Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-08-05FILE�U DATE -[)ff�D v PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF ITHACA 21 North Tioga Street August 5, 2008 Present: Rod Howe, Chair; Members: George Conneman, Larry Thayer, . A Susan Rjha, Kevin Talty, Hollis Erb and Fred Wilcox Staff: Daniel Walker, Town Engineers Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Chris Balestra, Planner; Guy Krogh, Attorney for the Town, Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Others: Rick Couture, Ithaca College; David Herrick, TG Miller; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf ; Dean Robinson and Jacob Mejsler, Ithaca (for ERUV); Joel Harlan, Newfield Chairperson Howe opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Persons to be heard There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Howe announced the first agenda item at 7:02 p:m. SEAR and Public Hearings Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Remote Parking proiect as part of Phase 1A of the Ithaca Colleae Athletics and Events Cpntpr Project, located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 41- 1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include new plantings in the median island at the Danbv Road entrance to the College, relocation of the existing campus directory that is located just south of the new "F" Lot, the addition of a vehicular pull -out along the Danbv Road entrance, and a new visitor booth and widened entrance at the "throat" of the "F" Lot extension. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant, Richard Couture and Peter Tmwhridnp onpn +c David Herrick, TG Miller; Rick Couture, Ithaca College, Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf Mr. Herrick — I thought it would be helpful to put this proposed modification into context with respect to the work that is presently ongoing on the campus. The F -Lot extension which used to be the former tennis courts at the Danby Road entrance was part of your original preliminary and final site plan consideration earlier this year and it then came to our attention that the College had more definitive plans for how they could use that new F -Lot extension and it led to the modification that you have before you tonight. With respect to the physical limits of F -Lot extension as you originally approved it, all we've done is to add a 6 -foot wide island in the entrance drive to that parking lot, and that will accommodate the installation of a manned visitors' booth so there will be somebody during certain hours of the day there that can direct people to use the lot and then give them direction across the balance of campus. There are some other additional FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 2 modifications that are being proposed, and I'll let Peter Trowbridge speak to what those are within the vicinity of the F -Lot. But again, it's very simplistic what has been done within the F -Lot extension itself by adding the 6 feet. Rick couture was going to explain to you the genesis for this new visitor lot. Mr. Couture — Just to follow -up a little bit about what David said; As we took a look at that F parking lot, which was the former tennis courts, and tried to vision, in conjunction with the Gateway Building, which is going to be our main Welcoming administration building, and looking at the current location of our visitor parking lot, which is now down by the Abbott's Field and the Abbott's Field extension, it just made a lot of sense intuitively to us to try and see if we could get that F -Lot turned into a visitor parking lot because we envision most people, as you go, will be coming in through the 9613- Danby Road entrance and part of what Peter is going to talk about is: we'd like to get permission to put a pull -off along the main entrance to the College with the College map and kiosk that we want to move from where the tennis courts used to be. And then it just made a lot of sense to us that people would view that map, go up the road a little bit, make a right -hand turn and go into the visitor parking lot so they could go into the Gateway Building which is going to be where most folks, from Admissions, the main Administration will be, and where folks will get a lot of information. So it just made sense to us to try and make that our visitor parking lot and that's why we're coming in with the proposal that we have in front of you tonight. So now I think Peter is going to talk a little bit about some of the changes that are happening as part of this proposal: Mr. Trowbridge — Thanks Rick. We're going to step through these drawings just the way you have them in your packet, so they're understandable. As David Herrick said, this is the parking lot that you previously approved. The second drawing then demonstrates the additional improvements. Primarily to hardscape, then we will talk about landscape. So there are really three pieces that you heard. There is a visitor traffic booth, the pull -off and directory and some new landscaping in the island at the entrance. So the second drawing in your packet, what you're seeing really are the difference between what you approved previously and what we are bringing before you tonight. Again, as David said, there's about 6400t width change in the throat to the parking lot, otherwise the parking lot is identical to what was previously approved. However, as most of you know if you've driven up, there's currently a directory out in this location and it's really not very functional. You have to know where it is in order to stop there and get way- finding and orientation. So we felt it made a lot more sense as you were coming in off Danby Road, it would be right there. There is a shoulder, as you know, to that ingress into the Campus so we really are not grading out a big area. What we are doing is a part of this ... there's a concrete lined swale. We will be taking that out and actually culvertizing it so the reality is, there is no landscape at that entrance. What is now a stretch of concrete gutter, we will be replacing that and landscaping that over. There will be a pull -out for about 4 or 5 cars, not that we expect that many. At that location the existing directory is then moved back. So someone could get oriented before they get on Campus. There will be a sign, too, for visitors to direct them to the parking lot and FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 3 then as David said, there will be a personed booth at that location so someone during business hours could get better direction. If someone did go to the lot and wanted to walk back to the directory, we've provided a walkway, so if they drove by it, parked, they could walk back to the directory and get orientation. We did add a small stretch of sidewalk on the southeast side of the circle and what that allows us to do is have a continuous sidewalk between the sidewalks associated with the F -Lot extension and the new sidewalks that are going in with the Gateway Building, the Administration and Admissions Building. So there is a continuous walkway all the way to the new entrance to the Gateway Building by adding this additional stretch of walkway around the circle. So, again, these are the two primary improvements that you see in this plan... Chairperson Howe — Peter, quick question; since you said people may walk back to the sign, will the directory be on both sides? Mr. Trowbridge — No, the walkway takes them to the front, so you actually walk around. There is the third drawing ... we provided shows you a drawing of how that would work. So you can.., you would walk on this walkway and then stand in the same orientation that somebody would if they got out of their car to see the directory. And as you know, the Ithaca College directory is there. They are electrified so they should be able to be seen all hours of the day. Otherwise, lighting stays the same, curbing, paving in the lot are all identical. We did provide a grading plan that's not terrible important other than to know that everything drains positively and we have appropriate topography7 in the area. The next drawing demonstrates additional landscaping, and as most of you know, a lot of the black pine all across New York State, but in particular at Ithaca College, most of the evergreens were Austrian Pine and they all got Deplodia and have subsequently disappeared. The College has put some new evergreens in but they are pretty spare. So the idea is to create a much more all- season display at the entrance to Ithaca College which would be great. We are trying to choose a lot of plants that are deer resistant and also, because we culvertized a part of that gated swale, we are able to get more landscaping associated with the directory and we did add a few more shade trees associated with the parking lot in addition to the planting in the center of the lot and the bio- swale. So we get a little bit more shade from the south and over all, I think it just gives a better impression from the entrance. We do have a photograph of what the directory currently is and that's a relocated directory. While we don't have specific architecturals of the visitor booth, it would be very similar to the current visitor booth at the visitor lot as it now exists. So I think that's a good overall impression of what we are intending to do. Board Member Wilcox — The existing visitor booth over by the practice field, will that be removed? Mr. Couture — There's no need for us to actually move (inaudible) ... student parking lot. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg, 4 Board Member Thayer - If a visitor misses the directory for some reason, you're going to have a sign so he doesn't drive around the circle, that he turns right there? Mr. Trowbridge Yes, we'll have a sign to the visitor parking lot, so if someone drives by the directory, they'll still be directed, via signage, to the visitor lot. And again, as I think Rick said, it's pretty intuitive, it's the first parking area that you would come to on Campus versus the current visitors lot which is a bit remote. This is really where people want to park, especially if they're going to Central Administration or Admissions, which are probably the biggest group of onetime visitors to Campus that may not know where they're going. Board Member Conneman — I applaud you for having a convenient place to park. There are some great universities that don't have that and there are some other universities that do that very well. I always remember being in Arkansas one time and they had it and I thought, "man, this is good." Mr. Trowbridge — Yeah, and they probably don't charge at Ithaca College either to get on Campus. Bantering and laughing going on, not audible. Chairperson Howe — Any other questions? Board Member Talty — I'd like to say that it's great that you're tying in the sidewalks. Mr. Trowbridge — Yeah, and we will have dropped curbs again. I think there are a lot of people, sometimes, especially in Administration, if they're coming to make a presentation, many people bring pull - behind LCD's and laptops and such so even though they may not have disabilities, there's a lot of real traffic that goes between the visitor lot and central administration. Chairperson Howe — I assume you've seen a copy of the proposed resolution, ,there is a condition "submission of an updated SWPPP." Mr. Trowbridge — David can speak to that, but I believe David provided that information today, it's just probably late getting to the Board. Mr. Smith — The SWPPP part of it was provided today, I think the erosion and sedimentation control plan still needs to be provided. Mr. Trowbridge — That's right. Mr. Herrick — Details during construction for temporary controls, right. Mr. Walker — It's not much different than the original disturbance, so.. we'll be fine with that. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 5 Chairperson Howe — I think before we do SEQR, we'll just open it up to the public and do them together. If you want to have a seat... We will open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. on the consideration of Preliminary and Final site plan approval for the modifications for the remote parking. Is there anyone who would like to address us on that issue, if you would please come forward. Joel Harlan, Newfield Anything is an improvement for this. I wish they'd get going and get it started on, this project, but, there's time to get down to the final T, but, anything, if they could improve it more better to satisfy you, I'm all out for it. What's bad is when I see these colleges getting 150 - 200 -300 thousand square foot buildings, what get's me is they're downsizing Walmart to... Chairperson Howe — Do you have any other comments for this... Mr. Harlan — you know what I mean. Its local people that need stuff and these college kids get everything... Chairperson Howe tries to keep Mr. Harlan on topic and thanks him for his comments. Chairperson Howe — We will close the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Is there a motion on the ... and since we are down one member, Kevin will be a full voting member tonight. Hollis and Susan ... all those in favor... unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2008 - 065 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Ithaca College F -Lot Extension Modifications Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 5, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include new plantings in the median island at the Danby Road entrance to the College, relocation of the existing campus directory that is located just south of the new "F" Lot, the addition of a vehicular pull -out along the Danby Road entrance, and a new visitor FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 6 booth and widened entrance at the "throat" of the "F" Lot extension. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture and Peter Trowbridge, Agents, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the Remote Parking project (including F -Lot) as part of the Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project on May 20, 2008, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 4. The Planning Board, on August 5, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Layout Plan" (L201), "Detailed Layout Plan" (L202), "Grading Plan" (L301), and Planting Plan & Details" (L401), dated 7/7/08, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf and T.G. Miller P.C., and other application materials, and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Thayer, Conneman, Riha, Talty, Erb and Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe .- Are there any changes to the proposed resolution? We don't need to change anything even though you saw some material today? Just leave it as it is? Mr. Smith — Yes, it's fine. Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the resolution? Board Member Wilcox — For preliminary and final and special permit? Chairperson Howe — Yes. Board Member Wilcox — So moved. Chairperson Howe — Seconded by George you. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 7 All those in favor ... it's unanimous. Thank ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 an 066 Preliminary and Final Site Plan $ Special Permit Ithaca College F -Lot Extension Modifications Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 5, 2008 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include new plantings in the median island at the Danby Road entrance to the College, relocation of the existing campus directory that is located just south of the new "F" Lot, the addition of a vehicular pull -out along the Danby Road entrance, and a new visitor booth and widened entrance at the "throat" of the "F" Lot extension. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture and Peter Trowbridge, Agents, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the Remote Parking project (including F -Lot) as part of the Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project on May 20, 2008, and 3. 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 August 5, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as . adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 41 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 5, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Layout Plan" (L201), "Detailed Layout Plan" (L202), "Grading Plan" (L301), and "Planting Plan & Details" (L401), dated 7/7/08, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf and T.G. Miller P.C., and other application materials, and FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 8 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Ithaca College F -Lot Extension project finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsection A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Ithaca College F -Lot Extension project, as shown on the drawings titled "Layout Plan" (L201), "Detailed Layout Plan" (L202), "Grading Plan" (L301), and "Planting Plan & Details" (L401), dated 7/7/08, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf and T.G. Miller P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and b. submission of an updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans reflecting the proposed changes, for review and approval of the Town's Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and c. submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s), or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town, prior to issuance of a building permit. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Thayer, Conneman, Riha, Talty, Erb and Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 9 PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the construction of an ERUV (symbolic fence) by the Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University. The construction of the ERUV involves the vertical attachment of lechis (plastic poles) to the side of approximately 75 utility poles in the Town of Ithaca Utility poles are owned by NYSEG and Verizon Within the Town of Ithaca the ERUV route is approximately two miles in length and would run along Pleasant Grove Road, Forest Home Drive Caldwell Road, Dryden Road, Pine Tree Road, and Maple Avenue. Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University Applicant: Rabbi Jason Leib and Dean Robinson, Agents. Dean Robinson and Jacob Meisler, Agents, Center for Jewish Living Chairperson Howe — Christine, I assumed you learned a lot putting this together and I am sure we are going to have questions. Is there a presentation from anyone this evening? I just want to say that we are not here to decide whether we think the correct determination was made whether these were signs or not. We are to view these basically that they are signs. So we are here to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board whether we would ... you see the resolution is very straight forward... "Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends the ZBA approve the request for sign variances for the vertical placement of the poles." Do you want to say something Fred? Board Member Wilcox — Oh yeah. First of all, that's a resolution that's drafted for our convenience. (others- Right). I think it is well within this Board's jurisdiction to, for example, determine, excuse me, to recommend to the ZBA that it is not a sign. It think that's a perfectly reasonable determination for this Board to make. Board Member Thayer — We can make the recommendation. Board Member Wilcox — Anything we do is a recommendation because it's the ZBA. I mean, just because we have a drafted resolution that says XYZ, doesn't mean we have to do that. Chairperson Howe — I stand corrected. Mr. Krogh — You can make that recommendation, but once the Code Office makes an interpretation of the zoning law, this Board in particular, is generally bound by it and it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the ZBA to review that. But any Board, Town Board, anyone in the Code Office can provide recommendations to make sure there's coordinated information so the ZBA has all the input. Board Member Wilcox — The ZBA will have to make a determination. One, that these are signs, and if they are, to either grant or not grant the variance. They could make the determination that they aren't signs and therefore allowed. Since we are only making a recommendation to the ZBA and not a determination, we could, we could conceivable recommend that the ZBA consider them not to be signs, right? Right Guy? FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 10 Mr. Krogh — You could. If you did, I basically would say, I would add to a resolution where you're addressing the ultimate issue of the ZBA that the ZBA is not to consider it material or as evidence, but can take into account the opinion of various... Board Member Wilcox — Others. Right. Okay. Chairperson Howe — Now that we have that ... do you have a brief presentation? And then Christine is also...we can ask questions of Christine for clarification, but, please, introduce yourselves. Mr. Robison — I am one of the agents acting on behalf of the Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University. This is Jacob Meisler. I should convey also apologies on behalf of Rabbi Leib, he has been compelled to go to Chicago this evening, so he can't be here. Probably the submission that we made is fairly comprehensive and I don't really see any need to reiterate the entire detail on this issue. I gather most people have already read it. So it is probably easier to address questions. Suffice it to say that (inaudible) would probably welcome a recommendation that the Eruv lechis, the plastic poles that we intend to attach to utility poles aren't signs because it seems it would make it easier for everybody, especially with regard to setting precedents to this sort of business that was discussed in the Memo. Having said that, we will be happy with either resolution that allows us to start construction of the project. As I understand it, as you mentioned, this committee is essentially a gatekeeper for the ZBA with regard to the sign law. Chairperson Howe — Yeah, gatekeeper might not be the right word but we certainly are the ones that make recommendations. Board Member Wilcox — Part of the bureaucratic nightmare of having to go to two Boards. Mr. Robinson — So I think that I ... I at least hope that the diagrams and details that we provided to you with regard to exactly what we are attaching to the poles was clear. If you'd like, I actually have some samples I can give to you if you would like to see... Chairperson Howe — We always like that. Mr. Robinson — Essentially what we each of 80 poles oriented so that they to form a set of symbolic doorframe called an "Eruv". So I suppose I shop very, very strange and bizarre project thankful for your... are attaching is electrical conduit to the side of sit underneath wires on the poles and the idea is which together form this magical, virtual fence ild thank you for all bearing with what must seem that we are attempting to build, and we are very Chairperson Howe — We don't view it that way at all. I mean, interesting did not mean to convey strange. Mr. Robinson — Strange in the (inaudible) foreignness. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg, 11 Board Member Erb — Excuse me. That's actually a piece of black and the material provided, I'm reading a page that says that grey will be used. Mr. Robinson — I probably should have added the proviso like they have on children's toys, that "colors may vary ". Verizon and NYSEG, we've contracts now with Verizon and they have fairly strict provisions on what you can and can't put on the poles and what needs to be on the poles, and what doesn't. I think they are generally happy with either grey or black and it will ultimately be up to the contractor which materials he uses. I suspect he may end up going with the black, but it's ... If you have a preference... It will depend on what he can get in terms of supply. Board Member Erb — But it's basically going to be one of these two colors? Mr. Robinson — Yeah. Board Member Riha — Is there some reason it couldn't be an identical color to the pole? Mr. Robinson — Well, I suppose it's really just restricted with what's commonly available in terms of common electrical supplies. So I don't know if they supply that type of conduit in a wood type shade. If it is available I have no objections to doing that, but I think that, from what I understand, I think Verizon would prefer it to be black or grey mainly because they also inspect it afterwards to make sure it adheres to their regulations. Chairperson Howe — And how long are they? Mr. Robinson — So there are two sizes. At minimum, they will be 40" high and in some cases we, for various technical reasons, the pole has to sit underneath the wire in a vertical sense, so some cases where utility poles are bent, it's necessary to put the tubing up a little bit higher to guarantee that it sits underneath. So in that case, I think it will be higher. I think that Verizon requires that. it be no more than 12" or something like that, above the lowest wire on the pole. Board Member Thayer — Are you going to put them up with like a c -clamp or how are you going to attach them? And will it be the same color as the plastic? Mr. Robinson — Uhmmm ... I believe the attachments are probably just going to be a metal flange of some type. Whatever the standard for attachment for that type of material. I believe it's actually specified by... Board Member Talty — They're probably galvanized, aren't they? Mr. Robinson Yeah, it will be galvanized. Board Member Wilcox — I assume they would have to meet either NYSEG or Verizon regulations and... Mr. Robinson — Right. Yeah. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg, 12 Chairperson Howe — For what it's worth, I actually don't view them as signs, but... Board Member Riha — Oh I do. I do see them as signs, but, I mean, they either have to be signs or fences.... Board Member Erb — I view them as fence posts, frankly... Board Member Riha — Well, then that seems like it gets even more complicated, so...l think the least.. ,they're either signs or fences... Chairperson Howe — I don't think they're either. Board Member Riha — Well, I mean, they have to be something. Board Member Talty — They have to be something, Rod, you cannot not have something and have something. Board Member Wilcox — This has really been interesting. I have actually a statement and I have some questions for you too. The issue was made, isn't this like a fence? And the answer to me is, no, it's not like a fence. A fence is on your own property and you put up a fence to either get privacy or to add some amenity to your property like a white picket fence that looks nice, or you erect it to keep your dog or your cattle or your horses or hopefully your buffalo on your property. Which didn't work in Ulysses, by the way, so ... But these are off - premise, which I think is the big difference. I was talking to somebody who knows a lot more about this than I do, and she said to me "the plastic poles communicate information using a language that most people don't understand." And that's what summed it up for me. Because most people... Board Member Riha — So it's a sign. Board Member Wilcox — Right. I agree it's a sign. I looked at it and looked at it and I agree it is a sign and the interpretation of the zoning ... yeah, I agree it's a sign. Having said that, I have a couple of questions. How was the Eruv boundary determined? Mr. Robinson — It's based on several different considerations ... one is ... I mean, the reason that we are building an Eruv is mainly to accommodate the students at Cornell University and local, nearby members of the Orthodox Jewish Community. So the Eruv was chosen based on technical considerations, where it was and wasn't possible to put this ... bodies of water, cemeteries and these sort of things create difficulties, because the purpose of the Eruv is to essentially declare a region to be a common, private domain. In other words, this is where people live, it's not where they do business. For example, you will notice that the Commons is excluded from the Eruv for this reason. So, it's actually based on ease of construction, technical considerations according to Jewish law, and also in order to accommodate the maximum number of people that we could. Board Member Wilcox — That explains why East Hill Plaza is excluded as well. The intent is clearly not to be able to grant somebody the ability to go to East Hill Plaza and FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 13 go shopping. It's to perform other functions. Okay. Maintenance. Who is responsible for maintenance of these once they go up? Mr. Robinson — Okay. I believe in the contracts that we have with NYSEG and Verizon, we are responsible for maintenance. As part of Jewish law, we actually have to check it once a week anyway... Board Member Wilcox — I did the reading, you know, and when I read ... and I also know that there is Jewish law and then there is Jewish law and there's various ... I don't know if I know the word... Board Member Talty — Interpretations... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, we'll accept that ... and what I read was that if a single wire goes down or one of these is broken, then the Eruv technically doesn't exist. Mr. Robinson — Correct. Board Member Wilcox — So someone is supposed to go out and check them every Friday before the Sabbath, are you actually going to do that? Mr. Robinson — Yes, absolutely. Board Member Wilcox — Will NYSEG then allow you to then repair... Mr. Robinson — Okay, so, the issue of repair...it's actually something that we sort of didn't want to get ahead of ourselves. Most likely, I mean, it's built to be ... I mean; attaching plastic poles in this manner, it's partly done because it's hard for it to fall over, right, I mean, the only thing you're depending on is the plastic attachment of the plastic pole. So if it does go down, then most likely you would have to have it fixed by the contractor because I don't believe we are permitted to do anything to utility poles at all. So essentially, if that happens, then there will be a delay while we fix it. These things do happen. Where I live in Sydney, in Australia, I was there just two weeks ago, and Council workers pulled up a few billiards which formed part of the Sydney Eruv and as a consequence, the entire Eruv of 40,000 people that it includes was. completely malfunctional for a week. So, these things do happen and they are checked. Board Member Wilcox — Some people could assume, therefore, that an Eruv does exist, others could say the intent is for it to exist, we know where the boundary is... Mr. Robinson — Yeah, the... Board Member Wilcox — I'm sorry, I don't want to go there... Board Member Talty — No, no, you're already there ... I want to hear the answer... Mr. Robinson — The issue of the Eruv being a sign ... I believe we sort of wrote extensively on this in our submission... To us it seems very strange to be thought of in FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 14 this way. Mainly because the intent is not to convey information, in fact, it's designed exclusively to look like electrical conduit for a reason because it's not supposed to be ... we don't want, in general, Jews or anyone else to look visually and determine for themselves where the Eruv is because people make mistakes and then they might carry out sort of the boundary. In general, how we intend to do it is by providing people with maps, all right, and posting them in Jewish community centers and in regards to the boundaries, people would probably be advised to ask someone "Can I (inaudible) rather than looking for the pole. In some cases, it's not necessary ... where the wire itself passes over utility poles along the top, it's not necessary for us to attach plastic molding. In that case, it's still part of the Eruv and if someone is looking for a plastic markup to find where the Eruv is they wouldn't find it. So, especially for that reason, it seems difficult for us to...if you like ... stomach the idea of it being signs, but if it's necessary to do it, if it happens to be the easiest path to, you know, resolve this issue, then by all means, we're happy to have sign variances as much as having it resolved as they're not signs. Board Member Wilcox – Will you have to install any wires? Mr. Robinson —No, we're actually forbidden to do so. Board Member Talty – Will you have to bury anything? Mr. Robinson – No. Board Member Riha – So what are the alternatives? Clearly there haven't been telephone poles for very long and there are Eruvs, and clearly there are not going to be telephone poles probably 20 years from now. So presumably there is a range of alternatives. Mr. Robinson – That's an interesting question. I believe that when Jews used to live in secluded things by themselves, they would have just used wooden stakes in the ground with strings, because they would go around towns that are exclusively Jewish. In modern day, there are things such as telephone poles, even places like New York City where they have Eruvs.I I Board Member Riha – Yeah, I know, and different ones. I've read on the web that not all of them put the plastic... Mr. Robinson – Yeah, I mean, certainly, natural boundaries also form part of it, like cliffs and this sort of thing, also can form part of an Eruv. But in terms of what we would do in the future, that's a very good question that I don't have an answer to. Board Member Riha – So at this point, other than putting up your own fence, the only acceptable alternative to the Orthodox Jewish Community are putting these... Mr. Robinson – In general they seem to be the most convenient option. I'm not sure if you are aware of any other option? (he directed that to his co- agent) I mean in some FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 15 cases, yes, special fences can be constructed and that sort of thing, just form part of the natural landscape. Mr. Meisler spoke offmike. Barely audible in most parts, speaking to bodies of water forming part of the boundary. Board Member Riha — I'm just a little concerned about, you know, kind of getting on Fred's maintenance issue, having read where if certain telephone poles fell down or removed and didn't want replaced, I mean, you know, what the long -term commitment is just to putting plastic things on telephone poles that are innocuous... Mr. Robinson — I think Verizon and NYSEG indemnified themselves to say that "if we decide to knock a utility pole down, then that's too bad. You'll have to fix it yourself." So... Board Member Riha — So then would you come to the Town and ask to put up special poles or...? Mr. Robinson — We would cross that bridge when we came to it, I mean, I doubt it. Probably what we would do is find a new route and reconstruct it and that would.... that's a sort of nightmare scenario that...) don't know if it's reasonable to address. Mr. Meisler — Typically when they knock down poles it's because the pole is in bad repair and they replace it... Chairperson Howe — Well, there are probably a variety of reasons... Board Member Riha — Yeah, a variety of reasons... yeah, if they are rerouting stuff or... Board Member Talty — Or what happens if they bury the cables? Because more and more people are doing that. Board Member Riha — Yeah, that's what I was saying. It seems like in 20 years, there are not going to be these poles. Mr. Robinson — Well, I suppose if that does happen then we'll have to address the issue at that time. I mean... Board Member Talty — I mean, there's not a subterranean type of boundary is there? mean, does it have to be... Mr. Robinson — Yeah, no, it has to be a certain height... Board Member Wilcox — Have you been to the City and the Village of Cayuga Heights yet? Mr. Robinson — Yeah, I think essentially everyone is waiting for this proceeding to resolve itself. I mean, we have given materials to .the Village and also to the City but I FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 16 think they have all been a bit quiet while this goes on. So, they're ... the Town, it shows you here where the Town Board has given a proclamation regarding the boundaries and we are awaiting a similar thing from the City and from the Village... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, I read that you technically, legally, don't need that, but it's something that you would want or prefer. Mr. Robinson — In terms of the proclamation? Oh, we do need it from the authority. We probably could get it from the Sheriff if we really had to, or the County but we've gone down this route for various reasons. Board Member Erb — I personally think I would be in favor of this whether it's 75 poles in the Town of Ithaca or 100 poles in the Town of Ithaca, but you, it's been referred to repeatedly in this material as approximately 75 poles and you gave us a Town of Ithaca pole list that has 101 poles on it and I'd like you to speak to that discrepancy and to what the blank spaces and the question marks mean. Mr. Robinson — Sure. I think I made mention (inaudible) when we composed this list we were taking numbers off poles and it is somewhat hard for us to determine where exactly the boundaries fell whether a pole belonged to the City, the Town or the Village. So essentially what I gave you on that list was a mock -up. I know for certain that there are 75, approximately, poles, that's why I came up with the number of approximately 75, 1 estimated that I probably over - estimated by 25% so... Board Member Erb — So, I mean, I just ... it doesn't make a difference to how I feel about the proposal, it makes a difference to whether we're reading things carefully and looking for internal consistency. That's why I asked. Mr. Robinson — Recently I managed to get a list of exactly which poles are in the Town and the City because Verizon went around themselves with that list and checked which poles and told us which poles are which. Did you have another.... Board Member Erb — Yes, I did. None of the poles within the Town of Ithaca are Verizon poles? Mr. Robinson — I'd have to check that, I'm actually not sure. They may be... Board Member Erb — Mr. Chairman, when we get to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, I'd like to make a correction to that also. Board Member Wilcox — There is no SEQR. Chairperson Howe — There is no SEQR. Board Member Wilcox — That's for the ZBA. Board Member Erb — Oh, really. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 17 Chairperson Howe — Let me see if there's any ... Kevin, do you want to... Board Member Talty — No, I'm okay. I would just like to say that I would like the darker material. I don't want the grey because there is going to be so much of it on so many poles, I think that the telephone coloring and the materials that go into telephone poles would make it much more conducive to have a darker color. Mr. Robinson — That is certainly fine. Board Member Riha — Yeah, having looked at some of these Eruvs and the issue with the poles for other communities. I am wondering if you did anything in terms of approaching the larger community to see what their impression were of the Eruv and its boundaries. I know I ... Mr. Robinson — In terms of public polling? Or... Board Member Riha — Well, in New York City they were saying that they defined the extent of their Eruv based on objections of other communities, that they didn't want the Eruv in certain sections... Mr. Robinson — Yeah, I think I've already explained... basically, the way that we did it was what was most convenient for us. To be honest, I don't think we really considered that it would be necessary. I mean, certainly because it's going before publicly elected officials, that we would need to also put it before public consultation. I mean, to an extent, this is a public hearing already, in that people could come and voice their...because it's been in the newspaper, I believe, several times. Board Member Riha — So you think there's the Greater Ithaca Community that would.., no one in, or essentially, almost no one in Mr. Robinson — I'm sure there are people that would object, for whatever reason they would object. I'm not sure if I would consider all of those objections to be reasonable ones. Board Member Riha — Right, I mean, I'm thinking from the point of view... Mr. Robinson — But we do realize that there are people that may not like it in some way. I'm sure that they were able to come tonight and voice that if they had chosen to. Board Member Riha — Actually, the few people I talked to said they weren't aware ... as usual... Board Member Talty — Not just about your case, we're talking about everybody... Board Member Riha — Right, that happens all the time, so, but it does seem like it's a particularly sensitive issue so it would be, in my mind, it would behoove any community that wants to set up a symbolic barrier, to be sensitive to the fact whether other people are comfortable with that barrier, living within it... FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 18 Mr. Robinson — I don't mean ... (inaudible) ... we have had discussions with the other people at Cornell with religious works and in fact, I think we have letters of support from them, in general. I mean, I think the crux of it is that the Eruv doesn't impose any religious impositions on anybody. It's simply a fictional boundary for the convenience of a group of people and to that extent I think once people understand that, that it's not any type of religious symbol in any way, then they generally don't have any objection to it. would imagine that Eruvs are constructed in hundreds of cities in the US. Board Member Riha — Well, yeah, I've seen that, but it does seem like it is a symbol or else it wouldn't be important to put up there. Mr. Robinson — Well, it's important to put up there because it's a boundary. I don't think it's supposed to convey a religious belief or create any type of... Board Member Riha — So you don't feel that people in your community ... it doesn't convey any meaning to them per se? Mr. Robinson — I don't think so... Board Member Riha — So you could have it without these... Mr. Robinson — Oh no, these, we need the pole to satisfy conditions of the Jewish law. They must have some sort of physical delineation of where... Board Member Riha — So that has meaning to those people because it's not a real fence, so.. Mr. Robinson — Yeah, but it, it has meaning only in the sense that it delineates the border. Not meaning in terms or I believe or... Board Member Riha — But it's a religious border in the sense that it's something that a religious person has outlined and... Mr. Robinson — I suppose so. But I suppose I could point you towards the Federal Court of Appeals case... Board Member Riha — Yeah, I've looked at that... Mr. Robinson — ...where the judgment seemed to indicate that the Court had been satisfied by the idea that, you know, it's not intended to communicate any idea or message, rather the evidence shows that the Eruv, like a fence around a house or the walls on a synagogue, seems to be purely functional purposes delineating an Eruv within which certain activities are permitted. So... Board Member Riha — Right, except those are around private property where this is... Mr. Robinson — Well the walls of a synagogue certainly are... FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg, 19 Board Member Riha — Right but then this is taking public property, property that belongs to everybody and then delineating it in a special way. But... Board Member Wilcox — Let's be careful ... this is private property. This is NYSEG's poles. Let's be careful. Board Member Conneman — And NYSEG is a public utility. Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, but it's their property. Board Member Riha — So the Town of Ithaca has no control over that property? Or what they put on their poles, really, huh? Board Member Wilcox — It's in our Zoning Ordinance that we don't want, you know, notices put on poles and we don't want advertising on them but we don't own the poles. Mr. Walker — We don't own the poles but some of the poles may be within Town rights - of-ways but ... Forest Home Drive is a Town Road. Caldwell Hill Road is a Town Road. Maple Avenue is a Town Road. And they may be within the right -of -way or they may be of the right -of -way. I can't, you know, more often than not now, NYSEG is actually trying to locate their poles just outside the Town right -of -way so it may be on private property. Chairperson Howe — Susan, is there a point you're trying to make? Board Member Riha — Yeah, I am, I am because, I mean, there is, I mean, we're presumably representing the public here and feeling about, all right, you could say if you had a telephone pole on your property and some symbol was put on by some group, you would be okay with that. I don't know, I mean, I don't know. You have to think do you want a series of symbols on your poles and you could say they are on the Town property, that's basically...) mean, the point of these symbols, as I've read it... Chairperson Howe — But I don't look at it as a symbol. Board Member Riha — Well, I think it's either a symbol or fence. It's a something. guess I'm not going to get into... (multiple people talking) Board Member Erb — I think I understand what you're saying Susan, but at the same time, if you're concerned about the public, the Town Board has already considered... Board Member Riha — No, I'm.., Board Member Erb -- ...considered this... Board Member Riha — No, but I'm concerned about whether the public will object to seeing signs. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 20 Board.Member Erb — But I'm saying the Town Board I would trust to already had some responsiveness or sensitivity to that issue... Board Member Riha — Including the signs. I mean, if someone wanted to put up flowers on all of the telephone poles... Board Member Erb -- ...and I... Board Member Riha -- ...and the Town Board said it was okay ... I guess I don't then know what our role is. If we're supposed to be saying we have a sign ordinance, we don't. .'we either do or do not have the right, maybe we don't have the right to tell NYSEG if they say it's okay if people want to put X up on their poles they can put it. I don't know, the lawyer would have to tell us something about that. Board Member Conneman — Well my question is... Board Member Riha— I guess I need that clarification. Does the Town... Mr. Krogh — I can tell you that from a legal perspective, the case just cited isn't really applicable because that was a First Amendment analysis. So what they were trying to determine is whether or not by approving the creation of this demarcation area, there was some form of speech which therefore constituted some sort of violation of the separation of church and state or the establishment clause. First Amendment analysis of speech is a different standard than Fourth Amendment property analysis of speech. Mr. Robinson Although I believe they are also considering the free exercise clause of the First Amendment... Mr. Krogh — No, I'm, I'm not here to debate saying that that's a First Amendment ruling violate any First Amendment prohibition municipality did not endorse a religion Amendment analysis, the lechis did not c Amendment speech. Board Member Riha — Right. how you wish to interpret that ruling. I'm just and what they determined is that that did not against establishment. In other words, a by approving this because, under a First :onstitute a form of speech in terms of First Mr. Krogh — They were a border under the First Amendment. The analysis that would apply under a sign type ordinance, which did not apply in that case, is more akin to a Fourth Amendment analysis because you're dealing with property rights. I'm not saying that the result would be different in the eyes of the Court, I'm just saying that question hasn't been presented to the Court before. Board Member Riha — Right. So the issue, it seemed to me, is that as the Town passed a sign law and the sign law explicitly said that there wasn't to be signs on utility poles, right? That's my understanding, without the Zoning Board making a waiver. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 21 Mr. Krogh — Well, there could be a waiver, there could ... you could ... I think, with the ordinance as written, there is no such thing as a perfect law, there is no such thing as a perfect contract, there is room for interpretation as to whether this is or is not a sign. The first body that passes on that is the Code Enforcement Officer or arguably someone within that office, maybe a Building Inspector; they've determined they believe it is a sign. It is now up to the ZBA to make a determination to as to whether they believe that determination is correct. If they want my legal advice or input, they can have it, but the question here, in terms of what I think your Board is looking at is, you can consider whether or not you want to make a recommendation as a Board, because you are also the Sign Board, Sign Review Board, you can make a recommendation as to whether or not you as the Sign Board believe this does constitute a sign. It can't be binding, but I think the underlining purpose of the public notice was to determine whether or not you supported the overall project, not necessarily took a position on the individual nuances and technicalities of the law. Board Member Riha — Right. So in my mind, we're saying this is a sign and we think it's appropriate that these signs get put up, we're okay with these signs being put up on these poles. Mr. Krogh — As a Board you can determine... Board Member Riha —...for whatever... well that's Mr. Krogh -- ...some people that think it's a sign and some people think it isn't... Board Member Riha — Or it's not a sign and they can be put up. Board Member Conneman — But it is not a religious symbol. I mean, it seems to me that's an important part of it. Board Member Erb — It's not a cross, it's not a six - pointed star, it's not a crescent, it's not a Hindu god ... it's Board Member Conneman — Exactly. And you said it was not a religious symbol, it was a barrier. Mr. Robinson — It's not (inaudible)... (people talking over each other) Board Member Riha — I know, but there are other groups who would have signs that are not religious symbols that they might feel are important to send a ... Board Member Erb — If they were to bring us something that is as industrially innocuous as that, then we'd deal with it. Chairperson Howe — They would have to convince us that there was a rationale. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 22 Board Member Riha — Well I'm not convinced there's a rationale. I think you could argue it's innocuous. Board Member Talty — I'd like to know ... is there any Rabbis that will bless this conduit or anything that's affixed to the conduit? Mr. Robinson — No there's no blessing that's necessary. The only thing that's necessary really is that ... a civil proclamation that the Eruv exists by the authority that... essentially Jewish law requires that the proclamation be given by someone who has authority to govern the area. So in these terms, according to Jewish law, this people is the Town municipality, civil authority. So there's no blessing that is required to establish the Eruv. Board Member Talty — Okay I hear it's not "necessary' and I hear it's not "required ". My question is; Will it be blessed? Mr. Robinson — No, I don't believe so. Mr. Meisler — No, absolutely not. Board Member Talty — Okay. That answers my question. Chairperson Howe — George, I think you were trying. ..do you have another question? Board Member Conneman — No, that's fine. I was going to ask whether they consider it's a religious symbol and you say it isn't. Mr. Robinson — No, in our eyes it's delineating...) mean, it's for a religious purpose, that's certainly true but it's not meant to convey any religious belief like belief in God or belief in any other religious ideals. It delineates a boundary. Board Member Erb — And in fact, it allows a secular thing to take place rather than a specifically religious thing. Board Member Riha — But it's a boundary that is specific to a specific religious group. Chairperson Howe — Larry? Board Member Thayer — My question has been addressed. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Christine, is there anything you want to add? Ms. Balestra — No. Chairperson Howe — Let me open the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. and if there is anyone here who would like to address the Board ... Is there anyone here who plans on addressing? .... Okay, I'll close the public hearing in a couple of minutes. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 23 Board Member Talty - I'd just like to say that, for the record, I believe that this is not a sign, it's a fence, because fences are outlining a specific square footage ... I don't necessarily believe what you said, Fred, for cats and dogs and horses and things of that sort, but I do think it outlines a boundary and hence, I think in my mind, whether it's a more traditional fence that you may consider Fred, but in my mind, this is more of a, like spiritual fence, or whatever the case may be, or however you want to define it, but don't believe it's necessarily a sign. I believe more of a fence. That's my own opinion, because it's outlining an area. Board Member Wilcox we feel it is. It's, "How it conveys information. I would have no idea m that's being conveyed. written and it is a sign. - The question here is not whether it's a sign or a fence, whether is our current sign law written ?" That's the key. And in my mind, Now, if I saw these a month ago, (holding up the plastic conduit) Fhat they meant. But somebody knows and that's the information So for what it's worth, I think it falls within how our sign law is For what it's worth, I don't think it's relevant. Mr. Robinson - You certainly, the way the sign law is written, it's certainly very broad...ln terms of enforcement of the law though, you could also make the same argument that therefore a household fence, for example, is also a sign and then you would have issues of, you know, someone's house fence is larger than the largest permissible sign, so would that, you know, then require a variance from the Zoning Board... Board Member Wilcox - That's funny.:.) don't see someone's fence on their own property as conveying information... Mr. Robinson - It conveys where their property ends. Board Member Wilcox - No, no, because people do not necessarily put them up where their property ends. They put them possibly near the property line but not necessarily at the property line. In fact, we have regulations which speak to fences on property lines, their height and things like that. Chairperson Howe - And I think we've had the discussion we need to have to decide whether we are moving forward. I do want to bring us back to this. So if we move forward on the resolution, what would you want to see happen to this? I don't know, Hollis, if this is where, in the proposed resolution, where we would say that we recommend that the SEQR gets whatever you want added to that; that this is where we would add; and we suggest a dark black, whatever color we want; so I don't know if that's the kind of stuff we would add to the proposed resolution. Board Member Erb - My issue for the Short Environmental was in Item 10 where I believe that "commercial" should have been checked because this incorporates a portion of Community Corners and I also believe "other" should have been checked because it includes two cemeteries and Cornell University. Ms. Balestra - I have a comment about the Short Environmental Assessment Form; Staff has actually made some changes to the form to make it more accurate, it's just FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 24 you guys didn't get the copy of that. This is the original SEAR form that was submitted by the applicant and Staff that was reviewing some of the other elements of the application looked at the form and said "oh, well it's not just residential, it's also this and this, and that form is still being used to process the Zoning Board application. Board Member Erb — So Chris, my comments, Community Corners, commercial districts, or incorporated? Ms. Balestra — I will add the commercial... the cemeteries, Cornell University, commercial areas, have been Board Member Erb — I mean look at it. I Jt includes several shops. Ms. Balestra — I will make sure that change is made. Chairperson Howe — So we don't have to address-it in the resolution. We might want to change, instead of where it says "approximately 75, Hollis, would you like to see.. You probably don't want to put an exact number... Board Member Erb — We don't want an exact number. Board Member Wilcox — We don't want an exact number... Board Member Erb — It's simply that to my mind, 101 on the list was too different from "approximately 75 ", so if you wanted to say (everyone talking over each other)..II agree with the statement; "the darker the color the nicer." But important to me that it be a non - shiny, non - metallic, non - flashy sort of finish. Board Member Talty — I'm looking at one, it says in here, on one of these documents, it says "that grey will be used for all actual". Board Member Erb — But he already said... Board Member Talty — But I want to make sure, because you contradicted what you said... Mr. Robinson — Did I contradict... Board Member Erb — I asked you about that, and you said you were more likely to use the black. Mr. Robinson — It really, it depends, ultimately on what the supplier, what the contractor can find to use. We actually were going to go with the grey, but I can certainly contact them and ask him if he can go with black instead... Board Member Talty — Well, I would like to write it in that it "must" be... Board Member Wilcox — Wait a minute, we can't "must" anything... FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 25 Board Member Talty — We can recommend, we can highly recommend,.. Board Member Wilcox.. ...we can recommend that the ZBA consider our opinion. Board Member Thayer — It says there will be a white cap... Board Member Talty — That's 30 -feet up... Board Member Erb — I don't think that will be visible to the public. Chairperson Howe — So we're recommending a dark color? Or are we saying black? Board Member Wilcox — Dark color. We're recommending that ... (everyone talking at once) ... You drive down the road during the day and you're not going to notice these things anyway... Board Member Talty — Fred I notice that stuff all the time, all the time... Board Member Wilcox -At 60mph you won't notice this... Board Member Talty — Fred, I drive 60,000 miles a year and I notice these things. Black. Highly recommended. Chairperson Howe — Highly recommend dark... Board Member Talty — Dark ... now, dark grey... Chairperson Howe — Do we have any other questions? No one wants to address the Planning Board on this issue, right? So we will close the public hearing at 8:00. Board Member Wilcox — Can I move the resolution as drafted? I'll move it as drafted. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Fred, and is there a second? Larry. Recommended changes? So 100, and where would we put in.... Ms. Balestra — Are you wanting to recommend conditions.... Chairperson Howe — Just, all we want to say is... Ms. Balestra — You could say, at the end of it, subject to the following condition. Chairperson Howe — We are just recommend the use of a dark color, and we changed 75 to 100. Board Member Conneman — If you are going to do dark, dark grey is not dark.... Board Member Talty — Dark is not good enough for me.... FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg, 26 Chairperson Howe — Okay, so what do you want to do? Dark grey? Do you want black ?... Board Member Conneman — Say black... Board Member Talty — Closest to black as possible ... I think that that's pretty.... Board Member Wilcox — Thank god this is a recommendation and not a... Board Member Conneman — I know it's a recommendation, but you are picky on some things.... Chairperson Howe — I'm going to read what she wrote... Ms. Neilsen — Officially, the change is: Subject to the following condition: The Planning Board highly recommends the lechis are as close to black as possible. (people talking over each other) Chairperson Howe — All those in favor... Board Member Talty — We were just talking maintenance, and I just want to make sure it's clarified before we vote. Chairperson Howe — Well, what do you want clarified? Board Member Erb — Well, I'm leaving that to Verizon and NYSEG. Board Member Talty — Correct? Chairperson Howe — I think it's got to be something that's in their contract. Mr. Robinson — (Responds off - mike.) Board Member Talty —All right. Chairperson Howe — Are you guys ready to vote ... all those in favor, raise your hands.. so six for and one against. Thank you very much. FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg, 27 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution 2008 = 067 Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Sign Variances — ERUV Pleasant Grove Road, Caldwell Road, Pine Tree Road, Dryden Road, Forest Home Drive, and Maple Avenue Sign Review Board (Planning Board) August 5, 2008 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request for sign variances for the vertical placement of lechis (plastic poles) on the side of approximately 100 NYSEG and Verizon utility poles, where signs on utility poles are prohibited and off- premises signs are prohibited subject to the following condition: 1. The Planning Board highly recommends the lechis are as close to black as possible. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Thayer, Conneman, Talty, Erb and Wilcox. NAYS: Riha The motion passed 6 to 1. Minutes ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 = 068 Approval of Minutes July 15, 2008 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 5, 2008 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meetings on July 15, 2008, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on July 15, 20080 A vote on the motion was as follows: FINAL PB 8.5.08 Pg. 28 AYES: Howe, Thayer, Conneman, Riha, Talty, Erb and Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion passed unanimously. Committee Report(s) Board Member Erb updated the Board on the Comprehensive Review Committee. Agenda for next meeting was outlined. Board Member Wilcox will be absent next meeting. Nomination & Election of Vice -Chair ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 = 069 Nomination and Election Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2008 Planning Board, August 5, 2008 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Fred Wilcox, III as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2008. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Wilcox The vote on the motion was carried. Upon motion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. submitted, Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, August 5, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College, Remote Parking Project, F -Lot Modifications, Danby Road, 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase I of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include new plantings in the median island at the Danby Road entrance to the College, relocation of the existing campus directory that is located just south of the new "F" Lot, the addition of a vehicular pull -out along the Danby Road entrance, and a new visitor booth and widened entrance at the "throat' of the "F" Lot extension. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture and Peter Trowbridge, Agents. 7 :20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the construction of an ERUV (symbolic fence) by the Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University. The construction of the ERUV involves the vertical attachment of lechis (plastic poles) to the side of approximately 75 utility poles in the Town of Ithaca. Utility poles are owned by NYSEG and Verizon. Within the Town of Ithaca the ERUV route is approximately two miles in length and would run along Pleasant Grove Road, Forest Home Drive, Caldwell Road, Dryden Road, Pine Tree Road, and Maple Avenue. Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University, Applicant; Rabbi Jason Leib and Dean Robinson, Agents. 5. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 2008 and July 15, 2008, 6. Other Business: 7. 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, August 5, 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, August 5, 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 and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase lA of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include new plantings in the median island at the Danby Road entrance to the College, relocation of the existing campus directory that is located just south of the new "F" Lot, the addition of a vehicular pull -out along the Danby Road entrance, and a new visitor booth and widened entrance at the "throat" of the "F" Lot extension. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture and Peter Trowbridge, Agents. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the construction of an ERUV (symbolic fence) by the Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University. The construction of the ERUV involves the vertical attachment of lechis (plastic poles) to the side of approximately 75 utility poles in the Town of Ithaca. Utility poles are owned by NYSEG and Verizon. Within the Town of Ithaca the ERUV route is approximately two miles in length and would run along Pleasant Grove Road, Forest Home Drive, Caldwell Road, Dryden Road, Pine Tree Road, and Maple Avenue. Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University, Applicant; Rabbi Jason Leib and Dean Robinson, Agents, 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, July 28, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 Wednesday, JUIy,30, 200$ BATHE hHACA 10URN L� Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street August 5, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address 7, 450eE?VAzef 1777�f44 ,IVY 148 0 l010? N A-jg&ak 1-, M IWT t e rat�l Div `I SL �� 4 i e ■ 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, August 5, 2008 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: July 28, 2008 July 30, 2008 isa v .- Gi gu-A Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30`h day of July 2008, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified Commiiss onExp yes December26t20� Id