off to the side, where the power have been trimmed too, where the wires had gone Board Member Erb - And those power poles are going away? Mr. Tofte - Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - As a follow -up to that, are you planning on planting some other trees on this area that you are restoring back to natural? -Mr.-Trask - We -- hadn't planned on any tree - planting as of yet. We had never talked about putting any trees back in there, but... Chairperson Howe - Thank you ... would someone like to move the resolution, made by George seconded by Hollis? Changes? Ms. Brock - I had a question. In the applicant's materials, they said there would be forthcoming a stamped set of final construction documents. So my question is whether the documents -we- received -are -in. fact the final documents, and if not, would it be necessary to add another condition to the resolution... Mr. Walker - They're not going to get a building permit until we get the stamped documents. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 15 Ms. Brock — Is that something we need to put in this resolution? Mr. Walker — No. Ms. Brock — No, okay. Mr. Walker — They have to follow the site plan and there will have to be stamped plans for the demolition permit. Mr. Tofte — I believe the set that you have are (inaudible) Ms. Brock — The memo from Delta, which was dated the same date as these stamped, these filed documents, said there would be another set coming ... of construction documents... - Mr. Walker — Were the documents full -size? Are these reduced sets? So the official documents are D size ... okay...so these are just copies, so I am sure we've got them in the file. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor... Board Member Erb — Wait ... on the adopted resolution it says 7 buildings instead of 8... Ms. Kiley — The lab and 7 buildings, so. the lab is the main building and then 7 other buildings... Board Member Erb — Okay, so that's how you total the buildings... Chairperson Howe — Was there anybody else who wanted to address the Board on this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing at 7:45 and bring it back to the Board. Any further discussion? Board Member Hoffmann — Not on this particular project, but there are a number of other buildings up there that look pretty shabby too, and I am wondering, I know this is not part of this project, but, in the interest of beautification up there, maybe, if you could tell us what's going to happen with them, that would be interesting to know. Mr. Task — I know the College of Veterinary Medicine has a list of buildings to be razed on the Hungerford Hill area. I'm not sure of the quantity or which ones, but, the reason that we are moving forward on this one right now is because of the state violations of the fire code. But there are some buildings slated to be razed up there, some much older, dilapidated buildings. Mr. Tofte — In addition, there are some buildings on State property that are scheduled to be removed, which wouldn't come before the Board, being on State property... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that may be, but in fact, in recent years, as I understand it, in the interest of friendly relations between the State and the PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 16 Municipalities, I believe the State has come to the Town with some of these projects even though it's not required. Mr. Tofte — I would imagine whoever's, when and whomever does that project will probably give the Town the a courtesy copy of the plans. Chairperson Howe — Everybody ready to vote? All those in favor say aye ... any ... I think it's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 025 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Building Demolition Project Tax Parcel No. 61. -1 -7.2 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road) Planning Board, March 18, 2008 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Levine Lab buildings, at 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61. -1- 7.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the removal of the existing Levine Lab and seven accessory structures, along with associated pavement and utilities, with the resulting materials and debris to be hauled and disposed of off -site. The excavated areas will be filled and graded to match the surrounding area and seeded as lawn. There are no plans for new construction or development at this time. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Shane Trask, Project Coordinator, Agent and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to the project has, on March 181 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form_ Part I,_subm_itted_ by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 18, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including a set of drawings with a cover sheet entitled "Cornell University Levine Lab Building Demolition, Hungerford Hill Road, Ithaca, New York" dated 2/8/08, prepared by Delta Engineers and Kingsbury Architecture, LLC, and the Stormwater Pollution and P_r_eve.ntion_Plan_ prepared by Delta Engineers, and other application materials, and PB 3-18-08 Pg. 17 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Levine Lab buildings, at 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61.- 1 -7.2, Low Density Residential Zone subject to the following conditions to be accomplished prior to issuance of any demolition permit, unless otherwise noted: a. Submission of a truck routing plan, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, and b. Submission of report showing completed asbestos abatement, and c. Submission of revised Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan, for review and approval by the Director of Engineering. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Hoffman, Erb and Talty Nays: None Absent: Wilcox, Thayer and Riha The motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe — If anyone came in late and was here to hear a presentation by Ithaca College on the temporary tower, we are not discussing that this evening. I've lost track of who may have come in after we talked about that, so if you're here for that particular issue, it's been delayed for a future meeting. The next agenda item is: Public Scoping Meeting to Consider Public Comments on the Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that will .be prepared for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision _C.hair_p.er_son_Howe= Lbelieve they will be making a short presentation and then we will open the public hearing up. They're not used to us being on time, so.. .l assume you're going to be making a presentation and then we'll open the public hearing... PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 18 Mr. Parks — I don't know if we necessarily have to do that. I mean, if we're going to do the public hearing right now, then we can just open up right into it. I mean, everybody on the Board understands where we stand, and unless it's for the benefit of the public... Chairperson Howe — It might be good to at least make a ... there might be some folks who haven't seen it directly, so if you want to make an abbreviated presentation, and then we'll open up the public hearing. I think we're ready now, so if you want to introduce yourselves and make a brief presentation. David Parks, Schlather, Geldenhuys, Stumbar and Salk, Mark Parker, Keystone Associates Mr. Parks — We presently have a- proposal in front of the Board for the construction of what we are asking for ... 106 townhomes. We have a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document in front of the Board that we are asking you to accept as the draft and accept for public comments. And we would like to move this as quickly as possible to the Final Draft, so that we can begin our work on the issues that are identified in that document. Chairperson Howe — And I believe that the time period for public comments for this also ended on ... today, And for the record, we did receive an email, that everyone has a copy of, from Joseph Scaglione, and we also have a letter here from Milan Perkins representing Robert Gates. So that will become part of the public record. I don't know if you've received copies... Mr. Parks — I just got a copy. Chairperson Howe — Did you want to say anything else before we open the public hearing? Mr. Parks — Nope, we're okay. Chairperson Howe — So this is a public hearing, we will open at 7:48 for comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Why don't you have a seat ... it's the Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement...So, anyone who would like to address the public ... and by the way, we had a discussion... I don't know if you were all part of it ... we don't, we won't be asking the public for their names anymore. It's not really required and it could be considered a privacy issue because it becomes part of the public record. So, certainly we will be asking people who are part of the presentation and representing, but we won't be asking the public for their names... Ms. Brock — But they can provide them if they want. Chairperson Howe — So if you would like to provide your name you can, but we won't ask them to. Kathleen Friedrich, 1201 Trumansburg Road I would be directly affected by this, quite seriously I about some of the terms here. By "non- protected protected" mean? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 19 believe. I have a few questions body of water, what does "non- Chairperson Howe — We're going to take down your comments, and we may ask, we may try to answer those or we may ask the applicants to come back up. So we're not going to stop and answer each one. Ms. Friedrich — Okay. That's one of my questions in the description of, and it comes under Section 2, 1 believe ... no, it's just designated number two in the discussion of the water. Because they are described as being intermittent streams, and I believe that means they are dry sometimes know that at least two -of these are not ever dry. I s have lived there for over 12 years and two of them are quite sizable and even in the worst droughts, did not dry up, in the past 12 years, so I am wondering about some of the terminology about the environment there. Yeah, the non- regulated intermittent streams, that seemed an odd classification for them. Some of them definitely do dry up during a dry season but some of them never do, at least two of them. And I've attended meetings before when I did mention that a large part of this area already has been substantially disturbed and I'm wondering how that will fit in with the evaluations made by the people who are making the description of the before and after condition of the area. Many large trees have been removed. I have pictures of what it looked like a year- and -a -half ago and there are pictures of the stumps that are there now that are quite sizable. So I just wonder if this is all going to be ignored. The changes that have already occurred. Also, I don't see anything here, under the Aesthetic Resources, I don't see anything discussed about how the resident homeowners will be affected by this. I see what it looks like from Cornell, what it looks like coming down Route 13 and what it looks like from Myers Point, but I think there would be substantial impact for the homeowners who are residents there and it wouldn't simply be aesthetic, I believe it would be quite financial in character, because losing a view of the lake, a view of the lake has quite a bit to do with the property value, and I think the impact will be huge in that respect. I see that lighting is being considered, and I think that will be, will have a huge impact as well, in anything this size. It's kind of disturbing... as someone living there, I would be surrounded, surrounded, and there's a pretty high, the apartment complex... there's a pretty high density on one side, and then to have this, right up on the edge of my back property, I think would be just too big a change. I'm also wondering, I have a question about the survey that's gone out recently about the Route 96 Corridor Management Study and I am wondering why this isn't being -- considered -as- part-of- this- plan.T -hose - questionnaires- have -just gone out recently and I understand that this was supposed to be a cooperative effort between the City and the Town and the County ... and I don't see any mention here at all about that study. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 20 Is there any other comment that is useful at this point? This is just in terms of what see not being addressed in the document here, the Draft Scoping Document. Chairperson Howe — Uh, no, it's what comments you want to make. Again, the point of tonight is to make sure that they've addressed all of the environmental issues that we think should be looked at carefully, so that's really the scoping ... to make sure we feel the scoping document is adequate, and I think the comments you are giving are addressing that, but, you certainly can, if there's anything else you want to say, please go ahead. Ms. Friedrich — Well, yeah, I would emphasize that I'm glad that it is being looked at and I, 1 don't see terms of what I've seen in the 12 years that I've problems have just gotten worse and worse and anything of this nature could exist comfortably in th, dangerous. he traffic issue is a huge issue and the possibility of this working out in lived at- that - address, because the worse and I simply don't see how at area because the situation has, is Chairperson Howe — So is there anything else that you'd like to see them address that is not addressed on the Scoping Document. Ms. Friedrich — In part, the survey that is going out now about the whole corridor management. Chairperson Howe — And we made note of that. Is there any other... Ms. Friedrich — I think that needs to be, and I think it need be the financial impact that it's going to have on people who actually live there and I believe there will be a very high impact on the people living there. It's not only the environment but the people who need to adjust to something like this, and it has, it has been cumulative. Chairperson Howe — Okay, is there, I think we've heard your main issues. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address... Brian Page, 1213 Trumansburg Road I'd like to have the Planning Board consider three additional issues in terms of the - Scoping Document. An alternative has -not really been listed - in - terms of the traffic flow, which would be creating a route that allows entry and exit from Route 89 to alleviate the flow on highway 96. Internal to the document, it's not listed even as a choice at this point and it's been basically pooh - pooh'ed by several of the Planning Board members in the past but without proper study, it will never be determined whether it rates the merit of doing it or not. Someone interjects that it is in the document and states where... Ms. Balestra — It's on the last page, Page 10 of the Scoping Document, on the back. Mr. Page — Okay. Why would it not be with the rest of the highway routes up front where they're listed? Under Transportation Plan? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 21 Ms. Balestra — Well ... we put it on Page 9 under alternatives... Mr. Kanter — Because it is not currently proposed, but we ask them to look at alternatives that are not their proposals, but things that the Planning Board wants to see looked at. That's why it's under alternatives. Mr. Page — Okay. As long as it's actually considered fully, not just as something that is brushed away as an alternative that doesn't work. Several times in this document it talks about "slope" and people have said, well we can't do that because the slope of the terrain won't allow us to. Simply not true. I know engineers can make that happen with a cut -back switch -back road. There's a cost to that, and someone has decided it's not a valid cost for these people to consider. It's not really an alternative. For people who live -on Route 96 it is a huge issue every morning. - I - Chairperson Howe — Well it's in here so they will have to address it. Mr. Page — The other concerns that I have under, where it says "Community Character', the next thing that I would like to have added would be health impacts of establishing a high- density residential neighborhood. Health impacts not only for those that live in a high- density residential neighborhood who would then be subject to close confines of a tight community, but also for those that live around there. Additionally, the construction plans and having those determined either in compliance with LEED and Green Building requirements for multi - building dwellings and this implication goes way beyond the scope of just is the project having an immediate environmental impact. For example, 62% of the energy resources that are utilized in buildings are through poor design. So, as the building design goes forward, is it a standard construction, which most people do, which is the very minimum requirements for efficiency, but not really creating an energy efficiency building. And no where in here does it talk about the energy efficiency of the buildings that I have seen, and the design, and the construction, whether it's a green building design or not. So I'd like to see that added as an alternative to, or as a main character of the element does it make sense to build this as a non -green building complex. We're talking 106 units. It's a pretty large impact. And I'd like to second I am sure other people before me have commented on the transportation issues. Every morning traveling that highway, I deal with traffic that's backed up for generally a mile, mile- and -a -half from 8:00 — 9:00 in the morning. Adding 106 units with two cars per unit or one car per unit is just going to exacerbate the problem. Putting more cars on that road when you could build the roadway to link 89 and 96 does not make sense to me. But again, I'm not on the Planning Board. Thanks. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else who would like to address the Board? Ken Walkup, Iradell Road I'm not in the Town of Ithaca, am I still okay to say a few words here? So, I'm in the Route 96 corridor too and I've just seen the survey that went out. The Route 96 Management Survey and I would just like to say that whatever happens with this development, I mean, you've got to have an inter - municipal plan for dealing with these PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 22 issues and you know, we just had one big development across from the hospital, this one is in planning, there are a whole lot of single family dwellings, lots for sale, along Sheffield Road, along Hayts Road and probably further along in the Town of Ulysses and all of those are going to be feeding onto Route 96 and you know, without some solution that includes a plan not only on Route 96 but at the intersection of Buffalo Street and Taughannock Boulevard where 89 and 96 come together, you know, if you shunt the traffic onto 89 it's not really a solution because it's still part of the issue right there. And I think you need a more comprehensive plan to deal with residential development in this area that includes both the County and the City of Ithaca and probably the Town of Ulysses as well. And that's all it have to say, thank you. Chairperson Howe — Anyone else? We'll keep the public hearing open for a little bit. How do you want to - proceed ? - -Do we have some - questions we -want to put on -the table and invite the applicants to come back up and address some of the comments we heard plus some of ours? Or do you want to get some feedback from the applicants on what the public has raised so far? Board Member Talty — I'm choice B, while it's still fresh in everyone's mind and the public is still here. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Do you want to come back up.. you probably tried to keep a bit of a list, and I tried to as well. One that I don't really know much about, and maybe you don't either, is this survey of the Route 96 Corridor Management Study, is there something we can say about that? Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I think it was actually a good point to bring that up. It's hard to know how the context of this Scoping Document should fit in with the Route 96 Corridor Management Study because that's a year -long study. It is a cooperative study with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Town of Ulysses and Tompkins County and it will be looking at growth in the corridor and this is certainly one of the sites that will be part of the analysis of that corridor study. So I think it's certainly appropriate to include some kind of reference in the Scoping Document to that study and... Mr. Parks — When is that going to be available? I mean, you say it's a year long ... when did it start? Mr. Kanter — Well the final product will not be available until the end of 2008 so that's why I am saying it's a- timing issue in terms of this particular project. But on the other hand, the process of the corridor study and the process of this environmental impact statement should be able to feed on each. other and so I believe that the Environmental. Impact Statement for the Holochuck Development should be able to certainly make use of some of the information that's coming out of the study... Mr. Parks — Is there a possibility that we get a preview of that then? Mr. Kanter — Well there's nothing to preview yet, except for the survey, the community survey that has gone out, and there actually is a public meeting scheduled for April, I'm probably going to get the date wrong, I think it's April 23`d, stay tuned for actual dates PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 23 and times, but it's going to be held at the Museum of the Earth and that will be the first actual public get together to where the consultants and the project team will give the public an overview of what the study is about and another opportunity for the public to comment on development and transportation issues in the corridor. So it will be an ongoing study while this particular development is being analyzed. So, you know, it's not that the final results of the study will necessarily be available while this Board is making decisions about this particular project, but, I think as long as everyone is aware of the process going on and the Scoping Document should certainly make some reference to that. Chairperson Howe — If nothing else, it would probably be good for you to get a copy of the survey just to see... Mr. Parks — Yes... Board Member Talty — Rod, can we get a copy of that as well... Mr. Kanter — Sure, and there actually is a project scoping document that kind of describes what the study is supposed to be about... Mr. Parks — And if there is a possibility that we could get access to the preliminary data that they are compiling as it goes along, we could attempt to include that information as we go along. But if we have to wait until the final document at the end ... I am loathe to ... if we make reference to it, I have to include it in some context, and that's ... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, well, there will be data and information available as the process goes on. I can't tell you when parts of that information will be available because it's in the process of being assembled right now. So it's not something that we can just go and say here's what we have, because we really don't have that yet, but... Mr. Parks — So what would you suggest then Jon, as far as what context to reference it? Just that we recognize that there is an on -going corridor study and that... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I'm not sure if there is a reference in here now to other planning documents and processes such as the Town's Comprehensive Plan ... Usually there's something to that effect in the Community Character section ... and this would be yet another planning process or planning study being undertaken, which, I think a short description of what the purpose is of the studies are and what type of information will be available for it and the fact that whatever information is available while you're EIS is being done will be made available and incorporated. I think something to that effect would be helpful. Chairperson Howe — If you want, I will just try to go through my list, I took notes, and -- some -o# these - might not really be things for you to react to, we can also just chime in, "no, that makes sense, that should somehow be factored in ". So, as we are going through the items, if there's some that we feel are obvious and need to show up in the scoping document, we will just chime in. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 24 The first comment was about the language, and certainly one thing we know, just in general, we are always trying to come up with language that's very clear to the public and not confusing and I think it was the reference to the intermittent stream, non - regulated stream or whatever. So, I think that might be more of a, let's just be really clear what language means ... I don't know if you have any comments or whether we have any comments... Board Member Erb — And non - protected body of water. What that actually means, it's okay to use the term if you just define it. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that term might come from the SEQR laws right? Ms. Balestra —Yeah, that - comes right from the -SEQR regulation: - - - -- - Board Member Talty —Which means? Board Member Hoffmann — How do they explain it? Mr. Kanter — Well, "protected" streams are those that are classified as protected by the State Department of Environmental Conservation and "non- protected" streams are those that aren't. That's basically what it is. And so, usually, in a characterization of water resources, an environmental impact statement, you use those distinctions and that terminology. There are regulatory aspects of the protected streams that go beyond the unprotected ones. Mr. Parks — There are streams that are classified as "protected ". Trout streams, these do not fall under that category. Mr. Kanter — The classification though, I think the point was made, whether these are intermittent or annually flowing streams and that's certainly an important item to make sure the EIS characterizes them accurately. Mr. Parker — We didn't really ... in the beginning, we didn't even really want to use the word "streams ", you know, we call them drainage ditches and (inaudible) basically they are drainage ditches and they are intermittent, they do have more flow at different times of the season, as the lady mentioned, there are a couple of them that do dry up, so they are intermittent. Board Member Hoffmann — But there are some that do not dry up is what we heard. Mr. Parker —There I s a couple large ones that actually start on the other side of the road and go all the way through the property and those are the larger ones and they probably have flow in them most of the time. I don't know if they ever dry up or not, you know, --but -I-- would - guess -that most -of- the -time there -is -flow through -a_ couple of them... Board Member Erb — Calling them intermittent might not be appropriate. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 25 Board Member Hoffmann - Right. And we also got a letter, the letter that we received from Mr. Perkins on behalf of Robert E. Gates talks about a stream that goes, comes from this property we are talking about and goes down under Route 89 and comes onto his property by the lake and he describes it as, if I remember from reading it just at the beginning of the meeting, as a permanent stream and that it.., it says "the stream runs year -round and during periods of significant rainfall or snow melt, the stream is at or above its capacity." So that's the kind of stream which I think one has to worry about and I don't see why it has to say intermittent streams. I think it could say either intermittent and permanent streams or all streams, instead of intermittent and permanent. And that would include whatever there is on this property. That we and other people have a concern about. Ms. Balestra - I just wanted to add that there are two, at least two streams on this property that have been identified as important and would be protected under the stream setback law that the Town is still working on. Mr. Park - I don't think the intermittent part was meant to mean that they were any lesser streams or any ... that classification, so to speak, didn't minimize what we would have to do as far as the study was concerned... Board Member Hoffmann - But just to make it clear that it includes all streams on the property, don't you think it would be better if it said all streams? Chairperson Howe - And I think you're willing to make that change so it's clear that it's looking at all streams. Mr. Park -Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - And that would appear on Page 1, Point 2 as well as on Page 4 where again you talk about streams, that language would be changed appropriately, right? Mr. Park - I think that the primary distinction would be that there are some areas where you get some drainage only when it rains and that they aren't necessarily flowing streams on a regular basis and we would have to make a distinction there, but, they have identified- at least two of - them -- that - are -- permanent free - flowing streams and we would like to make that distinction and I believe we would have to make that distinction between the permanent streams and the ones that would fall more naturally under the stormwater management issue. Board Member Hoffmann - That's fine, but they should all be discussed and included. Chairperson Howe - I'm going to move on to some of the other points. I don't really - know- wha #:-1- remember -that- there - were - pictures- brought- to- us -at- previous meetings about some vegetation that was there and perhaps not there, and so the question was, how do we get an accurate before and after when potentially, some of this area has been disturbed already. So I know we spoke about that. I'm not sure what to do about that at this point. I don't know if you have any response... PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 26 Mr. Park - I believe the issue of the .... the issues that will sort of be discussed in the document relate more towards the indigenous species, which the removal of the surface wouldn't have disturbed enough of whatever indigenous species there might have been would still exist on the property. Maybe we could, whatever percentage of trees that were removed for surveying purposes, if there are some indigenous species, we would elevate that number by 10% or whatever that number, whatever the percentage is, but don't know that it really changes our, the issues that we would actually identify and address if they exist. Chairperson Howe - Any other comments about that? Board Member Hoffmann - I'm not sure I understood that. Understood what you are describing;- what - you are - saying — - - -- - - Mr. Park - So, the scope of the document relates towards the species that might exist that call that area their home, on the slope of the hill. Whatever vegetation was removed for surveying purposes, that indigenous species would still exist in the other areas that have been undisturbed. And so in terms of, you know, if we have to identify the number of a particular type of water fowl that exists on that property, as an example, that they would attempt to get an accurate count, but, you know, whenever they are doing that, they are sort of guesstimating anyway and we could add 10% to that number just to show that that number accurate reflects what ever area was disturbed when we surveyed. I don't believe it really is that high a percentage in terms of the entire size of the property, I think it's a very small portion of the property that was disturbed. Board Member Erb - Is it correct to think that on the flatter area we would have identical vegetations as in the steeper area? Mr. Park - No, no, they would be different... Mr. Walker - The flat area was farmed within the last 75 years so it's regrowth...we have our sewer line through the area, we mow that every year to prevent woody vegetation and probably 10 years ago, we had very bad history, or, our maintenance of that sewer line was very bad. So we actually went in with a hydro ax and mowed our easement, because we had a willow tree that was probably 5 feet around sitting right on - top -of -a- manhole going down -- into- (someone spoke- over.him) ... which kind of made it hard for the sewer to go through the pipe because it was full of roots. ..that's the kind of poor maintenance that we were doing. So we have been mowing that regularly to keep the woody vegetation down and I believe we brush - hogged an area that had some 4 or 5 -inch caliper trees that got knocked down with the brush -hog, but that's what I have observed out there, so ... and as you go down the slope there was some wooded pasture and as you go down further you get even bigger trees. -Mr- .Kanter - - -I- wasjust- going - -to- say- that -it- would -be -- fair -to -ask the applicant to characterize the vegetative habitat of what was there before it was cleared so that it would be counted as if it were original land in any descriptions of calculations of land cover... PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 27 Mr. Park — I believe they would naturally do that because the vegetation that was removed is identical to the vegetation that exists right now... Mr. Kanter — And also to make sure; to the extent possible, to characterize the description of the area that was cleared with what was there originally so that if it's clear that there could have been something that was there of value, that would be able to be described, or if not, the converse of that. Chairperson Howe — I am going to move right along and you tell me if I'm moving to fast, but I want to go.... Board Member Hoffmann — On the, on Point #2, when we were talking about the water - bodies, on Page 1 at the bottom, and -also on Page 4...1 thought -we had - talked about the importance of Cayuga Lake as a water body that might receive... Board Member Erb — It got added on Page 5 under Point c and under Point 6.., Board Member Hoffmann — I saw it there, but I would like to see it under the potential environmental impacts that are listed on Page 1, in that Point 2 there, where it talks about the streams, I would like to have Cayuga Lake added as another known protected body of water that might be impacted. Mr. Walker — Remember Eva that that first page is a list of potential impacts based on the state law and that's what's triggering... that's not part of the scope, that's not what they are going to be looking at ... it's because we think there could be impacts, so listing it on the first page isn't going to help at all. We have to list it in the actual scope. That's not, that's the document that tells us we have to do this. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh. All right. Well, I just want to be sure because it's happened a number of times before that if we have not included something in the scope before we approved it, it can not be added later, and I just want to be sure we don't leave that out, becaue I think that's an important one. Mr. Walker — I've gone through this ... the stormwater listing and I think it's very comprehensive and it's everything that we require them to look at for our stormwater management law, which -we- just - passed,- -and also - with -the state - .law,. and -also, really, what the impacts are on the lake also. So our goal is to keep all the pollutants on the site and not let anything off. Board Member Hoffmann — So you think it's enough to have the Cayuga Lake mentioned under point C6 on Page 5? Mr. Walker — Yes. Definitely, Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 28 Chairperson Howe — Next point was under Aesthetic Resources and the comment was made that we're talking about visual issues from all sorts of places, but we never talk about the potential visual impact to the adjoining neighbors. Board Member Hoffmann — And we talked about that too last time. Mr. Park — In terms of value of the neighbors, I don't believe that that is a proper issue to be discussed within the DEIS. In terms of... Chairperson Howe — Yeah, first I was talking about just the visual impact ... we'll get to the financial... Mr. Park —Well, it's sort of a... Chairperson Howe — Yeah, they could be related... Mr. Park — It could be and I believe that when we did discuss the visual impact, we would have included, and I don't know if we specifically mentioned it but, visual impact from the road which would be a public, which would be where the public would view that, and we also did discuss all of the important areas that had been identified as public access areas where there could be a potential visual impact. Now, the comment that we heard tonight was more about visual impact from a particular person's home and I don't believe that we can address that aesthetic viewpoint, from everybody's home, where, you know... Chairperson Howe — Yeah and I didn't, certainly that person perhaps was thinking about their own home, but I think the issue is also what is the visual impact from a broader set of residents. Maybe it's addressed by saying "from the roadway ", but I don't know whether there's something more specific to suggest a language there... Board Member Talty — Where are you reading Rod? Board Member Erb — This is Preamble E.... Mr. Walker — It does say from the road in the first.... Board Member Hoffmann — On Page 6, is that where we are? Mr. Kanter — I think you probably want to add some reference to views, impact of views from neighboring properties. I don't think you can get too specific and you certainly don't, I don't think you would want to require a viewshed study from each and every house, but I think adding a reference would help to ensure that the community character issue is addressed. Mr. Park — Well, in terms of the visual impact from the neighbors and, you know, without being charged with trespass, we don't have the right to access those neighbors to determine what visual impact they might have from those particular pieces of property. So we would be looking for guidance from you to indicate how ... you know, from the public areas, we certainly can do that... PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 29 Mr. Kanter — I think any neighbors who are concerned about views from their own houses would be willing to let you enter their property... Mr. Park — Maybe, but I am loathe to include that in the Scoping Document which becomes a requirement for us. Mr. Kanter — No, that's why I was suggesting a more generic reference rather than to say each and every house will be studied. I think if you include the issue that some views from neighboring properties could be impacted, that's sufficient to... Chairperson Howe — And is that better under Aesthetic Resources or Community Character? Because I think that's what we are really talking about... Mr. Park — Community Character... Mr. Kanter— Community Character.., Chairperson Howe — So I think we are looking for some sort of general reference that that will be an impact, and I have to look to Susan ... I don't know about the financial, potential financial impacts. Ms. Brock — Generally., .Tape change. Mr. Parks — Why don't we move on to the issue? Are we looking at ... under community character, we do under J, paragraph 3 ... is there something you wanted to add to that? Board Member Erb — I have an I for community character. Mr. Parks — Oh, I. Excuse me. 13. Chairperson Howe — Well, and it does say with respect to visual impacts. so I think that's sufficient. Ms. Balestra — I just found a typo that I think should be added. Want me to tell you what it is? Chairperson Howe — No, we'll catch up with it. Ms. Balestra — We'll get to it later. Chairperson Howe — Susan? Ms. Brock — Generally impact on property values is not appropriate to consider in an EIS. The exception is if the impact does something such as creates blight in a certain area. Then it might become more relevant. But I think in this case it would not be appropriate to consider. Those are requirements under the SEQR regulations. Alternate Member Talty — Can you tell me exactly what "blight" means? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 30 Ms. Brock — Blight? An entire neighborhood of boarded up buildings that are occupied by vermins...things like that. Alternate Member Talty — Okay. I just wanted to make sure the public understood exactly what blight is. Chairperson Howe — Lighting was mentioned and I can't imagine that lighting isn't in here some place. Ms. Balestra — It is. Board Member Erb — But light is ... light is mentioned a little bit. On page 7, at the top, point 8, discuss project lighting. Ms. Balestra — There it is. Mr. Kanter — Possible impacts of lighting on the surrounding area. Board Member Erb — My point was that I did notice, forgive me, I counted at least 14 things that got added that I checked off the list from the February 5th and I do appreciate that you made those changes. I just wish that you had called this revision one or else redated it. Mr. Kanter — Good point. Chairperson Howe — Oh, yeah, right. I made a note on the... Board Member Erb — Yes, but I wish to acknowledge that I noted a great many additions and deletion of weasel words and that sort of thing. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that, too, and I appreciate it when I read it that you had been very inclusive of the comments that had been made by us and others. Chairperson Howe — Certainly we heard transportation mentioned a few times. Do we think that section G is adequate for the scoping documents? -Mr-.- Kanter- -That is the question._ . Board Member Conneman — [not audible] Chairperson Howe — Right ... yes. Board Member Conneman — ...there are a whole bunch of words we can use and reuse, but transportation and traffic ... (not audible) ... and they're there. Board Member Erb — Would it be appropriate, though, on page 8 to add one more numeric point that does refer to the transportation plan that ... doesn't the County or Town have a transportation plan? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 31 Mr. Kanter — Yes, we do. Board Member Erb — Would it be appropriate to cross reference it there and address it there? Mr. Kanter — Yeah, and in fact, actually maybe that would be the place to put this reference to the Route 96 study that I was mentioning, too. Board Member Erb — So there could be a 12 on page 8 that is ... that would be that. Chairperson Howe — Was there anything else related to traffic that we feel isn't adequately covered? We can come back to that if we think there is. Let's see ... what else. We already talked about that under alternatives the issue of access on Route 89 that that will be it's currently in here ... so any questions, comments about that? Under community character there was a comment made about health impacts of, I believe, it was worded higher density, but health impacts ... is that in here at all? Mr. Kanter — I guess I'm wondering what that really means. Mr. Parks — Health impacts on... Board Member Erb — Mr .... was it Wage? Ms. Balestra — Page. Board Member Erb — Page? Excuse me. I believe he made a comment about the stress of living within and the stress of living next to high density housing and yet we allow high density housing, don't we? Mr. Kanter — Well, yeah, but I'm not sure I would characterize it as high density housing because in the terms of the Town zoning this isn't high density... Board Member Erb — I'm using... Mr. Kanter - ...no I'm saying ... I'm addressing the commentor's comment, not yours. It really isn't high density; it's medium density. So ... but I'm not sure what kind of health impacts you would be addressing per se anyway. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't either. Chairperson Howe — Okay. We might come back to that. And then there was the issue of are you looking for high energy efficiency in the build out? What ... (not audible) - - -Mr. Parks - - That is- cer- tainly- a- possibility — but -I- don' t - believe- it- is- an- ap.pr-opriate_ issue to be discussed within the DEIS. Board Member Erb — Well ... isn't it adverse impacts or irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 32 Mr. Parks — If the Town were to have passed a law requiring that for the types of houses that are built then we would certainly we would comply with that and I believe that would fall under that guide, but under the scope of the DEIS or EIS once it's finalized, I don't believe that that is something that we can or we should be required to do. Mr. Kanter — I was just going to mention point F under 6 alternatives, does talk about alternate practical building designs, styles and configurations. I think it was meant to get more at the way the buildings will look, but it also could and we could probably maybe add a word or two to make sure it does get to looking at possibilities of energy efficient designs. It certainly under alternatives is not something the Board is requiring the applicant to build that way, but simply analyze as a possibility to look at energy efficiency in the building design. Board Member Conneman — Certainly when you build 106 units I think you would be interested in energy efficiency. Mr. Parks — We definitely are, but the question before us is whether or not that's an appropriate issue to be discussed within the environmental impact of this project on the Town. Board Member Erb — Yes, I think it is. Energy use is an environmental impact. Mr. Parks — Okay. So if we are ... if we couch it in terms of the energy consumption of the entire project then that's that's certainly something that we can touch on, but the energy efficiency of any particular unit or ... that becomes logistically very difficult for us to address in any meaningful way. Chairperson Howe — Do you want to comment on that, Susan? Ms. Brock — What did you mean by touch on the energy use of the entire project? Mr. Parks — Well, the average consumption of a household of X- number based on the type of unit that we are going to construct to the type of people that we would expect that would purchase it, whatever studies exist as to what the average energy consumption of a particular household. -- Chairperson Howe — I don't think we were going there. I think it was... Board Member Erb — I was going more to are we talking about double -paned windows, are we talking about things that are well - insulated, are we talking about building with renewable woods rather than non - renewable woods? Are we talking about the darkest possible black roofs that are going to absorb heat? I mean I was talking about it more generally in... Mr. Parks — And logistically, I mean, if we do go down that road and I am going to resist that, but if we do go down that road there is an infinite number of possibilities as far as building the most energy efficient house down to building hay bale houses, which are extremely energy efficient and provide the greatest amount of insulation and for us to address that within the environmental impact statement is logistically very, very difficult. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 33 So we would need to define exactly what you mean by ... if you want us to tell you what type of windows we plan on using we can certainly do that, but for us to investigate all of the possibilities of the types of windows and the size and scope... Board Member Erb — I wasn't going there. I wasn't going to that detail, but you can build flimsy or... Mr. Parks — Once again...(not audible) ... it's something that we have to address. So... Chairperson Howe — I think it was just more of a commitment to build at a certain level of energy that is even part of the project and we always like Board Member Erb — So I'm not necessarily looki as some sort of a statement. Mr. Parks— Like using the Energy Star type... general sense of ... sort of where is the efficiency, not talk about any detail...if to see that as part of the project. ng for it under the alternatives as much Board Member Erb — Yeah. Those sorts of things. Mr. Parks — Like if we had something to couch it in, in terms of and I don't know that we would necessarily be able to use, like say that every appliance would be guaranteed to be Energy Star compliant, although to a certain extent that is already happening statewide so it most likely would happen, but I guess I would need for the Board to define exactly how far we are taking that and then we certainly could try to at least put it in there to the extent that we know at this point what we are planning on doing. The difficulty that I foresee is that once we put it into this document we have to address it in a way that's...the true purpose of this document is to identify the adverse impacts that we are going to have and to mitigate those adverse impacts. To a certain extent this project, yes, it is going to use energy and to the extent that you consider that to be an adverse impact we would like to mitigate that, but the natural course of that is that in order to mitigate that the requirement would be to build the most energy efficient possible home to minimize the energy consumption, which theoretically is the least amount of environmental impact that is available. And to my knowledge that, you know, once it gets into the document we have to address it and once we do that and is this Board were -to approve it -after -the -fact and we didn't provide the most energy efficient that decision could be attacked later on that we didn't properly mitigate an environment impact and that to me is a very dangerous road to go down and I don't believe I've ever seen that as an issue that was addressed in and EIS and I certainly can research that issue and defer to Susan if she has any experience in that particular area, but... Chairperson Howe — And I think we are just missing each other in what we are looking for. Dan, did you want to... Mr. Walker — There is a basic level of energy efficiency. They have to meet the New York State Energy Code for the actual building constructions. I think if you are looking at reducing the carbon footprint there's a lot of different issues I think we are going to be addressing those in a number of different ways within the impact statement. Just the PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 34 fact that in the transportation section they are going to be looking at public transportation also and the potential use for it. And this is the perfect site for public transportation because it comes here already. Just by doing that you are reducing energy consumption by a significant amount. Now whether they go with a LEED type, which is kind of a voluntary associated, characterization of buildings like Ithaca College is doing. Yes they can improve energy efficiency in little bits that way, but you've got to remember that there are 106 homes going in here. Actually, the way that they are building them as town -homes is more energy efficient than 106 freestanding homes. Board Member Erb — Oh, yes. Mr. Walker — ...because you have common walls. So already right there you've got a - credit for energy-- efficiency because-you are building a - building type that uses less energy than a freestanding home would. That's a pretty slippery slope to be going down. Chairperson Howe — Jon? Mr. Kanter — I was just thinking also that just because we are doing an environmental impact statement on this project doesn't mean that we should hold this developer to a different standard than we do other developers. So while it is a legitimate issue for the Town to think about and ultimately we may have some policies on energy efficient buildings, unless there is something about this particular development where energy is raised as a significant issue I don't know that we really can get into specifically requesting this developer to look at this subject where we were are not requiring other developers to do the same thing. Mr. Walker — Just remember that this is coming to us basically as a cluster type development. They are using a fraction of the land that they could develop. They're leaving a lot of woodland there, which is already an energy conservation method. You're leaving a lot of green space. So... Board Member Erb — It occurred to me ... I was simply ... we had a comment at a different project very recently about starting to consider carbon footprints. This was a fairly large ... this is the next fairly large project that came to us after that comment and we had a comment from the audience at the public hearing. So I was just raising the issue to see how we could get to it and at some point it seemed to me that a developer might want to act, and I'm not going to require this of the developer at all or I'm not going to argue to require it, but it seemed to me that the developer might want to point out that these are energy conserving features of the project. Mr. Parks — And just for ... for as we go forward, we do plan on doing that and especially because we are in Ithaca. We understand that that is important to the people who live here and my only resistance is just including it in the scope of what we are addressing here. Chairperson Howe — I think I went through the items that were discovered and I haven't closed the public hearing and I'm going to do that, but I'll just first see if there was PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 35 somebody else who wanted to address the Board on this issue this evening? Would you like to comment again? Sure. Mr. Page — You mentioned the LEED standard a minute ago. I've got a copy of their national standard. I'd like to provide that to the Board. What developer will you choose to have make this assessment? Somebody mentioned that it's been 2 or 3 times brought up but we don't want to hold this developer to that standard of determining an environmental impact. When do you determine that it's appropriate? Two years from now? Six years from now? Just maybe that is a rhetorical question, probably not, though. Alternate Member Talty — I think that was answered, though, by Dan. Mr. Page — No, actually it wasn't. Mr. Walker — LEED is a voluntary certification for a building based on using green building techniques and trying to conserve energy over the whole process and over the life of the structure. There is no law requiring LEED certification. Chairperson Howe — It would have to be a policy decision by the Town Board. Mr. Page — Absolutely and I'm not asking you to hold the developer to LEED certification. What I'm asking you to do is include it in the environmental impact statement so that there is a determination made... Mr. Walker — How would we measure it? Mr. Page — I'm not a building expert. I'm asking you to include it and... Mr. Walker — (not audible)... Mr. Page — ...the developer just said we plan on doing that anyway. Okay. So include it in the environmental impact. Chairperson Howe — I think we've had a pretty thorough discussion about that. Was there something else that you wanted to raise that you didn't before? Mr. Page — Yes. I brought up an issue about the impact of the clustered development. Somebody said that it was a medium density. It is zoned low and medium residential and we are making clustered developments. Clustered developments to me imply that you are going to have large numbers of people living in close quarters. That has a mental impact on people. In some cases that is a positive impact. For some folks that's a very negative impact moving into a clustered development, in addition to those who have to live around it. That's what I asked to have added to this statement. It was discussed, but only for a second with many people not understanding what I even asked for. Hopefully that is a little clearer. Thanks. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address... PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 36 Male voice — (not audible) Chairperson Howe — Is there anyone else who would like to address ... so I'm going to close the public hearing at 8:48. Were there issues that we wanted to get to that haven't been addressed tonight in terms of the adequacy.of the scoping document? So Eva has some. Does anyone else have any? Board Member Erb — I just wanted to restate noise from the built -out project, not just the construction noise. I know that on Page 9 under community character, point 3, noise is there as a single word. But I think it is an important feature for the neighborhood. We've got lighting put in. At the top of the page we have noise impacts; it refers entirely to the construction project and noise for the built -out people in place project is just the single word - noise under community character and I just wanted to say noise again. confused Susan all to pieces now. Chairperson Howe — George, did you have anything? Board Member Conneman — I think we covered sufficiently the issues that should be in there. Chairperson Howe — Kevin, do you have something and then I'll...? Alternate Member Talty — I have a question, unless I'm just overlooking... is this ... what type of clientele is going to be coming into these townhouses? Is this going to be similar to the Overlook project? Mr. Parks — No. I mean I'm not fully familiar with the Overlook project other than I've read the comments that came in as public comments and our expectations would be that this is going to be a family neighborhood. We may have some retirees that want to downsize from the area neighborhoods. It's close to the hospital and certainly being close to the hospital we are going to get people from the hospital who want to live and own... Alternate Member Talty — Stop. Just stop. Stop there on that one. That's what they said at Overlook. I'm just telling you, but before we go forward, as all the people out here listening, are you guys, are the developers receiving federal funding in order to have a certain amount of income families live in these properties? Mr. Parks — No. Alternate Member Talty — Okay. Board Member Conneman — Kevin, my only point is we have no backup as to what is alleged in number 8. And if you want to have backup, get the Sheriff's ... (not audible)... Alternate Member Talty — I'm just saying, I was the only board member that was skeptical of who was going to do what at Overlook. And if this is true, and I will find out, PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 37 I just wanted to hear from this current applicant, the one that is coming under the same guise as Overlook. Ms. Balestra – What are you referring to? Board Member Conneman – I'm referring to the email you sent me... Board Member Erb – Mr. Scaglione? Many talking at once. Board Member Conneman - ...something about housing prisoners, SWAT team drug busts, and recent stabbings and that the husband and wife of a management team have split up ... I don't know if that's true, but I won't give it any sense unless you produce a report from the Sheriff that that happened. Board Member Erb – I don't think that is up to them. Alternate Member Talty – That's a separate thing. What I'm saying is, I'm going back to the source. Just like the Mississippi River has a source and my source is, if I may, I just wanted to know if the developer is receiving any type of governmental funding that puts certain clientele into your project and you said no. Mr. Parks – No, we are not. Other than the land that is being dedicated or sold to NYS Parks. Mr. Walker – This is a market rate development, right? Mr. Parks – Yes. Chairperson Howe – Eva has been very patient. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann – The other thing that I wanted to comment on was the aesthetic resources language still states just the same thing that you had in the original scoping document proposal that is on Page 6, a aesthetic resources. This section will address the impacts of the proposed development upon views from Trumansburg Road and from the east and west shores of Cayuga Lake. That's all it says and I thought we spoke at length last time about including views from not just the shores, but ... yes. And I know that it says a little further down in more detail, but I would like to see... Board Member Erb – In the preamble statement of the section... Board Member Hoffmann – ...in the preamble, thank you, that it includes views from — East -Hill -and South - Hill - and - also - areas- west -of -the- project. -- -- - - -- Mr. Parks — How about if we just say we'll address impacts of the proposed development upon area views and leave it at that. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 38 Board Member Erb - And then detail them below. Mr. Parks - And the detail is all there in paragraph 3. We didn't mean to ... the purpose of that was not to limit the scope of what we were doing because it is identified under paragraph 3. Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. I think that's better. You all think that's better? Several agree. Board Member Hoffmann - And to take away from Trumansburg Road and from the east and west shores of Cayuga Lake then and would you change it also on Page 2 then? Board Member Erb - And will you get the road part into point 4 the next time? Mr. Parks - Lets do ... H2 ... H2 what was the? Board Member Hoffmann - On Page 2, point 5 at the top of the page, it has the same language about views from Trumansburg Road and the shores of Cayuga Lakes, which sounds like it limits. Mr. Parks - And then what was the... Board Member Hoffmann - Hollis said something else. Board Member Erb - On Page 6, under. point E4, we told you before you were missing the word "road". Be identified along Trumansburg Road. That's all. Ms. Balestra - That's the typo. Chairperson Howe - Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - That was it. Mr. Parks If -we have a -few minutes, - -we have -an environmental consultant that has a few questions of the Board. Ms. Brock - I had a couple of changes. On Page 3, under environmental setting a, the last line before 1 topography there is a typo. The word propose should have a "d" on the end so that the phrase reads describe proposed mitigation measures. On Page 6, under wildlife and plant resources number 3, the last sentence was added in response to a comment that Susan Riha made at our last meeting or the February 5th meeting. It states; include -in- the - summary- the - length- of -sur -vet's -and the time of year the surveys are performed. I had thought from her comments that she actually wanted the scope to specify what the length the surveys would be and the time of year they would be performed as opposed to just reporting that in the EIS. I don't know if that was the same impression that other Planning Board members had however. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 39 Chairperson Howe — I'm sorry. What distinction are you making? Ms. Brock — I think ... Susan had wanted this scoping document to say surveys will be performed of "X" length during the growing season or during the breeding season or some specificity as to what the surveys would be here as opposed to having them at their complete discretion do them whenever they want and just tell us in the EIS document this is when we did them and this was how long it took. Mr. Parks — I think it would depend on what wildlife we're attempting to identify. I mean, for instance, migrating geese or something like that would have to be identified during their season of migration. So I don't know if we can change the wording to ... that would be more appropriate than just specifying a time period because it really would depend on -what exactly we are surveying. And to the extent that we can, I mean because this is a limited time period that we were able to do this to the extent that we can during that time period identify and certainly whatever is available as a matter of public record as to the example again, migrating geese is used, which I don't know if it is or not, any open field theoretically could be that we would attempt to identify and count those, but again this is a limited scope of what we are able to do. We can't do a year long study of these things. Ms. Brock — It seems at a minimum that you could state that for the flora that surveys will be performed throughout the growing season. Jonathan, I don't know. I'll look to you, actually. This is something that we've been dealing with in some other context as well. Board Member Erb — Do we run into a timing thing here? Mr. Kanter — Well, in our study of our Northeast area, which we have hired a consultant to do, the Town Board actually decided to extend the study to allow looking at the full growing season through the summer with the assumption that that's a unique natural area and there may be some, you know, special plant species in there or also being next to the Lab of Ornithology there may be some bird populations in there that needs some special studying and the nesting habits and all that type of thing. That is going to be going through the end of August in terms of field work. This is, you know, I don't know how you would characterize this area compared to that Northeast study that we are doing, but I don't see it as the same kind of area. Certainly the slopes have been identified as a unique natural area, but this part of the level part of the site I don't know if there is any indication that there were any, you know... Mr. Parks — What I would propose and this is our expectation is that the areas where there would be a lot of wildlife that might need preserving or any specialized breeds of fowl or whatever might live in area are areas that we are protecting. I mean those are the areas that are going to remain undisturbed and the areas that we are actually developing are, as you said, areas that had been farmed in the past and it's really just growth from non -use. But if there were to be anything that were identified as a possibility then certainly when we bring that information back to this Board then you certainly could comment on that and you certainly have the power to make us go back and study that particular issue if it identified as a possibility. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 40 Ms. Brock — Okay. Mr. Parks — I mean it's our expectation that there won't be one, but if it turns out that there is... Mr. Kanter — I think just on an unofficial basis we would at least expect to see an ecologic study of the area go into, you know, well into the spring growing season. Certainly I don't think we're going to expect it going through the summer and the end of the growing season, but certainly once foliage is out and the habitat type can be well - documented I think that's really what we are talking about. Mr. Parks — I understand that and certainly ... are you suggesting that we change that language though? Is that the...? Mr. Kanter — I don't think we need to. Chairperson Howe — Susan, was there something else? Ms. Brock — Under Aesthetic Resources, same page, you added or broken out 3 and 4 and it's actually very confusing to me. I'm not quite sure why you have these in separate paragraphs. Explain the intent. Mr. Parks — Which page are we talking about. Board Member Erb — Under e. Ms. Balestra — There were vantage points and then there were critical receptor points. Number 4 is a little more specific to the public views. Chairperson Howe — Although, really 3 are as well, right? Ms. Brock — I didn't understand your intent, why you felt the grouping... there even needed to be a grouping, you know, with some in 3 and some in 4. It just was very confusing. Board Member Erb — I took it that 4 was specific to some areas where it was explicitly the viewscape that was the important feature of the location whereas the others were things like the viewscape was a part of the amenity but it wasn't the feature, but I know what you are saying. It's like why break it apart. Board Member Hoffmann — No, but a long time. There are points from think are talked about under point -which are4he views you- see- from -c Is that how... I think it makes sense having talked about views for which you see a view and those are the ones that 1 3. And then under point 4 they talked about areas the r. points- and - those, are_ the_critica.l_r_eceptor_points. Mr. Parks — Yeah. I think the distinction was the views that might be theoretically altered, like your alteration of the view of Cayuga Lake from an area where this might PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 41 obstruct it or something of that nature versus how this project would visually look from other areas looking back at the project itself versus how the visual impact would impact your views of other areas including Cayuga Lake, Board Member Hoffmann – So I think in some ways it makes sense to talk about views from those two perspectives. Chairperson Howe – Anything else? Ms. Brock – Just that Mahlon Perkin's letter had several issues we haven't addressed. He said that the stormwater management and pollution prevention plan stated that there would actually be a reduction in peak flows whereas the scoping document states that there -will be zero increase in peak flows following development. Dan, I don't know if you have a comment on that and what should be included in the scope, whether in fact we should be asking them to describe how there will actually be a reduction since that's what at least Mr. Perkins is alleging that they are proposing. Mr. Kanter – Well, one comment on what they were proposing is that that stormwater document was submitted prior to this scoping document even being prepared and it was under the assumption that the development was basically going to proceed without an environmental impact statement. So I'm not even sure how relevant that document is. I think, you know, the EIS really at this point should be identifying where we are going from here; what the impacts are going to be at the development —not looking at a previous document that was submitted that isn't officially part of the environmental impact statement yet because it obviously hasn't been completed. Mr. Walker – I believe that the reference probably is in the original stormwater plan and I don't ... have memorized it pretty good, but not that good. I think some of the stormwater ponds...the outlet flows were lower after development and than before development going on site probably is the case. Our regulations basically require them to not increase any flows off the site. We'll have to look at ... maybe lower flows for a longer period of time is worse, but I don't think it is in this case, but we have to look at that as part of the impact. I believe ... I don't believe that they are going to...there may be more detail in the stormwater plan once they get into the final detail of the site, but I believe that original report showed that they could handle the stormwater runoff from the -site in an acceptable way and that -is- what --we need --to add r-ess_in -the _EI.S_whether or not they could do that. Ms. Brock – Well, the EIS would look at what they are actually proposing and if they are proposing an actual reduction then why don't we say that here as opposed to just a zero increase. Mr. Kanter – I think the question will be to the applicant is that what you are proposing? Mr. Parks – Propose an actual reduction? Is that what you're asking? Are we proposing an actual reduction? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 42 Mr. Walker — I think some of your calculations showed that there was a slight reduction in peak flow... Mr. Parks — Some of the calculations could have shown that, but our charge is to not allow any increase to go off site than does before construction. Ms. Brock — Did you prepare that plan or did somebody else prepare that plan? Mr. Parks — Our office prepared the plan. I prepared the plan you are looking at here and part of my team prepared the report ... we talked about the stormwater management report, if you want to read it... - -Ms, Brock No. We will. Believe me. Mr. Kanter - We did. Mr. Parks - Quite a bit of... Mr. Walker -We have looked it. Ms. Brock - Just a simple question. Are you proposing a reduction? That's what we're asking. Mr. Parks - A guess the simple answer to that is that we will do everything in our power and we will obviously comply with the Town laws as far as that's concerned. We don't know yet, because we have to do the study, how that is going to play out and certainly to the extent that we are going to do it in a way that minimizes the environmental impact, we will do so. At this point to commit to any level of reduction or anything like that would be difficult. Ms. Brock - We are not asking you to commit to something that you cannot do. I mean I don't know if you can or can't, I guess the simple question was is the plan that you submitted... does the plan that you submitted propose a reduction? That's all I'm trying to find out. What's in the plan you submitted? Chairperson Howe - And - Susan! -why? - - - -- Ms. Brock - Because in the scoping document it states that they are going to discuss and reference the SWPPP including all stormwater management facilities and measures required to attain a zero increase in stormwater runoff. And Mr. Perkins has raised in his letter the fact that one of these streams actually overflows and so they are very supportive of actual reductions in runoff and they have asked that this goal of reducing peak flows be referenced in the scoping document. Mr. Walker - I don't believe that's an appropriate, under law, unless we've identified a specific problem and told them they need to control stormwater beyond what was on the site today. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 43 Ms. Brock — No. I agree we cannot require them to do more than a zero discharge, but if they've actually proposed that... Mr. Walker — No. I don't believe they've proposed that. They did a stormwater management plan and I believe some of the calculations probably showed that the peak flows after development with the configuration of the spillways and so on slightly reduce the discharge from predevelopment, but that was not the intent. The intent was ... and it's...if you have a 100 -CFS discharge and you have to maintain a 100 -CFS discharge, your pond my reduce it to 98 -CFS so you reduced it slightly for the peak flows, but those are not ... those are empiric results, you know, because it is a simulated design storm that simulates what goes on. Okay? I do not believe it is appropriate to put that in the EIS. Chairperson Howe — Jon? Mr. Kanter — I believe that the document that Mr. Perkins referred to is not relevant to what we are talking about now because although a stormwater plan was submitted very early on in the process and it is in the file and Mr. Perkins reviewed it that may or may not be the plan that is associated now with the current development proposal and the DEIS that we are now considering. So I think we should go on public record by saying that the document that Mr. Perkins reviewed may or may not be actually part of the proposal. It was a document submitted by the applicant. It is not part of the environmental impact statement and it is subject to change as the EIS proceeds. Thank you very much. Chairperson Howe — Susan, was there anything else? Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Howe — Christine, you have been trying to say something? Ms. Balestra — Everyone else has said what I wanted to say except there were a couple of other points on the second page about what Mr. Perkins felt should be included in the DEIS and I just didn't know if the Board was going to talk about it. - Chairperson- Howe -- Actuall -y —I— have— a— question_about-the Rind—of material that is submitted like by email or hard copy. I guess I thought that they get a copy of that and they kind of have to respond to things or is it up to us to vet what we get by email or and make sure yes you better include that? Ms. Brock — It's up to the Board to look at all comments that come in whether they are made at the meeting or by email or by letter and decide if these are items that you want to address... Chairperson Howe — Chris, what points do you think we haven't covered yet? Ms. Balestra — Okay. The second page of Mahlon Perkins' letter notes that they feel the EIS stormwater management runoff section should contain a discussion of other similar PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 44 projects where stormwater management and runoff facilities similar to those proposed have been constructed and then should address their relative success in achieving the goal —blah, blah, blah. And also the DEIS should contain a discussion about how the proposed facilities will be maintained and how the maintenance will be guaranteed, in reference to discussion of the homeowners association and... Chairperson Howe - So those seem appropriate? Mr. Parks - The first one I would like to discuss just briefly ... the first one related to the success of and I'm not sure if this is to a similar project that was done on that particular slope of Cayuga Lake or whether we are just talking about similar projects in general that use this particular type of stormwater management. But in either event, that data is -not going-- to. -be available to:- unless it is publicly available information, there is no way for us to include that relative comparison other than to say that the engineers would design it in a way that complies the requirements of both the State and Town. Mr. Walker - The standard practices for stormwater management in the State are based on many, many actual applications of work and years of experience. So I would say that that is addressed already and I do not believe that that first paragraph on the second page needs to be put in. Chairperson Howe - And what about the maintenance? Mr. Walker - And the maintenance, I believe, our stormwater maintenance agreement that we have covers that. I mean he's concerned that okay a homeowner's association may dissolve, we have that same concern, so we will be putting protections on there.. but there is going to be a separate parcel if this is setup with individual lots. The way of looking at it, somebody is going to own the big parcel. Chairperson Howe - So we're ... I think we're saying...we are agreeing that it is going to be covered in other areas. Was there anything in the email from Joseph Scaglione that we haven't...? That's really specific to what needs to be in the scoping document. Ms. Balestra - Not so much. Those are more his thoughts than suggestions. -Board Member Erb - -He - raises - -- serious -concerns -about infrastructure and public services, but I felt that they were already in what we had proposed. Chairperson Howe - And the traffic we have talked about. Does it mentioned pedestrians at all in here and issues related to... Mr. Kanter - I hope so. It was supposed to ... yup and we talked about pedestrian connections to adjacent areas such as the hospital and things like that. Chairperson Howe - Do you see anything else in here that is valid to bring up in terms of the scoping document? Was there something else...? Ms. Balestra - That was it. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 45 Chairperson Howe — Anything else that we want to raise? Mr. Parks — And do you have a moment? We have... Chairperson Howe — Sure. Jim Bates My name is Jim Bates. I'm with Tim Miller Associates up in the Ukaine by Keystone. I'm an environmental consultant to help consult with this and I wanted to go back to the wildlife section that had been done just to make sure everybody is on the same page and the fieldwork gets done that the Town is looking for. I just don't want to come in ... (not audible)...wasn't done exactly what you were looking for. Board Member Erb — So you are on Page 6, sir? Mr. Bates — Yes. I am. Board Member Erb — Item 3? Mr. Bates — Actually ... I want to go to part 2 or item 2. It specifically states important habitat. Important can be defined many different ways by many different people and so what is important to a professional biologist may not be necessarily important to the Town and vice versa. So that's why I just want to kind of get is there a protocol that the Town's worked out with other applicants as to how they want their studies and what they've identified as these type of things. Chairperson Howe — I'm sure there isn't. Alternate Member Talty — That was a great question. Board Member Erb — We've had a couple different projects from Ithaca College that put it into the S1 to S5 or the G1 to G5 sort of classification. Ms. Balestra — Whether it's a state, federal or globally scarce, rare or... Board Member Erb — Yeah because there are some documentation there of how many sites that it refers to and that seemed like it was a sensible ... do you know of what I'm... Mr. Bates — Actually, that's not one that I am familiar with. There's so many different types of protocols that are available. Towns have a tendency to migrate towards one to another and so that was just my question to make sure that we don't submit something that the Town looks at and says I have no idea what we are looking at here. Chairperson Howe — Well, certainly looking at what was in the draft ... of the project that is still before us and it's a public document so you can go and see how that was addressed. That might give some ideas. Do you have other suggestions, staff? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 46 Mr. Kanter — You were mentioning the unique natural area description, which really covers the steeper slope part of the site not so much the flatter part, but... Mr. Bates — That was another question ... is, are we going to be studying the whole site or the site to be disturbed? Mr. Kanter — Well, I think you are characterizing the whole site, but focusing, obviously in more detail on the disturbed portion. Because obviously the clearing and disturbance of the upper portion could have some impacts downstream or downslope on the remaining habitat. So I think you want to talk about the interconnection. Mr. Bates — So you want general characteristics on the areas below the development, but you want a- more in -depth study on the areas where it is to be impacted. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. Mr. Parks — And then to the extent that the development is going to impact. Mr. Kanter — Yup. Mr. Bates — And the other question is, and it goes to number 3, is we use the word "any significant" and once again my question comes back is significant to be applied on the local level? It can be somebody's pet flower. It can be a chipmunk that somebody named Sue. I'm not joking. I've seen people name different things significant and I'm just trying to make sure that what I would go through is used...what I generally do is we get our stuff from Natural Heritage and Fish and Wildlife and then that is what we define as the areas that we are going to look at. Different towns pick different things because they have their own vistas and so on. So I want to make sure that... Mr. Kanter — One thing I would suggest is this idea of biological corridor and ability for wildlife to move from one area to another and I think actually one of the commentors did mention that as an issue, which I thought was pretty appropriate. That just looking at whether the disturbance and building of the new homes on the upper part of the site would in any way restrict the movement of wildlife across the site. And obviously the answer is yes, but how and by what means. Mr. Bates — Well, yes,. (not audible) ... critters going through there. Are deer one of the species that we are worried aren't going to be going through there or is it like a bog turtle or something that, you know, a specific item. Mr. Kanter — I don't think we are talking about will hurt deer's ability to get across. Mr. Bates — That's just what I'm ... just trying to make sure because I've done numerous of these and I've run into situations where we've done the studies and then come back to the town and nobody was on the same page. Just for the applicant's sake and the Town's sake and that is just what I was trying to get at is if you have a standard like, one of the things is biological field data forms. My standard form may not be the same PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 47 as the standard form that you have seen from another, you know, environmental guy. If you guys got ... I'm just trying to make sure... Chairperson Howe — I don't think that we have standards. Mr. Kanter — We don't really have standards. Alternate Member Talty — I would say communicate, communicate, communicate... Mr. Bates — The next question is who is going to be reviewing that portion of the document? Alternate Member Talty — Us. [laughter] Mr. Kanter — The entire Planning Board... because ultimately, you're absolutely right, the Planning Board has to determine whether what you submit will pass the adequacy test and so we do need to be as clear as possible about what we want. Alternate Member Talty — At the same time though, the Planning staff has a firm handle most of the time on what the Board is looking for based upon other precedent. So I would say communicate, communicate, communicate and don't wait until the end and go oh. Mr. Bates — Well, that's why we are sitting here right now. Chairperson Howe — And as I said, there might be examples from other recent projects that we could point you to, to give you some guidelines. Are you looking at something that is going to illuminate...? Ms. Balestra — I'm looking at the Tompkins County Unique Natural Area Inventory, which we often use when we look at ... when we review development proposals, often they refer to global, state and local rarity and scarcity for plants and animals, designations by the Nature Conservancy and the NY Natural Heritage Program —not all of these... - - Mr. Bates — The whole thing with local is it gets very tricky. Ms. Balestra — Well, the local designation is by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and Cornell Plantations. At least that is what they reference in the Unique Natural Area Inventory. �Ghairper-son- Howe - - -So- who_ would_ be_the_rigbt ....... if_he_starts_ having questions when he gets into this, would it be you Christine? Ms. Balestra — You could start with me. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 48 Mr. Bates — Okay...(not audible) ... when we get done here and we are looking study...(not audible) ... I mean we, as you said could do year round... there's windows for almost every type of animal and flora and fauna out there, Witch Hazel blooming in February. So I'm trying to just get a handle on is the Town looking for 3 month studies, so many days on the site, are they looking for and when it says quantity. Quantity is very tricky item. It's like nailing the squirrels to trees to count them. Population dynamics is a very moving target and so ... as you can tell I do quite a few of these. Mr. Walker — You don't tag all the squirrels and chipmunks? Mr. Bates — You know, I like to let the hunters go through ahead of me but... - -Board - Member= Hoffmann =One- other comment; the -Town also has a Conservation Board and the Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation Board would most likely look at the submissions for this project and comment on it. Mr. Kanter — Do you have any feeling ahead of time of what they would be looking at in particular? I mean is there anything on this... Board Member Hoffmann — No, but... Mr. Kanter — No. I'm just wondering whether there is anything on this particular site that has been flagged in the past that would be an indicator of something to look at. Board Member Hoffmann — There is an awareness of this being a sensitive area as far as nature and recognition that this is a good thing that is happening that part of the parcel is being preserved, but they might have specific comments about what you find as far as plant life. Mr. Bates — I understand that. What I'm trying to not have occur is us to go and do the studies and then come back and say. ..(not audible)...but go back next spring and do something different. It becomes very, very time ... and effective for that to occur. Board Member Erb — Is it possible that there has been a previous inventory on the hillside? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, Tompkins County has done an inventory of the... Board Member Erb — I would start with that as a base and to the extent that anything looked unique threatened, endangered, I'd be interested in you looking for those again. The things that our chairperson has referred to some other existing projects that are public record and they do explicitly refer to categories under the Natural Heritage program of NYSDEC and so we have been looking at things under cross referencing --that sort -of- designation -also— And -so -I- feel- comfortable - along- those - lines. Chairperson Howe — I don't think you are going to get a detailed list from us. We are suggesting that there are some other examples to look at if you work with Christine - -- PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 49 she can give you guidance and this unique natural area will be a guide as well. Is there anything else? Mr. Bates - No. Chairperson Howe - Thank you. So what we have to decide is we have a proposed resolution before us and whether...l'm looking to Jonathan and Susan to help me here and whether we feel that the kind of comments we talked about tonight or the proposed changes that we've talked about are fairly clear and if they are, I think we could feel comfortable moving forward on this resolution. Board Member Hoffmann - On the assumption that the changes we have talked about -- will -b-e made. -- - -- - - - Chairperson Howe - Right forward on the resolution? Alternate Member Talty - I do. Did everyone hear? Do we feel comfortable moving Board Member Erb - Yeah. With the understanding that what we've talked about is going to be incorporated. Chairperson Howe - And do we have a sense of what changes? Ms. Brock indicates yes. Chairperson Howe - Why don't we go through some changes and... Ms. Brock - You want to go through them? Now? Chairperson Howe - I'm talking about for the resolution. Mr. Kanter - You probably want to add something referencing the changes. Ms. Brock - Number 7 in the whereas clauses, Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on February 5, 2008 reviewed and revised the draft scoping document. The rest of that can remain the same. Oh, I'm sorry... Board Member Erb - Do you want to shift it down into 8? Ms. Brock - No. We need a new 9 because 8 just really deals with receiving the comments. I think 9 can be the same as 7, but with today's date March 18th. Let me read it. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on March 18, 2008 reviewed and - revised -- the -draft scoping- document - and- .- ::I'm- not - sure- we_need -.any of the rest of it, right? Because the rest is dealt with in the resolved clause. Board Member Erb - So at 8, at the end, do we take off the period and do one of those comma ands? PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 50 Mr. Kanter— Okay. Ms. Brock — And then the first resolved clause needs to be deleted because that is dealing with proceeding to a public scoping process and you have just done that. So we would have it just read now therefore be it resolved and go immediately to the last resolved clause. That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts the above referenced draft scoping document, revised March 18, 2008, as the final scoping document and the rest of that resolved clause can remain the same. Board Member Erb — I'll move it. Chairperson Howe - Hollis. Board Member Conneman -- I'll second. Chairperson Howe — George seconds. I feel like we should wait for Kevin to vote. Board Member Erb — Yes. Mr. Kanter — That's a good idea. Board Member Erb — Wait. He's just standing right here. He's excited. Chairperson Howe — You get to vote. Alternate Member Talty — Now I know how you felt. Board Member Erb — Yes. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor of the resolution say aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Howe — Unanimous. Thank you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -026 SEQR - Acceptance of Final Scoping Document Holochuck Homes Subdivision Tax Parcel No's. 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 4-38, and 26 -4 -39 NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard) Town of Ithaca Planning Board, March 18, 2008 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by George Coneman. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 51 WHEREAS. 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting on December 18, 2007, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision (PB Resolution No. 2007- 138) located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25- 241.21 264-371 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review becaus more than 30 residential units that will owned utilities, and Subdivision Approval by the Planning State Environmental Quality Review Act, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding e the proposal involves construction of be connected to community or publicly 3. A letter from Schlather, Geldenhuys, Stumbar, and Salk, dated December 3, 2007, was received, in which the attorney for the applicant stated ... "the Members of Holochuck Homes, LLC are all in agreement that there is the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact that may arise as a result of the proposed project. As a result, we are in agreement that a positive determination of environmental significance by the Town Planning Board is warranted." A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, was submitted by the applicant for the above- described action, and 4. The Planning Board, having- reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Holochuck Homes, LLC, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on December 18, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, --confirmed -that a —Draft E- nvironmental-- Impact Statement -- (.EIS)- will be prepared, and PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 52 5. Holochuck Homes, LLC, and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have agreed that a public scoping process would be initiated to determine the scope and content of the DEIS, and 6. Keystone Associates, LLC, on behalf of Holochuck Homes, LLC, has submitted a Draft Scoping Document for the Board's consideration, and 7. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, on February 5, 2008, reviewed the Draft Scoping Document and determined that the Draft Scoping Document for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, with revisions discussed at that meeting, was adequate to proceed with a public scoping process, and 8. The Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on March 18, 2008, to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public, and 9. The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, on March 18, 2008, reviewed and revised the Draft Scoping Document. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts the above - referenced Draft Scoping Document, revised on March 18, 2008 as the Final Scoping Document, and determines that said document is adequate to define the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision development. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Hoffman, Erb and Talty Nays: None Absent: Wilcox, Thayer and Riha The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Kanter — Next step's we finalize the scoping document based on what we did tonight with the new date and then we distribute a notice that the scoping document has been completed and that the applicant will be preparing the environmental impact statement. Other Business Mr. Kanter reported that the Town has received copies of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan final report. Copies are available for Board members. Brief discussion ensued regarding speed bumps /inhibitors. PB 3 -18 -08 Pg. 53 The Board discussed changing the date of the April 15th Planning Board meeting to April 22nd and board member availability. Mr. Kanter gave an overview of the April 1St agenda. Minutes ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 027 Minutes of March 4, 2008 Town of Ithaca Planning Board -March 18, 2008 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from March 4, 20089 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 March 4, 2008. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, and Erb Nays: None Abstained: Talty Absent: Wilcox, Thayer and Riha The motion was carried. Adjournment Chairpers P Howe adjourned the- meeting at 9:45p.m. 1 Res Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 18, 2008 AGENDA :00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). :05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Levine Buildings Demolition, 118 Levine Cir. :05 P.M. PUBLIC NEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Levine Lab buildings located at 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61- 1 -7.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves completely removing the existing Levine Lab and seven accessory structures along with associated pavement and utilities. The,site will be filled and graded to match the surrounding area and will be seeded as lawn. There are no plans for new construction or development at this time. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Shane Trask, Project Coordinator, Agent. :15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Temporary Metrological Tower, Between King Road East and the Ithaca College Campus. :15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Temporary Metrological Tower located approximately 1,900 feet north of King Road East between King Road East and the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -4, Conservation Zone. The project involves clearing approximately 0.8 acres of vegetation for the construction of a +/- 164 foot high metrological tower. The tower will be used to collect data such as wind speed, wind direction, and temperature for a maximum period of 12 months. The study is to determine the feasibility of installing a wind turbine on the Ithaca College owned lands in the future. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President for Facilities, Agent. :45 P.M. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: The purpose of the Public Scoping Meeting is to consider public comments on the Draft Scoping Document (dated January 28, 2008) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26-4- 37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106+/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Copies of the Draft Scoping Document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (call (607- 273 - 1747), or on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.n.uus_. The Planning Board may also consider approval of the Draft Scoping Document as the Final Scoping Document. 7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: February 19, 2008 and March 4, 2008. 9, Other Business: 10. 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 18, 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 18, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Levine Lab buildings located at 118 Levine Circle (off Hungerford Hill Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61- 1 -7.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The _proposal involves completely removing the existing Levine Lab and seven accessory structures along with associated pavement and utilities. The site will be filled and graded to match the surrounding area and will be seeded as lawn. There are no plans for new construction or development at this time. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Shane Trask, Project Coordinator, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Temporary Metrological Tower located approximately. 1,900 feet north of King Road East between King Road East and the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -4, Conservation Zone. The project involves clearing approximately 0.8 acres of vegetation for the construction of a +/- 164 foot high metrological tower. The tower will be used to collect data such as wind speed, wind direction, and temperature for a maximum period of 12 months. The study is to determine the feasibility of installing a wind turbine on the Ithaca College owned lands in the future. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President for Facilities, Agent, Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, March 10, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Tuesday, March 18, 2008 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Scoping Meeting, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, at the following time and on the following matter: 7:45pm The purpose of the Public Scoping Meeting is to consider public comments on the Draft Scoping Document (dated January 28, 2008) for the Draft. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26- 4-38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Copies of the Draft Scoping Document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (call (607- 273 - 1747), or on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.nyus. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons who are interested in commenting on this matter. 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 scoping meeting. Written comments on the Draft Scoping Document will also be accepted through 4:00pm on March 18, 20080 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: February 29, 2008 Publish: March 3, 2008 Monday r March•3 r, 2008 j THE ITHACA JOURNAL' I ..t Y.. _ TOWN OF" ITHACA , 'PLANNING BOARD-. NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ' = Tuesday; Mo►ch 18, •008 , By. direction of the Chair person`:'",of•" the ; -.Tlanning GIVEN that a Public's ping `Meeting, ; :pursuanfi NYCRR. Part 617; also vii as` the New York's i.Environmental. Quali= eview Act,.dnd .Town; thaca . Code, Chapter: Environmental _Quali- iwn of; `Ithaca 'on Tues -t 3y.=-March- :18, 2008; .at! 15 North'. Tioogga, Street;; idea, NY; at..'e follow -' g,.time and. on -the follow -; gg matter: - 7:45Pm The purpose the -'- Public% coping.' leeting is to consider PPub comments Jon the Draft: :oiling Document ;fI dated muary;'28,- `2008)'or +then iaween' `NYS Route 96 turumonsbur g, ,Roaif) and �NYS Route'. a 891 (faughaiinock Boulevard) Mown of:lthaco "Tax Parcel; fNo s'"2433.2;' 2515 1 '!FA hcanh David,MrParks 25-241.2 26 4 37 26,4 - ( PP 38 and 26-439 Low'.Esgg Agent :Copies of the Density- Residential Zone, �,Dra Scopmg" Document' YWclium° Density,:- ensr `Residen ore available at the =Town+ 'tial Zone; and Conserva of Ithaca -Town Hall,- 215; 'flon =Zone The proposal m; -N(c rth Tioga Street; Ithaca, volves:Ahe construction of-(;NY =T4850 (call (607 - 273 1747),' or on the' Town s 106 + /:'town •.home type websde'pt units in a clustered neigh borhood,dey w wn rthac6:. n us e .. ' two entrances proposed ;from' NYS;Route 96 Said Planning Board will y(Trumonsburg Road). The at said., time ..and : said )'development wil_I -;$e con :Place hear all' persons centrated onAe west side who are.intereited in com- rof, the " ro closest to mentmg":4 on this matter. P �m � 'Personsr.ma a ar. lb NYS Route 96,' Toned low Y PPe Y Wrid Medwm :' Residential;' ogent or: in person:. Indi re with mo than 'half,.of the . viduals;; with_ ._ visual' `eastern .portion of the ,impairments hearing, property; 1mainly. zoned impairments or "•other "spe cral needs; will,be: rovid- EConservatron - remammg" ;P tundeveloped The New ed wrlhr assistance as' nec- York State Office- of Parks, . essary upon request. Per -' Recreation' ond'Histonc: sons desiring assistance Preservation proposes to I must make such -a request acquire..most of the eastern J'not less han 48 hours pri;; of the " ro: r�^ or to the:time of the. public portion P„ Peat - - -" -- and Trail Holochuck `•bcopmg! Document will al- mes LLC ``Owner/ I so be accepted through i ;4'00 m'i on March'-18, 2008 r i! 273 174; Dated :: feet 29, 2008 i Publish - `4.15 N'a 1 Wednesday, March 12, 2008 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN °OF RHACA `: y is �PLANNING'BOARD <•,, - ,NOTICE OF 1PUBUC HEARING- + f - wTuesda c, 'March 18,'2008 1'r, ion of the::Chaii -z (person "of the?-Plammngg s oard; NOTICE -IS B'Y GIVEN that Public I Heanngs will be'.held.by the:Planning= 'Hoar& of'the i Town -:of Ithaca on Tues= i d , March it�15'IJorih Tioga- Street flthacaS,N.Y at the. follow Ping hmes,' and on. the fol lowmarmatters: - Site Idings` ine, °C 'Hill: CKesiaennai /one: .,i ne pw -n posal involves completely 4, removing =the existing Lev me Lab•ond seven acces'6 sory- structures; along -with associated•' pavement and'i 4utili)ies.- The site'will ,be fill i! tt led "-and - groded't:to .match ; the 'surrounding 'area and " "� ,will be- "seedq ' .'as � awn. r .There;are'no, plan "s for new+ construction : oi. develop = merit at this time. 'Cornelll University, Owner' 'Appli,." rant; }Shane,; Trask; Project Coordinator, Agent.. ,7:15`'P,M. Cohsrdera t'ion +of,P•relimina y and' F•i -i �nal Site Plan Appproval and' Spe6al;Permit, for ".the "pro- posed: Ithaca Colleegge Tem ='l porary Metrological;Tower i located approximajely i 1;900; `feet n, h;.of; in Road ;East ••between -King i Road _-East:; and' - -the dth6ca ) 1011 Campus, -. 0 r ,;of i Ithaca 'Tax Parcel .No: 43 1-4`,• Conservation, , «Zone:;l ihe'project involves6"clear -i , mg , opproximately" : 0.81 dries ol: vegetation' for" the , construction of a = +/- :164'; foot, high , metroloog-ieal tow erb rthe dtower•will'�be•:' used ; to `'collect'-'daia;+sucfi% _as'! wind �- speed, ';wind direc- tion;':and temperature fora', maximum period. 'of 12` months. .-The; study is to. de =, terrnine the feasibility of.in-;_ - stalling, a wind. iurbine-on-j tfie, Ithaca' College owned .lands in' °tHe- future. 'Ithaca i College; _Owner / Appli- :cant; °Richord Couture, As sociate,Vice- President for; Facilities, Agenis . Said Planning Board will I at; said Mime and said I place hear all persons: in support of'.such:,�matter or £robfectiohs thereto. :Per -+ sons -maq appear " agent 'or. in person..,Indmduais s with ;-visual- °`impairments, , hearing` Jiro irr eenh - "or t other, special -needs; willf be-" prov with assis- tance as n, essa u n ireauest'^ Peisohs- c. esrrr assistance must make such 4o reguestiiotI', h, an: 48, ours prior "to the `time of j ?thepubI earing -':' (,Jonathan Kanter, AICP i ;Director of Planning 273 1747 r Daiedd` Monday. -March 10, 2008 f Publish: Wednesday, j `;March'121 2008 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC The Ithaca JOURNAL State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.: Utz being duly sworn, deposes and says that she /he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid and that she /he is Clerk 1. 1 of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca aforesaid and that a notice of which the annexed is a true copy was published in said paper 3IIalo8 and that the first publication of said notice was on the } �' day of MCA VC aoos V Subscribed and sworn to before me this j day of Notary Public JEAN FORD Notary Public. State of New York No.4654410 Qualified in Tompkins County) Commission Expires May 31, 201E IL;S c i5 I t MAR 1 8 200& f r PI Af�i`l °': , Ltit l'i'i!J. 6- Ih.rER kTION i, ;TOWN AF ;ITHACA PLANNING'BOARD ' = .NOTICE OF. ' . ;,PUBLIC HEARING h <March`.18, 2008 By -direction oft the Chair. person of " -the 'Planning board NOTICE .IS :'HERE BY•,; gsG1VEN '` =thah.; :Public Hearin, "will ;, be held; by . ,the Plonning: $oard'of the xTown` of Ithaca on;Tues- day, Marche 18,.2008;. nat-22'15 North'Tioogga'Street;?' Ithaca' N:Y,' the'follow- :ing .purer ond on the `fol -, lowingg matters: (7505 P.M:'"Considera -; tion,a Preliminary ' and -'fi- n'aI'Site Plan ^Approval! for. '` &-p proposed.'demoliti6n- aF' h6e ;Cornell- University' Lev.! )r new ,I .vcinn. wner / 'Appli- F�osk, Project kgeni. ; Cops!dera- inary -,and .:fi kpproval� and toad East - between King. Zoad East and the dth6ca 'ollege:Cpmpus> T own of thiica PTdx° Parcel' No:? 43= ;t; Conserv6tion .'Zone% the "projed;'involves clear = rig a proi!mately acres of vegetation for: the ,onstiuction' Zif ±%= =T64;' foot high ~metrolooggical- tow eR', -,The tower :wi fbe` used Z,, ,collect•' data.s such: -as' wind .speed : wind - direr-". lion; and temperature -for a' maximum,-.- period . of 1:12 months The.study is to,de -;' (ermine the feasibilitykof in stalling ;aEwind turbine--on- the Ithaca`College -owned . lands, m the future :Iffiaco College, .Owner/ .'Appli _;' ities; Agent.:' <r _ id ni 'Planng B66 rd, w�ll1l aid tune and, said jl hearti all persons m 1 art of; such matter, or coons whereto � <<Per i ' may appear byagent , r, person. �.- lndrviduals . visual':. impairments mg„;.Impairments w; or special needs; ":will: request. xersons ;desiring . ssistance must make 'a''request`not less than 48 'hours prior to ,the' "time' of c `• the public_ hearing. , Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street March 18, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You hoaevo� (�rwlb Djoao.' Li m -eTo J cobs 7 CV1 u +3 Address 13 � v N C (LL �)W4n u �?/�- � — c6`6 1�\JSk(, r)(\Lx4L 6L47) �C4 raw q to u iq rteeu, �F° Icy Name Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street March 18, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE-SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You Address 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 18 2008 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Siam Board — 215 North Tio ag_Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication March 10, 2008 March 12, 2008 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12`h day of March 2008. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20